On Thu 8 Oct at 12:35am Mr..B wrote:
Does anyone else feel that the strict measures the government and the entire world are taking are completely inappropriate considering the impact it is having on the economy and the lives of billions?
Now before you categorize me with stigmatic slurs such as conspiracy theorist, tin hat brigade, flat earther etc.. I do believe there is a virus out there that is capable of killing elderly, vulnerable people and those with pre existing medical conditions.
I think it's important to state that I am not speculating on whether there is a political agenda in place. I simply believe that many of the statistics and reasons given do not justify lockdown measures for healthy individuals and the approach has devastated so many people unnecessarily.
I believe we are being stripped of our basic humanitarian rights over a virus that has a survival rate of 99.7%. The amount of people that have been sexually abused, physically abused, starved, lost their business, died waiting for an operation, committed suicide, lost jobs, not visited dying relatives, missed vital medical appointments during lockdown, has and will continue to have a far greater impact than Covid-19 altogether.
Children in some primary schools are not allowed to look their friends in the eyes when talking to them, they must communicate with their backs turned, they are forced to wear masks throughout the day, unable to socialize with their friends and told to wash their hands more than 15 times in a school day. The confusion, fear and psychological impact this kind of restriction will have on our future generations is catastrophic. Children should not be made to feel scared and worried, it is essential for their development to socialize, learn, play, feel free and protected.
We live in a world whereby anyone with opposing opinions gets censored by social media and there is no platform for debate.
There has been hundreds of thousands of people protesting this dystopian regime including professors, medical doctors, ex media and lawyers all over the world over the last few weeks but the mainstream media has failed to report it.
I simply do not understand why the mainstream media will not entertain the medical doctors, scientists and professors that are trying to propose a strategy in which we sheild our most vulnerable people and build a herd immunity amongst the healthy individuals. This way it wouldn't mean collapsing the world economy, shattering industries and causing such irreparable devastation throughout the world.
Anyone that thinks different to the status quo seems to be completely shut down, interupted or labelled a conspiracy theorist by the mainstream media. There is no opportunity to discuss alternative solutions yet we must accept having our rights stripped from us by law.
Tests are not always available when needed. This instantly ruins any statistical figures because the more people tested then the higher the case rate increases and vice versa.
Im interested to know if anyone else shares these same experiences and what people are doing about it.
Kind regards,
B
On Thu 8 Oct at 12:47am Dave wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I share your frustraion, I've listened to a lot of dissenting voices about how this pandemic is a hoax and howwe are being controlled and subjugated.
What I don't hear a lot about is why. Who does it benefit that our economy tanks, I understand that the mainstream media must be laughing all the way to the bank with all the scary news that they can chuck out but I don't understand what it is that Dominic Cummings expectss to gain out of all this population manipulation.
On Thu 8 Oct at 8:44am Ferret wrote:
This shows a callous disregard for the hundreds of thousands of currently healthy people who will die if the current measures are not obeyed, and toughened, as the present restrictions are clearly not curtailing the outbreak. The anti-lockdown brigade would have made great WW1 generals. Send thousands to their deaths, why not?
On Thu 8 Oct at 10:54am Horseman7 wrote:
Whilst I do not agree with your sentiments Mr..B, thank you for expressing yourself in such a calm and well reasoned manner. I'm equally happy both to hear your viewpoint and to stick to an alternate one.
On Thu 8 Oct at 11:17am Nevillman wrote:
What is your evidence to suggest that if the vulnerable are excluded, the death rate among the non vulnerable would lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths ferret? Genuine enquiry rather than an attack on your position. What is the death rate for healthy people?
