jnb14
Youth Player
Posts: 270
|
Post by jnb14 on Jul 7, 2020 12:53:30 GMT
Spot on. I think the fundamental issue with conspiracy theorists is that they are just more prone to accepting the 'interesting' story than the 'mundane' story. To an extent, you can't really blame them, as humans we all love a good yarn - that's why we watch films and read books. Unfortunately, whereas most of us will accept that if 95% of the available data or evidence points towards a certain conclusion then that's the likely boring mundane truth, some of us (the conspiracy theorists) will pounce on the 5% of data or evidence which doesn't point towards the same conclusion and use this as evidence that something sinister is occurring. I think it's just how their brains work. They prefer the 'excitement' of the possibility of a conspiracy over the boring reality. And to be 'different' to the 'sheeple' (who are obviously so naive that they blindly swallow the 'authorised' line) is also attractive and probably provides a feeling of intellectual superiority. Here we go with the attempt at psychoanalysis, using the BBC model seen on hitpieces for those questioning any information received. This is actually presenting an attitude of intellectual superiority. Something I've never tried to do. I don't attempt psychoanalysis on those that wish to view authority as some kind of benevolent parent and continue their blind belief, despite a list of evidence to the contrary. Maybe they have 'daddy issues'. See how easy it is to throw in some 'psychoanalysis'. Also, it's amazing how such folk casually overlook and dismiss information that would undermine faith in such authority and keep their belief in the narrative told. How much does it take to start some actual questioning. I'm still waiting for someone to justify this ludicrous lockdown, which will lead to more deaths and poverty, and justify their acceptance future lockdowns? All from virus (even if you believe all the dodgy stats, inflated through the care home system, as I previously stated) that is less deadly than seasonal flu? Let's not forget this lockdown was based on hugely erroneous models of 500,000 deaths from a guy with a disastrous record during foot and mouth. A guy who doesn't even think it worth following his own lockdown. You talk about 5% of evidence. But this is pretty crucial I would say. It has ground the country to a halt for four months. And yet people are still willing to accept more of this shit with random town and pub lockdowns. So whilst you're congratulating yourself on the internet and circle-jerking for avoiding the label of 'conspiracy theorist', maybe you can explain the levels of cognitive dissonance required to accept more and more of this shit and the destruction of lives and livelihoods? Forget targetting the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' and justify this lockdown!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 7, 2020 12:57:56 GMT
How is it? You'll see the stats for other countries in the thread. People would do it and if they see more people wearing them they will join in. You won't get everyone but it could be done to a decent level. It's clearly a good thing and people really need to get on board with it and get it into their skulls that they are doing a civic duty. Agree, on a rare occasion I went into town on Saturday, and went into a shop I used regularly before lockdown with my mask on, I was greeted with 'are you going to rob us' the staff didn't have masks or visors on, so I left It's ridiculous. They should be mandatory for anyone going into any shop. We went into town on Saturday and there was about 4/5 people wearing them. That's why it needs to be pushed by the government and have a campaign around it. People would wear one if they didn't have the misgivings in their head that were around at the start. I was one of those people that thought the whole masks thing we daft but clearly they don't do any harm and actually could do a lot of good.
|
|
|
Post by neworleanstokie on Jul 7, 2020 13:00:12 GMT
How is it? You'll see the stats for other countries in the thread. People would do it and if they see more people wearing them they will join in. You won't get everyone but it could be done to a decent level. It's clearly a good thing and people really need to get on board with it and get it into their skulls that they are doing a civic duty. Agree, on a rare occasion I went into town on Saturday, and went into a shop I used regularly before lockdown with my mask on, I was greeted with 'are you going to rob us' the staff didn't have masks or visors on, so I left Well done Northy... it's hard to get a sense not being in the UK but it seems as though hardly anyone is wearing a mask when outside? What is so hard for people get their heads around? You only have to see how effective it's been here in New York where we were the epicenter of Covid back in Apr - now one of the safest states to be in compared to say oh... Texas?? I don't even take the trash out without putting on a mask as I may run into one of my neighbors in the hallway.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 7, 2020 13:21:04 GMT
Tick tock Time really passes slowly Waiting for you to answer a straight question Tick tock? 25,000 elderly people were booted out of Hospitals and sent to care homes, 20,000 DIED of covid19. In any normal society the perpetrators would be in jail by now. And you pop up with "tick tock"? WTF is wrong with you? You accused me of being untruthful in my post I have asked you where or what Wasn't true with my post And yet you deflect In a normal society people wouldn't take a cash incentive to put people's lives at risk We do live in Intresting times where one of this boards resident Marxist's fails to condem private health providers
|
|
jnb14
Youth Player
Posts: 270
|
Post by jnb14 on Jul 7, 2020 13:23:28 GMT
