Page 26 of 37 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 727

Thread: We seem to be missing a COVID-19 thread

  1. #501
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Asht_200 View Post
    It doesn’t work that way.

    You have to factor in demographics of who is currently being infected.

    You also have to factor in modern office buildings with air circulation, open plan areas, it doesn’t take long for 1 person to infect an entire office, who would then in turn go on to spread it. The fact that the mortality rate is so high, committing to herd immunisation would be condemning considerably more to die in a horrible manner

    Edit you only have to look at how it burned through food processing plants in the US


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It does work that way.

    The disease has a one to fourteen day incubation period, the lockdown was introduced twenty five days ago.

    We should have seen a significant drop in infections during or after fourteen days, this has verified that the lockdown hasn't worked.

    The only way that this method would not be able to be used, is if the disease has a longer incubation period than fourteen days and yet again the WHO and NHS are incorrect again and caused thousands more to die.

    Which would explain why our number of covid linked deaths are higher than most other countries.

    The NHS let operatives go back to work seven days after showing symptoms, that would mean an NHS worker who has had no symptoms at the start of the lockdown but shown symptoms on day fourteen would be back at work on day twenty twenty two,

    Are you claiming the NHS are sending people back to work when they are still infectious?

    It is impossible to determine the mortality rate as we do not know how many people have been infected, if we where to assume fifty percent of the population have had it in as the oxford university study suggested in march the mortality rate is very very low, as most people are asymptomatic.
    Last edited by LeonatLarge; 18-04-2020 at 08:00.

  2. #502
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    21,397
    Rides
    0
    I have an urge to jump in here. How can you make a positive claim like this
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon
    We should have seen a significant drop in infections during or after fourteen days, this has verified that the lockdown hasn't worked.
    and then finish the same comment with
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon
    we do not know how many people have been infected
    The two statements don’t tally.

    The UK “lockdown” has always been to slow the rate of spread. And according to SAGE at the briefing yesterday, the UK national average infection rate (an average of the country, not a local figure for region by region) is now “highly likely” to be below 1. Which is great and does make the case for the lockdown being effective.

    The R value is a rate, not a tally. In some areas COVID-19 will be spreading, in some it won’t. But we will continue to find more cases as we continue to test. So according to the best in the business we are now likely to be spreading the disease much less, but the infection numbers will continue to rise because the more we test, the more undetected cases we will find.

  3. #503
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by piman2k View Post
    I have an urge to jump in here. How can you make a positive claim like this

    and then finish the same comment with

    The two statements don’t tally.

    The UK “lockdown” has always been to slow the rate of spread. And according to SAGE at the briefing yesterday, the UK national average infection rate (an average of the country, not a local figure for region by region) is now “highly likely” to be below 1. Which is great and does make the case for the lockdown being effective.

    The R value is a rate, not a tally. In some areas COVID-19 will be spreading, in some it won’t. But we will continue to find more cases as we continue to test. So according to the best in the business we are now likely to be spreading the disease much less, but the infection numbers will continue to rise because the more we test, the more undetected cases we will find.
    Yes this is correct, unfortunately the only data we can use is what the government are providing us with.

    We can not use variables with a serious disease such as this, " highly likely "

    At the moment we can only use hospital admissions as it is a fact that when someone is admitted with covid 19 they have been tested and need treatment, this can be used as a benchmark and is indicative of the contagion.

    The contagion has not significantly declined since the lockdown was introduced twenty five days ago, which again verifys that the lockdown isn't working.
    Last edited by LeonatLarge; 18-04-2020 at 08:30.

  4. #504
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    21,397
    Rides
    0
    No sir, you just can’t say that the lockdown isn’t working. You have to differentiate between the rate of infection as one entity and the total number of cases as another entity.

    The science and statistics (of which I won’t pretend to be an expert in) that come from SAGE tell us the rate of infection is probably below 1, which means the national average spread is slowing. Which is what the lockdown was supposed to do.

    It doesn’t mean the infection has stopped spreading.

