False and misleading claims about Covid

[dealtn]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/14/daily-telegraph-rebuked-over-toby-youngs-herd-immunity-covid-column

Toby Young rebuked over claims regarding herd immunity and prior immunity from colds.

John

Perhaps better to be more careful in your title here.

The rebuke, which from the Press Watchdog (though not on the ISPO site that I can see yet), certainly covers "misleading", but I think it is very careful not to make the claim anything was "false".

From my reading his article's claims about common colds providing immunity, were as much about omission of referral to T-Cells as the reason, not the colds themselves, and that coronavirus protection isn't achieved from rhinovirus colds which make up the majority of what people believe to be "common colds".

Other claims weren't deemed to be false, on the basis, that at the time of publication much of the science was considered "unclear".

I have no idea of how individuals, and sites, expose themselves by "publishing" claims such as has happened here, but a distinction between "false" and "misleading" (and "false and misleading") exists I would say.

[UncleEbenezer]

but what motivates these types is difficult to understand, at least for me.

Perhaps he sees himself as a future Prime Minister?

[XFool]

The Telegraph has declined so far. It’s just a comic these days. No commitment to truth whatsoever.

That's so true. I remember the Telegraph in the 1970s: superb news coverage, for both national and international news. Completely different paper now.

My take on this, though obviously not a Telegraph reader.

I remember 'The Torygraph'! Not my reading, but a long established, serious, weighty journal. That's long gone now, which is why I no longer refer to at as 'The Torygraph'. I am not up on the questions of its ownership, management, etc. but am vaguely aware (I think) that all its old staff were cleared out a while ago.

Also, it must have faced the same challenges as all other such newspapers in the Internet age, they have to find a new business model. The Telegraph seemed to me to chose to go down the Controversialist route - remember James Delingpole was a columnist, before he skipped to Breitbart?

[redsturgeon]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/14/daily-telegraph-rebuked-over-toby-youngs-herd-immunity-covid-column

Toby Young rebuked over claims regarding herd immunity and prior immunity from colds.

John

Perhaps better to be more careful in your title here.

The rebuke, which from the Press Watchdog (though not on the ISPO site that I can see yet), certainly covers "misleading", but I think it is very careful not to make the claim anything was "false".

From my reading his article's claims about common colds providing immunity, were as much about omission of referral to T-Cells as the reason, not the colds themselves, and that coronavirus protection isn't achieved from rhinovirus colds which make up the majority of what people believe to be "common colds".

Other claims weren't deemed to be false, on the basis, that at the time of publication much of the science was considered "unclear".

I have no idea of how individuals, and sites, expose themselves by "publishing" claims such as has happened here, but a distinction between "false" and "misleading" (and "false and misleading") exists I would say.

Thank you for your concern. The title I choose to enable this thread to be a repository for any false or misleading claims about Covid. At no stage do I make claims any particular individual with respect to false claims.

John

[XFool]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/14/daily-telegraph-rebuked-over-toby-youngs-herd-immunity-covid-column

Toby Young rebuked over claims regarding herd immunity and prior immunity from colds.

John

Perhaps better to be more careful in your title here.

From my reading his article's claims about common colds providing immunity, were as much about omission of referral to T-Cells as the reason, not the colds themselves, and that coronavirus protection isn't achieved from rhinovirus colds which make up the majority of what people believe to be "common colds".

If you believe that you'll believe anything! IMO.

[dealtn]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/14/daily-telegraph-rebuked-over-toby-youngs-herd-immunity-covid-column

Toby Young rebuked over claims regarding herd immunity and prior immunity from colds.

John

Perhaps better to be more careful in your title here.

From my reading his article's claims about common colds providing immunity, were as much about omission of referral to T-Cells as the reason, not the colds themselves, and that coronavirus protection isn't achieved from rhinovirus colds which make up the majority of what people believe to be "common colds".

If you believe that you'll believe anything! IMO.

Actually from rereading what I wrote I am the one that needs to be careful! So thank you for your intervention.

What I was trying to convey, and failed, is that the "censure" was for those reasons. I have no idea what Mr Young's thinkings, beliefs, or motivations were. Indeed, despite this being an "opinion" piece (I think) and not a factual one, it appears to no longer be accessible.

So regardless of what was written, and for what purpose, the Press Watchdog is censuring him, and the publisher for "misleading" (and for the reasons I quoted), and hasn't, to my knowledge made any censure for their claims, or opinions, being "false".

[Mike4]

Why should we believe now somebody who has been wrong with every prediction so far?

A rational person won't, but much of the human race is not rational, I notice.

People tend to settle on a belief that suits them, then cast around for supporting evidence. They accept without question stuff that supports their position and reject stuff that doesn't.

Consequently, people who have already decided coronavirus is fake news will lap up Toby Young's newspaper articles.

