Coronavirus

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
Check out the report, fixedspool. I can only go on what the scientific consensus is. You're right that if it had been left alone we'd be in a different place. I suspect we disagree on how good that place would be, with coronavirus moving unchecked through the nation for at least 9 months.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
Check out the report, fixedspool. I can only go on what the scientific consensus is. You're right that if it had been left alone we'd be in a different place. I suspect we disagree on how good that place would be, with coronavirus moving unchecked through the nation for at least 9 months.
I don't think it would have moved unchecked for 9 months.
It almost went away over the summer, and started to go just before the spring lockdown, and has only come back in the autumn.
Very much like flu does.
In fact it has only become more prevalent as we have taken more measures against it.
I'm not sure there would have been much difference just now, but it should be reduced over the rest of the winter because of the measures in place just now.
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
890
Your almost certainly right. the whole western world is following a script to deprive you of your livelihoods, liberty and independence but few on here can see it but instead prattle on amongst themselves over past event, arguements re figures, and general minutia which is completely pointless.
They take no trouble at all to see the many other views out there by people who have some idea what's going on. Can't be bothered,instead open the gates of the sheep pens and let me get it. The great re-set is being openly mentioned now and now, blinking out into the daylight, the bland, boring Biden your new leader of the 'free' world,, except there is nothing free about it whatsoever. He's just a front man who can barely string a sentence together. Beware what you wish for!!!!
I’m sure like me you’ve done everything asked of you? But that shouldn’t stop us, trusting our instincts that something ain’t right?
When I see the pattern being followed throughout the world such as sticking folk in care homes even though it goes against all reason and their otherwise strict measures about even traveling in a car? You have to wonder if they’re all that stupid or was following a plan? This is when propaganda would have us believe in mass graves in every town and crematoriums expected to struggle.
Anyone who doesn’t think that Media doesn’t use propaganda is having themselves on. It’s like reading a newspaper that’s been in court and lost several times for lying and expecting them to start telling the truth?
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,815
Reaction score
1,477
The government scientists' projections show that, without the 'cure' of measures, up to 1.5 million people would die from the virus. Projections yes, but you can't look at the people killed by the cure and conclude we should not cure, without factoring in what those measures are protecting us FROM.
Dunno where he gets 1.5M from. Most estimate the true mortality rate at between 0.5% and 0.75% and that would put total UK deaths at between 300k and 450k.
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
890
I don't think it would have moved unchecked for 9 months.
It almost went away over the summer, and started to go just before the spring lockdown, and has only come back in the autumn.
Very much like flu does.
In fact it has only become more prevalent as we have taken more measures against it.
I'm not sure there would have been much difference just now, but it should be reduced over the rest of the winter because of the measures in place just now.
There are some startling graphs of each country that mandated the use of masks and so there was the big initial spike and then in every case as it went down and flat lined, in every case it went back up from the mask mandates?
Belgium and Denmark I think were two that didn’t do this and the graphs were in stark contrast.
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,815
Reaction score
1,477
Fixed it for ya. :D:):D:):D:)
Tory Bliar was Labour? I thought he was just part of the "big plan" to ensure 40 years and counting of neo-liberal rule in the UK. It took half a century to sort out the true left which was briefly popular post war and is now safely confined to Scotland, but we now seem to be back on track after that minor aberration in UK politics with decades of centre right / right governments ahead of us.

Brown was a hiccup so he had to be ditched asap.

In general though, yes, you are right. Thank you for the correction.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,252
Reaction score
655
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
Check out the report, fixedspool. I can only go on what the scientific consensus is. You're right that if it had been left alone we'd be in a different place. I suspect we disagree on how good that place would be, with coronavirus moving unchecked through the nation for at least 9 months.

"Scientific Consensus", eh?

Is this the report you keep referring to, whilst failing to take into account legitimate criticism of Sage by proper scientists?

This is your smoking gun? :


I just found an interesting SAGE report. If you believe it (I've no reason not to, but I know some people don't like SAGE), the forecast excess deaths as a result of lockdown - not covid, so things like cancer - are higher than the forecast excess deaths from covid. Much higher.
...

Well, anyone familiar with modelling outputs will realise that "smoking" is most definitely involved...

As in, "I would love an ounce of what they're smoking"*... :rolleyes:

As you know for a fact, even the editors of the British Medical Journal caution against conflicted views, and note that folk in Sage are actually conflicted!

Besides, have you actually read it?

