Coronavirus

SOS

Well-known member
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,113

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,102
Reaction score
2,734
Location
edzell
The longer she holds out the better for her election plans, as she has a daily platform whereas the rest do not.

Thats not true.
Boris could have a daily platform as well.
He choses not to use it.
As its better that he seems an incompetent blustering buffon.
Rather than having a daily brief that proves he is an incompetent blustering buffon.

Theres nothing the cranky would want more than Boris giving a brief daily.

Well maybe she would want the Salmond investigation to dissappear.
 

SOS

Well-known member
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,113
Thats not true.
Boris could have a daily platform as well.
He choses not to use it.
As its better that he seems an incompetent blustering buffon.
Rather than having a daily brief that proves he is an incompetent blustering buffon.

Theres nothing the cranky would want more than Boris giving a brief daily.

Well maybe she would want the Salmond investigation to dissappear.
But Boris is not running in the Hollyrood elections.
The SNP are using every trick they can for their advantage in the elections.
Disrupting and delaying the Salmond inquiry.
OECD schools report not to be published until after the elections, even though the scot-gov has it.
Buying votes using money from Westminster for covid relief, i.e NHS workers and teachers who have lost no wages in the pandemic.
Manipulating covid cases by not using the testing capabilities available until it suits their needs.
Siphoning off public money for an indyref war chest.
Using her daily platform to take credit when something goes right and blaming someone else when something goes wrong.
These and other things are what you would expect from a communist regime,but they are getting away with it by using the pandemic to their advantage.

God help us and future generations if she wins.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,102
Reaction score
2,734
Location
edzell
But Boris is not running in the Hollyrood elections.
The SNP are using every trick they can for their advantage in the elections.
Disrupting and delaying the Salmond inquiry.
OECD schools report not to be published until after the elections, even though the scot-gov has it.
Buying votes using money from Westminster for covid relief, i.e NHS workers and teachers who have lost no wages in the pandemic.
Manipulating covid cases by not using the testing capabilities available until it suits their needs.
Siphoning off public money for an indyref war chest.
Using her daily platform to take credit when something goes right and blaming someone else when something goes wrong.
These and other things are what you would expect from a communist regime,but they are getting away with it by using the pandemic to their advantage.

God help us and future generations if she wins.
I dont disagree,

But Boris is still the gift that keeps on giving for them.
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
2,015
*But neither is it a reason for draconian neo-fascistic control and subversion of normality for something that's 99.9% harmless
If I assume your 99.9% number refers to death, not harm, then with ~120k having already died of Covid-19 in the UK, that would mean 120 million people have already been infected with the disease in the UK. I am not sure that maths works very well at all unless we have all had it twice or more......

Unless you know of a better source, the ONS CIS estimates 15% of the UK population have had coronavirus so far, up to mid January. This is an estimate of all infections both symptomatic and asymptomatic, based not just on PCR but also antibody testing. Anyway, without getting into a detailed discussion on whether this data is valid or not....

6.9 million people having had it so far in the UK pandemic and ~120k deaths would give an infection mortality rate of 1.74%.

That's just deaths. I really don't want to discuss how far harm extends....
 

SOS

Well-known member
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,113
I dont disagree,

But Boris is still the gift that keeps on giving for them.
You are probably right that is why Douglas Ross and Ruth Davidson has tried to distance themselves from him.
What a lot of people especially the younger ones dont realise is that Boris will not be the prime minister forever but independence will be and there will be no going back if it goes tits up.
 

bassfly

Well-known member
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
615
Location
Cheshire
I've got us through this and out the other end, vote for me.

I'm lifting restrictions faster than the other countries in the union.
Oh, did I mention, vote for me.
:rolleyes:
The BBC are giving me unlimited access to campaign ever day.
I've banned the other lot.
By the way dont forget to vote for me so I can carry on being a tv star.
PS dont mention my husband .
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
466
I dont disagree,

But Boris is still the gift that keeps on giving for them.
I am hoping BJ promotes Michael Gove to be in charge of everything, leaving himself to do photo-opportunities and be a harmless nuisance.

