CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 17)

[JagLover]

Elysium said:

This is quite fascinating. It turns out the media were fully aware of the 'Birthday Cake' incident in Downing Street on the 20th June 2020.

Steven Swinford and Oliver Wright wrote a piece on it in The Times. Rishi Sunak attended. No concerns raised about lockdown rules. We even know that the cake had a Union Jack on it:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-set...

It was always rather hysterical and contrived (cake gate). I would fully agree that Downing street staff shouldn't be having garden parties while they ban everyone else from outdoor gatherings, but wall to wall news coverage of someone being presented with a cake at work on their birthday?, pathetic.

Just shows difference in reporting depending on the moment. June 2020 "a brief break for birthday celebrations before getting on with the work needed" . Jan 2022 "Boris eats cake and laughs at dying grannies"

It is also curious that Sunak is mentioned in the June 2020, no problem here, coverage but not in the 2022 coverage (as far as I am aware)

Edited by JagLover on Friday 28th January 12:51

[bodhi]

JagLover said:

It was always rather hysterical and contrived (cake gate). I would fully agree that Downing street staff shouldn't be having garden parties while they ban everyone else from outdoor gatherings, but wall to wall news coverage of someone being presented with a cake at work on their birthday?, pathetic.

Just shows difference in reporting depending on the moment. June 2020 "a brief break for birthday celebrations before getting on with the work needed" . Jan 2022 "Boris eats cake and laughs at dying grannies"

Edited by JagLover on Friday 28th January 12:47

Must admit I am so over finding out Number 10 might have had a drink or two to unwind - in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure if I'm too bothered that a load of people who had been in the same office for 16 hours a day working on the pandemic response decided to move into the garden afterwards - especially given what I've read about the Public Health Act of 1984 not applying to Number 10 so they could continue with any public health response.

Seems more of a hit job based on the events of 2016 rather than anything that's happened over the last 18 months to me.

[superlightr]

Rufus Stone said:

cb31 said:

g3org3y said:

Will be interesting to see what our JCVI decide are told to say.

Made that statement a bit more accurate

Do you have evidence they have been told what to say previously?

Do you have evidence that you are not an unintelligent twassock?

[vixen1700]

Dirty Dicks is deserted.

[77th Brigade]

superlightr said:

Rufus Stone said:

cb31 said:

g3org3y said:

Will be interesting to see what our JCVI decide are told to say.

Made that statement a bit more accurate

Do you have evidence they have been told what to say previously?

Do you have evidence that you are not an unintelligent twassock?

Only if SAGE do the numbers.

[Rufus Stone]

superlightr said:

Do you have evidence that you are not twassock?

Lovely.

[stitched]

superlightr said:

Rufus Stone said:

cb31 said:

g3org3y said:

Will be interesting to see what our JCVI decide are told to say.

Made that statement a bit more accurate

Do you have evidence they have been told what to say previously?

Do you have evidence that you are not an unintelligent twassock?

TBF whilst I disagree with RS on nearly every point, he does at least post coherently, these fora are intended for debate, otherwise an echo chamber ensues.

[bern]

Rufus Stone said:

cb31 said:

Rufus Stone said:

cb31 said:

g3org3y said:

Will be interesting to see what our JCVI decide are told to say.

Made that statement a bit more accurate

Do you have evidence they have been told what to say previously?

Their statement was very mealy-mouthed, they didn't recommend jabbing kids but left some wiggle room on "balance of potential benefits and harms" and so on. Why would they do that?

Their refusal to then release the meeting minutes as they were not in the public's interest sealed it for me, it absolutely was in the public interest to see more details. They couldn't risk their actual words getting into the public arena as no doubt it went against the government line of jab anything that moves, even if it makes no sense.

That would be a no then.

You really are a sniveling little of a troll aren't you. That's not a question btw just a statement of fact.

If only you were 1% as funny as you thought you were. It's like someone took Alucidnation gave him a lobotomy.

P S. You forgot to add a hilarious emoji at the end of your pointless goading drivel of a post.

