Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[XFool]

So how seriously are we expected to take "Mike" and his writing?
Just to bang on further with that "no second wave" theme, I leave you with this:

Daily New Cases in Sweden

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Ohhhhh we're only talking about cases [amorphous number] not deaths!

Deaths are currently lower than in the first wave? So that's good, no? As an aside: not sure how you get deaths without cases...

As someone said some time ago, there are more cases because there is more testing. About the few coherent things he's uttered, though the way he expressed it was pretty weird.

To quote from that Huffington Post article again:

"Hospital admissions due to coronavirus are at their highest levels since June. You do not go to hospital with a severe case of the false positives."

Will the next claim be that doctors are now mostly "mis-diagnosing" COVID-19 hospital cases? Would seem strange to me that, since the Spring and all that experience, they have since collectively lost their diagnostic abilities. But who knows!

Take a look at that Sweden data again and scan past the cases and look at the chart of total deaths. Then click the log button, then try to figure out where the second wave is?

Uh? On a log display of total deaths? I suppose, as with accountancy, anything can be made to disappear if required.

The number of deaths may double once or twice from here, but we know pretty much for certain there will NOT be 50 million deaths [spanish flu] from this virus.

Whoever said there would be? Did the Falkland's War, or even the Vietnam war, never happen, because the casualties were less than WW1?

[johnhemming]

It may well be illogical, but is it any more implausible than the argument we are currently undergoing a 'pseudemic' - because we must now all be COVID-19 immune, due to the earlier wave combined with immunity from other coronaviruses?

These are all mathematical questions which depend in part on uncertain variables. However, there is evidence that susceptibility was not 100% at the start hence the government modelling is materially wrong.

My view is that we are in a seasonal phase (I don't mind calling it a wave even though it is not a wave mathematically) It is clear that in the UK infection numbers peaked in October and are now going down.

I think that will continue to be the case almost regardless of what restrictions the government operate.

[XFool]

It may well be illogical, but is it any more implausible than the argument we are currently undergoing a 'pseudemic' - because we must now all be COVID-19 immune, due to the earlier wave combined with immunity from other coronaviruses?

My view is that we are in a seasonal phase (I don't mind calling it a wave even though it is not a wave mathematically) It is clear that in the UK infection numbers peaked in October and are now going down.

How do you know they are falling? Please don't quote the test results - because they are mostly 'false'.

[johnhemming]

It may well be illogical, but is it any more implausible than the argument we are currently undergoing a 'pseudemic' - because we must now all be COVID-19 immune, due to the earlier wave combined with immunity from other coronaviruses?

My view is that we are in a seasonal phase (I don't mind calling it a wave even though it is not a wave mathematically) It is clear that in the UK infection numbers peaked in October and are now going down.

How do you know they are falling? Please don't quote the test results - because they are mostly 'false'.

From the visits to GPs and hospital admissions. It is reasonable to assume that the proportion that are asymptomatic is not varying sufficiently to affect the ratio between total infections and symptomatic infections sufficiently to make this a false assumption. In any event we don't really care about asymptomatic infections.

[XFool]

I was just pointing out that coronaviruses make up only around 10% of common colds. I have no idea what was said by the "author" you are attacking, but your "attack" doesn't hold logically if how you seek to dismiss it is by arguing people get more than one cold in their lifetime, therefore it can't be true that getting a coronavirus gives (some) protection from other coronaviruses.

It may well be illogical, but is it any more implausible than the argument we are currently undergoing a 'pseudemic' - because we must now all be COVID-19 immune, due to the earlier wave combined with immunity from other coronaviruses?

Plus it is now all down to the scientific and medical establishment being totally incompetent (or even corrupt if you believe "Mike").

You are arguing with the wrong person. I certainly don't make those claims, and I am not aware of anyone that actually does. Frankly I am cautious of using terms such as "all", "totally", "must", etc.

I am happy to believe there is a spectrum of opinion on most topics, but it is rare to experience someone inhabiting the absolute extremes like you suggest.

I agree! Which is exactly what tripped my initial scepticism in this very case.

Maybe in this instance they exist and I am unaware of it, but I suspect you might be just as guilty of hyperbole in how you describe their position which you clearly don't agree with.

Have you heard "Mike" on Vallance? What's that about?

[dealtn]

Have you heard "Mike" on Vallance? What's that about?

No idea who, or what, you are referring to. Sorry.

[XFool]

Have you heard "Mike" on Vallance? What's that about?

No idea who, or what, you are referring to. Sorry.

OK. Then you haven't.

[johnhemming]

Have you heard "Mike" on Vallance? What's that about?

No idea who, or what, you are referring to. Sorry.

OK. Then you haven't.

I have heard what he says. I don't myself think it helps the debate really. It would be good if there was a proper debate by people who understand the scientific issues, but the "debate" tends to be relatively shallow which does not help getting to good conclusions.

[XFool]

No idea who, or what, you are referring to. Sorry.

OK. Then you haven't.

I have heard what he says. I don't myself think it helps the debate really. It would be good if there was a proper debate by people who understand the scientific issues, but the "debate" tends to be relatively shallow which does not help getting to good conclusions.

My feeling is, and always has been, that if the "debate" were genuinely scientific, it wouldn't be conducted in such a matter.

It seems no surprise to me that he appears shut out of direct access to normal, everyday, reliable media. e.g. The BBC(!).
Of course, this is described as "censorship" etc.

[XFool]

...Talking of alternative debates, I have noticed an interesting and hopefully more respectably scientific, evolutionary based case, justifying continuing strict measures. This would be directly opposed to those telling us it no longer matters.

