Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[redsturgeon]

I think we will see in January following the government sponsored 5 day national super spreader event how close we are to herd immunity.

John

[johnhemming]

...

My case it is a discontinuity in R0.

[XFool]

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer Vice President and expert immunologist, calls bullshit on the prevalence of Covid-19.

Basically, he says the pandemic is over and agrees with a lot of the points made on this thread.

See his talk here: 'lbry.tv/@TheCovidReport:0/Mike-Yeadon-Unlocked-Nov-19-2020:4'

Indeed he does.

And I'm on record, earlier in this thread, of (effectively) calling "bullshit" on Dr. Mike Yeadon.

One of us is wrong.

[Lootman]

I'm aware there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people who are against lockdown, and I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind it.

You don't understand why people might be against governments telling you where you can and can't go, when and in what manner, and criminalise you if you infringe those rules?

No I really don't. We already have lots of laws to cover the areas you describe. You can be criminalised for speeding in your car when it's obviously perfectly safe to exceed the speed limit. It's a criminal offence to walk across railway tracks to get to the opposite platform, even if you can see there are no trains coming. You'd get a criminal record if you kept wandering into your neighbours' gardens and deliberately spreading viruses or diseases that harmed their plants, so why not have laws to help prevent spreading a deadly virus to your fellow humans?

I believe that GS lives in Australia, and there is no doubt in my mind that their lockdown, which basically included a ban on entering or leaving the country, was an excessive intrusion of civil rights. I believe New Zealand did something similar.

I am personally surprised that the Aussies did nor rebel against that as I do not consider Aussies to be a bashful bunch. But for whatever reason they took it lying down, whilst we have seen large anti-lockdown protests in the UK and the US, even though no such travel ban was put in place.

I read somewhere last week that only 11% of UK people fully comply with lockdowns and self-isolation orders from government. So as a practical matter what is really important is not what the rules are, but rather whether they are seen as reasonable and popular enough to warrant adherence.

[johnhemming]

One of us is wrong.

Indeed you are right about that specific point. One of you is wrong.

[XFool]

You don't understand why people might be against governments telling you where you can and can't go, when and in what manner, and criminalise you if you infringe those rules?

No I really don't. We already have lots of laws to cover the areas you describe. You can be criminalised for speeding in your car when it's obviously perfectly safe to exceed the speed limit. It's a criminal offence to walk across railway tracks to get to the opposite platform, even if you can see there are no trains coming. You'd get a criminal record if you kept wandering into your neighbours' gardens and deliberately spreading viruses or diseases that harmed their plants, so why not have laws to help prevent spreading a deadly virus to your fellow humans?

I believe that GS lives in Australia, and there is no doubt in my mind that their lockdown, which basically included a ban on entering or leaving the country, was an excessive intrusion of civil rights. I believe New Zealand did something similar.

I am personally surprised that the Aussies did nor rebel against that as I do not consider Aussies to be a bashful bunch. But for whatever reason they took it lying down, whilst we have seen large anti-lockdown protests in the UK and the US, even though no such travel ban was put in place.

Australia: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

New Zealand: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/

United States: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[Lootman]

No I really don't. We already have lots of laws to cover the areas you describe. You can be criminalised for speeding in your car when it's obviously perfectly safe to exceed the speed limit. It's a criminal offence to walk across railway tracks to get to the opposite platform, even if you can see there are no trains coming. You'd get a criminal record if you kept wandering into your neighbours' gardens and deliberately spreading viruses or diseases that harmed their plants, so why not have laws to help prevent spreading a deadly virus to your fellow humans?

I believe that GS lives in Australia, and there is no doubt in my mind that their lockdown, which basically included a ban on entering or leaving the country, was an excessive intrusion of civil rights. I believe New Zealand did something similar.

I am personally surprised that the Aussies did nor rebel against that as I do not consider Aussies to be a bashful bunch. But for whatever reason they took it lying down, whilst we have seen large anti-lockdown protests in the UK and the US, even though no such travel ban was put in place.

Australia: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

New Zealand: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/

United States: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

You assume those are the only metrics that matter? They are not.

[XFool]

Australia: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

New Zealand: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/

United States: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

You assume those are the only metrics that matter? They are not.

No, they are not. But:

1. These are the metrics we have now, where are those other metrics? We can only usefully compare them if they are currently available.

In fact, I expect these other metrics will indeed become available, in time. Unfortunately, as I recognise they will be wide ranging and extensive, I expect them to only become fully available over the coming decades.

2. Rightly or wrongly, I feel some may think of these "metrics" as simple alternatives: call them A and B

Some may be thinking of A and B as mutually exclusive. That we have a simple choice between A and not B, or B and not A. This would be true if A and B did not overlap at all, I rather doubt that is so. I can't help feeling there is a lot of overlap between A and B. Such that perhaps not A implies not B, rather than, not A implies B.