[Rufus Stone]

bern said:

You really are a sniveling little of a troll aren't you. That's not a question btw just a statement of fact.

If only you were 1% as funny as you thought you were. It's like someone took Alucidnation gave him a lobotomy.

P S. You forgot to add a hilarious emoji at the end of your pointless goading drivel of a post.

Have you got any proof the JCVI is told what to say by the government?

[bern]

Rufus Stone said:

bern said:

You really are a sniveling little of a troll aren't you. That's not a question btw just a statement of fact.

If only you were 1% as funny as you thought you were. It's like someone took Alucidnation gave him a lobotomy.

P S. You forgot to add a hilarious emoji at the end of your pointless goading drivel of a post.

Have you got any proof the JCVI is told what to say by the government?

Nope, plenty of proof that you're a sniveling little of a troll though.

[thewarlock]

Watch out, internet hardman over here!

[Vanden Saab]

Xerstead said:

johnboy1975 said:

Anyone who was a reinfection wasn't counted as a case. These will retrospectively be counted, and all added at the end of the month (AIUI)

It would be amusing if it didn't move the dial much. But with 16m confirmed infections, I think we are looking at between 320k and 1.6m confirmed reinfections. Or "possible" reinfections I should say

Will this be a good metric to quantify the reinfection rate? Sounds pretty comprehensive and better than the 1500 sampled in the react study I mentioned earlier. (Albeit omicron has a higher reinfection rate, so you couldn't take it as gospel. And against that, I'd imagine the vast majority if reinfections were omicron, so perhaps we can, after all?)

As Grumbledoak says, the data analysis will be interesting

I'm surprised they weren't already being counted in the totals.
On the surface it seems a sensible change but my inner cynic is stirring. This change comes with the note that this will show, on paper, a step up in cases. I'm doubting the media will miss the opportunity for more scary headlines.
What are the likely effects on the data?
New cases still counted as new cases, so no change(?)
'Within 28 days' etc. Still the same.
Total number of infections will goes up.
Assuming reinfections are less severe than the first the percentage of serious outcomes will decrease.

Is there anything else to be expected?

Cases will go up, a lot, at the moment once you had a positive test that was it, you were done. Now if you catch it again you will be counted again. If 50% of people are now catching it for the second time that is a 50% increase in cases. On the positive side the IFR and CFR along with the hospitalization rates will plummet.

[Vanden Saab]

JagLover said:

Elysium said:

This is quite fascinating. It turns out the media were fully aware of the 'Birthday Cake' incident in Downing Street on the 20th June 2020.

Steven Swinford and Oliver Wright wrote a piece on it in The Times. Rishi Sunak attended. No concerns raised about lockdown rules. We even know that the cake had a Union Jack on it:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-set...

It was always rather hysterical and contrived (cake gate). I would fully agree that Downing street staff shouldn't be having garden parties while they ban everyone else from outdoor gatherings, but wall to wall news coverage of someone being presented with a cake at work on their birthday?, pathetic.

Just shows difference in reporting depending on the moment. June 2020 "a brief break for birthday celebrations before getting on with the work needed" . Jan 2022 "Boris eats cake and laughs at dying grannies"

It is also curious that Sunak is mentioned in the June 2020, no problem here, coverage but not in the 2022 coverage (as far as I am aware)

Edited by JagLover on Friday 28th January 12:51

DomCum did not mention it in his 'leak' as his people are now in No11 and Sunak is his man. It seems that both front runners for the PM slot have taken a bit of a knock recently. I still maintain that for all of us who want a return to normal Boris is the man.

[M1AGM]

bern said:

Rufus Stone said:

bern said:

You really are a sniveling little of a troll aren't you. That's not a question btw just a statement of fact.

If only you were 1% as funny as you thought you were. It's like someone took Alucidnation gave him a lobotomy.

P S. You forgot to add a hilarious emoji at the end of your pointless goading drivel of a post.

Have you got any proof the JCVI is told what to say by the government?

Nope, plenty of proof that you're a sniveling little of a troll though.

That’s a bit unnecessary chap.

He knows you wont have proof, its called goading, ignore or don’t make statements of fact you cant back up.

