Stop Posting the Conspiracy Rubbish

GazC_MFC said:
Why are you using 71 deaths and showing how to calculate deaths then?
Click to expand...

As an example to show you why you can’t project 133k cases from 532 deaths, in the way you did.
Because using an average IFR will give a hugely different case figure to using the actual IFRs per age group, if a large proportion are of an old age (if you are calculating the cases on working backwards from the deaths, as you did)
The 71 was just an example to illustrate this.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
As an example to show you why you can’t project 133k cases from 532 deaths, in the way you did.
Because using an average IFR will give a hugely different case figure to using the actual IFRs per age group, if a large proportion are of an old age (if you are calculating the cases on working backwards from the deaths, as you did)
The 71 was just an example to illustrate this.
Click to expand...

And I used 71 deaths because I’ll be buggared if I’m going to go and find the age demographics of the 532 and work it out like that to make the same point.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
And I used 71 deaths because I’ll be buggared if I’m going to go and find the age demographics of the 532 and work it out like that to make the same point.
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it would work like that.

I appreciate you've probably just used example numbers there, but I'm going to try and explain why that won't work, well it will but only to prove it's more fatal than most on here were claiming, and would also prove there's no herd immunity.

But using your example numbers: 71 deaths per 5073 cases, gives an average IFR of 1.4% (that's actually what it says for England on page 9, based on 6% seroprevalence)
If 71 deaths = 5,000 cases, that's 700 deaths per case, and we're on 50,000 deaths that's 3.5m cases, but massively weighted to the younger population already having had it.

So what you're saying to get something like that to work is there's no herd immunity (I agree with that bit), which would mean we're massively more susceptible than people on here were saying, and also that a lockdown must have been why the cases died off first time, as it can't be herd immunity at 5% of the population.

I take it you just made those numbers up on the spot, but it's on hell of a coincidence that your numbers got to the 1.4% IFR in that report and the 5% seroprevalence:LOL:

What happens when there's an equal spread of the virus, per age? 25m of our population are over 50 (0.4% IFR), and 16m over 60.

Pardon the very crude figures below:
If we say 10m 50-60's @ 0.5%, 10m 60-75 @ 1.5%, and 5m over 75 @ 8% then that's 550k. Even if it just got half of them infected, that's 275k dead. Who is going to look after those and who else dies whilst those are being treated. We only have 5k ICU beds so that's no ICU for a year if they're all in there a week..
 
Last edited:
Mat
Statto1 said:
I see what you're getting at, but it doesn't work like that.

But using your example numbers: 71 deaths per 5073 cases, gives an average IFR of 1.4%
If 71 deaths = 5,000 cases, that's 700 deaths per case, and we're on 50,000 deaths that's 3.5m cases, but massively weighted to the younger population already having had it.

So what you're saying to get something like that to work is there's no herd immunity (I agree with that bit), which would mean we're massively more susceptible than people on here were saying, and also that a lockdown must have been why the cases died off, as it can't be herd immunity at 5% of the population.

What happens when there's an equal spread of the virus, per age? 25m of our population are over 50, and 16m over 60.
Click to expand...

🤦‍♂️
Mate, you’ve got to be kidding?!😂
 
Statto1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
All of the above completely wrong.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Mat

🤦‍♂️
Mate, you’ve got to be kidding?!😂
Click to expand...

How? I know your figures are an example, but your example wouldn't suit the herd immunity or 0.2-0.4% that's been banded about on here. That's been my point all along, the numbers will never stack up to meet all those criteria, like I keep saying, they're inversely proportional.

Try and give an example which suits the multiple narratives of herd immunity, low IFR, accounts for the 50k deaths, and reflects the population demographics
 
Statto1 said:
How? I know your figures are an example, but your example wouldn't suit the herd immunity or 0.2-0.4% that's been banded about on here. That's been my point all along, the numbers will never stack up to meet all those criteria, like I keep saying, they're inversely proportional.

Try and give an example which suits the multiple narratives of herd immunity, low IFR, accounts for the 50k deaths, and reflects the population demographics
Click to expand...

