Coronavirus Thread

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

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.

 

 

That's unfortunate, because *yes*, it does. If one is going to put forward such a point of view as anything approaching fact rather than opinion (that perhaps should be qualified as such lest observers on this forum get the wrong idea) anyway.

[Nick]

Anybody had the Pfizer 1st dose and got any side effects? 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Nick said:

Anybody had the Pfizer 1st dose and got any side effects? 

 

Yeah, this is the mother-in-law:

 

Sorry, I don't have a photo of her after the jab...

Edited 5 April 2021 by Buce

[String fellow]

37 minutes ago, Nick said:

Anybody had the Pfizer 1st dose and got any side effects? 

Yes, I had the Pfizer jab, and had only one side effect, a sore arm. As my arm is on my side, that literally was a side effect! Btw, lots of the -isms are now verboten, but it seems that mother-in-law-ism is still socially acceptable.

Edited 5 April 2021 by String fellow

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

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.

 

Well firstly, Ferguson resigned having undermined the message about lockdown and fully acknowledged his error surrounding grossly irresponsible claims of immunity - and you are correct, that was a dangerous assumption.  But actually that is not his greatest regret:

 

“It was tragic how slow we were at increasing testing for the virus. We should have started testing in hospitals and GPs [surgeries] much earlier than we did. We would then have had a much clearer picture of how quickly infections were coming into the country. As a result, we would have almost certainly locked down earlier – and perhaps would have adopted very different strategies, such as more draconian restrictions on international travel"

 

As a result of his calling for strict lockdowns, he became a target for considerable vilification and harassment from commentators in the rightwing press and from those that think social media substitutes for an education, who were convinced Covid-19 was a fake and a conspiracy aimed at curtailing individual liberties. He was branded Professor Lockdown; abused in his home, bots were set up to bombard him with hundreds of thousands of emails a day and he was subjected to countless hacking attempts and cyber attacks. The stress and the toll of this hate campaign was “emotionally debilitating”, he recalls. Not just for him but also for his colleagues. It was part of a campaign to undermine the science behind the country’s Covid policy, and it was carried out by those who have taken an ideological stance opposing the lockdown.

 

Mike Yeadon on the other hand is a shameful, opportunistic, sensationalist fraud and spokesperson for the dangerous populist pseudoscientific narrative that you have consistently subscribed to and levered throughout this thread. He has shown no remorse, no compunction and astonishingly refuses to retract his fallacious views and yet attracts little in the way of condemnation. To remind you, in your eagerness to appeal to authority and further your own agenda, you gullibly posted his nonsense on several occasions, yet you then have the audacity to speak about "misinformation". As I have attempted to explain innumerable occasions, science is ultimately not a question of "views" or "opinions" and that is precisely where Ferguson fell down. Yeadon, you simply brushed under the carpet when it became clear to even you, how wildly inaccurate his reckless claims were. 

 

31 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.  

 

The expectation that, with the increased social mixing that comes with reopening schools, there would also be an increase in the spread of the virus but this was factored into the “unlockdown” roadmap through the inclusion of five week gaps between each significant change to the rules. To reiterate, these are a series of modelled scenarios which may or may not be accurate. We are then forced to respond reactively due to a lag in the data, which may or may not change rapidly due to a series of highly complex variables. The situation is mutable and the data in constant flux. 

 

36 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.  

 

??? Are you actually being serious? We are only eight days into stage 1 

 

41 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.  

 

Not necessarily. You may find that it slows it down, based upon what transpires and our findings, which is precisely the caveat from epidemiologists virologists and immunologists - it could go either way. This is why our response needs to be rapid and informed by the data and the relaxation of restrictions highly measured - which is precisely my point. You didn't answer the question. At this stage, appreciating that the data will evolve as we progress, do you think it is possible and responsible to conclude that the current roadmap to recovery is "shit" and also "too slow?" A simple yes/no will suffice. Thanks.

 

47 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.

Precisely my point earlier and on that we agree entirely. 

[dsr-burnley]

23 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The expectation that, with the increased social mixing that comes with reopening schools, there would also be an increase in the spread of the virus but this was factored into the “unlockdown” roadmap through the inclusion of five week gaps between each significant change to the rules. To reiterate, these are a series of modelled scenarios which may or may not be accurate. We are then forced to respond reactively due to a lag in the data, which may or may not change rapidly due to a series of highly complex variables. The situation is mutable and the data in constant flux. 

