Coronavirus Thread

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, Farrington fox said:

I'm with Steve.

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1465709396692910088?s=20

And I believe you're both wrong. 

[Guest Electric Yetis]

3 hours ago, Rain King said:

Yeah it's just very strange. Both had PCR tests on the same day.

Just to add to this, they've both done another lateral flow since getting the negative PCR and they are still showing positive.

[st albans fox]

43 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Like it's been mentioned elsewhere if we follow that trajectory (which we won't), it'll be all over by about February as everyone will have been infected.

So IF it’s hugely less virulent then it’s potentially the way out as has been mooted ….. we will know within a few weeks …

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, Rain King said:

Just to add to this, they've both done another lateral flow since getting the negative PCR and they are still showing positive.

Even more likely that there is a pcr issue at the lab 

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

4 hours ago, Rain King said:

Anyone heard if any strange goings on with the PCR test at the moment?

 

I know to different people (they don't know each other) who have this week had several positive lateral flow tests but both of them have had their PCR come back negative?

 

Seems a strange coincidence.

My niece lives in Leicester, this happened to her. 

[Farrington fox]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

And I believe you're both wrong. 

Cool.

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, Farrington fox said:

I'm with Steve.

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1465709396692910088?s=20

Unfortunately neither 'Steve' or yourself are with science if you still don't understand the difference between flu and SARS-CoV-19. 

[Farrington fox]

6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Unfortunately neither 'Steve' or yourself are with science if you still don't understand the difference between flu and SARS-CoV-19. 

It isn't just about the science though is it. Politics are involved.

[SpacedX]

Just now, Farrington fox said:

It isn't just about the science though is it. Politics are involved.

The difference between SARS-CoV-19 and the flu?...I think you'll find it is. 

 

Moreover, you posted an opinion on twitter from a Tory back bencher. 

 

A global viral infection doesn't read social media and it doesn't do politics. No different to climate change. The politics needs to follow the science. Steve Baker obviously does not. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

It isn't just about the science though is it. Politics are involved.

Indeed.

 

It is a fact that policy decisions related to science aren't and cannot be solely made on the basis of scientific data itself, as much as someone like myself would like them to be.

 

However, is it too much to expect for the scientific information known at one time to at least take priority in terms of decision-making on scientific matters, especially when the matter concerns an act of nature that is a rather large threat? Looking at climate change and specifically how we're dropping the ball there, perhaps it is too much to expect.

 

 

[pazzerfox]

6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The difference between SARS-CoV-19 and the flu?...I think you'll find it is. 

 

Moreover, you posted an opinion on twitter from a Tory back bencher. 

 

A global viral infection doesn't read social media and it doesn't do politics. No different to climate change. The politics needs to follow the science. Steve Baker obviously does not. 

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

[Guest Electric Yetis]

48 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

My niece lives in Leicester, this happened to her. 

Strange. Just more disappointed that your quote of my post showed that I spelt two as to.

[dsr-burnley]

21 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The difference between SARS-CoV-19 and the flu?...I think you'll find it is. 

 

Moreover, you posted an opinion on twitter from a Tory back bencher. 

 

A global viral infection doesn't read social media and it doesn't do politics. No different to climate change. The politics needs to follow the science. Steve Baker obviously does not. 

The politics needs to follow the science, but the right question needs to be asked.  The question "what is the best way to reduce deaths from covid, at least in the short term" is not the question that they should be asking.  The question is more like "what is the best thing for the country and the world, taking into account all factors including quality of life, long term prognoses, death and suffering from other diseases, economics, future tax burdens, value and quality of education, etc etc etc etc".  Can science answer that question?  No.  Politicians have to answer it, taking all things into account, including medical science but also economics, psychology, life sciences, statistics, etc etc etc.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

Science is questioned, constantly and legitimately. However there are many who don't want to see obvious answers and at the end of the day those answers are pretty much only legit when they come from the peer review process.

