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

[scenario8]

There must be massive pressure from the Greek/Spanish/Turkish/everywhere tourist lobbies on their governments to get the foreign tourists back. I’m surprised there isn’t more obvious talk of releasing restrictions (or the imposition of others to permit travel).

If only we had a resident contributor from a short haul tourist dependent hotspot who could provide a balanced report.

Someone from, say, Portugal, perhaps?

[Elysium]

Ntv said:

Graveworm said:

Elysium said:

I knew I would regret it. The only purpose to your posts on this thread is to entice people into pointless and pedantic arguments.

Based on the extensive data now available I think it is ridiculous to argue that SARS-CoV-2 is not seasonal. That includes the data available for Brazil.

I am not going to debate this further with you, because I know it would be a complete waste of my time. Pick a stupid argument with someone else.

I am not arguing that it is not seasonal I am arguing that saying it looks seasonal in some places, means it is seasonal is not valid as it would be the only seasonal virus that is only seasonal in some places. I am definitely arguing that the distribution in Brazil and the Southern hemisphere isn't seasonal. It could well be seasonal and probably will be but there is not enough evidence yet. Here is the actual Seasonal virus graph for Brazil. It is literally being blind to the evidence if you think that looks like their Covid pattern.

Nah, you're generally overstating your point, and here at least you're being more clear

I agree that the various measures to restrict the virus - esp in Southern hemisphere countries such as Oz and NZ - and critically the newness of the virus will be serving to mask how seasonal the virus is in some countries. But the experience of Europe across two winters, along with what is known about how the virus transmits between people (admittedly quite a bit isn't known), points strongly to seasonality.

You're hung up on a non-issue tbh .

I agree. Plus I would add that posting a graph as evidence of 'something' is largely pointless when:

1. It consists of unlabelled cluster columns
2. There is no x-axis
3. There is no explanation of the numbers on the y-axis
4. There is no source or context

The following picture of a spider is about as relevant and persuasive:

[Elysium]

Graveworm said:

isaldiri said:

Yup it's just pretty much the entire temperate northern hemisphere that has shown it but ......not enough evidence huh...

Edited by isaldiri on Friday 5th March 14:23

Please point to another seasonal virus that is only seasonal in the Northern Temperate region and how that would qualify as seasonal even if it was. It's a straw man to keep saying I am saying it's not seasonal. I am not saying it isn't seasonal but I am saying to state boldly yep seasonla when a huge chunk of the data says the opposite is conformational bias.

It isn't showing seasonality in over 50% of the world, so far, and in much of that it is showing the exact opposite, so no there isn't enough evidence.

Its a bit early to be drinking

[hyphen]

V1nce Fox said:

Is there a direct link to the bbc interview?

+1

What is being referred to?

[danllama]

scenario8 said:

There must be massive pressure from the Greek/Spanish/Turkish/everywhere tourist lobbies on their governments to get the foreign tourists back. I’m surprised there isn’t more obvious talk of releasing restrictions (or the imposition of others to permit travel).

If only we had a resident contributor from a short haul tourist dependent hotspot who could provide a balanced report.

Someone from, say, Portugal, perhaps?

We did but I've forgotten his name

[isaldiri]

Graveworm said:

Please point to another seasonal virus that is only seasonal in the Northern Temperate region and how that would qualify as seasonal even if it was.
It isn't showing seasonality in over 50% of the world, so far, and in much of that it is showing the exact opposite, so no there isn't enough evidence.

Please point to another newly emergent virus that wasn't being variously controlled affecting infection rates around the world so you can so confidently state there is no effect on the southern hemisphere.

Exactly where else in the temperate southern hemisphere had had sufficient infections to actually show anything? Argentina and Oz/NZ controlled infections very well initially in the southern hemisphere winter. Chile however has followed a similar path to Europe with seasons. SA at 30° S is barely further south than the likes of Tunisia/Morocco to the north.

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

Ntv said:

Graveworm said:

Elysium said:

I knew I would regret it. The only purpose to your posts on this thread is to entice people into pointless and pedantic arguments.

Based on the extensive data now available I think it is ridiculous to argue that SARS-CoV-2 is not seasonal. That includes the data available for Brazil.

I am not going to debate this further with you, because I know it would be a complete waste of my time. Pick a stupid argument with someone else.

I am not arguing that it is not seasonal I am arguing that saying it looks seasonal in some places, means it is seasonal is not valid as it would be the only seasonal virus that is only seasonal in some places. I am definitely arguing that the distribution in Brazil and the Southern hemisphere isn't seasonal. It could well be seasonal and probably will be but there is not enough evidence yet. Here is the actual Seasonal virus graph for Brazil. It is literally being blind to the evidence if you think that looks like their Covid pattern.

Nah, you're generally overstating your point, and here at least you're being more clear

I agree that the various measures to restrict the virus - esp in Southern hemisphere countries such as Oz and NZ - and critically the newness of the virus will be serving to mask how seasonal the virus is in some countries. But the experience of Europe across two winters, along with what is known about how the virus transmits between people (admittedly quite a bit isn't known), points strongly to seasonality.

You're hung up on a non-issue tbh .

I agree. Plus I would add that posting a graph as evidence of 'something' is largely pointless when:

1. It consists of unlabelled cluster columns
2. There is no x-axis
3. There is no explanation of the numbers on the y-axis
4. There is no source or context

The following picture of a spider is about as relevant and persuasive:

X axis is Jan to Dec and Y axis is average number identified in the sentinel units per month between 2000 and 2010.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...

[bodhi]

Just whilst we are on graphs, thought I'd lower the tone on a Friday afternoon with the latest from Johnson and Johnson. They've plotted the efficacy of their vaccine, and, erm....



Seems to be rising to the occasion.

[PBCD]

jmflare said:

The BBC presenter said there were many people incensed that they saw people were walking on a beach. I find this much more scary than the virus itself.

It's the latest form of NIMBYism, but instead of airports or high speed railway lines,
people are now objecting to other people!

"Get orf my beach!"

[Alucidnation]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I am sure they won’t mind waiting for their jabs if they want to go?

I know a fair few and none of them are so desperate to go that they are complain about having to wait a short while.

[Graveworm]

isaldiri said:

Please point to another newly emergent virus that wasn't being variously controlled affecting infection rates around the world so you can so confidently state there is no effect on the southern hemisphere.

Exactly where else in the temperate southern hemisphere had had sufficient infections to actually show anything? Argentina and Oz/NZ controlled infections very well initially in the southern hemisphere winter. Chile however has followed a similar path to Europe with seasons. SA at 30° S is barely further south than the likes of Tunisia/Morocco to the north.

Explaining why the evidence might not show something doesn't mean it exists. It's the thread that runs through this. Evidence or studies come out that don't support the hypothesis. Immediately objections come in as the methodology, objectivity or conclusions ranging from cogent and well argued to the opposite end of the spectrum. This is never tested by actually going back to the source and querying if this was accounted for.
This then quickly pivots into the data or the conclusions are consistent with the hypothesis. Waiting until the evidence is conclusive before making definitive statements is usually much better, but less dramatic.

[bern]

bodhi said:

Just whilst we are on graphs, thought I'd lower the tone on a Friday afternoon with the latest from Johnson and Johnson. They've plotted the efficacy of their vaccine, and, erm....



Seems to be rising to the occasion.

Haha! If anything that should have been the results from the Pfizer one!

[Ntv]

CAH706 said:

I don’t have an issue with the nominal pay rise in the NHS but I am looking forward to seeing Hancock explain it away later.... wonder if he will bring out the tears again

As an aside, I bumped into a neighbour in the corner shop earlier. She joked about cutting back on the biscuits due to the tax hit coming then in the next breath said it was outrageous that the NHS was only getting a 1% pay rise. She was surprised that I thought it reasonable given they have a nominal pay rise, job security and a pension to look forward to versus others (myself included) who have lost jobs etc. She also genuinely hadn’t considered that more pay might mean an impact elsewhere and that might be her pocket.
Conversation didn’t go any further as I think we both thought it best to get back to discussing biscuits!!

LOL. The unemployed - who are genuinely seeking work - are much greater heroes of the pandemic than the NHS.

[Carrot]

bern said:

bodhi said:

Just whilst we are on graphs, thought I'd lower the tone on a Friday afternoon with the latest from Johnson and Johnson. They've plotted the efficacy of their vaccine, and, erm....



Seems to be rising to the occasion.

Haha! If anything that should have been the results from the Pfizer one!

[g4ry13]

Ntv said:

CAH706 said:

I don’t have an issue with the nominal pay rise in the NHS but I am looking forward to seeing Hancock explain it away later.... wonder if he will bring out the tears again

As an aside, I bumped into a neighbour in the corner shop earlier. She joked about cutting back on the biscuits due to the tax hit coming then in the next breath said it was outrageous that the NHS was only getting a 1% pay rise. She was surprised that I thought it reasonable given they have a nominal pay rise, job security and a pension to look forward to versus others (myself included) who have lost jobs etc. She also genuinely hadn’t considered that more pay might mean an impact elsewhere and that might be her pocket.
Conversation didn’t go any further as I think we both thought it best to get back to discussing biscuits!!

LOL. The unemployed - who are genuinely seeking work - are much greater heroes of the pandemic than the NHS.

It's super competitive out there and not many jobs going around at the moment for people. If you work in Tech then there's plenty of jobs, otherwise it's slim pickings for the last year.

[TV8]

The Behavioural folks have been busy to get the vaccination numbers up. A couple of stand out points - Page 3 "why this is important" - "Clinicians will have the vaccine but need more information on efficacy and safety before they do" - basically, lets injects millions of people to get that data.

Deeper in the the pack and for when dealing younger people - "Don’t be dismissive, the conspiracies are resonating because trust has been lost" Think it might be wider than the youngsters!

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docum...

[Boringvolvodriver]

Just seen that the R number has gone up although the case numbers are going down.

Am I missing something (always possible) but how does that happen?

[hyphen]

CAH706 said:

I don’t have an issue with the nominal pay rise in the NHS...

Is it just for frontline workers, or everyone? As NHS is a huge employer with all kinds of roles and most NHS employees probably had no positive impact on Covid (and less than non-NHS keyworkers...). And they may have already benefited from flashing the badge for vip entry to supermarkets, discounts and so on. Which all those privately employed min wage care home workers and so on didn't get.

Infact we should have perhaps consider separate branding for NHS frontline. So all the kids can be more precise on who they are thanking in their drawings.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 5th March 15:26

[Elysium]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Just seen that the R number has gone up although the case numbers are going down.

Am I missing something (always possible) but how does that happen?

Rt becomes more volatile as cases reduce.

Cases will continue to reduce when Rt < 1. So the result of an increase from say 0.6 to 0.8 will be that cases fall more slowly.

[basherX]

Certainly I could support a rise for front line NHS staff involved in COVID treatment but given we've sacrificed the economy, education and whole swathes of private life to "protect the NHS" and ronnied public finances in the process, it seems a little egregious to now ask for the whole enterprise to be washed down with cash.

Alternatively, I'd be happy to swap the pay rise (read: 35% cut) I've had with the one they're being offered.