FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
You don’t get it.
this is not about covid denial and you keep going back to it. It is about the likely path of a viral outbreak and pandemic.
Controversial Covid post
- Thread starter FabioPorkpie
- Start date
You don’t get it.
this is not about covid denial and you keep going back to it. It is about the likely path of a viral outbreak and pandemic.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
have you listened to the podcast?
Have you watched the video about the IFR studies?
Or are you, like Statto has admitted, debating over something you’ve not yet seen? Because that being the case, you are showing far more bias than I am. And it’s a waste of time discussing these things if you’ve not actually errrrrr bothered to look at these things yet.
The problem is the inquisitively leads to shared information, which isn't yet proven correct, and these conversations are likely being had on every forum in the UK, every house etc.
1) What I would prefer: People to follow the rules better, and not be so ignorant. The economy would suffer in this scenario, of course. Some die, put probably kept to low levels. But, I don't think this scenario is possible in the UK, compliance is just too bad.
2) What is happening: A lot of people follow the rules, but the ones that do not, do some serious damage, the economy suffers more in this scenario, more lock downs, more dragged out. More die than necessary.
3) The scenario some want: Avoiding lockdowns, masks, distancing and it being like flu. Best case is the economy suffers, as the other countries are still locked down/ taking measures. This option has the most death, as it can't not be this way, this might be double option 2, or 10 times option 2. Nobody has tried this in winter yet.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
people have giving credence to why they’ve dismissed the podcast, evidence has been provided to contradict points made by Yeadon and Yet evidence hasn’t been provided to show some of yeadon’s assumptions
I've debated what I've listened to up to now, and proven what I've heard up to now is a load of crap. You've not disproven any of this.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Ok, I'll try and make it simple for you:
THE THREAD ISN'T ABOUT COVID DENIAL.
IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LIKLEY PATH OF THE VIRUS.
YOU ARE DISMISSING SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF VERY LOW FALSE POSITIVE RATES THEN SAYING YEADON'S FLASE POSITIVE CLAIMS (OF WHICH THERE ARE NO PROOF) ARE CORRECT. THIS MAKES YOU SOUND LIKE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST AS YOU WON'T ACCEPT PROVABLE FACTS.
YEADON HAS MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS IN HIS PODCAST, STATTO IS HIGHLIGHTING THEM. YET YOU STILL BELIEVE YEADON 100%, OR COME ACROSS LIKE YOU DO.
THESE ACTIONS MAKE YOU APPEAR LIKE A COVID DENIER. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BRANDED SO MAYBE THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DISMISSING.
bear66
Well-known member
Have you read the paper? To quote his view it was over with R permanently below 1.
"The virus infection has passed through the bulk of the population as a result of wholly natural processes and evidence indicates that in the UK and other heavily infected European countries the spread of the virus has been all but halted by a substantial reduction in the susceptible population. This has occurred because the level of infection required to introduce enough immunity into the population to reduce the reproduction number (R) permanently below 1 occurred at markedly lower infection rates and loss of life than had been initially anticipated."
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
See Statto's post a few up. When you have addressed the points he has made I'll have a listen. But TBH I'm not sure anything you recommend me to watch is worth it as you don't believe in maths.
bear66
Well-known member
His paper is devoid of facts and full of presumption. Because no one was being hospitalised, there must have been huge levels of immunity in the population. That was before there were hospitalisations. It's on an anti-lockdown website, so an agenda?
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Right, so Statto has seen 33% of one podcast, and not yet watched the IFR study video.
And you’ve watched neither, at all.
But you are all over this thread. Interesting.
And I’m wasting my time completely trying to debate with you.
As you were:
The only one who is actually debating currently is Bear.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
I’ll read it later.
Agree with you about lockdown sceptics, and the problems with it being on right wing sites only was a major point in my post.
Can I ask Bear, did you listen to the podcast? Or watch the Dr John Campbell video?
I suspect you did, but I’d be interested to know.
Randy
Well-known member
Who said anything about a covid conspiracy?
bear66
Well-known member
After watching a number of podcasts in the first few months it was clear they were a means of avoiding scrutiny as you need to continually fact check everything that's said. I prefer scientific papers, articles and statistics to get to an informed opinion but in this case I did.
The Ionnadis paper was being touted as the go to paper for a single figure for IFR. But it's not that simple. It says:
Across 32 different locations, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.24%).
But in the paper it says the UK is about 1%.
Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%).
In England the paper says it's 0.26% (0.22% corrected).
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Yeah, there are a range of IFR depending on age, as pointed out in the studies that Campbell discusses.
I too like the scientific papers and I’d hope you’ve seen that I have been following them for months and you and I have been aligned on most things. However, I had some questions because some things just didn’t add up and so I looked at some stuff that the ‘dark side’ were saying, and it was easy to dismiss out of hand, such as the GBD.
However, despite his delivery, arrogance and self confidence, a lot of what a Yeadon says on the podcast is pretty straight forward and makes sense and aligns with the progression of other viruses historically, and there is some evidence that things are playing out not a million miles away from how he says they will.
I’m actually a bit disappointed you’ve not listened to the podcast or watched the IFR study video, because they are both with a listen. E- sorry, I misread your post and didn’t see that you’d listened to it
None of this is exact science but come on, you’ve got to at least listen to it before you can dismiss it.
Otherwise what was the point in any of these previous posts? I’m discussing something with people who haven’t actually even listened or looked at the point under discussion! Wish I’d known that from the start and I wouldn’t have wasted my time. @Cambsred at least listened and then made his points
it’s clear it’s a really emotive subject and it’s incredibly difficult to have discussions about what is actually happening as there is bias and confirmation bias on all sides of the debate, but ultimately we all just want the same thing - the least amount of death and suffering.
bear66
Well-known member
I said I had in this case.Yeah, there are a range of IFR depending on age, as pointed out in the studies that Campbell discusses.
I too like the scientific papers and I’d hope you’ve seen that I have been following them for months and you and I have been aligned on most things. However, I had some questions because some things just didn’t add up and so I looked at some stuff that the ‘dark side’ were saying, and it was easy to dismiss out of hand, such as the GBD.
However, despite his delivery, arrogance and self confidence, a lot of what a Yeadon says on the podcast is pretty straight forward and makes sense and aligns with the progression of other viruses historically, and there is some evidence that things are playing out not a million miles away from how he says they will.
I’m actually a bit disappointed you’ve not listened to the podcast or watched the IFR study video, because they are both with a listen. E- sorry, I misread your post and didn’t see that you’d listened to it
None of this is exact science but come on, you’ve got to at least listen to it before you can dismiss it.
Otherwise what was the point in any of these previous posts? I’m discussing something with people who haven’t actually even listened or looked at the point under discussion! Wish I’d known that from the start and I wouldn’t have wasted my time. @Cambsred at least listened and then made his points
it’s clear it’s a really emotive subject and it’s incredibly difficult to have discussions about what is actually happening as there is bias and confirmation bias on all sides of the debate, but ultimately we all just want the same thing - the least amount of death and suffering.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
And yeah, Yeadon absolutely doesn’t help his cause by choosing the lowest figure (0.15%) and going with it out of context
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Apologies, I misread and edited the original reply.
Did you not think that any of what he said about the progression made sense? Taking away the more questionable stuff about the ‘why’ of it all, the actual pandemic science, Gompertz curve following etc is kind of in line with what we are seeing with localised outbreaks that seem (and it’s very early so can’t be sure, but fingers crossed ) to be running out of steam already, hopefully, such as in the north east, Nottingham. And if dies all seem to be further away from London,
Obviously if London and the surrounding area gets a big surge soon then it’s back to the drawing board and lockdown.
bear66
Well-known member
Read the paper.Apologies, I misread and edited the original reply.
Did you not think that any of what he said about the progression made sense? Taking away the more questionable stuff about the ‘why’ of it all, the actual pandemic science, Gompertz curve following etc is kind of in line with what we are seeing with localised outbreaks that seem (and it’s very early so can’t be sure, but fingers crossed ) to be running out of steam already, hopefully, such as in the north east, Nottingham. And if dies all seem to be further away from London,
Obviously if London and the surrounding area gets a big surge soon then it’s back to the drawing board and lockdown.
Generalisation on coronaviruses is difficult. We have no knowledge of how the common cold appeared and progressed. SARS, MERS and SARS2 have little similarity in infectioness or mortality.
Read the paper to see the graph he uses to discuss progression (deaths close to zero at the end of it). The paper was published on 6 September.
