Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[XFool]

CV disproportionately affects people aged over 50. That is the boomer generation which currently has the loudest voice and greatest economic and political power.

That may be the case, but it's probably a minor driver of the reaction to the pandemic because:

Very well put. Congratulations.

Earlier in the thread I started a post to address, point by point, a previous poster who was making the: "It's all a fuss about nothing" argument. But I grew weary and gave up - it was all the same old arguments. Anyway, I think you have done a much better job that I could have.

[Gilgongo]

Gilongo's own source, the second he quoted, contradicts his first point (and supports my assertion) and I quote:

"The CDC has changed the IFR values of Covid-19 into age-specific estimates, which are now very low at 0.003% for 0–19 years, 0.02% for 20–49 years, 0.5% for 50–69 years, and 5.4% for 70+ years."

You need to read the rest of the article, which goes on to explain why the CDC was wrong in making that change. Along the way it explains in detail the point I was making about infection rates. But no matter.

To be clear, I'm not saying you are wrong in your assertion that the reaction to Covid has been exaggerated by some people in some circumstances. Nor is the data easy to interpret (and our understanding of it improves and changes over time). For example, the evidence for transmission from surfaces now seems to indicate its not as much of an issue as first thought. But faced with a pathogen that we didn't (and still don't really) know much about, you would expect some overreactions. The virus could have been as infectious or deadly as, say, Ebola, or more rapidly mutating or otherwise more evasive or damaging in other ways like Zika - leaving people blind, deaf or needing long-term care even if the disease itself was not deadly. Indeed in theory Covid could still mutate in those ways. But the precautionary principle is something that mature societies value for that reason.

On a separate point you imply that in the UK at least, we have a government playing to the gallery of an over-reacting scientific and public community whose judgement as been warped by social media and excessive risk aversion. But I would find it hard to argue that the government has always done the bidding of their scientific advisers, or that their policies to counter the virus have met with universal approval even within their own ranks. This indicates to me that in fact a balance has been constantly sought between social and economic damage and the consequences of an unchecked airborne pathogen against which we have had no single defence.

So in the spirit of mutual understanding, I remain curious as to where your views on this issue come from.

[johnhemming]

On a separate point you imply that in the UK at least, we have a government playing to the gallery of an over-reacting - deleted -
public community whose judgement as been warped - more deleted -

Editing the above so I agree with the point referred to. I think the problem is not so much the response from the scientific community (which is heterogeneous), but the response from the public and a lot of the problems arise from the reporting of the issue more generally and particularly in the media.

The media will always simplify issues and write them up in a way to excite their audience. Some do this in a more extreme manner and some less.

That is part of their job (in the sense that they need to encourage people to consume their products).

The key scientific uncertainties such as susceptibility have not actually been debated in any substantial way.

Hence people have come to their conclusions (which they tend then to stick to regardless of future evidence) on the basis of skewed reporting and the politicians respond to that.

[servodude]

- and at this point unfortunately regularly ignored as this has become an "opinion" or "culture war" issue for many

Justifiably -- given the twisting of facts illustrated in the quote. Not to mention the Tory Government, Austerity, Brexit and housing unaffordability which that particular generation have also bequeathed to their children and grandchildren.

Funny SD, usually we are on the same side of the argument....

GS

There's plenty of COVID data that can viewed outwith the lenses of manipulating agendas: it's a global pandemic and quite unsuited to viewing in a parochial manner

I'm quite happy to say that:
- I don't like what I see from it
- I don't like "lockdowns" (I'd go as far to say I f***"Ng can't stand them)
- and I don't like discounting other's lives to make mine more comfortable

I don't believe there's any number of wrongs compound to make a right
- that includes pretending (for those that do) that restricting humans interacting doesn't slow the spread of this virus

There have been great steps this year to:
- improve treatment
- track cases
- develop a vaccine (and pretend that sanctioning for emergency use counts as approval from some quarters )

but let's not pretend that if we stopped actively trying to suppress this that there wouldn't be further hundreds of thousands avoidably dead in a short few months
- none of the evidence stacks that way (unless you're Mike Yeadon or one of the others profiting from the FUD.. yeah, sue me if that's in any way contentious)

I'm not going to get to see my family this Xmas (tickets cancelled and mostly refunded)
- that's upsetting
- though less so than not knowing when I might actually be able to do so
But I accept it helps everyone if anyone does the right thing, so I'll accept it and hope that things improve quickly

The fight is with this virus, or it should be
- still a shite time though

-sd

[XFool]

The key scientific uncertainties such as susceptibility have not actually been debated in any substantial way.

I just 'googled' (not) "susceptibility and COVID19" - I was going to count the results, but there were so many I didn't bother.

I'm not sure whether or not to exclude this one: Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201199

Hence people have come to their conclusions (which they tend then to stick to regardless of future evidence) on the basis of skewed reporting and the politicians respond to that.

John, as you yesterday referenced the website of The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine I browsed the site and articles by Prof. Carl Heneghan (who I admit I have been having some doubts about). I am finding his view somewhat difficult to understand. Possibly unfairly, but it sounds to me as if he is parlaying the: "It isn't a second wave, because it's not the right kind of wave." argument into: "It's not a pandemic, because it's not the right kind of pandemic."

"The data support the theory that the current epidemic is a late seasonal effect in the Northern Hemisphere on the back of a mild ILI season." Posted in April 2020

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-deaths-compared-with-swine-flu/

(Quotes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle this time, instead of Mark Twain!)