Coronavirus is evolving. Whether it gets deadlier or not may depend on us

The Guardian

"Letting the virus that causes Covid-19 circulate more-or-less freely is dangerous not only because it risks overwhelming hospitals and so endangering lives unnecessarily, but also because it could delay the evolution of the virus to a more benign form and potentially even make it more lethal."

[johnhemming]

It seems no surprise to me that he appears shut out of direct access to normal, everyday, reliable media. e.g. The BBC(!).
Of course, this is described as "censorship" etc.

Obviously if he wishes to use other publishers to make defamatory comments they will resist reporting the allegations.

To be fair I picked up the key points before I heard him make them (and before he made them publicly). The questions as to what susceptibility actually is etc are quite obvious and it is rather sad that the government are so far out on these.

My experience in running public sector organisations was generally that the experts did tend to know their stuff. I think the main problem with Sage is the wrong type of specialisms.

[XFool]

The questions as to what susceptibility actually is etc are quite obvious and it is rather sad that the government are so far out on these.

You say "the government" is far out in these matters, but presumably you mean SAGE?

I think the main problem with Sage is the wrong type of specialisms.

What, in your view, would be the right type of specialist? Surely SAGE gets input from different sources (e.g. Neil Ferguson doesn't possess the only model!) and even specialisms. For instance, Vallance was a physician, medical researcher and clinical pharmacologist; Whitty a physician and epidemiologist who has experience in epidemic control (Ebola), plus scientists can be in contact with others all over the world.

[zico]

All the evidence we've seen so far supports the theory that the virus is mostly spread through people interacting.
Before the first lockdown, infections increased massively.
During the first lockdown, they decreased massively.
When we had "Eat Out to Spread it About", schools went back and restrictions were relaxed, infections went up.
When mild lockdown (first set of Tiered restrictions) were put in, infections still went up, because the restrictions weren't tough enough.
Second lockdown is resulting in infections going down.

I don't see why there are attempts to develop alternative theories, when we have so much evidence to support the simple theory.

[johnhemming]

It is obvious that the virus has to be spread through some form of interaction between people. However, if you are looking at what causes changes in numbers of infections you need to get the timing right. Additionally you should look at comparisons between different situations (different countries and different US states).

It is from those possible to see patterns. I have done this, for example, comparing England to Sweden and comparisons can be done between different NHS regions.

[johnhemming]

What, in your view, would be the right type of specialist?

One would expect sufficient immunologists to be able to discuss the scientific issues from different perspectives. There is always a danger when there is a false sort of certainty.

[XFool]

Hospitals in England told to prepare for Covid vaccine rollout in 10 days' time

The Guardian

Exclusive: NHS could receive first deliveries of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as soon as 7 December

[Mike4]

In any event we don't really care about asymptomatic infections.

Is it March 2020 again?

Surely we care enormously about asymptomatic infections because they transmit infection unknowingly.

[servodude]

What, in your view, would be the right type of specialist?

One would expect sufficient immunologists to be able to discuss the scientific issues from different perspectives. There is always a danger when there is a false sort of certainty.

e.g. ridiculous assertions of lockdowns in the UK always being just too late to affect anything? Eh?

-sd

[Itsallaguess]

It looks like there's some movement on the Vitamin D front -

More than 2.5 million vulnerable people in England will be offered free Vitamin D supplements this winter.

The vitamin, which helps to keep bones, teeth and muscles healthy, will be delivered to people who are clinically extremely vulnerable, and care homes. Vitamin D can be absorbed through the skin when exposed to sunlight - but the elderly and those with dark skin need topping up.

The pandemic means many more people than normal have spent time indoors. The groups most at risk are residents in care homes, and people with serious health conditions which mean they have spent extended periods shielding from the virus - a total of 2.7 million people.

Health officials say that even in a normal winter, everyone should take 10 micrograms of Vitamin D a day between October and March - and it's particularly important this year because of coronavirus.

Scottish and Welsh governments, and Northern Ireland's Public Health Agency issued similar advice during lockdown. But there is no evidence that vitamin D protects against or treats Covid-19, although health officials have been asked to go back over the existing research.

All care homes in England will receive enough supplements for their residents, the government says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55108613

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Mike4]

It looks like there's some movement on the Vitamin D front -

More than 2.5 million vulnerable people in England will be offered free Vitamin D supplements this winter.

The vitamin, which helps to keep bones, teeth and muscles healthy, will be delivered to people who are clinically extremely vulnerable, and care homes. Vitamin D can be absorbed through the skin when exposed to sunlight - but the elderly and those with dark skin need topping up.

The pandemic means many more people than normal have spent time indoors. The groups most at risk are residents in care homes, and people with serious health conditions which mean they have spent extended periods shielding from the virus - a total of 2.7 million people.

Health officials say that even in a normal winter, everyone should take 10 micrograms of Vitamin D a day between October and March - and it's particularly important this year because of coronavirus.

Scottish and Welsh governments, and Northern Ireland's Public Health Agency issued similar advice during lockdown. But there is no evidence that vitamin D protects against or treats Covid-19, although health officials have been asked to go back over the existing research.

All care homes in England will receive enough supplements for their residents, the government says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55108613

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Thanks for the report. I think it is deeply unhelpful of the BBC in their article to say vitamin D "helps to keep bones, teeth and muscles healthy" whilst failing to mention the correlation between poor vitamin D levels and severe COVID-19 in hospitalised patients.

Keeping "bones, teeth and muscles healthy" is nothing to do with why vitamin D supplements are being distributed, which the article seems to imply. Vitamin D is being sent out because there is good evidence that low vitamin D levels compromise the immune system's ability to fight off SARS-CoV-2.