Generic Virus Thread

[sidcow]

8 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

coronavirus.data.gov will give you the data you need.

We had 26,300, 27,357, 25,857 cases on 14th, 15th and 16th which appears to be the peak in London. 22,000 cases yesterday is a slight drop from the peak. The key is that it has stopped the massive growth based on the last 7 days data at least

Ah, OK.

I do mistrust Monday figures though due to weekend lags but let's see what happens.

[bickster]

Just now, CVByrne said:

No, I said it helps prevent infection. It also helps those who get infected to have no symptoms. The latter part is what was estimated at 70-75% because they can go look at those who have had booster, have caught covid and then what symptoms did they have. 

First two words of what you wrote "It does" (as evidenced in my quote.) You've subsequently edited it to say something completely different (21 minutes AFTER I quoted it). You are Dominic Cummings, I claim my £5

 

[The Fun Factory]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Ah, OK.

I do mistrust Monday figures though due to weekend lags but let's see what happens.

I don't like Mondays

[CVByrne]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Ah, OK.

I do mistrust Monday figures though due to weekend lags but let's see what happens.

Yes, the Tuesday numbers are always the highest due to the weekend effect. They do attribute these to the specimen date in the official data but it takes 4-5 days before that completes. 

I still think the key is the number of people in hospital with Covid. That piece of data for London on Friday 24th should show a big step jump if these cases are translating into hospital admissions at the 2% rate we've seen in autumn for Delta

[CVByrne]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

First two words of what you wrote "It does" (as evidenced in my quote.) You've subsequently edited it to say something completely different (21 minutes AFTER I quoted it). You are Dominic Cummings, I claim my £5

 

I edited it to be more descriptive. As simply saying "It does" could then have been misconstrued as it only stops people getting infection. 

It's quite clear it stops people getting infected, it also stops people getting symptoms and it also stops people having a severe disease, and prevents dying. All to differing degrees and not all easily measurable with the scientific method. 

You aren't disagreeing with the above point so I think it's made now. 

[bickster]

Just now, CVByrne said:

I edited it to be more descriptive.

No, you edited it to say something completely different. The evidence is all there. Would you like a bigger spade?

 

[Xann]

5 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Well nothing seems to be being either exploited or manufactured.

Not sure you're getting the gist of the post?

Right, so the situation where the chums made billions from dodgy PPE (causing thousands of extra deaths and ignoring UK suppliers) and Dido's failed MS Excel Track and Trace wasn't the situation being exploited by our government, and it it didn't shake your faith in them?

It seems like quite a big trust issue to me, and something that could certainly be exploited by a foreign power.

Quote

Russian and Chinese media are systematically seeking to sow mistrust in Western COVID-19 vaccines in their latest disinformation campaigns

Reuters

I chose Reuters because they're known, search the obvious terms, there's quite a bit out there about disinformation campaigns now.

The Finns, on Russia's doorstep, are now getting public information briefings on recognising disinformation on social media.

[CVByrne]

Unvaccinated ‘very likely’ to get Covid this winter, says Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter – Channel 4 News

Interesting point in that many people in London going into hospital for a different reason are then testing positive for Covid. So they are counted in the stats but the reason they went to hospital isn't because of covid. So we will over report cases as a result

[sidcow]

4 minutes ago, Xann said:

Not sure you're getting the gist of the post?

Right, so the situation where the chums made billions from dodgy PPE (causing thousands of extra deaths and ignoring UK suppliers) and Dido's failed MS Excel Track and Trace wasn't the situation being exploited by our government, and it it didn't shake your faith in them?

It seems like quite a big trust issue to me, and something that could certainly be exploited by a foreign power.

Reuters

I chose Reuters because they're known, search the obvious terms, there's quite a bit out there about disinformation campaigns now.

The Finns, on Russia's doorstep, are now getting public information briefings on recognising disinformation on social media.

OK, this I agree with.

The Government have caused untold damage with their ridiculous antics causing mistrust in them.

This seems to mainly translate into "I'm not having the Vaccine" or "I'm not going to lockdown" or "I'm not wearing a mask" because I don't trust them because of how they've been acting.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are showing nothing but reluctance to lockdown and the proposal that they will try and maintain it to control us is laughable.

[sidcow]

3 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Unvaccinated ‘very likely’ to get Covid this winter, says Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter – Channel 4 News

Interesting point in that many people in London going into hospital for a different reason are then testing positive for Covid. So they are counted in the stats but the reason they went to hospital isn't because of covid. So we will over report cases as a result

That's always ben the case though with other variants too.

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

They turn the column blue when it is complete data and have it grey when incomplete. There is some variation between the reported cases that day and the official numbers a few days later. The variation is usually small though in % terms under 10-15%. So what we've seen from recent London case data is pointing to an R rate around 1 at worst. 

Looking at the data, I’m not seeing that

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=region&areaName=London

We know that the last few days data is incomplete. As such the trend in these last 5 days cannot be ascertained yet. It is theoretically possible that cases in London have suddenly declined, but far more likely that they have not ( from the data available). I’m writing this from a phone, so it’s difficult to capture why with the mini website, but I’ll try.

All the trends are up, with the caveat about the incomplete data for the past few days, meaning we do not yet know how much bigger the yellow portions of the top graph will get. Like I say it’s possible, theoretically that they will not increase with any further yet to be counted cases, but it seems unlikely at this point

[CVByrne]

3 minutes ago, sidcow said:

That's always ben the case though with other variants too.

Bigger impact this time though given the number of asymptomatic cases is much higher than before

[blandy]

Just now, CVByrne said:

Bigger impact this time though given the number of asymptomatic cases is much higher than before

Asymptomatic cases are mostly not picked up, almost by definition. Most testing is done on people who fall ill. Most people with no symptoms will not be tested, as the reason to do so is missing (for the majority).

[Xann]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

This seems to mainly translate into "I'm not having the Vaccine" or "I'm not going to lockdown" or "I'm not wearing a mask" because I don't trust them because of how they've been acting.

Yes! Against a background of antivax propaganda being pushed and proliferated across social media by our not friends in the East.

So our antivaxer goes out, gets infected and a proportion of them end up in hospital, stretching our resources.

That's how we're cutting our own throats.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You've literally written that it does prevent you contracting covid, then immediately quoted at statistic that says it doesn't

Someone with non-symptomatic COVID (which the booster does not prevent) is still capable of spreading the virus (at a much reduced rate)

If something prevents 70-75% of symptomatic cases that means that it doesn't prevent 25-30%

So you are incorrect in saying that it does prevent you contracting Covid, when quite clearly it doesn't. It gives you a better chance of having milder symptoms, thats it. No prevention

On this, don’t we need to be specific about what we mean by “catching Covid”?  Because ( personally) I’d assume that to mean this : a person exhibiting Covid symptoms & who has tested positive via PCR test, or a person who is carrying the virus, but exhibits no symptoms, but NOT a person who has come into contact with viral contaminated air or aerosol yet whose defences have held up and prevented the virus taking hold in their system. Essentially that they have immediately fought off the virus contained within the aerosol particles they breathed in. 
If anyone knows what the proper definition is, I’d be interested.

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, Xann said:

Yes! Against a background of antivax propaganda being pushed and proliferated across social media by our not friends in the East.

So our antivaxer goes out, gets infected and a proportion of them end up in hospital, stretching our resources.

That's how we're cutting our own throats.

So what should be done about it?  Social media is full of people saying don’t trust the BBC it’s biased, for example. It’s full of people saying “the state should leave people to make their own decisions” and shouting “censorship” and “free speech”. Many of those people are well meaning, but, how to put this politely, unwilling or unable to consider the wider picture around maintaining trust in expertise, around collective interest or around the role of “the state” in our lives. 

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

On this, don’t we need to be specific about what we mean by “catching Covid”?  Because ( personally) I’d assume that to mean this : a person exhibiting Covid symptoms & who has tested positive via PCR test, or a person who is carrying the virus, but exhibits no symptoms, but NOT a person who has come into contact with viral contaminated air or aerosol yet whose defences have held up and prevented the virus taking hold in their system. Essentially that they have immediately fought off the virus contained within the aerosol particles they breathed in. 
If anyone knows what the proper definition is, I’d be interested.

I'd agree but that is not "It prevents you catching Covid"  which was the point I was disagreeing with and has subsequently been Cummingsed. The booster does not 100% stop you from getting symptomatic Covid

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I'd agree but that is not "It prevents you catching Covid"  which was the point I was disagreeing with and has subsequently been Cummingsed. The booster does not 100% stop you from getting symptomatic Covid

I genuinely don’t know. If by dint of having been triple jabbed some people react as I wrote, by fighting off the virus’s efforts to get in their system then that would be “prevented them catching Covid/becoming infected or infectious” wouldn’t it?  Do we know the answer, or are we arguing about the unknown?

[sidcow]

 

[bickster]

Just now, blandy said:

I genuinely don’t know. If by dint of having been triple jabbed some people react as I wrote, by fighting off the virus’s efforts to get in their system then that would be “prevented them catching Covid/becoming infected or infectious” wouldn’t it?  Do we know the answer, or are we arguing about the unknown?

We're arguing whether the booster does or does not prevent COVID infection. It may prevent some or even most but not all. It may also reduce COVID infection from symptomatic to non-symptomatic or reduce the severity of symptomatic infection

It's never to my knowledge been claimed that it prevents infection.