If so, do you not see that it's all based on gobbldygook modelling, and the caveats are huge.
Perhaps you will have overlooked this crucial bit which confirms, if need be, that they have absolutely no clue what they're on about:


"The range of estimates for total excess deaths range from an additional 78,000 (Scenario 1) to 28,000 fewer excess deaths (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario.

• The range of estimates for total QALY impact range from an additional 586,000 (Scenario 1) to 190,000 fewer QALY impact (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario. The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 is 135,000 excess deaths and 776,000 QALYs."





*Note to the SFF fascistii, please don't do a Stormtrooper and report on me: it's meant to be just a joke, and last time I checked there was supposed to be"free speach"!
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
Dunno where he gets 1.5M from. Most estimate the true mortality rate at between 0.5% and 0.75% and that would put total UK deaths at between 300k and 450k.
Wouldn't it disproportionately affect old people and skew those figures? Maths isn't my strong point.... There are 12m over 65s in the UK, if mortality rate in that population is between 3.1% and 11.6%, then somewhere between 372,000 and 1.3m deaths can be expected in that age group. Is my maths right?
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
"Scientific Consensus", eh?

Is this the report you keep referring to, whilst failing to take into account legitimate criticism of Sage by proper scientists?

This is your smoking gun? :



Well, anyone familiar with modelling outputs will realise that "smoking" is most definitely involved...

As in, "I would love an ounce of what they're smoking"*... :rolleyes:

As you know for a fact, even the editors of the British Medical Journal caution against conflicted views, and note that Sage is actually conflicted!

Besides, have you actually read it?

If so, do you not see that it's all based on gobbldygook modelling, and the caveats are huge.
Perhaps you will have overlooked this crucial bit which confirms, if need be, that they have absolutely no clue:


"The range of estimates for total excess deaths range from an additional 78,000 (Scenario 1) to 28,000 fewer excess deaths (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario.

• The range of estimates for total QALY impact range from an additional 586,000 (Scenario 1) to 190,000 fewer QALY impact (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario. The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 is 135,000 excess deaths and 776,000 QALYs."




I get the impression that you are much cleverer than inputs to this thread portray you.







*Note to the SFF fascistii, please don't do a Stormtrooper and report on me: it's meant to be just a joke, and last time I checked there was supposed to be"free speach"!
To your last point, the only way you can form an impression on me is via my inputs, so no. I'm therefore entirely as clever/stupid as you think I am. One thing I wouldn't do, though, is suggest that I am more intelligent than, or know more about modelling scenarios in a pandemic, than the scientists doing it. Believing what scientists say has served me well thus far and kept me alive for 4 decades, and I know that they will change their minds and turn on a hairpin if better science comes along. I can therefore trust them to make the best decisions they can without becoming so determined to prove their own dogma and desire to be right. I know full well I can be dogmatic in my opinions, but when it comes to the facts underpinning them, I trust the science.

To the rest - yes I read it. I know there are caveats. My point was simply that the cure IS killing people but that the scientists informing the government believe that EVEN more people die if they didn't. All the numbers might be inflated, the models might be wrong - but I don't know as I'd expect the ratios to be. I don't consider the report to be a smoking anything - I just think people should focus on the lives being saved as well as the lives being lost.

OR just not focus on deaths at all.
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
890
"Scientific Consensus", eh?

Is this the report you keep referring to, whilst failing to take into account legitimate criticism of Sage by proper scientists?

This is your smoking gun? :



Well, anyone familiar with modelling outputs will realise that "smoking" is most definitely involved. As in, "I wold love an ounce of what they're smoking"*... :rolleyes:

As you know for a fact, even the editors of the British Medical Journal caution against conflicted views, and note that Sage is actually conflicted!

Besides, have you actually read it?

If so, do you not see that it's all based on gobbldygook modelling, and the caveats are huge.
Perhaps you will have overlooked this crucial bit which confirms, if need be, that they have absolutely no clue:


"The range of estimates for total excess deaths range from an additional 78,000 (Scenario 1) to 28,000 fewer excess deaths (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario.

• The range of estimates for total QALY impact range from an additional 586,000 (Scenario 1) to 190,000 fewer QALY impact (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario. The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 is 135,000 excess deaths and 776,000 QALYs."




I get the impression that you are much cleverer than inputs to this thread portray you.