I would rather have an Aberdonian in charge of my fate, than an Etonian - in this instance.

 

bassfly

Well-known member
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
615
Location
Cheshire
Thats not true.
Boris could have a daily platform as well.
He choses not to use it.
As its better that he seems an incompetent blustering buffon.
Rather than having a daily brief that proves he is an incompetent blustering buffon.

Theres nothing the cranky would want more than Boris giving a brief daily.

Well maybe she would want the Salmond investigation to dissappear.
Why would Boris need a daily platform?
Its Nippy and Scotland who are having an election.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,845
The incumbent always has an advantage, regardless of TV platform. You have to really muck things up to lose as people are so averse to change - and even then, if you're up against something like the current Labour party down here, mucking up is no barrier to success. Are the SNP still predicted to romp it, accepting the limitations of polls? And is the election still even going ahead in May - weren't they talking about postponing it? I imagine she won't want to, as things are going now.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,518
Reaction score
1,055
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
If I assume your 99.9% number refers to death, not harm, then with ~120k having already died of Covid-19 in the UK, that would mean 120 million people have already been infected with the disease in the UK. I am not sure that maths works very well at all unless we have all had it twice or more......

Unless you know of a better source, the ONS CIS estimates 15% of the UK population have had coronavirus so far, up to mid January. This is an estimate of all infections both symptomatic and asymptomatic, based not just on PCR but also antibody testing. Anyway, without getting into a detailed discussion on whether this data is valid or not....

6.9 million people having had it so far in the UK pandemic and ~120k deaths would give an infection mortality rate of 1.74%.

That's just deaths. I really don't want to discuss how far harm extends....

Hi Walleye

Yes, "my bad". Should have said 99.5-99.9 as the vast majority survive, and the vast majority are very old :eek:

Let's face it, the figures you quote from ONS are pretty poor, were they based on the same kind of modelling as Mystic Meg "Shagger" Fergusson, IIRC. The sums don't work, and the "from/with" issues adds another uncontrolled factor. We have no real clue and at first T-cell immunity was ignored/smeared etc. and folk now are still conflating IFR and CFR.

Anyway, a bone of contention sure. Again I'm ambivalent as to what the exact rate is. I don't see much harm/risk from CV19 compared to the very real harm/risk Lockdown and economic destruction and the "New Fascism" wreaks on the environment, communities and folk.

Back to IFR/CFR There's an interesting summary about the deadliness of CV19 here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/02/17/how-deadly-is-covid19/
How deadly is COVID19? | Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
2,015
Hi Walleye

Yes, "my bad". Should have said 99.5-99.9 as the vast majority survive, and the vast majority are very old :eek:

Let's face it, the figures you quote from ONS are pretty poor, were they based on the same kind of modelling as Mystic Meg "Shagger" Fergusson, IIRC. The sums don't work, and the "from/with" issues adds another uncontrolled factor. We have no real clue and at first T-cell immunity was ignored/smeared etc. and folk now are still conflating IFR and CFR.

Anyway, a bone of contention sure. Again I'm ambivalent as to what the exact rate is. I don't see much harm/risk from CV19 compared to the very real harm/risk Lockdown and economic destruction and the "New Fascism" wreaks on the environment, communities and folk.

Back to IFR/CFR There's an interesting summary about the deadliness of CV19 here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/02/17/how-deadly-is-covid19/
How deadly is COVID19? | Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
Hi Seeking, should I really be taking any notice of a "cholesterol skeptic" who was deleted from Wikipedia? I mean what the hell is a cholesterol skeptic and what is to be gained from being one other than self publicity and getting folk to pay for **** from his website?

BTW, 99.5 to 99.9 is also incorrect. It can't be 99.9% at all....we don't have the population of 120 million required for the mortality rate to be 0.1%.

