Controversial Covid post

1finny said:
This mornings paper regarding immunity falling away puts a nail in Yeadon’s coffin.
One of his touchstones was immunity for many years.
Click to expand...

I’ve not read the paper yet, will look this afternoon when I re-read his initial paper.
os the paper saying immunity is vanishing?
If so then that is very very odd and a major major blow to us all, and we are in major trouble without a vaccine.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I’ve not read the paper yet, will look this afternoon when I re-read his initial paper.
os the paper saying immunity is vanishing?
If so then that is very very odd and a major major blow to us all, and we are in major trouble without a vaccine.
Click to expand...
Major trouble?
I can't.
 
Well if immunity is gone within months then we will forever be living like this and our freedoms that have been taken for the virus will be taken forever.

Joy. 👍🏻
 
Having just briefly read the bbc piece on the antibody study, it’s only confirming what was already known and has been known for a while, that the antibodies aren’t around for much more than a few months. Doesn’t necessarily mean immunity is gone, if the memory B cells have remained. Establishing that may be more important than presence of antibodies.
If both are done, then we are in trouble and as Finny said, Yeadon’s predictions will be dead in the water as they are all based on a level of immunity.
 
bear66 said:
Read the paper.

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.
Click to expand...

Will re-read it this afternoon When I get some time and compare it to his podcast to see if it destroys it or if he’s been inconsistent.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Well if immunity is gone within months then we will forever be living like this and our freedoms that have been taken for the virus will be taken forever.

Joy. 👍🏻
Click to expand...
Or maybe we just need to heed the warnings we were given about a new normal coming out of lockdown ............. hygiene, masks, distancing (can't bring myself to say hands-face-space........) and a fecking track & trace system that like.....ermmm.........kinda.........ya know.......WORKS! Until we (hopefully) get to a vaccine. You yourself pointed out that the Spanish (Yankee Doodle) Flu pandemic eventually abated without a vaccine.

I must confess that my optimism is partially founded on the fact that lockdown/isolation is my aesthetic.:)
 
FabioPorkpie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right I've started on the video and report, I'll go back to the podcast later.

Video- Seroprevelance – Antibodies in the blood, I thought you said the antibody test didn’t work?
Happy with it being either way, just confirm whether we're ignoring antibody tests or not, you can't have it both ways, I'm happy with it either way. I think it works though.

"Early data from China suggested a 3.4% case fatality rate and that asymptomatic infections were uncommon,3 thus the case fatality rate and infection fatality rate would be about the same. Mathematical models have suggested that 40–81% of the world population could be infected,4,5 and have lowered the infection fatality rate to 1.0% or 0.9%.5,6 "

So, Page 2 of the report, 1% or 0.9% is being used in models, and is what I claimed. Englandis actually 1% or 1.16% and probably one of the most realisable sets of data there is, and certainly the most applicable to the UK, seeing as it is a main part of the UK.

So, onto his paper, seems a few big problems with this:
"If there were different eligible time intervals, I selected the one with the highest seroprevalence " - of course you did.
"I used the entire population (all ages) and, separately, the population 0–70 years to estimate numbers of infected people. I assumed that the seroprevalence would be similar in different age groups " - At risk people were likely shielding, don't like the way this keeps separating out <70 and over 70.

For the UK, the study refers to the UK react 2 study, 6% Seroprevelance in the UK, 13% in London.
45k deaths out of 4.2 million infections (6% of 70m) = 1.1% IFR
If it's 60k deaths then it's 1.4% IFR
The paper actually says 3.4m infections and 38k dead for England, so IFR is listed as 1.16%

Now, some might say it's not 60k deaths from Covid, but to be honest it's basically irrelevant in a pandemic, if it means if effects the treatment of other illnesses, viruses and injuries etc.
If people can't breathe they need a doctor lo look after them, I don't think anyone would begrudge this?
The problem then is, who treats the heat attack that comes through the door? Nobody. The heart attack guy died because we were busy with covid, take covid away and that death goes away.
So you might get 1% Covid IFR and then another 0.5% as a Brucey bonus, and that's just with it busy like when we locked down. If we don't lock down, then busy becomes a lot busier. More covid deaths, more heart attack deaths.

I don't buy this 0.2% average for the world, it's nonsensical to use this figure, you can't just average out that sort of data, as it's not the same data, especially if trying to defend opening up the economy. The IFR should only be used for nations badly hit, as this then only gives a reflection of the expected medical treatment. We seem to be on about 1% and have struggled but not greatly overwhelmed the NHS, but if we opened everything up then it would get overwhelmed, then IFR goes up, it has to go up, if there's no doctors to treat you, or if us lot start being doctors.

Iceland might get near 0.3%, but it's not comparable to the rest of the world, they never got badly hit and didn't leave everything wide open. Sweden may have came closest to leaving things open but they're sensible people (unlike most of the world) and yet they still reduced social movement by 30%. They still had 6k deaths, and they certainly don't have herd immunity, seen by their current increase in cases.

The USA has had 230k deaths, that would be 115 million cases, about 1/3rd of the population. Obviously some areas haven't even been really hit, so if you take out 1/3rd of that, then it's in 1 in 2 infected for the bad areas, then they should be nearing herd immunity. Strange, seeing as they've just recently had their case record, which was like 80k per day, and that's trending up, not down.
 

Attachments

  • 1603787545654.png
    1603787545654.png
    79 KB · Views: 2
Statto1 said:
Right I've started on the video and report, I'll go back to the podcast later.

Video- Seroprevelance – Antibodies in the blood, I thought you said the antibody test didn’t work?
Happy with it being either way, just confirm whether we're ignoring antibody tests or not, you can't have it both ways, I'm happy with it either way. I think it works though.

"Early data from China suggested a 3.4% case fatality rate and that asymptomatic infections were uncommon,3 thus the case fatality rate and infection fatality rate would be about the same. Mathematical models have suggested that 40–81% of the world population could be infected,4,5 and have lowered the infection fatality rate to 1.0% or 0.9%.5,6 "

So, Page 2 of the report, 1% or 0.9% is being used in models, and is what I claimed. Englandis actually 1% or 1.16% and probably one of the most realisable sets of data there is, and certainly the most applicable to the UK, seeing as it is a main part of the UK.

So, onto his paper, seems a few big problems with this:
"If there were different eligible time intervals, I selected the one with the highest seroprevalence " - of course you did.
"I used the entire population (all ages) and, separately, the population 0–70 years to estimate numbers of infected people. I assumed that the seroprevalence would be similar in different age groups " - At risk people were likely shielding, don't like the way this keeps separating out <70 and over 70.

For the UK, the study refers to the UK react 2 study, 6% Seroprevelance in the UK, 13% in London.
45k deaths out of 4.2 million infections (6% of 70m) = 1.1% IFR
If it's 60k deaths then it's 1.4% IFR
The paper actually says 3.4m infections and 38k dead for England, so IFR is listed as 1.16%

Now, some might say it's not 60k deaths from Covid, but to be honest it's basically irrelevant in a pandemic, if it means if effects the treatment of other illnesses, viruses and injuries etc.
If people can't breathe they need a doctor lo look after them, I don't think anyone would begrudge this?
The problem then is, who treats the heat attack that comes through the door? Nobody. The heart attack guy died because we were busy with covid, take covid away and that death goes away.
So you might get 1% Covid IFR and then another 0.5% as a Brucey bonus, and that's just with it busy like when we locked down. If we don't lock down, then busy becomes a lot busier. More covid deaths, more heart attack deaths.

I don't buy this 0.2% average for the world, it's nonsensical to use this figure, you can't just average out that sort of data, as it's not the same data, especially if trying to defend opening up the economy. The IFR should only be used for nations badly hit, as this then only gives a reflection of the expected medical treatment. We seem to be on about 1% and have struggled but not greatly overwhelmed the NHS, but if we opened everything up then it would get overwhelmed, then IFR goes up, it has to go up, if there's no doctors to treat you, or if us lot start being doctors.

Iceland might get near 0.3%, but it's not comparable to the rest of the world, they never got badly hit and didn't leave everything wide open. Sweden may have came closest to leaving things open but they're sensible people (unlike most of the world) and yet they still reduced social movement by 30%. They still had 6k deaths, and they certainly don't have herd immunity, seen by their current increase in cases.

The USA has had 230k deaths, that would be 115 million cases, about 1/3rd of the population. Obviously some areas haven't even been really hit, so if you take out 1/3rd of that, then it's in 1 in 2 infected for the bad areas, then they should be nearing herd immunity. Strange, seeing as they've just recently had their case record, which was like 80k per day, and that's trending up, not down.
Click to expand...

I never, anywhere, stated that antibody tests do not work, so I don’t know why you’ve said that.
I said they only show part of the story and aren’t conclusive and only have a detectable window, which is fact.
I said T-cell immunity needs to be factored in as well.
I am asking why that is being completely ignored???
 
Alvez_48 said:
Well if immunity is gone within months then we will forever be living like this and our freedoms that have been taken for the virus will be taken forever.

Joy. 👍🏻
Click to expand...

Why? If we get a targeted vaccine and just keep topping up those at risk prior to winter, then they should hopefully be ok, and if they're ok then we can get back to some sort of normality.

Not sure how that would pan out in the nations that are not as rich mind :(
 
I'm coming round to the idea that we will be doing this in 5 years @Statto1 .. I think if influenza had been found / begun it's life in this era it would have been the same response.

The combination of being so interconnected, the fear generated by the various medias, the constant need to be seen to be doing something, the easy life it gives government and added powers they enjoy leads me to think this is our new way of life now with certain things like scanning a qr code wherever and whenever you leave your home, cashless transactions etc coming in down the line. It's not my idea of utopia but I'll survive and just to add this is just my opinion I'm probably wrong. 😉
 
The paper on fading immunity has not been peer reviewed (as is the case currently with a number of academics hurrying studies)

There so far have been less then 10 recorded reinfections of COVID-19, this is out of more than 4 million global infections.....Make of that what you will.

I am not a COVID denier but I think ultimately the Pharma industry as with SAGE etc have now backed themselves so far into a corner that the only get out will be a vaccine. They have invested billions of pounds in a vaccine, quite unlikely they're going to walk away from development of this.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I never, anywhere, stated that antibody tests do not work, so I don’t know why you’ve said that.
I said they only show part of the story and aren’t conclusive and only have a detectable window, which is fact.
I said T-cell immunity needs to be factored in as well.
I am asking why that is being completely ignored???
Click to expand...

Because:
Covid Deaths / (antibody test rate x population) = IFR
45,000 / (6% x 66,000,000)
45,000 / 3,960,000
1.1% = IFR

You can't argue with the IFR, it's a result of an extremely simple equation. So you must either be arguing deaths or % of people with antibody's?

The react study was done in July, I'm pretty sure it covered the basis of our initial infection quite well.

If someone has immunity, then I'm guessing they can't get the virus, or are a lot less susceptible. If this is the case then it must be more transmissible, as the number of infected is a result of how well a virus gets passed on.
1) It either passes on to everyone, not very easily
2) or it passes on to half exceptionally easy and the other half not at all

T Cell immunity would be great, but if that's correct then this transmits around way worse than we thought.
 
Statto1 said:
Because:
Covid Deaths / (antibody test rate x population) = IFR
45,000 / (6% x 66,000,000)
45,000 / 3,960,000
1.1% = IFR

You can't argue with the IFR, it's a result of an extremely simple equation. So you must either be arguing deaths or % of people with antibody's?

The react study was done in July, I'm pretty sure it covered the basis of our initial infection quite well.

If someone has immunity, then I'm guessing they can't get the virus, or are a lot less susceptible. If this is the case then it must be more transmissible, as the number of infected is a result of how well a virus gets passed on.
1) It either passes on to everyone, not very easily
2) or it passes on to half exceptionally easy and the other half not at all

T Cell immunity would be great, but if that's correct then this transmits around way worse than we thought.
Click to expand...

I'm confused as to what your question is? Please explain and i'll try answer
 
Statto1 said:
Why? If we get a targeted vaccine and just keep topping up those at risk prior to winter, then they should hopefully be ok, and if they're ok then we can get back to some sort of normality.

Not sure how that would pan out in the nations that are not as rich mind :(
Click to expand...
And what about those who might not be able to.have a vaccine for medical reasons?
 
Alvez_48 said:
I'm coming round to the idea that we will be doing this in 5 years @Statto1 .. I think if influenza had been found / begun it's life in this era it would have been the same response.

The combination of being so interconnected, the fear generated by the various medias, the constant need to be seen to be doing something, the easy life it gives government and added powers they enjoy leads me to think this is our new way of life now with certain things like scanning a qr code wherever and whenever you leave your home, cashless transactions etc coming in down the line. It's not my idea of utopia but I'll survive and just to add this is just my opinion I'm probably wrong. 😉
Click to expand...

What, having this argument in 5 years, please god no :LOL:

No doubt about that being interconnected is part of the issue. The problem is the fear is needed to counter the fake news, it's bonkers. Some people will just not believe anything, the only way to get them to tow the line is to put fear in them or threaten to take something away.
On a side note, I would be all for having QR code and tracking peoples movements, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I couldn't care less if the government even knew where I was for every minute of every day and if we operated an entirely cashless system and all money was traced. It's bad for some things, but I think most would benefit out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top