Controversial Covid post

Statto1 said:

25 minutes in, it's getting worse this.
Now apparently it doesn't do waves.......yet he want's to ignore Spanish flu

Click to expand...

I believe Spanish Flu was a H1N1 influenza virus, NOT a coronavirus.

Statto1 said:

He might want to check out how well water droplets dry up in summer and how much UV there is in summer v winter, and what happens when you lock down in dry/ warm months and then let everyone out in cold/ wet months.

Click to expand...

Not really sure what you mean by this

Statto1 said:

The only way we're not in a second wave now (the UK) is if the first wave never ended, but seeing as we got down from 1000 deaths per day to about 10, then it's fair to say we are in second wave, as we're pretty much at 200 deaths per day, with winter to come.

Click to expand...

We’ll see. If it plateaus and starts decreasing, then maybe it is as he describes, the tail of the initial outbreak working it’s way through those communities that were lesser exposed, as we all move indoors.

Statto1 said:

This guy just seems really bitter, like he's been kept out the loop.

Click to expand...

I agree that he is very angry and does come across bitter. Given his credentials though and his main gripe with Vallance seemingly ignoring discussion of basic stuff, and the lack of relevant expert knowledge on SAGE for such a long time, maybe it is understandable, especially if he has tried to have this conversation with SAGE or offer his service to them.

No matter what you think of him, he is clearly extremely well informed on the topic and his cv is testament to that.

If he’s such a crank, surely it would be easy for Vallance et al to just answer his points in factual data and shut him up. I get that they shouldn’t waste their time responding to every Tom d*ck and Harry but this guy is openly, loudly and repeatedly putting himself out there through every channel he can, to be shot down and pulled apart. Presumably, having had such a high position in big pharma for so long, he isn’t doing this for monetary gain ( though who knows).

The fact he keeps putting himself out there to be shot down is what interests me the most. I listened to that podcasts with half a mind on wanting to pick fault, and I posted the original post in this thread to see if others could do so, where I could not.
So far, nobody has really convinced me that he is a crank OR that he is incorrect in what he is saying/predicting. I think only time will do that.

I also think it’s interesting that some on this thread jumped on the attack BEFORE they had even listened to what he has to say, and this is kind of the point of my original post. Just because I don’t like the platform he is operating on, and he is an alternative voice, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t listen to him or that he may even be right.

I do think that some are struggling to look at what he has to say objectively, and to leave their own biases at the door before judging. I know I did just that, but I still came away thinking I couldn’t argue against the main gist of what he is proposing.

Muttley said:

No, it's 20 isn't it?

And as they are expected to advise on anything from a nuclear leak to a pandemic I would be surprised if there was a predominance of Virologists (of which in any case I doubt that the country has or needs more than a handful?) the other thing to note is this is a scientific panel not a political panel, the gathered scientists seek to achieve a consensus of the best way forward. This was why the attendance of Dominic Cummings at some of their meetings was controversial as it could have been seen as an attempt to influence their decision.

Click to expand...

I believe it’s a lot more than 20, maybe even 2 or 3 times that number now. I also believe that not all members attend all meetings. I think Yeadon’s anger is directed to the fact that a lot of the decisions have been made on the information coming from mathematical modellers instead of virologists and epidemiologists. And that he thinks Vallance is being disingenuous.

Found the list, although it doesn’t list who is specialist in what -
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...f-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups

FabioPorkpie said:

Good point. So in theory, things should get far worse now then, as we are heading into colder months and the virus is more robust and lives longer in the colder months. Time will tell, and if things don’t get worse than during the Easter peak, then maybe more than the stated 7,8,9% have been exposed already.

Again, antibody studies don’t tell the whole story. Please see my previous post to you about this.

Click to expand...

I think we're going to get a worse spike than before in cases, basically because a lot of people have given up, don't care or don't believe it and won't believe it until it's too late
The winter is going to be a big factor too
The extra cases might not mean more deaths per day, like 1000 per day, purely because it's treated better and we've sourced more ventilators, PPE etc

It might even get bad enough that the UK will panic and release a vaccine to those who wish to try it without full approval, but the vaccine isn't that far away by the sounds of things. If we can get a million vaccines out to the million most at risk, then we're not far off being covered.

