https://www.greeleytribune.com/2020/...sical-contact/
Printable View
I am sure when my car was being serviced and I was pootling round in a complementary Smart car I drove more carefully than when I was surrounded by a ton or more of steel cage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
An acquaintance of mine, who works for Sainsburys. remarked how they had had a marked increase in customer footfall recently, of people buying 'non-essentials' (books, cards, kitchen equipment, clothing, etc.) because presumably these customers are not currently able to purchase these items in smaller shops on their local high street. This has presented some social distancing issues within store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
He and I wondered how much better socially distanced these customers might have been visiting a myriad of smaller, less busy shops.
Still, while independent high street retailers considerably suffer the economic impact, supermarkets and on-line mega-retailers are raking it in. Ka-ching.
If the nanny state had a preference regarding our motoring habits (or indeed climbing, horse riding, fell running, etc.) it would be DON'T, in order to save lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I read that Joss Naylor, after his early age back injury, was advised similarly - which he completely disregarded, thankfully.
Many years ago, after my old dad had had his first heart attack, the young consultant in the hospital asked him if he did any regular exercise. "I play tennis" was his reply (which wasn't strictly true - I don't think he'd played any tennis for 10 years or more). "Oh, good, that's excellent, keep it up" was the consultant's response. A couple of weeks later he went to see his GP, an old Irish guy of the old school, who asked him a similar question. Wanting to be a bit more truthful, the reply this time was "I play bowls". The old doctor sucked his teeth, shook his head ruefully, and said "Oh, no, you'll have to stop that."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
What's the moral of this story? You have a choice, perhaps - 'don't tell the truth' or 'times change but not everyone keeps up with the changes'.
Or choose your doctor with care. My practice has a dozen GPs but I only let the hockey playing (nearly lost his licence driving his Porsche) chap near my body.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem
From Prof Christina Pagel:
"Lots of discussion over fairness of tier allocation and "balance" between economy and lives.
Let's remember where we were a few months ago…
Over the summer we were average about 10 new cases / 100K people / week. Quarantine from foreign destinations was triggered if they were above 20/100K cases. The *lowest* area in mainland England right now is at 59/100K (Cornwall). Almost everywhere is over 100/100K.
The rule of 6 was brought in across England on 14th September. Manchester went into tough restrictons on 16th Sept with case rate of 100/100K. From September to November the govt was trying to "balance" the economy and lives - against scientific advice to lockdown.
They tried all kinds of complicated measures designed to keep businesses open and covid in check. It didn't work.
The week to 14th September we had 75 deaths within 28 days of +ve covid test in England. In last 7 days it's 2,831.
The week to 14th September we had 18,635 cases. In the week to 5th Nov (lockdown2) we had 139,100. Hospital Covid occupancy is 80% of the April peak and admissions are still about 1000 a day.
So... cases and hospital admissions are now coming down which is excellent. BUT almost everywhere is still much higher than we were in mid Sept. It's not "fixed". The new tiers are trying to open some things while keeping things in right direction (DOWN).
This is hard! and it sucks. And if we had a better test, trace and isolate system it would be much easier. But we don't. And until we do, restrictions are necessary and they need to be tougher than pre lockdown because pre lockdown wasn't working!
The summary is that things got badly out of control in Sept & Oct, and we still have a long way to go…... "
We have had 2 autumn seasons that have been worse in terms of hospital admissions and deaths from flu in the last 6 years and that's WITH a flu vaccination program.
But hey, let's look at the average - that's what the lockdown crew say. Average excess deaths are higher than the 5 year average (probably to conveniently avoid counting the bad winter 6 years ago)
why not look at the worst 2 years we've had in the last 6?
Because the admissions and deaths attributed to flu would be greater than what we have now.
It's slight of hand to try and justify this ludicrous policy that is indefensible, built on a misrepresentation of dodgy data.
Attachment 8870
You can see in the Spring the dramatic effect of the Covid, being new, and getting particularly in to places where it could cause greatest harm..
But look at the Autumn and strangely the rise in Covid is mirrored by the drop on all other causes.
Couldn't be anything to do with cardiac deaths, other respiratory deaths, cancer deaths.... being put as Covid could it?
What data are you referring to here WP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Having “autumn seasons” that are worse than at present means naff all though. We’re having a bad ‘season’ with a 4 week lockdown, following on from months of social distancing and the small matter of a 3 month lockdown in the spring. This season would’ve have been a nightmare without all that don’t you think?
On a positive note though the ZOE app is showing really positive falls over all regions
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En5-yq7X...jpg&name=large
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...000/2015-11-25Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The bad "season" pre-dates the 4 week lockdown if you accept the Government figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
It doesn't pre-date the distancing though, but is the problem among the likes of you and me Stolly? It seems the majority that are in hospital "with" covid are catching it there or coming from a care home.
As for the 3 month lockdown in the Spring - what did it achieve? Less community resistance almost certainly which left us more exposed in the Autumn.
A Porsche? I've always considered people who drive a Porsche in the UK to be rather vulgar. I'm not sure I'd trust a Porsche-driving doctor even to wipe my backside, never mind look after any other part of my body. And I would have thought you'd want your GP to cycle in to the surgery every day. On a Bianchi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Well I consult him about my knees but oddly...he sold the Porsche before he appeared in court and said he had since been cycling to work but pleaded not to lose his license because of the affect it would have on his patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem
The make of bike was not reported in the Ilkley Gazette. I assume it was not a Porsche (available from a mere £2500!).:)
We had a Porsche driving vet up in Llani, not the most practical vehicle for remote farms in mid Wales but he certainly enjoyed driving it :D
Well obviously being a gentleman of refinement and gravitas I despise Porsche drivers but I do look at the Panamera and think "Well I could get my bike in the back of that so it would be quite practical":)Quote:
Originally Posted by molehill
I thought you were meant to ride a bike, not drive about with it in the boot of a Porsche from cafe to cafe. Though I suppose at a certain age one may legitimately let standards slip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Well I certainly hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by molehill
I am quite looking forward to being "a certain age" because maintaining my current high standards is, frankly, sometimes a bit of a trial.:)
Thanks. So that's 48,000 deaths in the worse flu year in recent history. During winter (I'm assuming that's three calendar months) so that's about 530 excess deaths a day. Similar to where we've been over the past few weeks. But I'm hoping that's a peak that the lock-down will bring down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
While this is helpful in terms of perspective, I still don't think that is an argument against lock-down. It's only this low because of lock-downs. If you allowed a few more doublings, we'd be at 2000 deaths a day, then 4000... At what point would you act if you were the government?
The problem is that they are bought by people who either want to look like they know how to throw a car about or people who want to look good rolling up at Booths. As a rule, anyone driving a Porsche newer than a 987 Boxster falls into this category. Post Boxster sales took off quite markedly and the cars began to fall into the sort of hands that used to buy Audis and Range Rovers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
There are a lot of Range Rovers in Ilkley. It's the off-road mountainous terrain and the months of deep snow we get round here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
There's some issues still to address.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The baby boomers are getting to the mid 70s now, so we have a growing elderly population and so deaths are increasing and have been for the last decade.
So looking at excess deaths has to be done in the context of an almost annual increase in deaths for 10 years.
We would have been expecting more deaths in 2020 anyway, so comparing to a previous 5 year average is inappropriate.
It's a little longer than 3 calendar months because you can track the start of the increase in general respiratory ailments to September.
So you might see (for example) a peak close to a 1000 a day lasting for a fortnight in December, but a spread of 4-5 months.
Back to School, back from holidays, Universities head back and it kicks off.
That start in September builds to December and quickly drops away usually in January. I think only once in recent years has the peak been as late as January - but it was a few weeks ago when I was looking at the analysis.
Cases were dropping pre-lockdown, just as they were back in March.
The normal trend for a autumn/winter virus is to build gradually in the community and quickly fizzle out, as it runs out of people to infect.
There's a further issue, they don't test for flu. So it's a public health statistical calculation. Mind you with the state of the testing and assessment of particularly care home deaths, we don't know how many have died "with" or of covid.
Of course we have had measures in place throughout, even if not full lockdown, but I've looked at a lot of graphs and charts out there, and it is impossible to find a graph where the date of a lockdown correlates to the change in the direction or rate of growth of the virus.
I posted a link to a video of Tom Woods a couple of days ago.
I watched it.
If you haven't time to watch the 20 minutes, head to about 11:30 in and watch the section on masks.
https://mises.org/library/covid-cult
Obligatory for the school run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Talking of Ilkley, has anyone seen this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
https://www.ilkleychat.co.uk/post/fi...lkley-released
https://www.comedy.co.uk/film/say-your-prayers
I haven't seen it, but the trailer looks as though it might be quite good. I'm not going to splash out £4.49 without doing extensive research, though. Hence my question.
Why would anyone want to look good going to the chemist's?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
From React-1:
R down to 0.88
"The results of these tests suggested a 30% fall in infections between the last study and the period of 13-24 November.
Before that, cases were accelerating - doubling every nine days when the study last reported at the end of October.
Now cases are coming down, but more slowly than they shot up - halving roughly every 37 days." - BBC News.
Every 37 days - I doubt the tiers will keep the R below 1 for long.
But cases clearly weren't doubling every nine days before that study. That is demonstrably incorrect. Positive cases as reported on the Government's website had slowed down markedly and new infections had started dropping per the weekly ONS pilot study and the ZOE covid symptom study. Indeed the creator of the ZOE study believe infections peaked before lockdwown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...efore-lockdown
If cases were doubling every nine days why isn't this now being reflected in the death figures?
From Deepti Gurdasani, Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology, re the Spectator article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
"This article is misleading in many ways- we know that cases had started declining in the north West prior to lockdown, but had been increasing in all other regions at the point we went into lockdown. The ONS data, REACT data all support this.
Even the figure in the Spectator piece - on infection in above 60s shows this. It also shows that the decline in the North-West was gradual, and became much steeper after lockdown, which is supported by the inferred R value dropping further after lockdown. Why is this important?
It's not sufficient for R to be at 1 when there is high transmission, or even just below 1. To save lives, we need to bring down cases rapidly. At the point we went into lockdown we had an estimated ~55K cases a day- this would translate to ~550 deaths in 3-4 wks time.
An R of 0.9 means we would still have 40K cases in a fortnight (equivalent to 400 deaths/day in the future). An R of 0.7 means a reduction to 19K deaths in a fortnight - more than halving of cases and future deaths. The rapidity with which we reduce cases is important.
Lockdown wasn't just imposed to turn around case numbers, but to bring down cases in all regions rapidly - which was not happening with the tiered system. And even where cases were declining, R numbers were still only just below 1.
The piece appears to also completely ignore the findings of the REACT study, which showed a dip in cases briefly during end October, which was followed by an increase, leading to what looked like a double peak, possibly driven by school closures during half term.
The plateauing observed in the Zoe app towards end of October is consistent with this dip. Case surveillance the REACT study is more reliable that the symptom survey - both the ONS & REACT-1 surveys confirm that we were in a very precarious position before lockdown.
I don't support lockdown being used as a long term measure for COVID-19 control. Most countries that have successfully managed COVID-19 have only used this in emergencies, using the time under lockdown to strengthen their case finding systems in order to control infection.
And I completely understand the detrimental impacts of lockdown on society and the economy. The best way to protect our society & economy is to control COVID-19. Had the govt followed an evidence-based strategy early on, we may not have required a second lockdown.
I don't expect Spectator to necessarily understand the nuance of all this, but I would expect an epidemiologist who runs a COVID-19 study to do better than this, when communicating information to the public.
The article also seems to minimise risk to younger people- there is accruing evidence that even young people are vulnerable to long-term illness in ways we don't fully understand- and continuing high levels of infection in these age groups are also unacceptable."
Dr David Oliver, on twitter:
"my 78 year old parents (i am one of 4 children and they also have 6 grandchildren) are on that very page. They actively don't want a get together because they want to live"
Here's the thing, REACT uses the PCR test.
REACT tests those not going in to the hospital system, so is entirely made up of people not suffering any COVID symptoms.
The PCR test has a largely accepted minimum false positive rate of 0.8% - and that is as a minimum. Some assessments put it as high as 4% - and measures taken as a result of it have been kicked out of court in Portugal this last week.
REACT completed 105,123 swab results according to this interim report.
If 0 were to have Covid, that would mean they would get 841 positive results from that sample size.
They got 821.
I struggle to take this study seriously. It is just another statistical mirage that is keeping us trapped in a Penrose Stairs loop.
However, one thing REACT does is confirm what I and others have been saying. It can't break it down in a detailed way like the ONS data because it doesn't have those daily updates, they are monthly, with fortnightly interim reports which make it much more difficult to track the change of direction and pin it down to a particular week.
Dr Gurdasani has multiple conflicts of interest. I've seen her interviewed on a few occasions and she clearly has left wing affiliations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
She spent last Autumn campaigning on Twitter for the Labour party.
She described Prof Gupta and Heneghan at Oxford as well as Dr Kulldorf at Yale and Dr Bhattacharya at Stamford as Pseudo scientists with no peer reviewed papers behind them - patently wrong.
She described opinions that question the Government policy as alt-right and driven by right-wing corporate interests.
Quite why she lies about other colleagues just because she disagrees with them is beyond me, but I can't take this lady seriously as it seems she has other motivations.
This is so great on Twitter - an anti-masker being handed her arse on a plate :)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EoEJLpvX...jpg&name=large
Why is the React study more reliable than the symptom study? The ONS pilot surveys do not back up the React study. They show a fall in new cases in the last week of October and then a slight increase the following week. The official positive test cases on the government website also show rate increases were slowing down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Then we have hospital admission figures. On average it takes a couple of weeks from infection to hospital admission. The peak admission day in England was 11th November with 1,711.
If cases were doubling every nine days as claimed by React we should be seeing this in the death figures. But we're not, why is that?
So far from being more reliable, React is the outlier. Not only is it saying something quite different to the ONS, the symptom study and official figures, it's finding are not backed up by either hospital admission or death figures.
Excellent!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
Which expert or experts do we trust? So many differing opinions and vested interests. Some have got it very wrong re Sweden. Some have no published peer reviewed material on the subject.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/23/s...ity-in-the-uk/
A friend of mine did most of his BG training on a Penrose stairs loop. It meant he could work on his cardiovascular without aggravating his knee injury with all the descending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I'm a bit puzzled over the false positive rate you refer to WP. Of 100,000 tests if there is a 0.4% false positive rate is that 0.4% of 100,000 tests or of the positive tests within that 100,000?