Jump to content

Coronavirus


1of4

Recommended Posts

After 12 hard fought rounds, with neither side giving an inch, the decisions are in.

Having landed multiple blows, and successfully evading almost all his enemies attacks, the new and undefeated champion of the Covid-19 forum thread, and now the undisputed king of the forum is....

The Antipodean Answer-Machine 'king of the facts' Albert!

He's owned everyone on this thread, whether they admit it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
40 minutes ago, Rev said:

After 12 hard fought rounds, with neither side giving an inch, the decisions are in.

Having landed multiple blows, and successfully evading almost all his enemies attacks, the new and undefeated champion of the Covid-19 forum thread, and now the undisputed king of the forum is....

The Antipodean Answer-Machine 'king of the facts' Albert!

He's owned everyone on this thread, whether they admit it or not.

Nah, we all just lost the will to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

I am not bigging up his background in epidemiology, I am clearly stating what his background is - and it is in an related field.  Just as I would listen to economists and psychologists etc when deciding upon any lockdown strategy I would also include opinions from people such as Dr Mike Yeadon.

 

4 hours ago, Albert said:

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

Which was found to be the case in this research article;

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75

which was subsequently questioned in this article;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342116923_Years_of_life_lost_estimates_cannot_always_be_taken_at_face_value_Response_to_COVID-19_-_exploring_the_implications_of_long-term_condition_type_and_extent_of_multimorbidity_on_years_of_life_lost_a_mod

By not properly accounting for the uncertainty around the precise cause of death, the study is unprotected against a bias in data selection, leading to YLL estimates which must be considered inflated if one interprets them directly, as the authors do.

The authors themselves noted that their study was “conducted rapidly and under pressure of time”. In our personal view, these circumstances may explain rushed conclusions, and we express respect to the huge effort that was taken under these circumstances. Nonetheless, we suggest to revise the interpretation of the data at hand and to prevent misleading information from further spreading into the public.

 

4 hours ago, Albert said:

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.

And lockdowns have been proven to work everywhere they have been deployed...

Without repeating old arguments, once size does not fit all, some countries are better placed to benefit from lockdowns than others and open debate should always be encouraged - the fact that Governments and the Media not only inhibit debate, but increasingly don't even allow you to see any debate should be a warning to us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rev said:

After 12 hard fought rounds, with neither side giving an inch, the decisions are in.

Having landed multiple blows, and successfully evading almost all his enemies attacks, the new and undefeated champion of the Covid-19 forum thread, and now the undisputed king of the forum is....

The Antipodean Answer-Machine 'king of the facts' Albert!

He's owned everyone on this thread, whether they admit it or not.

Sadly Albert will not be attending the award ceremony as Australian borders are closed Until the year 3030 ,the gov reserve the right to extend this date should someone show symptoms in Outer Mongolia at any stage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, maxjam said:

I am not bigging up his background in epidemiology, I am clearly stating what his background is - and it is in an related field.  Just as I would listen to economists and psychologists etc when deciding upon any lockdown strategy I would also include opinions from people such as Dr Mike Yeadon.

 

Which was found to be the case in this research article;

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75

which was subsequently questioned in this article;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342116923_Years_of_life_lost_estimates_cannot_always_be_taken_at_face_value_Response_to_COVID-19_-_exploring_the_implications_of_long-term_condition_type_and_extent_of_multimorbidity_on_years_of_life_lost_a_mod

By not properly accounting for the uncertainty around the precise cause of death, the study is unprotected against a bias in data selection, leading to YLL estimates which must be considered inflated if one interprets them directly, as the authors do.

The authors themselves noted that their study was “conducted rapidly and under pressure of time”. In our personal view, these circumstances may explain rushed conclusions, and we express respect to the huge effort that was taken under these circumstances. Nonetheless, we suggest to revise the interpretation of the data at hand and to prevent misleading information from further spreading into the public.

 

And lockdowns have been proven to work everywhere they have been deployed...

Without repeating old arguments, once size does not fit all, some countries are better placed to benefit from lockdowns than others and open debate should always be encouraged - the fact that Governments and the Media not only inhibit debate, but increasingly don't even allow you to see any debate should be a warning to us all.

Yep Albert and others just  refuse to accept and say it’s a boring pointless question the vital question of how many die from Covid rather than with Covid ,it really is vital to establish that number,

I can assure them I’m going to die with dandruff and if we test and or just look for symptoms of dandruff in deaths the numbers are going to be staggering,,, have bought shares in head and shoulders ,looking forward to being a very rich man at some point ,no more working for me ,,yipeeee 

flippant over simplification example ? Well Yes but true death figure ARE vital

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

I never said this. What I questioned was why they were being given airtime as an expert when they're not. At no point have I suggested that non-experts shouldn't discuss it. 

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.]

Thank you for finally answering. 

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

Given how I answer, I wonder how you've come to this conclusion. Surely if I thought I'd 'won' already, I wouldn't even bother constructing my arguments, nor responding to points as I do. 

10 hours ago, Archied said:

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,

I didn't 'rubbish' their qualifications. My point is that they're not an expert on the topic, so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that they are. 

There are ranges of opinions within research, nobody has questioned this. That's why people look for the consensus, and the reasons for this, in science, rather than going with random appeals to authority. 

10 hours ago, Archied said:

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

Ironically, you're the one who is doggedly pushing a line. My point is just about discussing the evidence we have, and calling out clear and obvious errors in most cases. 

6 hours ago, maxjam said:

I am not bigging up his background in epidemiology, I am clearly stating what his background is - and it is in an related field.  Just as I would listen to economists and psychologists etc when deciding upon any lockdown strategy I would also include opinions from people such as Dr Mike Yeadon.

Why would you include the opinion of someone who is out of field, and made clear and obvious errors repeatedly in a conspiracy video so bad it got pulled from youtube? 

6 hours ago, maxjam said:

Which was found to be the case in this research article;

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75

That's not the article I quoted the figure from. This is the one you're looking for.

6 hours ago, maxjam said:

which was subsequently questioned in this article;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342116923_Years_of_life_lost_estimates_cannot_always_be_taken_at_face_value_Response_to_COVID-19_-_exploring_the_implications_of_long-term_condition_type_and_extent_of_multimorbidity_on_years_of_life_lost_a_mod

By not properly accounting for the uncertainty around the precise cause of death, the study is unprotected against a bias in data selection, leading to YLL estimates which must be considered inflated if one interprets them directly, as the authors do.

The authors themselves noted that their study was “conducted rapidly and under pressure of time”. In our personal view, these circumstances may explain rushed conclusions, and we express respect to the huge effort that was taken under these circumstances. Nonetheless, we suggest to revise the interpretation of the data at hand and to prevent misleading information from further spreading into the public.

This is interesting and all, and I thank you for taking the time to read response papers. That said, you found a random paper from April, with criticism from June. The articles discussed on here were from more recent data, and published in September. They also took into account other details affecting life expectancy, as discussed several pages back when this was discussed. 

6 hours ago, maxjam said:

And lockdowns have been proven to work everywhere they have been deployed...

Without repeating old arguments, once size does not fit all, some countries are better placed to benefit from lockdowns than others and open debate should always be encouraged - the fact that Governments and the Media not only inhibit debate, but increasingly don't even allow you to see any debate should be a warning to us all.

You should know by now I'm not a huge fan of lockdowns. They're a short term blunt hammer. Personally, I feel their only real utility as a management strategy is in short bursts, and they only because long term plans when the planning in the original response has failed. That said, no other strategy has worked in such circumstances, and countries tend to them once they are left without options, much like what has happened in the UK. 

Also, governments clearly aren't 'inhibiting debate'. The Murdoch press machine is pushing an anti-restrictions line globally, and News Corp is mainstream media in effect. Much of the anti-lockdown content you've posted from TalkRadio is from Murdoch's empire, so don't you go trying to claim the mainstream aren't allowed to discuss it. 

2 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep Albert and others just  refuse to accept and say it’s a boring pointless question the vital question of how many die from Covid rather than with Covid ,it really is vital to establish that number,

I can assure them I’m going to die with dandruff and if we test and or just look for symptoms of dandruff in deaths the numbers are going to be staggering,,, have bought shares in head and shoulders ,looking forward to being a very rich man at some point ,no more working for me ,,yipeeee 

flippant over simplification example ? Well Yes but true death figure ARE vital

When did I, of all people, ever suggest that it was a 'boring' question, let alone pointless? The point has been answered several times on here, in depth. The number of people dying from Covid-19 simply can't be questioned with the 'dying with Covid' line, due to the methods used. People are only counted as Covid deaths if they die within 28 days of a positive test, and as discussed, the disease can and does kill people after this length of time in some cases.

Using that figure though, and the annual death rate in the UK we can estimate the number of people who could have 'died with Covid'. There are around 600,000 deaths in the UK each year, and there have been 1.51 million cases. This implies that the number of those people who would be expected to die in that 28 day period after their positive result from any other cause is 1,061, as compared with the 55,024 deaths from the 28 day method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

I never said this. What I questioned was why they were being given airtime as an expert when they're not. At no point have I suggested that non-experts shouldn't discuss it. 

Thank you for finally answering. 

Given how I answer, I wonder how you've come to this conclusion. Surely if I thought I'd 'won' already, I wouldn't even bother constructing my arguments, nor responding to points as I do. 

I didn't 'rubbish' their qualifications. My point is that they're not an expert on the topic, so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that they are. 

There are ranges of opinions within research, nobody has questioned this. That's why people look for the consensus, and the reasons for this, in science, rather than going with random appeals to authority. 

Ironically, you're the one who is doggedly pushing a line. My point is just about discussing the evidence we have, and calling out clear and obvious errors in most cases. 

Why would you include the opinion of someone who is out of field, and made clear and obvious errors repeatedly in a conspiracy video so bad it got pulled from youtube? 

That's not the article I quoted the figure from. This is the one you're looking for.

This is interesting and all, and I thank you for taking the time to read response papers. That said, you found a random paper from April, with criticism from June. The articles discussed on here were from more recent data, and published in September. They also took into account other details affecting life expectancy, as discussed several pages back when this was discussed. 

You should know by now I'm not a huge fan of lockdowns. They're a short term blunt hammer. Personally, I feel their only real utility as a management strategy is in short bursts, and they only because long term plans when the planning in the original response has failed. That said, no other strategy has worked in such circumstances, and countries tend to them once they are left without options, much like what has happened in the UK. 

Also, governments clearly aren't 'inhibiting debate'. The Murdoch press machine is pushing an anti-restrictions line globally, and News Corp is mainstream media in effect. Much of the anti-lockdown content you've posted from TalkRadio is from Murdoch's empire, so don't you go trying to claim the mainstream aren't allowed to discuss it. 

When did I, of all people, ever suggest that it was a 'boring' question, let alone pointless? The point has been answered several times on here, in depth. The number of people dying from Covid-19 simply can't be questioned with the 'dying with Covid' line, due to the methods used. People are only counted as Covid deaths if they die within 28 days of a positive test, and as discussed, the disease can and does kill people after this length of time in some cases.

Using that figure though, and the annual death rate in the UK we can estimate the number of people who could have 'died with Covid'. There are around 600,000 deaths in the UK each year, and there have been 1.51 million cases. This implies that the number of those people who would be expected to die in that 28 day period after their positive result from any other cause is 1,061, as compared with the 55,024 deaths from the 28 day method.

Total guff dressed up as can’t be questioned ,people have been counted as Covid deaths without test and just on showing symptoms in this country , your rubbish is built on best guess even when using the died with Covid rather than of , mass testing shows ( if you 100% believe the figures and results ) huge numbers of people with the virus who don’t die of it , why not use that figure in the equation ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Archied said:

Total guff dressed up as can’t be questioned ,people have been counted as Covid deaths without test and just on showing symptoms in this country , your rubbish is built on best guess even when using the died with Covid rather than of , mass testing shows ( if you 100% believe the figures and results ) huge numbers of people with the virus who don’t die of it , why not use that figure in the equation ???

The official figures in the UK is only people who have died in the last 28 days. This has been the case for months. That's what the 55,024 figure is. Including deaths where Covid-19 is listed on the death certificate increases that figure to 63,873. 

The point of the calculation above is to show how the rate of death compares with the number of people being tested. By definition, you cannot be listed in the 28 days figure without, you know, testing positive. The definition alone allows us to run that calculation. There is no two ways about it though, you cannot justify 'deaths with Covid' as making up any significant part of that figure of 55,024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Shame the government bet on the least effective of the three vaccines which have currently been released. I mean they weren't to know but disappointing nonetheless. 

Not going to claim to be an expert (we have enough of them in here ? ) but it looks like protection could be as high as 90%, they stil have some work to do to understand the reasoning, however it does look like this vaccine could be just as important, if not moreso, than the others as its much easier to store and transport.

I guess even at the headline 70% protection its better to be able to get 70% than none because they cant get the 95% ones to you because of storage/transportation methods. That said I would expect this is more a benefit to other parts of the world that wouldnt have the finances to store and transport the other vaccines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Shame the government bet on the least effective of the three vaccines which have currently been released. I mean they weren't to know but disappointing nonetheless. 

These are great results.

They are better than the effectiveness of well established vaccines that have lower % rates such as TB and seasonal influenza. This vaccine will allow much easier delivery storage and the potential to give 90% with the two different doses as well as being more cost effective. 
 

There  are potentially enough cases to be  sure that ia better outcome than the full dose/full dose regimen is achieved with the half dose first. Essentially, it means it's very probably in the 80%-98% range with this dose strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Albert said:

The official figures in the UK is only people who have died in the last 28 days. This has been the case for months. That's what the 55,024 figure is. Including deaths where Covid-19 is listed on the death certificate increases that figure to 63,873. 

The point of the calculation above is to show how the rate of death compares with the number of people being tested. By definition, you cannot be listed in the 28 days figure without, you know, testing positive. The definition alone allows us to run that calculation. There is no two ways about it though, you cannot justify 'deaths with Covid' as making up any significant part of that figure of 55,024.

Nope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Albert said:

That's not the article I quoted the figure from. This is the one you're looking for.

Just read through that study and would like to see it challenged by someone far more competent than I.  There seem to be a number of caveats that the Research Gate article I posted earlier would probably address.

Regardless, lets for a moment assume that there is indeed 11 years of lost life - add to that the fact that the average covid death is higher than national life expectancy, that puts the vast majority well into their retirement.  My argument has always been one of keeping the economy open and shielding the elderly/vulnerable. 

For a fraction of the cost and debt that we're running up we could have packed all the over 70s off to the Canary Islands for 6 months!  Fancy that idea @Eddie ?

 

1 hour ago, Albert said:

Why would you include the opinion of someone who is out of field, and made clear and obvious errors repeatedly in a conspiracy video so bad it got pulled from youtube?

Dr Mike Yeadon has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, has spent over 30 years leading new medicines research in the pharmaceuticals industry, and founded his own biotech company which he sold to the world's biggest drug company Novartis in 2017 - his opinions are hardly those of a David Icke character. 

I personally don't know whether he is right or wrong.  I watched the video I linked the other day and found it to be interesting.  I did a bit of research into what he talked about and seem to agree with some of what he said. 

From his twitter account it appears that he has the ear of a number of MPs and would like to set up a meeting with Sir Keir Starmer.  I find it incredulous that youtube deemed themselves worthy of deleting his video.  Personally I'm willing to wait and see as to whether he gets an audience with 'the right people' and whether they take his advice seriously to act upon it.

 

1 hour ago, Albert said:

Also, governments clearly aren't 'inhibiting debate'. The Murdoch press machine is pushing an anti-restrictions line globally, and News Corp is mainstream media in effect. Much of the anti-lockdown content you've posted from TalkRadio is from Murdoch's empire, so don't you go trying to claim the mainstream aren't allowed to discuss it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, to argue it would stray to much into politics.  I made a relevant post over the weekend that must have strayed to far into the realm of politics and it was removed, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to tiptoe around the issue.

There is a genuine concern however, one also voiced previously on this forum, that the Government are relying on advice from a narrow group of scientists - whom incidentally all stand to make enormous sums of money from this crisis.  This is being aided and abetted by big tech censorship that helping to silence or ridicule opposing views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, maxjam said:

There is a genuine concern however, one also voiced previously on this forum, that the Government are relying on advice from a narrow group of scientists

The more people you involve the less likely you are to get a consensus on anything.

The top brass need to make a decision. the quicker you make it the sooner you find out it works, or if its wrong you will have learned something. Then move on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Just read through that study and would like to see it challenged by someone far more competent than I.  There seem to be a number of caveats that the Research Gate article I posted earlier would probably address.

There will always be some uncertainty in any such study. The thing is, however, it cuts both ways. 11.7 years could be an over or under estimate. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Regardless, lets for a moment assume that there is indeed 11 years of lost life - add to that the fact that the average covid death is higher than national life expectancy, that puts the vast majority well into their retirement.  My argument has always been one of keeping the economy open and shielding the elderly/vulnerable. 

11.7 years, not 11. 

As discussed previously, the strategy you've put forward has not been successfully implemented anywhere, and would have serious impacts on the people being 'shielded'. The logistics of being able to help such people with a population with the virus being endemic haven't been answered, and as discussed, this doesn't stop the other issues with the virus overwhelming the health system while letting it burn through anyhow, even if the most vulnerable aren't getting it. 

Then there's the question of long term impacts of the virus on younger people, which is something that could take years to explore in more depth. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

For a fraction of the cost and debt that we're running up we could have packed all the over 70s off to the Canary Islands for 6 months!  Fancy that idea @Eddie ?

I get that this is a joke, but do you seriously think moving ~10 million people would cost that little? 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Dr Mike Yeadon has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, has spent over 30 years leading new medicines research in the pharmaceuticals industry, and founded his own biotech company which he sold to the world's biggest drug company Novartis in 2017 - his opinions are hardly those of a David Icke character. 

They're still not the opinions of an epidemiologist, and while his background does include research into drug development, it isn't into how epidemics, etc behave. That isn't to say that his opinion is worthless on that basis, but it does render his qualifications fairly moot. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I personally don't know whether he is right or wrong.  I watched the video I linked the other day and found it to be interesting.  I did a bit of research into what he talked about and seem to agree with some of what he said. 

It was riddled with errors, that was about the only interesting thing with it. It's telling that you ignored my post regarding it wholesale, failing to respond to a single point. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

From his twitter account it appears that he has the ear of a number of MPs and would like to set up a meeting with Sir Keir Starmer.  I find it incredulous that youtube deemed themselves worthy of deleting his video.  Personally I'm willing to wait and see as to whether he gets an audience with 'the right people' and whether they take his advice seriously to act upon it.

Youtube delete disinformation now, and that video definitely qualified. Given that 2 seconds of fact checking can show how much of that is based on fallacies, I'd hope that nobody listens to it. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, to argue it would stray to much into politics.  I made a relevant post over the weekend that must have strayed to far into the realm of politics and it was removed, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to tiptoe around the issue.

There is a genuine concern however, one also voiced previously on this forum, that the Government are relying on advice from a narrow group of scientists - whom incidentally all stand to make enormous sums of money from this crisis.  This is being aided and abetted by big tech censorship that helping to silence or ridicule opposing views.

Ah yes, the 'scientists are in on it' conspiracy theory. Love it. 

Honestly though, if you're in this for any kind of real discussion, can you explain how you can describe a video like the one discussed as 'interesting', when it is so riddled with basic errors and fallacies? Here is the post again in case you want to read it this time:

On 22/11/2020 at 07:03, Albert said:

Max Jam, I quite like your gish gallop tactic. Post long videos, with no commentary on which points you're raising, and no discussion of relevance, then just leg it for a while. It's a old disinformation tactic, but an effective one. 

Anyhow, we're again watching a video of someone who is not an epidemiologist, so we're off to a bad start. Being on 'Unlocked', which describes itself as 'A new common-sense media channel for those abandoned by the MSM. Fast-moving & fearless, we speak Britain’s language', is always a bad sign too. Anyhow, their lack of credentials for the topic is on it's own not a major, so let's look at their argument. 

They start by claiming the pandemic had already turned when restrictions were in, which is already a bad sign for their argument, as it has been well established in literature that the cause of this decline was the controls. Going on to question restrictions despite that is not justified in his argument. 

He then questions the notion that SARS-CoV2 was entirely novel, and without immunity, citing SARS, and claiming he had 'read the literature'. If he had read the literature, he should have known that SARS had only around 8000 known cases, and its spread was stopped before spreading globally. The number of people with a pre-existing immunity from SARS is minimal. He then claims it's similar to other Coronaviruses in the common cold; there exists no literature to suggest that infection by these viruses gives people any immunity to this new one. Even if it did, we already can see from the data that this does indeed spread like a novel disease, and there is no evidence of substantial pre-existing immunity, hence how it has behaved in the community. It is very surprising that someone who has read any of the literature would believe that simply getting a virus from the same family would confer immunity. Yes, cowpox did for smallpox, but this is often not the case. If it was, the flu would have been eradicated by herd immunity centuries ago. 

They then claim that you don't get situations where almost everyone in care homes get it, then claims it's caused by this effect. This is nonsense, and, in fact, in countries where car homes haven't been managed as well *cough* *Australia* *cough*, we have seen numerous cases of one case infected entire care homes. 

He next attacks the notion that the majority of the population are still vulnerable. He then claims that only people who became the most ill have these antibodies, but large studies, such as those in New York, have already established that this is simply not the case. Even asymptomatic cases show antibodies, it's how we've been able to find most of them. If we disregard that notion, then we have no reason to claim that the percentage of people who have had the virus is as large as it appears. This claim from him is just straight up pseudo-science. 

He then sinks his own battleship by citing studies where up to 65% of people in care homes that were known to have the virus had antibodies. This is actually part of the care for there being large numbers of asymptomatic cases, and that it does spread easily in densely populated areas. Honestly, if I was watching for a laugh I'd turn it off here, as the guy is clearly off his rocker, and can't even keep his argument together for 10 minutes; poor effort. 

He moves on to attack the media's thing about declining immunity a few weeks back. He's not wrong that this doesn't show that immunity wanes quicker, but he's wrong to say that studying the same people and seeing this decline means the prevalence in the community is dropping. This would imply that these people have been consistently exposed to the virus, and this exposure has been dropping; this isn't how disease transmission works. Given his background, I'm concerned that the way he's framed that may be an attempt to mislead the audience. 

He then states, with no basis, that less than 40% of the population were susceptible. He then cites imaginary research in 'top journals' to suggest he's right, and that this implies that we're at we're already at herd immunity, and it is not possible to have growing pandemic. He then starts talking about the vaccine, then just offhand declares it's now actually 50% of people who have T-cell immunity, this figure has grown while he is talking; what a miracle. 

He then claims that the pandemic is fundamentally over, and bases this on the lack of deaths in London. He ignores the impact of restrictions and otherwise in reaching this conclusion, just citing his belief that there are too few people for it to spread. 

Honestly, I'm stopping here. His entire argument is nonsense up to this point. Multiple false claims and basic factual errors throughout. Youtube was right to pull it for disinformation, as it clearly is. 

If there are any specific later sections you'd like me to discuss, I'm happy to do one or two more if you specify them, and justify why they are relevant. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...