CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

Thing is, people are going to have their platforms.  I recognised something about social media a while ago.  Ever noticed, that its almost a giant propaganda machine anyway?

Yes that is one of it's potential features, but it doesn't mean everything is propaganda, and a lot of the really nasty stuff is pretty easy to disprove.

The experts haven't lost their voice entirely, they are just much much harder to hear over the throng of nutbags and lunatics.

btw., I'm not opposed to someone like Flyboy posing questions, in fact we need sceptics and healthy scepticism is how science really works. But science never works by deliberately cherry-picking or misrepresenting the data, in science if you fake it you're f#$%!d!

The crooks who do misrepresent data, even if they have a PhD after their name, aren't scientists!

[dodge]

It's a facile risk assessment to be fair.

The risk assessment is entirely qualitative, not quantitative!

Funny how they have a low confidence in a comment "Delta has at least an equivalent case fatality rate to Alpha" when their own data suggests quite the opposite ie Delta 5x LESS deadly.

The numbers are the numbers - and yes, they will change over time BUT Delta is pretty much 100% now in UK (has been for some time). Alpha numbers are now all but set in stone (as that strain has disappeared).

Low confidence in fatality rate, as the numbers are low (they state this).  They also have had essentially 6 weeks of high Delta cases against ~14 mnths Alpha data.  I would hope that they would be looking at the data impassively and making informed conclusions as they are working in depth with this everyday.  Personally, I am pretty OK with taking British Health at their word.

[LP]

Low confidence in fatality rate, as the numbers are low (they state this).  They also have had essentially 6 weeks of high Delta cases against ~14 mnths Alpha data.  I would hope that they would be looking at the data impassively and making informed conclusions as they are working in depth with this everyday.  Personally, I am pretty OK with taking British Health at their word.

[member=181]dodge[/member]‍  That's it you're speaking too much sense, it has no place here, get out of the pool! ;D

[flyboy77]

What you did or didn't post is irrelevant, it's your original conclusion you post that exposes your confusion.

The falling mortality of the original strains, and the rising case numbers of the Delta strain, would eventually expose the myth of what you persist with if it wasn't for the mitigation steps being taken. The delayed cross over is a consequence of mitigation not in difference to it.

Mitigation steps that included improved understanding of Sars-CoV-2, better treatment regimes, snap lockdowns, wide spread vaccinations, faster contact tracing and better quarantine.

Who the f... are you to tell me what I am thinking?

Any idiot knows that lockdowns have never previously been recommended in history, prior to 2020, as EVERYONE with half a clue knows the cost of  lockdown is simply far, far too great.

And here you are advocating them. There's my assessment of your confusion.

You might be 'good' in your world, I've only seen lightweight obfuscation from you thus far.

Any conclusions I have drawn are irrefutable on the evidence presented.

No one doubts the numbers might slide, one way or the other, that is to fudge the issue though.

Dodge saying there is only 6 weeks data on Delta?

Delta has been the dominant strain in the UK since the end of March.....

The maths isn't hard.

[flyboy77]

If Flyboy is correct, the mystery is why Gladys & Slomo have battened down the hatches as Delta started gathering strength.

After all, Gladys’ position was “We don’t do lockdowns!” She loved to smirk when asked why she wasn’t following Victoria’s example. She had every reason to respond to Dan Andrews and the media like the Norman soldiers in Monty Python & the Holy Grail:
Slomo would have happily joined her, given that he has taken a beating over the slow rollout leaving us vulnerable to Delta. But despite having every political reason to hold her line, she has instead capitulated and ordered increasingly severe lockdowns and Slomo has tried to convince everyone that he’s going to kick the strollout into top gear.

Perhaps if Gladys had retained Flyboy as her data analyst she wouldn’t have been bum-rushed into a rookie mistake.

Or maybe the real data analysts warned her that laughing at Tim the rabbit would end up with blood on her hands.

You can see the numbers as readily as I Mav.

If you want to disagree with my maths (which is Grade 4 maths) feel free....

It's nothing to do with me being 'right or wrong'.

It is the data. Hard empirical data. Not dodgy, wishy washy, easily manipulated black box models.

If I've made a computational error, I'll gladly put my hand up. I haven't.

