Coronavirus Thread

[KFS]

8 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

OK, how about I turn this the other way around? 

 

That you have to have a passport giving a green or red to  illustrate if your are fat fcker or doddering pensioner. And if you are, you can whistle for sport or restaurant or theatre or holidays.

 

Is that acceptable?

Again, read what I wrote. Vax or neg test is the requirement.

 

They aren’t checking whether you’re in the at risk population, they’re checking whether you’re going to spread the virus. Plus, vaccines are going out to a much wider group of eligible people so your point has confused me past it being derogatory to those who have died the most during this whole debacle. That seems nice of you...

[dsr-burnley]

47 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I am often bewildered by your posts, but your contrary knee-jerk responses almost invariably beggar belief. You don't appear to read or understand other people's input and because of this, whether intentionally or not, reply with a series of strawman logical fallacies and tangential oblique arguments. 

 

Science currently does not tell us about reinfection or indeed how long the vaccine protection lasts and one of the biggest unknowns concerns transmission. I have made no such assumptions - indeed, my point is that we simply do not know. What's yours?

 

Also, I simply observed that a third wave in the UK may result in renewed clinical burden much like we are witnessing in Italy. My reasoning is clearly detailed. 

 

If we exercise caution and patience and are measured in our response, we will drive down the reproduction number and emerge from this. Normality for many, I pray, will resume. For me, I'm not so sure. The continued restrictions have exacted a heavy toll, in part based on the recklessness last year. Not even sure I'll have a job beyond this. I desperately need this to end for multiple reasons, but as long as irrationality and impetuosity prevail over logic and reason, the more this misery will be protracted for us all. 

You said that 21% of the population are not eligible for a vaccine and only 84% are protected by it which leaves one third of the population unprotected.  Your sums are accurate, but to get that answer you have to be assuming that there is no immunity at all among children (hence they are not protected) and that there is no immunity at all among the people whose vaccine is not fully effective (hence they are not protected).

 

You didn't quote your science that gave the conclusion that it would be highly likely that hospital occupancy would be higher than January if restrictions were lifted sooner.  I presume it's not the demonstrably wrong figures produced much earlier in the year; there must be newer figures to back this up?

 

These aren't logical fallacies.  They're just logical.

 

I think my point is that there are two issues here.  One is the damage caused by coronavirus.  The other is the damage caused by the coronavirus treatment.  Yes, you can look at models that say there will be twice as many people in hospital in May and June as there were in January and deaths will be running at 2,000 or 3,000 per day; and you can choose whether lockdown is appropriate in view of those models or whether it's more appropriate to react based on actual real world data and more realistic models.  What we mustn't do is to work on the basis that crushing coronavirus is vital and nothing else matters.

[String fellow]

I wonder which is preferable - an FA Cup Semi-Final without any spectators inside the ground, or one partially filled with fans who've been favourably 'discriminated' through their safe Covid-19 status. It seems that some would prefer the first option based purely on what they see as the unfairness of the second option. Or perhaps those not in favour of the second option would like no restrictions for the match, even though it might become a super-spreader event.  

[KFS]

1 minute ago, String fellow said:

I wonder which is preferable - an FA Cup Semi-Final without any spectators inside the ground, or one partially filled with fans who've been favourably 'discriminated' through their safe Covid-19 status. It seems that some would prefer the first option based purely on what they see as the unfairness of the second option. Or perhaps those not in favour of the second option would like no restrictions for the match, even though it might become a super-spreader event.  

So educate me here because I’m not back home and haven’t seen the Wembley requirement (has anyone yet?)

 

The model being employed by the Yankees as I shared above is neg test or vaccine. That means 100% eligibility no? Here I can drive 5 mins down the road to get a test and as long as I do it 6 hours prior to kick off I’d be able to attend. Some people are drinking before then on a match day. 
 

Maybe I am missing something but the positive discrimination doesn’t apply if the app also uses neg test which anyone can get. 

[fuchsntf]

Uk..Western Europe are no longer the Virus/epidemic/Pandemic free Region they once were..Covid has seen to that...

 

When I travelled/worked into, through all those far flung, unknown,well known corners of the world..

I had to carry a Health Pass / Vaccine passport..which was controlled , I saw and Dont see what the Problem is...