[JagLover]

Vanden Saab said:

DomCum did not mention it in his 'leak' as his people are now in No11 and Sunak is his man. It seems that both front runners for the PM slot have taken a bit of a knock recently. I still maintain that for all of us who want a return to normal Boris is the man.

Not just him as someone doesn't need to "leak" something that was reported in a national newspaper at the time. Rather suspicious that Sunak not mentioned almost as if the point is Bojo out Sunak in by any means necessary.....

[superlightr]

Vanden Saab said:

Cases will go up, a lot, at the moment once you had a positive test that was it, you were done. Now if you catch it again you will be counted again. If 50% of people are now catching it for the second time that is a 50% increase in cases. On the positive side the IFR and CFR along with the hospitalization rates will plummet.

yep the govt will already know the results of the recording changes they want to make - but what is the spin/narritive they want to push?

Cases up? - govt want more scared people and thus more powers?

or as Vandan Saab said

CFR down - back slapping time, with the narrative that we are not at the end of the war but at the beginning of the end of the covid war or some such spin Borris wants to put out to get his popularity up and try to wind back the fear and get back to more normal.

I hope its the 2nd

Edited by superlightr on Friday 28th January 13:46

[Carl_Manchester]

vixen1700 said:

Dirty Dicks is deserted.

I would usually say 'off to Bar 9 then' but alas...............

[nick30]

superlightr said:

Vanden Saab said:

Cases will go up, a lot, at the moment once you had a positive test that was it, you were done. Now if you catch it again you will be counted again. If 50% of people are now catching it for the second time that is a 50% increase in cases. On the positive side the IFR and CFR along with the hospitalization rates will plummet.

yep the govt will already know the results of the recording changes they want to make - but what is the spin/narritive they want to push?

Cases up? - govt want more scared people and thus more powers?

or as Vandan Saab said

CFR down - back slapping time, with the narrative that we are not at the end of the war but at the beginning of the end of the covid war or some such spin Borris wants to put out to get his popularity up and try to wind back the fear and get back to more normal.

I hope its the 2nd

Edited by superlightr on Friday 28th January 13:46

As it’s everywhere now people need to stop testing pointlessly and yes hopefully Boris can turn this around because I don’t fancy a dictatorship thanks

[SWoll]

bodhi said:

JagLover said:

It was always rather hysterical and contrived (cake gate). I would fully agree that Downing street staff shouldn't be having garden parties while they ban everyone else from outdoor gatherings, but wall to wall news coverage of someone being presented with a cake at work on their birthday?, pathetic.

Just shows difference in reporting depending on the moment. June 2020 "a brief break for birthday celebrations before getting on with the work needed" . Jan 2022 "Boris eats cake and laughs at dying grannies"

Edited by JagLover on Friday 28th January 12:47

Must admit I am so over finding out Number 10 might have had a drink or two to unwind - in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure if I'm too bothered that a load of people who had been in the same office for 16 hours a day working on the pandemic response decided to move into the garden afterwards - especially given what I've read about the Public Health Act of 1984 not applying to Number 10 so they could continue with any public health response.

Seems more of a hit job based on the events of 2016 rather than anything that's happened over the last 18 months to me.

This. Absolutely laughable. Is he a lying clown that could easily be argued is unfit for office? Quite probably. Are we better off with him in position than with pretty much any of the possible alternatives people are suggesting? 100%

Be careful what you wish for in my view.

[stitched]

Rufus Stone said:

bern said:

You really are a sniveling little of a troll aren't you. That's not a question btw just a statement of fact.

If only you were 1% as funny as you thought you were. It's like someone took Alucidnation gave him a lobotomy.

P S. You forgot to add a hilarious emoji at the end of your pointless goading drivel of a post.

Have you got any proof the JCVI is told what to say by the government?

From the JVCI statement, again.
Government advisers are currently reviewing evidence on the risk of COVID-19 in children and young people considered clinically extremely vulnerable. Once this review has reported, the finding will be considered by JCVI and will inform further guidance.
Which would seem to indicate waiting to be told what to say.