Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

Somebody else trying to make money out the naive and gullible. The sooner the law catches up and starts fining the unregulated media the better. Disappointed Russian Saint. You usually have some decent points to make. 


Don’t shoot the messenger chap. I should have added a comment when I posted that.
I didn’t check if the stats in the video matched those in the ONS site, primarily because they would probably have been out of date.
I’ve watched/listened to many a epidemiologist/virologist etc that have differing views from the so-called SAGE experts.......... but we’re been told they’re all wrong (I’m not referring to you, but the media) and these people are being silenced for expressing their professional views. Who to believe? I don’t trust anything coming out of Downing Street nor from NS. I don’t agree with the lockdowns, but I do believe the vulnerable should be protected.
Selfish some will say on my part, but maybe that’s down to my circumstances. I have been on my lonesome since the 8th March, that was the last time I seen my wife, no idea when I’ll see her again (her country border has been closed since March 25th) I don’t agree with Bud the Baker for example on Covid, but I wouldn’t slag him off as he is perfectly entitled to his views and opinion. His Covid circumstance/experience is no doubt different to mine, which may or may not contribute to his opinion.
A bit of a long winded response, but there you go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


8 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

 

 

No, the reported number of cases were not coming down before the lockdown, they were at just over 20,000 per day on Oct 20 were still going up, albeit slightly to pushing 25,000 per day by the time the English lockdown came in on Nov 5 and have only just started to dip under the 20,000 per day figure now 2 weeks later - the connection is clear the Tier system as applied down south wouldn't have brought the number of cases down.

Badly timed decisions, mixed messages, you're correct the nonchalant attitude of this government has cost the country billions and that's before you throw the cost of cronyism into the mix.

I never said they were coming down, I said the signs, obvious to some, were that the restrictions at the time were beginning to take effect.

I'm afraid you have no idea if they would have come down or not. 

So it's the governments fault now, when you were almost 50/50 a while ago? :lol:

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So today wee Nicky is to make yet another announcement on what is planned for us in the near future.

I'ts a no win situation to be honest, trying to balance the control of the virus yet acknowledge the absolute need for business's to be fairly treated and allow them to have a chance to survive. 

At lease we'l know if it's a family sized turkey or a tin of soup for Christmas day. 

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, smcc said:

 

Why should the percentage of false positives increase if the prevalence rises?

It wouldn't which is kind of my point.  Is that's also your point. The percentage of false positive should be constant no matter how many test you conduct. If the percentage positives increases than that indicates that your testing is picking up more true positives and that the true prevalence of the disease is increasing.

 

And hence a big hole in the "professor's" argument. 

15 hours ago, smcc said:

 

 

 

Edited by insaintee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Russian Saint said:

 


Don’t shoot the messenger chap. I should have added a comment when I posted that.
I didn’t check if the stats in the video matched those in the ONS site, primarily because they would probably have been out of date.
I’ve watched/listened to many a epidemiologist/virologist etc that have differing views from the so-called SAGE experts.......... but we’re been told they’re all wrong (I’m not referring to you, but the media) and these people are being silenced for expressing their professional views. Who to believe? I don’t trust anything coming out of Downing Street nor from NS. I don’t agree with the lockdowns, but I do believe the vulnerable should be protected.
Selfish some will say on my part, but maybe that’s down to my circumstances. I have been on my lonesome since the 8th March, that was the last time I seen my wife, no idea when I’ll see her again (her country border has been closed since March 25th) I don’t agree with Bud the Baker for example on Covid, but I wouldn’t slag him off as he is perfectly entitled to his views and opinion. His Covid circumstance/experience is no doubt different to mine, which may or may not contribute to his opinion.
A bit of a long winded response, but there you go.

 

Must be horrible for you buddy, never knew that any borders were closed for that long a period,  which country is that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, insaintee said:

It wouldn't which is kind of my point.  Is that's also your point. The percentage of false positive should be constant no matter how many test you conduct. If the percentage positives increases than that indicates that your testing is picking up more true positives and that the true prevalence of the disease is increasing.

 

And hence a big hole in the "professor's" argumY

 

The Prof was arguing that the percentage of people who will test positives would increase because the virus (and others of the same ilk) are already widely spread in the population.  More and more of your "true positives"...

People have had it or a version thereof and they are no longer going to fall ill nor pass on the virus.

So more tests are pretty pointless other than to raise panic and justify politicians in closing down business, work, social lives and the population.

 

And I am not on the fruitcake side of events. 

I'm apparently old and thus at risk.   :rolleyes:

 

 

Just trying to be rational.

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, insaintee said:

It wouldn't which is kind of my point.  Is that's also your point. The percentage of false positive should be constant no matter how many test you conduct. If the percentage positives increases than that indicates that your testing is picking up more true positives and that the true prevalence of the disease is increasing.

 

And hence a big hole in the "professor's" argument. 

 

That bit in bold is wrong.

Also, there is no guarantee that the false positive percentage should remain constant.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That bit in bold is wrong.
Also, there is no guarantee that the false positive percentage should remain constant.
Yep, the only thing it definitely shows is that you are getting more positive results. I'm sure someone will be along with a dice example soon to demonstrate. [emoji38]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after months of don't kill Granny we are now being told that for 5 day's the potential to kill Granny has been somehow "permitted" by Govt. When is one of them going to actually say that mass multi generational meeting indoors for 5 days WILL result is some of your elderly or vulnerable relatives deaths, it's close to Russian Roulette !

The sugar coating of this is ridiculous. Yes it's still a personal choice but the watering down of the public health risk is utterly farcical.

At the moment my wife's side of the family are buying into the message that somehow the risk that has lead to us not risking contact within an extended family ranging in age from sub 5 to 94 for 9 months has somehow diminished when in reality compared to summer when we were still extremely cautious, it is the exact opposite. I'm sure similar "animated discussions" are happening the length and breadth of the country. Her 94yo great gran should be nowhere near school kids indoors in the current situation !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

So after months of don't kill Granny we are now being told that for 5 day's the potential to kill Granny has been somehow "permitted" by Govt. When is one of them going to actually say that mass multi generational meeting indoors for 5 days WILL result is some of your elderly or vulnerable relatives deaths, it's close to Russian Roulette !

The sugar coating of this is ridiculous. Yes it's still a personal choice but the watering down of the public health risk is utterly farcical.

At the moment my wife's side of the family are buying into the message that somehow the risk that has lead to us not risking contact within an extended family ranging in age from sub 5 to 94 for 9 months has somehow diminished when in reality compared to summer when we were still extremely cautious, it is the exact opposite. I'm sure similar "animated discussions" are happening the length and breadth of the country. Her 94yo great gran should be nowhere near school kids indoors in the current situation !

Think  about it this way. If the danger was really that severe, there is no way they'd have allowed this 5 day window.

As for all these at risk Grannies, has anyone stopped to ask them what they think about all this or are the rest of us making decisions on their behalf?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this focus on Grannies is simply sexist patronising.

Why not mention Grandpas?

More importantly, why this excessive concern for selfish Boomer Grannies and Grandpas who, at great detriment to the planet, fornicated profligately and gave birth and opportunity to the whinging generations of  Generation X, Xennials, Millenials, Gen Z and now Alpha?

What about the very good older people who stayed pure and virginal, turning away from the sins of the flesh and the "joys of parenthood" and simply partied, quietly?

 

I They probably think that there should be special provision for them to go out and enjoy theatres, movies, restaurants and galleries instead of buying daft Xmas presents for ungrateful, virus-ridden bairns, that they didn't personally breed.

 

Just a thought.  :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

So after months of don't kill Granny we are now being told that for 5 day's the potential to kill Granny has been somehow "permitted" by Govt. When is one of them going to actually say that mass multi generational meeting indoors for 5 days WILL result is some of your elderly or vulnerable relatives deaths, it's close to Russian Roulette !

The sugar coating of this is ridiculous. Yes it's still a personal choice but the watering down of the public health risk is utterly farcical.

At the moment my wife's side of the family are buying into the message that somehow the risk that has lead to us not risking contact within an extended family ranging in age from sub 5 to 94 for 9 months has somehow diminished when in reality compared to summer when we were still extremely cautious, it is the exact opposite. I'm sure similar "animated discussions" are happening the length and breadth of the country. Her 94yo great gran should be nowhere near school kids indoors in the current situation !

If this is the message they are taking then they need to be corrected. There have been multiple comments on social media like "guess the virus is taking Christmas off" this isn't the message at all. Christmas is a rock and a hard place for the government because no matter the output, many will likely meet extended family on Christmas day. The guidance IMO is the most sensible we'll get. Ultimately acknowledging the risks and cautions but not criminalising the actions millions will take. 

It's lose lose, can you imagine they came out saying "restrictions will be exactly the same and we will be enforcing them" People would still be meeting up, it would just mean big fines and action from the government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, antrin said:

The Prof was arguing that the percentage of people who will test positives would increase because the virus (and others of the same ilk) are already widely spread in the population.  More and more of your "true positives"...

People have had it or a version thereof and they are no longer going to fall ill nor pass on the virus.

So more tests are pretty pointless other than to raise panic and justify politicians in closing down business, work, social lives and the population.

 

And I am not on the fruitcake side of events. 

I'm apparently old and thus at risk.   :rolleyes:

 

 

Just trying to be rational.

so this is about case definition, and it is true that a positive case in an asymptomatic positive would not have been picked up previously. But asymptomatic cases can still spread the virus and the purpose of testing is to identify these cases and stop the spread.  There for yes, the number of cases reported under the improved testing regime is not indicating the same prevalence as the testing level under the previous test system.  But the that is more about the inadequacy of the previous testing done. 

Also we don't really know the extent to which that is making a difference, it may be quite minimal.  Both hospitalizations and deaths are rising these are not false positives in any sense of the world. Sounds to me  like the professor is spouting a crock of shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, oaksoft said:

That bit in bold is wrong.

Also, there is no guarantee that the false positive percentage should remain constant.

No it's not. If you want to be asinine (and from past experience I'm guessing you do) then I should have said a sustained and clear increase or trend upwards in the test positive rate indicates an increase in the prevalence of the disease in a population, Which is what we have seen. 

 

And while there is no guarantee that the false positive percentage should remain constant, it should only vary around a constant mean value. An upward trend or a sustained increase is only really explicable in terms of an increase in the prevalence. 

But of course you know this being a Phd and all that. 

Edited by insaintee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think  about it this way. If the danger was really that severe, there is no way they'd have allowed this 5 day window.
As for all these at risk Grannies, has anyone stopped to ask them what they think about all this or are the rest of us making decisions on their behalf?
She has been asked of course she has, she is reluctant but by the same token does not want to be alone. The risk in this scenario is real and unnecessary. She is very vulnerable to C19. There us added pressure from another branch of the family who are putting it like if they don't want you, come here. It's ludicrous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Slarti said:

Yep, the only thing it definitely shows is that you are getting more positive results. I'm sure someone will be along with a dice example soon to demonstrate. emoji38.png

Which is why we do statistics😷 Perhaps you've heard of correlation co-efficient or other such methods. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...