*Note to the SFF fascistii, please don't do a Stormtrooper and report on me: it's meant to be just a joke, and last time I checked there was supposed to be"free speach"!
Even Covid aside we’ve never had a year with so much global news, where whatever happens in America or Australia happens here? As I keep saying I think it’s awful how the media are hell bent on division when the majority of folk just wanna get on with each other.
 
Last edited:

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
To your last point, the only way you can form an impression on me is via my inputs, so no. I'm therefore entirely as clever/stupid as you think I am. One thing I wouldn't do, though, is suggest that I am more intelligent than, or know more about modelling scenarios in a pandemic, than the scientists doing it. Believing what scientists say has served me well thus far and kept me alive for 4 decades, and I know that they will change their minds and turn on a hairpin if better science comes along. I can therefore trust them to make the best decisions they can without becoming so determined to prove their own dogma and desire to be right. I know full well I can be dogmatic in my opinions, but when it comes to the facts underpinning them, I trust the science.

To the rest - yes I read it. I know there are caveats. My point was simply that the cure IS killing people but that the scientists informing the government believe that EVEN more people die if they didn't. All the numbers might be inflated, the models might be wrong - but I don't know as I'd expect the ratios to be. I don't consider the report to be a smoking anything - I just think people should focus on the lives being saved as well as the lives being lost.

OR just not focus on deaths at all.
Saffy, these are only sort of scientists.
If they were scientists, they would have had the ability to see through Ferguson's fantasy figures and not take them at face value.
Picked more for their politics than anything else.
How else would you explain a "scientific" panel, consisting mainly of government advisors and statisticians and not one person with any qualifications on immunity. The one thing that all the science is looking at.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
Saffy, these are only sort of scientists.
If they were scientists, they would have had the ability to see through Ferguson's fantasy figures and not take them at face value.
Picked more for their politics than anything else.
How else would you explain a "scientific" panel, consisting mainly of government advisors and statisticians and not one person with any qualifications on immunity. The one thing that all the science is looking at.
Is that true though? Maria Zambon is on SAGE and she specialises in RNA viruses and vaccines. There's another female academic whose name escapes me that's an epidemiologist.

Anyway, just looking at the list, I see lots and LOTS of scientists...
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
890
To your last point, the only way you can form an impression on me is via my inputs, so no. I'm therefore entirely as clever/stupid as you think I am. One thing I wouldn't do, though, is suggest that I am more intelligent than, or know more about modelling scenarios in a pandemic, than the scientists doing it. Believing what scientists say has served me well thus far and kept me alive for 4 decades, and I know that they will change their minds and turn on a hairpin if better science comes along. I can therefore trust them to make the best decisions they can without becoming so determined to prove their own dogma and desire to be right. I know full well I can be dogmatic in my opinions, but when it comes to the facts underpinning them, I trust the science.

To the rest - yes I read it. I know there are caveats. My point was simply that the cure IS killing people but that the scientists informing the government believe that EVEN more people die if they didn't. All the numbers might be inflated, the models might be wrong - but I don't know as I'd expect the ratios to be. I don't consider the report to be a smoking anything - I just think people should focus on the lives being saved as well as the lives being lost.

OR just not focus on deaths at all.
Saffy, these are only sort of scientists.
Picked more for their politics than anything else.
How else would you explain a "scientific" panel, consisting mainly of government advisors and statisticians and not one person with any qualifications on immunity. The one thing that all the science is looking at.
many doctors who signed the same oaths to protect lives have been censored and shut down.
I’ll never forget those two doctors in America? Both highly experienced and as serious as can be, explained how all there peers were being asked to put down cause of death as Covid when they usually have a duty to determine the cause?
Course they got shut down for doing their duty in telling the public what was going on inside the hospitals they were in.
The media just politicise everything to the point where, they don’t want any good news regardless of politics?
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,252
Reaction score
655
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
To your last point, the only way you can form an impression on me is via my inputs, so no. I'm therefore entirely as clever/stupid as you think I am. One thing I wouldn't do, though, is suggest that I am more intelligent than, or know more about modelling scenarios in a pandemic, than the scientists doing it. Believing what scientists say has served me well thus far and kept me alive for 4 decades, and I know that they will change their minds and turn on a hairpin if better science comes along. I can therefore trust them to make the best decisions they can without becoming so determined to prove their own dogma and desire to be right. I know full well I can be dogmatic in my opinions, but when it comes to the facts underpinning them, I trust the science.

To the rest - yes I read it. I know there are caveats. My point was simply that the cure IS killing people but that the scientists informing the government believe that EVEN more people die if they didn't. All the numbers might be inflated, the models might be wrong - but I don't know as I'd expect the ratios to be. I don't consider the report to be a smoking anything - I just think people should focus on the lives being saved as well as the lives being lost.

OR just not focus on deaths at all.

Sorry Saf, I obviously edited out that last bit a bit late :eek:

Because you do not have first-hand experience of models, GIGO and scientific bias I would urge you to read the BMJ editorial in preference to Sage reports.

Don't get me wrong. I know the disease kills. But I know the cure kills. I sincerely believe on the basis of available evidence now that it should be clear that the deaths and future deaths from the cure outweighs the disease, by a long chalk IMO.

The problem is which scientists do you trust? Science is equivocal. Always has been, always will (more so nowadays).

As the BMJ makes clear, science can be biassed. Everyone working in the subject knows that. Unlike Engineering, there is more equivocality in science than you can shake a stick at.

Did you read the BMJ Editorial?

So-called "Health Fascists" have form.

Lets take, oh I dunno, something simple:

Cot Death. For decades, the scientific consensus (put the baby face down/recovery position because that's how wounded WWII squaddies survived better) killed more babies than mothers common sense (on their back). But the Quacks were wrong and it took decades of mass killing children for them to admit to it.

"Do No Harm" MRIA

The so-called "Lives being saved" is an unknown unknown and totally unquantifiable (except by B/S GIGO models) compared to the definite harms being done by over-reaction and lockdown.

It is grist to the mill of "Health Fascists" who recommend locking folk up in their houses plugged into the TV/internet so they can shop, to "save granny". Labour and Alternative Sage have screwed up royally here. Shower!

I believe you are wrong is all. FWIW I feel you are well intentioned.

I think your support of restriction and Lockdown on the basis of an unknown unknown when we now understand the vast majority don't die of, or even suffer from, CV19, and that those that do die of/with it are, on average, older than the average life expectancy is fundamentally flawed.

Granny would no doubt want her offspring to flourish. She would whip out her slide rule and do a cost-benefit analysis.

In time, maybe that will dawn on folk.

Deaths are where it's at. Not worth the hype. EndEx. Cheque's in the post.


Memento mori

(ps well done at stoking up the interest here ;) )
 
Last edited:

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,815
Reaction score
1,477
Wouldn't it disproportionately affect old people and skew those figures? Maths isn't my strong point.... There are 12m over 65s in the UK, if mortality rate in that population is between 3.1% and 11.6%, then somewhere between 372,000 and 1.3m deaths can be expected in that age group. Is my maths right?
No, its the whole population. Its the equivalent to the 0.1% commonly used for flu.
I know some in the very early days estimated up to 1.5million but that was based on early mortality data when we didn't have any idea how many were asymptomatic, had mild symptoms etc.

The half a million number also tallies with the ONS study where roughly 10% of the general population have had it and roughly 50k have died from it.

But even then, a large part of the population will never get Covid. Even without a vaccine, the virus will not infect everyone before it fizzles out. So say 10-20% of the whole population don't ever get it if the virus is just let rip with no controls, even my estimates are too high.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
Is that true though? Maria Zambon is on SAGE and she specialises in RNA viruses and vaccines. There's another female academic whose name escapes me that's an epidemiologist.

Anyway, just looking at the list, I see lots and LOTS of scientists...
Agree there is a lot of scientists.
But scientists of what?
I didn't see Doms name there!
I can't believe Dido is there!!!!
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
Agree there is a lot of scientists.
But scientists of what?
I didn't see Doms name there!
I can't believe Dido is there!!!!
Of the first 7 - before I got bored - there's a virologist/head of infectious diseases, professor of emergency medicine, chair in immunology, a professor in education, an epidemiologist, a statistician and a clinical pharmacologist. 5 medical scientists.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,788
Location
edzell
Just been thinking about it, and I can't see how you could ever come to decisions with such a large group.
 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
859
Reaction score
284
Sanfranfoer quote;

Anyway, just looking at the list, I see lots and LOTS of scientists...

--------------------------------------------------------
You could have added 'all with different viewpoints on the way forward'. There in reality lies your and everyone else's problem including the Government
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,815
Reaction score
1,477
I think your support of restriction and Lockdown on the basis of an unknown unknown when we now understand the vast majority don't die of, or even suffer from, CV19, and that those that do die of/with it are, on average, older than the average life expectancy is fundamentally flawed.
You see, this is the bit that has me thinking a lot. I don't want to live in a society where we basically decide whether it is worth spending money or suffering incovenience just to keep people alive based on age. It massively devalues the elderly and the infirm, many of whom are the most valuable in our society.

And yes, I know many decisions like this are made on a daily basis but I fear this direction more than I fear an increase in national debt and temporary restrictions.

On aggregate you may be right with tour statement. But on an individual and personal level its just not right and is not palatable for the vast majority of the population. It's also not a direction in which I'd like to set precedent on such a scale.
 

kingfisher

Stay Safe
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
500
Location
Scotland
It’s not till you hear your own daughter has symptoms enough to warrant a test today, as we all wait with deep concern on the results due within 48 hrs, that it brings it so much nearer to home.
We visited her on Sunday so apart from hoping she is ok, we’re bricking it here too.
So please treat it with the respect it deserves until such times we get access to the vaccine.
In the meantime stay as safe as you can be.
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
Just been thinking about it, and I can't see how you could ever come to decisions with such a large group.

Aren't scientists used to this? Truth through consensus is how they roll... It's the non-scientists I worry about.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
It’s not till you hear your own daughter has symptoms enough to warrant a test today, as we all wait with interpretation on the results due within 48 hrs, that it brings it so much nearer to home.
We visited her on Sunday so apart from hoping she is ok, we’re bricking it here too.
So please treat it with the respect it deserves until such times we get access to the vaccine.
In the meantime stay as safe as you can be.
Oh no... I hope that whatever she has, she recovers quickly and that you and your wife stay safe. Take care and keep us posted.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
2,060
Sorry Saf, I obviously edited out that last bit a bit late :eek:

Because you do not have first-hand experience of models, GIGO and scientific bias I would urge you to read the BMJ editorial in preference to Sage reports.

Don't get me wrong. I know the disease kills. But I know the cure kills. I sincerely believe on the basis of available evidence now that it should be clear that the deaths and future deaths from the cure outweighs the disease, by a long chalk IMO.

The problem is which scientists do you trust? Science is equivocal. Always has been, always will (more so nowadays).

As the BMJ makes clear, science can be biassed. Everyone working in the subject knows that. Unlike Engineering, there is more equivocality in science than you can shake a stick at.

Did you read the BMJ Editorial?

So-called "Health Fascists" have form.

Lets take, oh I dunno, something simple:

Cot Death. For decades, the scientific consensus (put the baby face down/recovery position because that's how wounded WWII squaddies survived better) killed more babies than mothers common sense (on their back). But the Quacks were wrong and it took decades of mass killing children for them to admit to it. "Do No Harm" MRIA

The so-called "Lives being saved" is an unknown unknown and totally unquantifiable (except by B/S GIGO models) compared to the definite harms being done by over-reaction and lockdown.

It is grist to the mill of "Health Fascists" who recommend locking folk up in their houses plugged into the TV/internet so they can shop, to "save granny". Labour and Alternative Sage have screwed up royally here. Shower!

I believe you are wrong is all. FWIW I feel you are well intentioned.

I think your support of restriction and Lockdown on the basis of an unknown unknown when we now understand the vast majority don't die of, or even suffer from, CV19, and that those that do die of/with it are, on average, older than the average life expectancy is fundamentally flawed.

Granny would no doubt want her offspring to flourish. She would whip out her slide rule and do a cost-benefit analysis.

In time, maybe that will dawn on folk.

Deaths are where it's at. Not worth the hype. EndEx. Cheque's in the post.


Memento mori

(ps well done at stoking up the interest here ;) )
Lives being saved is an unknown unknown, you're right - but couldn't we also argue that the people with cancer and heart disease dying as a consequence were also nearing the end of their natural life anyway? I don't know how you decide who is more important. I know who is more economically valuable, but that's setting us all up for being treated as entirely disposable once we hit 65.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
580
Location
Isle of Lewis
Lives being saved is an unknown unknown, you're right - but couldn't we also argue that the people with cancer and heart disease dying as a consequence were also nearing the end of their natural life anyway? I don't know how you decide who is more important. I know who is more economically valuable, but that's setting us all up for being treated as entirely disposable once we hit 65.
Regarding cancer, no. During lockdown and even right through the summer people were either not getting treated or getting through the process far too slowly. They might as well have had covid on their death certificates.
And I would hazard a guess that their average age was significantly lower that that of covid related victims.
 
Top