Why you can’t trust the UK’s “daily” Covid19 updates
The daily Covid19 deaths reports, issued by the UK government, are generally misleading and being so misrepresented by the media they amount to little more than a lie.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/23/why-you-cant-trust-the-uks-daily-covid19-updates/
You can trust them. You just have to know what they mean, and why numbers in same day reporting will be always be revised later when looking back.
Please be careful what shit you read, and post…
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/
Question all.
I’m off to give blood in a weeks time. My blood group is in demand and I have spoken to the donation centre and they’d like me to attend.
I’m pretty sure I had the virus 4 or so weeks ago, I certainly ticked 90% of the symptoms boxes.
The donation centre is 30 mins on the train. But, I can get off half way and have a very pleasant 5 mile cycle in.
The questions:
If I got off the train half way would this be OK?
And is it an essential journey or my daily exercise?
If you exercised to get somewhere, you have exercised. What are you trying to complicate? Exercise again later if you really need to. Just stay local when you do.
you just have to know what they mean
I'm still struggling with this.
It's a mess in Wales as well.
Coronavirus: Betsi death report delay sparks investigation
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-52419068
Lunge, fitting your exercise around a journey that might save a life can only be seen as a good thing in my opinion. might well make sense to do it at that spot from a social distancing pov.
I’m still struggling with this.
Same day reporting will always be wrong, looking back. Don’t use that to feed conspiracy theory nonsense.
How does Dominic Cummings qualify to be in the SAGE group first of all? The conflict of interest is another matter.
He’s in charge. No10 is a team, one that wants to micromanage everything from The Treasury to SAGE… and you can be sure that the details aren’t the preserve of the PM in that team. His time at the FCO made that very clear.
One possible treatment avenue has been dealt a blow:
Chloroquine doses killing some test patients.
It may not rule it out completely but it does show that one treatment will never be the magic bullet some people are hoping for. It's going to need a wide range of treatments to be developed and tested that can be used appropriately depending upon patient history before we can realistically control this. At least that long road has been started.
How does Dominic Cummings qualify to be in the SAGE group first of all?
I’m no Cummings apologist, but remember that SAGE advises the government. But that’s advice from a bunch of geeks to a classics-heavy group of decision makers. If the geeks advise and Cummings says I was there and that’s how it went and it sounded reasonable, do you think the advice will be more or less likely to be listened to than, say, advice from the Economic Advisory Group?
Struggling with the outrage. The Grauniad think jam or cream first is a conspiracy theory to subjugate the masses 😉
It’s a reaction to a lot of people, Welsh and from other areas, travelling to the honeypot areas to exercise.
I imagine it's far more to do with fat angry asthmatic politicians observing that in general, cyclists are the one subgroup of the population that life has actually become better for (cleaner air, empty roads, and the smallest risk of becoming a COVID-19 statistic).
It's simple resentment, nothing more.
But that’s advice from a bunch of geeks to a classics-heavy group of decision makers. If the geeks advise and Cummings says I was there and that’s how it went and it sounded reasonable, do you think the advice will be more or less likely to be listened to than, say, advice from the Economic Advisory Group?
Because then Cummings and Warner could cherry pick from the advice when explaining it to Johnson. Which would explain why what was taken from Sage early on smelt so much of their own political views, rather than the advice being given by scientists world wide, and the advice coming from the WHO and health staff in countries ahead of us.
Again, what qualified those two to be part of Sage? When the “impartiality” of Sage’s advice is important, why are they in there helping to shape that advice?
And now:
Coronavirus: Tory MPs to examine 'rise of China'
"The group - headed by Tom Tugendhat, a prominent critic of China's response to the pandemic - aims to "promote debate and fresh thinking".
He said the China Research Group would not be "anti-China"."
Ah so that will be like the neutrality of the European Research Group then?