 

??? Are you actually being serious? We are only eight days into stage 1 

 

Not necessarily. You may find that it slows it down, based upon what transpires and our findings, which is precisely the caveat from epidemiologists virologists and immunologists - it could go either way. This is why our response needs to be rapid and informed by the data and the relaxation of restrictions highly measured - which is precisely my point. You didn't answer the question. At this stage, appreciating that the data will evolve as we progress, do you think it is possible and responsible to conclude that the current roadmap to recovery is "[deleted]" and also "too slow?" A simple yes/no will suffice. Thanks.

And the expectation was wrong.  Any roadmap that had that factored in, can now factor it out.  Stage 1 started on 8th March.  That's more than 8 days ago.

 

As for the poll, no I don't think that swearing makes you sound big or clever.  But to rephrase the question, it might be reasonable to conclude that the current roadmap could be improved and therefore should be.

 

 

Edited 5 April 2021 by dsr-burnley

[dsr-burnley]

11 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

 

 

 

Duplicate.

Edited 5 April 2021 by dsr-burnley

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

And the expectation was wrong.  Any roadmap that had that factored in, can now factor it out.  Stage 1 started on 8th March.  That's more than 8 days ago.

 

The return to education was indeed the 8th and this was indeed significant, but we have discussed that - This was accompanied by negligible changes to social contact in that people were allowed to leave home for recreation and exercise outdoors with their household or support bubble, if they are eligible for one, or with one person from outside their household. Care home residents were also to be allowed one regular visitor. So aside from the reopening of schools, very minor changes. From last week we saw the end of screening, outdoor gatherings involving the rule of six and the resumption of organised outdoor sports. My point is, it is still very early days. 

 

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

 

As for the poll, no I don't think that swearing makes you sound big or clever.

Eh? What swearing? I am simply quoting an earlier post on this thread which you either missed or had no objection to - hence the quotation marks. To reiterate, because you are still avoiding the question; appreciating that the data will evolve as we progress, do you think it is currently possible and responsible to conclude that the current roadmap to recovery is...

 

On 03/04/2021 at 23:34, Dan LCFC said:

shit, far too slow, 

 

A simple yes/no will suffice. Thanks.

 

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Duplicate.

No worries - easily done.

[KFS]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

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.

@leicsmacSpot on. 
 

@Leicester_Loyal I’m not calling you thick and would never intend to. I’m aware it may not be you and I that need to have this discussion because I am more frustrated by the slew of comments I am seeing about dystopia and how people are out to be controlled; more so the extremists who are more interested in conspiracy than actually garnering facts. You seem less erratic and want to form a view rather than some of the idiots online who, let’s face it, we need to stop spreading their lies and influencing others to believe radical theories. Every time that guff is posted and others read it we go two steps back.
 

Again, we need everyone to be on board with the science and technology that gets us out of this mess. Anyone has a right to be concerned about anything, that should never ever be taken away, but there is also detail out there about these things, trials, tests, science that I personally have found reassuring.

 

Not aimed at you, but people’s trip to fvcking tesco is not worthy of a Microsoft chip in the arm from a vaccine and ‘government control’. I really wish I was that important. 

[fox_up_north]

1 hour ago, Nick said:

Anybody had the Pfizer 1st dose and got any side effects? 

Sore arm and a bit of a headache. Hearing went funny. 

[dsr-burnley]

27 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The return to education was indeed the 8th and this was indeed significant, but we have discussed that - This was accompanied by negligible changes to social contact in that people were allowed to leave home for recreation and exercise outdoors with their household or support bubble, if they are eligible for one, or with one person from outside their household. Care home residents were also to be allowed one regular visitor. So aside from the reopening of schools, very minor changes. From last week we saw the end of screening, outdoor gatherings involving the rule of six and the resumption of organised outdoor sports. My point is, it is still very early days. 

And my point is, the forecast you quoted was based on schools returning but few other rules being lifted would make the R number go to 1.7.  Schools have returned, and as you said little else changed, and the R number has not gone to 1.7 - it has stayed at 0.8.  Hence that report is wrong and its conclusions should be disregarded.  They need to make a new report that does not assume a high R rate in March.

[SpacedX]

44 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

And my point is, the forecast you quoted was based on schools returning but few other rules being lifted would make the R number go to 1.7.  Schools have returned, and as you said little else changed, and the R number has not gone to 1.7 - it has stayed at 0.8.  Hence that report is wrong and its conclusions should be disregarded.  They need to make a new report that does not assume a high R rate in March.

To reiterate, the forecast that I quoted was based upon a series of modelled scenarios. Responses are based upon findings. Schools have been back for three weeks, (due to the Easter break). This is still very early days. Moreover, The University of Warwick that contributed to the SP-M-O modelling have also released a draft paper (not yet peer-reviewed) which concludes “there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that outbreaks in schools are driving an increase in community cases” (i.e. infections in the wider population). By their model, there is some evidence that the opposite might be true: “that an increase in incidence in the community leads to more cases in school”. They identify a “lag” between cases in the general public which then appear to trickle into schools, rather than the other way around. Conversely, modellers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have published their own draft study which suggests reopening schools could drive the R number well above 1, causing the epidemic to grow (rather than shrink, as it is at the moment). To reiterate, we are three weeks in. We simply don't know - whilst some others on here assume to know better. Modelling is based on the ongoing CoMix survey, in which a representative sample of population are reporting their contacts, which provides insights about interactions between people in different age groups and different settings.

 

Opening any sector of society will increase transmission to some degree, and even if relatively little transmission happens in schools they are a large sector of society. I suspect that the R number will rise, but not immediately (as you bizarrely think that it should) and not to 1.7 or as a result of schools reopening alone. Since the the latest data shows children themselves remain at very low risk of serious disease and death from coronavirus whilst school staff do not appear to be at greater risk from severe illness compared to others in comparable positions, so schools will remain open whatever.

 

However, at least try to understand that we don’t want to again enter a race between the R number greater than 1 and vaccinating, which is very dangerous balance to try and make. The point is, the uncertainty of the complex dynamics and variables surrounding an infectious virus means that policy makers and scientists face a tough set of choices as they weigh the dynamic of the virus against other important societal factors.

 

My own point throughout and that of the OP that you quoted was, that we need to exercise caution and ensure that the proposed roadmap is agile and adaptive as the data emerges. Rich data extraction may as you suggest expedite our return to normality - absolutely in agreement with that - however, depending upon what it reveals, it may delay it. It is impossible to predict with certainty and the modelling that I based my observations upon is not set in stone and does not attempt to. And yes, as these models are proved inaccurate, they should indeed be revised.  

 

You have still failed to answer the question. Given the uncertainties and the multiple variables/unknowns governing infection, reinfection and transmission - do you think it's safe and possible to conclude at this stage that the proposed roadmap to recovery is "s**t, far too slow"? (censored due to your earlier claimed sensitivities). A simple yes or no will suffice. 

Edited 5 April 2021 by Line-X

[st albans fox]

You lot up there are amazing - well done 

 

Among the top 25 local areas identified by Public Health England as showing a concerning upward trend in case rates per 100,000 people, 16 areas are in the north of England with eight in the Midlands and only one area from the south.

The latest seven-day rolling data to 27 March shows 19 local authorities with a rolling case rate above 100 per 100,000 people, and all of them are in the north of England except Leicester, in the East Midlands. The worst affected areas are Rotherham, with a rate of 170 Covid infections, followed by Barnsley, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, Wakefield, Bradford and Hull.

Edited 5 April 2021 by st albans fox

[Kingleicester]

15 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

You lot up there are amazing - well done 

 

Among the top 25 local areas identified by Public Health England as showing a concerning upward trend in case rates per 100,000 people, 16 areas are in the north of England with eight in the Midlands and only one area from the south.

The latest seven-day rolling data to 27 March shows 19 local authorities with a rolling case rate above 100 per 100,000 people, and all of them are in the north of England except Leicester, in the East Midlands. The worst affected areas are Rotherham, with a rate of 170 Covid infections, followed by Barnsley, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, Wakefield, Bradford and Hull.

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

[String fellow]

There have been some great posts on here since yesterday, not bad for football forum! Reference was made recently to B-cells and T-cells. So I've tried to make sense of how they work. B-cells have receptors which bind onto viral antigens. T-cells detect the infected B-cells and convert them into larger plasma cells. These develop antibodies similar to the original B-cells' receptors and are released. The new antibodies bind with more viral antigens, neutralising them, before being eaten up by macrophages. Copies of the B-cells and T-cells are kept and lay dormant until a new input of the virus is detected. Apparently, most people already have B-cells and T-cells to fight off Covid-19 as a result of dormant cells resulting from having had similar coronaviruses previously.    

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Kingleicester said:

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

We have that to a degree over here too, due to property prices. And there's not nearly so much of a problem here, so perhaps this is something of a misconception?

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, Kingleicester said:

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

It seems to have levelled off at around 110 cases per 100k in Leicester. of course that’s better than it’s been for a long time. I suppose that whilst a lack of hospitalisations will mean that the authorities won’t be overly concerned, a recorded case rate at that level could give rise to a variant. The Kent strain developed late aug into September when case rates were v low. Does that counter my concern?? We still remain pretty ignorant about this thing .......

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, String fellow said:

There have been some great posts on here since yesterday, not bad for football forum! Reference was made recently to B-cells and T-cells. So I've tried to make sense of how they work. B-cells have receptors which bind onto viral antigens. T-cells detect the infected B-cells and convert them into larger plasma cells. These develop antibodies similar to the original B-cells' receptors and are released. The new antibodies bind with more viral antigens, neutralising them, before being eaten up by macrophages. Copies of the B-cells and T-cells are kept and lay dormant until a new input of the virus is detected. Apparently, most people already have B-cells and T-cells to fight off Covid-19 as a result of dormant cells resulting from having had similar coronaviruses previously.    

Absolutely - white blood cells, B and T lymphocytes. And because the latter are the the main components of the adaptive immune system, they 'remember' what the infected cells look like and fight off any future threats mobilising immunomodulating signalling agents - cytokines. 

 

Macrophages are the 'heavies' the muscle - the doormen that immediately pile in and deal with any gatecrashers. B-cells then clear up the carnage. 

 

The Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine that I had is a protein vaccine introducing the spike protein from the virus. It also needs a very small quantity of infection (adenovirus from a chimpanzee influenza) to alert and deploy the body's defences. The internal ruckus/dust up that follows is what can make you feel so shit. It's a chemical fire alarm - and for some, this can overreact, hence being laid up for days even weeks. Since there is huge biodiversity of the immune system it simply affects some more acutely than others. Interestingly, this adverse innate immune response is generally tempered with age.  

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

You have still failed to answer the question. Given the uncertainties and the multiple variables/unknowns governing infection, reinfection and transmission - do you think it's safe and possible to conclude at this stage that the proposed roadmap to recovery is "s**t, far too slow"? (censored due to your earlier claimed sensitivities). A simple yes or no will suffice. 

It is possible for absolutely anyone to conclude that the roadmap is unadulterated rubbish.  For someone who has no influence, it is safe as well to come to that conclusion.  For someone who does has influence, it is likely to harm their career if they think that because to think that any plan is unadulterated rubbish when other sensible people think it is good, is foolish.  They might think it needs a lot of improvement, but not that it has no merit at all.  For someone who has decisive influence, whether it is safe to treat it as complete rubbish depends on what the results of it will be; and like you say, we don't know, do we.

[SpacedX]

Just now, dsr-burnley said:

It is possible for absolutely anyone to conclude that the roadmap is unadulterated rubbish.  For someone who has no influence, it is safe as well to come to that conclusion.  For someone who does has influence, it is likely to harm their career if they think that because to think that any plan is unadulterated rubbish when other sensible people think it is good, is foolish.  They might think it needs a lot of improvement, but not that it has no merit at all.  For someone who has decisive influence, whether it is safe to treat it as complete rubbish depends on what the results of it will be; and like you say, we don't know, do we.

No indeed we don't - which is why a simple "no" would have been sufficient. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It is possible for absolutely anyone to conclude that the roadmap is unadulterated rubbish.  For someone who has no influence, it is safe as well to come to that conclusion.  For someone who does has influence, it is likely to harm their career if they think that because to think that any plan is unadulterated rubbish when other sensible people think it is good, is foolish.  They might think it needs a lot of improvement, but not that it has no merit at all.  For someone who has decisive influence, whether it is safe to treat it as complete rubbish depends on what the results of it will be; and like you say, we don't know, do we.

Tbh I think that very much depends on what they then do with that conclusion. The UK is a democracy - in theory, everyone has influence - and likewise any human can carry this virus depending on vaccination status and exert influence through lack of care in that way, after all.

[Spudulike]

58 minutes ago, Kingleicester said:

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

The vaccine take up has got to improve. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-56488779

 

[dsr-burnley]

8 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No indeed we don't - which is why a simple "no" would have been sufficient. 

No it wouldn't.  Lockdown is still causing physical, mental, and financial damage.  It isn't "safe" to maintain lockdown longer than it is believed to be needed.

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

No it wouldn't.  Lockdown is still causing physical, mental, and financial damage.  It isn't "safe" to maintain lockdown longer than it is believed to be needed.

Indeed - which is why I said this -

 

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

The point is, the uncertainty of the complex dynamics and variables surrounding an infectious virus means that policy makers and scientists face a tough set of choices as they weigh the dynamic of the virus against other important societal factors.

Do try to keep up.

 

So apologies. Even in view then of the appreciable uncertainties and the multiple variables/unknowns governing infection, reinfection and transmission - you do in fact think it's safe and possible to conclude at this stage that the proposed roadmap to recovery is "s**t, far too slow"?

 

Righto. Got there in the end. Thanks. 

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, Kingleicester said:

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

Leicester may be many things, but a 'bloody shit hole' it isn't