[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-03, 20:45, said:

I'd love to know what fraction of the 397 deaths are actually OF covid rather than WITH covid.

Since you'd "love to know", maybe you could do some steps to find out? E.g. you could find out how total excess mortality in the UK in the first wave compared to the official count of daily deaths of those who had tested positive?
Oh, I apologise, since you'd "love to know" I am sure you have done that already, and have realised that in the first wave, excess deaths were quite a bit higher? Moreover, their timing matched the covid deaths, not lockdown decisions, so you probably know that these excess deaths were caused by covid, not lockdown.

So I guess you are just wondering whether it's 95% who died OF covid or 99%? Meanwhile, you probably also know that so far, excess deaths have tracked reported covid deaths much more closely - just as you'd expect with much more widespread testing? Right?

Or maybe you were just asking a rhetorical question, in order to try to make a point without committing to a false statement?

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-November-03, 22:59, said:

Since you'd "love to know", maybe you could do some steps to find out? E.g. you could find out how total excess mortality in the UK in the first wave compared to the official count of daily deaths of those who had tested positive?
Oh, I apologise, since you'd "love to know" I am sure you have done that already, and have realised that in the first wave, excess deaths were quite a bit higher? Moreover, their timing matched the covid deaths, not lockdown decisions, so you probably know that these excess deaths were caused by covid, not lockdown.

So I guess you are just wondering whether it's 95% who died OF covid or 99%? Meanwhile, you probably also know that so far, excess deaths have tracked reported covid deaths much more closely - just as you'd expect with much more widespread testing? Right?

Or maybe you were just asking a rhetorical question, in order to try to make a point without committing to a false statement?

Not at all, if you test positive and 3 weeks later are run down by a bus, that's a covid death on the statistics with the way they're calculated as I understand it because you tested positive within 28 days of death, ditto if you had cancer and only days to live when you tested positive. The excess deaths are complicated, because they were running negative for a while after the first wave, so I'm not sure whether you can do them properly for a short period.

Details on my area https://www.edp24.co...tober-1-6914592 the lockdown makes no sense here.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-04, 06:51, said:

Not at all, if you test positive and 3 weeks later are run down by a bus, that's a covid death on the statistics with the way they're calculated as I understand it because you tested positive within 28 days of death, ditto if you had cancer and only days to live when you tested positive.

It sounds like what you are looking for is contained in the third graph, deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate. Guess what, the total number of deaths for England in this category is 51844, as opposed to 41748 for the death within 28 days of a positive test data. In other words, the number of people actually dying from complications arising from covid exceeds the number dying after a recent a positive test. That is obvious to those of us that have looked at the year-on-year mortality numbers but it is nice that the official figures at least top their hat to some of that under-reporting. The numbers for patients dying from an unrelated incident after a positive covid test is negligible compared to the numbers dying from covid-related complications without a test within 28 days. So yes, you are right to question the official figures; but not because they are too low but rather the opposite.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-04, 06:51, said:

Not at all, if you test positive and 3 weeks later are run down by a bus, that's a covid death on the statistics with the way they're calculated as I understand it because you tested positive within 28 days of death, ditto if you had cancer and only days to live when you tested positive.

Yup. And I guess you think that 15% of all those who test positive get run over by a bus within 3 weeks? Stop writing such obvious nonsense, there is a reason I wrote "95% or 99%" not "100".

Quote

The excess deaths are complicated, because they were running negative for a while after the first wave, so I'm not sure whether you can do them properly for a short period.

Yup, that's why you should leave this to people who understand how to analyse such numbers. E.g. you can look for Chris Giles from the Financial Times on twitter. He is good on this, spends time with this, and doesnt' have an agenda.

Quote

Details on my area https://www.edp24.co...tober-1-6914592 the lockdown makes no sense here.

90.3/100000 in seven days is still very high, it'd only be a matter of time until you need a lockdown with no further restrictions. You can't aim for R=1 with this disease.

[cherdano]

I was wrong about one thing though:

cherdano, on 2020-November-03, 22:59, said:

Or maybe you were just asking a rhetorical question, in order to try to make a point without committing to a false statement?

Obviously CY doesn't care committing to false statements, and recommitting to them, over and over again.

At some point others will start wondering where are all these false statements are coming from...

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2020-November-04, 07:48, said:

I was wrong about one thing though:

Obviously CY doesn't care committing to false statements, and recommitting to them, over and over again.

At some point others will start wondering where are all these false statements are coming from...

Will start?

Did you pay attention back when he was claiming that no one believed that that this was airborne?

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-November-04, 07:41, said:

90.3/100000 in seven days is still very high, it'd only be a matter of time until you need a lockdown with no further restrictions. You can't aim for R=1 with this disease.

And coming DOWN fast in tier 1, it's only that bad because UEA had a problem they hadn't picked up until recently, then they made mass testing available to students whether symptomatic or not, discovered they had an issue and dealt with it.

Quote

Yup, that's why you should leave this to people who understand how to analyse such numbers. E.g. you can look for Chris Giles from the Financial Times on twitter. He is good on this, spends time with this, and doesnt' have an agenda.

I have a statistics degree and everything I know screams you shouldn't be doing this. I find his analysis extremely unconvincing, we know from the first wave that a lot of people died a couple of months ahead of when they'd have died anyway, so the excess deaths came down again (admittedly not by that much).

To hrothgar: "Did you pay attention back when he was claiming that no one believed that that this was airborne?"

It was said many times early on in the pandemic by a load of virologists I listened to that the virus transmitted by attaching to largish water droplets and didn't aerosol. That opinion didn't change for quite a while. The politicians here and govt scientists said the biggest risk was coughing, sneezing, shouting and singing for that reason. This has turned out not to be the case.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-04, 08:51, said:

It was said many times early on in the pandemic by a load of virologists I listened to that the virus transmitted by attaching to largish water droplets and didn't aerosol. That opinion didn't change for quite a while. The politicians here and govt scientists said the biggest risk was coughing, sneezing, shouting and singing for that reason. This has turned out not to be the case.

You live in an echo chamber populated by idiots and you are too mentally challenged to appreciate this fact

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-04, 08:51, said:

The politicians here and govt scientists said the biggest risk was coughing, sneezing, shouting and singing for that reason. This has turned out not to be the case.

Shouting and singing are only an increased risk with aerosols, are they not? Shouting and singing are only forms of loud talking - not the same category as sneezing and coughing.

[cherdano]

492 deaths in the UK today, cases keep rising. I hope Henaghan is proud to have warned of the dangers of a implementing a lockdown based on unconvincing data.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-November-04, 10:45, said:

492 deaths in the UK today, cases keep rising. I hope Henaghan is proud to have warned of the dangers of a implementing a lockdown based on unconvincing data.

Still not the 1000 the model they used predicted and we're a few days on from when it predicted that.

Also using the daily reported figure is dodgy because it varies with the day of the week, should use the rolling average.

"Shouting and singing are only an increased risk with aerosols, are they not? Shouting and singing are only forms of loud talking - not the same category as sneezing and coughing." - You haven't ever got droplets on you when somebody shouts from close to you ?

If they believed it aerosol'd do you really think the advice for a LONG time would have been 2m apart masks not required ?

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2020-November-04, 09:17, said:

You live in an echo chamber populated by idiots and you are too mentally challenged to appreciate this fact

I don't live in an echo chamber of any sort, I get most of my news from the varied set of experts of all political hues and none the BBC have on radio 5, I form my own opinions from what I hear.

I also work off personal experience. So far 6 people I know have had Covid, one was in bed for a couple of weeks, the other infections were trivial to asymptomatic, none within 100 miles of me, meanwhile 4 friends have had lockdown induced breakdowns, costing 1 self harm with a blade, 1 suicide attempt, numerous suicidal thoughts and costing hundreds of hours of my time keeping them sane. My father and stepmum are in their 80s, both with underlying conditions so are very sensibly shielding, I'm also somewhat vulnerable, so am being extremely careful.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-04, 08:51, said:

I have a statistics degree and (...)

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-04, 11:38, said:

I also work off personal experience. So far 6 people I know have had Covid, one was in bed for a couple of weeks, the other infections were trivial to asymptomatic, none within 100 miles of me, meanwhile 4 friends have had lockdown induced breakdowns, costing 1 self harm with a blade, 1 suicide attempt, numerous suicidal thoughts and costing hundreds of hours of my time keeping them sane.

That statistics degree really paid off, I see...

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-November-06, 17:06, said:

That statistics degree really paid off, I see...

that is utterly below the belt. I said I ALSO look at personal experience PRECISELY because I was not taking any sort of statistical approach for that remark, but afaik zero out of all the people I know outside London having had it is a reasonable size sample. I'm fortunate to only have one relative in a care home, and that home took a lot more precautions than some and had no outbreak.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-04, 11:38, said:

I don't live in an echo chamber of any sort, I get most of my news from the varied set of experts of all political hues and none the BBC have on radio 5, I form my own opinions from what I hear.

And yet somehow you are continually ignorant about basic facts about
the virus and draw completely erroneous conclusions

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-06, 17:16, said:

that is utterly below the belt. I said I ALSO look at personal experience PRECISELY because I was not taking any sort of statistical approach for that remark, but afaik zero out of all the people I know outside London having had it is a reasonable size sample. I'm fortunate to only have one relative in a care home, and that home took a lot more precautions than some and had no outbreak.

The basic issue is that you make more incorrect posts in this thread than anyone else, despite evidently making an effort to inform yourself, and despite that statistics degree that you keep bringing up.
It is worth trying to find out why that is.

[cherdano]

A vaccine!!
Seriously, everyone I follow on twitter who thinks about these things is extremely positive about this news. Of course, there are still open questions - does it work well for vulnerable groups? Is it REALLY REALLY safe?
We'll know more when Pfizer files for an authorization - the earliest by end of November. But 90% is really good and means that even with just 94 cases, it is certain that the vaccine is effective. Plus other vaccines based on attacking on inducing antibodies for the same protein within the virus are also likely to work well.

One question that is and will remain open: does it prevent transmission?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2020-November-09, 15:50, said:

A vaccine!!
Seriously, everyone I follow on twitter who thinks about these things is extremely positive about this news. Of course, there are still open questions - does it work well for vulnerable groups? Is it REALLY REALLY safe?
We'll know more when Pfizer files for an authorization - the earliest by end of November. But 90% is really good and means that even with just 94 cases, it is certain that the vaccine is effective. Plus other vaccines based on attacking on inducing antibodies for the same protein within the virus are also likely to work well.

One question that is and will remain open: does it prevent transmission?

Agreed, this sounds like really good news

To me, the big questions are

1. How difficult is this to distribute (I think it requires special refrigeration systems)?
2. How long does the protection last?

But I am really really hopeful that we have some good news

[y66]

The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race by Damian Garde and Jonathan Saltzman at STAT

[y66]

It’s Time to Hunker Down

The cavalry is coming. Listen to Zeynep and maybe you won't get scalped.