 

More today young would be explorers, travel/work through various excotic, e

edemicpandemic-regions, Plus we have Migrants / refugees/ tourists/visitors from those

other far flung corners of this planet...

I would Think its Now common-sense to Think about introducing /expanding this idea of Vaccine passports, of after/during pandemic worries..

If we want to start to encourage again mass-gatherings  & travel....Short & long haul...

 

Still Amazes & worries me, that people, many Posters on this forum, actually ( at the moment) automatically think this or other problems will just go away,

and its a One off..!!!

 

 

[Chocolate Teapot]

1 minute ago, String fellow said:

I wonder which is preferable - an FA Cup Semi-Final without any spectators inside the ground, or one partially filled with fans who've been favourably 'discriminated' through their safe Covid-19 status. It seems that some would prefer the first option based purely on what they see as the unfairness of the second option. Or perhaps those not in favour of the second option would like no restrictions for the match, even though it might become a super-spreader event.  

Firstly I'd like to see actual fans of clubs at games watching their clubs as that's what football is about.

If that means the young ones don't get to go then so be it (I'd rather my dad gets to go and he could go with his mate along with a load of other football fans).

 

However, morally I'm not sure how you can justify that, the chances of young people dying or ending up on intensive care are incredibly low- hence the rolling out of the vaccine being in ahead order. Young people at Little risk have locked down for a year to protect others for absolutely the right reasons, you're then saying you can't get back to normal yet because you haven't got protection despite being low risk.

 

In short it's a cluster ****. Until you offer everyone a vaccine how do you justify it?

 

From a personal perspective I'll watch the final down the stag with nige. Better than what's on offer currently.

[Chocolate Teapot]

2 minutes ago, KFS said:

So educate me here because I’m not back home and haven’t seen the Wembley requirement (has anyone yet?)

 

The model being employed by the Yankees as I shared above is neg test or vaccine. That means 100% eligibility no? Here I can drive 5 mins down the road to get a test and as long as I do it 6 hours prior to kick off I’d be able to attend. Some people are drinking before then on a match day. 
 

Maybe I am missing something but the positive discrimination doesn’t apply if the app also uses neg test which anyone can get. 

How do you get a test back so quickly? I've had one and it took 4 days to get back to me. How does that work with the 6 hour thing?

[KFS]

1 minute ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

How do you get a test back so quickly? I've had one and it took 4 days to get back to me. How does that work with the 6 hour thing?

This is what I get on stubhub if I were to go buy tickets. We have those tests here but am aware I am probably sharing US specific things now so that may be the issue.

[Chocolate Teapot]

3 minutes ago, KFS said:

This is what I get on stubhub if I were to go buy tickets. We have those tests here but am aware I am probably sharing US specific things now so that may be the issue.

The antigen ones aren't very accurate are they?

[KFS]

2 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

The antigen ones aren't very accurate are they?

None of them are so that’s why they are bridging the gap with the 10k fans distanced which should mitigate until there are more people vaxxed throughout the Summer. It’s a slow and steady process I guess.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

You said that 21% of the population are not eligible for a vaccine and only 84% are protected by it which leaves one third of the population unprotected.  Your sums are accurate, but to get that answer you have to be assuming that there is no immunity at all among children (hence they are not protected) and that there is no immunity at all among the people whose vaccine is not fully effective (hence they are not protected).

Not protected by vaccination.

 

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

You didn't quote your science that gave the conclusion that it would be highly likely that hospital occupancy would be higher than January if restrictions were lifted sooner.  I presume it's not the demonstrably wrong figures produced much earlier in the year; there must be newer figures to back this up?

 

Based upon the SPI-M-O published modelling on behalf of the University of Warwick and Imperial College London. The data is here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/imperial-college-london-unlocking-roadmap-scenarios-for-england-18-february-2021

 

16 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

What we mustn't do is to work on the basis that crushing coronavirus is vital and nothing else matters.

Yes, I am inclined to agree, but I don't think that we are. 

