Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, reynard said:

And Liverpool I think where numbers in some areas are falling or at least stabilising.

Trouble is Tier systems only work if the vast majority of people obey the rules. For pity's sake some people can't even be bothered to wear masks.

Be interesting to see what happens in Liverpool, as that campaign to keep gyms open was successful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

One thing they need to be careful of is attributing cause and effect.  If I stand on a beach and sea a wave coming towards me, I can say "get back" and it will.  It doesn't mean I have power over the water.

 

Is it the same thing with lockdowns?  Are they, presumably by accident not by design, waiting until the wave is at or near its peak before ordering lockdown, so that lockdown gets the credit for the wave receding when it would have done that anyway?  After all, the spring wave still receded in countries that didn't have lockdown.

Either the lockdown, the change in weather, or likely a combination of both slowed infections at the initial peak. They didn't just slow on it's own. I guess we'll see how effective lockdowns are in the absence of warmer weather this winter. I bet you they work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Yes, you'll find you may have mentioned parroted it once or twice. 

 

 :frusty:

 

Do we really have do do this again and again and again? You people simply refuse to listen. Social media users have been mindlessly lapping up and regurgitating a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote has been falsely attributed to the inventor, Kary Mullis, and as usual has been intentionally taken out of context to falsify its original meaning. The quote is actually from an article written by John Lauritsen in December 1996 about HIV and AIDS, not COVID-19. Mullis passed away in August last year before the outbreak of Covid19. 

 

Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead he is pointing out that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves. I quote directly:

 

“PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”

 

The PCR test detects the presence of the virus by amplifying the virus’ genetic material to a point where it can be detected by scientists. That's how it works - it's not ideal, or optimum, but currently it is the best thing that we have at our disposal. It is the preferred method in the UK because it can be performed in 'real time' and such molecular diagnostic tests remain the gold standard methods for identifying individuals with an active viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of COVID-19 disease), in their respiratory tract. These tests are rapid and timely. As I said, it has limitations. Understand that detecting viral material via PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious or able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires involved virus culture methods. Although these methods can only be performed in laboratories with specialist containment facilities they are both time consuming and complex.

 

To reiterate for the final time, the quote undermining PCR tests is misattributed to Mullis and taken out of context. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient. Yes, this has lead to other issues such as the problem of false positives. 

 

Let's be honest, you would never have even heard of PCR prior to the outbreak of Covid19, and were it not for the intentional deception on behalf of those that perpetrate this farrago of facebook factoids in a lame attempt to seek the attention, recognition and significance that eludes them in the real world. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their biased beliefs and preconceptions so unlikely to ever critically appraise it. Odd don't you think that the entire independent fields of epidemiology, virology and immunology - y'know, the people that actually understand the patterns and causes of disease and infection in humans through research, evidence based practice and health policy - don't defer to the armchair 'expertise' of online self-appointed overnight 'authorities' that think that they know better because the internet told them so.

 

Finally, as I have attempted to explain on innumerable occasions, known science is not about "opinion" - yours or mine, or populist perceptions on a football forum - and without meaning to sound disparaging, yes I will continue to ridicule and humiliate you if you continue in your relentless pursuit of cherry picked confirmation bias, dangerous and irresponsible misinformation and your demonstrable belief that social media in any way substitutes for an education. 

 

Beautiful:appl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nalis said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54748633

 

Cases in the North East (Tier 2) cases levelling off or even dropping off.

 

Could be worth learning why thats the case there while cases in some Tier 3 areas are still increasing, particularly if its down to more than just the behaviour of people. 

I think it's down to tier 2 being adequate to control the virus and the timing of when it was implemented to when figures start to drop or stabilize. Tier 3 places will see a drop eventually, but who's to say that making them a tier 2 would not have had the same effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I think it's down to tier 2 being adequate to control the virus and the timing of when it was implemented to when figures start to drop or stabilize. Tier 3 places will see a drop eventually, but who's to say that making them a tier 2 would not have had the same effect.