Chloroquine and azithromycin both increase the time for heart repolarisation with increasing concentrations (extend the Q-T interval in the ECG). The cause is drug binding to a potassium ion channel - called hERG). Higher doses may raise this likelihood. In a few individuals this might be serious, even fatal. In people with long-QT these drugs should be viewed with caution. You might not know you have this condition (it’s about 1/7000)
We do a lot of studies into this for any new drug, even antibodies (that are too big to block the ion channel). Studies to rule out this effect are some of the most expensive per-patient studies we do (about £5-10m total). Every ECG is read manually by someone very expensive (cardiologist). And we might do thousands in a study of about 100 subjects.
The two drugs in question predate a lot of the stricter regulatory QT requirements. Which came about because of sudden cardiac deaths. Google TQT study if you want more information.
https://www.fda.gov/media/71372/download
[TL:DR] Some drugs being used to treat COVID19 bind where they should not in the heart. In some people This may extend the time between beats. Extending this time too much is not a good thing.
The irony in that China Research Group article is delicious.
Beijing's long pattern of information suppression
Because of course we are so good at being transparent.
Russia report
Arcuri
Darroch
A certain SAGE advisor being found in contempt of parliament
"We follow the science"
etc.
Because of course we are so good at being transparent.
Yet here was are with the knowledge that Dominic Cummings attended SAGE group meetings.
The Russia report is a complete red herring.
Only a 6th former wearing a Che T-shirt would seriously compare the secrecy of the British state to a totalitarian regime.
You think Cummings and Ben Warner (a data scientist who worked with Mr Cummings on the Vote Leave campaign during the Brexit referendum) who both 'attended' SAGE meetings are needed to impartially mediate SAGE advise to non-scientist decision-makers?
The big danger here is group-think with everything going through a clique of gatekeepers.
Rydster - can you forward a link to the Russia report please. I managed to miss the publication so would like to see how much of a red herring it is.
These Doctors, make good argument about testing and removing the lockdown.
What do you want the Russia report to say? That a few facebook trolls were able to brainwash a nation?
IMHO Doctors telling us how and when to transit out of lockdown are stepping outside of their professional justification. Medicine is their expertise not ethics.
rydster
Only a 6th former wearing a Che T-shirt would seriously compare the secrecy of the British state to a totalitarian regime.
Or maybe a Kenyan who lived there prior to uhuru, or Indians with a memory of British rule, or etc etc....
There is no such thing as objective. Even in science. Popper’s falsification premise was flawed and replaced by the notion that scientists are not truly objective. They hold onto beliefs in the face by of contradictory evidence, just like everyone else. See Thomas Kuhn.
Yet here was are with the knowledge that Dominic Cummings attended SAGE group meetings.
Is that your example of government transparency? Because it isn’t a good one.
There are degrees of objectivity just like degrees of impartiality. Was Cummings impartial enough is the question. If he's in effect the lone gatekeeper between scientific advice and the government that strikes me as a problem in essence anyway.
In pages past, there was a few posts by people with apparent expertise in vaccines. In light of the growing noise from the WHO that those who have recovered from the virus do not appear to have immunity, what does than mean for finding a vaccine? Isn't the main mechanism of vaccines to fool the body into fighting the disease ie inject a dead or harmless virus so the body creates the antibodies required to fight the infection. If that doesn't create immunity are there any other paths for vaccine creation?
Off the top of my head (no expert) we already have vaccines that we know don’t give everyone who receives them immunity, but give enough of those that receive them immunity to protect the community. If some people can get Covid19 more than once, but the majority do not, that doesn’t mean that a vaccine won’t protect the population (even if it can’t give immunity to every individual). Vaccines aren’t about ‘me’, they are about ‘us’…
the growing noise from the WHO
WHO has published guidance on adjusting public health and social measures for the next phase of the COVID-19 response.1 Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate” that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection. There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
****ing **** ****
I imagine it’s far more to do with fat angry asthmatic politicians observing that in general, cyclists are the one subgroup of the population that life has actually become better for (cleaner air, empty roads, and the smallest risk of becoming a COVID-19 statistic).
It’s simple resentment, nothing more.
