Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

blowitupref

hmmm wrote: »

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994761/18_June_2021_Risk_assessment_for_SARS-CoV-2_variant_DELTA.pdf
Proven to be significantly more transmissible. Has risen to be over 90% of UK cases very quickly.

Possibly more likely to lead to hospitalisation.

Vaccines are still effective against it (but you're more likely to be symptomatic).

The government will have learned its lesson after last December. I expect they'll be looking at the data closely over the next few weeks, and we're also pushing out second vaccines doses on an accelerated schedule.

There is a vast difference between more transmissible and more dangerous. Not sure how much can be learnt from December when nobody was vaccinated.

VinLieger

hmmm wrote: »

There is a time delay between when people get infected and might have to go to hospital.

Do we really have to have this conversation. Again? For the third time?

Leave your condescension at the door it doesn't make you seem smarter, I'll ask you again to provide proof that delat leads to. More hospitalizations, since this is the third time I've done so and if you chose to ignore the request again I'll tak it as an admission that you know you are talking out of your arse but still chose to spread lies irregardless.

Ballynally

Arghus wrote: »

Cormac O' Somethingorother.

I've heard him a few times, he seems to be quite bad at being relentlessly adversarial to whoever he's talking to. But not even in an intelligent and perceptive way.

There was no value to a segment like that where it was attack, attack, attack with zero actual analysis.

The worst part of it is of course if the politician had said, yes, we will delay reopening, then he would have immediately flipped the conversation into one of why is government being so OTT etc, etc.

Then again, I shouldn't be so naive, the guest knows what he's in for and the presenter knows what the guest has been told to say, so it's all a bit of a pantomime at the end of the day.

Well, it is the adversarial style that makes interviewers look tough but usually misses the point because too busy with pontificating his or her own view so that the interviewee switches off, often looking calmer than the interviewer.
The right way to do it is to be well informed, making the interviewee come out of the cage and say something interesting if they feel listened to.
Then the interviewer needs to dig in and present an alternative vision going into details uncomfortable for the interviewee. That creates a good and positive tension for the audience.
However, most general interviewers follow some sort of script with a nr of questions they have to go through in a given time slot, not actually listening to the answers.
If you are both adversarial and badly informed the classic example how not to do an interview was channel 4's Cathy Newman w Jordan Peterson.

VinLieger

hmmm wrote: »

A virus which spreads 60% faster is automatically going to be "more dangerous" as it encounters unvaccinated populations.

That's fallacious, for example if a hypothetical virus that has zero symptoms suddenly spreads 60% faster how is it suddenly more dangerous?

hmmm

VinLieger wrote: »

Leave your condescension at the door it doesn't make you seem smarter, I'll ask you again to provide proof that delat leads to. More hospitalizations, since this is the third time I've done so and if you chose to ignore the request again I'll tak it as an admission that you know you are talking out of your arse but still chose to spread lies irregardless.

I said it "possibly" leads to more hospitalisations.

That's exactly what the UK VoC risk assessment I posted above says. If you scroll back up you'll see the link.

We don't have enough data yet on hospitalisations to make a conclusion. We have enough data to say it spreads faster.

namloc1980

On the 1st March the 7 day moving average of new cases was c.620 and has come down now to c.320. Meanwhile hospital numbers in that time have plummeted from 500 to 39. And yet we still have people shouting about cases and hiding under their beds.

eagle eye

VinLieger wrote:

Here's my statement, there is no evidence to backup his claim, if you disagree then it's up to you to prove me wrong and show me the evidence.

What qualifications have you got?

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

What qualifications have you got?

I thought replying with a question was ridiculous?

TefalBrain

hmmm wrote: »

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994761/18_June_2021_Risk_assessment_for_SARS-CoV-2_variant_DELTA.pdf
Proven to be significantly more transmissible. Has risen to be over 90% of UK cases very quickly.

Possibly more likely to lead to hospitalisation.

Vaccines are still effective against it (but you're more likely to be symptomatic).

The government will have learned its lesson after last December. I expect they'll be looking at the data closely over the next few weeks, and we're also pushing out second vaccines doses on an accelerated schedule.

So you just put more dangerous in there for the hell of it.

Carry on.

TefalBrain

hmmm wrote: »

I said it "possibly" leads to more hospitalisations.

That's exactly what the UK VoC risk assessment I posted above says. If you scroll back up you'll see the link.

We don't have enough data yet on hospitalisations to make a conclusion. We have enough data to say it spreads faster.

I could possibly date a model

I could possibly play for United

I could possibly win the lotto

Possibly

eagle eye

VinLieger wrote:

I thought replying with a question was ridiculous?

Not to a statement. You made a statement and I asked a question.
I asked a question and was questioned on it.
Unreal that I have to explain that.

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

Not to a statement. You made a statement and I asked a question.
I asked a question and was questioned on it.
Unreal that I have to explain that.

Unreal that I have to point out asking someone to prove a negative is absurd but here we are.

eagle eye

VinLieger wrote:

Unreal that I have to point out asking someone to prove a negative is absurd but here we are.

The guy works in the relevant field and you with no qualifications are disagreeing with him.
You have to back it up with hard facts or gtfo.

TheDoctor

eagle eye wrote: »

The guy works in the relevant field and you with no qualifications are disagreeing with him.
You have to back it up with hard facts or gtfo.

He made the claim. The onus of proof is on him

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

The guy works in the relevant field and you with no qualifications are disagreeing with him.
You have to back it up with hard facts or gtfo.

Yes I'm saying there's no evidence to back up what he claimed, if you disagree show me the evidence that agrees with his claim that 1 in 10 young people who get covid will then also get long covid and I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

eagle eye

TheDoctor wrote:

He made the claim. The onus of proof is on him

No it's on the unqualified person to prove him wrong.

Working class heroes

eagle eye wrote: »

No it's on the unqualified person to prove him wrong.

Says who, you?

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

No it's on the unqualified person to prove him wrong.

Okay, there's no evidence that 1 in 10 young people who get covid will get long covid.

Boom. Done.

Now again if you can find anything that proves this wrong I'll gladly concede.

hmmm

TefalBrain wrote: »

I could possibly date a model

I could possibly play for United

I could possibly win the lotto

Possibly

This is how things are in an uncertain world, we can't rely on simplistic certainties. Science works by collecting data (which takes time) and drawing conclusions from that data.

We have enough data to know the Delta variant spreads faster. We don't have enough data to prove whether it increases hospitalisations or not, but initial data suggests it might do ("Complementary analyses undertaken in England and Scotland found an increased risk of hospitalisation in cases who were S gene target positive (Scotland) or had sequence confirmed Delta variant infection (England)") https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994839/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_16.pdf

Any sensible government is going to take a bit of time to consider the data before making a decision - and also it looks like we are rushing second vaccines for our most vulnerable population which also makes sense.

Ballynally

Arghus wrote: »

Something that is more transmissible isn't necessarily more dangerous at an individual level, but it is a population level, because it has the capacity to infect more people in a shorter space relative to other varients

That's what makes it more dangerous.

blowitupref wrote: »

There is a vast difference between more transmissible and more dangerous. Not sure how much can be learnt from December when nobody was vaccinated.

hmmm wrote: »

A virus which spreads 60% faster is automatically going to be "more dangerous" as it encounters unvaccinated populations.

It is actually very hard to pinpoint the exact trajectory. The data used to make the equation are variable and depend on the specific factors and a precise time frame. Other than that it is also not stable so predictions are almost impossible to make short or even medium term even though people claim to know these things. 'Dangerous' is such a loose word as to be useless.
There simply is no definite answer.
What you CAN say (and i often have) is that, over time pandemics peter out and might become endemic. The mechanism there is that virus variants, arriving through natural selection will become better at transmission w either higher loads and/or better entanglement. Coming with all that is a shorter incubation time, around 3-5 days with a higher initial impact with a lesser stage 2 cytokine storm and lesser lethal effect (deaths). So, that early transmission time of SarsCov2 of 10-12 days is reduced to something resembling influenza.
But, as i stated in the beginning, the variables are flexible right now.
As far as my opinion goes, you can dismiss any certainty someone is claiming to have and that includes health officials.
What is left is the certainty of uncertainty. Modelling can but is often not sufficiently robust to make predictions but is a useful tool, especially in presentations to the public, though i am skeptical of its validity. It seems an easy hole to fall in.
Right now the outlook is looking rather good. I dont see any significant reason why that would change, looking at the UK where the Delta variant seems to have peaked.

eagle eye

VinLieger wrote:

Yes I'm saying there's no evidence to back up what he claimed, if you disagree show me the evidence that agrees with his claim that 1 in 10 young people who get covid will then also get long covid and I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

A person with qualifications made a statement, you, an unqualified person, says he's wrong.
If an artist told me that oil based paint would be best for my canvas and you told me water based would be I'd take the word of the artist unless you could prove you were right.
Similarly I'll take the word of the expert here over your belief unless you can prove him wrong.

TheDoctor

eagle eye wrote: »

No it's on the unqualified person to prove him wrong.

I have a qualifications that is numbers based.

I say that 3 comes directly after 1.

I won’t provide proof of this but anyone without a qualification that is numbers based can’t question it

eagle eye

VinLieger wrote:

Okay, there's no evidence that 1 in 10 young people who get covid will get long covid.

Can you provide a link to prove that.

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

Can you provide a link to prove that.

No cus as I've said several times no there's no evidence to prove what he said is true so....

Do you still not understand why the concept of proving a negative is absurd?

eagle eye

VinLieger wrote:

No cus as I've said several times no there's no evidence to prove what he said is true so....

Do you still not understand why the concept of proving a negative is absurd?

Are you telling me you have no proof that he's wrong?
No proof of actual numbers of the amount of young people who have statistically got long covid?
How can you know he is wrong then?

eagle eye

TheDoctor wrote: »

I have a qualifications that is numbers based.

I say that 3 comes directly after 1.

I won’t provide proof of this but anyone without a qualification that is numbers based can’t question it

Well I disagree and here's a link to prove it.
https://www.math-only-math.com/order-of-numbers.html

TheDoctor

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you telling me you have no proof that he's wrong?
No proof of actual numbers of the amount of young people who have statistically got long covid?
How can you know he is wrong then?

Can’t prove he’s wrong because he never presented evidence to support his claim.

TheDoctor

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I disagree and here's a link to prove it.
https://www.math-only-math.com/order-of-numbers.html

I don’t believe that is “evidence”. Sorry not good enough.

eagle eye

TheDoctor wrote: »

Can’t prove he’s wrong because he never presented evidence to support his claim.

He made a statement of fact that a doctor was wrong. I asked him to provide evidence.

TheDoctor

eagle eye wrote: »

He made a statement of fact that a doctor was wrong. I asked him to provide evidence.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-dubious-origins-of-long-covid-11616452583

Long covid is in people heads.