[dsr-burnley]

50 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Based upon the SPI-M-O published modelling on behalf of the University of Warwick and Imperial College London. The data is here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/imperial-college-london-unlocking-roadmap-scenarios-for-england-18-february-2021

 

That's hardly worth quoting now, is it.  It was widely believed at the time to be inaccurate, and events since have proved that to be correct.  For example:

 

1.  Under the "fast" level of release of lockdown (which closely correlates to the actual release so far), the R value would be (with 95% confidence) between 1.56 and 1.85 on 5th April.  It is actually (real world) between 0.7 and 0.9.

2.  They assume the AstraZeneca vaccine, even after 2 doses, provides only 63% protection against infection and only 80% protection against serious illness.

 

Edited 4 April 2021 by dsr-burnley

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, KFS said:

Yet again a load of fear mongering, info filtering nonsense on this thread. It’s more interesting to think that your life is a movie and people are out to control you than trust an encrypted app that turns green or red after proof of fully vaccination or negative test.

 

It’s genuinely like a lot of people do not and are not interested in reading the details and science behind these things. That’s far more worrying to me than some of the worries and fears being spouted in this thread. 

Has anyone actually said anything about our life being a movie and the Government trying to control us? Most of us have just complained about being offered the choice of take a vaccine, or be shunted out from society (I admit this is a bit far but we'll wait to hear what Boris says on Monday). All you've done is then come in and basically call anyone questioning it thick, that's not going to convince anyone is it?

 

I will happily take the vaccine, but I understand why some people wouldn't want to, we can bleat on about it being safe etc. but there are genuine concerns and I appreciate why some may believe those concerns could harm them at some point in the future.

 

Those quick tests are inaccurate, the amount of people in my own line of work and people I know who have had varied results from doing multiple tests and doing the proper COVID tests is at least a dozen or so. You can get a negative test and still have COVID, and you can get a positive test whilst not having COVID.

 

The majority of the population have followed the majority of the rules, yet we're still here now being told different things again, after 13 months of this shit. We were told numerous times by this Government that vaccine passports weren't going to happen, they lied, again, and we should just happily say oh no worries you carry on? Why do you think a lot of us are up in arms about it? It's one thing after another, lie after lie. We all want to get back to normal life, but we keep being told, do this, do that, it'll go back to normal, then the goalposts move again. Boris stood infront of the nation and told us on 21st June, all restrictions will be removed, but failed to mention that in order for this to happen we'd need to have taken the vaccine, or we'd have to have a bloody COVID test in order to go to the cinema?

 

They wanted a decent uptake of the vaccine from the population, they said recently it's higher than they thought it was going to be, so if vaccines were the way out of this like they claimed for 12 months (that's why we locked down, to protect the NHS whilst they developed the vaccine, sorted out track & trace etc.) why have the requirements suddenly changed?

 

Then the vaccine passport itself brings with it a whole host of questions and problems. When is it going to be introduced, because under 30s are a few months away from being offered a vaccine. The actual system itself is going to end up being badly run, these idiots just spent 12 billion on a track & trace app that managed to lose half the people it was meant to be tracking For the testing, are they going to be done at home, or on the doors of clubs, or at football games? 80k COVID tests needed for a FA cup final at Wembley, are we going to have to pay for them ourselves?

 

It's all about pushing people into having the vaccine, people rightly won't take kindly to that, especially not when we're having 10 (yes ten) people die of this virus a day.

 

Do you genuinely trust this lot in power to put a vaccine passport system in place for 12 months and that be the end of it? I'm as Tory as they come and if you really believe they'll do that without moving the goalposts again or using it to their own advantage then it might not be me that needs educating

 

PS. I'm not having a go btw, just stating there are a lot of us out there with genuine concerns, being labelled as thick, selfish, uneducated or whatever isn't going to work, discussions might though.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Do Korea just operate their track and trace? I notice they have decent numbers now at football games etc. 
 

Alongside the civil Liberty argument, after the UK’s attempt at track and trace, I really fear another truck load of money wasted doing a poor job with it 

Yeah, track and trace has worked pretty much magnificently over here - I still get text messages every day about local cases, anonymised of course. The vaccine rollout needs an awful lot to be desired, however, and I wonder if that might come back to bite us here in the future.

 

The argument about the UK Gov cocking up the vaccine passport stuff in the same way they have cocked up pretty much everything other than the vaccine rollout is a fair one tbh. However, I don't think that should detract from the theoretical necessity (or lack thereof) of such an idea.

 

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Has anyone actually said anything about our life being a movie and the Government trying to control us? Most of us have just complained about being offered the choice of take a vaccine, or be shunted out from society (I admit this is a bit far but we'll wait to hear what Boris says on Monday). All you've done is then come in and basically call anyone questioning it thick, that's not going to convince anyone is it?

 

I will happily take the vaccine, but I understand why some people wouldn't want to, we can bleat on about it being safe etc. but there are genuine concerns and I appreciate why some may believe those concerns could harm them at some point in the future.

 

Those quick tests are inaccurate, the amount of people in my own line of work and people I know who have had varied results from doing multiple tests and doing the proper COVID tests is at least a dozen or so. You can get a negative test and still have COVID, and you can get a positive test whilst not having COVID.

 

The majority of the population have followed the majority of the rules, yet we're still here now being told different things again, after 13 months of this shit. We were told numerous times by this Government that vaccine passports weren't going to happen, they lied, again, and we should just happily say oh no worries you carry on? Why do you think a lot of us are up in arms about it? It's one thing after another, lie after lie. We all want to get back to normal life, but we keep being told, do this, do that, it'll go back to normal, then the goalposts move again. Boris stood infront of the nation and told us on 21st June, all restrictions will be removed, but failed to mention that in order for this to happen we'd need to have taken the vaccine, or we'd have to have a bloody COVID test in order to go to the cinema?

 

They wanted a decent uptake of the vaccine from the population, they said recently it's higher than they thought it was going to be, so if vaccines were the way out of this like they claimed for 12 months (that's why we locked down, to protect the NHS whilst they developed the vaccine, sorted out track & trace etc.) why have the requirements suddenly changed?

 

Then the vaccine passport itself brings with it a whole host of questions and problems. When is it going to be introduced, because under 30s are a few months away from being offered a vaccine. The actual system itself is going to end up being badly run, these idiots just spent 12 billion on a track & trace app that managed to lose half the people it was meant to be tracking For the testing, are they going to be done at home, or on the doors of clubs, or at football games? 80k COVID tests needed for a FA cup final at Wembley, are we going to have to pay for them ourselves?

 

It's all about pushing people into having the vaccine, people rightly won't take kindly to that, especially not when we're having 10 (yes ten) people die of this virus a day.

 

Do you genuinely trust this lot in power to put a vaccine passport system in place for 12 months and that be the end of it? I'm as Tory as they come and if you really believe they'll do that without moving the goalposts again or using it to their own advantage then it might not be me that needs educating

 

PS. I'm not having a go btw, just stating there are a lot of us out there with genuine concerns, being labelled as thick, selfish, uneducated or whatever isn't going to work, discussions might though.

This is a fair post and the bolded part in particular.

 

However (and I've seen this before with other science matters), with all due respect, discussions have been happening for a rather long time on this very thread (usually led by some good posting from @Line-X) and yet there are still a plethora of people either disagreeing or flat-out ignoring it and sticking with their own stance in spite of the science, for whatever reason. Where exactly can such discussion go from there in order to be more convincing without veering into being authoritarian?

 

I really don't know.

[Super_horns]

9 hours ago, Otis said:

They'll always be something. 

Everything we do in life is a risk to some extent. At some point we are going to have to accept the risk.

Yes agree which is what some people were trying to say all the time particularly younger people who didn’t think this affected them but now they are realising it could albeit not kill them.

 

I am sure those shielding and having to be extra careful for over a year are enjoying some freedom and sunshine.

[String fellow]

By the time the vaccine passport is fully introduced, won't everyone have been offered the vaccine? Then, we'll be in a position much like we already have for driving licences. Anyone who has proved that they are safe to drive can have a licence, just as those who have proved that they are safe to mingle will be able to have a vaccine passport. I don't think that that's a bad analogy, and yet we don't hear the likes of Shami Chakrabarti moaning that the driving licence is an infringement of civil liberties. 

Edited 5 April 2021 by String fellow

[st albans fox]

26 minutes ago, String fellow said:

By the time the vaccine passport is fully introduced, won't everyone have been offered the vaccine? Then, we'll be in a position much like we already have for driving licences. Anyone who has proved that they are safe to drive can have a licence, just as those who have proved that they are safe to mingle will be able to have a vaccine passport. I don't think that that's a bad analogy, and yet we don't hear the likes of Shami Chakrabarti moaning that the driving licence is an infringement of civil liberties. 

That’s a bit 

[String fellow]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s a bit 

Both items are spherical and edible, and therefore not dissimilar! A more reasoned argument against my analogy would be more informative.

Edited 5 April 2021 by String fellow

[Legend_in_blue]

11 hours ago, Line-X said:

Not protected by vaccination.

 

Based upon the SPI-M-O published modelling on behalf of the University of Warwick and Imperial College London. The data is here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/imperial-college-london-unlocking-roadmap-scenarios-for-england-18-february-2021

 

Yes, I am inclined to agree, but I don't think that we are. 

 

We may have had our differences on this thread over the past 12 months, but to use modelling data as part of your point of view is pushing it a little.  The modelling data time and time again has proven to be completely inaccurate to the point where the vast majority of lockdown measures, NPIs and the like are based off this wildly inaccurate set of numbers.  This modelling has been used across multiple press conferences and has done nothing but spread misinformation to the general public but because it supports the narrative everyone is expected to accept it.  Ferguson's work long term has brought much damage to the nation.  You can look elsewhere for similar, the US is a good place to start, Fauci is another who is given far too much airtime.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

We may have had our differences on this thread over the past 12 months, but to use modelling data as part of your point of view is pushing it a little.  The modelling data time and time again has proven to be completely inaccurate to the point where the vast majority of lockdown measures, NPIs and the like are based off this wildly inaccurate set of numbers.  This modelling has been used across multiple press conferences and has done nothing but spread misinformation to the general public but because it supports the narrative everyone is expected to accept it.  Ferguson's work long term has brought much damage to the nation.  You can look elsewhere for similar, the US is a good place to start, Fauci is another who is given far too much airtime.

Is there reputable peer reviewed studies backing this up? Genuinely curious.

[SpacedX]

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's hardly worth quoting now, is it.  It was widely believed at the time to be inaccurate, and events since have proved that to be correct.  For example:

 

1.  Under the "fast" level of release of lockdown (which closely correlates to the actual release so far), the R value would be (with 95% confidence) between 1.56 and 1.85 on 5th April.  It is actually (real world) between 0.7 and 0.9.

2.  They assume the AstraZeneca vaccine, even after 2 doses, provides only 63% protection against infection and only 80% protection against serious illness.

 

These are modelled scenarios and there are a series of them because scientists are faced with such enormous flux and complexity involving emergent data and ever evolving variables. Yet a football forum assumes it to be clear cut. I'm intrigued, do you also think that the current roadmap to recovery is "shit" and also too slow? or do you think that it should be cautious, responsive and data lead? reminding the public that these milestones/benchmarks are may prone to change? Only, if you hadn't noticed, viruses don't respond too well to short term staged plans and expectations imposed upon them. 

 

Frankly, SARS-CoV-2 will be likely never be wholly eradicated. The future will greatly depend upon the type of immunity people acquire through infection or vaccination and how the virus evolves - and currently we simply don't know this. Influenza and the four human coronaviruses that cause common colds are endemic, but a combination of annual vaccines and acquired immunity means that societies are able to weather the seasonal deaths and illnesses they bring without requiring lockdowns, masks and social distancing.

 

it’s probable that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will also need to be updated, and possibly administered every year. But even then, immunity from either previous vaccination or infection will probably prevent serious disease. If people are reinfected, this might not be so serious. With the endemic coronaviruses, frequent reinfections seem to boost immunity against related variants and typically people experience only mild symptoms. But it is conceivable that vaccines won’t prevent severe symptoms developing for some, in which case it  will continue to be a significant burden on society.

 

As I said, there are many possible scenarios yet to be determined:

 

 

So the path that SARS-CoV-2 might take to become an endemic virus is extremely challenging for immunologists, infectious-disease researchers and virologists to predict and navigating us out of restrictions with any degree of certainty is an equally impossible task (both in the short-term and the long-term). But as has been shown, we/society can effect some degree of control over it. Over the next few years, countries can reduce transmission with flexible control measures until enough people have been vaccinated either to achieve herd immunity or to drastically reduce the severity of infections allowing something approaching normality to return. That would significantly reduce deaths, severe disease and clinical burden. But if countries rapidly abandon strategies to reduce spread and allow the virus to reign unchecked then further dark days of this pandemic are still to be expected.

 

To reiterate - this is a global challenge which oddly seems to be solved in the heads of certain members of a provincial football forum.  

[SpacedX]

19 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

We may have had our differences on this thread over the past 12 months, but to use modelling data as part of your point of view is pushing it a little.  The modelling data time and time again has proven to be completely inaccurate to the point where the vast majority of lockdown measures, NPIs and the like are based off this wildly inaccurate set of numbers.  This modelling has been used across multiple press conferences and has done nothing but spread misinformation to the general public but because it supports the narrative everyone is expected to accept it.  Ferguson's work long term has brought much damage to the nation.  You can look elsewhere for similar, the US is a good place to start, Fauci is another who is given far too much airtime.

Hmmm - amusing that you of all people should be mentioning damaging 'misinformation'. Any updates from Mike Yeadon? 

 

 

[RonnieTodger]

The only area that I could understand vaccine passports being implemented would be for international travel / flights.

Doesn’t create extra hassle and would be in-tune with stopping the spread of whatever variant they find next. 
 

Needing a check to watch cricket at an open air stadium like Edgbaston, but not to get onto a packed tube. Make it make sense. 

 

[dsr-burnley]

23 minutes ago, Line-X said:

These are modelled scenarios and there are a series of them because scientists are faced with such enormous flux and complexity involving emergent data and ever evolving variables. Yet a football forum assumes it to be clear cut. I'm intrigued, do you also think that the current roadmap to recovery is "shit" and also too slow? or do you think that it should be cautious, responsive and data lead? reminding the public that these milestones/benchmarks are may prone to change? Only, if you hadn't noticed, viruses don't respond too well to short term staged plans and expectations imposed upon them. 

 

Frankly, SARS-CoV-2 will be likely never be wholly eradicated. The future will greatly depend upon the type of immunity people acquire through infection or vaccination and how the virus evolves - and currently we simply don't know this. Influenza and the four human coronaviruses that cause common colds are endemic, but a combination of annual vaccines and acquired immunity means that societies are able to weather the seasonal deaths and illnesses they bring without requiring lockdowns, masks and social distancing.

 

it’s probable that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will also need to be updated, and possibly administered every year. But even then, immunity from either previous vaccination or infection will probably prevent serious disease. If people are reinfected, this might not be so serious. With the endemic coronaviruses, frequent reinfections seem to boost immunity against related variants and typically people experience only mild symptoms. But it is conceivable that vaccines won’t prevent severe symptoms developing for some, in which case it  will continue to be a significant burden on society.

 

 

That model was based on the assumption that when the schools reopened, the R number would shoot up to 1.7.  That R number is fundamental to its conclusions.  In fact, when the schools reopened, the R number did not shoot up and has remained comfortably below 1.  Yes, I believe that makes it clear cut that the model is wrong.  

 

I think it would probably be a good idea to have the roadmap out of lockdown to be data led and responsive.  Obviously it isn't, or else they would be speeding it up.  The data is going better than anyone expected, even the most optimistic of us; so a responsive, data-led reaction would be to speed up the release.  

 

I don't believe this virus will ever be eradicated.  It will probably follow the same path of other viruses throughout history - it will lose strength and become a less serious illness over time.  Just like Spanish flu, or the probable coronavirus of the 1880's which is still around as a form of the common cold.  The world has a very poor record of eradicating viruses, and I don't expect this one to be any different.

[Legend_in_blue]

47 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is there reputable peer reviewed studies backing this up? Genuinely curious.

You know the answer to your own question there.  It doesn't take a peer reviewed study to recognise the fact that the modelling is very inaccurate with the data that has proceeded it.

 

25 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Hmmm - amusing that you of all people should be mentioning damaging 'misinformation'. Any updates from Mike Yeadon? 

 

 

Neil Ferguson and Mike Yeadon may be poles apart in their assumptions but just because Ferguson sits on the right side of the fence, it doesn't make his views any more plausible than Yeadons.