CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)

[isaldiri]

CrutyRammers said:

No, you're doing it wrong. See where that most recent trough is? About 9 days ago? Take a line from there and lo and behold....

I think before getting into a twist over the '9 day doubling' thing perhaps it's worth looking back at the last interim report - it showed 11 day doubling but the final full report corrected that to high 20s. The same could well happen so it might simply a case of not adjusting some bloody formula to account for the time period. The rest of the interim report numbers were more or less in line other than that. The react report is not really saying anything all that different from the ONS prevalence surveys or the MRC cambridge one released earlier today i think. Taken as a whole it clearly shows prevalence is increasing throughout the country. Carping about one number that's a bit wonky in an interim report isn't going to change the overall conclusions which are frankly not a surprise.

[Eyersey1234]

Boringvolvodriver said:

pquinn said:

FlabbyMidgets said:

Being shared and discussed on local Facebook page, accusation of Russia spreading fake info. Overwhelming support of this and everyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy nut

Well whoever knocked that up it's cheap inaccurate propaganda designed to appeal to idiots.

So I'm surprised it doesn't say 'gov.uk' on it.

Probably drawn up by D Cummings........

So that's why he went to Barnard Castle, he wanted to make sure his eyesight was OK for drawing that drivel

[Pupp]

markyb_lcy said:

Thin White Duke said:

I was going to come on here tonight and ask for opinions on forming a true anti lockdown movement, however I see that there is something called Time for Recovery.

Does anyone know who is behind this and does it include any heavy hitters? Will it achieve anything, given the Great Barrington Declaration seems to have fallen by the wayside?

I’m also looking for a movement to get behind, but I can’t offer my support, financial or otherwise, until I’m sure of the personalities in the background.

This outfit publish nothing on their site about that.

One would have to dig through the directors names available from Companies House ...

https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...

A couple of them appear to have directorships of other companies related to marketing and management consultancy.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Thursday 29th October 19:34

I did have a look at Companies House earlier and cam to the same conclusions. Also wary of offering support without knowing anything about those behind the organisation.

That said, the declared aims seem fair enough...

[skinnyman]

https://youtu.be/IgxXSfto6Vo

Talk about reading the room

[Thin White Duke]

markyb_lcy said:

Thin White Duke said:

I was going to come on here tonight and ask for opinions on forming a true anti lockdown movement, however I see that there is something called Time for Recovery.

Does anyone know who is behind this and does it include any heavy hitters? Will it achieve anything, given the Great Barrington Declaration seems to have fallen by the wayside?

I’m also looking for a movement to get behind, but I can’t offer my support, financial or otherwise, until I’m sure of the personalities in the background.

This outfit publish nothing on their site about that.

One would have to dig through the directors names available from Companies House ...

https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...

A couple of them appear to have directorships of other companies related to marketing and management consultancy.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Thursday 29th October 19:34

I've signed several petitions and also the GBD and I don't mind registering interest in something (I registered interest in Lawrence Fox's new party for instance). But as you say throwing more than that behind something including money shouldn't be done until more is known about the organisation and who is involved.

I was feeling so fed up today with the MSM and what's been happening that I was thinking of contacting (or at least trying to) the main anti lockdown figures and trying to get them together in a proper organisation.

It would need the likes of the founders of the GBD, Lord Sumption, Sir Desmond Swayne, Lawrence Fox, Neil Oliver and other high profile people. It would have to avoid the likes of course of David Icke and Piers Corbyn. And though she's said many things I agree with I wouldn't want Hopkins involved as she can come across as a little callous in her delivery.

[markyb_lcy]

Pupp said:

markyb_lcy said:

Thin White Duke said:

I was going to come on here tonight and ask for opinions on forming a true anti lockdown movement, however I see that there is something called Time for Recovery.

Does anyone know who is behind this and does it include any heavy hitters? Will it achieve anything, given the Great Barrington Declaration seems to have fallen by the wayside?

I’m also looking for a movement to get behind, but I can’t offer my support, financial or otherwise, until I’m sure of the personalities in the background.

This outfit publish nothing on their site about that.

One would have to dig through the directors names available from Companies House ...

https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...

A couple of them appear to have directorships of other companies related to marketing and management consultancy.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Thursday 29th October 19:34

I did have a look at Companies House earlier and cam to the same conclusions. Also wary of offering support without knowing anything about those behind the organisation.

That said, the declared aims seem fair enough...

Yea, in general I can support those aims, but I did feel them to be a little wishy-washy. It’s a difficult one ... they need to appeal to as many as possible across the whole political spectrum. It’s a bit of a tightrope to navigate in that respect.

[TV8]

RSTurboPaul said:

ash73 said:

21st Century Man said:

This is from Spain, but I found it interesting, no idea as to the scientific accuracy, but it seems to be fairly obvious common sense.

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-ro...

At what size does an aerosol become a droplet?

Do all size ranges transmit the virus?