As for previous immunity due to other coronavirus, there may be some of this, but I don't think it's anywhere near what they're claiming.
There's two main options:
1) it's more deadly, spreads easier and there's more immunity
2) it spreads how we think, it's as deadly as we think (1%) and there's little to no immunity.

I think it's option 2.

What it isn't
less deadly, less spreadable and there's more immunity

GazC_MFC said:

Is there evidence to suggest that 30% of people could be immune from covid-19 or is just thesis based on other viruses

does Yeadon advocate trails to prove this point or does he think we can just assume it

Click to expand...

I’m only going from what he said on the blog.
He has concluded the 30% from the sources discussed earlier and goes further saying it’s basic stuff.
It was so far away from my logic that I thought it was worth asking the question on here.
The problem sometimes is because someone (in this case me) shares some info and asks about it the assumption is I believe it. I don’t. In the same way I don’t disbelieve it because I haven’t done any research to reach a conclusion.

It would be great if it was true and, I must admit, I like a bit of optimism

Statto1 said:

I think we're going to get a worse spike than before in cases, basically because a lot of people have given up, don't care or don't believe it and won't believe it until it's too late
The winter is going to be a big factor too
The extra cases might not mean more deaths per day, like 1000 per day, purely because it's treated better and we've sourced more ventilators, PPE etc

It might even get bad enough that the UK will panic and release a vaccine to those who wish to try it without full approval, but the vaccine isn't that far away by the sounds of things. If we can get a million vaccines out to the million most at risk, then we're not far off being covered.

As for previous immunity due to other coronavirus, there may be some of this, but I don't think it's anywhere near what they're claiming.
There's two main options:
1) it's more deadly, spreads easier and there's more immunity
2) it spreads how we think, it's as deadly as we think and there's little to no immunity.

I think it's option 2.

What it isn't
less deadly, less spreadable and there's more immunity

Click to expand...

I think it’s option 3
It’s less deadly than it was, due to better understanding of the virus and the available treatments.
It’s as deadly as we NOW think it is, which is very different from what we originally thought (see the latest IFR studies and that linked video).
There is certainly more immunity than the numbers quoted ie 7,8,9 % by the antibody studies, as they completely discount the innate immune response, T-cells. They also completely discount and ignore the possibility of cross immunity, which studies have suggested may be a factor.
Edit - how long lasting immunity is, and how robust the immunity is, are the question,

FabioPorkpie said:

I believe Spanish Flu was a H1N1 influenza virus, NOT a coronavirus.

Click to expand...

Aye I know, but the deniers keep calling it flu. So lets see if it has a second wave like the flue that killed millions. Seems to spread a similar way but I've not read up on Spanish Flu much.

FabioPorkpie said:

Not really sure what you mean by this

Click to expand...

Water dries up when it's warm and it's transmitted in airborne droplets, drying out kills it, sunlight kills it or reduces it's ability to act and spread.

FabioPorkpie said:

We’ll see. If it plateaus and starts decreasing, then maybe it is as he describes, the tail of the initial outbreak working it’s way through those communities that were lesser exposed, as we all move indoors.

Click to expand...

I just think it was a northern outbreak. London will get theirs.

Didn't someone earlier say that Lombardy is getting hit bad again?

FabioPorkpie said:

I agree that he is very angry and does come across bitter. Given his credentials though and his main gripe with Vallance seemingly ignoring discussion of basic stuff, and the lack of relevant expert knowledge on SAGE for such a long time, maybe it is understandable, especially if he has tried to have this conversation with SAGE or offer his service to them.

No matter what you think of him, he is clearly extremely well informed on the topic and his cv is testament to that.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are ignoring basic stuff, not now, I think the government may be ignoring sage, or only using bits and pieces.

He seems to me like someone informed, who is using his knowledge to bend the truth. Hence his 0.15% death rate claim and the other stats he's posting which are really pushing it.

I could make two talks on my area of expertise and nobody on here would know which one is true and which one is fake or which is really bending the truth, I could post stats and talk for both sides to sway use of a particular method, I do it every day. I don't do it in a way to lie though, as the end aim is always the safest way, sometimes I just do it as it's easier to convince someone with fake stats/ story/ reasons quickly, as they just cannot comprehend the other factual reasons, which are a bigger impact. If you're an expert on something, you can direct a non expert into whatever way you want them to think if they don't have time to look everything up or can't find any more clued up guys to speak to.