If I am correct in understanding his view, it is "not a pandemic" because it is a "late seasonal effect in the Northern Hemisphere on the back of a mild ILI* season". So, we have a new, highly infection, potentially deadly, respiratory illness that has rapidly spread all over the globe. But, because it is a respiratory illness** (affecting disproportionally the aged or infirm) it "isn't a pandemic" - and anyway, nobody really seems to know what is or is not "a pandemic". I'm puzzled.

Can you explain how this opinion helps us?


* Influenza Like Illness

** Though it was noted early on that COVID-19 seems to have bodily effects that go beyond the usual respiratory illnesses.

[servodude]

Can you explain how this opinion helps us?

Doyle, Twain?

Someone here (possibly John, can't remember - how long is this thread!?) has previously quoted Carroll (Dodgson) with respect to the use of "words" in a COVID context
- "The question is which is to be master—that's all."

- great quote, great passage - one of my faves if I'm honest (which is why it stuck in my mind when use)

- shite argument wrt managing a pandemic though! next thing they'll be redefining "herd immunity" for spin

- sd

[johnhemming]

The key scientific uncertainties such as susceptibility have not actually been debated in any substantial way.

I just 'googled' (not) "susceptibility and COVID19" - I was going to count the results, but there were so many I didn't bother.

I'm not sure whether or not to exclude this one: Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world

The issue of Susceptibility (in the sense of who might catch the virus) is one where you have simply decided to follow Sage's conclusions that in September 90% plus of the population were still susceptible to Covid.

Whereas I would be willing to accept that this was possible when we knew little about the virus (even if unlikely), it should have been open to the government to consider that it was possibly not true.

I have not seen more recent figures from Sage, but they clearly think something like 50% of the population are still susceptible. Otherwise their policy proposals would be different.

[johnhemming]

- "The question is which is to be master—that's all."

This was part of my point that we should be willing to use dictionary definitions of words rather than random made up definitions.

[johnhemming]

Can you explain how this opinion helps us?

I am happy to defend my own statements or to discuss what the facts are, but I am not supporting anyone for public office so I see no reason why I should defend someone else's statements.

[XFool]

Can you explain how this opinion helps us?

Doyle, Twain?

Wasn't there a quote from Mark Twain on the Lockdown Sceptics page originally referenced on here?

[XFool]

Can you explain how this opinion helps us?

I am happy to defend my own statements or to discuss what the facts are, but I am not supporting anyone for public office so I see no reason why I should defend someone else's statements.

I had the impression, possibly wrongly, that you were aligned with his views.

[XFool]

- "The question is which is to be master—that's all."

This was part of my point that we should be willing to use dictionary definitions of words rather than random made up definitions.

I just looked up 'pandemic' in my Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Eighth edition 1990).

It says: pandemic adj. & n -adj. (of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world -n. a pandemic disease. [Gk pandēmos (as PAN-, + Gk dēmos people]

I assume Carl Heneghan, at least, would not agree.

[XFool]

Meanwhile: https://lockdownsceptics.org

“Mask Exempt” Lanyards

"I have a reasonable excuse for not wearing a face nappy.

I am a Hayekian Liberal and I believe it would unduly curtail my olfactory and gustatory freedom.

Thank you for your understanding."

Whew! Thank goodness it isn't 'political'.

[swill453]

I have not seen more recent figures from Sage, but they clearly think something like 50% of the population are still susceptible.

I'd be surprised if they think it's as low as that.

Scott.

[sunnyjoe]

Meanwhile: https://lockdownsceptics.org

“Mask Exempt” Lanyards

"I have a reasonable excuse for not wearing a face nappy.

I am a Hayekian Liberal and I believe it would unduly curtail my olfactory and gustatory freedom.

Thank you for your understanding."

Whew! Thank goodness it isn't 'political'.

https://www.teepublic.com/en-gb/mask/66 ... rich-hayek

[tjh290633]

There was a comment on Any Questions this lunchtime to the effect that, because we had a very mild influenza season in 2019, many older people survived that year who subsequently fell victim to Covid-19.

I have said before that I find it odd that of my many elderly friends, I lost a considerable number last year and relatively much fewer this year. I am not aware of any of them having been victims of either flu or CV-19.

TJH

[XFool]

Coronavirus updates: Fauci expects 'drastic' restrictions in some areas; model projects more than 500,000 US deaths by April

MSN News

[johnhemming]

Can you explain how this opinion helps us?

I am happy to defend my own statements or to discuss what the facts are, but I am not supporting anyone for public office so I see no reason why I should defend someone else's statements.

I had the impression, possibly wrongly, that you were aligned with his views.

Whether I agree with him on some things or not (and I probably agree with him more about Covid than most) I am not in a position where I think there is any merit in me defending any particular way he has expressed himself.

If he were standing for public office and I were supporting him then that position may shift. However, he isn't.

I am personally interested in understanding what the true situation is with Covid-19. I find it useful to discuss that issue. I don't expect another wave of infection now in the UK until the seasonal wave that will start in the second half of next year. We can debate whether or not it is worth calling that a wave, but it does not really help.

What I expect to happen is that gradually restrictions will be released. The government will be surprised that nothing much kicks off in terms of infection. However, I don't expect anything material to kick off even over Xmas.

[swill453]

However, I don't expect anything material to kick off even over Xmas.

It's more likely to kick off 10-15 days after Xmas.

Scott.

[johnhemming]

How shall we measure this then to work out who is right?