I doubt homemade masks protect against <100?m particles.

I really struggle to believe the graphics / information on that page.

One person breathing aerosols in a pub will infect basically the entire pub within 4 hours (or whatever)? The modelling might say it is true but it seems totally unrealistic.

Likewise, the scaremongering example at the end of one person at a choir rehearsal apparently infecting 60 others and two of those dying seems to fail to acknowledge that the people involved could easily already have had it in their system, have caught it before/after the event, caught it at home from family...

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 29th October 15:57

Anyone who has commuted from the suburbs will understand this. Normally this time of year onwards, the train heating will be on full, and there will be a handful of people on the train who are far to important to not go into work and snotting everywhere. By mid-December there are more ill people than people who are not snotting everywhere.

[OddCat]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Birth wife and I have signed up and given a small donation to help out - more will probably follow if it gains more traction.

You have a birth wife? Blimey, I never knew such a thing existed. I wonder where mine is?

[Thin White Duke]

markyb_lcy said:

Yea, in general I can support those aims, but I did feel them to be a little wishy-washy. It’s a difficult one ... they need to appeal to as many as possible across the whole political spectrum. It’s a bit of a tightrope to navigate in that respect.

Indeed. The GBD did a better job of having a more concise aim.

[Boringvolvodriver]

OddCat said:

You have a birth wife? Blimey, I never knew such a thing existed. I wonder where mine is?

Whoops! Fat fingers and auto correct combine when of course it should have been “both”

Cant get away with anything on here!!

[21st Century Man]

Boringvolvodriver said:

OddCat said:

You have a birth wife? Blimey, I never knew such a thing existed. I wonder where mine is?

Whoops! Fat fingers and auto correct combine when of course it should have been “both”

Cant get away with anything on here!!

Both? You have two wives?

[PeteinSQ]

Thin White Duke said:

I've signed several petitions and also the GBD and I don't mind registering interest in something (I registered interest in Lawrence Fox's new party for instance). But as you say throwing more than that behind something including money shouldn't be done until more is known about the organisation and who is involved.

I was feeling so fed up today with the MSM and what's been happening that I was thinking of contacting (or at least trying to) the main anti lockdown figures and trying to get them together in a proper organisation.

It would need the likes of the founders of the GBD, Lord Sumption, Sir Desmond Swayne, Lawrence Fox, Neil Oliver and other high profile people. It would have to avoid the likes of course of David Icke and Piers Corbyn. And though she's said many things I agree with I wouldn't want Hopkins involved as she can come across as a little callous in her delivery.

You're holding out for Desmond Swayne and Lawrence Fox? I think you could do with some less divisive leaders.

[Vanden Saab]

RSTurboPaul said:

ash73 said:

21st Century Man said:

This is from Spain, but I found it interesting, no idea as to the scientific accuracy, but it seems to be fairly obvious common sense.

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-ro...

At what size does an aerosol become a droplet?

Do all size ranges transmit the virus?

I doubt homemade masks protect against <100?m particles.

I really struggle to believe the graphics / information on that page.

One person breathing aerosols in a pub will infect basically the entire pub within 4 hours (or whatever)? The modelling might say it is true but it seems totally unrealistic.

Likewise, the scaremongering example at the end of one person at a choir rehearsal apparently infecting 60 others and two of those dying seems to fail to acknowledge that the people involved could easily already have had it in their system, have caught it before/after the event, caught it at home from family...

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 29th October 15:57

I have been banging on about this for months, It isn't just modelling it has been observed on numerous occasions less than 10% of people are responsible for 70 or 80% of all infections. The only way they could do this is by aerosol transmission. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10...

and this... https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09...

And don't get me started on why saline mist reduces the chance of producing aerosols, Any way must go, off to the beach.

link said:

Previous research has shown that inhaling salt water mist that’s less viscous than mucus-packed respiratory fluid made individuals produce fewer aerosol particles overall.

[johnboy1975]

So, we've all been for "whilst hospitals aren't overran, carry on as normal as possible, wash your hands and give people a bit of space where possible".

The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?

Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?

Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?

Theres never been any "good" solutions, but previously there was at least a "least bad" option (which the government almost unerringly seemed to do the opposite of, but hey). Now however, there are just two monumentally st options left.

Dont get me wrong, I'm still in the "hold our nerve" camp, but all the hopes of massive x immunity @ circa 50% ( which would provide a good degree of herd immunity with the 10-20% already infected) seem to be coming off the tracks, at least slightly. The numbers need to fall, and soon, but with testing @ 400k being reported in the same vein as when testing was at 200k, and we are due 500k tests a day in the next couple of days...

IF lockdowns didnt work, it would be easy.....no choice but option 1. However I think its fairer to say that they do work (if done properly, and if your aim is to delay deaths and hospitalizations, rather than save lives and eliminate covid), but at a prohibitively high cost

I think we are pretty much fked either way to be honest

We'd be in a far far better place both emotionally and ecomonically if we didn't think we were so fking clever that we could save every life. Quite clearly, we can't.



