Coronavirus

[antrin]

On 7/12/2020 at 12:18 PM, oaksoft said:

I didn't see any references to peer reviewed research.

That's usually the first sign of a quack.

On 3/28/2020 at 3:38 PM, oaksoft said:

Seeing as how Jeremy Vine's tweet about the Imperial guys predicting a peak of 250 UK daily deaths has been shown to be wrong, I've updated my graphs from worldometer and included my own predictions.

 

My apologies for the post a few days ago which you disliked (see above) because (you wrongly thought!)  it didn't have peer reviewed research or references attached.

You are right. 

Reading how your graphs were peer reviewed on here in March - as hilarious shite - has been both satisfying and amusing.

 

 

[St.Ricky]

3 minutes ago, antrin said:

My apologies for the post a few days ago which you disliked (see above) because (you wrongly thought!)  it didn't have peer reviewed research or references attached.

You are right. 

Reading how your graphs were peer reviewed on here in March - as hilarious shite - has been both satisfying and amusing.

 

 

So good you said it twice. 

[oaksoft]

UK scientists are warning that a second wave of covid in winter will see 120,000 deaths.

They are even talking about 250,000 by next February.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148

I wonder what they've corrected in their modelling to be confident of those numbers.

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

UK scientists are warning that a second wave of covid in winter will see 120,000 deaths.

They are even talking about 250,000 by next February.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148

I wonder what they've corrected in their modelling to be confident of those numbers.

I'm not sure that they are "confident" as you put it. They suggest a wider range than your snippet suggests. They also emphasise that a variety of actions could radically reduce the numbers. Worth taking note of, for sure, but not a cue to panic. 

[faraway saint]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

UK scientists are warning that a second wave of covid in winter will see 120,000 deaths.

They are even talking about 250,000 by next February.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148

I wonder what they've corrected in their modelling to be confident of those numbers.

Aye, there were similar big numbers, anywhere between 300,000 and 500,000 as I recall by UK scientists in the early days of this mess.

With the lessons learned, the top end of these scaremongering numbers is more than unlikely, IMO.

There's a wee bit at the end of the link you posted that's more likely to be the case, again, IMO...................

Less pessimistic winter scenarios are also possible, with coronavirus deaths in the thousands.

[faraway saint]

Some "good" news, Scottish police didn't hand out one fine over the weekend for people not complying with the face mask instruction.

I'm pleasantly surprised, as there was one shopper in Dundee on Sunday who wasn't wearing one.

He probably had asthma. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by faraway saint

[Guest TPAFKATS]

UK scientists are warning that a second wave of covid in winter will see 120,000 deaths.
They are even talking about 250,000 by next February.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148
I wonder what they've corrected in their modelling to be confident of those numbers.

According to you yesterday, these folk would die anyway.

[Tommy]

12 hours ago, HSS said:

My first pint since March and it’s beautiful 😍

 

FFS, got me foaming at the mouth looking at that picture  🤢

[antrin]

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

UK scientists are warning that a second wave of covid in winter will see 120,000 deaths.

They are even talking about 250,000 by next February.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148

I wonder what they've corrected in their modelling to be confident of those numbers.

In the link you posted, a BBC correspondent actually answers your queries.  Did you not read the article?

I'll explain a wee  bit about science and the scientific method  to you.

Experience and more data is scrutinised by the practising scientist and their predictions adjusted to cater for that new info.

The first set of mortality info in Spring, on which earlier preparations were based, were soon found to be flawed. Wildly overstated.  This may well be the case, again.

BUT BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. 

These warnings might make this inept, Buffoon-led government behave in a responsible manner.

 

[FTOF]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/11/health/coronavirus-schools-reopen.html?campaign_id=154&emc=edit_cb_20200713&instance_id=20279&nl=coronavirus-briefing&regi_id=137848518&segment_id=33308&te=1&user_id=16ac9ff101290f4b50012a50c5917bb7

Good article from the NYT. A lot of points to ponder.

If you sign up (free) for morning updates, you get access to lots of interesting articles, via e-mail. I'd copy it, but it's too lengthy and I'm too lazy.

How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us

[smcc]

3 minutes ago, antrin said:

In the link you posted, a BBC correspondent actually answers your queries.  Did you not read the article?

I'll explain a wee  bit about science and the scientific method  to you.

Experience and more data is scrutinised by the practising scientist and their predictions adjusted to cater for that new info.

The first set of mortality info in Spring, on which earlier preparations were based, were soon found to be flawed. Wildly overstated.  This may well be the case, again.

BUT BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. 

These warnings might make this inept, Buffoon-led government behave in a responsible manner.

 

Indeed. I heard  a member of the scientific panel on Radio 4 this morning say that they had been asked to estimate a worst case scenario!

Edited July 14, 2020 by smcc

[antrin]

Just in case anyBuddie thinks I am over reacting to The Buffoon and his inept coterie...

Watch this.

 

 

[St.Ricky]

52 minutes ago, antrin said:

Just in case anyBuddie thinks I am over reacting to The Buffoon and his inept coterie...

Watch this.

 

 

A frightening level of incompetence. 

[shull]

 

[bazil85]

12 hours ago, faraway saint said:

You do realise that's you dim pal from Stirling's "go to" reply? 

Another of your traits, you are so simple you can only focus on one thing/person, you have no idea how to cope with multiple views. 

Incorrect, I took the point you made and gave my own view on the stat, it wasn't a situation of "multiple views." 

I would bet you actually agree with me on the death per millions figures not being a complete picture. But you're so warped you have to turn everything into an argument. 

[bazil85]

5 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

I'm not sure that they are "confident" as you put it. They suggest a wider range than your snippet suggests. They also emphasise that a variety of actions could radically reduce the numbers. Worth taking note of, for sure, but not a cue to panic. 

I feel Oaks language is purposelessly designed to make people panic here. He's guilty of the Sue Denim go to in saying something is a "will" happen and not a "could" The article is very clear they are modelling worst case scenarios. It even says: 

 "Sir Patrick Vallance, stresses there is still a high degree of uncertainty over how the coronavirus pandemic will play out this winter."

[Sue Denim]

A FOI request has gone in for Nicola Sturgeon to release the scientific advice she has received throughout the crisis

Following the FOI request, it was revealed that the First Minister did not have any written scientific advice during the first few months of the coronavirus outbreak, and so none could be made available to the public.

Nicola Sturgeon said instead that the scientific advice that she had received had all been orally, by the National Clinical Director, Jason Leitch, and the Scottish Chief Medical Officer at the time, Catherine Calderwood, and so there was nothing to be released.

Deary me

As I suspected. There is no scientific advice and they’ve just been making it up as they go along.

[FTOF]

Just now, Sue Denim said:

A FOI request has gone in for Nicola Sturgeon to release the scientific advice she has received throughout the crisis

Following the FOI request, it was revealed that the First Minister did not have any written scientific advice during the first few months of the coronavirus outbreak, and so none could be made available to the public.

Nicola Sturgeon said instead that the scientific advice that she had received had all been orally, by the National Clinical Director, Jason Leitch, and the Scottish Chief Medical Officer at the time, Catherine Calderwood, and so there was nothing to be released.

Deary me

As I suspected. There is no scientific advice and they’ve just been making it up as they go along.

Which is it then?

 

[Sue Denim]

42 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I feel Oaks language is purposelessly designed to make people panic here. He's guilty of the Sue Denim go to in saying something is a "will" happen and not a "could" The article is very clear they are modelling worst case scenarios. It even says: 

 "Sir Patrick Vallance, stresses there is still a high degree of uncertainty over how the coronavirus pandemic will play out this winter."

Sorry, it’s you who is guilt of the will rather than could

your Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy regarding lockdown being a classic example

Regarding your last paragraph, Vallance is simply stating what I’ve said all along. They haven’t got a clue, have no idea what will happen and have been making it up as they go along.

What we do know for certain now is that initial estimates of what would happen were wildly exaggerated and by an order of magnitude.

Measures were taken without any scientific evidence to back them up in order to ensure the NHS would not be overwhelmed. These were medieval measures which were no better than measures based on superstition.  As it turns out, the NHS  didn’t come close to being overwhelmed and based on the example of Sweden, we know that it never would have.

And we now also know that Covid is no different from the flu.

On this basis, every single measure should be stopped. 

 

[Sue Denim]

Just now, FTOF said:

Which is it then?

 

The first statement you have highlighted is Nicola Sturgeon’s lie

The second statement you’ve highlighted is a fact that I’ve just stated.

The fact that Sturgeon is unable to provide any evidence proves my point. 

[FTOF]

13 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

The first statement you have highlighted is Nicola Sturgeon’s lie

The second statement you’ve highlighted is a fact that I’ve just stated.

The fact that Sturgeon is unable to provide any evidence proves my point. 

 If someone told me, with evidence, that you are a complete walloper, as opposed to writing down that evidence that you're a complete walloper, it amounts to the same thing.

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by FTOF

[Sue Denim]

There was a good Newsnight report by health correspondent Deborah Cohen last Friday, which included contributors making the case for and against mandatory face coverings. Making the case for were Oxford Professor Trish Greenhalgh and Royal Society President Sir Venki Ramakrishnan and making the case against were Nottingham Professor Robert Dingwall and Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan. Needless to say, the latter were far more convincing. 

Heneghan pointed out that there was little evidence from randomised control trials showing masks were effective and it was odd for the Government to be mandating a public health measure that isn’t based on RCT evidence. He also said that if masks are used repeatedly, rather than disposed of daily, someone with a viral infection can re-infect themselves when they put the mask back on. 

Robert Dingwall was even more scathing: 

It doesn’t matter whether the evidence is effective or not. The demand is that governments do something and what we’re seeing here I think is the latching on to the idea that masks are something that a government could do which is cheap, which is symbolic, but which is probably not particularly effective.

But the most interesting thing in the report was the following scoop by Deborah Cohen:

The debate is deeply political. Newsnight understands that the World Health Organisation committee that reviewed the evidence for the use of face coverings in public didn’t back them. But after political lobbying, the WHO now recommends them.

After the report was broadcast, Trish Greenhalgh took to Twitter to criticise it. She complained that interviewing scientists on both sides of the debate, as opposed to just her side, “sows confusion and could cost lives”. “We need responsible journalism or programmes could/will cost lives,” she tweeted.

Deborah Cohen took to Twitter to defend herself. “She tried to warn me off talking about the evidence saying people would die if I did that,” she said of Professor Greenhalgh. But she pointed out that the Danish Health Authorities do not currently recommend wearing face coverings in non-healthcare settings, pending the outcome of an an ongoing RCT with 6,000 participants. The bottom line is, you’ll only put people at risk by presenting the case against mandatory face masks if they do more good than harm and the evidence for that is threadbare, at best.

Deborah also doubled down on this: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.”

The WHO recommended  them due to political lobbying.

[Sue Denim]

2 minutes ago, FTOF said:

So it does.

 

That’s my interpretation of events.

At the very least, it’s quite incredible that I’m the biggest crisis of our lifetimes, the Scottish Government is making health interventions based on nothing more than conversations with nothing written down.

They’ve just been making it up as they go along.

You fool! 😜

[nedflanders123]

32 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

The first statement you have highlighted is Nicola Sturgeon’s lie

The second statement you’ve highlighted is a fact that I’ve just stated.

The fact that Sturgeon is unable to provide any evidence proves my point. 

What evidence or source do you have to claim it's a lie? Do you honestly believe that the Scottish Government received no written scientific data to support our public health strategy? You don't like Sturgeon/SNP but to claim it's a lie to suit your hatred?

[antrin]

11 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

That’s my interpretation of events.

At the very least, it’s quite incredible that I’m the biggest crisis of our lifetimes, the Scottish Government is making health interventions based on nothing more than conversations with nothing written down!

Bigging yourself up a bit, there...?