O/T Covid-19 - Discussion for the duration of this crisis. | Page 101 | Vital Football

O/T Covid-19 - Discussion for the duration of this crisis.

And now we are back to the Ferguson scaremongering predictions....lift the lockdown and 200,000 will die.

The information based upon science instead of assumptions and models is that this is a mild disease for most people and for those that need hospital treatment 95% will recover...the figures published by the BBC show a detected to death ratio of 14.67% which is heavily skewed because the number of detected cases is generally accepted as being far greater...in some estimates up to 50 times greater.

Every time you step out of your house you expose yourself to risks that may, depending upon your particular health situation or just blind back luck, kill you......there is a wealth of scientific opinion and data that suggests this virus is low risk in that context....there is no justification for lockdown as a way of effectively dealing with this virus as the daily death figures show...
 
And now we are back to the Ferguson scaremongering predictions....lift the lockdown and 200,000 will die.

The information based upon science instead of assumptions and models is that this is a mild disease for most people and for those that need hospital treatment 95% will recover...the figures published by the BBC show a detected to death ratio of 14.67% which is heavily skewed because the number of detected cases is generally accepted as being far greater...in some estimates up to 50 times greater.

Every time you step out of your house you expose yourself to risks that may, depending upon your particular health situation or just blind back luck, kill you......there is a wealth of scientific opinion and data that suggests this virus is low risk in that context....there is no justification for lockdown as a way of effectively dealing with this virus as the daily death figures show...


Harry , at some indeterminate point in the future, probably not in our lifetimes as the information will be kept under lock and key, it will be revealed that the western world suffered the most self destructive damage imaginable due to fantasy predictions, mass hysteria and a childish reluctance by politicians and professors alike to admit that they got it wrong and badly over reacted.

Of this I am certain and have been since day one.
 
And now we are back to the Ferguson scaremongering predictions....lift the lockdown and 200,000 will die.

The information based upon science instead of assumptions and models is that this is a mild disease for most people and for those that need hospital treatment 95% will recover...the figures published by the BBC show a detected to death ratio of 14.67% which is heavily skewed because the number of detected cases is generally accepted as being far greater...in some estimates up to 50 times greater.

Every time you step out of your house you expose yourself to risks that may, depending upon your particular health situation or just blind back luck, kill you......there is a wealth of scientific opinion and data that suggests this virus is low risk in that context....there is no justification for lockdown as a way of effectively dealing with this virus as the daily death figures show...

Our lockdown was not soon enough or strict enough and still isnt.
 
And now we are back to the Ferguson scaremongering predictions....lift the lockdown and 200,000 will die.

The information based upon science instead of assumptions and models is that this is a mild disease for most people and for those that need hospital treatment 95% will recover...the figures published by the BBC show a detected to death ratio of 14.67% which is heavily skewed because the number of detected cases is generally accepted as being far greater...in some estimates up to 50 times greater.

Every time you step out of your house you expose yourself to risks that may, depending upon your particular health situation or just blind back luck, kill you......there is a wealth of scientific opinion and data that suggests this virus is low risk in that context....there is no justification for lockdown as a way of effectively dealing with this virus as the daily death figures show...

So with no lockdown the death figures would be not significantly worse, is that your point ?
 
Doctors on front line of worst-hit city in world say it’s time to end shutdown
New York medics say their experience on frontline of the crisis had, unexpectedly, convinced them city should reopen May 15
ByJosie Ensor, US CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK9 May 2020 •
The doctor looked around the unusually quiet intensive care unit, catching his breath and taking stock for the first time in what felt like weeks.
Dr Samir Farhat’s hospital in New York had been at the epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak in the US. Now, the ICU was almost back to normal and he found himself wondering when the city would be too.
“It’s not often I agree with Trump, but I think that we should open up on May 15,” said Dr Farhat, who runs the emergency room at New York Community Hospital as well as working as a physician at Mount Sinai Brooklyn.
The New York governor’s three-phase plan to end the lockdown will see the city next week begin slowly easing restrictions that have paralysed the Big Apple for months.
But Dr Farhat and doctors at other major New York hospitals who spoke to The Telegraph said their experience on the front line of the crisis had, somewhat unexpectedly, convinced them the city should reopen without delay.
“Hospital census is right down, admissions are too,” Dr Farhat said. “Opening up now is a calculated risk we need to take.”
TELEMMGLPICT000230440359_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqd5_sWj-Hu5YV1uSoc_Px3vPScD4-cs68PIMm6jv25XA.jpegimwidth=480

Hospital ship USNS Comfort departs Manhattan after providing relief during the outbreak of the coronavirus in New York CREDIT: Reuters
Dr Farhat, who specialises in pulmonology, worries that he has not seen the cases of severe asthma, heart attacks and strokes that usually fill his ER beds.
His concern is that the virus has stopped them from seeking medical attention, an unfortunate - and sometimes fatal - consequence of the stay-at-home strategy.
The number of 911 ambulance calls declined to 3,320 in late April, down from a peak of 6,527 on March 30, according to New York Fire Department data. The figure marks its lowest call volume in years.
Dr Daniel Murphy, chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at St Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx who has treated dozens of coronavirus patients, claims “inordinate fear” has guided the public response.

“While Covid-19 is serious, fear of it is being over-amplified. The public needs to understand that the vast majority of infected people do quite well,” he wrote in the New York Post.
He said he noticed the “wave had crested” at St Barnabas on April 7 - three weeks after the statewide shutdown was ordered. “It was a discrete, noticeable event. Stretchers became available, and the number of arriving Covid-19 patients dropped below the number discharged, transferred or deceased,” he said.
TELEMMGLPICT000230808868_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqEDjTm7JpzhSGR1_8ApEWQA1vLvhkMtVb21dMmpQBfEs.jpegimwidth=480

Dr Daniel J Murphy of the St Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx, Brooklyn, says New York should start to get back to normal CREDIT: St Barnabas
“This was striking, because the community I serve is poor. Most work in ‘essential,’ low-paying jobs where distancing isn’t easy. Nevertheless, the wave passed over us, peaked and subsided.
“The way this transpired tells me the ebb and flow had more to do with the natural course of the outbreak than it did with the lockdown,” he said.
His observation appeared to be supported by figures released on Wednesday by Governor Andrew Cuomo, which showed the majority of people who are still being hospitalised with the virus across the state were staying at home and not essential workers.
The survey of 1,269 patients admitted to 113 hospitals over three recent days - the first such look at people getting seriously ill despite six weeks of severe social distancing - confounded expectations.
Retirees accounted for 37 per cent of the people hospitalised. Another 46 per cent were unemployed. Almost three-quarters were 51 years or older. Only 17 per cent were working.
Just four per cent were still using public transportation in their daily life, though it also noted that information on transit use was only available for about half the people surveyed.
The data has prompted questions of how effective the lockdown has been and for how much longer it will be necessary.
“Covid-19 is also more prevalent than we think. Many New Yorkers already have the infection, whether they are aware of it or not,” Dr Murphy said.
A recent antibody sample study which showed that one-in-five residents of New York City had likely already had the virus.
“As of today, over 43 per cent of those tested are positive in The Bronx. We are developing a significant degree of natural herd immunity,” he said. “Distancing works, but I am skeptical that it is playing as predominant a role as many think.”
As states across the US began opening up this week - with mixed results - New York is set to remain closed until the middle of the month.
TELEMMGLPICT000228669181_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqrQxcDHqZ1D9rc51SGqPCxsFU3bINKq_n31hSfI74DlU.jpegimwidth=480

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has a three-phase approach to reopening the state, which could begin on May 15 CREDIT: Reuters
Mr Cuomo said the state can only progress to “Phase One” once seven requirements were met, including recording a 14-day decline in hospitalisations; an availability rate for intensive care unit beds of at least 30 per cent; and at least 30 working contact tracers per 100,000 residents.
So far it has only met three and is some way off meeting the other four, raising the prospect it could be under severe restrictions for weeks, if not months, to come.
Bill de Blasio, New York’s mayor, warned it looked as if life would not return to normal until September at the earliest.
Virologists and other health experts, however, are expressing growing dread over what they say is an all-but-certain second wave of deaths and infections that could force states to clamp back down.
"We're risking a backslide that will be intolerable," said Dr Ian Lipkin of Columbia University's Center for Infection and Immunity.
The US has recorded over 70,000 deaths and 1.2 million confirmed infections.
This week, the researchers behind a widely cited model from the University of Washington nearly doubled their projection of deaths in the US to around 134,000 through early August, in large part because of the easing of state stay-at-home orders.
Dr Lipkin said preventing outbreaks will require aggressive contact tracing powered by armies of public health workers hundreds of thousands of people strong, which the US currently does not have.
Dr Farhat said he thought a second wave would not be as bad as the first, in part, he offered, because of what doctors have learned. “We are much better prepared now, and have started to figure out what works and what doesn’t,” he said.
“There is a much greater immunity rate now too,” he said, while the elderly population, particularly those in nursing homes, has already been disproportionately affected.
Both talk about the serious longer term effects of a prolonged shutdown. “The lasting impact is what worries me the most,” said Dr Murphy.
The lockdown has decimated the economy, a factor both doctors said could hurt both physical and mental health and should not be downplayed.
TELEMMGLPICT000230808856_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqNJjoeBT78QIaYdkJdEY4CnGTJFJS74MYhNY6w3GNbO8.jpegimwidth=480

Dr Samir Farhat runs the emergency department at New York Community Hospital, which has seen a drop in patients since the initial surge in late March-early April
One in five working New York City residents will lose their jobs by the end of next month because of the avirus, Comptroller Scott Stringer predicted in an alarming new fiscal report.
This quarter will see a 22 per cent unemployment rate — the highest in the city’s postwar history.
Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton, said officials need to think about the consequences other than in terms of deaths. “I think the consequences are horrific, in terms of unemployment in particular, which has been shown to have a very serious effect on well-being, and particularly for poorer people.
“Yes, people will die if we open up, but the consequences of not opening up are so severe that maybe we’ve got to do it anyway.” he told the New York Times.
The trade-off is already being made for essential workers, the majority of whom are low-wage. The calculations around reopening are, to some extent, about how comfortable we are with the professional classes becoming part of the trade-off, as Vanita Gupta, president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, put it.
The doctors the Telegraph spoke to stressed it was not simply a matter of reopening overnight.
“Life has to change, we don’t just spring back to normal,” Dr Farhat said. “We need to wear masks as a habit, scale up testing, and really consider whether we strictly need to travel.”
Mr Coumo has already warned there will have to be a “new normal” after the lockdown is eased, rather than a return to life as New Yorkers knew it.
“We can’t wait for a vaccine that may not come for two years, if it comes at all,” Dr Farhat said. A report out this week revealed a third of Americans would not get a vaccine even if there was one available.
“We just have to figure out a way to live with this,” the doctor said.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...e-worst-hit-city-world-say-time-end-shutdown/
 
Nothing to do with population densities, BAME % ,ageing population or social gathering propensity then ?
Those are just groupings within the overall statistics....as testing is being expanded we are seeing the number of new detected infections increase...from the BBC stats at least an average of 4000+ a day which indicates that there are thousands of infected people out there who never suffered enough to need hospitalisation even with the lockdown....at best, and it is debatable, all the lockdown has done is slowed the inevitable death toll...we will see.
 
So with no lockdown the death figures would be not significantly worse, is that your point ?
Yes, but until we know or can predict accurately from collected data based upon a large random sample of blood tests what the real IFR is the panic predictions will continue.

it may well be that we would have seen a spike in deaths earlier just as they did in Sweden, but as seems likely, although the infection rates may have increased, the majority of those infected would not have required hospital treatment and their immunity would help to kill off infection rates far quicker than the lockdown has done...ie:the R value would have been lower quicker....that’s really the view of many eminent European and US scientists, not me, although I agree with them.
 
Harry , at some indeterminate point in the future, probably not in our lifetimes as the information will be kept under lock and key, it will be revealed that the western world suffered the most self destructive damage imaginable due to fantasy predictions, mass hysteria and a childish reluctance by politicians and professors alike to admit that they got it wrong and badly over reacted.

Of this I am certain and have been since day one.
I agree Chiv....bad science, focusing on the wrong issues and not concentrating on collecting the necessary data led us to where we are and the inability of those in charge to admit their mistakes is just going to compound the situation.....as you say though, we likely won’t learn the truth anytime soon.

In my view the MSM also are the biggest hypocrites in this....there seem to be an endless stream of investigative journalists reporting on ‘scandals’ which mostly are inconsequential but such a major issue as this and not one dissenting voice.
 
Yes, but until we know or can predict accurately from collected data based upon a large random sample of blood tests what the real IFR is the panic predictions will continue.

it may well be that we would have seen a spike in deaths earlier just as they did in Sweden, but as seems likely, although the infection rates may have increased, the majority of those infected would not have required hospital treatment and their immunity would help to kill off infection rates far quicker than the lockdown has done...ie:the R value would have been lower quicker....that’s really the view of many eminent European and US scientists, not me, although I agree with them.

We didnt have the capacity or PPE in the NHS to deal with an uncontrolled outbreak. Many more deaths both on the frontline and patients due to lack of staff and ICU places with respiratory care could have been the result. The govt couldn't gamble on that. From a humanitarian point of view the govts job is to protect the public. I am not happy with the govts response die to lack of preparedness but to just let it take its course is not a concept I can agree with.
 
Is the chilling truth that the decision to impose lockdown was based on crude mathematical guesswork?
10 MAY

Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College “stepped back” from the Sage group advising ministers when his lockdown-busting romantic trysts were exposed. Perhaps he should have been dropped for a more consequential misstep. Details of the model his team built to predict the epidemic are emerging and they are not pretty. In the respective words of four experienced modellers, the code is “deeply riddled” with bugs, “a fairly arbitrary Heath Robinson machine”, has “huge blocks of code – bad practice” and is “quite possibly the worst production code I have ever seen”.
When ministers make statements about coronavirus policy they invariably say that they are “following the science”. But cutting-edge science is messy and unclear, a contest of ideas arbitrated by facts, a process of conjecture and refutation. This is not new. Almost two centuries ago Thomas Huxley described the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
In this case, that phrase “the science” effectively means the Imperial College model, forecasting potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths, on the output of which the Government instituted the lockdown in March. Sage’s advice has a huge impact on the lives of millions. Yet the committee meets in private, publishes no minutes, and until it was put under pressure did not even release the names of its members. We were making decisions based on the output of a black box, and a locked one at that.

It has become commonplace among financial forecasters, the Treasury, climate scientists, and epidemiologists to cite the output of mathematical models as if it was “evidence”. The proper use of models is to test theories of complex systems against facts. If instead we are going to use models for forecasting and policy, we must be able to check that they are accurate, particularly when they drive life and death decisions. This has not been the case with the Imperial College model.
At the time of the lockdown, the model had not been released to the scientific community. When Ferguson finally released his code last week, it was a reorganised program different from the version run on March 16.
It is not as if Ferguson’s track record is good. In 2001 the Imperial College team’s modelling led to the culling of 6 million livestock and was criticised by epidemiological experts as severely flawed. In various years in the early 2000s Ferguson predicted up to 136,000 deaths from mad cow disease, 200 million from bird flu and 65,000 from swine flu. The final death toll in each case was in the hundreds. In this case, when a Swedish team applied the modified model that Imperial put into the public domain to Sweden’s strategy, it predicted 40,000 deaths by May 1 – 15 times too high.

We now know that the model’s software is a 13-year-old, 15,000-line program that simulates homes, offices, schools, people and movements. According to a team at Edinburgh University which ran the model, the same inputs give different outputs, and the program gives different results if it is run on different machines, and even if it is run on the same machine using different numbers of central-processing units.

Worse, the code does not allow for large variations among groups of people with respect to their susceptibility to the virus and their social connections. An infected nurse in a hospital is likely to transmit the virus to many more people than an asymptomatic child. Introducing such heterogeneity shows that the threshold to achieve herd immunity with modest social distancing is much lower than the 50-60 per cent implied by the Ferguson model. One experienced modeller tells us that “my own modelling suggests that somewhere between 10 per cent and 30 per cent would suffice, depending on what assumptions one makes.”
Data from Sweden support this. Despite only moderate social-distancing measures, the epidemic stopped growing in Stockholm County by mid-April, and has since shrunk significantly, implying that the herd immunity threshold was reached at a point when around 20 per cent of the population was immune, according to estimates by the Swedish public health authority.
The almost covert nature of the scientific debate within Sage, the opaque programming methods of the Imperial team, the unavailability of the code for testing and review at the point of decision, the untested assumptions built into the model, all leave us with a worrying question. Did we base one of the biggest peacetime policy decisions on crude mathematical guesswork?



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ion-impose-lockdown-based-crude-mathematical/
 
I agree Chiv....bad science, focusing on the wrong issues and not concentrating on collecting the necessary data led us to where we are and the inability of those in charge to admit their mistakes is just going to compound the situation.....as you say though, we likely won’t learn the truth anytime soon.

In my view the MSM also are the biggest hypocrites in this....there seem to be an endless stream of investigative journalists reporting on ‘scandals’ which mostly are inconsequential but such a major issue as this and not one dissenting voice.

Do we know how long immunity lasts ? Do we know how contagious a carrier is ? We dont know enough about it at all. I go with containment until a vaccine is available, then re vaccine if required. There is also plasma research going on and drug treatments being assessed.
China had to seal off Wuhan, and prevent travel. They also had PPE stocks, they are more used to govt orders over the public and obeying. We have not been strict enough. People have been flying in with no quarantine FFS.
 
Is the chilling truth that the decision to impose lockdown was based on crude mathematical guesswork?
10 MAY

Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College “stepped back” from the Sage group advising ministers when his lockdown-busting romantic trysts were exposed. Perhaps he should have been dropped for a more consequential misstep. Details of the model his team built to predict the epidemic are emerging and they are not pretty. In the respective words of four experienced modellers, the code is “deeply riddled” with bugs, “a fairly arbitrary Heath Robinson machine”, has “huge blocks of code – bad practice” and is “quite possibly the worst production code I have ever seen”.
When ministers make statements about coronavirus policy they invariably say that they are “following the science”. But cutting-edge science is messy and unclear, a contest of ideas arbitrated by facts, a process of conjecture and refutation. This is not new. Almost two centuries ago Thomas Huxley described the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
In this case, that phrase “the science” effectively means the Imperial College model, forecasting potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths, on the output of which the Government instituted the lockdown in March. Sage’s advice has a huge impact on the lives of millions. Yet the committee meets in private, publishes no minutes, and until it was put under pressure did not even release the names of its members. We were making decisions based on the output of a black box, and a locked one at that.

It has become commonplace among financial forecasters, the Treasury, climate scientists, and epidemiologists to cite the output of mathematical models as if it was “evidence”. The proper use of models is to test theories of complex systems against facts. If instead we are going to use models for forecasting and policy, we must be able to check that they are accurate, particularly when they drive life and death decisions. This has not been the case with the Imperial College model.
At the time of the lockdown, the model had not been released to the scientific community. When Ferguson finally released his code last week, it was a reorganised program different from the version run on March 16.
It is not as if Ferguson’s track record is good. In 2001 the Imperial College team’s modelling led to the culling of 6 million livestock and was criticised by epidemiological experts as severely flawed. In various years in the early 2000s Ferguson predicted up to 136,000 deaths from mad cow disease, 200 million from bird flu and 65,000 from swine flu. The final death toll in each case was in the hundreds. In this case, when a Swedish team applied the modified model that Imperial put into the public domain to Sweden’s strategy, it predicted 40,000 deaths by May 1 – 15 times too high.

We now know that the model’s software is a 13-year-old, 15,000-line program that simulates homes, offices, schools, people and movements. According to a team at Edinburgh University which ran the model, the same inputs give different outputs, and the program gives different results if it is run on different machines, and even if it is run on the same machine using different numbers of central-processing units.

Worse, the code does not allow for large variations among groups of people with respect to their susceptibility to the virus and their social connections. An infected nurse in a hospital is likely to transmit the virus to many more people than an asymptomatic child. Introducing such heterogeneity shows that the threshold to achieve herd immunity with modest social distancing is much lower than the 50-60 per cent implied by the Ferguson model. One experienced modeller tells us that “my own modelling suggests that somewhere between 10 per cent and 30 per cent would suffice, depending on what assumptions one makes.”
Data from Sweden support this. Despite only moderate social-distancing measures, the epidemic stopped growing in Stockholm County by mid-April, and has since shrunk significantly, implying that the herd immunity threshold was reached at a point when around 20 per cent of the population was immune, according to estimates by the Swedish public health authority.
The almost covert nature of the scientific debate within Sage, the opaque programming methods of the Imperial team, the unavailability of the code for testing and review at the point of decision, the untested assumptions built into the model, all leave us with a worrying question. Did we base one of the biggest peacetime policy decisions on crude mathematical guesswork?



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ion-impose-lockdown-based-crude-mathematical/
Didn’t see any prominence given to this in the news this morning....however, better late than never...should have been on their front page...kind of blows a hole in Ferguson’s model from a technical viewpoint, just as all the vested interests try to do to other modelling which contradicts the official narrative.
 
Do we know how long immunity lasts ? Do we know how contagious a carrier is ? We dont know enough about it at all. I go with containment until a vaccine is available, then re vaccine if required. There is also plasma research going on and drug treatments being assessed.
China had to seal off Wuhan, and prevent travel. They also had PPE stocks, they are more used to govt orders over the public and obeying. We have not been strict enough. People have been flying in with no quarantine FFS.
Most rational scientists are going with the accepted view that antibodies produced as a result of having had the disease may only protect for 3 years worst case, and that there may be differing levels of antibodies in individuals which may only offer a weaker response to a new infection but will certainly make its effect weaker....however, most of these individuals will not be spreading the virus right now so this will reduce the infection rate until a vaccine is ready..

Nick, you always have the option to self isolate until a vaccine is available if that is what you want to do...I respect your right to do that...but I don’t think the rest of the economy and society should be shut down until that is available, let alone allowing this terror campaign to go on killing people not due to Covid-19 at the rate it appears to be doing....I think I saw someone speaking on behalf of the cancer community saying that if this stupidity continues, the cancer death rates will outstrip Covid deaths.....
 
Most rational scientists are going with the accepted view that antibodies produced as a result of having had the disease may only protect for 3 years worst case, and that there may be differing levels of antibodies in individuals which may only offer a weaker response to a new infection but will certainly make its effect weaker....however, most of these individuals will not be spreading the virus right now so this will reduce the infection rate until a vaccine is ready..

Nick, you always have the option to self isolate until a vaccine is available if that is what you want to do...I respect your right to do that...but I don’t think the rest of the economy and society should be shut down until that is available, let alone allowing this terror campaign to go on killing people not due to Covid-19 at the rate it appears to be doing....I think I saw someone speaking on behalf of the cancer community saying that if this stupidity continues, the cancer death rates will outstrip Covid deaths.....



Professor Philip Thomas from the University of Bristol estimates 3 times as many people will die as result of the measures taken against Covid 1984 as will die from the virus itself.
 
Most rational scientists are going with the accepted view that antibodies produced as a result of having had the disease may only protect for 3 years worst case, and that there may be differing levels of antibodies in individuals which may only offer a weaker response to a new infection but will certainly make its effect weaker....however, most of these individuals will not be spreading the virus right now so this will reduce the infection rate until a vaccine is ready..

Nick, you always have the option to self isolate until a vaccine is available if that is what you want to do...I respect your right to do that...but I don’t think the rest of the economy and society should be shut down until that is available, let alone allowing this terror campaign to go on killing people not due to Covid-19 at the rate it appears to be doing....I think I saw someone speaking on behalf of the cancer community saying that if this stupidity continues, the cancer death rates will outstrip Covid deaths.....

I will carry on doing what the govt tells me to to do.
 
Whether the figures are skewed or not we only have the 4 million cases against 277,000 deaths to go on. That's over 7.5 % death rate for those that get infected worldwide. The infection figures are going to be higher, but so are the death figures. That's with lockdown in most countries.