Coronavirus

[Grumpy Git]

16 minutes ago, Archied said:

Whitty is a practising National Health Service (NHS) consultant physician at University College London Hospitals (UCLH) and the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, and Gresham Professor of Physic at Gresham College, a post dating back to 1597.[9] Until becoming CMO he was Professor of Public and International Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).[10] He worked as a physician and researcher into infectious diseases in the UK, Africa and Asia. In 2008, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the LSHTM £31 million for malaria research in Africa. At the time, Whitty was the principal investigator for the ACT Consortium, which conducted the research programme.[8][11],

 

Can you run that past me again please? .......

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

Can you run that past me again please? .......

Just trying to figure out epidemiologist and what it means in terms of qualification regards all things Covid 

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Just trying to figure out epidemiologist and what it means in terms of qualification regards all things Covid 

Researching epidemiology itself, rather than Googling Chris Whitty's resume might prove a more helpful way to grasp an understanding.

Epidemiology is the method used to find the causes of health outcomes and diseases in populations. In epidemiology, the patient is the community and individuals are viewed collectively. By definition, epidemiology is the study (scientific, systematic, and data-driven) of the distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants (causes, risk factors) of health-related states and events (not just diseases) in specified populations (neighborhood, school, city, state, country, global). It is also the application of this study to the control of health problems.

(Source: Principles of Epidemiology, 3rd Edition).

[Archied]

22 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Researching epidemiology itself, rather than Googling Chris Whitty's resume might prove a more helpful way to grasp an understanding.

Epidemiology is the method used to find the causes of health outcomes and diseases in populations. In epidemiology, the patient is the community and individuals are viewed collectively. By definition, epidemiology is the study (scientific, systematic, and data-driven) of the distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants (causes, risk factors) of health-related states and events (not just diseases) in specified populations (neighborhood, school, city, state, country, global). It is also the application of this study to the control of health problems.

(Source: Principles of Epidemiology, 3rd Edition).

Yep was doing that first then googled Whitty to see if he was also further qualified beyond epidemiology and his background working experience, ??‍♂️ Read the very passage you have posted 

[Eddie]

4 hours ago, Archied said:

Just trying to figure out epidemiologist and what it means in terms of qualification regards all things Covid 

Epidemiologist: (Noun) "A person who studies or is an expert in the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases."

Where they don't have expertise is with respect to the treatment of the disease.

[Archied]

23 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Epidemiologist: (Noun) "A person who studies or is an expert in the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases."

Where they don't have expertise is with respect to the treatment of the disease.

Yep reading that ,, immunology was talked about in the video very interestingly, there appears to be a fair few ologies at play , 

I am certainly finding there’s a lot that is being silenced that that should be being talked about which is concerning when the gov is a shambles and there’s more and more pocket lining being outed

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep reading that ,, immunology was talked about in the video very interestingly, there appears to be a fair few ologies at play , 

I am certainly finding there’s a lot that is being silenced that that should be being talked about which is concerning when the gov is a shambles and there’s more and more pocket lining being outed

You're not kidding. They are taking grifting to previously unimagined levels.

[Mafiabob]

Corona Virus might the only thing Derby beats for the rest of the season

[Albert]

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

Haha, The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by numerous epidemiologists and Dr Mike Yeadon has honors degrees, phds and a lifetime of experience in related fields.  But these were dismissed by bloke on football forum as not being good enough...

His work isn't in epidemiology, so it's completely baffling that you're trying to big up his background in this field. As noted, this argument was dismissed as it was filled with numerous errors and fallacies, the point about his qualifications is that it's unusual that he was being held up as an expert. 

Unrelated, but do you feel that if someone on here had first class honours and a PhD in a 'related field' that you'd have to, by definition, listen to and agree with what they say? 

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

However you spin it, according to the ONS there were 'significantly' less excess winter deaths last year and the average age of covid deaths this year is above the national life expectancy.

...and the number of expected years of life remaining was around 12...

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

I can't be bothered to spend the rest of the day, or days, arguing about everything else as we clearly fundamentally disagree with one another, but will reply to this...

Every one of the 339 deaths is a tragedy - as is every one of the other 35k+ deaths.  I am not dismissing any deaths simply arguing that we should be allowed to debate the best ways of shielding vulnerable people.  To suggest anything else is disgusting.

Except we already know these 'shield the vulnerable' strategies simply don't work. Places that focused on them have moved away from them. They are more akin to abandoning the vulnerable, and there is virtually no benefit to anyone else long term. 

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

Furthermore, pre existing conditions is a broad term - the top 5 are as follows;

5. Cancer - 1.47 times more likely to die from COVID

4. Diabetes - 1.48 times more likely to die from COVID

3. Hypertension - 1.82 times more likely to die from COVID

2. Congestive Heart Failure - 2.03 times more likely to die from COVID

1. Chronic Kidney Disease - 3.25 times more likely to die from COVID

How many people in the UK have these conditions, and the ones further down the list? 

9 hours ago, Archied said:

More long winded guff from someone with no qualifications in the field choosing who s reading of stats to put their trust in then aggressively pushing it on everybody 

It's interesting that you're choosing to focus on my qualifications, given you don't know what they are. 

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Surely even you can see how ridiculous it comes across, telling us all to ignore these people because they are not experts but rely on what you say, despite the fact that you also have no expertise in this area?

I'm not saying don't listen to them because they're not experts. I'm questioning why they were given air time in the first place, then discussing the errors and fallacies they're pushing. Their arguments are incorrect, independent of their lack of qualifications in the field. 

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Do you not think that if these people were handed your analysis that they would take it to pieces and say that you are flat out wrong?

Given that they couldn't even construct a valid argument in a vacuum, to be broadcast to the World, I doubt they've even bother. I've had discussions with their types before, they just ignore people and repeat themselves to any audience that will ignore the data and listen. 

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

If you are so certain that everything that you post is 100% factually correct then surely you would be an expert in this area?

I am not 100% sure that everything I post is going to be 100% correct, and as noted, I am not an epidemiologist. The point is that there are well established points from the data we can discuss, that we can cite from the literature and discuss the implications of. The claims of the people discussed simply fly in the face of reality, and can be shown to be false rapidly. They're not experts, they disagree with the experts, and really, that's why these sorts of 'anti-main stream media' platforms are giving them airtime. They're exploiting a crisis to build a reputation and a base. 

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

As it is, all you are doing is posting stats and evidence that agree with your narrative. 

I post the stats and the evidence, that's it. It's not about 'my narrative'. Many of the sources I've used and discussed were actually posted by others, including yourself. 

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think over the past couple of pages its become obvious that you think the situation in Australia is representative of the global situation, and twice (tax and flu deaths) it has shown not to be the case.

It's interesting you're doubling down on the tax point, despite the fact that I provided a source that discussed the issue in the UK too. As asked, do you honestly feel that other contributions, which make up such a small fraction of total tax receipts, means that companies are paying their fair share in the UK? I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, I'm asking if you feel that's enough? 

As to the point with the flu, the 2018-19 flu season was down from a couple of years earlier, but the number of flu deaths has actually been pretty static. As noted, winter excess mortality was down, but that wasn't all about flu, pneumonia, etc. 

My discussions also focused on global trends, with Australia and the USA being examples due to readily available data, and those points do still stand. I'm sure you'll be back to pretend you've someone 'won' those points, despite the data, evidence, and arguments in place. 

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

His work isn't in epidemiology, so it's completely baffling that you're trying to big up his background in this field. As noted, this argument was dismissed as it was filled with numerous errors and fallacies, the point about his qualifications is that it's unusual that he was being held up as an expert. 

Unrelated, but do you feel that if someone on here had first class honours and a PhD in a 'related field' that you'd have to, by definition, listen to and agree with what they say? 

...and the number of expected years of life remaining was around 12...

Except we already know these 'shield the vulnerable' strategies simply don't work. Places that focused on them have moved away from them. They are more akin to abandoning the vulnerable, and there is virtually no benefit to anyone else long term. 

How many people in the UK have these conditions, and the ones further down the list? 

It's interesting that you're choosing to focus on my qualifications, given you don't know what they are. 

I'm not saying don't listen to them because they're not experts. I'm questioning why they were given air time in the first place, then discussing the errors and fallacies they're pushing. Their arguments are incorrect, independent of their lack of qualifications in the field. 

Given that they couldn't even construct a valid argument in a vacuum, to be broadcast to the World, I doubt they've even bother. I've had discussions with their types before, they just ignore people and repeat themselves to any audience that will ignore the data and listen. 

I am not 100% sure that everything I post is going to be 100% correct, and as noted, I am not an epidemiologist. The point is that there are well established points from the data we can discuss, that we can cite from the literature and discuss the implications of. The claims of the people discussed simply fly in the face of reality, and can be shown to be false rapidly. They're not experts, they disagree with the experts, and really, that's why these sorts of 'anti-main stream media' platforms are giving them airtime. They're exploiting a crisis to build a reputation and a base. 

I post the stats and the evidence, that's it. It's not about 'my narrative'. Many of the sources I've used and discussed were actually posted by others, including yourself. 

It's interesting you're doubling down on the tax point, despite the fact that I provided a source that discussed the issue in the UK too. As asked, do you honestly feel that other contributions, which make up such a small fraction of total tax receipts, means that companies are paying their fair share in the UK? I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, I'm asking if you feel that's enough? 

As to the point with the flu, the 2018-19 flu season was down from a couple of years earlier, but the number of flu deaths has actually been pretty static. As noted, winter excess mortality was down, but that wasn't all about flu, pneumonia, etc. 

My discussions also focused on global trends, with Australia and the USA being examples due to readily available data, and those points do still stand. I'm sure you'll be back to pretend you've someone 'won' those points, despite the data, evidence, and arguments in place. 

Your arguments are becoming slightly contradictory. 

You don't think people should be discussing areas in which they are not experts yet you are happy to give us your opinions on both Covid-19 and tax.

Do I think 100 companies paying 11.7% of Government receipts is paying their fair share? Yes.

Do I think they could potentially pay more? Yes.

Dont worry I wouldnt possibly dream of saying that I had won any points against you, it would be futile because you've shown time and time again that you think you've won a debate before you've even seen the other side of it.

[Angry Ram]

Still none the wiser.. 

Ive learnt one thing though.. Skip Alberts posts.. Life is too short.

[Archied]

28 minutes ago, Albert said:

His work isn't in epidemiology, so it's completely baffling that you're trying to big up his background in this field. As noted, this argument was dismissed as it was filled with numerous errors and fallacies, the point about his qualifications is that it's unusual that he was being held up as an expert. 

Unrelated, but do you feel that if someone on here had first class honours and a PhD in a 'related field' that you'd have to, by definition, listen to and agree with what they say? 

...and the number of expected years of life remaining was around 12...

Except we already know these 'shield the vulnerable' strategies simply don't work. Places that focused on them have moved away from them. They are more akin to abandoning the vulnerable, and there is virtually no benefit to anyone else long term. 

How many people in the UK have these conditions, and the ones further down the list? 

It's interesting that you're choosing to focus on my qualifications, given you don't know what they are. 

I'm not saying don't listen to them because they're not experts. I'm questioning why they were given air time in the first place, then discussing the errors and fallacies they're pushing. Their arguments are incorrect, independent of their lack of qualifications in the field. 

Given that they couldn't even construct a valid argument in a vacuum, to be broadcast to the World, I doubt they've even bother. I've had discussions with their types before, they just ignore people and repeat themselves to any audience that will ignore the data and listen. 

I am not 100% sure that everything I post is going to be 100% correct, and as noted, I am not an epidemiologist. The point is that there are well established points from the data we can discuss, that we can cite from the literature and discuss the implications of. The claims of the people discussed simply fly in the face of reality, and can be shown to be false rapidly. They're not experts, they disagree with the experts, and really, that's why these sorts of 'anti-main stream media' platforms are giving them airtime. They're exploiting a crisis to build a reputation and a base. 

I post the stats and the evidence, that's it. It's not about 'my narrative'. Many of the sources I've used and discussed were actually posted by others, including yourself. 

It's interesting you're doubling down on the tax point, despite the fact that I provided a source that discussed the issue in the UK too. As asked, do you honestly feel that other contributions, which make up such a small fraction of total tax receipts, means that companies are paying their fair share in the UK? I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, I'm asking if you feel that's enough? 

As to the point with the flu, the 2018-19 flu season was down from a couple of years earlier, but the number of flu deaths has actually been pretty static. As noted, winter excess mortality was down, but that wasn't all about flu, pneumonia, etc. 

My discussions also focused on global trends, with Australia and the USA being examples due to readily available data, and those points do still stand. I'm sure you'll be back to pretend you've someone 'won' those points, despite the data, evidence, and arguments in place. 

I asked your qualifications to post with such self certainty and question/ rubbish the qualifications of anybody who does not bow to your line but you decline to say how your qualified, it’s well established that people given a medical diagnosis will seek a second opinion , sometimes successfully ,sometimes not  , so any number of people with a phd can and often have any number of opinions,

now let’s be clear I’ve read enough of your posts to realise you are not about anything other than doggedly repeating and pushing a line on a social media platform and treat your posts as such

[Boycie]

2 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Still none the wiser.. 

Ive learnt one thing though.. Skip Alberts posts.. Life is too short.

Feel sorry for the mods. ?

[Angry Ram]

Just now, Boycie said:

Feel sorry for the mods. ?

Nah you’ve your top boy policing this thread.   I skip his as well..

[Boycie]

Just now, Angry Ram said:

Nah you’ve your top boy policing this thread.   I skip his as well..

True, not sure how I arrived on here tbh, I think I pressed the wrong bit.

[Archied]

4 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Still none the wiser.. 

Ive learnt one thing though.. Skip Alberts posts.. Life is too short.

Ahh but hang on angry , what if we were to tell you we can get life being too short as close to zero as poss?

[Archied]

4 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Feel sorry for the mods. ?

Oh come on there’s the odd quality funny thrown in that makes it bearable 

[Boycie]

31 minutes ago, Archied said:

Oh come on there’s the odd quality funny thrown in that makes it bearable 

We only scan read for buggers and other profanities.

[Archied]

4 minutes ago, Boycie said:

We only scan read for buggers and other profanities.

Jeez you don’t know what your missing?

[jimmyp]

My kids primary school was completely open on Friday (all classes going  in). It’s now completely closed (all classes) until the 4th December.

Got an email from the school saying someone in your year group (single class) has tested positive and your child has been in close contact etc. 

All the guidance fro PHE. 

 

Followed by a second email confirming the whole school is now closed, await further information.