COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hancock speaking now on the local restrictions. The Manchester tier 3 has NOT been agreed. Broke up earlier over not enough compensation.

Hancock praises Liverpool for accepting.

Though the Liverool mayor in an intervirew today was saying they were forced into it. And do not support it and basically go Manchester for trying to fight for more money for those forced to do so.

More meetings with Manchester later today.

Hancock says must act NOW to prevent worse action later.

Hence London is now in Tier 2.

Praises Essex county for agreeing to go into Tier 2 with London.
 
Healdplace said:
Russia just approved a second vaccine after ignoring phase three trials. It will be a while before we know if they have missed side effects by cutting corners but less time before we know if they are curbing the virus. If they do seem to work there is going to be pressure on the western vaccine trials.
Click to expand...

Scary! I did read somewhere that Abu Dhabi were taking the Russian vaccine, but could have sworn it was the Chinese one?
 
SPIDERBOY said:
Some bellends will be sat in a garden and say "fuck it,it's too cold,lets go inside"....IMO.
Click to expand...
Of course they will. Same way lots of people have already been mixing with other households in pubs throughout. I can't see the the change form level 2 to level 3 changing too many people's behaviour much.
 
Very recent review article using meta-analysis on how fatal judged by IFR (Infection fatality rate) COVID is

Specially for @True_Blue69

  • •
    COVID-19 infection-fatality rate (IFR) is an important statistic for policy about the disease.
  • •
    Published estimates vary, with a ‘true’ fatality rate hard to calculate.
  • •
    Systematically reviewing the literature and meta-analyzing the results shows an IFR of 0.68% (0.53-0.82%).
  • •
    This rate was variable from place to place, with a lower range of 0.17% and a highest estimate of 1.7%.
  • •
    Serology studies with a lower risk of bias appeared to demonstrate a higher IFR than those at a higher risk of bias.

My bold. You can also note in the paper it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure.


Face reality.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Very recent review article using meta-analysis on how fatal judged by IFR (Infection fatality rate) COVID is

Specially for @True_Blue69

  • •
    COVID-19 infection-fatality rate (IFR) is an important statistic for policy about the disease.
  • •
    Published estimates vary, with a ‘true’ fatality rate hard to calculate.
  • •
    Systematically reviewing the literature and meta-analyzing the results shows an IFR of 0.68% (0.53-0.82%).
  • •
    This rate was variable from place to place, with a lower range of 0.17% and a highest estimate of 1.7%.
  • •
    Serology studies with a lower risk of bias appeared to demonstrate a higher IFR than those at a higher risk of bias.

My bold. You can also note in the paper it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure.


Face reality.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this.

We know that most cases are asymptomatic and that study says some areas are 0.17%, which is more likely to be correct. Either way you said 1% which was what I was rubbishing and this proves it right. That was all I was saying was wrong.
 
Test and trace only found 62% of those being sought last week. When are they going to sort out the single most important thing to control this virus - seven months after realising this was true?

It has been obvious for months this should be in local hands who know the area they are tracking and tracing and can GO there not send a text.

Yet we are still using people on government contracts looking for contacts by phone hundreds of miles away.

Not rocket science why it is failing.
 
mosssideblue said:
So why say you are a scientist trying to big yourself up as knowledgeable in viruses
Click to expand...

To be fair mate, as a scientist, Marvin will certainly possess a way of thinking and analysis which is beyond your average layman.

My mate is surgeon but I still trust his advice when it comes to me having a sore throat.

Same as I have worked in the media for 30 years and would have an informed opinion on most facets of it, even if I'm more your bish-bosh-bang merchant, rather than a Charles Saatchi!

I don't think there is any definitive wrong or right in the current scientific opinion community.

After all, science has always been about trial and error.

Of course we must trust the people at the top of their game, however.
 
True_Blue69 said:
Thanks for posting this.

We know that most cases are asymptomatic and that study says some areas are 0.17%, which is more likely to be correct. Either way you said 1% which was what I was rubbishing and this proves it right. That was all I was saying was wrong.
Click to expand...

Christ on a bike, you're in denial.

The article does NOT say that 0.17% is more likely to be correct. It gives a range of 0.53 to 0.82, and says that's likely skewed wrong. 0.17% is three times below the lower limit of the range from the meta analysis.

I said most studies are in the range 0.5-1.0%.

That is damn near exactly in line with this study.

Whereas you said that the 0.9% ONS study was an absolute worst case.

You're basically saying black is white. It's quite remarkable to read.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
To be fair mate, as a scientist, Marvin will certainly possess a way of thinking and analysis which is beyond your average layman.

My mate is surgeon but I still trust his advice when it comes to me having a sore throat.