[LP]

Who the f... are you to tell me what I am thinking?

Most of us write what we think, it's a dead giveaway, but I'll keep in mind for future debates you might be contrary to that! :o

As I've already responded, the documents you post do not support the conclusions you post, in fact the docs suggest the very opposite of your claims because the data is qualified and so it's context is important. Which I think is partly the point [member=181]dodge[/member] was making, and which seems quite reasonable.

Nobody is claiming the documents got the math wrong .........................!

The spread of Delta comes after the learnings taken from the original strain, and after the actions taken to mitigate Sars-CoV-2, @dodge was quite right to point out this asymmetry, which is made obvious in the report and influences the conclusions. That important context is easily missed if disparate data points are cherry-picked from across the document.

[LP]

Any idiot knows that lockdowns have never previously been recommended in history, prior to 2020, as EVERYONE with half a clue knows the cost of  lockdown is simply far, far too great.

I suppose if you ignore history like the Spanish Flu you could be correct, ..........but maybe not! :o
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/histo...oronavirus

And they never did archaic things in the past like requiring masks! :
[img width=350]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1217B/production/_112170147_04gettyimages-515181868.jpg[/img]

I get you are hurting [member=109]flyboy77[/member]‍ , but protesting, denying or declining appropriate action while potentially promoting harmful behaviours or solutions is not the fastest way out of this. In fact your actions may extend the pain!

If you need it resolved quickly, if you want to get back as close to normal as can ever be expected, then get everyone vaccinated who can be vaccinated as soon as possible, get your family vaccinated, get your friends vaccinated and get on with it as quickly as possible while complying with the flattening of the curve and the mitigation strategies!

They got it in 1918 and they didn't need the Interwebs to understand why! :o

[img width=450]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/986A/production/_112181093_gettyimages-592850496.jpg[/img]
[img width=450]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/BFD3/production/_112170194_09gettyimages-1982467.jpg[/img]
Court was held in open spaces to avoid indoor crowds.

[Baggers]

Any idiot knows that lockdowns have never previously been recommended in history, prior to 2020, as EVERYONE with half a clue knows the cost of  lockdown is simply far, far too great.

This idiot seems to vividly recall from his history lessons and an ABC special on the 'Spanish Flu' (so named not because it came from Spain, but that Spain was the first nation to provide accurate statistics and information) that Sydney did in fact resort to shutting many businesses, closing schools, entertainment venues and so on. The unemployment level spiked as a result of these 'lockdown' measures, along with mandatory masks and fines for those not wearing masks. Until these measures were instituted the virus was spreading uncontrollably. These measures did slow the infections and reduce death rates.

[PaulP]

Yes, no doubt lockdowns and masks have been used in the past, perhaps not to this extent, but the principle is exactly the same.

[DJC]

If you're interested, here's some real science about COVID-19, not half-arsed garbage from charlatans:

First up there's "COVID research: a year of scientific milestones" published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w

One little snippet to whet your appetite:

A large clinical trial has found no evidence that the drug hydroxychloroquine protects people from COVID-19.

Some world leaders have embraced hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 or as an agent to prevent the disease. David Boulware at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and his colleagues randomly assigned 821 people to take either hydroxychloroquine or a placebo within 4 days of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (D. R. Boulware et al. N. Engl. J. Med. http://doi.org/dxkv; 2020). Some study participants were health-care workers who had contact with infected people; others shared a house with an infected person.

Then there's "A look into the future of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: an expert consultation" published in The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanep...9/fulltext

A brief quote from that paper follows:

Our starting point is the situation as of spring 2021. During the COVID-19 waves in winter 2020–2021, many European countries experienced high numbers of infections that, in some places, overwhelmed hospitals. This was partly due to insufficient ICU capacity in some countries [[2]]. Delayed responses and lower effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) compared to the first wave also played a part [[3]]. Even countries that have had relatively few cases and a low death toll until then were hit severely in the winter. As of early 2021, Europe is experiencing another surge in cases, which appears to have peaked in April 2021. The emergence and severity of these waves has varied greatly across Europe (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2). The future development of the pandemic will also likely be heterogeneous. In the following sections we focus on three key factors that contribute to this heterogeneity.

The science is unequivocal and I really don't understand how/why anyone can't see that.