Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[bendan]

7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

 Equally I think there has been insufficient scrutiny of the Scottish Government.

I agree that the SG has had a pretty easy ride. There isn't much evidence we were preparing for this as early as we should have been. And there are still a lot of questions about testing and reporting.

[s_dog]

14 hours ago, welshbairn said:

All we need is one that works reliably, and then in quantity.

Which unfortunately we don't have yet. none so far have been reliable enough to use.

 

14 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

That's the thing now she's tested positive and thankfully came through it but now not knowing if she has required antibodies to be 100% clear is the problem. My sis and her man were both under the weather early April, both nurses. My sis said she lost her sense of smell and felt lightheaded/spaced out but no respiratory problems for 3-4 days. Neither tested but both were on vacation(at home) at the time. 

 

And now the WHO are throwing it all into doubt anyway by saying ""Right now, we have no evidence that the use of a serological test can show that an individual has immunity or is protected from reinfection."  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52335210

They don't even know for certain that if you've had it you can't still carry the virus and pass it onto others. Maybe it's the vaccine that we are going to need to wait on? Some hope of September for that but most experts saying it'll be 12-18 months! Jeez, I'm still out working and it's starting to get to me now

Edited April 18, 2020 by s_dog

[vikingTON]

There is no way that we are going to sit around and wait on a vaccine, despite whatever nonsense Nadine Dorries as well as her Italian counterpart have suggested this week. In the absence of one the focus will shift to more effective treatments plus contact tracing and quarantine measures for those in close contact with symptomatic patients, as well as a gradual rise in what is regarded as an acceptable number of cases to allow while going on with everyday life. Many people still don't want to think of it in such an objective cost-benefit manner but another three weeks of lockdown, rolling news updates and huge economic losses will do a lot to shift attitudes.

[welshbairn]

Behind the firewall piece from the Spectator's gossip columnist:

It was a tale of two interviews on the Today programme this morning. First up on the show was Neil Ferguson, professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, who has been instrumental in forming the UK government’s response to the coronavirus crisis, and whose virus modelling led to the current lockdown being put in place. 

On the show, the professor received an almost deferential line of questioning from Sarah Smith with his views seemingly taken as near-Gospel as he declared that a 'significant level' of social distancing could have to be maintained indefinitely until a vaccine becomes available. 

Then came along the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. As you would expect, he was treated to the traditional Today programme mauling, as his record and pronouncements on testing, the growing virus outbreak in care homes and PPE were scrutinised by Nick Robinson.
While Mr S thinks it's only right that Hancock faces tough questions, Steerpike can't help but wonder whether Ferguson should receive similar treatment. After all, his advice is heavily feeding into government policy and therefore ought to face a similar level of scrutiny. What's more, Ferguson's scientific work can't exactly be described as bulletproof.
Given that it's the trend these days for former spinners, hacks and politicians to suggest questions that the media isn't currently asking of politicians, Mr S has decided to do his bit for public discourse by penning a few for Ferguson. Below are six questions Steerpike would like to see Neil Ferguson pressed on the next time he embarks on a media round: 
Q1.
In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. He told the Guardian that ‘around 40 million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak… There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.’ In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
How did he get this forecast so wrong? 
Q2.
In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths.
In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected.
Why did the Imperial team overestimate the fatality of the disease? Or to borrow Robinson's words to Hancock this morning: 'that prediction wasn't just nonsense was it? It was dangerous nonsense.'
Q3.
In 2001 the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.
Does Ferguson acknowledge that his modelling in 2001 was flawed and if so, has he taken steps to avoid future mistakes?
Q4.

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.
Does Ferguson believe that his ‘worst-case scenario’ in this case was too high? If so, what lessons has he learnt when it comes to his modelling since?
Q5.

Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’
Has the Imperial team’s Covid-19 model been subject to outside scrutiny from other experts, and are the team questioning their own assumptions used? What safeguards are in place?
Q6.
On 22 March, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.
How many assumptions in the Imperial model are still based on influenza and is there any risk that the modelling is flawed because of these assumptions?

WRITTEN BY
Steerpike
Steerpike is The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from Westminster and beyond. Email tips to steerpike@spectator.co.uk.

Edited April 18, 2020 by welshbairn

[Detournement]

I just assume that the Imperial College model that gets banded about is all part of the government's behaviour modification propaganda and the real data is secret.

The high figure was so there was no argument against lockdown.

[pub car king]

I think in about a months time they will start to open the schools again, then they'll get people back to work who still have a job to go to. We'll all have to wear masks in public (f**k knows where we're meant to get any) and the at risk groups will be kept at home/shielded. In a round about way and by another name there will be deemed to be an acceptable percentage of people contracting it and dying off. The world can only stay paused for so long plus it's the Tories.

Wouldn't be surprised at that point if there is some creative accounting with death figures and a lot of "pneumonia" related deaths. 

[jagfox]

2 hours ago, beefybake said:

50 years ago, as a student, I worked at the Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

Nothing heroic like checking the rods in the reactor, just kitchen portering in the workers camp.

Last year, out of interest, I went on the conducted tour of the site for the new reactor.  Huge activity going on.   A large chunk of the monies are

coming from China.    Although the tour guides said, yes, this was so.., they really did not want to expand on this , or get into any kind of discussion

about it.   

Apparently it will be the most expensive electricity produced in the UK too. Not sure if that was just down to capital costs.

 

[jagfox]

888 dead in the UK from yesterday. Still on the plateau then...

[Gaz]

5 minutes ago, pub car king said:

I think in about a months time they will start to open the schools again, then they'll get people back to work who still have a job to go to. We'll all have to wear masks in public (f**k knows where we're meant to get any) and the at risk groups will be kept at home/shielded. In a round about way and by another name there will be deemed to be an acceptable percentage of people contracting it and dying off. The world can only stay paused for so long plus it's the Tories.

Wouldn't be surprised at that point if there is some creative accounting with death figures and a lot of "pneumonia" related deaths. 

I can't see the schools reopening while there is some sort of social distancing going on. It's a physical impossibility to keep everyone in a school 2m apart at all times, not to mention the question of PPE.

[welshbairn]

30 minutes ago, Detournement said:

I just assume that the Imperial College model that gets banded about is all part of the government's behaviour modification propaganda and the real data is secret.

The high figure was so there was no argument against lockdown.

I don't think the Government have closed down the economy for shit and giggles.

[Detournement]

Just now, welshbairn said:

I don't think the Government have closed down the economy for shit and giggles.

I'm not saying that they have. Just that the press conferences are more about control than informing the population and they likely have much more data than they are sharing. 

They had to pretend they are retreating from herd immunity while actually sticking with the same plan because unlike Sweden we are a nation of morons. 

[Wee Willie]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

 Equally I think there has been insufficient scrutiny of the Scottish Government.

 

1 hour ago, bendan said:

I agree that the SG has had a pretty easy ride. There isn't much evidence we were preparing for this as early as we should have been. And there are still a lot of questions about testing and reporting.

I'm still raging at the former Chief Medical Officer Catherine Calderwood and her reply to the testing of that self-entitled sod Charles Windsor and his wife and entourage when they jumped the queue. 'clear medical evidence' as to why they were tested but she didn't elaborate on that reason. I'm 6 years older than that sod and I'm vulnerable to the virus. I want to know what was the criteria for being tested so that I would know if I was also eligible to be tested.

BTW I'm 100% behind the Scottish Government. It's just the ex-CMO I'm raging at.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Wee Willie
100% SG

[Mark Connolly]

Clapping on a Thursday not enough? Buy an NHS scarf!

https://www.originssound.com/shop/wash-your-hands

[Savage Henry]

Clapping on a Thursday not enough? Buy an NHS scarf!
https://www.originssound.com/shop/wash-your-hands

I’ve got a half and half Corona/NHS scarf.

[Mark Connolly]

Just now, Savage Henry said:

 

I’ve got a half and half SupportOurTroops/NHS scarf.

 

FTFY

[NotThePars]

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Guardian honing in on the real issues

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/apr/18/im-involved-with-a-married-man-will-our-affair-survive-the-lockdown?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Give me a thousand of these over their transphobic crusades. The pathos here is class.

[coprolite]

53 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Behind the firewall piece from the Spectator's gossip columnist:

It was a tale of two interviews on the Today programme this morning. First up on the show was Neil Ferguson, professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, who has been instrumental in forming the UK government’s response to the coronavirus crisis, and whose virus modelling led to the current lockdown being put in place. 

On the show, the professor received an almost deferential line of questioning from Sarah Smith with his views seemingly taken as near-Gospel as he declared that a 'significant level' of social distancing could have to be maintained indefinitely until a vaccine becomes available. 

Then came along the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. As you would expect, he was treated to the traditional Today programme mauling, as his record and pronouncements on testing, the growing virus outbreak in care homes and PPE were scrutinised by Nick Robinson.
While Mr S thinks it's only right that Hancock faces tough questions, Steerpike can't help but wonder whether Ferguson should receive similar treatment. After all, his advice is heavily feeding into government policy and therefore ought to face a similar level of scrutiny. What's more, Ferguson's scientific work can't exactly be described as bulletproof.
Given that it's the trend these days for former spinners, hacks and politicians to suggest questions that the media isn't currently asking of politicians, Mr S has decided to do his bit for public discourse by penning a few for Ferguson. Below are six questions Steerpike would like to see Neil Ferguson pressed on the next time he embarks on a media round: 
Q1.
In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. He told the Guardian that ‘around 40 million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak… There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.’ In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
How did he get this forecast so wrong? 
Q2.
In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths.
In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected.
Why did the Imperial team overestimate the fatality of the disease? Or to borrow Robinson's words to Hancock this morning: 'that prediction wasn't just nonsense was it? It was dangerous nonsense.'
Q3.
In 2001 the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.
Does Ferguson acknowledge that his modelling in 2001 was flawed and if so, has he taken steps to avoid future mistakes?
Q4.

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.
Does Ferguson believe that his ‘worst-case scenario’ in this case was too high? If so, what lessons has he learnt when it comes to his modelling since?
Q5.

Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’
Has the Imperial team’s Covid-19 model been subject to outside scrutiny from other experts, and are the team questioning their own assumptions used? What safeguards are in place?
Q6.
On 22 March, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.
How many assumptions in the Imperial model are still based on influenza and is there any risk that the modelling is flawed because of these assumptions?

WRITTEN BY
Steerpike
Steerpike is The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from Westminster and beyond. Email tips to steerpike@spectator.co.uk.

This shows why science and medicine journalists should be dealing with this rather than political ones.

First, Humphreys (assuming he did give the prof an easy ride) presumably doesn’t know where to start with complex modelling and couldn’t ask any pertinent questions.

Second, the spectator lad seems to be trying to pin the prof down to a gaffe in a sound bite and is implicitly criticising him for not being able to see into the future. If a worst case scenario of 250,000 deaths is predicted, and only 500 people died, that doesn’t necessarily mean the prediction was “wrong” (although it could have been) but that the factors needed for a worst case scenario didn’t materialise.

If I’ve read the March paper right (and I’m not an expert) there are predictions for 5,600 to 550,000 deaths depending on some unknown variables, only some of which can be affected by policy.

The point is not to accurately quantify exact numbers, but to show how numbers will probably be affected by policy choices.

 

 

I would hope that the government isn’t just relying on one paper. Not sure what you mean about real data being secret. There are some freely published studies, some paywalled and maybe some govt and/or pharma backed ones being kept confidential, sure. I don’t think most of the main stats could be kept secret in this country but some lab stuff could be.

Completely agree that the 0.5m was quoted by the government as a tool of persuasion. I don’t think it was included in the study for that purpose though. I think it was in the study to scare the government.

37 minutes ago, Detournement said:

I just assume that the Imperial College model that gets banded about is all part of the government's behaviour modification propaganda and the real data is secret.

The high figure was so there was no argument against lockdown

[steve55]

 

Chinese Coronavirus Is a Man Made Virus According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-made-virus-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/

 

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by steve55

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Just now, steve55 said:

Chinese Coronavirus Is a Man Made Virus According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV

 

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-made-virus-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/

 

 

That’s a bold statement.

etc etc

[welshbairn]

18 minutes ago, steve55 said:

 

Chinese Coronavirus Is a Man Made Virus According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-made-virus-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/

 

 

Quote

In addition to his theories on the electromagnetic waves emitted by DNA and on the benefits of papaya, which attracted mockery, he appeared in 2017 alongside professor Henri Joyeux, figurehead of anti-vaccines.

Montagnier helped to denounce the dangerousness of vaccines and compulsory vaccination, believing that there was a risk “with good will at the start, of poisoning the entire population little by little.”