    But the total number of infections will go up for a long time. Because there is a pool of already infected people out there that haven’t been tested and so aren’t in the figures. So the more we test, the more of them we discover, the higher the total number of cases is.

  5. #505
    Guest Asht_200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ashflix.com
    Posts
    22,542
    Rides
    0
    It doesn’t prove the lockdown isn’t working, again you aren’t taking into account the demographics of who continue to be infected. Are they essential workers, who are they coming into contact with.

    Oh and to add another thing to the list. More than 100 South Koreans who had the virus and recovered have relapsed and got it again. There is still not enough known.

    The lockdown is primarily to slow the spread, not stop it completely, so we don’t overwhelm our emergency services


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #506
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Asht_200 View Post
    It doesn’t prove the lockdown isn’t working, again you aren’t taking into account the demographics of who continue to be infected. Are they essential workers, who are they coming into contact with.

    Oh and to add another thing to the list. More than 100 South Koreans who had the virus and recovered have relapsed and got it again. There is still not enough known.

    The lockdown is primarily to slow the spread, not stop it completely, so we don’t overwhelm our emergency services


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ash what are you talking about ? I'm taking into account demographics as the lockdown was nation wide.

    It is irrelevant regarding if the lock down has had an effect or not, if they are key workers or essential workers, or people doing shopping, the whole nation have been locked down for twenty five days and we have not seen a significant drop in hospital admissions.

    This verifys that the lockdown hasn't worked as it has not slowed the rate of infection.

    If the lockdown had worked we would have seen a significant drop in hospital admissions this is a fact.
    Last edited by LeonatLarge; 18-04-2020 at 08:49.

  7. #507
    Guest Asht_200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ashflix.com
    Posts
    22,542
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonatLarge View Post
    Ash what are you talking about ? I'm taking into account demographics as the lockdown was nation wide.

    It is irrelevant regarding if the lock down has had an effect or not, if they are key workers or essential workers, or people doing shopping, the whole nation have been locked down for twenty five days and we have not seen a significant drop in hospital admissions.

    This verifys that the lockdown hasn't worked as it has not slowed the rate of infection.

    If the lockdown had worked we would see a significant drop in hospital admissions this is a fact.
    Ok I’ll reword it. To reduce the rate of infection.

    Again I’ll reiterate. We don’t know enough about the Virus, how it is being spread. How long can it live outside a host on surfaces. They believe it can be active for 3 days on metal surfaces.

    I’m going to completely disagree with the herd immunity principle by the fact it has such a high mortality rate. Are you happy that one of your friends or relatives may die, just so you cam got to the pub?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #508
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    21,397
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon
    If the lockdown had worked we would see a significant drop in hospital admissions this is a fact
    No Leon, I’m sorry chap but you’ve just not got a handle on how the statistics work.

    We have seen a reduction in the rate of admissions to hospital i.e. the number of admissions per unit of time. This is the point of the lockdown. Slow the rate of spread and reduce the rate of admission to a controllable one. This is the R value.

    But the more people we test, the more people we find with the disease that have not been detected yet, so the more people will be admitted to hospital and the total number of admissions will rise.

    Can I politely ask you to please stop editing your comments and just make one concise point at a time, it makes it impossible to give you a structured response. In response to your edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon
    We can not use variables with a serious disease such as this, "highly likely”
    Yes we can. It’s an argument about statistics and this is a probability. It’s exactly the right language to use because they cannot make an affirmative statement because the base line data (the total number of detected cases) continues to change.

    They could only say yes or no to the R value definitely being X if they had already tested the entire country.

  9. #509
    Guest Asht_200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ashflix.com
    Posts
    22,542
    Rides
    0
    And you aren’t taking into count asymptomatic carriers, who appear healthy but can spread the disease to someone who is vulnerable, someone with as simple as asthma.

    Watch the video I posted about how Covid kills. It’s a horrible way to die


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #510
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by piman2k View Post
    No Leon, I’m sorry chap but you’ve just not got a handle on how the statistics work.

