On Sat 14 Nov at 4:43pm IDM wrote:
I hope you all manage to find me. Someone a few weeks ago said that masks must work equally in both directions. Sorry, but no. Think of a door (without a latch) which closes neatly into a door frame. No wind will pass it in one direction, but in the other direction the door will open and wind pass through. More realistically perhaps, a door with a quarter of the door (vertically, opposite the hinges) missing, will let some wind pass when the door is in the frame but far more when the door is blown open the other way.
Having said that I think equality could be achieved by wearing one mask conventionially with one "backwards" over the top of it.
On Sat 14 Nov at 4:57pm IDM wrote:
I suggest that all attempts to "accurately" measure COVID19 deaths are doomed. For example, 28 days is completely arbitrary. The authorities could count at 14 days or 56 days; but most of us will take the 28 days' figure seriously to work out the risk of death in Lewes. But, if an unprovable method is applied consistently, it will give a pretty good idea of whether things are getting better or worse.
On Sat 14 Nov at 10:29pm IDM wrote:
Furthermore (if you aren't bored to death by now) there is the problem of long Covid, where we are still feeling our way. In the Autumn 2020 issue of the IDM Journal of Unverified Garbage, it is postulated that long Covid causes impaired space/time awareness. Crossing the road and being flattened by a bus may well be Covid related and should be recorded in the statistics. Or not.
On Sun 15 Nov at 3:13pm Dreamer wrote:
Yes, the fatalities are hard to count properly. Generally it makes sense to track multiple in parallel. As you say, the changes track well over all measures.
Personally, I like excess numbers of all cause mortality. For one it isn't easy to manipulate (at least not by accident) and it also gives a more inclusive impression of the pandemic impact: people whose death is indirectly caused by Covid (e.g. The overloaded health system) also feature in this count.
On Sun 15 Nov at 3:20pm Dreamer wrote:
Regarding the directionality of masks, there are multiple things at play.
A valved ffp2 mask will only filter inhaled air, the exhaled air is unfiltered (like your first analogy of the door). Medical grade ffp2 masks aren't valved for that reasonand are perfect, as they prevent infection in both directions. But they are u fortunately still scarce, do leaving them for the folks who really need them (above all front line workers) is vital.
The more basic surgical or multilayer cloth masks work better at stopping exhaled particles than inhaled ones because exhaled droplets are still large and easier to trap. Once they are out, they quickly shrink as the water in them evaporates - these smaller particles are then much harder to block.
A lot of the confusion especially early on was that "masks" were discussed without making those distinctions.
On Sun 15 Nov at 11:38pm IDM wrote:
OK, Dreamer, admitted, you are right. I was too bound up with working from the both masks case, which is obviously symmetrical.
On Mon 16 Nov at 6:22pm Mark wrote:
Nevilleman, I think that my case is made on the basis of the last two threads. It's an ex-parrot. If you don't jump ship quickly, all that will be left is you and Tom Pain discussing the finer details of the Roschilds and David Icke and George Soros... An ignominious situation to find yourself in. Thanks again Webbo for nurturing a wonderful local institution. We owe you an awful lot.
On Thu 19 Nov at 9:31am IDM wrote:
Dreamer - there is another reason why wearing masks is a good idea. It helps to remind people that things are serious.
On Thu 19 Nov at 7:25pm Dreamer wrote:
It does indeed
On Fri 20 Nov at 11:05am Tom Pain wrote:
How terrifyingly true, according to the ONS, a staggering 43,265 people died in the month of October alone. That's a truly shocking EIGHT, yes 8 more than last year! Someone must be held responsible for this horrendous waste of life.
On Sun 22 Nov at 1:18pm janet street preacher wrote:
Any chance you could post a link to that data Tom?
On Sun 22 Nov at 3:23pm Dreamer wrote:
Seeing someone asking TP for data did get me curious enough to temporarily unblock him.
Janet: Google "UK all cause mortality", that brings up the weekly updated data on the PHE site. As expected ever since case and then hospitalization numbers started rising, the excess mortality is once again statistically significant since early November.
Saying that excess mortality was non-significant in October is as irrelevant as saying it wasn't significant in February: the time lag between infection and death is three to four weeks on average. So if case numbers rise in October, mortality doesn't rise until November. All if that has been well documented and described since April.
TP is of course aware of that, but he prefers not considering data in its context. The standard Tomfoolery as, we have all come to expect it.
On Sun 22 Nov at 11:46pm IDM wrote:
Was that a joke TP? If not ... Figures for October 2019 cannot be used as the predictor of October 2020. October deaths have been descending fairly steadily since 2002 (mean 0.58 % per year). That would suggest a predicted October 2020 figure of around 300 less than the crude method. But also, the rate of decrease from year to year is getting faster. Working from the most recent 5-year average for a better estimation of expected October 2020, figures reported for one week were 1480 above that average (= 6500 per month). That is far closer to the truth than eight!
Working from the same week, covid underlying deaths were 1743 (= 7670 per month. Pretty convincingly close, I'd say.
I did not want to waste too much time on this. All this is England - the uplift to UK ratio is about 1.19. Here endeth the lesson (Mark!).
On Mon 23 Nov at 7:29pm Tom Pain wrote:
I got the figures from the Office of National Statistics, monthly mortality.
I made a simple statement of fact, D. True I didn't give the figures for the last century, neither did I pontificate on the fall of the Roman Empire. My intention was clarity and not to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant meanderings.
On Mon 23 Nov at 7:57pm Dreamer wrote:
IDM: that is the way Tomfoolery works. Remove context, ignore lack of background knowledge and make outlandish claims.
