The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

Yes in the title it says 'inferred from seroprevalence data'.. I'm not sure what you're getting at?

Definition of inferred:-
deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

It's a peer reviewed, accepted paper and you're trying to say its wrong?
 
RandySavage said:
So the WHO are wrong? Paper has been peer-reviewed also.
Click to expand...
Who said the WHO is wrong? You can't accept this means of analysis, then ignore it because it doesn't fit your mindset. The WHO presented a paper in October saying that this is the way to calculate IFR and concluded the IFR from these studies is 0.5 to 1%. The UK is at the higher end.
Link
 
Alvez_48 said:
Yes in the title it says 'inferred from seroprevalence data'.. I'm not sure what you're getting at?

Definition of inferred:-
deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

It's a peer reviewed, accepted paper and you're trying to say its wrong?
Click to expand...
I am not saying its wrong I am saying it's inferred rather than fact Alvez
 
Laughing said:
I am not saying its wrong I am saying it's inferred rather than fact Alvez
Click to expand...

Please point me to the word 'fact' being used on this little group of messages between you and I.

You're not saying it's wrong you're implying it is because it doesn't fit with your view. I hope you can at least admit it to yourself.

At this point you're picking holes in the language of peer reviewed journals by one of the world's top epidemiologists at Stanford. Nice.
 
RandySavage said:
Test and Trace doesn't work when the virus is now endemic. It's too slow a process.
Click to expand...
Neither do lockdowns nows. Its too late. A lockdown now would be intolerable. A quick circuit breaker one would just delay the rises, and a longer one would destroy an economy that already has to cope with the destruction of a no deal brexit next year
 
SmallTown said:
Neither do lockdowns nows. Its too late. A lockdown now would be intolerable. A quick circuit breaker one would just delay the rises, and a longer one would destroy an economy that already has to cope with the destruction of a no deal brexit next year
Click to expand...
A circuit breaker is a lockdown.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Please point me to the word 'fact' being used on this little group of messages between you and I.

You're not saying it's wrong you're implying it is because it doesn't fit with your view. I hope you can at least admit it to yourself.

At this point you're picking holes in the language of peer reviewed journals by one of the world's top epidemiologists at Stanford. Nice.
Click to expand...
Alvez I am doing no such thing, I don't know if it's right or wrong, I don't know if your experts are bigger than my experts, I don't know whether an airborne corona virus can be contained with a lockdown in fact I don't know much at all.

However, I would rather follow a strategy that, if the foundations are wrong, it doesn't kill quarter of a million brits.

I have said this over and over to you. It is nothing to do with fitting with my view. I am not nearly arrogant enough to assume I am right. I am not an epidemiologist, I am a technical architect. You have picked one set of expert viewpoints, I have picked another. I hope you are right, I don't think so and it is not because I am entrenched it is because my own background reading suggests something different.
 
Laughing said:
Alvez I am doing no such thing, I don't know if it's right or wrong, I don't know if your experts are bigger than my experts, I don't know whether an airborne corona virus can be contained with a lockdown in fact I don't know much at all.

However, I would rather follow a strategy that, if the foundations are wrong, it doesn't kill quarter of a million brits.

I have said this over and over to you. It is nothing to do with fitting with my view. I am not nearly arrogant enough to assume I am right. I am not an epidemiologist, I am a technical architect. You have picked one set of expert viewpoints, I have picked another. I hope you are right, I don't think so and it is not because I am entrenched it is because my own background reading suggests something different.
Click to expand...

My issue is that, more evidence is provided.. your opinion doesn't change.
More evidence.. no change, ad inflinitum.
You claim your way is safe because the what if... Well we can see the very real damage that your way is doing to everything from the justice system, healthcare, jobs, politics.

Just today the government are passing new legislation that makes it legal for many state functions to commit crime including murder but it's just about the 250,000 (at least we've climbed down from 500,000) what it's. A position which has been shown to be massively flawed.
 
Alvez_48 said:
I'd say it's likely we're overcounting.
Click to expand...
But you have total belief in a paper that was highly discredited and had to be changed and based, in some cases, on just 500 localised sereology tests and methods of counting that will be done in a similar way to the UK?

The WHO link I put up has refers to countrywide data in the range 0.5% to 1% IFR. We are at that higher end of the range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top