Coronavirus

[gregs24]

 

[gregs24]

Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model (nih.gov)

[Barrykearley]

2 hours ago, gregs24 said:

Once again Captain Hindsight knows best! Seriously, I wrote a long post last week about WHY our data has come out so well compared to modelling

Well that’s not actually correct is it. Some of us, whom are ignorant and Ill informed in your opinion, have called the forecasts utter bullsh£At and scare tactics for a while. As soon as that was suggested - data was rammed down our throats to back up the forecast.

[Markindevon]

3 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

Well that’s not actually correct is it. Some of us, whom are ignorant and Ill informed in your opinion, have called the forecasts utter bullsh£At and scare tactics for a while. As soon as that was suggested - data was rammed down our throats to back up the forecast.

You're right Barry and I'm not sure why the modelling and SAGE 'experts' still have the slightest input to any of this.  The Fraser Nelson interview with the head of the SAGE modelling committee, published a while back very clearly shows the reasons... there was no interest in looking at plausibility, only in producing models that would force a decision... complete nonsense:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-twitter-conversation-with-the-chairman-of-the-sage-covid-modelling-committee

The twitter exchange is linked as a couple of files below in case that's behind a paywall

Whatever you think of them, it's a very good job that J P Morgan got involved in modelling - they and their clients have money riding on this and were therefore motivated to look at a more realistic model...

[gregs24]

14 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

Well that’s not actually correct is it. Some of us, whom are ignorant and Ill informed in your opinion, have called the forecasts utter bullsh£At and scare tactics for a while. As soon as that was suggested - data was rammed down our throats to back up the forecast.

Completely incorrect.

The modelling (which can never be 'precisely right' as it is a prediction) was constructed using many variables into a range of scenarios. This gave a range of solutions and interestingly different countries in Europe are fitting some of those curves quite well. If you don't know what goes in to the model and what data is used you cannot simply claim 'bullsh*t' and that you know better. 

So ignorant, uninformed (your words, and not ones used by me at you) guesses don't cut it. 

IF you had provided evidence for your predictions, why the modelling data was incorrectly used, that certain assumptions were wrong, that you considered the best case scenario was valid for x, y and z reasons then you would be taken seriously. But you never did - you just say the same stuff over and over again about civil liberties, authoritarian scare tactics etc.

What data exactly that was 'rammed down your throat' was incorrect ? You even quoted some data yourself last week when you thought (misguidedly) that it backed up your argument.

You also have to remember that this modelling data was largely discounted by the government who DID NOT apply any significant restrictions in England and simply advised people to be cautious. Odd that you didn't mention that?

Edited January 17 by gregs24

[Markindevon]

11 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

Completely incorrect.

The modelling (which can never be 'precisely right' as it is a prediction) was constructed using many variables into a range of scenarios. This gave a range of solutions and interestingly different countries in Europe are fitting some of those curves quite well. If you don't know what goes in to the model and what data is used you cannot simply claim 'bullsh*t' and that you know better. 

So ignorant, uninformed (your words, and not ones used by me at you) guesses don't cut it. 

IF you had provided evidence for your predictions, why the modelling data was incorrectly used, that certain assumptions were wrong, that you considered the best case scenario was valid for x, y and z reasons then you would be taken seriously. But you never did - you just say the same stuff over and over again about civil liberties, authoritarian scare tactics etc.

What data exactly that was 'rammed down your throat' was incorrect ? You even quoted some data yourself last week when you thought (misguidedly) that it backed up your argument.

You also have to remember that this modelling data was largely discounted by the government who DID NOT apply any significant restrictions in England and simply advised people to be cautious. Odd that you didn't mention that?

Did you read what Graham Medley said - he was quite clear... the models were only at the 'worse case' end of the spectrum.  No effort at all was taken to model the other possible outcomes.  And the government has only just decided to take a different view to SAGE, in not moving beyond 'Plan B' after Christmas.  They followed 18 months worth of worst possible case scenarios before that... 

...to the detriment of millions of people who no longer have a business, lost trade, or weren't assessed for cancer and may now die prematurely, who didn't get to visit their elderly relatives or indeed were those elderly relatives whose conditions deteriorated more quickly than they should and who may have spent their last days alone and not understanding why.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Just one final word on Djokovic. He’d already spent a couple of days going back and forth to the tennis courts, before he finally got the elbow, so must have mingled with plenty of Australian citizens during that time. Also just imagine how pissed off you’d be if he came and sat down next to you on the flight back to Dubai! They probably had other First Class customers asking to be down-graded to another cabin!

[gregs24]

51 minutes ago, Markindevon said:

Did you read what Graham Medley said - he was quite clear... the models were only at the 'worse case' end of the spectrum.  No effort at all was taken to model the other possible outcomes.  And the government has only just decided to take a different view to SAGE, in not moving beyond 'Plan B' after Christmas.  They followed 18 months worth of worst possible case scenarios before that... 

