Coronavirus Thread

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

....and of course, the main symptoms for those getting delta variant covid are now a 'runny nose and headache' .....not exactly classic hospitalisation stuff

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/delta-variant-covid-symptoms-include-headaches-sore-throat-and-runny-nose

Wonder if people will be able to distinguish between covid and their annual hay fever allergy.

 

I think ive got covid

111. do you suffer from hay fever 

yes

111. How long have you had it

30 years

111. must be covid then.

 

Ticks the positive chart.

[Otis]

7 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Wonder if people will be able to distinguish between covid and their annual hay fever allergy.

 

I think ive got covid

111. do you suffer from hay fever 

yes

111. How long have you had it

30 years

111. must be covid then.

 

Ticks the positive chart.

Probably a lot of truth in that 

[Babylon]

35 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Any accountability from the people that modelled this incorrectly? Or just a nice cushy government job and a final salary pension?

Why would they be accountable when the data came out afterwards PHE half a week after their recommendations?

 

It's not like they tried to hide it, I pointed this out 24 hours ago. 

 

 

Edited 17 June 2021 by Babylon

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

Why would they be accountable when the data came out afterwards PHE half a week after their recommendations?

So PHE are accountable rather than the modellers then?

[Babylon]

Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

So PHE are accountable rather than the modellers then?

Accountable for what? 

 

I mean, maybe someone asked them to hold back the results. It's possible... but then again it's possible they just released it as soon as the data was analysed. PHE did state there were further investigations ongoing. 

[James.]

49 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Labour play too nice as well. Wasn't there some horrific stat about the number of lies told during the election and the tories (just checked 88% of Tory Facebook ads misleading and 0% of labour). 

 

That's what they are against, it's Trump Lite tactics. The second anyone takes over in labour they are hit with a raft of absolute shite posted on social media and they stand almost no chance of getting the "average man" on board. 

 

Trump and Boris got in being "personalities", Labour would have more chance running with Danny bloody Dyer than a politician. 

The (red) Wall would never have been an issue with Danny Dyer in charge.

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

How convenient.

Yesh, here we go. Likewise the revelation that the justification for delaying lifting restrictions has now been discovered to be based on out of date data. You know the thing the government constantly refer to when how they come to their decisions. Going on the data blah blah blah.

 

Just astonishing.

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yesh, here we go. Likewise the revelation that the justification for delaying lifting restrictions has now been discovered to be based on out of date data. You know the thing the government constantly refer to when how they come to their decisions. Going on the data blah blah blah.

 

Just astonishing.

"Modellers emphasised that hospitalisation rates in double-dosed people are just one consideration. The vaccine’s impact on transmission, as well as its effectiveness after a single dose, are both lessened with the Delta variant, which means that it still seems likely it will cause a large wave of cases, and that many of the hospitalisations will be of unvaccinated people.

 

At present, around 5 per cent of reported cases translate into hospitalisations, meaning we can expect 450 severe illnesses from yesterday’s 9,000 new cases.

This is why, said Nick Davies, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the new numbers “will impact upon the predictions, but they won’t have as substantial an impact as you might think”.

 

Speaking at the House of Commons science select committee, Dr Susan Hopkins of PHE said that modellers would be incorporating the new numbers “as soon as they can”."

 

They had already modelled for this scenario don't forget, as the models include numerous lines for this very reason. 

 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

33 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Accountable for what? 

 

I mean, maybe someone asked them to hold back the results. It's possible... but then again it's possible they just released it as soon as the data was analysed. PHE did state there were further investigations ongoing. 

But those "further investigations" will now come too late to base any changes to the 21st June on. So we've just made a decision based on out of date data and presumably everyone just carries on like nothing's happened. "Data not dates" but the data used is worthless  

 

It's the same as the point I made a few days ago, our best and brightest make wildly inaccurate projections that then make the front pages, the projections are incorrect and there's no accountability. 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

"Modellers emphasised that hospitalisation rates in double-dosed people are just one consideration. The vaccine’s impact on transmission, as well as its effectiveness after a single dose, are both lessened with the Delta variant, which means that it still seems likely it will cause a large wave of cases, and that many of the hospitalisations will be of unvaccinated people.

 

At present, around 5 per cent of reported cases translate into hospitalisations, meaning we can expect 450 severe illnesses from yesterday’s 9,000 new cases.

This is why, said Nick Davies, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the new numbers “will impact upon the predictions, but they won’t have as substantial an impact as you might think”.

 

Speaking at the House of Commons science select committee, Dr Susan Hopkins of PHE said that modellers would be incorporating the new numbers “as soon as they can”."

 

They had already modelled for this scenario don't forget, as the models include numerous lines for this very reason. 

 

 

What's the stats for recovery from severe illness of covid? If the majority of elderly and vulnerable have been double vaccinated. I'm dubious that 5% of the 60 and below population will end up severely ill off catching covid. Baring in mind that a large majority of people aged 35 - 60 have at least had 1 dose of the vaccination and the difference between 1 or 2 doses only increases the effectiveness of not being hospitalised from 92% to 94% (Pfizer).

 

Those percentages are pretty different good, and the fit and healthy and young it's never been a huge concern anyway so I don't see how it gets much better from here anyway. The rest of the population that are in the process of being vaccinated just helps lower the transmission.

 

 

[Nod.E]

 

Us Brits love to overcomplicate everything. Why would it be any different with Covid?

 

We're a nation of utter idiots. Compare driving in the UK vs. abroad to get an idea. Always found driving abroad to be a more pleasant experience due to the absence of idiots.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 minute ago, Nod.E said:

 

Us Brits love to overcomplicate everything. Why would it be any different with Covid?

 

We're a nation of utter idiots. Compare driving in the UK vs. abroad to get an idea. Always found driving abroad to be a more pleasant experience due to the absence of idiots.

Never driven in Paris or Rome then  

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Yesh, here we go. Likewise the revelation that the justification for delaying lifting restrictions has now been discovered to be based on out of date data. You know the thing the government constantly refer to when how they come to their decisions. Going on the data blah blah blah.

 

Just astonishing.

Ric it's 'Politics for All' - a Twitter account that has grown rapidly during the pandemic and popular with those on this thread that like to reinforce their opinion over fact. As I've explained before, t's run by a single individual - an 18 year old staunch Brexiteer and right wing polemicist by the name of Nick Moar - so again these claims of being "strictly impartial" are a bit of a laugh. Literally the old cliché of the kid in his bedroom/Mum's basement then. His method is to channel snippets of current affairs news and extracts from a range of online media sources (many opinion pieces), remove the context, add his own superficial sensationalist strapline that appeals to populist audience, a veneer of legitimacy and then rack up thousands of retweets every day in the process. He also periodically deletes previous tweets once the job is done. This is a classic case in point. Although there are now revised estimates, the tweet is linked to the Times for authenticity and he knows full well no one can be arsed to read or check the veracity of his claims. The full article and context can be found here...

 

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1405277314900905984/photo/1

 

It basically saying that the Warwick University projections assuming lower vaccine efficacy have been revised by PHE in terms of estimations of hospitalisations and deaths. As I have said, science is always looking to challenge itself. 

 

These sites are popular with those that don't understand confirmation bias. They simply reinforce opinion driven arguments which stoke the echo-chambers and are bounced back and forth within them. 

 

On some occasions, he simply relays information - but too often they are deceptively framed sensationalist straplines or at best merely kernels of truth. If you then rely upon or regurgitate such subjective, superficial snippets, you completely overlook the context or the wider picture. Such is the nature of susceptibility to meme generated bias, social media hearsay and the epitome of the post-truth era. I am not disputing the claim here, rather the lack of contextualisation. he does on occasions offer some amusing observational humour and genuine pointers to articles and developments of interest. One in ten tweets need actual substantiation which is often deceptively provided so care is needed. 

Edited 17 June 2021 by Line-X

[Ric Flair]

24 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Ric it's 'Politics for All' - a Twitter account that has grown rapidly during the pandemic and popular with those on this thread that like to reinforce their opinion over fact. As I've explained before, t's run by a single individual - an 18 year old staunch Brexiteer and right wing polemicist by the name of Nick Moar - so again these claims of being "strictly impartial" are a bit of a laugh. Literally the old cliché of the kid in his bedroom/Mum's basement then. His method is to channel snippets of current affairs news and extracts from a range of online media sources (many opinion pieces), remove the context, add his own superficial sensationalist strapline that appeals to populist audience, a veneer of legitimacy and then rack up thousands of retweets every day in the process. He also periodically deletes previous tweets once the job is done. This is a classic case in point. Although there are now revised estimates, the tweet is linked to the Times for authenticity and he knows full well no one can be arsed to read or check the veracity of his claims. The full article and context can be found here...

 

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1405277314900905984/photo/1

 

It basically saying that the Warwick University projections assuming lower vaccine efficacy have been revised by PHE in terms of estimations of hospitalisations and deaths. As I have said, science is always looking to challenge itself. 

 

These sites are popular with those that don't understand confirmation bias. They simply reinforce opinion driven arguments which stoke the echo-chambers and are bounced back and forth within them. 

