#COVID19 | Page 967 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Regarding the transparency issue over decisions a few pips back, you can see much of the thinking behind decisions. The SAGE committee is published (bar one redacted name - insert your shadowy demon of choice!). Indy SAGE is widely known. Some meetings of these and, say, the all parliamentary long covid group are available on YouTube / sometimes live streamed. You can find out who is on SPI-M (the epidemiological and mathematical modelers) and so on. Papers that have informed SAGE decisions, sometimes famously, have been published and are available to all, though the language of some of them might be too technical for most readers.

These people are often on Twitter giving lengthy threads in lay terms about the very latest data they have, what worries them, what doesn't, what is known and what remains uncertain. I have posted a few.

The science is now more open and transparent than ever before. Journal articles are sometimes paywalled (but there are ways around that) but many are not; preprints are often freely available before the more lengthy peer review process. These are available from scientists across the globe and not only those in the employ of our government.

We don't get to know what happens in Whitehall though. Let's hope an inquiry lays that bare one day, but, of course, the culprits will be long gone before they let that happen.
 
While we’re on the subject of lockdown mistakes, anyone remember eat out to help out, that was a fucking genius idea that has faced zero scrutiny anytime recently
 
in_the_top_one said:
Most of those people probably haven't looked at any data, or read any balance of informed opinions, or have the wherewithal (e.g. training) to come to an independently informed conclusion.
Not necessarily nuts, or stupid, or covidiots, etc, but in an overwhelming and rather depressing world, more easily seduced by the overly simplistic idea that 'shutting things = bad', without considering the alternative, which appears to be 'not shutting things = worse'.
Click to expand...

It's just frustrating that people seem to think if we close our eyes and pretend everything is normal then the pandemic will just disappear and as if by magic the economy, NHS, people etc will all be fine.
 
Mirror reporting that the government is considering vaccine passports for entering "non essential" shops.

On the same day that the NHS basically admit that the under 50's won't start getting the vaccine until August (or whenever the precious over 50's have all had their second dose) because of lack of supply.

One wonders if the under 50's will just be told to get fucked, given the government wanted to do the over 50's again in September.

And, once again, no one in the entire media gives a single shit
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Mirror reporting that the government is considering vaccine passports for entering "non essential" shops.

On the same day that the NHS basically admit that the under 50's won't start getting the vaccine until August (or whenever the precious over 50's have all had their second dose) because of lack of supply.

One wonders if the under 50's will just be told to get fucked, given the government wanted to do the over 50's again in September.

And, once again, no one in the entire media gives a single shit
Click to expand...

The Guardian reported it and I posted a link earlier. The usuals dismissed the warning because it came from SAGE.

It's incredibly frustrating and I suspect we might have worse news for younger women on the horizon.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
It's just frustrating that people seem to think if we close our eyes and pretend everything is normal then the pandemic will just disappear and as if by magic the economy, NHS, people etc will all be fine.
Click to expand...

It's very frustrating that people are only focussing on the Covid light like startled rabbits, and not looking at anything else.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
The Guardian reported it and I posted a link earlier. The usuals dismissed the warning because it came from SAGE.

It's incredibly frustrating and I suspect we might have worse news for younger women on the horizon.
Click to expand...
If it isn't suitable for young women they won't he giving it to young men either

This government have absolutely failed younger people in this country
 
in_the_top_one said:
Regarding the transparency issue over decisions a few pips back, you can see much of the thinking behind decisions. The SAGE committee is published (bar one redacted name - insert your shadowy demon of choice!). Indy SAGE is widely known. Some meetings of these and, say, the all parliamentary long covid group are available on YouTube / sometimes live streamed. You can find out who is on SPI-M (the epidemiological and mathematical modelers) and so on. Papers that have informed SAGE decisions, sometimes famously, have been published and are available to all, though the language of some of them might be too technical for most readers.

These people are often on Twitter giving lengthy threads in lay terms about the very latest data they have, what worries them, what doesn't, what is known and what remains uncertain. I have posted a few.

The science is now more open and transparent than ever before. Journal articles are sometimes paywalled (but there are ways around that) but many are not; preprints are often freely available before the more lengthy peer review process. These are available from scientists across the globe and not only those in the employ of our government.

We don't get to know what happens in Whitehall though. Let's hope an inquiry lays that bare one day, but, of course, the culprits will be long gone before they let that happen.
Click to expand...

But a lot of it is bollocks though.
One striking example that jumped out at me yesterday was with the Imperial model as it has (deliberately?) underestimated the number of people protected from coronavirus.

The paper, dating from March 30, says: "Assuming optimistic vaccine efficacy, even if 2.7 million vaccine doses/week are given up to August 1 (2.0 million thereafter), only 44.6 per cent of the population will be protected against severe disease (due to vaccination or recovery from infection) by 21 June 2021 when NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) are due to be lifted."

Where are these figures from? Data published by the ONS on March 30 showed that 54.7 per cent of people in England had antibodies to Covid by March 14.