...to the detriment of millions of people who no longer have a business, lost trade, or weren't assessed for cancer and may now die prematurely, who didn't get to visit their elderly relatives or indeed were those elderly relatives whose conditions deteriorated more quickly than they should and who may have spent their last days alone and not understanding why.

Never mind the 150k or so who have died from COVID at a time when without vaccines social restrictions were the only option available. How bad would it have been without those restrictions?

[Markindevon]

5 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

Never mind the 150k or so who have died from COVID at a time when without vaccines social restrictions were the only option available. How bad would it have been without those restrictions?

Died with Covid... whatever the rules around how and when covid was to be mentioned on death certificates, it's killed a lot fewer people than pneumonia in the same period and was pretty comparable to a bad flu year.  Lockdown made sense for the very initial wave when there were no vaccines available and the epidemiology of the condition was unknown but once the truly vulnerable had been vaccinated (and that happened pretty quickly), we should have followed the GBD approach and not continued to adversely affect millions, for many more years...

I predict a full lifting of restrictions at the end of the month as government finally hears the penny drop.  The more recent restrictions were politically motivated (the polls (probably using pretty skewed questions) showed that a lot of people liked being told to lockdown and we know Boris needs to be liked...) and the lifting of them will be too as the tide turns across the chattering classes and brings public opinion with it.

[exeterjeep]

Greece to fine unvaccinated over-60s..

 

Greeks aged 60 or over who haven't been vaccinated against coronavirus face being fined from Monday.

They can be fined up to €100 (£85) every month.

People who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons are exempt.

The money will be used to bolster the Greek health system.

[gregs24]

46 minutes ago, Markindevon said:

Died with Covid... whatever the rules around how and when covid was to be mentioned on death certificates, it's killed a lot fewer people than pneumonia in the same period and was pretty comparable to a bad flu year.  Lockdown made sense for the very initial wave when there were no vaccines available and the epidemiology of the condition was unknown but once the truly vulnerable had been vaccinated (and that happened pretty quickly), we should have followed the GBD approach and not continued to adversely affect millions, for many more years...

I predict a full lifting of restrictions at the end of the month as government finally hears the penny drop.  The more recent restrictions were politically motivated (the polls (probably using pretty skewed questions) showed that a lot of people liked being told to lockdown and we know Boris needs to be liked...) and the lifting of them will be too as the tide turns across the chattering classes and brings public opinion with it.

Not going over this again - all covered before. Sad how the same old rubbish just gets repeated over and over. When figures are presented to prove it is rubbish the figures are obviously made up, government hoaxes etc etc. All a bit sad really

[Barrykearley]

17 minutes ago, exeterjeep said:

Greece to fine unvaccinated over-60s..

 

Greeks aged 60 or over who haven't been vaccinated against coronavirus face being fined from Monday.

They can be fined up to €100 (£85) every month.

People who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons are exempt.

The money will be used to bolster the Greek health system.

So that’s the Greeks and the Italians so far persecuting their own citizens for freedom of choice.

[Markindevon]

35 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

Not going over this again - all covered before. Sad how the same old rubbish just gets repeated over and over. When figures are presented to prove it is rubbish the figures are obviously made up, government hoaxes etc etc. All a bit sad really

Not rubbish Gregs... Two of my kids are medics and have worked on Covid throughout and my family has made massive contributions to helping across the pandemic vaccination programme.  We've been deeply committed to doing what we can to help where it makes sense to do so.  You don't need to have biomedical PhDs or medical degrees as we all do to recognise spin and obfuscation when it's so transparent. 

You seem to have, at our American friends would have it, 'drunk the cool-aid' well, that's your choice of course.  Others prefer to have a more open mind.

[RobinB5]

It was 100 years ago this year that Richardson proposed the numerical framework for weather prediction that is still in use today (the solution of governing partial differential equations) and we still can only predict, to any useful accuracy, about 3 to 5 days in the future. Predictive epidemiology is if anything less mature. Couple that with a new virus and it's not surprising predictions have not been as accurate as many would have expected. It is surprising though that transmissibility seems to have been a focus in terms of uncertainty quantification of the predictions whereas virulence has not. How many upper/lower bound forecasts that consider both factors have been published? I've not seen any.

   

Maybe there simply has not been enough time to get a handle on transmission and virulence once a new variant emerges. And when enough time has passed to get an understanding of those factors, it's too late to form any coherent response to it. Good news is that there hasn't been a variant that is extremely infectious and with a high mortality rate. Yet.

[gregs24]

34 minutes ago, Markindevon said:

Not rubbish Gregs... Two of my kids are medics and have worked on Covid throughout and my family has made massive contributions to helping across the pandemic vaccination programme.  We've been deeply committed to doing what we can to help where it makes sense to do so.  You don't need to have biomedical PhDs or medical degrees as we all do to recognise spin and obfuscation when it's so transparent. 

