Forum menu
nah, not feeding it.
You're right, stevextc, but even the publicity for the tests gives a curve that shows you're unlikely to test positive on it beyond five months. My doctor is highly sceptical about test results beyond the peak in antibodies at about three months for anyone who had a mild case. My symptoms were mild and could have just been bad asthma but Madame had more classic symptoms as did a colleague, I fail to see how I didn't get it from her unless you can do what people who like each other a lot do lots without transmitting.
EDIT: Deleting my post. Crikey has the right approach.
TiRed has been invaluable in the understanding he has brought to this thread, and in the measured way he has calmed people down, no matter what their views and information sources.
+1 and er, wow.
Why are you all pandering to this absolute clown? He's a sad little man who has created an account simply to troll you all..his contribution is worthless
Ignore him..
pondlife - as our newest troll, would you care to tell us whether you have any relevant experience in any of... epidemiology or virology or statistical modelling or mathematical forecasting?
If so, point us toward the evidence that proves it.
Any halfwit can post deliberately provocative comments with no background in, experience or knowledge of the subject they opine about.
This becomes particularly offensive when human life is at risk.
Your comments are windbaggery, a bag of bollocks.
Why are you all pandering
Because he makes a lot of valid points. If you think he's posting rubbish counter it point by point. His observations seems sound but I disagree with his personal atitude, I won't be visiting family at Christmas unless events take that choice out of my controL.
Nice one Frank. Where's the like button when you need it?
You call that sad, I call it an utter disgrace!
Half my family died of cancer. I am more than familiar with the stresses involved in denial of treatment and postponement of operations. I think it was a poor decision.
But aside from no lockdown at all, which will demonstrably swamp healthcare, what's your plan? Mine is exit lockdown into a tiered strategy dependent on regional variation, with forward projection of future hospitalisations using the COVID ONS population-level survey data (not cases). Followed by roll-out of vaccination, and a possible (not eventual) return to more normal behaviors in 2H21. Pretty measured stuff. No models required.
Again, what would you do? I am genuinely interested in the sceptical proposal. Debate is always interesting, and the critics role is always an easy one, but when wants an opinion, what will you recommend? The Great Barrington accord takes no account of this country's risible past history in protecting the vulnerable. And the inference of immunity is entirely untested - how much would you rely on T cell cross-reactivity? Because removing lockdown is reliant on just that. When would you revert to another policy? When deaths are 50% above baseline? 75% above? 100% above? (as they were in April). I genuinely am interested, because few choose to enter such debate.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is very easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment."
I respect his opinion and value his contributions but he seems to disregard rather flippantly a lot of very eminent scientists with different views to his own
Sorry that's just not my style - point to a single example? All I ask is that when scientists make assertions they provide evidence. i see such confident assertions every day at work, It very seldom ends well in the long run. Science isn't like that.
that have been ‘censored’ by the government via Ofcom not to present alternative versions of ‘the science’
let me guess all pcr tests are just swamped by false positives etc etc
I’ve done my research and I suggest you do too rather than believe all that you hear on the BBC and Guardian websites and most of the other mainstream media channels that have been ‘censored’ by the government via Ofcom not to present alternative versions of ‘the science’.
Look into it, do you own research........
Hmmm....I smell shite....
Oh and the regular focus on the marathon runners (always marathon runners or other fitness fanatics) with Long Covid symptoms! Scaremongering of the top level!
On an unrelated point, if you substitute national-level 12-hr time trialist for marathon runner - then that's me. I try NOT to let it cloud my judgement. So little is known about the pathogenesis of this new pathogen. We've had influenza for an age, but this is not influenza. There was a time when stomach ulcers were caused by stress... Much to learn. Feynman was so right. 🙂
let me guess all pcr tests are just swamped by false positives etc etc
Reliability of positive results is good, reliabilty of negative results much less so.
I'm surprised you can't find anything in Pond Life's arguments to counter and have to resort to putting words into his mouth invoking something he hasn't.
I recognise the technique, it's used against me by people who are failing. So rather than throwing in red herrings get stuck into what he has said rather than what you want him to have said that he hasn't.
Edit: ex world-championship level triathlete here. 😉 Can't run up the local hill without walking since March. 🙁
Again, what would you do? I am genuinely interested in the sceptical proposal. Debate is always interesting, and the critics role is always an easy one, but when wants an opinion, what will you recommend? The Great Barrington accord takes no account of this country’s risible past history in protecting the vulnerable. And the inference of immunity is entirely untested – how much would you rely on T cell cross-reactivity? Because removing lockdown is reliant on just that. When would you revert to another policy? When deaths are 50% above baseline? 75% above? 100% above? (as they were in April). I genuinely am interested, because few choose to enter such debate.
T-Cell cross reactivity or some level of existing population who are not susceptible has never been disproved has it? Does anyone honestly believe that 100% of the population are susceptible?
I would largely follow the recommendations made by the Great Barrington Declaration. People dismiss the Barrington declaration saying that we somehow can't miraculously protect the elderly. Well we haven't exactly done a very good job of this with the current approach have we? We've also trashed the economy and the lives and livelihoods of many other people in the process.
The fact is we have to accept as a society that old and ill people sometimes die and that the death rate of any population is always 100%. We can't change that. We can't extend everyone's life with no regard to the costs involved. We need to measure life not by length but by quality.
We also need to keep an eye on the health of the country long term, not cripple the economy that pays for our NHS by trying to play god with a virus. No long term good will come from our current approach, but most people seem fixated only on the here and now with scant regard for our future and our children future.
I’m surprised you can’t find anything in Pond Life’s arguments to counter and have to resort to putting words into his mouth invoking something he hasn’t.
I was trying to figure out what he meant by 'the science'
Im still not sure what that is, especially which bits have been 'censored by Ofcom' ?
"Censored by Ofcom" has popped up in the media so it's not Pond Life's invention. First Google non-ofcom result follows, the next was the Spectator which I personally would only use wrap up broke glass before throwing it in the bin but hey, some people are happy to read it.
Does anyone honestly believe that 100% of the population are susceptible?
Yes, I am afraid that is the null hypothesis and has been borne out by experiment so far. Tested by release of lockdown and absence of reductions in rates of hospitalizations (forget cases) by region and country. Nobody has done an experiment to show that cross-reactivity of T cells confers any immunity to infection. Nor whether such people can pass on the virus. Without that important information, I simply do not think it worthy of the risk. I do think they are likely to suffer less severe and possibly asymptomatic infection. But sterile immunity - we do not know.
As I have shown (and was presented to SAGE) countries that fail routinely to protect their vulnerable have already had a poor outcome from COVID19. If we were Norway, who seldom see excess influenza mortality in any year, then I would be questioning matters more deeply. We most definitely are NOT Norway - I wish we were.
I don't give public comment, I do my own research (for work and fun) and I don't call for lockdowns nor make a lot of noise. I am only interested in the facts. Because a clearer understanding of facts makes decisions easier.
I also think it's not unreasonable to think that many things could have been handled differently. Testing and care home support being first in line. lastly, the facts could also have been communicated more clearly; that this is a grave situation; control measures are necessary; there will a solution; expect 18 months of disruption. I've said that since March.
Not sure if this has been shared, but BBC has a documentary tonight looking at the science and modelling behind the first lockdown. BBC2 at 9pm
I may not bother watching it as this article seems to cover most of it
BBC News - Was the scientific advice for lockdown flawed?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54976192
Guardian websites and most of the other mainstream media channels that have been ‘censored’ by the government via Ofcom
How is Ofcom able to censor the Guardian and other news websites? BBC maybe but the Guardian and other papers have the toothless IPSO.
Edukator
Free Member
“Censored by Ofcom” has popped up in the media so it’s not Pond Life’s invention. First Google non-ofcom result follows, the next was the Spectator which I personally would only use wrap up broke glass before throwing it in the bin but hey, some people are happy to read it.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/15/planet-normalofcoms-coronavirus-guidance-akin-censorship-says/
/blockquote>Im afraid your link is censored by a paywall
How is Ofcom able to censor the Guardian and other news websites? BBC maybe but the Guardian and other papers have the toothless IPSO.
Here:
Seem to remember there was some other more blatant stuff too, but can't seem to find it now with a quick Google search. If I do I will post.
Basically Ofcom have been used by the government to make sure that the mainstream media only communicate the governments Covid narrative in a favourable light. Any alternative scientific opinions can be classed as mis-information. Clearly the 5G stuff is mis-information and should be rightly quashed but sadly it would seem it also applies to alternative scientific opinion regarding Coronavirus response. Alternative science that happens to disagree with the government and NHS narrative.
Really sorry for the Telegraph link but ex senior BBC Sue Cook gives a good account of this here in the latter half of this podcast (approx 30 mins in):
Using language such as "tsunami" is simply hyperbolic fear-mongering of the type that lead to ill-thought panic measures such as the discharge of sick patients from hospitals into care homes.
I agree that it is not unexpected that countries with poor records of protecting the vulnerable can be expected to perform similarly badly when faced with a novel virus. This seems to me an consequence of an electorate which knowingly chooses not to prioritize public health- consequently I don't see that there is a mandate for an indefinite lockdown.
Im afraid your link is censored by a paywall
Not on my PC in France, I'd never pay to read that. Thank's for letting me know though I'll link to the Spectator in future instead, same inventive style of journalism. I see Pondlife has provided a Youtube link to the same content from Sue Cook.
Seem to remember there was some other more blatant stuff too
Maybe I should have made it clearer.
Ofcom has no authority over the Guardian or the other papers.
It has some over the BBC.
Using language such as “tsunami” is simply hyperbolic fear-mongering
Not really - a Tsunami is not a huge tidal wave, it is a continued surge - low but sustained - it just keeps coming, which is what we will see with COVID cases without control or a vaccine. High but stable levels of transmission are unsustainable. Swamping is the tidal wave.
This seems to me an consequence of an electorate which knowingly chooses not to prioritize public health- consequently I don’t see that there is a mandate for an indefinite lockdown.
Nor do I and have never advocated one. But past choices have consequences.
brainwashed by the relentless and one-sided government propaganda and fear mongering on this one.
Why are the government trying to brainwash me? What are they hoping to gain by doing that?
However, we remind all broadcasters of the significant potential harm that can be caused by
material relating to the Coronavirus. This could include:
• Health claims related to the virus which may be harmful.
• Medical advice which may be harmful.
• Accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it.We will be prioritising our enforcement of broadcast standards in relation to the above issues. In these
cases, it may be necessary for Ofcom to act quickly to determine the outcome in a proportionate and
transparent manner, and broadcasters should be prepared to engage with Ofcom on short timescales.
Ofcom will consider any breach arising from harmful Coronavirus-related programming to be
potentially serious and will consider taking appropriate regulatory action, which could include the
imposition of a statutory sanction.
I'm not sure that's unreasonable in light of people attacking 5g towers
Though there is scope there regarding criticism of government policy for censorship
I would largely follow the recommendations made by the Great Barrington Declaration.
Could you define what they are please.
I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that I want to be protected from COVID19.
Not because I’m at risk of dying, that is a small risk. But because being fit and healthy and fast on my bike is part of who I am.
Too many people that I know have been ill for too long with covid for me to be comfortable about the risk.
I’m not happy for it to be ‘let rip’. I want there to be a low risk that I (a fit forty something female) catch it if I do normal things. And I am not happy to do normal things - get on a train, spend time indoors in a pub or cafe, sit in a room in a meeting - when 4% of people in my local community are positive. There is no way of knowing - if I caught it - how bad it would be. Too much of a lottery. Sorry.
I have work that means I can avoid risk - but I don’t want others to be put in a position where they are at risk either. That’s why we need universal rules to reduce the levels and the risk.
That’s beside knowing that my neighbour is working under huge pressure at one of the north Manchester hospitals - wards being closed due to positive cases, so the logistics of running the service are enormously complex. You can’t ‘let it rip’ in a hospital - MSRA was a scandal at a much lower level, letting Covid spread in a hospital would be utterly unacceptable.
Your statements are a simple and pure insult to all people working on the frontline against this horrendous illness
Agreed, colleagues have found it incredibly tough, particularly in cases where patients weren't old and had children etc
You are doing nothing for the cause of your profession calling people scum, speedstar. A family member has a shut down tourist business. At the present rate he'll be taking early retirement, shutting down and laying off 9 workers. He isn't calling anyone scum. Nor is the cancer patient in Spain, nor am I. Crikey perhaps wisely dipped out.
People having different priorities favouring young cancer patients over elderly people or favouring the highest level of economic activity possible compatible with amintaining the virus at a manageable level doesn't make them scum.
If you call people scum you need to take a long hard look at what you are yourself.
That is fundamentally not what he's saying though is it. If you will look further back he goes as far as to say "people are dying of respiratory diseases but not covid." I can assure you very much that they are dying of covid.
Edukator, go back and read his posts. It is not appropriate to tell anyone to be quiet when someone is literally denying the disease exists. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you do.
Id also like to see evidence of what science is being censored
Edukator, go back and read his posts. It is not appropriate to tell anyone to be quiet when someone is literally denying the disease exists.
He is not though, he is suggesting that you don't call people you disagree with scum, I would agree with him, says more about you than the person you are criticising.
He is not though, he is suggesting that you don’t call people you disagree with scum, I would agree with him, says more about you than the person you are criticising.
A very valid points. Insults undermine even the strongest argument.
Worth checking out that BBC2 documentary. Really interesting, very open about some of the errors the scientists and modellers made early on. Some of them clearly very aware of the consequences of their errors.
Very damning comment from one of the behavioural science advisors, that the government was using "behaviour fatigue" as a reason not to lock down early when a) the phrase isn't apparently recognised by experts in the field and b) they hadn't asked the behaviour subcommittee.
Do you not question all those billions spunked up the wall to mates of the Tories on the various Covid contracts too?
