Controversial Covid post

bear66 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree. At the moment, I think things aren’t a million miles away from what he said and if anything, things are pretty much adding weight to his predictions. As far as I can tell, the levels of new daily cases are decreasing in places where they were growing rapidly, like Newcastle, Durham, Nottingham, Liverpool, and that is pretty much in line with what he said would happen-an increase that would be self limiting and leveling off long before it goes out of control. Why is this happening? It’s certainly not down to the new measures, which even SAGE say won’t have much effect. Hospital admissions are increasing, but not at a rate unusual for this time of year. In a few few places things are very difficult but again, not dissimilar to a normal October.
Hopefully, the new cases level off soon elsewhere, the admissions level off or at least remain in line with the normal autumnal levels and the deaths will start to fall. London hopefully won’t see crazy increases, excess deaths won’t show huge differences between now and previous winters. Most of these things will be measurable in the next week or two, and if the new daily cases do start to drop in more places where they are flying up now, then that will be interesting.
Obviously we all hope that to be the case, and that numbers across all indicators reduce.
time will tell but at this moment, I see nothing to say that things are wildly different to what Yeadon has said would happen.
I actually don’t know how you look at the current data and conclude that he has been proved wrong already.
He may be proved wrong, but he hasn’t yet:
 
I also think there has been a change recently in some of the more prominent scientific voices in the media, such as Christina Pagel, who seem now to be quietly moving away from calling for a full lockdown. Not sure of the significance of this in relation to Yeadons prediction, or if there is any significance to it at all, but there does seem to be a slight mood change out there.
 
I don't have time for a long post as I'm on way into work (luckily I still have a job)....

I see another report on the BBC today about waning antibodies and its impact on immunity...... It is like the rest of the human immune system is being deliberately ignored.

There should be a mood change. Look at data, not 'modeling' or if you must use modeling then use the latest data to inform it. If we had 90% susceptibility the peak in March would have been way way above what it was.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I disagree. At the moment, I think things aren’t a million miles away from what he said and if anything, things are pretty much adding weight to his predictions. As far as I can tell, the levels of new daily cases are decreasing in places where they were growing rapidly, like Newcastle, Durham, Nottingham, Liverpool, and that is pretty much in line with what he said would happen-an increase that would be self limiting and leveling off long before it goes out of control. Why is this happening? It’s certainly not down to the new measures, which even SAGE say won’t have much effect. Hospital admissions are increasing, but not at a rate unusual for this time of year. In a few few places things are very difficult but again, not dissimilar to a normal October.
Hopefully, the new cases level off soon elsewhere, the admissions level off or at least remain in line with the normal autumnal levels and the deaths will start to fall. London hopefully won’t see crazy increases, excess deaths won’t show huge differences between now and previous winters. Most of these things will be measurable in the next week or two, and if the new daily cases do start to drop in more places where they are flying up now, then that will be interesting.
Obviously we all hope that to be the case, and that numbers across all indicators reduce.
time will tell but at this moment, I see nothing to say that things are wildly different to what Yeadon has said would happen.
I actually don’t know how you look at the current data and conclude that he has been proved wrong already.
He may be proved wrong, but he hasn’t yet:
Click to expand...
Read the paper. It was written when he thought there would be no hospitalisations or deaths. The fact there was no increase in deaths in France and Spain although cases had increased proved it. They're now at 200 and 160 deaths a day. We're now at 180. He was wrong from beginning to end. He should have waited two weeks and not made a fool of himself. It's on lockdownsceptics website. An agenda?

There has been a leveling out of hospitalisations over the last 5 days, so hopefully they do begin to fall. When they fall to 'zero', he was still wrong.
 
T_A_D said:
I don't have time for a long post as I'm on way into work (luckily I still have a job)....

I see another report on the BBC today about waning antibodies and its impact on immunity...... It is like the rest of the human immune system is being deliberately ignored.

There should be a mood change. Look at data, not 'modeling' or if you must use modeling then use the latest data to inform it. If we had 90% susceptibility the peak in March would have been way way above what it was.
Click to expand...

it’s weird. Headline news on the main news sites of bbc and Sky - antibodies reduce with time.... errrrr yeah, that’s just completely normal and has been known forever. Why is it even news? Let alone the main scary headline! Just too many questions,
 
FabioPorkpie said:
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.
Click to expand...

The odd thing here is in your initial post you make reference to his high false positive claims. On this thread Bear or Statto (it was one of them, I can't remember which) showed that these claims were incorrect and provided statistical evidence of this. As that is one claim that is easily disprovable I would now be looking at exceptional evidence for any of his other claims.

The fact that you have dismissed the proof provided in this thread makes your initial post disingenuous - it appeared the you wanted to discuss and listen, but you are only now ignoring the proof and ranting about how his opinion is the only one that can be correct, again with no evidence.

His questions are easy to discredit, some have been discredited on here by people without an impressive CV as his is. And this is the reason he can be dismissed.

Fair enough if you can't see the wood from the trees, it's a worrying time and people don't want to see the truth. People believe in ghosts, that the earth is flat, that we've never been to the moon etc - this anti-Covid stuff is just another strand to it all, as Trump would say, fake news.

And why is he doing it? Money. He'll be making a fortune as you encourage people to watch his YouTube, listen to his Podcast and visit his social media.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
it’s weird. Headline news on the main news sites of bbc and Sky - antibodies reduce with time.... errrrr yeah, that’s just completely normal and has been known forever. Why is it even news? Let alone the main scary headline! Just too many questions,
Click to expand...

So how do we have polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough, mumps and diphtheria immunity? Those antibodies don't ebb away like Covid ones allegedly do.

What are the "too many questions"? It's a simple thing to understand why that is headline news today and why it is a worry for the world. But it's also not something that would stop us beating Covid.
 
MolteniArcore said:
The odd thing here is in your initial post you make reference to his high false positive claims. On this thread Bear or Statto (it was one of them, I can't remember which) showed that these claims were incorrect and provided statistical evidence of this. As that is one claim that is easily disprovable I would now be looking at exceptional evidence for any of his other claims.

The fact that you have dismissed the proof provided in this thread makes your initial post disingenuous - it appeared the you wanted to discuss and listen, but you are only now ignoring the proof and ranting about how his opinion is the only one that can be correct, again with no evidence.

His questions are easy to discredit, some have been discredited on here by people without an impressive CV as his is. And this is the reason he can be dismissed.

Fair enough if you can't see the wood from the trees, it's a worrying time and people don't want to see the truth. People believe in ghosts, that the earth is flat, that we've never been to the moon etc - this anti-Covid stuff is just another strand to it all, as Trump would say, fake news.

And why is he doing it? Money. He'll be making a fortune as you encourage people to watch his YouTube, listen to his Podcast and visit his social media.
Click to expand...

I haven’t got time to reply properly now but two points.
I posted a rebuttal of the false positive claim in my opening post. So I not blindly following it. I just didn’t see it as convincing. Nor Bear’s or Statto’s ‘proof’.
And secondly, stop saying covid denial. This is absolutely not what this discussion is about and you are being disingenuous in stating it repeatedly.
But it’s fine, we are all allowed different points of view. It just seems we aren’t allowed grown up discussions about the progression of the virus or the possibility some of the opposing opinions aren’t completely out of the realm of possibility. That’s fine.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I haven’t got time to reply properly now but two points.
I posted a rebuttal of the false positive claim in my opening post. So I not blindly following it. I just didn’t see it as convincing. Nor Bear’s or Statto’s ‘proof’.
And secondly, stop saying covid denial. This is absolutely not what this discussion is about and you are being disingenuous in stating it repeatedly.
But it’s fine, we are all allowed different points of view. It just seems we aren’t allowed grown up discussions about the progression of the virus or the possibility some of the opposing opinions aren’t completely out of the realm of possibility. That’s fine.
Click to expand...
Read the paper and you'll understand how he got it so wrong.
 
MolteniArcore said:
So how do we have polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough, mumps and diphtheria immunity? Those antibodies don't ebb away like Covid ones allegedly do.

What are the "too many questions"? It's a simple thing to understand why that is headline news today and why it is a worry for the world. But it's also not something that would stop us beating Covid.
Click to expand...
SARS patients still have the S309 antibody 17 years later. And it seems to provide SARS2 immunity as well. Hopefully . . .
 
FabioPorkpie said:
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?
Click to expand...

It can't be as low as 0.15%, it's not possible. You don't need a medical degree to see this, it's basic school level maths. If the death rate was that low, then what killed 60k people, as it wasn't 40 million infections. We cannot be anywhere near herd immunity, as look at how fast this thing is still spreading, with the measures we have in place and social movement still down 30%. Also you cannot compare rates estimated in March, with rates claimed now

If you (or Yeadon) make a point and start using others data and citing it as gospel, you become liable for that data, even more so when it's proved incorrect. Using this data makes you question his own claims, as he should surely have the knowledge to realise this. If he didn't realise, he's not worth listening to. If if did did realise, he's diverting you from the full details with his skill/ deception, likely for reasons of personal gain.

So what is the fatality rate you want to use, for March and October, assuming the one now is far less because of better treatment and resources, not because its got weaker. Shall we just use UK figures?

No, I've not watched it, not had chance to listen to more than 1/3rd of the podcast yet, once I've got through that I'll have a look (y)

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just countering what I've read about, and everything I've read about (up to now) has been easy to counter. Give me some time man :)
 
bear66 said:
SARS patients still have the S309 antibody 17 years later. And it seems to provide SARS2 immunity as well. Hopefully . . .
Click to expand...

Do they have the antibody, or the memory cell which is the key to producing the antibody?
I can’t remember at the moment and am tied up with a baby so can’t check until this afternoon.
 
Statto1 said:
It can't be as low as 0.15%, it's not possible. You don't need a medical degree to see this, it's basic school level maths. If the death rate was that low, then what killed 60k people, as it wasn't 40 million infections. We cannot be anywhere near herd immunity, as look at how fast this thing is still spreading, with the measures we have in place and social movement still down 30%. Also you cannot compare rates estimated in March, with rates claimed now

If you (or Yeadon) make a point and start using others data and citing it as gospel, you become liable for that data, even more so when it's proved incorrect. Using this data makes you question his own claims, as he should surely have the knowledge to realise this. If he didn't realise, he's not worth listening to. If if did did realise, he's diverting you from the full details with his skill/ deception, likely for reasons of personal gain.

So what is the fatality rate you want to use, for March and October, assuming the one now is far less because of better treatment and resources, not because its got weaker. Shall we just use UK figures?

No, I've not watched it, not had chance to listen to more than 1/3rd of the podcast yet, once I've got through that I'll have a look (y)

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just countering what I've read about, and everything I've read about (up to now) has been easy to counter. Give me some time man :)
Click to expand...

Right, so you’ve ignored all of the IFR studies that I’ve repeatedly posted and suggested you look at, to come back and argue about IFR. Come on man.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I haven’t got time to reply properly now but two points.
I posted a rebuttal of the false positive claim in my opening post. So I not blindly following it. I just didn’t see it as convincing. Nor Bear’s or Statto’s ‘proof’.
And secondly, stop saying covid denial. This is absolutely not what this discussion is about and you are being disingenuous in stating it repeatedly.
But it’s fine, we are all allowed different points of view. It just seems we aren’t allowed grown up discussions about the progression of the virus or the possibility some of the opposing opinions aren’t completely out of the realm of possibility. That’s fine.
Click to expand...

This is from the Office of National Statistics, and it was Bear who posted it. I'm sure you know who the ONS are? Here they easily disproove Yeadon's false positive claims in 3 easy to understand sentences. Proof doesn't get much better. I'm sure Bear can direct you to the link to read from their study too.

Now if you say that this kind of proof doesn't convince you then that says more about you than what's occurring with the pandemic. It's like when you show a flat earther photos of the earth from space but then still think it's flat.

bear66 said:
Check the figures 521 in 139,000 tests is the lowest percentage positives we had. Also check the weekly ONS infection surveys through from July. These are random selected people rather than those with symptoms so an even lower percentage of positives than NHS figures.

To quote the ONS at this low period in July.

"We know the specificity of our test must be very close to 100% as the low number of positive tests in our study means that specificity would be very high even if all positives were false. For example, in our most recent six weeks of data, 50 of the 112,776 total samples tested positive. Even if all these positives were false, specificity would still be 99.96%."
Click to expand...

And I'm sorry Fabio, as much as you don't think you are treading the line of an Covid Denier, you are walking that line. You are dismissing provable evidence as not convincing yet finding a guy on youtube as very convincing. Anti-lockdown, anti-vexers, anti-science - they are all very similar and you are hovering around these groups and their pseudoscience.
 
MolteniArcore said:
So how do we have polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough, mumps and diphtheria immunity? Those antibodies don't ebb away like Covid ones allegedly do.

What are the "too many questions"? It's a simple thing to understand why that is headline news today and why it is a worry for the world. But it's also not something that would stop us beating Covid.
Click to expand...

some light antibody reading for you....

https://www.mydr.com.au/travel-health/vaccination-and-antibodies

‘Your body continues making antibodies and memory B cells for a couple of weeks after vaccination. Over time, the antibodies will gradually disappear, but the memory B cells will remain dormant in your body for many years.’
 
Statto1 said:
It can't be as low as 0.15%, it's not possible. You don't need a medical degree to see this, it's basic school level maths. If the death rate was that low, then what killed 60k people, as it wasn't 40 million infections. We cannot be anywhere near herd immunity, as look at how fast this thing is still spreading, with the measures we have in place and social movement still down 30%. Also you cannot compare rates estimated in March, with rates claimed now

If you (or Yeadon) make a point and start using others data and citing it as gospel, you become liable for that data, even more so when it's proved incorrect. Using this data makes you question his own claims, as he should surely have the knowledge to realise this. If he didn't realise, he's not worth listening to. If if did did realise, he's diverting you from the full details with his skill/ deception, likely for reasons of personal gain.

So what is the fatality rate you want to use, for March and October, assuming the one now is far less because of better treatment and resources, not because its got weaker. Shall we just use UK figures?

No, I've not watched it, not had chance to listen to more than 1/3rd of the podcast yet, once I've got through that I'll have a look (y)

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just countering what I've read about, and everything I've read about (up to now) has been easy to counter. Give me some time man :)
Click to expand...

Exactly Statto, it's BASIC SCHOOL LEVEL MATHS. Yet despite this they still keep rolling out the false positive lie. It's depressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top