 

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

The politics needs to follow the science, but the right question needs to be asked.  The question "what is the best way to reduce deaths from covid, at least in the short term" is not the question that they should be asking.  The question is more like "what is the best thing for the country and the world, taking into account all factors including quality of life, long term prognoses, death and suffering from other diseases, economics, future tax burdens, value and quality of education, etc etc etc etc".  Can science answer that question?  No.  Politicians have to answer it, taking all things into account, including medical science but also economics, psychology, life sciences, statistics, etc etc etc.

A recent course that I've taken has impressed upon me the importance of other factors in science policy planning, like economics and legal issues that you mention here. As you say, they must be included in the policymaking process.

 

However, I can't help but wonder if such multifaceted thinking will come back to screw us royally if and when a much larger natural threat appears on the horizon closing fast. Fiddling while Rome is about to burn, as it were. As such, I think there are situations, though few, where the scientific data we have must at the very least take primacy in terms of decision-making.

 

 

[SpacedX]

30 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

 And yet here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this claim with people all over the world. You live in and benefit from a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method.

 

Oh Jeez. Where to start with this?

 

Science is self-evident, and axiomatic. It is the role of scientific enquiry to as you suggest, question itself, which is what the scientific method involves. 

 

Science is open to all. When you stir sugar into your coffee, what happens? That's science. Are you denying that? When you clean your toilet with bleach...it's science. When you turn on your laptop...that's science. How can that be a "religion"? Science is always open to question....with the right questions, that is. Are you not interested in getting the truth?

 

Known science is not a 'religion' - religion implies 'belief' and science is not about that. Religion and science are oil and water. They might co-exist, but they can never mix to produce a homogeneous medium. Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. They disagree profoundly on how we obtain knowledge of the world. Science is based observation and reasoning from observation. Religion assumes that human beings can access a deeper level of information that is not available by either observation or reason and is thus unfalsifiable. The scientific method is proven by its success and it proves science through testing its validity. The religious method is refuted by its failure. 

 

There are two key components that make the prediction scientific:

1/ The prediction, or the belief that the outcome can be accurately predicted, is predicated on the existence of quality evidence.

2/ As the evidence changes - as we obtain more, newer and better evidence and as the full suite of evidence expands, our predictions, postdictions and entire conceptions of the Universe change along with it.

 

There is no such thing as a good scientist who isn't willing to both base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available, nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who won't revise their beliefs in the face of new evidence.

 

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. You are conflating known science which is governed by nature and answerable to physical laws with politicisation and human interference. 

 

May I suggest a good read to you?  It's Sagan, so it's wonderfully composed and very accessible. 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark'. Remarkably sagacious in respect of the opinion driven age that we inhabit today. 

Edited 9 December 2021 by Line-X

[Phil Bowman]

47 minutes ago, Line-X said:

A global viral infection doesn't read social media

Do we have enough data on omicron yet to be sure of this?

[SpacedX]

Just now, Phil Bowman said:

Do we have enough data on omicron yet to be sure of this?

Porton Down are expecting a first tweet and an instagram page to emerge imminently.  

[Phil Bowman]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Porton Down are expecting a first tweet and an instagram page to emerge imminently.  

Ah, so they’re not expecting it to have developed intelligence then.

[Farrington fox]

Something to lift the mood. 

 

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

So IF it’s hugely less virulent then it’s potentially the way out as has been mooted ….. we will know within a few weeks …

I wonder if so, how they handle it. If this is the case then a country being badly managed and ill prepared may get to the end result quicker than a cautious and careful country that will suddenly have to say to their nation they've been drilling fear and caution in to their lives for 2 years that this new strain is the meal ticket out of this and let's open the floodgates. Lick bog seats, cram in to poorly ventilated places and let's get this over and done with. They'd not do that so it will be fascinating to see.

 

I think our approach would be quite reasonable in our country and we do seem to want an element of spread to boost the protection where its manageable so we'd probably rip up the rule book but the likes of Australia and New Zealand will try and plat piss as per usual.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

I wonder if so, how they handle it. If this 8s the case then a country being badly managed and prepared may get to the end result quicker than a cautious and careful country that will suddenly have to say to their nation they've been drilling fear and caution in to their lives for 2 years that this new strain is the meal ticket out of this and let's open the floodgates. Lick bog seats, cram in to poorly ventilated places and let's get this over and done with. They'd not do that so it will be fascinating to see.

 

I think our approach would be quite reasonable in our country and we do seem to want an element of spread to boost the protection where its manageable so we'd probably rip up the rule book but the likes of Australia and New Zealand will try and plat piss as per usual.

I'm interested in how they'd handle it over here tbh.

 

Korea have been pretty stringent with restrictions while keeping the lights on and things open for the most part to decent effect, so I wonder if they'd be willing to blow the bloody doors off if the science said they should. Personally, I think that they would.

[grobyfox1990]

18 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Everyone here complaining about our restrictions as if it is bad. It is way worse almost everywhere else. My mates live in Vancouver and they have to wear masks everywhere and everyone needs to show proof of double vaccine status to get in to any pub or restaurant. A negative test is not accepted. That’s been in place there for around 3 months. 

I don't get this mindset at all. Just because its worse somewhere else, why cant we complain about it being bad here? There is literally always, in any situation, something better or worse than what you are experiencing. Does that mean humans are never allowed to complain or be happy? If your neighbour woke up with two massive steaming turds in his bed and you only had one, i highly doubt you'd roll over and say 'oh well its way worse over there!!'

 

Anyway, comparing our situation to Canada is not fair. I also have a friend in Vancouver, who is from the UK. They do not have the hospital capacity or infrastructure we do. We have adminstered booster jabs to over 30% of our population, they have not even got to 10%. Why should we sink to their standards when we are in a much better position? We should enjoy our hard work and the freedoms that come with it, not lower standards and be happy with it.

Edited 9 December 2021 by grobyfox1990

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Farrington fox said:

It isn't just about the science though is it. Politics are involved.

Ah yes, the politics must flow.  Mother nature cares a lot about which party has the most seats, this pandemic is just a ploy by big nature to make the Tories look corrupt.

 

1 hour ago, pazzerfox said:

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

By people with the relevant training and skillset who apply themselves to carrying out the necessary research to pose questions of the current paradigm.  Science being open to question doesn't mean everybody's opinion is equal and valid, this special snowflake stuff has gone too far and ironically it's those whose media consumption has led them to consistently mock 'political correctness' who exemplify it the most.

[yorkie1999]

49 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The politics needs to follow the science, but the right question needs to be asked.  The question "what is the best way to reduce deaths from covid, at least in the short term" is not the question that they should be asking.  The question is more like "what is the best thing for the country and the world, taking into account all factors including quality of life, long term prognoses, death and suffering from other diseases, economics, future tax burdens, value and quality of education, etc etc etc etc".  Can science answer that question?  No.  Politicians have to answer it, taking all things into account, including medical science but also economics, psychology, life sciences, statistics, etc etc etc.

The whole problem with the pandemic is that the politicians got involved. If your doctor said you need to wear a mask or you need this vaccination or whatever, no-one would question it, why's that? because people know that a doctor is trusted and hasn't got an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda whereas politicians do. So saying that politics needs to follow the science is all very well and good and in an ideal world that should be the case, but in this world, it just isn't going to happen, people don't trust politicians. 

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

So IF it’s hugely less virulent then it’s potentially the way out as has been mooted ….. we will know within a few weeks …

It wont be. The next month or so will be a bit of a sh*tshow I think. Perhaps not in terms of hospitals being overwhelmed (vaccines will do their job), but we'll have so many people isolating and unwell that society will cease to function in the same way that it is now (ie a de facto lockdown).