ONS study is good. ONS produce data you rely on elsewhere and they have a great deal of knowledge and credibility in the field of, well erm, statistics, as the name suggests. No amount of fudd will discredit them imo.
 

westie4566

Well-known member
Messages
9,232
Reaction score
3,554
Location
Aberdeen
Hi Seeking, should I really be taking any notice of a "cholesterol skeptic" who was deleted from Wikipedia? I mean what the hell is a cholesterol skeptic and what is to be gained from being one other than self publicity and getting folk to pay for **** from his website?

BTW, 99.5 to 99.9 is also incorrect. It can't be 99.9% at all....we don't have the population of 120 million required for the mortality rate to be 0.1%.

ONS study is good. ONS produce data you rely on elsewhere and they have a great deal of knowledge and credibility in the field of, well erm, statistics, as the name suggests. No amount of fudd will discredit them imo.
Wallaye.. and dealing with Scottish figures only again. Our death rate here is standing at 0.13% of the population. Seeking does have a point in his posts.

Bearing in mind that the 0.13% death rate here has been made up by a factor of 3 of the over 85+ age group compared and contrasted with 75-84 age group....why are we still suffering a police state and virtual house arrest?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
838
Reaction score
621
Wallaye.. and dealing with Scottish figures only again. Our death rate here is standing at 0.13% of the population. Seeking does have a point in his posts.
No he doesn't, you can't divide the entire population into the number of deaths and get a fatality rate. The majority of the population have not yet had the virus. That calculation only works when everyone in the country has been fully exposed to it.

The numbers you're looking for are Case Fatality Rate and the Infection Fatality Rate. CFR is higher than IFR because they have to estimate how many people have been infected for the IFR but show no symptoms. The IFR number is around 1 to 1.2% The new variants seem to increase this a little.
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,845
Using the tiny percentage of a population that has died as justification for a virus not being deadly, when extraordinary, unprecedented measures have been taken to reduce the transmission of said virus explicitly to prevent that number being higher is... a thing.

Especially when we've been arguing the toss about the severity of those measures for months now.
 

westie4566

Well-known member
Messages
9,232
Reaction score
3,554
Location
Aberdeen
No he doesn't, you can't divide the entire population into the number of deaths and get a fatality rate. The majority of the population have not yet had the virus. That calculation only works when everyone in the country has been fully exposed to it.

The numbers you're looking for a Case Fatality Rate and the Infection Fatality Rate. CFR is higher than IFR because they have to estimate how many people have been infected but show no symptoms. The IFR number is around 1 to 1.2% The new variants seem to increase this a little.
Jog on Tangled me old mate.

You've obvs made the same mistake as others have that there would be 0% immunity to C19. As a race we are where we are now due to survival of the fittest. AND all our bodies have been subjected to corona viruses now and in the past. You don't think that many of our bodies won't recognise a coronvirus (novel or not) and just react to wipe it out?

You're making a huge assumption on exposure and I think you're wildly off the mark.

Come back to me on this when you've studied all the households where some family members have had C19, yet family members in close proximity have never even tested positive. (y)
 

paddymc

Well-known member
Messages
3,859
Reaction score
325
Jog on Tangled me old mate.

You've obvs made the same mistake as others have that there would be 0% immunity to C19. As a race we are where we are now due to survival of the fittest. AND all our bodies have been subjected to corona viruses now and in the past. You don't think that many of our bodies won't recognise a coronvirus (novel or not) and just react to wipe it out?

You're making a huge assumption on exposure and I think you're wildly off the mark.

Come back to me on this when you've studied all the households where some family members have had C19, yet family members in close proximity have never even tested positive. (y)
Do you have any links to the studies that show previous immunity to covid-19 ?
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
2,015
Jog on Tangled me old mate.

You've obvs made the same mistake as others have that there would be 0% immunity to C19. As a race we are where we are now due to survival of the fittest. AND all our bodies have been subjected to corona viruses now and in the past. You don't think that many of our bodies won't recognise a coronvirus (novel or not) and just react to wipe it out?

You're making a huge assumption on exposure and I think you're wildly off the mark.

Come back to me on this when you've studied all the households where some family members have had C19, yet family members in close proximity have never even tested positive. (y)
Natural immunity, if it exists or if it is real, still doesn't mean you can use number of deaths as a percentage of the entire population to describe mortality rate.
FWIW, If there was natural immunity amongst the population I think you would see this in anomalies in the age specific mortality or hospital admissions.
For example, take the Spanish flu. It hit the old, the young and the 20-40 Yr old age groups particularly hard. Not so much the 40-60yr old age group which is the anomaly I'm referring to. There was a very similar strain of flu many years earlier that this age group gained immunity from. There are records of another flu epidemic from a similar strain which the 40-60 Yr old age group went through with lower mortality but gained sufficient immunity that their age group was able to survive the Spanish flu relatively unscathed (they weren't very old and had sufficient immunity so were in the sweet spot).
I havent seen anything like this in covid data. There is a strong relationship between age and mortality but no particular age group bucks the trend.
It's novel so I don't think anyone has prior specific immunity.
However, everyone's immune system is different. It's an evolutionary advantage. So people react differently to novel viruses.

Your example of not everyone getting it in households is completely normal. I've lost count of the times colds have rattled through our household with not everyone getting the cold.
 

Wee-Eck

Well-known member
Messages
1,141
Reaction score
203
More studies on the effects of Vitamin D in hospitals in Spain. If you don't watch the whole video which I would recommend as it explains the clinical process then at least watch the first minute (skipping the adverts at the beginning). Remember that the amount of Vitamin D your body needs varies according to your weight which is why obesity is such a factor. I am currently taking 4,000 iu of D3 a day which has a much slower absorption rate than the pure form calcifediol which is used in hospital
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
838
Reaction score
621
You've obvs made the same mistake as others have that there would be 0% immunity to C19. As a race we are where we are now due to survival of the fittest. AND all our bodies have been subjected to corona viruses now and in the past. You don't think that many of our bodies won't recognise a coronvirus (novel or not) and just react to wipe it out?

I haven't assumed anything at all, I've just reported the values from actual, real, accredited, scientific studies. Not just taken the crackpot fantasies of a random bloke on a fishing forum.

But the only knowledge required to make your personal fatality rate calculation is the total population count and the total death count WHEN EVERYBODY IN THE POPULATION HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO THE VIRUS. And only when everybody has been exposed to the virus. Meanwhile we use the best estimates of those that do this for a living.
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
466
Do you have any links to the studies that show previous immunity to covid-19 ?
This from last July, so things may have moved on alot since then? Antibodies seem to get all the limelight, compared to T cells. Seems like there is lots to discover.

My brother almost certainly had Covid, but had a negative Covid Test and a negative antibody test - perhaps he had some useful T cells?

I was trying to think of a joke including the Snap-T cast, but couldn't come up with anything.

The article/link below is really worth reading (IMO)

'Most bizarrely of all, when researchers tested blood samples taken years before the pandemic started, they found T cells which were specifically tailored to detect proteins on the surface of Covid-19. This suggests that some people already had a pre-existing degree of resistance against the virus before it ever infected a human. And it appears to be surprisingly prevalent: 40-60% of unexposed individuals had these cells'.

 

peterchilton

Well-known member
Messages
2,057
Reaction score
781
Location
Mid Wales
This from last July, so things may have moved on alot since then? Antibodies seem to get all the limelight, compared to T cells. Seems like there is lots to discover.

My brother almost certainly had Covid, but had a negative Covid Test and a negative antibody test - perhaps he had some useful T cells?

I was trying to think of a joke including the Snap-T cast, but couldn't come up with anything.

The article/link below is really worth reading (IMO)

'Most bizarrely of all, when researchers tested blood samples taken years before the pandemic started, they found T cells which were specifically tailored to detect proteins on the surface of Covid-19. This suggests that some people already had a pre-existing degree of resistance against the virus before it ever infected a human. And it appears to be surprisingly prevalent: 40-60% of unexposed individuals had these cells'.

Fascinating but you need to read the whole article to put the excerpt into context it’s also 7 months old and much is changing including the virus
 
Top