CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

[Twinfan]

Greece and Austria pushing the EU for vaccine passports:

BBC News - Coronavirus: EU urged to adopt 'vaccine passports'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56202645

I'm watching this with interest as summer tourism needs will mean a decision has to be made soon...

[isaldiri]

Graveworm said:

soofsayer said:

Horizon.

Explaining herd immunity needs to be 97% using an R number of 3. It’s below 1.

Using measles as a comparison disease for vaccination and eradication. Did everyone of every age have measles jabs when it was a problem?

That's effective R number Re. Basic R number R0 is what determines herd immunity requirements and that's still being refined but it is settling comfortably north of 3.

It'll have to be a st ton north of 3 to require 97% immunity for herd immunity threshold which only an idiot would think it plausible.

[A Winner Is You]

foreright said:

wiggy001 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Awesome - I'm getting one of those when I'm (eventually) allowed back to the office.

Imagine if we were somehow able to travel back in time 18 months and tell people this is what we'd be doing because of a disease with a 99.7% recovery rate.

[Blue62]

jumpingloci said:

Interesting development with supposed intervention from the Queen to claim it selfish for not having the vaccine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9301373/Q...

Difficult to say whether that will cement resistance or persuade the undecided.

Cat and Pigeons spring to mind

[anonymous-user]

isaldiri said:

Graveworm said:

soofsayer said:

Horizon.

Explaining herd immunity needs to be 97% using an R number of 3. It’s below 1.

Using measles as a comparison disease for vaccination and eradication. Did everyone of every age have measles jabs when it was a problem?

That's effective R number Re. Basic R number R0 is what determines herd immunity requirements and that's still being refined but it is settling comfortably north of 3.

It'll have to be a st ton north of 3 to require 97% immunity for herd immunity threshold which only an idiot would think it plausible.

Well that’s just how herd immunity has been explained to the public primetime on the bbc. I’d have to watch it again to check if the 97% was using the scary mutant SA strain that a professor said increased r to around 4.5. Probably was, so herd immunity with r at 3 was 87% my apologies.

[Alucidnation]

soofsayer said:

Alucidnation said:

soofsayer said:

Using measles as a comparison disease for vaccination and eradication. Did everyone of every age have measles jabs when it was a problem?

"Maurice Hilleman's measles vaccine is estimated to prevent one million deaths per year."

I’m sure it does. Does measles affect all age cohorts? I don’t know, hence the question.

Yes it does, but mainly kids.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/m...


I wonder how they tested the safety of that vaccine for children

[isaldiri]

soofsayer said:

Well that’s just how herd immunity has been explained to the public primetime on the bbc. I’d have to watch it again to check if the 97% was using the scary mutant SA strain that a professor said increased r to around 4.5. Probably was, so herd immunity with r at 3 was 87% my apologies.

I wasn't directing my comment at you!

it was directed mainly at the post I replied to insisting that R0 of covid was 'well north of 3' (perhaps, unclear, who cares it won't be high enough to end up with the referenced herd immunity threshold anyway)..

P.S and whether at R0 of 3 or 4.5, HIT wouldn't be anywhere near 87% nevermind 97%!

[Harrison Bergeron]

Alucidnation said:

soofsayer said:

Alucidnation said:

soofsayer said:

Using measles as a comparison disease for vaccination and eradication. Did everyone of every age have measles jabs when it was a problem?

"Maurice Hilleman's measles vaccine is estimated to prevent one million deaths per year."

I’m sure it does. Does measles affect all age cohorts? I don’t know, hence the question.

Yes it does, but mainly kids.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/m...


I wonder how they tested the safety of that vaccine for children

We should lock up all the old farts for the good of the nation #zeromeasles

[danllama]

grumbledoak said:

johnboy1975 said:

And going off those 5 levels.......1 is impossible.

The next best, 2, requires enhanced screening and testing (forever?). Project moonshot alive and well, even with trace levels of the virus.

They have designed a system that is impossible to escape, even post vaccination. I think we can all agree that that is not incompetence?

I don't know how anyone continues to believe this is all incompetence and coincidence.

They're just comforting themselves with delusion.

[Thin White Duke]

johnboy1975 said:

And going off those 5 levels.......1 is impossible.

The next best, 2, requires enhanced screening and testing (forever?). Project moonshot alive and well, even with trace levels of the virus.

They have designed a system that is impossible to escape, even post vaccination. I think we can all agree that that is not incompetence?

I posted the alert level several volumes ago. I actually thought the government had forgotten about it/done away with it.

Level 1 can never happen.

The trouble is if we deny it's incompetence, then what is it? An overreaction? A conspiracy that was set in motion before or after Covid was known about? There's more to the virus than we're being told?



As for vaccine passports - if it's something that countries want to instigate to require entry then so be it. I just won't go there. But to make a passport or app based system to access places such as pubs etc is a step too far. I will not comply.

[Thin White Duke]

danllama said:

They're just comforting themselves with delusion.

I work with a full blown conspiracy theorist. At the start we both agreed about some things - we were both anti lockdown/masks etc but as to the conspiracy stuff I ignored it.

As time has gone on I'm not so sure he's completely wrong.