The tiering itself will not be sufficient. It is a lot about how people react within those tiers and whether they can bring themselves to act responsibly for the greater good or selfishly just for themselves. I'd include businesses in that as well. I think there is a psychological implication of placing an area into tier 3 which may influence people's behaviour more than being in tier 2 where the difference from tier 1 is really quite small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

'Estimated 560,000 people in England had Covid-19 between 17 and 23 October'

 

That's over 1% of the population, so you'd like to think some form of natural herd immunity is developing.

Just 50% of the population to go then to get close  !


actually there have been modelling studies that show 30% could be quite effective - what we don’t know is how many of those infected in the first wave will not become infectious in the second ....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Just 50% of the population to go then to get close  !


actually there have been modelling studies that show 30% could be quite effective - what we don’t know is how many of those infected in the first wave will not become infectious in the second ....

 

 

 

Hopefully it won't take as much as 50%, but if that's one week, and it'll only get worse the colder it gets, then we could reach 15-20% very quickly.

 

But yeah, lots we don't know, but hopefully the large number of people having it might be an advantage further down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Just 50% of the population to go then to get close  !


actually there have been modelling studies that show 30% could be quite effective - what we don’t know is how many of those infected in the first wave will not become infectious in the second ....

 

 

 

Yep I think previously 60% was the "magic" number, but I swear I've seen in a recent study that as low as 30% could see it done, but this may rely on people still adhering to social distancing measures for the foreseeable

 

I think what helps in the current climate is a lot more people are working from home (or not working at all), so generally the people you would tend to come across in an average day is roughly the same

 

With a bit of luck though, if we can draw similarities to the Spanish flu, I believe most countries experiences 2 shitty big waves of it, and any subsequent waves were far less serious with much fewer cases experienced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fktf said:

Either the lockdown, the change in weather, or likely a combination of both slowed infections at the initial peak. They didn't just slow on it's own. I guess we'll see how effective lockdowns are in the absence of warmer weather this winter. I bet you they work.

We don't know that.  The one thing that is absolutely certain is that if we had done nothing at all, the Spring wave would have receded and the Autumn wave would recede.  For one thing, it's what waves do, and for another thing, it would have to because if it didn't it would have to start infecting people several times a day once it reached a higher figure than the total population.

 

Obviously the last line is reducing it to the absurd.  But the point is there - this was is certain to reduce one way or the other, and when it does drop it will be hard to be sure whether it dropped because of the actions we took or because it was going to drop anyway.  Or, of course, a combination of both, which is the most likely answer - but in what proportion?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

We don't know that.  The one thing that is absolutely certain is that if we had done nothing at all, the Spring wave would have receded and the Autumn wave would recede.  For one thing, it's what waves do, and for another thing, it would have to because if it didn't it would have to start infecting people several times a day once it reached a higher figure than the total population.

 

Obviously the last line is reducing it to the absurd.  But the point is there - this was is certain to reduce one way or the other, and when it does drop it will be hard to be sure whether it dropped because of the actions we took or because it was going to drop anyway.  Or, of course, a combination of both, which is the most likely answer - but in what proportion?  

It certainly would ..... but how many would have died and how many NHS frontline workers would have died because their job was trying to save those who were suffering most ??

 

i though that was the main point - the NHS ??  If someone wants to take a risk with their life and catch this thing then that’s their prerogative but what  isn’t acceptable is that an NHS nurse, doctor or anyone working in a hospital should die because of their job caring for someone. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It certainly would ..... but how many would have died and how many NHS frontline workers would have died because their job was trying to save those who were suffering most ??

 

i though that was the main point - the NHS ??  If someone wants to take a risk with their life and catch this thing then that’s their prerogative but what  isn’t acceptable is that an NHS nurse, doctor or anyone working in a hospital should die because of their job caring for someone. 