Unless......we can get some traction of the false positive issue that is. If 50% were false positives, and 80% of the rest were (are) asymptomatic, that would be a massive help. But unless the ONS survey is picking up dead fragment false positives, even that looks unlikely. And still leaves the problem of hospitalizations and deaths..... Unless they are being misreported too. Which whilst certainly possible on some level, I dont think it is feasible to say the majority of them are.

[Otispunkmeyer]

More Sweden

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/commen...

42% of Sweden’s winters going back to 1980 have had higher death toll than COVID.

Clearly they live dangerously over there. Surprised they have anyone left to inhabit the place.

[Thin White Duke]

PeteinSQ said:

Thin White Duke said:

I've signed several petitions and also the GBD and I don't mind registering interest in something (I registered interest in Lawrence Fox's new party for instance). But as you say throwing more than that behind something including money shouldn't be done until more is known about the organisation and who is involved.

I was feeling so fed up today with the MSM and what's been happening that I was thinking of contacting (or at least trying to) the main anti lockdown figures and trying to get them together in a proper organisation.

It would need the likes of the founders of the GBD, Lord Sumption, Sir Desmond Swayne, Lawrence Fox, Neil Oliver and other high profile people. It would have to avoid the likes of course of David Icke and Piers Corbyn. And though she's said many things I agree with I wouldn't want Hopkins involved as she can come across as a little callous in her delivery.

You're holding out for Desmond Swayne and Lawrence Fox? I think you could do with some less divisive leaders.

If not them, then who? At least they are sticking their heads above the parapet and going against the grain.

[PeteinSQ]

johnboy1975 said:

So, we've all been for "whilst hospitals aren't overran, carry on as normal as possible, wash your hands and give people a bit of space where possible".

The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?

Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?

Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?

Theres never been any "good" solutions, but previously there was at least a "least bad" option (which the government almost unerringly seemed to do the opposite of, but hey). Now however, there are just two monumentally st options left.

Dont get me wrong, I'm still in the "hold our nerve" camp, but all the hopes of massive x immunity @ circa 50% ( which would provide a good degree of herd immunity with the 10-20% already infected) seem to be coming off the tracks, at least slightly. The numbers need to fall, and soon, but with testing @ 400k being reported in the same vein as when testing was at 200k, and we are due 500k tests a day in the next couple of days...

IF lockdowns didnt work, it would be easy.....no choice but option 1. However I think its fairer to say that they do work (if done properly, and if your aim is to delay deaths and hospitalizations, rather than save lives and eliminate covid), but at a prohibitively high cost

I think we are pretty much fked either way to be honest

We'd be in a far far better place both emotionally and ecomonically if we didn't think we were so fking clever that we could save every life. Quite clearly, we can't.



Unless......we can get some traction of the false positive issue that is. If 50% were false positives, and 80% of the rest were (are) asymptomatic, that would be a massive help. But unless the ONS survey is picking up dead fragment false positives, even that looks unlikely. And still leaves the problem of hospitalizations and deaths..... Unless they are being misreported too. Which whilst certainly possible on some level, I dont think it is feasible to say the majority of them are.

I don't know anyone that is demanding a lock down. Most people I know are prepared to go along with government demands but don't claim to be in a position to demand anything.

[Newc]

Herd immunity seen in the North Italian areas that had the biggest spread of cases in the spring.

Not my words Lynn, the words of the Economist.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/3...

The valleys of the shadow of death
Italian towns hit hardest by covid-19 are doing better now

Municipal data reveal signs of partial population-level immunity
Graphic detail
Oct 31st 2020 edition

[Elysium]

A couple of quick graphs. I am trying to be consistent and am calculating the doubling time from 1st Oct.

1. Cases by specimen date per 100k tests. The best fit line for me is a 34 day doubling. We were at 5,263 on the 1st Oct and the current peak is 8,138 on the 23rd Oct.



2. Daily deaths. This fits a 14 day doubling over the same period. 64 deaths on the 1st Oct and a current peak of 226 on the 23rd Oct. Deaths should follow the same growth pattern of cases with a lag of approximately 2 weeks, so I am expecting this to slow soon.

[CrutyRammers]

isaldiri said:

I think before getting into a twist over the '9 day doubling' thing perhaps it's worth looking back at the last interim report - it showed 11 day doubling but the final full report corrected that to high 20s. The same could well happen so it might simply a case of not adjusting some bloody formula to account for the time period. The rest of the interim report numbers were more or less in line other than that. The react report is not really saying anything all that different from the ONS prevalence surveys or the MRC cambridge one released earlier today i think. Taken as a whole it clearly shows prevalence is increasing throughout the country. Carping about one number that's a bit wonky in an interim report isn't going to change the overall conclusions which are frankly not a surprise.

It matters when that is given prominence in the national press. It's not good enough to say "it's only an interim figure", soundbites and headlines are what people hear