[bluedonkey]

I have the same question as about Toby Young - why do people do this? What's in it for them? Are they just nutters who become obsessed or is the incentive financial? How does it benefit this woman or anyone to post pictures of empty wards, when with a moment's thought shows corridors are not wards or ICUs?
Arb.

It always makes me think of a line from a children's book - Dr Seuss I think - "Look at me, look at me, look at me now!"

[XFool]

Final word?

How many waves will it take for Britain's lockdown sceptics to finally call it a day?
Marina Hyde

The Guardian

You’d have thought the crisis would give them pause. But then, like the government, they have a hard time learning from their mistakes

[servodude]

Final word?

How many waves will it take for Britain's lockdown sceptics to finally call it a day?
Marina Hyde

The Guardian

You’d have thought the crisis would give them pause. But then, like the government, they have a hard time learning from their mistakes

I read on the internet that the virus stops spreading before a lockdown. They showed that it happened everytime!

Which even if they were right...why not have the lockdown earlier so that the transmission which stops before it stops even sooner?

The psychology around it is fascinating and I can see why people can get subsumed by it. It's a easy mis-selling of hope

In the same way that those who sell the anti-vax agenda for their own gain are the problem (buy this crystal instead), I do think that those who are seeking to profit from this pandemic by carving out a "contrarian position" in the media (or selling lamps and bleach) are not very helpful.
I hope this response taken against Toby Young goes some way towards making them think again about contriving/publishing this bunkum; and possibly it might repair some of the damage they have done in the minds of those they conned (it won't bring back any dead through their actions though)

-sd

[tjh290633]

Final word?

How many waves will it take for Britain's lockdown sceptics to finally call it a day?
Marina Hyde

The Guardian

You’d have thought the crisis would give them pause. But then, like the government, they have a hard time learning from their mistakes

I wonder how many lockdowns it will take, before they realise that lockdown is not the answer?

TJH

[servodude]

TBH I am glad we are hearing dissenting voices. It means that policy is challenged and people are held to account. I’d much rather this than the opposite.

I'm sure there would be a market for Lord Haw Haw t-shirts if he was about these days

Dissent is to be encouraged; scepticism is healthy; misleading conjecture as fact for profit though - that might get you into trouble

-sd

[servodude]

Final word?

How many waves will it take for Britain's lockdown sceptics to finally call it a day?
Marina Hyde

The Guardian

You’d have thought the crisis would give them pause. But then, like the government, they have a hard time learning from their mistakes

I wonder how many lockdowns it will take, before they realise that lockdown is not the answer?

TJH

There is a really good question in that!

I'd go with one if you suppress the virus until the vaccine is rolled out enough? say everyone over 70 jabbed

-sd

[Lootman]

Final word?
How many waves will it take for Britain's lockdown sceptics to finally call it a day?
Marina Hyde

The Guardian

You’d have thought the crisis would give them pause. But then, like the government, they have a hard time learning from their mistakes

I wonder how many lockdowns it will take, before they realise that lockdown is not the answer?

There is a really good question in that! I'd go with one if you suppress the virus until the vaccine it's rolled out enough? say everyone over 70 jabbed

That would be 18 months by my reckoning. So your big idea is to shut the world down for 18 months while we see if you can save the lives of 1 person in 500, or less?

[XFool]

TBH I am glad we are hearing dissenting voices. It means that policy is challenged and people are held to account. I’d much rather this than the opposite.

I'm sure there would be a market for Lord Haw Haw t-shirts if he was about these days

Dissent is to be encouraged; scepticism is healthy; misleading conjecture as fact for profit though - that might get you into trouble

Not really, thankfully (Although I suppose it depends on your definition of “trouble”). If people are so sure of their arguments against whatever this idiot has to say in the ‘graph then they should relish the opportunity to deconstruct whatever nonsense he is spouting, no?

Reality has already done that for us.

[UncleEbenezer]

TBH I am glad we are hearing dissenting voices. It means that policy is challenged and people are held to account. I’d much rather this than the opposite.

On Lemonfool, or in the mainstream media?

Either way, I agree (sorry to disappoint - doubtless I can take issue with you on another topic).

[servodude]

I wonder how many lockdowns it will take, before they realise that lockdown is not the answer?

There is a really good question in that! I'd go with one if you suppress the virus until the vaccine it's rolled out enough? say everyone over 70 jabbed

That would be 18 months by my reckoning. So your big idea is to shut the world down for 18 months while we see if you can save the lives of 1 person in 500, or less?

There are 8,769,122 over 70s in the UK, according to the most recent official data (2018 midpoint, published June 2019 and updated June 2020).

2 million already vaccinated in the UK or thereabouts?

By my reckoning your maths is as bad as your reading comprehension
- or perhaps you're Toby Young?

- sd

[johnhemming]

TBH I am glad we are hearing dissenting voices. It means that policy is challenged and people are held to account. I’d much rather this than the opposite.

On Lemonfool, or in the mainstream media?

In a sense you cannot really isolate out online debates from society as a whole. There is quite a bit of pressure in the Westminster bubble to conform to the accepted truth. The BBC is particularly bad for this.

The difficulty is that very often the accepted truth is in fact right and at times people challenge it not really because they have any facts that warrant challenging it, but because they challenge things.

It is, however, within human nature that debates are how things progress. I can see the logic of the Hegelian dialectic, but actually is is more a process of thought in that people learn more facts and analyse issues in more detail by considering different points relating to an issue.

A good example of this relates as to whether there are new variants of the virus and whether those new variants are more infectious or whether they have a separate immunity so there is no cross immunity between those variants and SARS-Cov-2.

Hence we have material questions as to whether the report that indicated 76% infection rates in Manaus were actually true.

Sadly people tend to be quiet tribal and to attach themselves to one side of the argument or another one, but it remains possible to see debates as a route towards the truth.

After a bit of rummaging around I have now found the IPSO ruling that this thread is about
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-reso ... d=11845-20

The interesting thing to me about the committee ruling here is that

and it was the Committee’s view that readers would understand “immunity” to refer to the presence of antibodies to a particular disease in an individual’s immune system which would offer future protection from that disease.

I think that is clearly wrong. For the committee to conclude that memory T Cell immunity is not immunity and that immunity is only related to antibodies is wrong.

7. The statement was significantly misleading. It misrepresented the nature of immunity and implied that people previously exposed to some common colds might be automatically immune to suffering symptoms and passing on Covid-19 to others. As the publication did not offer to correct this significantly misleading statement, there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).

Again I think the committee is plainly wrong.

10. The statement that cross-reactive T-cells mean “that the population of London is probably approaching herd immunity” was significantly misleading. It was misleading both as to how herd immunity is reached and whether it existed in London; and the inaccuracy had been relied on to support the article’s other arguments, such as the claims that “we can dispense with pointless social distancing measures” and that “the lockdown has done nothing”. As the newspaper did not offer to correct this significantly misleading statement, there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).

We now know that some areas of London (based both on MSOA prevalence testing and on NHS trust hospital admissions) did have herd immunity, but other areas did not have herd immunity. In the light of that information I am unsure that the committee's conclusion is sufficiently well argued. We also know that Eastern outer London had little herd immunity.

I know I was warning people of the probability of a seasonal wave of Covid back in May 2020. However, only the government had the data to predict where this would happen.

[Itsallaguess]

I know I was warning people of the probability of a seasonal wave of Covid back in May 2020.

I'm not quite sure why any 'warnings' would have been necessary, when it was blindingly obvious to anyone paying any interest in this problem that such a seasonal issue was almost guaranteed....who exactly was it that you were 'warning'?

With that said, there really wasn't many people predicting a seasonal winter wave and then declaring it was over in October, which is what you did here -

It remains, however, that

a) in England infections peaked in October

b) it appears that in the Northern Hemisphere regardless of restrictions infections are peaking in October/November

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=361658%20#p361658

It's never made a great deal of sense to me how anyone might sensibly and quite rightly argue that colder seasonal weather was highly likely to help compound many of the issues that seriously affect a highly contagious respiratory disease, but then try to also declare that such a seasonal wave might have actually ended before things even got into the much colder winter months, and given the recent catastrophic issues affecting UK hospitals in recent months, I think it was clearly right to be highly sceptical about those additional claims, and it's since hopefully shown that such scepticism was completely the right approach...

Given this thread title, I suppose the question to now ask is if that was a 'False and misleading claim about Covid'?

Perhaps it might be best, following some posts that I've read elsewhere in recent days, to allow the readers to decide that, rather than make any accusations on that front myself....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

With that said, there really wasn't many people predicting a seasonal winter wave and then declaring it was over in October, which is what you did here -

That is how it appeared at the time.

In the end we in this forum have limited information to go on.

As I have said I make many predictions, not all of them are right. I think it is reasonable for me to explain my analysis and then people can decide if they agree with that analysis or not.

In many ways this site is about investment. With investment people make forecasts. It is, therefore, useful to have a range of forecasts and the reasoning for those forecasts. From that they can make their own decisions. When I make decisions I look at other people's forecasts. I concentrate on those that have reasoning.

It is difficult to allocate a percentage probability to forecasts. Hence I don't, but you can if you wish ask me to bet on the outcome. The odds I give and the sum I am willing to wager will give some guide to how good I think the information is that I am using to make the forecast.

Another thing I got wrong last year was that I expected the price of iron ore to go down. It didn't.

As a consequence I made an investment decision which in retrospect I wish I had not. However, I look at this as a learning experience.

There are really two alternatives

a) I offer my view as to what I think is happening given the information we have at the time ... and the reasoning and analysis behind it or.

b) I keep my forecasts to myself.

This, after all, is a forum.