Same as I have worked in the media for 30 years and would have an informed opinion on most facets of it, even if I'm more your bish-bosh-bang merchant, rather than a Charles Saatchi!

I don't think there is any definitive wrong or right in the current scientific opinion community.

After all, science has always been about trial and error.

Of course we must trust the people at the top of their game, however.
Click to expand...
There will be many posters on here equally or even more qualified than a masters degree, who will also be able to think and analyse, but don't see the need to claim their academic successes or make themselves appear more knowledgeable than others.
 
Lucy Powell says she has just spoken to those in the negotiations with the government and there is 'universal fury' as GM has been in Tier 2 for months and they have not worked. So why will tier three work? The governent's own science adviser says they will make little difference but local MPs think they will wreck the local economy without better compensation for taking part in this gamble.

Hancock replied only that we have to act and act swiftly on this.

Looks like they all know he WILL do this to GM but they are determined to make him do so against their obvious objections.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Very recent review article using meta-analysis on how fatal judged by IFR (Infection fatality rate) COVID is

Specially for @True_Blue69

  • •
    COVID-19 infection-fatality rate (IFR) is an important statistic for policy about the disease.
  • •
    Published estimates vary, with a ‘true’ fatality rate hard to calculate.
  • •
    Systematically reviewing the literature and meta-analyzing the results shows an IFR of 0.68% (0.53-0.82%).
  • •
    This rate was variable from place to place, with a lower range of 0.17% and a highest estimate of 1.7%.
  • •
    Serology studies with a lower risk of bias appeared to demonstrate a higher IFR than those at a higher risk of bias.

My bold. You can also note in the paper it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure.


Face reality.
Click to expand...

interesting ta, i expect there's another of these in the pipeline already, the data they use is up to July 2020 and we've moved on a bit, but i cant see the IFR being much different to the 0.53 - 0.82 (note the England data was a touch higher than this global estimate)
 
worsleyweb said:
Having my nightly read on vaccines and I1 in phase 3 trials. We will get one early next year and a way out of this.
Click to expand...

Listening to a lady on five live yesterday who is in charge of the trials she said we should have a vaccine sometime in 2021 and at the moment;-

The tests are giving good signs for immunity but they don't know how much immunity it will give to people with health problems or how affective it will be with mutations.

Too early to make a presumption basically.
 
It’s all rather quiet on the airline front. Is there any travel restrictions in place while we move into tier 2&3 throughout the country?
 
mosssideblue said:
There will be many posters on here equally or even more qualified than a masters degree, who will also be able to think and analyse, but don't see the need to claim their academic successes or make themselves appear more knowledgeable than others.
Click to expand...

Of course mate, but I just read it Marv was responding to a question as to what made him in any way qualified to offer an informed opinion?

I don't think he was bragging IMO.

Sometimes I am rightly challenged on posts and someone can ask how or why I would know or have an informed opinion on something, maybe not being privy to my own professional background...

It doesn't give me a pass but certainly having a skill or working within a particular branch or community, should make people mindful that even a little knowledge can maybe be of benefit to the board.
 
True_Blue69 said:
No, but you and your little group of un-merry men will only ever listen to one side of the argument and that it the one which predicts impending doom. The same happened earlier in the year and then they all crawled back under their stones to reappear as soon as cases started increasing. You dismiss anything which isn't bad news and write real scientists off saying they are politically motivated. What if it's the ones you believe that are politically motivated and the others are right?
Click to expand...
That's bollocks. I don't question the scientists because i unqualified to do so. I read what the majority say and take it on board. I read some of what the fringe suggest but it's always outlier stuff in the main. So i go with the general consensus of the majority of scientists as they know more than me. Politics doesn't even come into it for me. All the "un merry men" "crawled back under their stones" shit you typed is just guff to try and make my stance seem outlandish, but when my only stance is listen to the majority of the experts then it carries no weight.

Remember it was you, not me who said this was no worse than flu,
you, not me who said the virus had weakened,
you, not me who posted Russian propaganda links,
you not me that continuously posts links to fringe views while dismissing the consensus.
 
Hancock just praised Bolton for getting the virus under control. In reply to being asked to explain how the Tiers are working.

But how much?

Here are the town's case number totals in the past 11 weeks since GM has been in restrictions.

Wk 1 57

Wk 2 81

Wk 3 76

Wk 4 51

Wk 5 179

Wk 6 343

Wk 7 560

Wk 8 680

Wk 9 665

Wk 10 799

Wk 11 897


Not sure I would see those numbers supporting what he just said.
 
Last edited:
Scottish data: Another awful day.

13 deaths

1351 cases at 17,4% positive

450 in Greater Glasgow, 374 Lanarkshire, 161 Lothian, 111 Ayr

601 in hospitak (up 31 since yesterday)

51 on ventilators (up 2 on yesterday)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top