Eddie Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 7 minutes ago, Albert said: @G STAR RAM certainly doesn't have such a clear claim. They're just randomly stabbing at the figures, hoping to spread some doubt it seems. It certainly worked with me. Reading a few posts on here, I doubt my sanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, Albert said: Death tolls from pandemics are always revised up though. @G STAR RAM certainly doesn't have such a clear claim. They're just randomly stabbing at the figures, hoping to spread some doubt it seems. Which pandemics in the UK have had the numbers revised up? I haven't stabbed at any figures. Ive stated that we know that there are deaths being recorded as Covid deaths when they clearly aren't, as has been discussed on many occasions. You've said Covid deaths are going undiagnosed based on...well nothing other than a stab in the dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Which pandemics in the UK have had the numbers revised up? The obvious ones are the Spanish Flu and H1N1. 11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: I haven't stabbed at any figures. Hahahaha! I hope you're not being serious, it's pretty much your only tactic on here. 11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Ive stated that we know that there are deaths being recorded as Covid deaths when they clearly aren't, as has been discussed on many occasions. As noted, this has been dealt with in detail, you're just stabbing at the figures with the flimsiest of reasons. 11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: You've said Covid deaths are going undiagnosed based on...well nothing other than a stab in the dark. It's not, it's something noted in the literature, and is well known to happen during pandemics. The UK's low testing figures in the first wave means it's very likely those early figures in particular will be revised up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 11 minutes ago, Albert said: The obvious ones are the Spanish Flu and H1N1. Hahahaha! I hope you're not being serious, it's pretty much your only tactic on here. As noted, this has been dealt with in detail, you're just stabbing at the figures with the flimsiest of reasons. It's not, it's something noted in the literature, and is well known to happen during pandemics. The UK's low testing figures in the first wave means it's very likely those early figures in particular will be revised up. The numbers have already been revised down by about 11.5 percent at one point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, Albert said: The obvious ones are the Spanish Flu and H1N1. Can you show us the original reported figures and revised figures so we can see what we can expect? 5 minutes ago, Albert said: Hahahaha! I hope you're not being serious, it's pretty much your only tactic on here. Can you show me where I have stabbed at a figure for the number of deaths please, just to refresh my memory on what I was thinking. 7 minutes ago, Albert said: As noted, this has been dealt with in detail, you're just stabbing at the figures with the flimsiest of reasons. There is no need to keep starting sentences with 'as noted' that just means your opinion and we already know that because it is you doing the post. You haven't dealt with anything. Are you denying that there are deaths being recorded as Covid even when they are clearly not the major contributing factor? 9 minutes ago, Albert said: It's not, it's something noted in the literature, and is well known to happen during pandemics. The UK's low testing figures in the first wave means it's very likely those early figures in particular will be revised up. What literature and what pandemics? Given we have not had a major one here for many years, not sure what you are basing your guesses on. Low testing does not mean deaths were not being recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 6 minutes ago, Norman said: The numbers have already been revised down by about 11.5 percent at one point. They were 'revised down' by the introduction of the 28 days rule. It wasn't actually a revision, more a change of accounting. As noted, the 28 days figure is almost certainly an underestimate. 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Can you show us the original reported figures and revised figures so we can see what we can expect? The H1N1 pandemic had 18449 reported deaths, with revised death toll estimates over 150,000 and up to over half a million. 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Can you show me where I have stabbed at a figure for the number of deaths please, just to refresh my memory on what I was thinking. Most of your posts recently have been this behaviour. You're not systematically discussing the figures or their source, you're picking a random ad hoc point and running with them. This label applies to many of your posts. Statements like: Quote Ive stated that we know that there are deaths being recorded as Covid deaths when they clearly aren't, as has been discussed on many occasions. Are part of the examples of this. 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: There is no need to keep starting sentences with 'as noted' that just means your opinion and we already know that because it is you doing the post. What it means is that it's already been raised on here, and that it has not been countered. That is, what I'm pointing out is that I shouldn't need to be reiterating the point, but am because you're ignoring it wholesale without valid reason. 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: You haven't dealt with anything. Are you denying that there are deaths being recorded as Covid even when they are clearly not the major contributing factor? This has been discussed. The expectation is that of the '28 days' figure, something of the order of ~2500 deaths out of the 110,000+ (ie less than 2.5%) would be consistent with regular all cause mortality. The implication of this is that the 28 days figure likely catches so non-Covid deaths, but a vanishingly small fraction. When you also consider the deaths missed by this measure, both in terms of deaths where no test was conducted (which is hopefully vanishingly small now, but was more significant previously) as well as people who have died due to the disease after 28 days, as well as where the disease is a contributory factor later, it is clear that while such exists, overall the 28 days figure is almost certainly an underestimate. 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: What literature and what pandemics? Given we have not had a major one here for many years, not sure what you are basing your guesses on. Maybe read some papers at some point, you might risk actually learning something. 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Low testing does not mean deaths were not being recorded. By definition, with the 28 days figure, it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 8 minutes ago, Albert said: Most of your posts recently have been this behaviour. You're not systematically discussing the figures or their source, you're picking a random ad hoc point and running with them. Should be easy to show me an example where I have stabbed at the number of deaths then please... 9 minutes ago, Albert said: What it means is that it's already been raised on here, and that it has not been countered. That is, what I'm pointing out is that I shouldn't need to be reiterating the point, but am because you're ignoring it wholesale without valid reason. As has been noted, your points are often countered but you just ignore and move onto another point. 11 minutes ago, Albert said: This has been discussed. The expectation is that of the '28 days' figure, something of the order of ~2500 deaths out of the 110,000+ (ie less than 2.5%) would be consistent with regular all cause mortality. The implication of this is that the 28 days figure likely catches so non-Covid deaths, but a vanishingly small fraction. When you also consider the deaths missed by this measure, both in terms of deaths where no test was conducted (which is hopefully vanishingly small now, but was more significant previously) as well as people who have died due to the disease after 28 days, as well as where the disease is a contributory factor later, it is clear that while such exists, overall the 28 days figure is almost certainly an underestimate. Its not at all clear and it is far from certain. 13 minutes ago, Albert said: Maybe read some papers at some point, you might risk actually learning something. I'm always reading papers, The Sun is my favourite because of page 3 and the racing/football pullouts. 16 minutes ago, Albert said: By definition, with the 28 days figure, it does. You're assuming that tests are necessary to report deaths as Covid related, its already been noted that this is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 39 minutes ago, Norman said: The numbers have already been revised down by about 11.5 percent at one point. That's true. They decided that if you were in a coma for 29 days with Covid-19, then your cause of death was something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Should be easy to show me an example where I have stabbed at the number of deaths then please... ...I just gave you one... 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: As has been noted, your points are often countered but you just ignore and move onto another point. They've not been, that's the whole point. If you feel they have, given examples. 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Its not at all clear and it is far from certain. This isn't an argument, and falls in the 'just stabbing at the numbers' category. You've not actually challenged any point in the above. 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: I'm always reading papers, The Sun is my favourite because of page 3 and the racing/football pullouts. Academic papers mate... 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: You're assuming that tests are necessary to report deaths as Covid related, its already been noted that this is not the case. They are, by definition, for the 28 days figure, which is what we're discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Does anyone know why Test and Trace ask for contacts from the previous 48 hours ... when the median incubation period (carrying the virus without showing symptoms) is apparently 5-6 days, and up to 14 days? Indeed, is it not this 14 day incubation period that defines the length of self isolation. But, therefore, why do they only go back 2 days, and not 14 days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, Albert said: ...I just gave you one... No you didnt, there was no figures mentioned. By definition for me to be stabbing at figures I would have to actually mention figures. 4 minutes ago, Albert said: They've not been, that's the whole point. If you feel they have, given examples. No point. 5 minutes ago, Albert said: This isn't an argument, and falls in the 'just stabbing at the numbers' category. You've not actually challenged any point in the above. You're right, it isnt an argument, its just me pointing out that you saying that 'it is clear' and 'certainly' are just you bigging up your unsubstantiated claims. 7 minutes ago, Albert said: Academic papers mate... Ah right sorry my mistake, I read The Daily Mail sometimes? 