[XFool]

Study: New Mutation Sped Up Spread of Coronavirus

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201113/study-new-coronavirus-mutation-accelerates-spread

"None of us has any immune defenses against it, so we are prime targets."

[Lootman]

Australia: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

New Zealand: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/

United States: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

You assume those are the only metrics that matter? They are not.

No, they are not. But:

1. These are the metrics we have now, where are those other metrics? We can only usefully compare them if they are currently available.

In fact, I expect these other metrics will indeed become available, in time. Unfortunately, as I recognise they will be wide ranging and extensive, I expect them to only become fully available over the coming decades.

2. Rightly or wrongly, I feel some may think of these "metrics" as simple alternatives: call them A and B

Some may be thinking of A and B as mutually exclusive. That we have a simple choice between A and not B, or B and not A. This would be true if A and B did not overlap at all, I rather doubt that is so. I can't help feeling there is a lot of overlap between A and B. Such that perhaps not A implies not B, rather than, not A implies B.

The other metrics that matter may not be capable of being measured as easily as hospitalisations or deaths. But that does not mean they are not important.

So for instance how do you measure the impact of having fewer civil rights? The weddings and funerals we cannot attend? The friends and family we cannot see? The holidays and adventures we cannot take? The hit to the economy of a lockdown might be easier to measure but still not precise. How do you measure the increase in deaths from other causes that are not getting treated? Or the erosion of mental health. Or the increase in domestic abuse? And so on.

At the risk of repeating myself it isn't just about infections and deaths. It is about all those other issues as well. Which is why I always say this is a political issue and not (just) a scientific issue, although of course we can't go there here.

[jfgw]

One of us is wrong.

Indeed you are right about that specific point. One of you is wrong.

Not if both of you are wrong

Julian F. G. W.

[XFool]

The other metrics that matter may not be capable of being measured as easily as hospitalisations or deaths. But that does not mean they are not important.

So for instance how do you measure the impact of having fewer civil rights? The weddings and funerals we cannot attend? The friends and family we cannot see? The holidays and adventures we cannot take? The hit to the economy of a lockdown might be easier to measure but still not precise. How do you measure the increase in deaths from other causes that are not getting treated? Or the erosion of mental health. Or the increase in domestic abuse? And so on.

Exactly. How do you measure the impact? And that argument can also be turned on its head!

At the risk of repeating myself it isn't just about infections and deaths. It is about all those other issues as well.

Yes. And, to repeat myself, the strategies may not be in simple opposition - what if the one implies the other? What if the most effective strategy for controlling the direct effects of the virus is also the best strategy for causing minimum economic harm? It seems to make sense to me that, if you can control the virus quickly and effectively, you will likely cause minimum collateral, long term damage.

Which is why I always say this is a political issue and not (just) a scientific issue, although of course we can't go there here.

Tell me about it.

[zico]

The other metrics that matter may not be capable of being measured as easily as hospitalisations or deaths. But that does not mean they are not important.

So for instance how do you measure the impact of having fewer civil rights? The weddings and funerals we cannot attend? The friends and family we cannot see? The holidays and adventures we cannot take? The hit to the economy of a lockdown might be easier to measure but still not precise. How do you measure the increase in deaths from other causes that are not getting treated? Or the erosion of mental health. Or the increase in domestic abuse? And so on.

At the risk of repeating myself it isn't just about infections and deaths. It is about all those other issues as well. Which is why I always say this is a political issue and not (just) a scientific issue, although of course we can't go there here.

You're right in saying it's not just about hospitalisation and deaths, but you are wrong in assume it's a choice of freedom/economy v deaths - because the evidence just doesn't support this idea of a trade-off between the two.

There are quite a few success stories around the world - Vietnam, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan and China, but let's look at China - the place where it all started, so the country likely to be worse affected than any other country in the world, because they had less warning than anywhere else.

Our media likes to compare us with Europe and USA, and we hear surprisingly little in our media about China, but that's probably because it's just way too embarrassing to compare the UK with China, and people might ask why they've done so much better than us. They used early strict lockdowns, an effective test, trace and isolate system, strong border controls, and are aiming to eliminate the virus. As a result their economy has grown, daily lives are mostly back to normal, and comparatively few lives have been lost to the virus. They have very few new cases, and when they do, they stamp down hard on it. No trade-offs in China, they just did better than most Western countries in all areas of pandemic handling.

China had an early and very severe lockdown for 9 million people in Wuhan, but as a direct result of their harsh lockdown everyone in Wuhan has been able to return to normal for the last several months, and the other 1,400 million people in China didn't have to endure severe lockdowns.
Chinese have been able to do all the socialising you talk about for many months now, and it's because they took early lockdown measures. Lockdowns delivered freedoms.

Just imagine a China where they'd said "We can't possibly expect a city of 9 million people to stay home, let's wait a bit longer and hope it might all blow over somehow without us needing to take decisive action". They'd have been the same worst-of-all-worlds situation that the UK is in right now, with the virus flaring up in some regions, falling in others, nationwide prohibitions on mixing, plus huge amounts of deaths - almost certainly into the millions.

But they made a decision - and went for early and harsh lockdowns. They also developed effective testing and tracing. And their policies worked. Mainly because they were competent in delivering their policies, but also because they had a clear strategy and they stuck to it. They are also Taking Control of their Borders, with very restrictive checks on people arriving in the country, not only requiring quarantine periods, but also a negative coronavirus test which they administer.

Guess which major country has seen an increase in its GDP in 2020? Yes, China. Expected to be +1.9% in 2020. Compares with our minus 9.8% and USA's minus 4.3%. Trump prioritised the economy over containing the virus and USA economy is in trouble, they have over 250,000 deaths and their daily infections are still on an upwards trend.

The Chinese regime saved many lives, and their economy, and enabled their people to live their lives freely (well, as freely as it gets in China!).
It's deeply ironic that the country which caused the pandemic has done best economically, and also that a nation not notably associated with freedom & human rights has been able to allow its citizens in some respects more freedoms that we in the West have at the moment - all because it dealt effectively with the pandemic.

The Chinese regime are pretty bad on human rights - but they prize competence in government, and we're seeing just how important that is, especially when competence has been all too conspicious by its absence in certain countries.

I'm not holding China up as a shining beacon of light and reason, because if they had more red-tape and "H&S gone mad" food health and safety regulations and standards in the first place, or they'd reacted faster in the first place when the virus was discovered, the virus might well have never escaped from China. I'm just pointing out that once they got into a situation where the virus was widespread (which is the situation we're now in), they took the right action to prioritise lockdowns which damaged the economy short-term, but was hugely beneficial long-term for both the economy and the health and freedom of its citizens.

If China was in a similar situation to us right now, can you really imagine their rulers saying "Let's allow everyone to mingle and travel for a few days for the holidays".

Interesting article below about what's happening now in China, and a quote from it.

“Most Chinese cities were back to business as usual as early as April,” Lupin told me when I asked how things were different now compared to how they were at the time of our last conversation in March. He said he’s spent several months this year in different cities around China after Wuhan’s lockdown ended on April 8.

“People wear masks in transportation hubs and such…but they are out and about, public transportation is packed, and there are long line-ups at entertainment and dining facilities,” he said

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/is ... ontrolled/

[tjh290633]

I wonder if it is spread by dog walkers, or their animals? Many dogs come to you to be petted, albeit at lead's length from their owners. Could they get it on their coats and thus transfer it to humans?

There is something happening which nobody has yet pinned down. Bird droppings even?

TJH

[88V8]

I wonder if it is spread by dog walkers, or their animals? Many dogs come to you to be petted, albeit at lead's length from their owners. Could they get it on their coats and thus transfer it to humans?
There is something happening which nobody has yet pinned down. Bird droppings even?

It is spread as it has always been spread, by aerosol, and peeps not taking the basic precautions of distance.
Aggravated now by sitting in unventilated rooms.
Indoors, ventilation is key. We are smugly safe with the two working fireplaces and copious 'draughts' of our C17 cottage.

We hope to spend Xmas at a country house hotel - same one as last year - but only after we had an exchange about ventilation and agreed in which dining room we would sit (the draughty one with the fireplace) otherwise we would be staying home.

As regards fomite (surface) transmission, it is on the whole a non-event 'In my opinion the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small....' The Lancet
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals ... 73-3099(20)30561-2.pdf This is not to say that all the wiping and sterilising is a total waste of time, it serves as a useful reminder to take care.

But as far as dogs or birds are concerned, just don't let them breathe on you.

V8

[XFool]

NEWS
23/09/2020 12:50 BST | Updated 26/09/2020 09:17 BST

No, 90% Of Coronavirus Tests Are Not 'False Positives' And This Is Why

Huffington Post

Experts explain why a theory doing the rounds about the number of people wrongly diagnosed with Covid-19 is simply not true.

[XFool]

Those who tell us what to do during the pandemic must earn our trust
David Spiegelhalter

The Guardian

Honesty, competence and a willingness to give us all the facts are essential for establishing who to trust

[jfgw]

NEWS
23/09/2020 12:50 BST | Updated 26/09/2020 09:17 BST

No, 90% Of Coronavirus Tests Are Not 'False Positives' And This Is Why

Huffington Post

Experts explain why a theory doing the rounds about the number of people wrongly diagnosed with Covid-19 is simply not true.

If it was true, the number of new cases would follow the total number of test results fairly closely, or would fall in comparison as only the first positive result is counted.

The graphs indicate that, currently, most of the positives are true.


Julian F. G. W.

[johnhemming]

What the article says is much the same as others which is that where there is a low probability that someone being tested has Covid then a higher proportion of positive tests will be false positives and vice versa.

Hence a lot depends upon who is being tested (as well as the number of tests).

[swill453]

Lib Dem landslide, SNP take Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. Tories wiped out.





Scott.