Doubtful, the committee that oversees public exercise in Wales has a few cyclists, runners and a triathlete in their midst. They are one of the driving forces behind the Velo Wales, Cardiff Half Marathon and a few triathlons happening most years. The whole access reform consultation was driven by them too and they're refusing to give up on it despite a lot of political obstacles being theown in their way. They also give Natural Resources Wales a tough time around their activities (or lack of) at looking after all of our trail centres. They're currently forcing through an inquest into the mismanagement of finances at NRW, against a lot of political pressure. I think it's more to do with the general public seemingly getting their old bikes out of storage en masse and those that walk driving to get to their favourite green spaces. Politicians may well get an awful lot wrong here but the committee overseeing our access and encouragement to get out there (google the Find Your Epic push) is one thing they have got right consistently here.
Didn't mean to derail the thread but it needed to be said.
Doubtful, the committee that oversees public exercise in Wales has a few cyclists, runners and a triathlete in their midst.
Didn’t mean to derail the thread but it needed to be said.
Not a derail at all… thanks for the reassuring info.
In light of the growing noise from the WHO that those who have recovered from the virus do not appear to have immunity
I thought the WHOs stance was there is a lack of evidence of immunity rather than evidence of no immunity?
From Klunks link;
At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief.
If there was no immunity I’d have thought the South Korean relapse/reinfected rates would be higher!?
South Korea are using containment, not obtained immunity, to prevent the virus spreading.
None of this means that a useful vaccine is any less likely, because a vaccination program is not the same thing as steadily letting the virus spread in the hope of obtaining herd immunity. The data makes the second a fools crutch to lean on… but looking for a vaccine that works in enough cases is still one of the best routes (but not the only one) out of this health emergency.
if cummings wasn't in the sage meetings do you really think he still wouldn't have a say?
it's irrelevant. maybe he just went along to ask the questions that perhaps might not otherwise get asked - questions most of us might find distasteful, but sometimes these need asking.
South Korea are using containment, not obtained immunity, to prevent the virus spreading.
I know
But I’d still have expected the rate to be higher than the 2% or so it currently is. I’m talking specifically about reported relapse/reinfection to be clear.
Not that I have any expertise to found that expectation on
This whole 'no evidence you can't be reinfected' thing.
Surely there have been enough confirmed and recovered cases now to understand if this is true or not. I get a few early cases were put down to false negatives etc, but with close to 3m people now confirmed to have it surely if there is limited immunity a fair percentage of them will get it again..
Especially health care workers who are continually exposed.
As the WHO report says, not everyone who was infected will develop the antibodies. Some will fight it off without. That presumably leaves them open to another infection, but it also means that it's hard to tell how many have already been infected if that's what we're relying on for a test.
Worth pointing out (again) that NHS Supply chain function was wholly outsourced to Unipart, DHL & Movianto decade ago . So any expertise the army is bringing to the party is not down to a shortfall of NHS itself
And before anyone goes there it's management function SCCL Ltd reports to and is owned by Matt Handcock again outside the NHS.
At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief.
This is worth repeating.
Let’s stick to what we know & enough of the guessing.
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19
SCCL Ltd reports to and is owned by Matt Handcock
It is owned by The Department of Health and Social Care. Hancock doesn’t own it, his department does. In his role he does control it (or rather the government does, everything is no10 controlled right now it seems, despite the PM being away).
Just been announced that we've passed the 20,000 deaths number.
While that is a horrible cumulative total, the daily totals aren’t looking promising either … time for someone to plot a graph comparing us and Spain & Italy again … of the top of my head, it don’t think it’ll look good for us.
Sadly about another 12-16k to go yet.
Can't wait for nurseries and pre schools to reopen and reduce this insanium!
It's not dropping it's a now fairly flat.
Is the flat number a misnomer though as we're testing more
We are about the same as Italy. And I predict about 36k cumulative deaths for both. Spain is dropping faster than the U.K. but I haven’t estimated their half-life yet. Extra deaths is daily rate x half-life/ln(2)
For U.K. that’s about 600-800/d x 12-14d/0.693=10-16k
How many do you estimate will die in total TiRed? I mean before herd immunity is acquired? Or is that not something you can do yet?