8 minutes ago, Albert said: They are, by definition, for the 28 days figure, which is what we're discussing. It isn't what we were discussing, unless you have moved the goalposts mid discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 You guys seem to know lots about the stats. If a colleague of mine tested positive, after getting symptoms 4 days after I spent a day at work with him; and if the median incubation period is 5-6 days, according to the WHO; doesn't this mean that there is a higher than a 50% chance that my colleague was infectious when he was at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted February 5, 2021 Author Share Posted February 5, 2021 6 hours ago, Sith Happens said: Back from having the AZ vaccine. Been to Babbington and have to say the organisation was excellent. Well done to those involved. Had my jab yesterday at the Derby velodrome. It to was well organised, took 8 minutes in total which included the walk to and from the car park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Ken Tram said: Does anyone know why Test and Trace ask for contacts from the previous 48 hours ... when the median incubation period (carrying the virus without showing symptoms) is apparently 5-6 days, and up to 14 days? Indeed, is it not this 14 day incubation period that defines the length of self isolation. But, therefore, why do they only go back 2 days, and not 14 days? ...because it's not implemented properly, and the situation is so out of control compared to what test and trace can handle that they simply can't do 14 days worth of it? 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: No you didnt, there was no figures mentioned. By definition for me to be stabbing at figures I would have to actually mention figures. I think you need to take some time to read my comments. 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: No point. In other words, you admit that you have no examples because it's not something that's happened. 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: You're right, it isnt an argument, its just me pointing out that you saying that 'it is clear' and 'certainly' are just you bigging up your unsubstantiated claims. My points have been backed by the key findings of research papers, and from there what has been discussed is the implications of such. It has, by definition, been substantiated. If you're going to challenge it you could challenge either: 1) the original findings from the papers or 2) the implications of such. You're not doing either, you're just declaring 'nah, you're wrong' and moving on with absolutely no basis. 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Ah right sorry my mistake, I read The Daily Mail sometimes? Again, you're the one accusing others of 'wumming'. 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: It isn't what we were discussing, unless you have moved the goalposts mid discussion? ...mate, it's literally what we've been discussing, it's what the 110,000+ figure is, it's what the UK's official figure is, it's what all the discussion and calculations have been on. If you think we've been discussing something else, you've got some serious comprehension issues going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ken Tram said: You guys seem to know lots about the stats. If a colleague of mine tested positive, after getting symptoms 4 days after I spent a day at work with him; and if the median incubation period is 5-6 days, according to the WHO; doesn't this mean that there is a higher than a 50% chance that my colleague was infectious when he was at work? There is a lot of different things at play with this. The issue is that people can be infectious before showing symptoms, but are usually less so. It would be unusual for them to be infectious 4 days prior to being symptomatic though. That said, that assumes it was 4 days prior to being symptomatic, not 4 days prior to being so symptomatic that they were forced to get a test. In Australia, you and your contacts would be put in quarantine for 14 days though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 7 minutes ago, 1of4 said: Had my jab yesterday at the Derby velodrome. It to was well organised, took 8 minutes in total which included the walk to and from the car park. Interesting. They make everyone sit for 15 minutes after the jab at our surgery to make sure you don't get a reaction. Not aimed at you particularly, 1of4 but there are a lot of people now getting vaccines. Are you all 75+ or are they getting to the younger ones in some parts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, angieram said: Interesting. They make everyone sit for 15 minutes after the jab at our surgery to make sure you don't get a reaction. Not aimed at you particularly, 1of4 but there are a lot of people now getting vaccines. Are you all 75+ or are they getting to the younger ones in some parts? My mum is 65 with no underlying issues, she had hers done at the velodrome yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Albert said: In Australia, you and your contacts would be put in quarantine for 14 days though. How many days back do they go in Australia? (I did assume that NHS Test and Trace has only got the capacity to go back two days - but, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't voluntarily isolate for "positive" contacts from more than two days before.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: My mum is 65 with no underlying issues, she had hers done at the velodrome yesterday You see I don't understand this, we are still doing 75+. Unless it is her occupation that is a priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, angieram said: You see I don't understand this, we are still doing 75+. Unless it is her occupation that is a priority. No, she just got a text message out of the blue saying she could be vaccinated following day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.