WHO Poll
Q: 2020/2021 Where will we finish up this season?
a. Top Four, Champions League here we come
8%
  
b. 5th-7th Europa League is well within our grasp
6%
  
c. 8th to 14th anywhere in mid table is about right
30%
  
d. We're in a dog fight before a ball has been kicked and we'll do well to finish 17th or just above
27%
  
e. GSB have derailed our season before a ball has been kicked, the Championship beckons
28%
  



goose 12:23 Wed Jan 22
This coronavirus in China
anyone else worried? 9 dead so far.

CNY soon so the virus will spread very quickly if they cannot control it. It'll be in Europe by the end of CNY if not earlier.

is this the end of humanity?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51202216

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

gph 2:10 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
You didn't say 0.1% - that was me remembering that, from 6 months ago, maybe, and from either the stuff I worked out myself or an ONS paper.

gph 2:05 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
In this case, it is a good way to measure the real rate, because the measured rate rate has an important property as a function of the real rate - it increases as the real rate increases, so, if the false positive and false negative rates are known*, there is just one value of the real rate for each value of the measured rate, and we can work back to the real rate from that.

For some reason, they didn't do this when the real prevalence was low, but they don't need to do that now, because the measured rate is the real rate to within a tiny amount.

*even if they are poorly known, relating real and measured rates is far from hopeless, but things rapidly get complicated, with error bars and the like to set and justified

riosleftsock 1:46 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
gph 1:31 Thu Jan 28

Yes, I did raise the point that community testing will become more accurate as community prevalence increases, and I acknowledge that prevalence has increased, but I don't remember quoting a figure of 0.1%, I think its much higher to make a single PCR test reliable. But you're a smart bloke and know how numbers work, so you will understand that this is not the most reliable stat to use because community prevalence stats are based on positive PCR results in community testing.

So, its more reliable to look at people who present with covid symptoms and then return a positive result, which is how they measured stats at the start. Testing people with no symptoms and declaring them as "cases" seems bizarre, even people within PHE were not happy with this, but SAGE pushed for it.

The old c wing 1:45 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
I said:

The old c wing 11:22 Wed Jan 27
Re: This coronavirus in China
iosleftsock 11:17 Wed Jan 27

They have been telling us all along. It’s much more transmissible.

Which is completely true. And yes, once they knew it was human to human. Because otherwise there wouldn’t be a R rate.

gph 1:38 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
It's fairly well established that the Chinese Government did try to hush up the initial outbreak, imprisoning at least one doctor who tried to alert the public.

They claimed that they did this to avert unnecessary panic.

Odd that this should be criticised by those who seem to be claiming we're panicking unnecessarily...

riosleftsock 1:35 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
The old c wing 1:31 Thu Jan 28

Sorry mate, but what you said is that we always knew that this would be with us forever. This is simply not true. We did not always know this.

Who provided the modelling in the UK for MERS, SARS, avian flu and swine flu? How accurate were they?

Capitol Man 1:34 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China


The old c wing 1:23 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China

You have to remember that Rios is nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is. In his mind he’s basically playing with the lefties by leading them along on a little strict baited with little nuggets he secures from the right wing twat websites and other media he consumes.

Reality is that he’s just not very good at it and makes a cunt of himself on a daily basis.

gph 1:31 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
From memory, when the real rate is 0.01%, the false positive rate does cause the measured rate to be greater by quite a large factor. But this effect disappears progressively, and is almost gone by the time the real rate is 0.1%.

I had the impression that you acknowledged that, rios, a couple of days ago.

We're way beyond 0.1% now.

The old c wing 1:31 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
No, I am saying that this disease is much more transmissible than others you mentioned.

I said that we have known this all along.

You are then saying we didn’t, because who said that there was no evidence of human to human transmission back in early Jan last year.

So before there was no evidence of human to human, they couldn’t have speculated at transmission rates. But as soon as it happened, it became fairly quickly recognised.

The whole point being that this differs from MERS etc in its transmission rates.

So that’s where it fundamentally differs and is the reason for it being endemic in society.

riosleftsock 1:24 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
c wing

But that is not the point I was making. You are putting words in my mouth and then arguing with your own words.

The old c wing 1:23 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
riosleftsock 12:44 Thu Jan 28

So you do realise that the human transmissibility of this disease would only have become apparent once human to human transmission was confirmed?

If it wasn’t confirmed that humans could transmit to each other how could you measure it?

This type of thing is, in essence, the issue here. I fail to believe you are that thick.

riosleftsock 1:18 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
DagenhamDave 1:11 Thu Jan 28

Good point Dave, but there is no proof of this.

People are being tested for covid but not for other upper respiratory illnesses, like flu or secondary infection like pleurisy or pneumonia, or even avian or swine flu. Its possible that people have flu and covid or just flu. The PCR tests are not reliable in low prevalence communities, they will return very high false positives.

The only relevant statistics are admissions to hospital that present symptoms and who test positive. Mass testing of the population the way we have been doing is not a good measure of community infection using PCR. Double or triple PCR Testing is much more reliable.

BRANDED 1:16 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
It’s not new or unique. It’s a corrona virus. It shares a lot of qualities. However, irrespective of that there is a years worth of data,studies and experience to draw upon. Lives are being lost less. The nature of who is most at risk is clearer. The combined efforts of the clever minds are making it less and less a problem day in day out.

gph 1:14 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
"There is less flu about because of the lockdown of course so double infections are a more of a rarity as it keeps transmission of everything down."

If the probability of getting lurgy A is p, the probability of getting lurgy B is q, the probability of getting both A and B is r and the probabilities of getting A and of getting B are independent, then r = pq.

But they're not independent. If A and B are not both viral respiratory infections, r is greater than pq, and we know why - if you've got A, you're weaker from it and more likely to catch B, or vice versa.

But, if both A and B are well-known viral respiratory ailments, then r is LESS than pq, and we don't know why.

I haven't read anything which says whether this effect works when A or B is C-19.

The anomaly would be r being less than pq, no matter how large or small p and q are.

DagenhamDave 1:11 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
riosleftsock 12:52 Thu Jan 28

Being transmitted the same way doesn't mean they are equally infectious. As a new virus there is very little in the way of widespread immunity to covid which makes a much, much higher number of people susceptible to infection. Making a situation which is hospitable to covid an inhospitable to flu possible.

Its not rocket science.

BRANDED 12:55 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
The virus is true and the the deaths are true. It doesn’t mean you change your life. That’s your choice. Some change some don’t. The assumption that everybody think the same same is just absurd. We see the narrativesdifferentky and rightly so.

riosleftsock 12:52 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
"There is less flu about because of the lockdown"

I'm sorry but that goes against conventional wisdom and what we have been told. COVID19 is transmitted in exactly the same way that flu is (unless somebody can prove otherwise). Therefore if lockdowns stop flu, then they stop covid. Neither statement is likely to be correct.

riosleftsock 12:50 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
This isn't an argument that can be he said she said.

Its normal to be curious, but its dangerous being right when the government is wrong. Or maybe wrong. The science is settled until it changes (as it often does), the earth was flat until it was round, the planets revolved around the earth until they revolved around the sun.

Galileo, Copernicus and Newton were just one voice who stood against conventional wisdom - some were punished for it.

COVID was a HCID (High Consequence Infectious disease) in the UK until March 19th when it wasn't.

COVID was not a pandemic, until it was a pandemic, and then it wasn't a pandemic anymore. At times it was a syndemic (?)

None of this means that COVID 19 isn't real or serious, but neither does it mean that you should accept everything you read or hear on the main stream news outlets.

zebthecat 12:47 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
gph 11:58 Wed Jan 27

There is less flu about because of the lockdown of course so double infections are a more of a rarity as it keeps transmission of everything down.
I had that ages ago (was 25) and got a strep throat infection. Just as the antibiotics were stamping on that and I had gone back to work I caught flu and was wiped out for the best part of a fortnight. Did have a terrible lifestyle as I was in a shared house with other lads going what lads do, worked full time and played in a band doing 3-4 gigs a week on top with all that entails.
One of my housemates timed me and I slept more than 20 hours a day for five consecutive days although it was more like shivering hallucinatory dozing.
Had my flu jab last week as I have no wish to revisit that thank you very much lockdown notwithstanding.

BRANDED 12:46 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
News night on care homes.

Worth watching if you care

riosleftsock 12:44 Thu Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
The old c wing 11:47 Wed Jan 27
Re: This coronavirus in China
So they said there was no evidence of human to human transmission, until there was evidence of human to human transmission?

What’s the relevancy of this?

Read your previous post.

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: