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
2:49 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Interesting article in New Scientist outlines the way in which we, as a species, deal with corona viruses.
In general, they are fairly harmless to children, so we rely on catching them as kids to prime our adult immune system. A primed adult immune system then usually has no problem fighting them off.
If this is correct, one of the most dangerous features of the "novel corona virus C-19" is its very novelty.
Adults don't have immune systems primed against C-19, because it wasn't around to prime them when they were kids.
It's believed that OC43, one of the corona viruses implicated in the common cold, was behind a minor pandemic in the 19th century, when it was novel.
Part of the reason why it is now relatively harmless is believed to be that we've all had it as kids (it itself has probably mutated to tone down its effects, too).
So Golden Oldie may be 200 years ahead of his time*.
In 200 years, C-19 and human populations may have changed to render C-19 just another cold virus.
But it is not a cold today.
*makes a change - he's usually in the 1930s...
|
Kaiser Zoso
2:16 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Oi vey
|
Side of Ham
2:03 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Fucking hell that's the sort of thing to make your hair curl.
|
BRANDED
2:01 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Wedding crashers: Police find 400 guests at ceremony in Stamford Hill despite Covid-19 rules
Very Spursy
|
BRANDED
12:37 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Johnson 12:08 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
BRANDED 12:22 Fri Jan 22
The WHO only publish that about the PCR test this week, driving a lot of conspiracy theory about it being held back until Biden came in.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of reporting of statistics around Covid. I suspect it won't change anything.
I think popular reporting will remain click bait. I think that there is a good division of opinion on the subject that drives polarisation, which seems to be good for the press.
As far as Governments are concerned they have all handled it differently and are fighting fires constantly between the news, the data and what actions get them to a more stable place, if that's even possible at the moment. You have a range of opinions from Zero covid to let it rip. The countries that went for zero covid rigorously are the current winners. They will still need a vaccine based upon the data provided by the infected.
|
Side of Ham
12:22 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Chicken pox parties?........fucking scabs.....
|
riosleftsock
12:14 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Johnson
There are no conspiracies, but there are also no coincidences.
|
Johnson
12:08 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
BRANDED 12:22 Fri Jan 22
The WHO only publish that about the PCR test this week, driving a lot of conspiracy theory about it being held back until Biden came in.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of reporting of statistics around Covid. I suspect it won't change anything.
I missed the 5pm briefing, did any of the journos ask a question about it or were they simply fixating on something trivial that might trip up the govt?
|
Lee Trundle
12:00 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
They'll be covid parties, like you get with kids and chicken pox parties.
|
El Scorchio
11:50 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
And preferably payable after the person is proven to have actually isolated for the required time.
Otherwise it’s going to get the almighty fuck abused out of it.
|
Side of Ham
10:14 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
I don’t know why Branded is digging out Radio 4, it’s all they can get on the Isle of Wight...
BRANDED DJ’s Lackey....
London - Lisbon - Isle of Wight
|
Mike Oxsaw
10:07 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Should be a transferable tax credit tied to a taxpayers NI number.
If they want to swap it for cash, this can be done through an official exchange mechanism. They do this for carbon credits, so why not tax credits?
Nobody gets a credit if they're not in the system, eligible to pay tax.
|
ChillTheKeel
9:43 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
More free stuff from this socialist government. Get Covid and win £500!
You just know there are going to be people fighting over public khazi bog seats to lick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55760467
|
BRANDED
12:31 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
How is pointing out a fact ad hominem?
It was merely a self described trait.
If I was doing Ad Hominem I would have said you know nothing Radio BBC sounds wanker who knows nothing without pointing out the source of the new WHO advice.
|
zebthecat
12:30 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
What rois said is bang on.
It is all about prevalence and the concept is not difficult to understand at all.
|
zebthecat
12:28 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Ah, the old Ad Hominem.
Nice try.
|
BRANDED
12:26 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
You mean this Zeb?
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
You raving radio 4 sounds wanker?
|
zebthecat
12:23 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
BRANDED 12:09 Fri Jan 22
This was all covered in More or Less on Radio 4 months ago.
I suggest that you pop over to BBC Sounds and have a listen. Your brother on law should probably do the same; It has actual epidemiologists and statisticians.
|
BRANDED
12:22 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Sure. But makes a mockery of yet more of the narrative. We are generally on the same page Rios.
|
riosleftsock
12:16 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Branded
You are over-simplifying the latest advice from WHO.
I'm sure if you scroll back far enough, near the start of this thread, I stated that the PCR test could only be deemed useful when taking into account the prevalence of the disease. At the moment, prevalence is high, so a positive test is more likely to be correct than it was in say, June or July.
I also said what I had herd from PHE, that the False positive rate at the time was very high, anything between 2.7 and 4.0%, which coupled with a low prevalence could have led to 90 out of a 100 positive results being false. The only way to confirm was to carry out a further test, if negative then a third test should be carried out, this would bring the FPR down to around 0.1% (a basic study in probability and statistics would confirm).
When the outbreak started I was working at PHE and met with their directors many times.
|
Side of Ham
12:16 Fri Jan 22
Re: This coronavirus in China
|
Branded DJ’s lackey......
London - Lisbon - Isle of Wight
Hahahahaha!
|
| 