Billions? Really? Citation needed. Maybe if the roughly £100 billion squandered by a previous Labour government on an IT system for the NHS had been spent on staff and facilities we’d be much better off as well...
BBC2 documentary. Really interesting,
Only some of them made errors. Not all were interviewed. But very interesting nevertheless. Lorenzo Pellis produced an analysis that broadly replicated mine using U.K. and Italy data. Mine used the entire global epidemic dataset from ecdc to Date in early March. I posted it on Facebook on March 14 and it was presented to SAGE a day later.
Billions? Really? Citation needed. Maybe if the roughly £100 billion squandered by a previous Labour government on an IT system for the NHS had been spent on staff and facilities we’d be much better off as well…
Citation please?
I thought NHS IT was £10bn when abandoned?
UC is looking £12bn when it's finished, (in 4 years time, 14 years after it was started & 7 years late)
I believe PPE contacts awarded to Tory donors so far amount to about £500m? But that's not including Serco or Delloite
Maybe if the roughly £100 billion squandered by a previous Labour government on an IT system for the NHS had been spent on staff and facilities we’d be much better off as well…
UK govs of all colours have a piss poor record of successfully delivering large scale projects of any type - it's not just NHS IT and it's not unique to Labour.
The multiple failed schemes have been widely covered in Private Eye over the past 20 years; the mainstream press have expressed no serious interest in exposing any of them and asking the hard questions.
PPE contracts to dodgy providers massively exceed £500 mill; no need to provide any citations as it's recently received some much needed coverage in mainstream media.
The National Audit Office report reckoned about £10bn was spent outside of usua competition rules
Dodgiest thing seems to be the way ministers & MPs were able to refer favored suppliers to priority procurement chanel
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/government-procurement-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
I don’t understand the drive behind the naysayers! I am suffering a bit of Covid fatigue and will admit to being somewhat selfish in thinking I want my pre-Covid life/allowances back, however, I keep hearing the moaners calling for a slackening of the restrictions and to do so soon for fear our economy will collapse - but - to what aim is this government doing this? Why would destroying the economy medium long term be part of a plan? Inept they may be but genuinely crippling the economy? For what?
Boom!
And there goes the neighbourhood. And it's a real f**ing shame.
It's all well and good saying *debate is healthy* and *echo chamber* or something or other.
Fact is, once you let them in, they take over and spoil it all. There is a good story somewhere about how they do this in real spaces - the one with the bartender telling someone to do one out of nowhere, someone knows what i'm talking about - give them an inch and they'll keep taking and taking, miles and miles, and answering questions with questions, and what were we talking about?
This thread has been, for me, invaluable from the start. I was thanking TiRed before it was cool...
As has been alluded to ^above, many people could see which way the wind was blowing way before anything was mandated; behaviours were changing weeks before laws were being crafted; some people were imposing their own lockdowns at least two weeks before v.01.
I don't know why people want to be so contrary.
When disinterested people who know things give you advice, you assume it is given in good faith, do you not?
If i needed to dredge the bottom of the pond, i could look at my local facebook group page. There are people talking all sorts of crap there - please make it stop here.
Can i just clarify one point @pondlife ?
When you previously mentioned the 'research' that you had done, whilst suggesting the rest of us should do some, was that just reading something that someone said on the internet?
Because that's not really research, is it? It's just reading what someone said on the internet.
I have spent much of the last hour listening to Gil Scott Heron tunes on YouTube, but i would baulk at suggesting that it was some sort of 'research'.
Seems to me that people like @Tired and @thecaptain have been doing actual research, and reporting their findings to an eager public.
Let's not forget that the Barrington Declaration was open to whoever wanted to be a signatory, so ended up being endorsed by, as an amalgam, Dr Jonny Bananas (Professor of Hard Sums).
It is a strange hill upon which to choose to die.
Whenever there's a crisis you find new names turning up and chipping in loads, normally well expressed and well spelt, after about two days of free membership. The drift I'm getting is kin awful, very much in line with Clover's comments and it is appalling that people want to make light of this, if anything it's much worse than is being reported.
What I’d really like to know about SAGE is how and why the mountain of empirical evidence for a rapid doubling time was rejected in favour of some poorly-supported modelling.
I did hear that one particular character was an arrogant bully with undue dominance in the field but have no evidential basis so won’t repeat their name. Regardless of personal faults it was a catastrophic structural and systemic failure. This is something that basically everyone with a spreadsheet could work out for themselves at that time (ie about the middle of March, I first mentioned it publicly on the 9th, after tracking the numbers for a little while).
Getting that right was pretty much the main purpose of SPI-M at that time in predicting the onset of the outbreak. At least, it should have been.