You seem to have, at our American friends would have it, 'drunk the cool-aid' well, that's your choice of course.  Others prefer to have a more open mind.

I have already explained my background earlier in the thread

As soon as you mention 'Kool Aid' I'm afraid it reveals your true colours.

Open Mind - Oh dear 🤣

Goodbye - ignore

Edited January 17 by gregs24

[gregs24]

10 minutes ago, RobinB5 said:

It was 100 years ago this year that Richardson proposed the numerical framework for weather prediction that is still in use today (the solution of governing partial differential equations) and we still can only predict, to any useful accuracy, about 3 to 5 days in the future. Predictive epidemiology is if anything less mature. Couple that with a new virus and it's not surprising predictions have not been as accurate as many would have expected. It is surprising though that transmissibility seems to have been a focus in terms of uncertainty quantification of the predictions whereas virulence has not. How many upper/lower bound forecasts that consider both factors have been published? I've not seen any.

   

Maybe there simply has not been enough time to get a handle on transmission and virulence once a new variant emerges. And when enough time has passed to get an understanding of those factors, it's too late to form any coherent response to it. Good news is that there hasn't been a variant that is extremely infectious and with a high mortality rate. Yet.

Correct

The range of possibilities were considered and of course it is easy for those who have no responsibility for decision making and bucket loads of hindsight to be oh so clever. The omicron variant was identified in very late November and by a month later was spreading rapidly globally. There was anecdotal evidence on virulence from South Africa but as we have seen throughout this pandemic, you cannot just extrapolate from one country to another. Just look at omicron in France compared to the UK to see the differences. I'm quite sure those same people moaning about scare stories and fearmongering would be the first to moan when the bodies were piling up - but of course they don't have those responsibilities, only opinions!

52 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

So that’s the Greeks and the Italians so far persecuting their own citizens for freedom of choice.

With choices come responsibilities and consequences, just ask Novak! I'm not for compulsory vaccination (and in reality how could you ever achieve it outside of a totalitarian state ?) of the entire population, but other people's actions that impact on me do matter. 

[Markindevon]

31 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

I have already explained my background earlier in the thread

As soon as you mention 'Kool Aid' I'm afraid it reveals your true colours.

Open Mind - Oh dear 🤣

Goodbye - ignore

Your response is to ignore rather than address those aspects of the discussion that you don't have a potted response to - oh dear!

I'd be interested to hear what you feel my 'true colours' are there... not sure we know each other but you seem happy to jump to conclusions on the basis of a couple of brief messages that you disagree with...  I've no idea what your background is as I don't have the time to read 200 pages of posts, it seems that whatever you do, you seem pretty happy to take the line you are being fed by those you regard as superior and don't need to think too much for yourself. That's one way to live I guess.

Keep your fingers in your ears there Greg, I'm sure you'll find that your views are never really challenged and certainly never wrong! 👍 

[Markindevon]

34 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

The range of possibilities were considered

You clearly haven't read the discussion between Fraser N and Graham Medley - Medley specifically said that they (SAGE) had not actually considered the full range of possibilities, they specifically only considered the top end of the risk profile.  Hence why their models were so very far off... that was clearly deliberately supporting stronger lockdown measures.  These may well have flattened out the curve a bit more strongly but gave no consideration at all to the consequences on the wider economy or health of the population.  Medley himself has said that they assumed someone else was modelling the negative impacts - of course no-one was.

[Barrykearley]

52 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

With choices come responsibilities and consequences, just ask Novak!

He lied. There’s the very very clear difference. Just like Boris.

In Greece and Italy - people are being fined for free choice over their own bodies. That is some sort of vile and perverse form of democratic freedoms.

If that ever comes to the uk - then frankly I’ll be ready to riot.

[Bibs]

13 minutes ago, Markindevon said:

that was clearly deliberately supporting stronger lockdown measures

I've posted a link before that SAGE offer insights that get decisions made. If they'd said 'meh', nothing would be done so they've used figures that mean something will happen, and in most cases so far they've been quite inaccurate. 

That said, I'm very pleased Omicron has proven to be very mild in most cases. Can you imagine if it had been much deadlier, that would be grim! 

[Barrykearley]

20 minutes ago, Markindevon said:

Your response is to ignore rather than address those aspects of the discussion that you don't have a potted response to - oh dear!

Frankly I give up - it’s like a brick wall.

[gregs24]

42 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

Frankly I give up - it’s like a brick wall.

idem quod

 

[Markindevon]

1 hour ago, Barrykearley said:

Frankly I give up - it’s like a brick wall.

I may have to do that - each to their own! 😁

[Barrykearley]

[Bibs]

Condiment delivery vs controlling global pandemic. 

Not sure they could have used wood to be honest. Get your point but it's not really relevant in the bigger picture here IMO.