Mate, you’ve gone off on a complete tangent and are having a discussion that nobody else is, in this instance.
 
GazC_MFC said:
Have you read Richard cree’s blog. Wards are shutting down and no essential treatment stopped to allow more beds for covid patients
Click to expand...

People talk about this as though stopping non-essential treatment never ever happens. It does. People also seem to forget the flu seasons of years gone by...........

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...crisis-bad-weather-illness-2017-a8660496.html

I also know doctors and consultants at major northern hospitals. They were worried about having to be re-deployed soon. Well, you would be seeing those ridiculous graphs thrown out by SAGE to frighten people when the population saw that "cases" were leveling off. Couldn't have things heading back to anything like normality could they? They are not having to be redeployed and they are busy catching up with the non-emergency backlog.
 
Statto1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Troll food? Ha ha, he excellently puts across his points.

Very interesting about the WHO guidelines for pandemics isn't it? Or do you just like to ignore inconvenient truths?



Also worth looking at this lecture from Chris Whitty.....


I realise that he is not solely responsible for introducing measures but his comments at 48:30 onwards are interesting.........(for Flu but can be applied to a respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2)....... "Screening at airports and banning travel is utterly useless, or next to useless". Yet we have brought in/will be bringing in these measures.

Here is a lecture from Chris Whitty in late april around SARS-CoV-2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BdPKpWbxTg
 
CFR and IFR are always tricky to estimate. What counts as a "case" and an "infection" and how can you estimate the numbers of people who have been infected?

Well, as Chris Whitty points out, serology tests provide some idea but they do not provide the whole story.

What really is most frightening from that 2nd lecture is when he talks about immunity and only refers to antibodies. Truly staggering. Over the summer more and more evidence of the role (in vivo) of T-cells. The government/SAGE could have made a beeline to those research groups at Scripps/Karolinska institute and found a way to carry out a small survey to give an estimate of the UK population that had been infected. This could have informed 'modeling' (you all know my view on that anyway) and prevented the ridiculous graphs that they came out with the other week. So why didn't they?

And he talks about the 1918 Flu and 2nd wave (slaps head) being more deadly than the first.

The modeling must still be based on this 7% (serology only) nonsense. They cannot actually be that stupid, it must be by design, surely?

As for IFR/CFR...... tricky, but lets take a look at Sweden as a whole (the population number will obviously be larger than the number of people infected so this is not an IFR)....

~6,122 deaths from a population of 10.23 M (2019). So 0.06% mortality across the population so far. They have not had "lockdowns" or severe restrictions in place. Working from home yes, older children not at school, yes. But shops open, bars open, society functioning to a reasonable extent. Numbers are difficult to compare (population make, number of susceptible people etc). But 0.06% mortality across the population so far with sensible precautions in place (essentially standard WHO guidelines for pandemic / endemic)

Ask yourself why we have ignored WHO guidelines, introduced masks (in summer for a coronavirus!), imposed lockdowns/restrictions on freedoms, and have politicians talking about mandatory vaccination of the population (against Nuremburg code, voluntary informed consent)..........
 
yeah and all those who decide not to take the vac will be marched up to Seaton Carew where they will be dealt with... oops conspiracy theorist
 
T_A_D said:
CFR and IFR are always tricky to estimate. What counts as a "case" and an "infection" and how can you estimate the numbers of people who have been infected?

Well, as Chris Whitty points out, serology tests provide some idea but they do not provide the whole story.

What really is most frightening from that 2nd lecture is when he talks about immunity and only refers to antibodies. Truly staggering. Over the summer more and more evidence of the role (in vivo) of T-cells. The government/SAGE could have made a beeline to those research groups at Scripps/Karolinska institute and found a way to carry out a small survey to give an estimate of the UK population that had been infected. This could have informed 'modeling' (you all know my view on that anyway) and prevented the ridiculous graphs that they came out with the other week. So why didn't they?

And he talks about the 1918 Flu and 2nd wave (slaps head) being more deadly than the first.

The modeling must still be based on this 7% (serology only) nonsense. They cannot actually be that stupid, it must be by design, surely?

As for IFR/CFR...... tricky, but lets take a look at Sweden as a whole (the population number will obviously be larger than the number of people infected so this is not an IFR)....

~6,122 deaths from a population of 10.23 M (2019). So 0.06% mortality across the population so far. They have not had "lockdowns" or severe restrictions in place. Working from home yes, older children not at school, yes. But shops open, bars open, society functioning to a reasonable extent. Numbers are difficult to compare (population make, number of susceptible people etc). But 0.06% mortality across the population so far with sensible precautions in place (essentially standard WHO guidelines for pandemic / endemic)

Ask yourself why we have ignored WHO guidelines, introduced masks (in summer for a coronavirus!), imposed lockdowns/restrictions on freedoms, and have politicians talking about mandatory vaccination of the population (against Nuremburg code, voluntary informed consent)..........
Click to expand...

what I’ve read about the evidence of T cells is that you first have an antibody response and from that anti body response T cells are created to emulate the antibodies.

that backed up with the SARS where people had tcells 17 years later

Mia there a ways to easily test the tcell rather than antibody? Or both?
 
Jesus, some of you you lot have been watching too much X-Files. Keep searching for your “truth”.

Advice can change by the minute, as can models.

The whole of Europe is going through a second wave, that some of you nutters said wouldn’t come. The world is now on more cases and deaths than it’s ever head, yet some of you were banging the herd immunity drum. You keep banging the low IFR low cases drum too, your mulder and scully theories don’t work with our data. You’re all arguing different points and claiming you’re on the same team, when your points conflict each other.

I’ll stick with the PCR, serology, rocketing death numbers, rocketing case numbers and reports from the hospitals thanks. I’ll trust what SAGE put out too, and appreciate they probably have quite a lot of experts working on this, and we seem to be recommending similar actions to the rest of the world, albeit slow and handcuffed by the government.

I unfortunately don’t have time to go through every YouTube video you lot drag up to try and defend your conspiracy theory.
 
Statto1 said:
Jesus, some of you you lot have been watching too much X-Files. Keep searching for your “truth”.

Advice can change by the minute, as can models.

The whole of Europe is going through a second wave, that some of you nutters said wouldn’t come. The world is now on more cases and deaths than it’s ever head, yet some of you were banging the herd immunity drum. You keep banging the low IFR low cases drum too, your mulder and scully theories don’t work with our data. You’re all arguing different points and claiming you’re on the same team, when your points conflict each other.

I’ll stick with the PCR, serology, rocketing death numbers, rocketing case numbers and reports from the hospitals thanks. I’ll trust what SAGE put out too, and appreciate they probably have quite a lot of experts working on this, and we seem to be recommending similar actions to the rest of the world, albeit slow and handcuffed by the government.

I unfortunately don’t have time to go through every YouTube video you lot drag up to try and defend your conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

That is it. It’s all worth discussion but this discussion needs to be coherent. People are making various points with various data. On their own the seem valid but when matched up they don’t make sense

Despite saying it isn’t an exact science, as using rough figures they get slammed. They even tell you your going off on a tangent even though your pointing out how the data doesn’t marry up.

To be honest im done with the discussion for now, people are represent the data to fit an agenda and not taking a step back to look at the full picture.

It’s fair enough having the view point of being anti lockdown. It’s genuine to have concern of the impact of a lockdown has on people.

Ultimately people are dying of covid. We’re likely to have another 9000-11000 deaths in the next 3 weeks.

what it also looks like a that even if we flatten the curve it’ll be long.
 
GazC_MFC said:
what I’ve read about the evidence of T cells is that you first have an antibody response and from that anti body response T cells are created to emulate the antibodies.

that backed up with the SARS where people had tcells 17 years later

Mia there a ways to easily test the tcell rather than antibody? Or both?
Click to expand...
Even Tegnell has backed down from his position regarding the hoped for Swedish immunity.

Tegnell played down hopes that Sweden’s severe spring outbreak of the virus might offer sizable protection through widespread immunity, saying the number of undetected infections had likely been lower than previously believed.

To be fair, the Swedish people didn't play ball and locked themselves down more stringently than the formal UK lockdown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top