Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Jacksgranda]

4 hours ago, MP_MFC said:

And who would have thought that this is how Hancock would go down, pardon the expression and apologies for linking the sun

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15388014/matt-hancock-secret-affair-with-aide/

Don't link it then. 

[djchapsticks]

32 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

LFTs don't count in testing numbers.

Yes, a positive test means an individual will get a PCR and that produces a positive result - but it won't be responsible for the large number of cases.

From what I've seen, the numbers are being driven by infections in the younger unvaccinated population. With schools finishing today and another 3 weeks of vaccinations you'd suspect that the numbers testing positive will drop.

 

I'm aware of that but Increased LFTs lead to increased PCRs which will inevitably mean increased cases.

[Honest_Man#1]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

LFTs don't count in testing numbers.

Yes, a positive test means an individual will get a PCR and that produces a positive result - but it won't be responsible for the large number of cases.

From what I've seen, the numbers are being driven by infections in the younger unvaccinated population. With schools finishing today and another 3 weeks of vaccinations you'd suspect that the numbers testing positive will drop.

 

They definitely are responsible for a fair chunk of them, and particularly are the cause of the rocketing positivity rate. Majority of positive LFTs translate into a positive PCR, but negative LFTs are never then tested, so naturally the positivity rate will significantly increase.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

They definitely are responsible for a fair chunk of them, and particularly are the cause of the rocketing positivity rate. Majority of positive LFTs translate into a positive PCR, but negative LFTs are never then tested, so naturally the positivity rate will significantly increase.

Not saying there won't be an increase just not sure that LFTs are driving this - it's pretty clear that community infection is going like wildfire through many schools right now.

We have had almost 2/3 of one year group self-isolating in the past week or so - several confirmed cases - not by taking an LFT but because they were close contacts of confirmed cases.

Other schools are reporting similar - just the year group is different - that will be due to the limited mixing between year groups.

It's also going to be the case that there will be an increase in cases outwith the school age group - a significant number of those will be the parent of a school age child.

One of my grand-daughters had to initially self-isolate - she took a PCR and was confirmed positive - one brother got it a few days later, her other brother a week later - now her dad has tested positive. That won't be unique.

Schools being off should see a drop in cases in the next few weeks.

[scottsdad]

A couple of weeks ago I has a disagreement with @oaksoft about the use of statistics in science. With that in mind I came across a scientific article that made this somewhat bold claim in its abstract.

Quote

 Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

Wow, I thought. That's a claim and a half. So I read the article. The statistics used in it are unbelievable.

Let's take one example. They use vaccination data from Israel as they had the big early roll out. Then they compared the number of vaccinations against the recorded incidence of side effects from the Netherlands. Why the Netherlands? Because they reported the highest level of side effects (701 per 100,000). Or, to put it another way, 5 and a half times the EU average. The Dutch number is an utter outlier; the next highest is Estonia at 412 per 100,000. EU average is ~120 per 100,000. 

The bad statistics continue, but this is the basis of their claim. All their later statistical analysis is based on this initial assumption. The NNTV figure is based on a letter to the BMJ rather than a separate peer-reviewed article, and ignores the fact that NNTV isn't a much used indicator of anything.  The figure is from back of the fag packet maths by a retired paediatrician. A take-down of this nonsensical figure is given here

I did wonder how they ever got published, and then realised it was in Vaccines, an MDPI publication. I have published with MDPI in the past, but no longer do. Their business model is open access - authors pay about £1400 to get their articles published. This is standard across all journal types but MDPI only do this. And the quality of what they publish is a very low bar; I stopped publishing or reviewing with them when I saw that they were letting anything through. I'd review a paper for them, suggest it be rejected, and find it published online the next week. 

But that line in the quote above...it has appeared in social media replies to the likes of Jason Leitch and others. This is just anti-vax nonsense. 

You can read the paper here: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm - it is riddled with bad maths, poor assumptions and weak statistics. 

[Hedgecutter]

Can't wait for the incoming page long "why should I believe a keyboard warrior on a football forum over a peer reviewed article" bitch-fight.

[Distant Doonhamer]

There is absolutely no way *Boris Johnson*, Boris  bloody Johnson, is firing someone for playing away from homw. Even he surely can't lack that level of self awareness? 

He’s a psychopath so while I understand the sentiment not sure it’s true.
Hancock might possibly jump before pushed of course but I won’t be holding my breath for that to happen either. They don’t give a shit about public perception.

[Scotty Tunbridge]

Looking forward to Hancock’s appearance on I’m a celebrity 2022.

[ICTChris]

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

A couple of weeks ago I has a disagreement with @oaksoft about the use of statistics in science. With that in mind I came across a scientific article that made this somewhat bold claim in its abstract.

Wow, I thought. That's a claim and a half. So I read the article. The statistics used in it are unbelievable.

Let's take one example. They use vaccination data from Israel as they had the big early roll out. Then they compared the number of vaccinations against the recorded incidence of side effects from the Netherlands. Why the Netherlands? Because they reported the highest level of side effects (701 per 100,000). Or, to put it another way, 5 and a half times the EU average. The Dutch number is an utter outlier; the next highest is Estonia at 412 per 100,000. EU average is ~120 per 100,000. 

The bad statistics continue, but this is the basis of their claim. All their later statistical analysis is based on this initial assumption. The NNTV figure is based on a letter to the BMJ rather than a separate peer-reviewed article, and ignores the fact that NNTV isn't a much used indicator of anything.  The figure is from back of the fag packet maths by a retired paediatrician. A take-down of this nonsensical figure is given here

I did wonder how they ever got published, and then realised it was in Vaccines, an MDPI publication. I have published with MDPI in the past, but no longer do. Their business model is open access - authors pay about £1400 to get their articles published. This is standard across all journal types but MDPI only do this. And the quality of what they publish is a very low bar; I stopped publishing or reviewing with them when I saw that they were letting anything through. I'd review a paper for them, suggest it be rejected, and find it published online the next week. 

But that line in the quote above...it has appeared in social media replies to the likes of Jason Leitch and others. This is just anti-vax nonsense. 

You can read the paper here: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm - it is riddled with bad maths, poor assumptions and weak statistics. 

I saw Toby Young tweet about this study and just assumed it was from some bullshit online journal mill.  Good to know.

[Ron Aldo]

Looking forward to Hancock’s appearance on I’m a celebrity 2022.

Hancock on I'm a Celebrity, Devi on Dancing On Ice and Jason on Celebrity Bake Off.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Surprised that the armchair google scientists just quote any old shite they see online to fit their own agenda.

Gobsmacked, ah tell ye.

 

[MP_MFC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/25/israel-resumes-indoor-mask-requirement-after-rise-in-covid-cases

Well that’s….unfortunate.

[Scosha]

1 minute ago, Ron Aldo said:

6 minutes ago, Scotty Tunbridge said:

Looking forward to Hancock’s appearance on I’m a celebrity 2022.

Hancock on I'm a Celebrity, Devi on Dancing On Ice and Jason on Celebrity Bake Off.

Jason and Devi would be more suited to a one-off special of Get Your Own Back. Film it live at Hampden in front of a capacity crowd with the P&B Main Players on controls.  

[Thereisalight..]

I may be in the minority but I really dont care the vaccine staus of people. If you've had the vaccine then that should be what matters, not wondering who has or hasnt. I certainly won't be asking people before I talk to them or let them in the house etc. Its as invasive and frankly as much of your business as asking when you last had a shag or a shite. Anyway, I certainly have no qualms over super fit athletes deciding against it when covid to them would be like an annoying wee cough for a day or two at worst. 

[Elixir]

4 hours ago, NorthernLights said:

A&Es 'overwhelmed' by children with mild winter viruses, doctors warn

Not a surprise that so many parents have become hypochondriacs over their children getting a simple cold or other common respiratory virus after months of media and government coverage of covid. Of

Another fantastic win for 'public health' communication! Aren't they great?

[Todd_is_God]

Feeling quite tired today.

Must be long covid

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, scottsdad said:

A couple of weeks ago I has a disagreement with @oaksoft about the use of statistics in science. With that in mind I came across a scientific article that made this somewhat bold claim in its abstract.

Wow, I thought. That's a claim and a half. So I read the article. The statistics used in it are unbelievable.

Let's take one example. They use vaccination data from Israel as they had the big early roll out. Then they compared the number of vaccinations against the recorded incidence of side effects from the Netherlands. Why the Netherlands? Because they reported the highest level of side effects (701 per 100,000). Or, to put it another way, 5 and a half times the EU average. The Dutch number is an utter outlier; the next highest is Estonia at 412 per 100,000. EU average is ~120 per 100,000. 

The bad statistics continue, but this is the basis of their claim. All their later statistical analysis is based on this initial assumption. The NNTV figure is based on a letter to the BMJ rather than a separate peer-reviewed article, and ignores the fact that NNTV isn't a much used indicator of anything.  The figure is from back of the fag packet maths by a retired paediatrician. A take-down of this nonsensical figure is given here

I did wonder how they ever got published, and then realised it was in Vaccines, an MDPI publication. I have published with MDPI in the past, but no longer do. Their business model is open access - authors pay about £1400 to get their articles published. This is standard across all journal types but MDPI only do this. And the quality of what they publish is a very low bar; I stopped publishing or reviewing with them when I saw that they were letting anything through. I'd review a paper for them, suggest it be rejected, and find it published online the next week. 

But that line in the quote above...it has appeared in social media replies to the likes of Jason Leitch and others. This is just anti-vax nonsense. 

You can read the paper here: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm - it is riddled with bad maths, poor assumptions and weak statistics. 

If only we had a qualified statistician on the board...

[Honest_Man#1]

26 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I may be in the minority but I really dont care the vaccine staus of people. If you've had the vaccine then that should be what matters, not wondering who has or hasnt. I certainly won't be asking people before I talk to them or let them in the house etc. Its as invasive and frankly as much of your business as asking when you last had a shag or a shite. Anyway, I certainly have no qualms over super fit athletes deciding against it when covid to them would be like an annoying wee cough for a day or two at worst. 

I think you’ve said “a wee cough for a day or 2” or similar about 5000 times on this thread. Give it a fucking rest.

[Thereisalight..]

1 minute ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

I think you’ve said “a wee cough for a day or 2” or similar about 5000 times on this thread. Give it a fucking rest.

That's what it is though for 99.9% of young people. Not the deadly virus the media continue to want it be 

[Honest_Man#1]

1 minute ago, Thereisalight.. said:

That's what it is though for 99.9% of young people. Not the deadly virus the media continue to want it be 

If you take symptomatic cases, I would be confident that it would not be 99.9% getting “a cough for a day or 2”.

I don’t believe that people getting an illness that doesn’t cause hospitalisation should come with a single restriction on our lives, but your repeated hyperbole is incredibly tiresome.