My favorite recent example was the PCR nonsense. There were two aspects to his claims that showed he was repeating myths about things he doesn't understand even the basics of.
First, the claim that the presence of viral RNA in the throat and nasal cavity of a person was possible in the absence of an infection. Enzymes known as RNAses destroy 'naked' RNA in every living thing. Indeed, researchers working with RNA need to purchase specific RNAse free water (normal distilled or deionized water won't do), because these enzymes are so diehard and ubiquitous.
Next, his claim that PCR tests run for over 30 (or 35) cycles would yield erroneous results. Now, in principle that would be true. *IF* the tests were run the way PCRs were run two decades ago (set up PCR, run cycles and afterwards check the result). But that isn't what happens. Instead a method called realtime PCR is used. Here, a the reaction tubes in the PCR machine are continously monitored. As the nucleic acid being tested is amplified (which only happens if it is present), a fluorescence signal is generated. Over many cycles a curve, showing the increase of fluorescence is measured. To ensure the signal is indeed real, it us common to let these reactions run for longer. Thus is part of the quality control regime used for such tests. Samples where the curve doesn't follow the expected time course are classed as "inconclusive" (not as "positive"). That explicitly includes samples where a signal was only detected after 30+ cycles.
The whole myth is a red herring spread by a few people who may or may not know better and are eager to spread discord. And then it is parroted by the legions of people who don't understand it, but feel they know better than actual experts. To which of those groups TP belongs, I can't say. But whichever it may be, it definitely is Tomfoolery.
The next step is for him and others to cksim it is their opinion. Which is of course also not true. Not liking the World being flat is an opinion. Claiming the World is flat is a myth. The same applies here.
On Mon 23 Nov at 10:21pm Tom Pain wrote:
If you don't like the message slander the messenger on and on and on and on. Just turn your magic blocker on, hyperventilating in a mask will do you harm.
On Tue 24 Nov at 8:43pm Dreamer wrote:
Just to be clear Tomfoolery: everyone of your myths has been debunked. Your random collection of blog posts, redefined words (just because you want them to mean something different, doesn't mean they do), outdated studies (good on you for finding them, shame on you for not reading the follow up paper), and general conspiracy theories ("Luciferase tattoos" - seriously, spend a few minutes with a basic cellbiology textbook that is all it takes to understand why that is hogwash) aren't messages. They are myths (at best).
And thanks for the reminder: I'll activate that filter for another few weeks and see if you bothered learning at least the basics by then. I never lose hope...
On Tue 24 Nov at 9:09pm Dreamer wrote:
One last comment. I humoured you and check if the British use of "Slander" is the same as the American one that I am used to. Turns out it is.
So I am bit suprised. "malicious false statement'... Now," malicious" may be in the eye of the beholder. But "false statement"? Tom... All I have done at any point is point out where *you* show off your lack of even the most basic understanding of the topics you choose to discuss. Statistics, comirbidities (you still haven't bothered to look up the definition, have you?), design of PCR probes, PCR methods used and how they compare, basic molecular biology... Just a short and incomplete list of topics you have declared to know better than proven experts, while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge. If anyone in this forum is slandering you Tom, it is sonlmeine sharing your pseudonym. This is textbook tomfoolery - how apt a term.
On Tue 24 Nov at 11:54pm IDM wrote:
TP - given the medical knowledge at the time, it is unlikely that a virus disease would have been recognised around the Fall. I personally think it very unlikely for there to have been a link because long-distance travel was rare. Even by the 14th century it took a long time for the black death to spread westwards across Europe. Now a virus (as we have seen) can jump across thousands of miles in a single air flight.
The method I applied could be applied from, say, 1920, but a moving average over such a long time would not be so reliable, thus leading to what I actually did.
Strangely, all my data came from the ONS site as well. They just have to be assembled properly.
On Wed 25 Nov at 9:46pm Tom Pain wrote:
My information on PCR tests came from Dr.Fauci as I stated, true he has many conflicts of interest, but in a matter where he has nothing to gain, he does have credibility. On the other hand, your ill mannered attitude has none.
On Thu 26 Nov at 11:48pm IDM wrote:
TP, I was not talking about PCR, but estimated expected death rates. Am I really ill mannered in suggesting that the ONS (a world respected body with no conflicts of interest) might be a rather more reliable place to start than a single US opinion by a medical expert rather than by a statistician. I will take that back if you point me towards the data from where he was working.
I did take your point about previous centuries, but the analysis collapsed due to an unexpected spike around 1939-1945. Bother!
On Fri 27 Nov at 10:54pm Tom Pain wrote:
I was replying to Dreamer who knows more about PCR tests than Dr.Fauci and the inventor of them, you must have posted in between.
On Sun 29 Nov at 3:50pm Dreamer wrote:
TP, you are yet again taking statements made by knowledgable people out of context. Both the inventor of the method as well as Dr. Faucci know the difference between a PCR that is analysed by a single point in time gel chromatography (where 'overrunning' is indeed a problem) and real time PCR (where results are analysed based on an entire time course).
You on the other hand, don't. So stop pretending you do. You are simply continuing to repeat text fragments that you don't understand. Like it or not, thst is indeed parroting.
The hogwash you are spreading here about PCR has been repeatedly debunked, not by me, but by Nobel Laureates like Paul Nurse and many others.
I honestly don't know what I find more impressive: your willingness to demonstrate your complete ignorance to everyone, or the arrogance shown by your criticising actual experts out there despite said ignorance.