Stop Posting the Conspiracy Rubbish

Alvez_48 said:
Watch the video it explains it well. 👍🏻
Again won't reply to anything else you write.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't, it's troll food.

You don't reply as your argument is weak when put under any sort of scrutiny. Don't care if you don't reply though, I would rather you didn't.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Nope loads of people have had this with you, I just can't be done with you, you're boring
Click to expand...

Boring is fine, especially if it shuts you up, at least I can back up my arguments myself (y)
At least I'm not undermining the fight against the pandemic too.
 
GazC_MFC said:
I said it wasn’t an exact science and I said let’s use it at illustrative purpose

im not sure what point you are making, so help me understand. Are you saying more people are being infected vs deaths or less people

to reach and average of 400 deaths how many cases would need to live. Test data shows rises in all age groups, so using a overall ifr takes into account all ages. Using individual ifr is fine, but you are highlighting individual risk ranges based on age.

300 400 or 500 deaths = many people infected

or if less people infected and cases are wrong then you have to saying that only old people are really getting it.

what your standpoint on how many people have to be infected to reach 100’s of deaths a day?
Click to expand...

I tried to be polite mate, but come on, can you really not see the point I’m making? I’m saying you applying 0.4% IFR to 532 deaths to work out the number of cases to then prove there is a high false negative rate is ridiculous.
Because the vast majority of those 532 deaths are made up of much older folk with much much higher IFR’s. It’s really not that difficult.

I think there needs to be a relatively small number of older people infected to get to 532 deaths.
I think there needs to be an absolutely huge number of young people infected to get to 532 deaths. Someone above 80 IFR suggested in that study is sadly roughly 5.4%. Above 85 it’s roughly 8% +.
Above 90, it’s 17%.


Given that the majority of the 532 deaths will have been in the older age groups, it’s something you definitely need to take into account when you are trying to make a point and applying IFR to daily reported deaths to work out case estimates.
No more from me on this one.
I’ve made my point and you are free to disagree with it.
 
Statto1 said:
Yeah, totally agree with that. But people have been banding around this 0.2% IFR average so he was probably using the 0.4% average as a very basic example to combat that, even though the average we were saying from the other report was about 1.16%, probably to do with us having a lot of old people.

The people posting about 0.2% IFR (or quoting videos claiming that) are not saying anything about the 3% for 70's, 8% for 80's, 16% for 90's etc.
Your report (after a very basic scan) says we're about 1.15% IFR average, assuming even distribution, assuming we're classed as a high income country?

That report looks good by the way, I'll have a read of that when I get chance.
Click to expand...

I’ve not read the report so don’t know if I agree with it or not. It’s just one of the first that came up when I googled IFRs by age U.K. to get some numbers for illustrative purposes.
From memory, I don’t think the numbers are too far away from the figures claimed in those IFR studies that John Campbell discussed in that video (from the other thread). Again, I’ve not time to go and check but point is, I think a few studies are in the same sort of ballpark now.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I’ve not read the report so don’t know if I agree with it or not. It’s just one of the first that came up when I googled IFRs by age U.K. to get some numbers for illustrative purposes.
From memory, I don’t think the numbers are too far away from the figures claimed in those IFR studies that John Campbell discussed in that video (from the other thread). Again, I’ve not time to go and check but point is, I think a few studies are in the same sort of ballpark now.
Click to expand...
The report is worth reading. His figures are consistent with the report. What surprised me the most was that the IFR for under 70s in England. 20% of deaths and an IFR of 0.27% (0.22% adjusted).
 
Statto1 said:
Tell that to the 60k extra dead people or the family of the extra 60k dead people we have, or to those that have had to care for them, or treat them. Some of those are doing that unpaid too, or on minimum wage, or on a nurses salary, which is low.
Click to expand...
I think we should call that one a draw. Covid 19 itself shouldn’t cause mental health issues although i can see why some vulnerable people might be scared. What definitely does cause mental health issues is scaremongering and fear started by idiots like Piers Morgan. Some fear is justified and some generated by people who clearly don’t know what they are talking about
 
bear66 said:
The report is worth reading. His figures are consistent with the report. What surprised me the most was that the IFR for under 70s in England. 20% of deaths and an IFR of 0.27% (0.22% adjusted).
Click to expand...

I’m not saying that Gaz’s 0.4% average IFR is wrong (it may be, it may not be. It seems reasonable to me).
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I think there needs to be a relatively small number of older people infected to get to 532 deaths.
I think there needs to be an absolutely huge number of young people infected to get to 532 deaths. Someone above 80 IFR suggested in that study is sadly roughly 5.4%. Above 85 it’s roughly 8% +.
Above 90, it’s 17%.


.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. No one is saying that it isn’t the old people dying. If old people are dying it doesn’t mean young people aren’t being infected. In fact you’d expect old people to be shielding better than younger people

I don’t understand what the individual ifr rates have got to with anything. What’s the point we’re making

Something I’d like a bit of clarification on is This all stems for pcr giving false positive. What is it you are trying to say or achieve by stating that?
 
GazC_MFC said:
I agree with this. No one is saying that it isn’t the old people dying. If old people are dying it doesn’t mean young people aren’t being infected. In fact you’d expect old people to be shielding better than younger people

I don’t understand what the individual ifr rates have got to with anything. What’s the point we’re making

Something I’d like a bit of clarification on is This all stems for pcr giving false positive. What is it you are trying to say or achieve by stating that?
Click to expand...

Don’t worry about it mate, it’s too complicated to explain without having to go back and find the actual age profile of deaths on a particular day, then work back the cases for each age group at that IFR eg
1 death at 23yr old - IFR 0.03 = 3333 cases.
10 deaths at 60 -IFR 0.94 = 1063 cases.
60 deaths at 85 -IFR 8.86 = 677 cases.
Total estimated cases = 5073 cases.

Using an average IFR of 0.4, as in your example, and the same total numbers of people as above
71 deaths at IFR 0.4 = 17,750 cases.

Big difference in the projected cases.
Anyway, don’t worry about it. I can’t be doing the maths again or searching for IFR rates, it’s too late 😂

Regarding the false positive remark, o just get annoyed that it’s a discussion that gets chucked into the conspiracy theory bin as soon as it’s mentioned, despite any evidence presented, such as from the governments own distributed advice (which I posted on another thread).
I guess ultimately, the point is it’s too emotive a subject and there is too much confusion around the data for a discussion about some of the more controversial elements of the data collection, to actually be had. Certainly not on a forum with to and fro texts when it might be a day or more before we get a chance to respond.

Anyway, enough.
Fingers crossed the signs of hospital admissions plateauing continue, and deaths start to steady and fall in line with the lag behind the Zoe app/ONS cases.

Having said that, there is a worrying trend developing for care home infection building again ☹️


EDIT - I’m not saying I think ALL cases are false positives, or that false negatives aren’t also a problem.
 
Last edited:
the_smog_chorus said:
I’m not convinced lockdowns work, this is UK (2 lockdowns) compared to 8 countries with no full lockdown - not just Sweden.
Click to expand...

That list is some pretty random countries, why? Why not use like for like countries, or those relatively similar? Oh I know why.....because it won't fit your narrative or what the graph is designed to do.

Anyway, onto that list, How many of those countries got themselves into a massive mess before locking down? 1, us, and we've done it twice now, a lockdown won't fix that, it will only buy time and reduce cases and deaths slowly. We need to be stopping it before it happens (like every other country on that list, bar Sweden). In our case, that's an early lock down, not a late one.

As for Sweden, they got themselves into a massive mess first time round (as they admit) and then they got out of it, probably because their people are considerate and will do what's best without even being asked, never mind told. Even the Swedes aren't chancing this second time around though, and they're on with "advised" lockdowns, which is about as harsh as it will ever get there. Not sure exactly why, but I think it's something to do with the government can't force them.

Again, it's blaming the lockdown, when it's the fault of the government and the people for doing it too slow. If you take the bullet out of the gun it won't do any damage, but trying to put a bandage on a gunshot wound can only do so much.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Don’t worry about it mate, it’s too complicated to explain without having to go back and find the actual age profile of deaths on a particular day, then work back the cases for each age group at that IFR eg
1 death at 23yr old - IFR 0.03 = 3333 cases.
10 deaths at 60 -IFR 0.94 = 1063 cases.
60 deaths at 85 -IFR 8.86 = 677 cases.
Total estimated cases = 5073 cases.

Using an average IFR of 0.4, as in your example, and the same total numbers of people as above
71 deaths at IFR 0.4 = 17,750 cases.

Big difference in the projected cases.
Anyway, don’t worry about it. I can’t be doing the maths again or searching for IFR rates, it’s too late 😂

Regarding the false positive remark, o just get annoyed that it’s a discussion that gets chucked into the conspiracy theory bin as soon as it’s mentioned, despite any evidence presented, such as from the governments own distributed advice (which I posted on another thread).
I guess ultimately, the point is it’s too emotive a subject and there is too much confusion around the data for a discussion about some of the more controversial elements of the data collection, to actually be had. Certainly not on a forum with to and fro texts when it might be a day or more before we get a chance to respond.

Anyway, enough.
Fingers crossed the signs of hospital admissions plateauing continue, and deaths start to steady and fall in line with the lag behind the Zoe app/ONS cases.

Having said that, there is a worrying trend developing for care home infection building again ☹️


EDIT - I’m not saying I think ALL cases are false positives, or that false negatives aren’t also a problem.
Click to expand...
How can you use a particular day when more deaths will be announced in the future.

it looks flawed to me the way you are calculating it
 
GazC_MFC said:
How can you use a particular day when more deaths will be announced in the future.

it looks flawed to me the way you are calculating it
Click to expand...

Here, are you on a wind up pal??

It was you who said 532 deaths =133k cases, based on using an IFR of 0.4%. I’m trying to educate you in why you were wrong.
I don’t need you to explain to me that the deaths occur on different days - I already told you that.

Anyway, I give up. I’m done. I can’t make it any clearer than with the example in that last post and still you don’t get it. Have a good evening mate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top