[Graveworm]

isaldiri said:

I wasn't directing my comment at you!

it was directed mainly at the post I replied to insisting that R0 of covid was 'well north of 3' (perhaps, unclear, who cares it won't be high enough to end up with the referenced herd immunity threshold anyway)..

P.S and whether at R0 of 3 or 4.5, HIT wouldn't be anywhere near 87% nevermind 97%!

I was just correcting the R is less than 1 so why work on 3 statement. I didn't see the program R0 of 3 would be 70 odd percent herd immunity.

[isaldiri]

Graveworm said:

I was just correcting the R is less than 1 so why work on 3 statement. I didn't see the program R0 of 3 would be 70 odd percent herd immunity.

Well given you bothered to correct the post about R0 at 3 (and then claimed it was 'well north of 3'), why didn'tl you then not feel the need to correct the 97% that referenced that R0 of 3? It doesn't require an understanding of conditional probability to figure out R0 of 3 is nowhere even close to 97% HIT so it shouldn't have been any problem for you to have figured that out.

[Leicester Loyal]

Thin White Duke said:

I work with a full blown conspiracy theorist. At the start we both agreed about some things - we were both anti lockdown/masks etc but as to the conspiracy stuff I ignored it.

As time has gone on I'm not so sure he's completely wrong.

I said the same the other week.

A bloke I know is exactly the same and a lot of the stuff he said 10 months ago that I dismissed as 'don't be ridiculous, that's obviously not gonna happen' has happened or looks like it is likely to happen.

[Thin White Duke]

Leicester Loyal said:

Thin White Duke said:

I work with a full blown conspiracy theorist. At the start we both agreed about some things - we were both anti lockdown/masks etc but as to the conspiracy stuff I ignored it.

As time has gone on I'm not so sure he's completely wrong.

I said the same the other week.

A bloke I know is exactly the same and a lot of the stuff he said 10 months ago that I dismissed as 'don't be ridiculous, that's obviously not gonna happen' has happened or looks like it is likely to happen.

There was a poster on here - Lemming Train - actually seemed like a reasonable fellow - not like some of the conspiracy loons we have here. He said months ago that there will be a push for mandatory vaccines (if not by law then by the back door - via coercion). I dismissed him then. I wouldn't now, because that is essentially happening.

The question is and I would limit this to just the vaccine angle and not the other stuff (masks etc), is what and who gains from everyone being made to get the vaccine?

[Graveworm]

isaldiri said:

Well given you bothered to correct the post about R0 at 3 (and then claimed it was 'well north of 3'), why didn'tl you then not feel the need to correct the 97% that referenced that R0 of 3? It doesn't require an understanding of conditional probability to figure out R0 of 3 is nowhere even close to 97% HIT so it shouldn't have been any problem for you to have figured that out.

I was taking time to watch the program so I would be able to comment.

They were working out vaccine threshold, rather than true herd immunity. They worked on an assumed efficacy of 79% and they came to 84%. They then went into the variables (e.g. transmission prevention is initially looking lower than that) and pointed out that just a 2% drop in efficacy would bump that to 87%. They then used the most optimistic of the current estimates for the most transmissible variants (4-4.5%) and that's where the 97% comes in.

48'30" in
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000slmx/hor...

[DukeDickson]

Graveworm said:

isaldiri said:

Well given you bothered to correct the post about R0 at 3 (and then claimed it was 'well north of 3'), why didn'tl you then not feel the need to correct the 97% that referenced that R0 of 3? It doesn't require an understanding of conditional probability to figure out R0 of 3 is nowhere even close to 97% HIT so it shouldn't have been any problem for you to have figured that out.

I was taking time to watch the program so I would be able to comment.

They were working out vaccine threshold, rather than true herd immunity. They worked on an assumed efficacy of 79% and they came to 84%. They then went into the variables (e.g. transmission prevention is initially looking lower than that) and pointed out that just a 2% drop in efficacy would bump that to 87%. They then used the most optimistic of the current estimates for the most transmissible variants (4-4.5%) and that's where the 97% comes in.

48'30" in
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000slmx/hor...

Odd that they got the other immunity wrong by, err, a few.

[Graveworm]

DukeDickson said:

Odd that they got the other immunity wrong by, err, a few.

Once they explained what they were calculating and their assumptions, the calculations were fine. Of course if the assumptions are out then, like anything, the maths doesn't matter.

[Tony427]

Graveworm said:

DukeDickson said:

Odd that they got the other immunity wrong by, err, a few.

Once they explained what they were calculating and their assumptions, the calculations were fine. Of course if the assumptions are out then, like anything, the maths doesn't matter.

Like all the models so far, each and every one, " st in, st out" and we have to eat it.

[johnboy1975]

Graveworm said:

DukeDickson said:

Odd that they got the other immunity wrong by, err, a few.

Once they explained what they were calculating and their assumptions, the calculations were fine. Of course if the assumptions are out then, like anything, the maths doesn't matter.

I thought the 70% more transmissible/ add 0.7 to R had broadly been debunked (Kent strain). Have they transferred those superpowers to the SA variant, with an equal amount (or lack thereof) of evidence? Cool.