Why are they modelling using incorrect data?
 
in_the_top_one said:
Regarding the transparency issue over decisions a few pips back, you can see much of the thinking behind decisions. The SAGE committee is published (bar one redacted name - insert your shadowy demon of choice!). Indy SAGE is widely known. Some meetings of these and, say, the all parliamentary long covid group are available on YouTube / sometimes live streamed. You can find out who is on SPI-M (the epidemiological and mathematical modelers) and so on. Papers that have informed SAGE decisions, sometimes famously, have been published and are available to all, though the language of some of them might be too technical for most readers.

These people are often on Twitter giving lengthy threads in lay terms about the very latest data they have, what worries them, what doesn't, what is known and what remains uncertain. I have posted a few.

The science is now more open and transparent than ever before. Journal articles are sometimes paywalled (but there are ways around that) but many are not; preprints are often freely available before the more lengthy peer review process. These are available from scientists across the globe and not only those in the employ of our government.

We don't get to know what happens in Whitehall though. Let's hope an inquiry lays that bare one day, but, of course, the culprits will be long gone before they let that happen.
Click to expand...

More bollocks...

"The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups."

What twaddle is that? It states that the third wave deaths will predominantly be driven by people who have been vaccinated!!

The only assumption is that around 10% of vaccinated over-50s will not be protected by the vaccine, based on around 90% efficacy, which equates to about 2.9 million people.

Imperial College has predicted that full release could bring up to 40,000 deaths, while Warwick suggests 60,000. Those numbers have been pulled out of thin air, knowing what we know about this virus. In the first and second waves, around 147,000 of the over-50s and vulnerable died from Covid, roughly 1 in 200. But under the new scenarios invented above, this would rise to around 1 in 70 in that same age group would die.

Do they have troops of monkeys in suits working around the clock on this?

It's suitable for arse paper, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
in_the_top_one said:
Regarding the transparency issue over decisions a few pips back, you can see much of the thinking behind decisions. The SAGE committee is published (bar one redacted name - insert your shadowy demon of choice!). Indy SAGE is widely known. Some meetings of these and, say, the all parliamentary long covid group are available on YouTube / sometimes live streamed. You can find out who is on SPI-M (the epidemiological and mathematical modelers) and so on. Papers that have informed SAGE decisions, sometimes famously, have been published and are available to all, though the language of some of them might be too technical for most readers.

These people are often on Twitter giving lengthy threads in lay terms about the very latest data they have, what worries them, what doesn't, what is known and what remains uncertain. I have posted a few.

The science is now more open and transparent than ever before. Journal articles are sometimes paywalled (but there are ways around that) but many are not; preprints are often freely available before the more lengthy peer review process. These are available from scientists across the globe and not only those in the employ of our government.

We don't get to know what happens in Whitehall though. Let's hope an inquiry lays that bare one day, but, of course, the culprits will be long gone before they let that happen.
Click to expand...

More droopy orbs regarding transmission/infections.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is suspiciously negative on how well the AZ jab will perform, estimating that it will reduce infections by just 31% after two doses, while Imperial suggests 63% and Warwick 65%.

Yet trial and real world data suggests that it may have around 76% efficacy at preventing a symptomatic infection!!!

Why are they lying about/ignoring real world data?

Data from Public Health Scotland recently showed that the AZ jab reduces the risk of Covid-related hospitalisation by 94% after the first dose, yet Imperial estimated it to be 70%

Tip for the modellers: If you want to be taken seriously, then use correct data.

Unless of course they are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame and the extra funding.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Meanwhile this brexit government had pushed through its plans to reduce 'foreign aid' spending which has led to 70% reductions in programmes that literally reduce the risk of future pandemics.
Click to expand...

There are over 200 countries in the world. No idea how many of them are giving overseas aid, but a reduction of 70 % in (unspecified ) "programmes" implies we are the only country in the world funding any of them ? Do you have any links to EXACTLY what they are saying ? Hopefully we will cut in the right places. Shame many of the EU countries don't spend as much as us - Austria, Belgium, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy all spend a lot less than our lower level of spending (as a % of GNI).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
 
Last edited:
Strett said:
More bollocks...

"The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups."

What twaddle is that? It states that the third wave deaths will predominantly be driven by people who have been vaccinated!!

The only assumption is that around 10% of vaccinated over-50s will not be protected by the vaccine, based on around 90% efficacy, which equates to about 2.9 million people.

Imperial College has predicted that full release could bring up to 40,000 deaths, while Warwick suggests 60,000. Those numbers have been pulled out of thin air, knowing what we know about this virus. In the first and second waves, around 147,000 of the over-50s and vulnerable died from Covid, roughly 1 in 200. But under the new scenarios invented above, this would rise to around 1 in 70 in that same age group would die.

Do they have troops of monkeys in suits working around the clock on this?

It's suitable for arse paper, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with the overall numbers, but if you think about it an over 80 year old with two vaccinations is still more likely to die from covid than an unvaccinated 20 year old. Think I read that an over 90 year old who catches covid has a 1 in 9 chance of dying. Even with a 90% effective vaccine that chance of dying could still be 1 in a hundred, far more likely than a 20 or 30 year old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.