    We have seen a reduction in the rate of admissions to hospital i.e. the number of admissions per unit of time. This is the point of the lockdown. Slow the rate of spread and reduce the rate of admission to a controllable one. This is the R value.

    But the more people we test, the more people we find with the disease that have not been detected yet, so the more people will be admitted to hospital and the total number of admissions will rise.

    Can I politely ask you to please stop editing your comments and just make one concise point at a time, it makes it impossible to give you a structured response. In response to your edit:


    Yes we can. It’s an argument about statistics and this is a probability. It’s exactly the right language to use because they cannot make an affirmative statement because the base line data (the total number of detected cases) continues to change.

    They could only say yes or no to the R value definitely being X if they had already tested the entire country.
    No that is incorrect, people are only admitted to hospital when they need treatment, this benchmark is Indicative of the contagion, this a fact.

  11. #511
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Asht_200 View Post
    And you aren’t taking into count asymptomatic carriers, who appear healthy but can spread the disease to someone who is vulnerable, someone with as simple as asthma.

    Watch the video I posted about how Covid kills. It’s a horrible way to die


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm taking the asymptomatic carriers of the virus into account as they have been locked down for twenty five days as well the people who had symptoms on day one of the lockdown.

    How the disease kills people is irrelevant when we are trying to establish if the lockdown has slowed the rate of infection or not.
    Last edited by LeonatLarge; 18-04-2020 at 09:13.

  12. #512
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    21,397
    Rides
    0
    Sigh. It’s not incorrect. I don’t know how to help you understand.

  13. #513
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by piman2k View Post
    Sigh. It’s not incorrect. I don’t know how to help you understand.
    I do understand, me and many others understand that these people who believed Chinas covid 19 linked death figures to be correct and didn't understand how a simple face covering could stop mucus from a sneeze travelling over two metres, should not be in control of our nation.

    We should not be taking direction from such nieve people when they have made such fatal mistakes which have cost tens of thousands of people their lives, if they worked in the private sector they would have sacked.
    Last edited by LeonatLarge; 18-04-2020 at 10:06.

  14. #514
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    21,397
    Rides
    0
    You don’t understand though. If you did, I wouldn’t have to explain it 2 or 3 times.

    And I don’t understand your point, are you saying SAGE, the CSO and CMO are naive?

  15. #515
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by piman2k View Post
    You don’t understand though. If you did, I wouldn’t have to explain it 2 or 3 times.

    And I don’t understand your point, are you saying SAGE, the CSO and CMO are naive?
    It is ridiculous to try and use the number of detected cases as baseline data, unless you test everyone in the UK every day which is impossible, so this makes the number of detected cases a variable nonsense as it is depends on the number of people tested and the areas ect in which they are tested.

    The only definite we have is hospital admissions as people have to go to hospital when the disease overwhelms them, and the number of hospital admissions due to covid 19 is in no way linked to the number of positive tests as we hardly test anyone in comparison to the size of the population and most people who have tested positive are not admitted to hospital.

    This is exactly why we should not take direction from such people as they do not understand how to use the available data to limit the contagion of the disease, this can be verified by looking at our number of deaths compared to other countries such as Japan who have only lost a few hundred people.

    Whatever they are doing isn't working as we have lost thousands more people than other countries and hospital admissions due to covid 19 have not significantly dropped since the lockdown was introduced twenty five days ago.
    Last edited by LeonatLarge; 18-04-2020 at 12:18.

  16. #516
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    21,397
    Rides
    0
    I mean, I don’t even know where to begin in decomposing your last reply. It’s absolutely absurd in its entirety.

    But no amount of reasoned arguments is going to make you realise that that you’re misunderstanding data and that you don’t understand the difference between a rate and a quantity.

    I should have known better than to try and address you.

  17. #517
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    21,397
    Rides
    0
    Let me give you one more statement and see if you can process it.

    The total number of hospital admissions related to COVID-19 will continue to increase even if the rate of infection is actually decreasing. Because the rate of infection will still be a positive number (albeit a decreasing positive number) and because the more people are tested, the more cases will be detected.

    Until the rate of infection is 0, the total number of cases will increase which in turn means the total number of admissions will increase. Once the rate of infection is 0 and stays at 0 for some time, the rate of admissions will slow and eventually stop.

    The objective of the lockdown was (and is) to ensure that the rate of admission (number of admissions per unit of time) remains manageable by the NHS.

    The SAGE predictions were that having no form of lockdown would over run the NHS quickly. The NHS (as you keep saying yourself) is not yet overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases, and so it’s reasonable to attribute this control to the lockdown.

  18. #518
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by piman2k View Post
    Let me give you one more statement and see if you can process it.

    The total number of hospital admissions related to COVID-19 will continue to increase even if the rate of infection is actually decreasing. Because the rate of infection will still be a positive number (albeit a decreasing positive number) and because the more people are tested, the more cases will be detected.

    Until the rate of infection is 0, the total number of cases will increase which in turn means the total number of admissions will increase. Once the rate of infection is 0 and stays at 0 for some time, the rate of admissions will slow and eventually stop.

    The objective of the lockdown was (and is) to ensure that the rate of admission (number of admissions per unit of time) remains manageable by the NHS.

    The SAGE predictions were that having no form of lockdown would over run the NHS quickly. The NHS (as you keep saying yourself) is not yet overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases, and so it’s reasonable to attribute this control to the lockdown.


    That's absolute nonsense, the number of people tested and the number of cases detected has no correlation with the number of people admitted to hospital.

    If you where to test the whole nation today and test no one tomorrow it would not alter the number of hospital admissions due to covid 19.

    People are only admitted to hospital when they are overwhelmed by the disease.

    The rate of infection does have a direct correlation to hospital admissions, as the disease has a one to fourteen day incubation period and most people who need hospital treatment are admitted to hospital between five and fourteen days after showing the first symptoms ( reference Boris Johnson) using these definites we can say as we are now nearly a month into the lockdown and hospital admissions have not gone down by any significant amount that the lockdown hasn't worked in controlling the rate of infection.

    There is no evidence that if we didn't have a lockdown that the NHS would have been overwhelmed, infact as I have demonstrated numerous times the definite figures we have verify the contrary.

    Facts and logic, not variable nonsense is the only way we will overcome this disease.
    Last edited by LeonatLarge; 18-04-2020 at 15:07.

  19. #519
    Guest Asht_200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ashflix.com
    Posts
    22,542
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonatLarge View Post
    That's absolute nonsense, the number of people tested and the number of cases detected has no correlation with the number of people admitted to hospital.

    If you where to test the whole nation today and test no one tomorrow it would not alter the number of hospital admissions due to covid 19 on the respective days,

    People are only admitted to hospital when they are overwhelmed by the disease.

    The rate of infection does have a direct correlation to hospital admissions, as the disease has a one to fourteen day incubation period and most people who need hospital treatment are admitted to hospital between five and fourteen days after showing the first symptoms ( reference Boris Johnson) using these definites we can say as we are now nearly a month into the lockdown and hospital admissions have not gone down by any significant amount that the lockdown hasn't worked in controlling the rate of infection.

    There is no evidence that if we didn't have a lockdown that the NHS would have been overwhelmed, infact as I have demonstrated numerous times the definite figures we have verify the contrary.

    Facts and logic, not variable nonsense is the only way we will overcome this disease.
    Actually you have just contradicted yourself

    You claimed you had it, but I’m guessing you were never tested and I’m guessing this was probably before the lockdown as you said you were for enough to go to work


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #520
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    1,128
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Asht_200 View Post
    Actually you have just contradicted yourself

    You claimed you had it, but I’m guessing you were never tested and I’m guessing this was probably before the lockdown as you said you were for enough to go to work


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    How have I contradicted myself ? please explain.

    You should watch this video, one of the top doctors in the USA explains how the WHO have got this entirely wrong and how mainstream medias hysteria has put pressure on governments who have locked people down without any evidence that this would stop or slow the rate of infection.

    https://youtu.be/WGbYHJcMbz8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •