CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)
Discussion
Elysium said:
Good post.
I broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
Thank you, let's put Yeadon in the outlier category for nowI broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
the-photographer said:
JagLover said:
Misanthrope said:
Interesting report from Japan:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21...
Found 46.8% seroprevalence in Tokyo at the end of August.
I guess it's probably all over for them. No lockdown, 1700 odd deaths out of 126 million (PFR = 13.5ppm).
Good news for them. But the bad news for us is, if our figures of 20% infected in London are correct, even there could have a way to go ...
Very interesting and those are very high numbers for those infected.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21...
Found 46.8% seroprevalence in Tokyo at the end of August.
I guess it's probably all over for them. No lockdown, 1700 odd deaths out of 126 million (PFR = 13.5ppm).
Good news for them. But the bad news for us is, if our figures of 20% infected in London are correct, even there could have a way to go ...
I know that obesity is much less of a problem in Japan but for a country with such a high number of elderly to have such a low death rate must surely mean there is something else going on. That something highly likely to be the protection offered by prior exposure to similar coronaviruses.
If you look at the death rate the impact of Covid-19 on those infected in Japan is barely more than the impact of a cold.
It was speculated back in April-ish that their consumption of kimchi (K2) was helping
What it suggest to me is that other seroprevalence studies may be missing the true picture, which offers a possible explanation of what is really going on.
rich888 said:
MDMetal said:
fastraxx said:
rich888 said:
Apparently a petition has been started to demand an end to the practice of paying expenses to MPs for food and drink and that any & all food and drink in parliamentary establishments be chargeable to MPs at market rates.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-mps-en...
The reason for the petition is quite straightforward in that MPs voted against extending free school meals into the holidays for the poorest children in the UK in the middle of a pandemic, so why should they continue to be subsidised at the taxpayers expense. Seems very fair to me
Nice idea but a waste of energy https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-mps-en...
The reason for the petition is quite straightforward in that MPs voted against extending free school meals into the holidays for the poorest children in the UK in the middle of a pandemic, so why should they continue to be subsidised at the taxpayers expense. Seems very fair to me
Does anyone know if any petitions been started to stop the continuing lunacy of the Covid-19 lockdowns and masks? I'm aware of The Great Barrington Declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/ which has signatures from 11,002 medical & public health scientists, 30,992 medical practitioners, and 568,471 concerned citizens worldwide, but are there any more out there?
Net result no change in behaviour, big change in reporting making it harder to spot actual wrong doing.
Knee jerk attempts at legislation rarely have a positive outcome as we're seeing this guy now, the fact everyone agrees doesn't change that fact
the-photographer said:
Elysium said:
Good post.
I broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
Thank you, let's put Yeadon in the outlier category for nowI broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
We are following a path because SAGE are telling us that 90% of the population remain susceptible to this disease, which is based on the idea that serology tells us categorically who has been infected.
He has also argued that it is madness to diagnose a ‘disease’ remotely via a PCR test without any idea what symptoms the ‘cases’ might have.
Whilst I think he may be overstating the false positive issue, these points are very strong. SAGEs position is insanely cautious at this point and we are suffering greatly as a result.
the-photographer said:
I'm going to have a go at two of these things, specifically the false positive rate and the IFR. TL;DR version of this is that the false positive rate is far lower than he suggests, and the IFR is at least somewhat if not much higher than 0.2%.
Anyway I'll look at the false positive rate first. I checked his twitter page and recently he was claiming a 5% false positive rate for pillar 2 tests. The positivity rate was as low as 0.8% in August. Let's make the ridiculous assumption that somehow there was no COVID in the UK at that point, and every single one of those positives was false. That's an upper bound, looking at the ONS figures you can get an estimate as low as 0.04%, but we'll take 0.8%. From the daily updates positivity rates in recent days are 5% or higher, so unless somehow the false positive rate has magically increased at a steady rate similar to that of an exponential epidemic curve, that's a nonsense argument.
The IFR one there is less consensus on, but suffice it to say there's definitely enough evidence to disprove 0.2%. I'll use two separate methods for this. The first of these is to just look at places with high death rates. Let's take the U.S. state of New Jersey, which has a total mortality rate (not IFR) of 1846 per million (according to worldometers). That's 0.18%. Obviously not every single person can possibly have had it because of herd immunity. Once again, I'll be as generous as I possibly can here, and we'll assume that New Jersey has reached herd immunity, let's say 60% infected. Doing the maths on that you get an IFR of 0.30%. Once again, remember this is assuming herd immunity has been reached, which is unlikely to be the case since cases are rising again in New Jersey.
The second method is to use the ONS infection survey. To calculate IFR we need two values: the number of deaths and the number of infections causing those deaths. Again using worldometer, UK daily COVID deaths on a 7-day average are 163. Again, I'll be generous by assuming a shorter lag time between deaths of about two weeks. This is because using a more recent ONS survey will produce a lower estimate, since IFR = deaths/infections, and more recent surveys have more cases, which will imply a lower death rate than is likely to actually be the case. This week's survey covers the 10th to the 16th October, which is actually shorter than two weeks and is therefore even more generous. The ONS have a central estimate of 35,200 new cases per day, but again I'll use the upper confidence interval to produce a lower estimate, which is 46,600 new cases per day. Doing the maths gives (163/46,600) * 100 = 0.35%.
So to conclude, there's no evidence of a false positive rate anything like what Yeadon is claiming, unless magically our testing has got several times worse exactly in line with what you would expect from an epidemic curve, which is completely into bonkers conspiracy theory territory. As for the IFR, even bending over backwards and really stretching the numbers to create the lowest possible estimates I still get an estimate of 0.3%, and there's no way it can be lower. For the New Jersey scenario, assuming the consensus value of 20% infected would give a value of 0.9% for the IFR, and similarly for the ONS survey using last week's survey and using the central estimate would get you a value also in the range 0.5%-1.0%, which is generally the scientific consensus.
You seem to be assuming that the IFR is the same for all populations. In Tokyo the IFR is estimated to be as low as 0.0006% according to this paper with as many as half the population having been infected. Anyway I'll look at the false positive rate first. I checked his twitter page and recently he was claiming a 5% false positive rate for pillar 2 tests. The positivity rate was as low as 0.8% in August. Let's make the ridiculous assumption that somehow there was no COVID in the UK at that point, and every single one of those positives was false. That's an upper bound, looking at the ONS figures you can get an estimate as low as 0.04%, but we'll take 0.8%. From the daily updates positivity rates in recent days are 5% or higher, so unless somehow the false positive rate has magically increased at a steady rate similar to that of an exponential epidemic curve, that's a nonsense argument.
The IFR one there is less consensus on, but suffice it to say there's definitely enough evidence to disprove 0.2%. I'll use two separate methods for this. The first of these is to just look at places with high death rates. Let's take the U.S. state of New Jersey, which has a total mortality rate (not IFR) of 1846 per million (according to worldometers). That's 0.18%. Obviously not every single person can possibly have had it because of herd immunity. Once again, I'll be as generous as I possibly can here, and we'll assume that New Jersey has reached herd immunity, let's say 60% infected. Doing the maths on that you get an IFR of 0.30%. Once again, remember this is assuming herd immunity has been reached, which is unlikely to be the case since cases are rising again in New Jersey.
The second method is to use the ONS infection survey. To calculate IFR we need two values: the number of deaths and the number of infections causing those deaths. Again using worldometer, UK daily COVID deaths on a 7-day average are 163. Again, I'll be generous by assuming a shorter lag time between deaths of about two weeks. This is because using a more recent ONS survey will produce a lower estimate, since IFR = deaths/infections, and more recent surveys have more cases, which will imply a lower death rate than is likely to actually be the case. This week's survey covers the 10th to the 16th October, which is actually shorter than two weeks and is therefore even more generous. The ONS have a central estimate of 35,200 new cases per day, but again I'll use the upper confidence interval to produce a lower estimate, which is 46,600 new cases per day. Doing the maths gives (163/46,600) * 100 = 0.35%.
So to conclude, there's no evidence of a false positive rate anything like what Yeadon is claiming, unless magically our testing has got several times worse exactly in line with what you would expect from an epidemic curve, which is completely into bonkers conspiracy theory territory. As for the IFR, even bending over backwards and really stretching the numbers to create the lowest possible estimates I still get an estimate of 0.3%, and there's no way it can be lower. For the New Jersey scenario, assuming the consensus value of 20% infected would give a value of 0.9% for the IFR, and similarly for the ONS survey using last week's survey and using the central estimate would get you a value also in the range 0.5%-1.0%, which is generally the scientific consensus.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21...
Taking one area, New Jersey, and assuming that the whole world is the same would seem a little unscientific, No?
voyds9 said:
If a two week 'firebreak' lockdown is so effective why does Scotland keep extending its lockdown.
In Wales’ case it isn’t more effective than the county lockdowns that preceded it.Infection rates in NE Wales (where I live) peaked three weeks ago and are now down to less than 50/100k.
Certainly a ‘firebreak’ will reduce those numbers further but it will be at the cost of private business and the hospitality sector.
There is real resentment to Drakeford’s ‘firebreak’ made worse by the nonsense of ‘non-essential’ items.
This will be Drakeford’s ‘Poll Tax’, given we have Sennedd elections next year.
Elysium said:
the-photographer said:
Elysium said:
Good post.
I broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
Thank you, let's put Yeadon in the outlier category for nowI broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
We are following a path because SAGE are telling us that 90% of the population remain susceptible to this disease, which is based on the idea that serology tells us categorically who has been infected.
He has also argued that it is madness to diagnose a ‘disease’ remotely via a PCR test without any idea what symptoms the ‘cases’ might have.
Whilst I think he may be overstating the false positive issue, these points are very strong. SAGEs position is insanely cautious at this point and we are suffering greatly as a result.
Vanden Saab said:
the-photographer said:
I'm going to have a go at two of these things, specifically the false positive rate and the IFR. TL;DR version of this is that the false positive rate is far lower than he suggests, and the IFR is at least somewhat if not much higher than 0.2%.
Anyway I'll look at the false positive rate first. I checked his twitter page and recently he was claiming a 5% false positive rate for pillar 2 tests. The positivity rate was as low as 0.8% in August. Let's make the ridiculous assumption that somehow there was no COVID in the UK at that point, and every single one of those positives was false. That's an upper bound, looking at the ONS figures you can get an estimate as low as 0.04%, but we'll take 0.8%. From the daily updates positivity rates in recent days are 5% or higher, so unless somehow the false positive rate has magically increased at a steady rate similar to that of an exponential epidemic curve, that's a nonsense argument.
The IFR one there is less consensus on, but suffice it to say there's definitely enough evidence to disprove 0.2%. I'll use two separate methods for this. The first of these is to just look at places with high death rates. Let's take the U.S. state of New Jersey, which has a total mortality rate (not IFR) of 1846 per million (according to worldometers). That's 0.18%. Obviously not every single person can possibly have had it because of herd immunity. Once again, I'll be as generous as I possibly can here, and we'll assume that New Jersey has reached herd immunity, let's say 60% infected. Doing the maths on that you get an IFR of 0.30%. Once again, remember this is assuming herd immunity has been reached, which is unlikely to be the case since cases are rising again in New Jersey.
The second method is to use the ONS infection survey. To calculate IFR we need two values: the number of deaths and the number of infections causing those deaths. Again using worldometer, UK daily COVID deaths on a 7-day average are 163. Again, I'll be generous by assuming a shorter lag time between deaths of about two weeks. This is because using a more recent ONS survey will produce a lower estimate, since IFR = deaths/infections, and more recent surveys have more cases, which will imply a lower death rate than is likely to actually be the case. This week's survey covers the 10th to the 16th October, which is actually shorter than two weeks and is therefore even more generous. The ONS have a central estimate of 35,200 new cases per day, but again I'll use the upper confidence interval to produce a lower estimate, which is 46,600 new cases per day. Doing the maths gives (163/46,600) * 100 = 0.35%.
So to conclude, there's no evidence of a false positive rate anything like what Yeadon is claiming, unless magically our testing has got several times worse exactly in line with what you would expect from an epidemic curve, which is completely into bonkers conspiracy theory territory. As for the IFR, even bending over backwards and really stretching the numbers to create the lowest possible estimates I still get an estimate of 0.3%, and there's no way it can be lower. For the New Jersey scenario, assuming the consensus value of 20% infected would give a value of 0.9% for the IFR, and similarly for the ONS survey using last week's survey and using the central estimate would get you a value also in the range 0.5%-1.0%, which is generally the scientific consensus.
You seem to be assuming that the IFR is the same for all populations. In Tokyo the IFR is estimated to be as low as 0.0006% according to this paper with as many as half the population having been infected. Anyway I'll look at the false positive rate first. I checked his twitter page and recently he was claiming a 5% false positive rate for pillar 2 tests. The positivity rate was as low as 0.8% in August. Let's make the ridiculous assumption that somehow there was no COVID in the UK at that point, and every single one of those positives was false. That's an upper bound, looking at the ONS figures you can get an estimate as low as 0.04%, but we'll take 0.8%. From the daily updates positivity rates in recent days are 5% or higher, so unless somehow the false positive rate has magically increased at a steady rate similar to that of an exponential epidemic curve, that's a nonsense argument.
The IFR one there is less consensus on, but suffice it to say there's definitely enough evidence to disprove 0.2%. I'll use two separate methods for this. The first of these is to just look at places with high death rates. Let's take the U.S. state of New Jersey, which has a total mortality rate (not IFR) of 1846 per million (according to worldometers). That's 0.18%. Obviously not every single person can possibly have had it because of herd immunity. Once again, I'll be as generous as I possibly can here, and we'll assume that New Jersey has reached herd immunity, let's say 60% infected. Doing the maths on that you get an IFR of 0.30%. Once again, remember this is assuming herd immunity has been reached, which is unlikely to be the case since cases are rising again in New Jersey.
The second method is to use the ONS infection survey. To calculate IFR we need two values: the number of deaths and the number of infections causing those deaths. Again using worldometer, UK daily COVID deaths on a 7-day average are 163. Again, I'll be generous by assuming a shorter lag time between deaths of about two weeks. This is because using a more recent ONS survey will produce a lower estimate, since IFR = deaths/infections, and more recent surveys have more cases, which will imply a lower death rate than is likely to actually be the case. This week's survey covers the 10th to the 16th October, which is actually shorter than two weeks and is therefore even more generous. The ONS have a central estimate of 35,200 new cases per day, but again I'll use the upper confidence interval to produce a lower estimate, which is 46,600 new cases per day. Doing the maths gives (163/46,600) * 100 = 0.35%.
So to conclude, there's no evidence of a false positive rate anything like what Yeadon is claiming, unless magically our testing has got several times worse exactly in line with what you would expect from an epidemic curve, which is completely into bonkers conspiracy theory territory. As for the IFR, even bending over backwards and really stretching the numbers to create the lowest possible estimates I still get an estimate of 0.3%, and there's no way it can be lower. For the New Jersey scenario, assuming the consensus value of 20% infected would give a value of 0.9% for the IFR, and similarly for the ONS survey using last week's survey and using the central estimate would get you a value also in the range 0.5%-1.0%, which is generally the scientific consensus.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21...
Taking one area, New Jersey, and assuming that the whole world is the same would seem a little unscientific, No?
The UK numbers are also used above.
For any specific country it will be different and any specific model can be made to fit a country of your choosing.
Yeadon theory still doesn't fit the UK/FR/ES/IT/NY but yes does fit other countries.
Now which country are we discussing?
Gromm said:
Given up uh I guess at the end of May, beginning of June. There is a scientifically proven, effective set of measures which could’ve stopped the spread of virus like they did in China, Vietnam or NZ. This, and other countries decided though not to follow the science but to invent the wheel and instead of 2-3 months of disruption we now facing years of misery. Well f done. Oh and I hope that pint, half priced meal, holiday and trip to mates/relations were really worth it.
Citing NZ as a great example, is a bit of a stretchThey are the last station on the line, so easy to cut yourself off from the world.
You’ll recall that after their 2-3 months of disruption, they had to do it again after a flare up.
They will have to cut themselves off from the rest of the world until Covid is eliminated . Which could be years or never...
I wonder what their isolation exit plan is
Elysium said:
Agreed on the ICU part. In the beginning that essentially meant intubation and as far as I understand it, most frail 80+ people are not able to get through that.
They were denied care because the Govt chose to do so. They wanted to keep hospital capacity for the wave of healthy young people who they believed would need oxygen. That came from Ferguson’s report and the 5% of infections that he thought would need it.
In the model, that 5% equates to about 2.25 million people. That’s why they panicked and it’s why we built the Nightingales.
But they were never really used, because the 5% is a significant overestimate.
I don't have the stats to hand but, from memory, it overstated the number of hospitalisations resulting from infection by at least a factor of five.They were denied care because the Govt chose to do so. They wanted to keep hospital capacity for the wave of healthy young people who they believed would need oxygen. That came from Ferguson’s report and the 5% of infections that he thought would need it.
In the model, that 5% equates to about 2.25 million people. That’s why they panicked and it’s why we built the Nightingales.
But they were never really used, because the 5% is a significant overestimate.
So however manic things got for pneumothorax in early April the forecast was for it to be five times worse.
The government can only go with the information it has to hand at the time. This was why I backed the initial three week lockdown as well. All restrictions should have been lifted by 1 May though, once the reality became clear.
menousername said:
Tuna, is that you?
Of course, bankers and fund managers cannot work remotely.
And those flying in, not already in, are all managing funds registered in the UK and not the Cayman Islands, etc.
There are a number of us who recognise that we need a functioning economy.Of course, bankers and fund managers cannot work remotely.
And those flying in, not already in, are all managing funds registered in the UK and not the Cayman Islands, etc.
Yes working from home is an option for most things but there will still be a need for visits as well. I dont think it is remotely controversial that the head of Japanese multi-national visiting the UK sub should be treated more favourably than a student on a gap year.
the-photographer said:
Elysium said:
the-photographer said:
Elysium said:
Good post.
I broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
Thank you, let's put Yeadon in the outlier category for nowI broadly agree with you on the IFR. I think it’s about 0.49%
However the reason it’s difficult to calculate is that it’s actually quite hard to determine who is infected. We are using positive PCR tests and the ONS estimates which are based on them, but 80%+ of the ONS positives are asymptomatic. They are people who test positive rather than people we can confidently say are infected. Are they resistant or are there other people who will never catch it or test positive?
You run into the same problem with false positives. I think it must be 0.8% as a minimum, but I’m not sure if I believe Yeadon’s view that it could be more. It’s certainly possible.
Your incredulity about the growth in cases being too consistent can be tackled. We are not following a normal epidemiological curve at this point. Growth is slow, but exponential with a steady growth rate of 4-5%
However, testing also has a steady growth rate. And the data we are being given doesn’t really help us understand if a particular area of testing is causing the issue. Yeadon believes it is specially pillar 2.
What I do think is that the Govt has not assessed the quality of the PCR test or the cycle count issue. They have no answer and want no answer because it could damage them. So they are ignoring the question, which is suspicious in itself.
We are following a path because SAGE are telling us that 90% of the population remain susceptible to this disease, which is based on the idea that serology tells us categorically who has been infected.
He has also argued that it is madness to diagnose a ‘disease’ remotely via a PCR test without any idea what symptoms the ‘cases’ might have.
Whilst I think he may be overstating the false positive issue, these points are very strong. SAGEs position is insanely cautious at this point and we are suffering greatly as a result.
I agree with you to some extent. If I was in charge I would ask Gupta, Heneghan and Yeadon to join SAGE.
We are underestimating the historic significance of the situation we have just lived through. The SAGE members are affected by groupthink and will be desperate to hold on to some sort of professional legacy. If they have made a colossal error, then they will not want to admit it. They may not even be psychologically capable of doing so.
ORD said:
If history is remotely objective, the Conservative party will be out of government for decades .
To be replaced by a Labour government that is at present calling for harsher lockdowns?This isn't party political really. It is about a political class no longer fit for purpose. For every Hancock and Nadine Dorries there is a Diane Abbott or Rayner on the other side.
Our best hope on this one issue is for a rebellion by backbench Tory MPs and lockdown scepticism seems to be growing among them.
Colonel Cupcake said:
Alucidnation said:
loafer123 said:
Alucidnation said:
17 days.
How on earth are they going to cope without that new hairdryer.
They can buy a new hairdryer any time they want, online.How on earth are they going to cope without that new hairdryer.
All this bluster over a few shelves blocked off in a supermarket, of products that are easily available on the net.
Still, makes a good story for the bedwetters to lap up.
Not mine, sweetheart.
x
Something I had not even thought of. We are testing people on admission to hospices:
https://www.stbarnabas-hospice.org.uk/covid-19/
On one level, I entirely understand the reasoning for this, but if those tested are positive then the chances that they will go on to be classified as a COVID death by dying with 28 days are obviously very high. They are already dying,
Reading those guidance also brings home the crushing oppressiveness of the situation for those who are dying of other conditions right now and the forced separation from loved ones that they must be experiencing,
This is well meant, but it is terrible and in humane. We have to get to grips with reality.
https://www.stbarnabas-hospice.org.uk/covid-19/
On one level, I entirely understand the reasoning for this, but if those tested are positive then the chances that they will go on to be classified as a COVID death by dying with 28 days are obviously very high. They are already dying,
Reading those guidance also brings home the crushing oppressiveness of the situation for those who are dying of other conditions right now and the forced separation from loved ones that they must be experiencing,
This is well meant, but it is terrible and in humane. We have to get to grips with reality.
Elysium said:
the-photographer said:
Elysium said:
Pneumothorax - you should probably read the Sunday Times tomorrow:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-rat...
Truth is finally coming out.
Isn't this old news?https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-rat...
Truth is finally coming out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/12/do-not...
12 October 2020
t to protect the elderly/at risk groups... but the government have done their own 'sentencing to death' policy on those exact groups? 
Elysium said:
Something I had not even thought of. We are testing people on admission to hospices:
https://www.stbarnabas-hospice.org.uk/covid-19/
On one level, I entirely understand the reasoning for this, but if those tested are positive then the chances that they will go on to be classified as a COVID death by dying with 28 days are obviously very high. They are already dying,
Reading those guidance also brings home the crushing oppressiveness of the situation for those who are dying of other conditions right now and the forced separation from loved ones that they must be experiencing,
This is well meant, but it is terrible and in humane. We have to get to grips with reality.
Totally agree - it goes against what the aim of a hospice is. Having lost both parents and a grandparent to cancer, I know what comfort a hospice brings. That said, only allowing 2 visitors after a negative test, is totally inhumane.https://www.stbarnabas-hospice.org.uk/covid-19/
On one level, I entirely understand the reasoning for this, but if those tested are positive then the chances that they will go on to be classified as a COVID death by dying with 28 days are obviously very high. They are already dying,
Reading those guidance also brings home the crushing oppressiveness of the situation for those who are dying of other conditions right now and the forced separation from loved ones that they must be experiencing,
This is well meant, but it is terrible and in humane. We have to get to grips with reality.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff