Coronavirus

[ramit]

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

What are you reading these days??? Jeez!

Failed Fact Checks

CDC admits cloth face masks don’t protect against coronavirus – False

Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 10/31/2019)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/

Findings not generally applicable

The researchers said that their findings did not show that the virus couldn’t be passed on by asymptomatic carriers, and they didn’t suggest that their findings were generalisable.

They said that strict measures—such as mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing, and lockdown—were successful in reducing the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan and that asymptomatic people in Wuhan may have low viral loads. This means that the finding cannot be applied to countries where outbreaks have not been successfully brought under control.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4695

i just picked one of some links to this story.  WHO reached the same findings in June, as the video inside the link shows.  Studies in Iceland indicate the same conclusion, these findings are applicable.

Is the American Medical Association more to your liking?

https://channel411news.com/2020/12/25/asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19-may-be-rare-new-research-finds/

"Lack of asymptomatic transmission ‘is notable’

In the new study published in the JAMA Network Open journal, a team of researchers from the University of Florida and the University of Washington conducted a “meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,758 participants” to determine “the estimated overall household secondary attack rate” of COVID-19. (The “secondary attack rate” of a virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, quantifies “transmission of illness in a household, barracks, or other closed population” compared to transmission in the wider community.)

The authors determined that symptomatic cases were far more likely to transmit the virus than asymptomatic ones. The “secondary attack rate” of symptomatic cases was 18%, they found, compared to 0.7% for asymptomatic ones, a 25-fold difference."

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Good swerve from answering my point.
Not sure you’ve been right about anything, and I’m certainly sure I haven’t been on the wrong side. Let’s see shall we

Lockdowns  haven’t worked, fact.

Business are going bust left right and centre, fact.

More and more people in debt, fact. 

Higher unemployment, fact.

Mental health at an all time low, fact.

Racking up huge national debt, fact. 

All for a virus that detrimentally effects less than 1% of the population, fact.

Looks like I’ve been quite right all along. Keep following the science sunshine 

I think you might have missed a couple of things out there!

[Gone]

Just now, ariotofmyown said:

I think you might have missed a couple of things out there!

I just went with the biggies ?

[BIllyD]

36 minutes ago, ramit said:

i just picked one of some links to this story.  WHO reached the same findings in June, as the video inside the link shows.  Studies in Iceland indicate the same conclusion, these findings are applicable.

Is the American Medical Association more to your liking?

https://channel411news.com/2020/12/25/asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19-may-be-rare-new-research-finds/

"Lack of asymptomatic transmission ‘is notable’

In the new study published in the JAMA Network Open journal, a team of researchers from the University of Florida and the University of Washington conducted a “meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,758 participants” to determine “the estimated overall household secondary attack rate” of COVID-19. (The “secondary attack rate” of a virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, quantifies “transmission of illness in a household, barracks, or other closed population” compared to transmission in the wider community.)

The authors determined that symptomatic cases were far more likely to transmit the virus than asymptomatic ones. The “secondary attack rate” of symptomatic cases was 18%, they found, compared to 0.7% for asymptomatic ones, a 25-fold difference."

Did you read the actual paper or just the news report ? If so just wondering what your takes are on it, the caveats and the questions / answers provided based on the research ?

[ramit]

45 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Did you read the actual paper or just the news report ? If so just wondering what your takes are on it, the caveats and the questions / answers provided based on the research ?

Not the Wuhan paper, or the AMA paper.  Did however follow articles posted here locally about this seeming indication.  Viral load in an asymptomatic individual should affect the findings, but didn't, which could indicate that those with a high viral load are likely to be symptomatic.  Confusing, i know.

[GenBr]

4 hours ago, Andicis said:

What an incredibly poor thing to say. It can also be spun the other way so it's not even a sensible thing to say. Must be nice to be up on that high horse though?

Go on then - please respond with your reasoning. You were the one who said you thought people were fine with lockdown, because they live in massive houses.

Give me some actually valid reasons why you think lockdown should end just because we are young and probably wont get it. Your original statement was so selfish i decided to go full tilt, but feel free to give some other reasons why you think we are entitled to endanger others purely because of our age.

 

 

 

[Sith Happens]

morons

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/29/police-in-brecon-beacons-turn-away-visitors-breaching-covid-restrictions

 

 

[alexxxxx]

4 hours ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Argentina just started vaccination with the Russian vaccine, Sputnik 5. Now there is a leap of faith...

Tbh if its proven to work well to our regulators standard I wouldn't want misplaced suspicion to stop us from getting a perfectly good vaccine. 

I think that AstraZeneca are working with the developers as well now. 

[GboroRam]

3 hours ago, ramit said:

i just picked one of some links to this story.  WHO reached the same findings in June, as the video inside the link shows.  Studies in Iceland indicate the same conclusion, these findings are applicable.

Is the American Medical Association more to your liking?

https://channel411news.com/2020/12/25/asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19-may-be-rare-new-research-finds/

"Lack of asymptomatic transmission ‘is notable’

In the new study published in the JAMA Network Open journal, a team of researchers from the University of Florida and the University of Washington conducted a “meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,758 participants” to determine “the estimated overall household secondary attack rate” of COVID-19. (The “secondary attack rate” of a virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, quantifies “transmission of illness in a household, barracks, or other closed population” compared to transmission in the wider community.)

The authors determined that symptomatic cases were far more likely to transmit the virus than asymptomatic ones. The “secondary attack rate” of symptomatic cases was 18%, they found, compared to 0.7% for asymptomatic ones, a 25-fold difference."

I think you are attributing more to the results than the report authors. They suggest one reason is because of the very stringent lockdown in wuhan, there is hardly any virus around. They say it is possible that the subjects they found that were truly asymptomatic may be down to almost no viral load in their bodies. 

Worth noting they only found 300 cases in 10m tests. 

[Gritstone Ram]

8 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Tbh if its proven to work well to our regulators standard I wouldn't want misplaced suspicion to stop us from getting a perfectly good vaccine. 

I think that AstraZeneca are working with the developers as well now. 

Yes I heard they were. May be trying to make them more effective. I would like to think everyone is working towards the same goal.

[ramit]

21 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I think you are attributing more to the results than the report authors. They suggest one reason is because of the very stringent lockdown in wuhan, there is hardly any virus around. They say it is possible that the subjects they found that were truly asymptomatic may be down to almost no viral load in their bodies. 

Worth noting they only found 300 cases in 10m tests. 

American researchers coming to a similar conclusion is worth noting, if not the small study done in Iceland.  Would think that researchers in other countries have noticed this issue as well, i will keep an eye out for that kind of info.

[Albert]

8 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

I've  just seen a worrying argument that we shouldn't be rolling out the vaccine with cases so high. 

We know that the virus mutates regularly. As soon as a vaccine rolls out there is added evolutionary pressure which in theory means that the stains with the most vaccine resistance survive whilst the others don't. That clears the way for the more resistant variants to become the dominant strains. The more cases there are out there, the more mutations happen. If a strain with some vaccine resistance mutates to have total vaccine resistance, we're in trouble. 

If we vaccinate with only a small amount of cases out there, the chances of a vaccine resistant strain developing are, apparently, far smaller. It also helps if the vaccine can be rolled out as quickly as possible because the virus gets eradicated before it has chance to mutate.  The conclusion is that we should halt the vaccine roll out and have a really strict lockdown for a few weeks. During that time we should get as much vaccine ready and train as many people as possible to administer it. As soon as the known active cases drop into the hundreds, go all out to get the vaccine out there. 

It would notionally add pressure, but the likelihood of developing 'vaccine resistant strains' isn't all that high. The key is getting those numbers down as fast as possible, and a vaccine is an effective way of managing that, alongside other restrictions. 

[Albert]

6 hours ago, ramit said:

"Whether or not coronavirus can be spread asymptomatically is perhaps the most important question surrounding the disease. After all, the assumption that it can has been used to justify mask mandates and life-ravaging lockdowns. This is why it’s striking that a major study, involving almost 10 million people, has found zero cases of asymptomatic transmission — and that our COVID-panic-porn-peddling mainstream media have met it with deafening silence.

The study was conducted in Wuhan, China, considered SARS-CoV-2 ground zero"

https://thenewamerican.com/study-of-almost-10-million-finds-no-asymptomatic-covid-spread-media-silent/

Why are you posting a link from far right organisation? 

As noted by others, the conclusions are hard to generalise as Wuhan was, at the time, an area with high mask usage and social distancing, and there weren't many cases to begin with. It involved 10 million people, but only a few hundred cases. 

It is well understood at this point that asymptomatic cases aren't that likely to spread infection unless you're in close contact, and having masks on reduces that risk. There is still a risk however. 

The other issue is that people are infectious before being symptomatic in most cases, so you can't just rely on symptoms in any case. 

[ramit]

14 minutes ago, Albert said:

Why are you posting a link from far right organisation? 

As noted by others, the conclusions are hard to generalise as Wuhan was, at the time, an area with high mask usage and social distancing, and there weren't many cases to begin with. It involved 10 million people, but only a few hundred cases. 

It is well understood at this point that asymptomatic cases aren't that likely to spread infection unless you're in close contact, and having masks on reduces that risk. There is still a risk however. 

The other issue is that people are infectious before being symptomatic in most cases, so you can't just rely on symptoms in any case. 

Why are you replying to my post?  i told you not to.

[Albert]

1 hour ago, ramit said:

Why are you replying to my post?  i told you not to.

That's lovely dear, but it's an open forum. If you want a safespace to discuss far right conspiracies, there are plenty out there. 

Anyhow, on the point, do you have any response? 

[Andicis]

5 hours ago, GenBr said:

Go on then - please respond with your reasoning. You were the one who said you thought people were fine with lockdown, because they live in massive houses.

Give me some actually valid reasons why you think lockdown should end just because we are young and probably wont get it. Your original statement was so selfish i decided to go full tilt, but feel free to give some other reasons why you think we are entitled to endanger others purely because of our age.

 

 

 

Imagine that is your take away from this. It's funny, because making such a crude representation of what I've said doesn't actually put you in a better position, it just makes you look ignorant. I said generally the older, richer demographics are happier with lockdown. This is absolutely and very clearly, correct. 

Lockdown should end because we can't afford it not to. Because cancer deaths matter. Because mental health matters. When we come out of this and there is extremely high unemployment, the worst recession in living memory, and just widespread misery, will you consider me selfish then? I don't even believe lockdowns work or have ever worked. 

Look forward to your next post where you pull a nonsensical summary out of your derriere, as per usual. 

[Albert]

1 hour ago, Andicis said:

Imagine that is your take away from this. It's funny, because making such a crude representation of what I've said doesn't actually put you in a better position, it just makes you look ignorant. I said generally the older, richer demographics are happier with lockdown. This is absolutely and very clearly, correct. 

Lockdown should end because we can't afford it not to. Because cancer deaths matter. Because mental health matters. When we come out of this and there is extremely high unemployment, the worst recession in living memory, and just widespread misery, will you consider me selfish then? I don't even believe lockdowns work or have ever worked. 

Look forward to your next post where you pull a nonsensical summary out of your derriere, as per usual. 

Ending the lockdown will only make cancer deaths worse. The NHS is under immense pressure, and the only way to relieve that now is lockdowns. Preventative medicine and treatments can only get back to what they were when that pressure is gone. The same goes for things like mental health, etc. 

Opening up will just make the problems that are plaguing the UK now worse. The problems are due to letting the virus get out of control, letting get more so is possibly the silliest idea you could float at this point. That mindset failed, and has led the UK to this point, surely with this much data on the situation already, you can recognise that. 

[Andicis]

15 minutes ago, Albert said:

Ending the lockdown will only make cancer deaths worse. The NHS is under immense pressure, and the only way to relieve that now is lockdowns. Preventative medicine and treatments can only get back to what they were when that pressure is gone. The same goes for things like mental health, etc. 

Opening up will just make the problems that are plaguing the UK now worse. The problems are due to letting the virus get out of control, letting get more so is possibly the silliest idea you could float at this point. That mindset failed, and has led the UK to this point, surely with this much data on the situation already, you can recognise that. 

How so? Aren't thousands of cancers going undetected every day due to this current lockdown (which isn't even working). The way to improve mental health is by isolating people even more by locking down further? I mean I understand what you're saying, but that isn't going to help anything in the short run. 

What I can see currently is that locking down isn't working. London and the South East are already in tier 4, and yet cases continue to rise? The daft part of this is, if cases go up during lockdowns, people in support of lockdowns will say ''people aren't listening'' and pass the blame, and if lockdowns correlate with cases going down (like they would likely do regardless in summer months), then that is clear evidence for how lockdowns work. 

When we're already in lockdown, how is locking down further going to fix anything? What next, we all live in our own individual plastic bubbles? 

[Albert]

Just now, Andicis said:

How so? Aren't thousands of cancers going undetected every day due to this current lockdown (which isn't even working). The way to improve mental health is by isolating people even more by locking down further? I mean I understand what you're saying, but that isn't going to help anything in the short run. 

It's not the lockdown that's causing the issues, it's the hospitals being under huge pressure, and there being massive risks for cancer patients if they venture out into the World with the virus out of control; remember, they are part of that very high risk group. 

People's mental health is going to be harmed further by the NHS collapsing, as well as the general harm from people being forced to make the decision to stay home themselves, rather than it being a mandate. The issue we're seeing aren't cured by the government doing a 'mission accomplished' dance while the country burns. 

Just now, Andicis said:

What I can see currently is that locking down isn't working. London and the South East are already in tier 4, and yet cases continue to rise? The daft part of this is, if cases go up during lockdowns, people in support of lockdowns will say ''people aren't listening'' and pass the blame, and if lockdowns correlate with cases going down (like they would likely do regardless in summer months), then that is clear evidence for how lockdowns work. 

The tier system is just a mess, it worked while there was a proper national lockdown, and that's where things should be now. Bits and pieces strategies have just done harm the whole time, with limited benefits. 

You can go on about summer months, but the previous national lockdown did indeed lead to a clear downturn, as predicted. 

Just now, Andicis said:

When we're already in lockdown, how is locking down further going to fix anything? What next, we all live in our own individual plastic bubbles? 

The UK should be putting restrictions back to what they were nationally, and going from there. Start with what worked, and alter from there. That said, Christmas will not have helped. 

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Andicis said:

I don't even believe lockdowns work or have ever worked. 

I keep hearing this as a suggestion as to why lockdowns should cease. If folk are not coming into contact with each other, then the spread of the disease must be limited to some extent. It seems a very broad-brush statement to say otherwise, though given each time the R number rises, restrictions are always put in place, so technically speaking, it can't be disproven. Unless I'm overlooking something, we have two choices; lockdown, or a punitive limited version thereof, where folk like my father would effectively be prisoners in their own homes, in his case as a widower and therefore all alone, or herd immunity, which I think we already know could be catastrophic in terms of death count. 

I also think one needs to be very careful about assigning notions like a greater tolerance of lockdowns to any sector of the public in general terms. While older folk may be quite sensibly more fearful of catching Covid and therefore more willing to acquiesce to lockdown regs, that should not be mistaken for something it is not.

Lastly, if any comment about house sizes has been made (I've not seen one) I'd also counter that grandparents and older folks' homes often tend to be the gathering points for the wider family until such time as the olde folk in question are unable to maintain them, at which point, most tend to downsize. When devoid of kids grandkids, nieces, nephews et el, I doubt they are especially enjoyable spaces in their own right. Possibly quite the opposite. I should state that this is a general observation and not in any directed at your good self!