FabioPorkpie said:

If he’s such a crank, surely it would be easy for Vallance et al to just answer his points in factual data and shut him up. I get that they shouldn’t waste their time responding to every Tom d*ck and Harry but this guy is openly, loudly and repeatedly putting himself out there through every channel he can, to be shot down and pulled apart. Presumably, having had such a high position in big pharma for so long, he isn’t doing this for monetary gain ( though who knows).

Click to expand...

Rule no 1, don't feed the troll. Sage are controlled by the government, and the government don't like the public knowing facts, they've been trying to convince the public to not listen to facts and experts for 4 years. To me I think there's a small chance the government have been handling this poorly or taking risks on purpose, and may still be gaming some herd immunity plan behind the scenes. The vagueness may be built in, on purpose, they can't be that inept, surely.

FabioPorkpie said:

The fact he keeps putting himself out there to be shot down is what interests me the most. I listened to that podcasts with half a mind on wanting to pick fault, and I posted the original post in this thread to see if others could do so, where I could not.
So far, nobody has really convinced me that he is a crank OR that he is incorrect in what he is saying/predicting. I think only time will do that.

Click to expand...

The problem there is that phrase, not convinced and time will tell. People will read this and use it as an excuse to not follow rules, then loads die and we can't take it back. As long as there's people in the covid wards that can't breathe, then we need to trust what the majority of experts are saying, not selected experts.

FabioPorkpie said:

I also think it’s interesting that some on this thread jumped on the attack BEFORE they had even listened to what he has to say, and this is kind of the point of my original post. Just because I don’t like the platform he is operating on, and he is an alternative voice, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t listen to him or that he may even be right.

I do think that some are struggling to look at what he has to say objectively, and to leave their own biases at the door before judging. I know I did just that, but I still came away thinking I couldn’t argue against the main gist of what he is proposing.

Click to expand...

I was just commenting as I listened, don't have time to listen all the way through and then make a massive post at the end, it would be confusing. I would rather break it down bit by bit. I might have no problem agreeing with him later if he starts saying things that make sense to me.

FabioPorkpie said:

I think it’s option 3
It’s less deadly than it was, due to better understanding of the virus and the available treatments.
It’s as deadly as we NOW think it is, which is very different from what we originally thought (see the latest IFR studies and that linked video).
There is certainly more immunity than the numbers quoted ie 7,8,9 % by the antibody studies, as they completely discount the innate immune response, T-cells. They also completely discount and ignore the possibility of cross immunity, which studies have suggested may be a factor.
Edit - how long lasting immunity is, and how robust the immunity is, are the question,

Click to expand...

You misunderstood what I wrote I think.

Option 3 would be his option of it being 0.15%, even his own post/ study doesn't back this up, and it's easily disproven by the deaths we have and case increases we have, but we're going to get another lesson on this over the coming months.
It's probably not less deadly than it was, but it is treat better, and we're better prepared and can catch it earlier, so it may now have a fatality rate of 1% instead of the 2% it may previously have been. It doesn't mean that 2% was wrong, it mean we've reduced it. But if we get overwhelmed that may go up to 3% etc.
Yes it will have gone up, 6% immunity was July, but like I said I think more like 10% now and maybe 17-20% for London, but yeah immunity could fade also, as much as any other gains.

So a lot to discuss in all of these threads.

Regarding this Yardley guy, despite his pretty wild approach you cannot argue with his experience / credentials. I suspect he knows Vallance through their time in big Pharma, Yardley was the head of R&D and Pfizer which is a pretty big role.

PCR testing is a huge problem but unfortunately we have now committed so much in 'testing' that there is no way the GOVT / Sage will backtrack on this due to the amount of money we've poured into it. The more you test the more cases you will find, how accurate the data is on the testing outcomes is a huge area for debate and Yardley's biggest pain point. Unfortunately I feel we will never hear this discussed as for the points mentioned above.

In terms of immunity / herd immunity - again a lot to be learnt but very interesting watching the apparent lack of 'second wave' in London. As we all know London was hit hard and early, I live in London and even in the real run up to 'lockdown' the tube was packed, masks were not advised and pubs had no restrictions, two weeks later we were recording 1000 deaths a day. I think exposure to COVID and other common virus' may have given London a better chance of cross immunity.

Personally I'm now just following excess deaths, these have been below yearly averages for the past few months, touchwood I don't think we'll see this drastically increase and no doubt the Tories will put this down to there 'tiered lockdowns'

Anyway,

Up the boro

Statto1 said:

You misunderstood what I wrote I think.

Option 3 would be his option of it being 0.15%, even his own post/ study doesn't back this up, and it's easily disproven by the deaths we have and case increases we have, but we're going to get another lesson on this over the coming months.
It's probably not less deadly than it was, but it is treat better, and we're better prepared and can catch it earlier, so it may now have a fatality rate of 1% instead of the 2% it may previously have been. It doesn't mean that 2% was wrong, it mean we've reduced it. But if we get overwhelmed that may go up to 3% etc.
Yes it will have gone up, 6% immunity was July, but like I said I think more like 10% now and maybe 17-20% for London, but yeah immunity could fade also, as much as any other gains.

Click to expand...

No offence, but did you watch that video I linked, by dr John Campbell, regarding IFR?
0.15% is way closer to those numbers, than 1%. Your IFR thinking is out of date now, it appears. In fact, I’ve not seen anyone saying 1% for a good while now.
The 0.15% is not Yeadon’s figure. It is John Ioannidis figure. Granted, it’s the lower end of his estimated range. But his credentials and knowledge are certainly better than ours. And he’s more in line with the studies discussed in that video.

Why do you keep ignoring the points around innate immune response and antibody test flaws, when discussing the level of exposure immunity?

Statto1 said:

The problem there is that phrase, not convinced and time will tell. People will read this and use it as an excuse to not follow rules, then loads die and we can't take it back. As long as there's people in the covid wards that can't breathe, then we need to trust what the majority of experts are saying, not selected experts.

Click to expand...

This is the difficulty in discussing this. It did cross my mind before posting the initial post, as I absolutely didn’t want to trivialise Covid. Thankfully, I don’t think many people will change their behaviour based on what a few of us on here discuss.
But I’ve got an inquisitive mind and lots of things don’t add up currently and there are discussions that are worthwhile having.
The reality is probably somewhere between both sides of the discussion.

GazC_MFC said:

Not sure what the obsession around it being one wave. Waves go up and down, but the water never disappears

Click to expand...

That's pretty deep for a Monday evening.

RandySavage said:

That's pretty deep for a Monday evening.

Click to expand...

Deep. Waves. Puntastic.

FabioPorkpie said:

So far, nobody has really convinced me that he is a crank OR that he is incorrect in what he is saying/predicting. I think only time will do that.

Click to expand...

This is a great point. I'm of the opinion that if someone comes out and says extraordinary things about the virus, differing from what the media, Government and WHO are telling us it requires extraordinary proof. Without that proof I'm not really interested in what he has to say and struggle to see why others are giving him the time of day.

The other side of that argument is what you are stating - you need proof to show he's a crank. This is how these people operate, as you can't prove they are. They are making predictions, so we can't see what's what's two weeks down the line. And when we get to that point he'll claim a lockdown has skewed the path of the virus or something so he wasn't wrong. They are vague with their sources, twist data but have enough knowledge so make it appear to a layperson that they know what they are talking about and convince us that it's the truth.

It's a pattern you see all the time with conspiracy theorists all over the internet and that's why he and the people who believe what he's saying get branded so. That then turns the arguments heated, the sides are drawn and we never get any closer to the truth.

If someone tells you a car is red, I want to see the car. Not that it'll be here in 2 weeks and I can see it then, for it to arrive 2 weeks later and was resprayed en route.

I'm not a fan of Johnson, Cummings or the way the whole Government have handled Covid but I don't think for one minute that they are capable of manipulating the data, the scientists and the media whilst managing to do so alongside nearly every other country and it not coming out. There are too many potential leaks, which makes me think that the stats they are telling us are true.

I really cannot wait for the day when people wake up and realise that we have to get on with life.

We are killing the young and those that are trying to make a life.

I'd love to see that stats for the people banging on about lockdowns in terms of age, wealth and lifestyle.

I'm in a risk category. If I catch it and get it bad there is a good chance I'd be in the proverbial but I also understand that life has to keep going and that I do what I need to do to protect myself and just keep going.

I know of people that have committed suicide as a direct result of lockdown. I have witnessed a massive decline in elderly relatives. I have witnessed the effects of people suffering from loneliness and isolation.

The lockdown mongerers need to look at the damage outside of Covid. There is a bigger picture.

ChrisTheRed said:

I really cannot wait for the day when people wake up and realise that we have to get on with life.

We are killing the young and those that are trying to make a life.

I'd love to see that stats for the people banging on about lockdowns in terms of age, wealth and lifestyle.

I'm in a risk category. If I catch it and get it bad there is a good chance I'd be in the proverbial but I also understand that life has to keep going and that I do what I need to do to protect myself and just keep going.

I know of people that have committed suicide as a direct result of lockdown. I have witnessed a massive decline in elderly relatives. I have witnessed the effects of people suffering from loneliness and isolation.

The lockdown mongerers need to look at the damage outside of Covid. There is a bigger picture.

Click to expand...

You happy to die for it? Or are you happy for one of your family members / mates to die so you can get on with life? Not having a pop, just interested as to how you can justify that stance if you are?

MolteniArcore said:

This is a great point. I'm of the opinion that if someone comes out and says extraordinary things about the virus, differing from what the media, Government and WHO are telling us it requires extraordinary proof. Without that proof I'm not really interested in what he has to say and struggle to see why others are giving him the time of day.

The other side of that argument is what you are stating - you need proof to show he's a crank. This is how these people operate, as you can't prove they are. They are making predictions, so we can't see what's what's two weeks down the line. And when we get to that point he'll claim a lockdown has skewed the path of the virus or something so he wasn't wrong. They are vague with their sources, twist data but have enough knowledge so make it appear to a layperson that they know what they are talking about and convince us that it's the truth.

It's a pattern you see all the time with conspiracy theorists all over the internet and that's why he and the people who believe what he's saying get branded so. That then turns the arguments heated, the sides are drawn and we never get any closer to the truth.

If someone tells you a car is red, I want to see the car. Not that it'll be here in 2 weeks and I can see it then, for it to arrive 2 weeks later and was resprayed en route.

I'm not a fan of Johnson, Cummings or the way the whole Government have handled Covid but I don't think for one minute that they are capable of manipulating the data, the scientists and the media whilst managing to do so alongside nearly every other country and it not coming out. There are too many potential leaks, which makes me think that the stats they are telling us are true.

Click to expand...

You heavily under estimate Cummings.

MolteniArcore said:

You happy to die for it? Or are you happy for one of your family members / mates to die so you can get on with life? Not having a pop, just interested as to how you can justify that stance if you are?

Click to expand...

I'm happy and understand that no tomorrow is guaranteed. You can't outrun every possible cause of death and to suggest you can would be ludicrous.

Ive suffered many medical set backs in my life and all it has taught me is to live each day as it comes.

There is no point be scared of what might happen. A few years ago I woke up to an ambulance and then bang I'm diagnosed on my 30s with epilepsy... Life changed.

Whilst at university a number of years before that I was diagnosed with another life long life changing condition.

I'm a massive believer in fate and that what is meant for you will never miss you out.

MolteniArcore said:

You happy to die for it? Or are you happy for one of your family members / mates to die so you can get on with life? Not having a pop, just interested as to how you can justify that stance if you are?

Click to expand...

My Dad is in his 80's with dementia, my Mum is late 70's with COPD, heart problems, and his sole carer.

My mum has watched her community decimated as social interactions are crushed, going to church (she is a believer, I'm not) has become a strange experience where they have to phone a week in advance, and her friends and acquaintances have become so frightened by some of the utter garbage pronounced by the government / SAGE and media that they don't even leave their homes. Soul destroying.

At some point my mum will die, she has been in hospital with respiratory issues at points over the last two winters. Her view is very much that if this virus doesn't get her something else will. Many (not all) of the people that those in favour of further 'restrictions', 'lockdowns', and garbage measures like 'circuit breakers' say they are trying to protect are actually being harmed with these extended 'lockdowns'.

Yes, this is a nasty virus but we have had pandemics before and we will have them again. The most vulnerable will sadly be susceptible and while some measures may help this country has completely lost its mind with its level of response recently.

Certain hospitals are busy, many others in certain regions really aren't.

I've said before that this virus is very real and caused major problems back in March/April with a huge spike in excess deaths. We don't have that now and while there will be further deaths due to covid I'm pretty certain (based on those who genuinely know their stuff) that there will not be the same situation as April. If we did not have a certain level of immunity then we would be seeing an exponential rise (we're not, despite what SAGE are saying) in cases and deaths (across the country) even with the current level of social interaction.

I have mentioned before that this is now going beyond a public health issue. Labour MP's are seemingly happy to get a bit of cash for having further restrictions imposed without questioning why they are being imposed. They seemingly want a pointless "circuit breaker" introduced and are playing politics (in my opinion) rather than being concerned about the effects the restrictions will have on mental health, businesses, families, and livelihoods. I say all this as someone who is lucky to have a job which is currently unaffected and the means to pay my mortgage. Many are not so fortunate.

Lets have a look at Nottingham....... Cases continuing to drop and yet being moved into Tier 3!!!

MolteniArcore said:

This is a great point. I'm of the opinion that if someone comes out and says extraordinary things about the virus, differing from what the media, Government and WHO are telling us it requires extraordinary proof. Without that proof I'm not really interested in what he has to say and struggle to see why others are giving him the time of day.

The other side of that argument is what you are stating - you need proof to show he's a crank. This is how these people operate, as you can't prove they are. They are making predictions, so we can't see what's what's two weeks down the line. And when we get to that point he'll claim a lockdown has skewed the path of the virus or something so he wasn't wrong. They are vague with their sources, twist data but have enough knowledge so make it appear to a layperson that they know what they are talking about and convince us that it's the truth.

It's a pattern you see all the time with conspiracy theorists all over the internet and that's why he and the people who believe what he's saying get branded so. That then turns the arguments heated, the sides are drawn and we never get any closer to the truth.

If someone tells you a car is red, I want to see the car. Not that it'll be here in 2 weeks and I can see it then, for it to arrive 2 weeks later and was resprayed en route.

I'm not a fan of Johnson, Cummings or the way the whole Government have handled Covid but I don't think for one minute that they are capable of manipulating the data, the scientists and the media whilst managing to do so alongside nearly every other country and it not coming out. There are too many potential leaks, which makes me think that the stats they are telling us are true.

Click to expand...

This isn’t some David Ike nutjob conspiracy theorist making wild claims about inserting micro robots into every human being on earth through a false vaccine program, you know? He’s arrogant, yes, and bitter and angry. But he is a guy who was Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of Allergy and Respiratory research at Pfizer. He’s got a phd in the respiratory field and has published more than 40 peer reviewed research studies, having worked high up in big pharma for decades. So he’s coming at this from a well informed position about the topic and his commentary on what is happening is probably worth listening to.
He’s not making fantastical claims, he’s basically saying the virus has swept through the planet more than people think, following the standard Gompertz curve, and we are now seeing the tail of that have localised outbreaks in areas that weren’t as badly exposed back in the initial outbreak. He’s saying there are issues with the testing regime and method which are probably meaning we aren’t getting a true picture of where things are at. He’s saying that Vallance and SAGE seems to be ignoring some pretty basic and fundamental biological science for some reason.
None of this stuff is particularly crazy or outlandish, given the path taken by similar viruses previously.
There has even been a false epidemic previously, caused by inaccurate testing, so even that isn’t completely outlandish.
He doesn’t think it’s some sinister plot or covid was made up and doesn’t exist and hasn’t killed anyone, just that it’s not as deadly to most people as was first thought (which is being backed up by multiple studies and research papers worldwide).
None of this stuff is completely outlandish or crazy, yet people are happy to instantly dismiss him as though though it’s some nutjob prattling on about Elvis living on the moon.

He is asking some very difficult questions and he should be extremely easy to discredit. But things do appear to be panning out at the minute, as he has been predicting. If he’s wrong, then it’ll be there for all to see in the not too distant future.
I personally hope he’s proved right as that will be the path that leads to the least amount of deaths
going forward.

He’s not making fantastical claims,

Click to expand...

He is. Why is the question?

This is based on a paper he published over 4 weeks ago, based on older data. There was no great rise in hospital admissions etc. and he concluded, because of that, that the Pandemic (sic) was over. Since then, his basis of presumption has been proved wrong. Has he come back and humbly apologised? If not, ignore him.