 

On some occasions, he simply relays information - but too often they are deceptively framed sensationalist straplines or at best merely kernels of truth. If you then rely upon or regurgitate such subjective, superficial snippets, you completely overlook the context or the wider picture. Such is the nature of susceptibility to meme generated bias, social media hearsay and the epitome of the post-truth era. I am not disputing the claim here, rather the lack of substantiation. he does on occasions offer some amusing observational humour and genuine pointers to articles and developments of interest. One in ten tweets need actual substantiation which is often deceptively provided so care is needed. 

I was mainly referring to the article from The Telegraph about the data being out of date, what a surprise.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

I was mainly referring to the article from The Telegraph about the data being out of date, what a surprise.

Unfortunately given the dynamic and flux of a contagious viral pandemic, this is almost invariably the case. 

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I was mainly referring to the article from The Telegraph about the data being out of date, what a surprise.

And that new data is probably out of date. That's why SAGE put in their notes that these people never post (because they want SAGE to look stupid) that more data is needed as the sample size is small. When dealing with say 14,000 cases as we were for the data, then it doesn't take much to swing the data wildly after another 30,000 cases. It could go back the other way and that's why they'll offer a range of estimates, good bad and the ugly. 

 

Their graphs covered this exact scenario, but it still, didn't look great.

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Unfortunately given the dynamic and flux of a contagious viral pandemic, this is almost invariably the case. 

How convenient that it gets disclosed after the delay was voted by MP's though....

 

I accept this is changing all the time, it's absolute chaos. 

 

What I'm struggling to process is the number of hospitalisations occurring in the younger age groups, has this risen due to this new variant? Or are they always around 5% of infections? I find the way they have shifted the reporting of stats from numbers to percentages the most confusing and misleading. Is it actually a problem or not, given the narrative has always been that the 60 and below age brackets account for barely anything in the death totals.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

 

Us Brits love to overcomplicate everything. Why would it be any different with Covid?

 

We're a nation of utter idiots. Compare driving in the UK vs. abroad to get an idea. Always found driving abroad to be a more pleasant experience due to the absence of idiots.

 

Your experience of driving abroad must be severely limited then.

[Nod.E]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Your experience of driving abroad must be severely limited then.

Plenty. Especially in Italy.

 

People getting close and aggressive isn't a problem. If you've experienced a lot of that, perhaps you're in the wrong lane too often?

 

Traffic flows much more freely.

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

But those "further investigations" will now come too late to base any changes to the 21st June on. So we've just made a decision based on out of date data and presumably everyone just carries on like nothing's happened. "Data not dates" but the data used is worthless  

 

It's the same as the point I made a few days ago, our best and brightest make wildly inaccurate projections that then make the front pages, the projections are incorrect and there's no accountability. 

Their last set of projections for Alpha and vaccines was correct, people were looking at the graphs entirely without context  Pointing at the massive predictions of deaths and hospitalisations, yet ignored the fact they were one of multiple predictions, and that was presuming limited vaccine rollout. 

 

If those investigations come too late, then so be it. The date wasn't set in stone and it was clearly stated a rise in a variant could impact the listing of the final restrictions. 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Plenty. Especially in Italy.

 

People getting close and aggressive isn't a problem. If you've experienced a lot of that, perhaps you're in the wrong lane too often?

 

Traffic flows much more freely.

They have lanes? You wouldn't have known 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Nod.E said:

Plenty. Especially in Italy.

 

People getting close and aggressive isn't a problem. If you've experienced a lot of that, perhaps you're in the wrong lane too often?

 

Traffic flows much more freely.

 

I've driven trucks all over Europe, and with few exceptions I'd say the standard of driving was way lower than in the UK (where it is appalling).

 

I'd be interested in seeing comparive accident statistics to see if they bear out my experience, particularly for Eastern Europe, Greece, Turkey and Italy.

[Soup]

12 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Plenty. Especially in Italy.

 

People getting close and aggressive isn't a problem. If you've experienced a lot of that, perhaps you're in the wrong lane too often?

 

Traffic flows much more freely.

I'll agree about it moving much more freely. It's fantastic in the center of Palermo, just don't stop whatever you do as you'll be stuck for hours trying to get going again. Total and utter madness

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Despite all our efforts we have the highest covid rates in Europe, absolutely crazy considering we have lived under some kind of restrictions for 15 months.

[filbertway]

13 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Despite all our efforts we have the highest covid rates in Europe, absolutely crazy considering we have lived under some kind of restrictions for 15 months.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

 

If you look at this it doesn't seem so bad. Only 3 countries are testing more than us per person.

 

Spain and Netherlands testing well below a third of what we are and have higher rates.