Exactly the point.  We don't know.  Probably, based on Sweden and Brazil, not a lot different to what actually did happen.  

 

Perhaps we should go back to those early days and use lockdowns to protect the NHS.  Keeping it running for 7 months in hopes that it would go away completely has lost a lot of goodwill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

 

excellent post, must give you credit for that one 👍 

Thank you - that's rare on the internet and noble - I admire your integrity and humility for saying so. And, genuinely, although my frustration was seemingly directed at you it's actually the perpetrators of disinformation and the dangers of social media which are arguably as much viral threat as Covid-19 but impossible to eradicate. I apologise if it came across as unnecessarily personal. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joachim1965 said:

His exact words were "it doesn't tell you that you are sick" take from that what you will.

He's right, it doesn't. But it does tell you if there is specific viral DNA present and in tandem with other tests such as noting what symptoms, if any, are present, you can diagnose the person. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Line-X said:

Yes, you'll find you may have mentioned parroted it once or twice. 

 

 :frusty:

 

Do we really have do do this again and again and again? You people simply refuse to listen. Social media users have been mindlessly lapping up and regurgitating a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote has been falsely attributed to the inventor, Kary Mullis, and as usual has been intentionally taken out of context to falsify its original meaning. The quote is actually from an article written by John Lauritsen in December 1996 about HIV and AIDS, not COVID-19. Mullis passed away in August last year before the outbreak of Covid19. 

 

Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead he is pointing out that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves. I quote directly:

 

“PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”

 

The PCR test detects the presence of the virus by amplifying the virus’ genetic material to a point where it can be detected by scientists. That's how it works - it's not ideal, or optimum, but currently it is the best thing that we have at our disposal. It is the preferred method in the UK because it can be performed in 'real time' and such molecular diagnostic tests remain the gold standard methods for identifying individuals with an active viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of COVID-19 disease), in their respiratory tract. These tests are rapid and timely. As I said, it has limitations. Understand that detecting viral material via PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious or able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires involved virus culture methods. Although these methods can only be performed in laboratories with specialist containment facilities they are both time consuming and complex.

 

To reiterate for the final time, the quote undermining PCR tests is misattributed to Mullis and taken out of context. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient. Yes, this has lead to other issues such as the problem of false positives. 

 

Let's be honest, you would never have even heard of PCR prior to the outbreak of Covid19, and were it not for the intentional deception on behalf of those that perpetrate this farrago of facebook factoids in a lame attempt to seek the attention, recognition and significance that eludes them in the real world. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their biased beliefs and preconceptions so unlikely to ever critically appraise it. Odd don't you think that the entire independent fields of epidemiology, virology and immunology - y'know, the people that actually understand the patterns and causes of disease and infection in humans through research, evidence based practice and health policy - don't defer to the armchair 'expertise' of online self-appointed overnight 'authorities' that think that they know better because the internet told them so.

 

Finally, as I have attempted to explain on innumerable occasions, known science is not about "opinion" - yours or mine, or populist perceptions on a football forum - and without meaning to sound disparaging, yes I will continue to ridicule and humiliate you if you continue in your relentless pursuit of cherry picked confirmation bias, dangerous and irresponsible misinformation and your demonstrable belief that social media in any way substitutes for an education. 

Excellent and informed. What is you actual job? You seem to have much knowledge, understanding and insight.

Edited by Parafox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

It certainly would ..... but how many would have died and how many NHS frontline workers would have died because their job was trying to save those who were suffering most ??

 

i though that was the main point - the NHS ??  If someone wants to take a risk with their life and catch this thing then that’s their prerogative but what  isn’t acceptable is that an NHS nurse, doctor or anyone working in a hospital should die because of their job caring for someone. 

Or on any frontline NHS service. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Excellent and informed. What is you actual job? You seem to have much knowledge, understanding and insight.

Really, it's not remotely as noble or as skilled as your profession, I work in HE.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...