On Thu 8 Oct at 11:59am Ferret wrote:
The 'infection fatality ratio' is estimated by the WHO as between 0.5-1.0% for the whole population, much higher for older or vulnerable groups, of course. This is a simple calculation based on the numbers catching the disease. In any epidemic the number catching the disease will depend on how contagious it is, and what measures people take to avoid catching it. However, if we assume that half of the population of 67 million do catch it, and 1% of them die (mostly old and vulnerable people), that's over 300,000 deaths. We've already chalked up perhaps over 60,000 (officially 42,515) so we are one fifth of the way to that estimate. There were over 300,000 UK deaths due to military action in the second world war. It would be shocking if we voluntarily allowed such a huge number of people to die before their time, just so that we can have a pint in the pub, or a meal in a restaurant.
On Thu 8 Oct at 12:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
Latest figures in from the Ministry of Truth, Covid 1984~ 100% of living people have always died. This shocking fact highlights the callous disregard that life has for the living. Please join the protest march next weekend when we will hand a petition to the utterly uncaring government to put a stop to this heinous situation.
On Thu 8 Oct at 1:16pm Ferret wrote:
Good old Tom. Trotting out the old cliché "We've all got to die sometime" just to make us all feel better about our parents and grandparents, and perhaps ourselves, dying alone on a ventilator.
On Thu 8 Oct at 1:29pm Mr..B wrote:
Thank you for your responses.
Ferret, I appreciate the angle you are coming from, however the point I'm trying to make is that current lockdown measures will potentially cause even more damage to humanity than the virus itself. This is backed by many medical doctors, professors and scientists throughout the world yet we are not being fed these views via mainstream media outlets.
These affects are thought to continue to impact many different generations at different periods throughout time.
Your comment about me "showing a callous disregard to hundreds of thousands of healthy people" is confusing considering my original post was making a point of the fact that hundreds of thousands of healthy people have been impacted and many have died as a result of these measures.
I must stress that I do not advocate "sending thousands to their deaths". I share an interest in trying to establish the most effective way to deal with this virus that causes the least amount of deaths and distress for humans.
I find it interesting that the media will not entertain any opposing parties to discuss and debate the best possible methods for dealing with this situation. In almost every other news story there is a debate between opposing individuals to discuss both sides of the argument.
Regards
On Thu 8 Oct at 1:54pm Nevillman wrote:
From your response to my enquiry ferret I take it that you don't know the fatality rate for healthy people. I suspect it is much lower though. Why does everyone need to go through the hardship of self isolating when it is only the vulnerable who are at risk. I will need to continue self isolating but I don't see why everyone else has to if their risk of dying from it is very low. It makes very little difference to my life whether other people are catching it or not if they are not then dying from it. It is their risk and up to them as long as they respect other people like me who really should not catch it.
On Thu 8 Oct at 3:49pm Ferret wrote:
I'm puzzled by your question. I think you mean the fatality rate for people who have none of the factors which increase the chances of dying, such as obesity, old age, diabetes, other respiratory diseases, cancer etc. I could find that data of course, and so can you. It would of course be far less than the 0.5 to 1% estimate. It explains why the fatality rate differs so greatly between age groups, and perhaps even between countries. Try looking at the NHS coronavirus data, as well as the ONS, PHE and WHO data. It's there somewhere.
On Thu 8 Oct at 5:04pm Nevillman wrote:
It would be nice if there was easily accessible data showing death rates for all the possible demographic groups. People could then more easily assess their own personal risk and then decide for themselves what precautions they need to take. At the moment the risk to the elderly is being used as if it is the risk to everyone. I'm not in charge of government policy and I'm not advocating everyone has to behave as if they are at high personal risk so I will not be trawling for the data. It should be easily available to everyone.
On Thu 8 Oct at 5:40pm Tom Pain wrote:
Mr. B, I think you're quite right about the lockdown causing more deaths and suffering than the disease. The question as to why the whole world has locked down over something no more deadly than seasonal flu, and why the media is so one sided is a vexed one. Any theory you come up with will be a conspiracy theory to be derided by the majority who will not question anything. The WHO changed the definition of a pandemic from a worldwide epidemic causing great sickness and death to just a worldwide epidemic in 2008. Before this the member countries had signed up to buying shed loads of vaccines in the case of a pandemic. Enter swine flu in 2009 which turned out to be a damp sqib, nevertheless all the world had to buy the vaccines, giving the pharmaceutical industry a windfall. It turns out that the WHO is staffed with a lot of people from the pharmaceutical industry in a revolving door situation! Conflict of interest speculation is not encouraged and with the massive financial clout of the pharmaceutical industry not often indulged in. Then there was bird flu and other pandemics that didn't live up to expectations. Curiously Noel Ferguson and Imperial College predicted massive death tolls for all of them ,none of which suffered a fraction of the predicted casualties. Another odd coincidence is that Imperial is heavily funded by Bill Gates who is substantially invested in the vaccine industry. He also funds the BBC, the Guardian and who knows how many other media concerns. Is a picture building up? Far be it for me to speculate on the affairs of the great and the good! But.....
On Thu 8 Oct at 6:23pm Ferret wrote:
@Nevillman It is not true that the risk to the lederly is being used as a risk to everyone.If that was so, people would be terrified. According to the American CDC analysis, 85 year olds are 630 times more likely to die from Covid-19 (if infected) than young adults (aged 19-29). Obviously, if you have another of the risk factors, your chances of dying are always going to be greater.
Check it out here »
On Thu 8 Oct at 6:25pm Ferret wrote:
Here is some of the ONS data relevant to this discussion
Check it out here »
On Thu 8 Oct at 9:43pm Tom Pain wrote:
Don't you think 85 year olds are probably 600 times more likely to die crossing the road, falling over, playing bowls or just about anything? Seriously, I'm concerned that older people without health problems may be worried unnecessarily. The reason the more mature are at risk is that they are statistically more likely to have health problems, minus them, there's not a lot to worry about. Except perhaps some young oik stepping on your blue suede slippers.
On Thu 8 Oct at 10:57pm Mr..B wrote:
This is one example of the opposition. These are doctors of science from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford.
Watch the video »
On Fri 9 Oct at 8:10am Nevillman wrote:
Thanks for the statistical link ferret but it doesn't really provide the information a younger person needs to accurately assess their personal risk. Knowing that I am 90 times more likely to die from it than a young person actually provides information more likely to suggest a younger person has little personal risk. It may well be that the information I think is needed doesn't exist as we don't know how many people in each demographic group have had it or died from it.
I couldn't open your last link Mr b.
On Fri 9 Oct at 11:55am Tom Pain wrote:
I've seen the data Nev and the risk to children a nd young people is negligible. Unlike flu which can sometimes be fatal for the young. If I see it again I'll tell you where to find it.
On Fri 9 Oct at 11:59am Ferret wrote:
@Nevillman I found a really interesting study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a reputable and independent organisation based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They estimate that the chance of someone dying of Covid-19 if they are in the age group that I think you are (65-74) is between 1.9% and 2.7% (2.3% mean) . This compares with the chances of dying in any kind of accident as 0.02%. Of course this is if you actually get the virus. You can download the report here...
Check it out here »
On Fri 9 Oct at 12:43pm Stephen Watson wrote:
'Long Covid' - that is, people who have long term disability from Covid-19 - is an important part of this discussion. You can suffer from this even if your initial infection is mild. Link is to a BBC article on the subject.
Check it out here »
On Fri 9 Oct at 2:47pm Dreamer wrote:
Stephen you hit a key point, that is routinely left aside. Since early March it has been known (and continously confirmed) that even in extremely mild cases of Covid, there is a significant minority of cases that develop long-term damage to numerous organs (similar to MERS and SARS). This is reflected by the fact that early on in China CT scans were the recommended means of testing due to the high false negative rate of the PCR tests (something anyone who has actually run a PCR test will be painfully aware of).
The whole argument regarding lockdown measures is somewhat misguided, though. As can be seen from many of the countries that had prior experience with SARS: the earlier and more efficient the response, the softer it can be. Similarly, in countries where test and trace works, restrictions have been much lighter.
On Fri 9 Oct at 4:17pm Tom Pain wrote:
Do you run these pcr tests? Perhaps false positives are as common as false negatives, it would seem painfully logical. More importantly though, as no quantifiable virus isolates of 2019n CoV have been available, how do they test for it? As far as I can see,according to theCDC, this virus seems to be unidentified,which makes it hard to comprehend how a test can be identified.
On Fri 9 Oct at 4:51pm Nevillman wrote:
Thank you ferret. I don't know how the figures are arrived at. I suspect that catching it is under recorded (are you meant to report it to someone) and deaths are over recorded. From the original post and my own non covid experience of recorded causes of death I suspect it is easiest to record it was covid in some cases. This (hopefully) means the death rate for my age group is a bit less than the report you found. It is still enough, with my wife's condition as well, to mean that I will try to prevent catching it. The latter posts on long term problems reinforce this and I am self isolating for the duration.
It still doesn't mean that everyone else has to though. Let's get all the facts for every demographic group out there, make it as easy as possible for anyone who wants to self isolate to do so and treat everyone else as adults who can make their own minds up about the level of risk they are prepared to face. It seems to me that young people's lives have been put on hold for the sake of my health, not theirs and I don't need it or want them to anymore.
On Fri 9 Oct at 9:21pm Ferret wrote:
@Nevillman They do explain their methodology, and I think I can assure you that it would be based on sound statistical methods, probably similar to the current ONS national survey that my family is part of. Randomly selected households are interviewed weekly, and tested, to get an accurate picture (as far as statistically possible) of the occurrence of the virus and its impact. I haven't had time to read the study in detail yet. I think you are wise to be careful, but total isolation is probably not necessary except for the extremely vulnerable. A general spread of the disease amongst younger people will inevitably lead to an increase in older people getting it, perhaps fatally. They care about old and vulnerable people too, so I'm sure the vast majority don't mind the restrictions. I wish you luck in the coming months, until the vaccine is available!
On Fri 9 Oct at 10:44pm webbo wrote:
It really is so great to see reasoned rational debate without any mud slinging.
On Fri 9 Oct at 11:23pm Tom Pain wrote:
I notice you were brandishing some statistics, with all the enthusiasm of the grim reaper himself, earlier from the National Bureau for Economic, hang on, oh yes it does say Economic Research. Which really highlights what this dismal show is all about~economics or to be a mite brusque~ money. A golden opportunity to sign us up as debtors for sum that will keep the creditors in breathtaking luxury and us ~indentured servants liable for an eternal , unpayable debt, such a great gift to our children. What does the "left" say about it? Nothing. What would PainE have said about the quiet rise of tyranny implicit in the covid act? I don't know but maybe his admirers could guess.
On Sat 10 Oct at 7:28am Hyena wrote:
One thing I think everyone can agree on is that the Government are completely incompetent, and of course we have Brexit to look forward to.
On Sat 10 Oct at 9:28am Ferret wrote:
@Webbo Yes, I agree. A forum like this should not be an opportunity for people to insult others. Crazy theories are bad enough, and it is important to challenge them with intelligence, good humour and civility. Apologies if sometimes people like dear old Tom Pain result in a slip below those standards!
On Sat 10 Oct at 12:30pm Tom Pain wrote:
Ferret you're so kind and magnanimous to apologise on my behalf that I feel obligated to return the honour. So on behalf of the Duke of Doom, I would like you all to excuse his egregious conceit, his sneering contempt for us lesser mortals, his condescending bigotry against any opinion at variance to his own and his brazen virtue signalling. The sweet, fluffy toy ferret is possibly the most pleasant person on earth to his nearest and dearest and his occasional sly duplicity is but an occasional aberration. Your saccharine guileful appeal to webbo is a superb example of your art, congratulations.
On Sat 10 Oct at 3:08pm Dreamer wrote:
Not for Covid, but yes I have done PCRs. Set them up and analysed them. False positives and negatives have completely different causes. And they are both controlled for. Definitely when used in diagnostics. A proper PCR run includes both positive and negative controls. The ONS have published their full methodology as preprint on MedRXiv for anyone who wants to know more, which is really excellent. There are of course ways of estimating especially the false positive rates. The key point us that they are stable over time. So look at the lowest positive rate achieved in the UK: just under 0.1 percent in July (ONS infection survey). So that is the highest false positive rate possible. That roughly corresponds to the lowest rates in other countries (I believe 0.05 percent is common with the Aussies and Kiwis). This is the rate that most biostatisticians is reasonable. As of today's ONS report, the English average is that 0.6 percent (about 8 to 10 times the positivity rate of July) of the population are currently positive (very good discussion of uncertainties included in the report). This is the bit where it gets interesting when you want to consider the impact of the false positive rate on the Serco Test and Trace data. There the positivity rate in pillar 2 is over 7.5 percent, so they are not testing a representative sample of the entire population (which they don't claim they are). So you need to correct the so called prior by a factor of roughly 12. The upshot is simple: the impact of false positives alon the PHE numbers is negligible. If you want to do the math yourself but don't know Bayesian statistics (by far the easiest way of doing this), I am happy to refer anyone to some good resources to learn it. As to your final statement, I admit I am a bit confused, because the full genome sequence of SARS-CoV2 (as the virus was officially named) was published around New Year. And has since been replicated dozens of times. Happy to post links to the relevant publication.
On Sun 11 Oct at 9:09am Ferret wrote:
Dear Tom, if you read my last comment again, it was an apology for MY slips below a more acceptable standard of civility, not yours. I wouldn't dream of apologising on your behalf, and it would be pointless to do so.
On Sun 11 Oct at 2:55pm Tom Pain wrote:
How careless of me ferret, next time I see you referring to Tom Pain , I will try to remember that you mean ferret. It seems very confusing but I'll try to get the hang of it.
Dreamer, not having the resources to study the finer points of Bayesian statistics in the next few weeks, I can only point to CDC report July 13,2020. CDC2019~Novel Coronavirus (2019~nCoV)Real~TimeRT~PCR Diagnostic Panel. Page 39~ Performance Characteristics~"since no quantified virus isolates ...are available,assays designed for detection of the 2019~nCoV were tested with characterised stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA"
To me that means they're looking for RNA from a virus that they haven't isolated and haven't even got a sample of. I'm still trying to understand how Tom pain is ferret so you can appreciate how difficult it is to comprehend how a virus they don't have can be recognised by any test. To put it simply it all sounds like deceptive evasion, a technique I believe you are familiar with.
On Sun 11 Oct at 3:31pm Dreamer wrote:
Tom, it is understandable that lacking any molecular and micro biological training, expertise, or understanding you would misinterpret that statement. The key word here is "quantified". The distinction is key, as "qualified" isolates do exist.
People who have the relevant training first isolated and sequenced the full virus genome around the turn of the year and have since done this repeatedly, generating lineages of the virus demonstrating infection paths it has taken around the globe.
Indeed, the fact that a full 3D reconstruction of the virus from electron microscopy data was just published last week, can be see as evidence that the virus has been isolated.
For the record, modern statistics is what you would need to estimate the impact of false positive rates on surveillance data. Not to design and characterise a PCR based test.
On Sun 11 Oct at 6:06pm Ferret wrote:
Tom, I realise you still haven't read my comment carefully enough, so I apologise for not making myself clear enough. My point was that many of your comments are designed to provoke an uncivil response, and I have been guilty of falling into that trap. You are doing your best to keep up with the arguments about the virus, which is admirable, Dreamer seems to be one of them.but there are clearly people who know much more about these matters than either you or I. Dreamer seems to be one of them. It's highly amusing to eee your theories being demolished. Thanks for the entertainment. I look forward to your responses.
On Sun 11 Oct at 6:11pm Ferret wrote:
Sorry about the repeated phrase, computer glitch.