Here we go with the attempt at psychoanalysis, using the BBC model seen on hitpieces for those questioning any information received. This is actually presenting an attitude of intellectual superiority. Something I've never tried to do. I don't attempt psychoanalysis on those that wish to view authority as some kind of benevolent parent and continue their blind belief, despite a list of evidence to the contrary. Maybe they have 'daddy issues'. See how easy it is to throw in some 'psychoanalysis'. Also, it's amazing how such folk casually overlook and dismiss information that would undermine faith in such authority and keep their belief in the narrative told. How much does it take to start some actual questioning. I'm still waiting for someone to justify this ludicrous lockdown, which will lead to more deaths and poverty, and justify their acceptance future lockdowns? All from virus (even if you believe all the dodgy stats, inflated through the care home system, as I previously stated) that is less deadly than seasonal flu? Let's not forget this lockdown was based on hugely erroneous models of 500,000 deaths from a guy with a disastrous record during foot and mouth. A guy who doesn't even think it worth following his own lockdown. You talk about 5% of evidence. But this is pretty crucial I would say. It has ground the country to a halt for four months. And yet people are still willing to accept more of this shit with random town and pub lockdowns. So whilst you're congratulating yourself on the internet and circle-jerking for avoiding the label of 'conspiracy theorist', maybe you can explain the levels of cognitive dissonance required to accept more and more of this shit and the destruction of lives and livelihoods? Forget targetting the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' and justify this lockdown! Oops I'm making a mess of this. Yes, I take your point that this virus seems to be less "deadly" than seasonal flu. There is a vaccine produced every year for the flu. Many people do not avail themselves of it. (I am not going down the anti vaxer route!). Thousands of people die from flu every year and we do not lockdown every year. This is a fact, so why lockdown now? I am not a government spokesman. My opinion as to why is 1. The effects of the virus are not as well known as the flu virus. There seems to be evidence emerging that there may be long term effects of Covid that do not happen with flu. It would probably be a good thing if we try to restrict the number of people with long term effects. We really need someone like Estranged Son of Faye here. 2. At the start of this less was known about Covid than we know now, it was probably right to treat Covid as more deadly than it has turned out- a bit like building those Nightingale hospitals that weren't eventually needed. Herd immunity would surely have resulted in more than the 40,000+ deaths that have directly been attributed to Covid and it looks, at the moment, like immunity for those that have had Covid is no more than 3 months - this may change as more data becomes available. 3 Countries in SE Asia, who have more experience of events like this, tend to lockdown when outbreaks occur. I think those have been fairly good reasons for the lockdown. The lockdown, and so much else, has been appallingly handled ( a point that surely goes against any conspiracy) however, even I who hates this government and especially the PM, will give them a little slack in that this is an event, that though predicted, no one in western Europe seriously thought would happen. They should have done- and maybe now will. As for the future, I think Covid will be treated like the flu is treated now, with or without a vaccine. We seem to still have sex (as a species that is!) despite there being no cure for HIV/AIDS. And as I said, many people simply don't bother having the flu vaccine. What the ideology of this government will do to the NHS/care sector and any other area of it's responsibility to prepare for life living with Covid as a fact of life I dread to think. PS - in my household we have suffered with the NHS basically being shut down in vast areas. One stepson is a radiographer. They have been inundated with patients unable to have more usual forms of treatment for cancer. My wife has spent weeks in bed due to her pain relieving procedure being cancelled. It is only this Friday, AFTER the pubs have reopened, that she have the procedure 3 months late.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 7, 2020 13:32:41 GMT
The ONS have said today that only 22% of those that have tested positive have symptoms. Surely to God that's as big a stat as any that we need to be seeing masks and hand washing campaigns? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 7, 2020 13:42:07 GMT
Tick tock? 25,000 elderly people were booted out of Hospitals and sent to care homes, 20,000 DIED of covid19. In any normal society the perpetrators would be in jail by now. And you pop up with "tick tock"? WTF is wrong with you? You accused me of being untruthful in my post I have asked you where or what Wasn't true with my post And yet you deflect In a normal society people wouldn't take a cash incentive to put people's lives at risk We do live in Intresting times where one of this boards resident Marxist's fails to condem private health providers No, I was responding to you saying the government had done a good job, you then posted an attempt at deflection. And I'm a democratic socialist not a marxist, marxism is a theory.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jul 7, 2020 13:47:17 GMT
Oops I'm making a mess of this. Yes, I take your point that this virus seems to be less "deadly" than seasonal flu. There is a vaccine produced every year for the flu. Many people do not avail themselves of it. (I am not going down the anti vaxer route!). Thousands of people die from flu every year and we do not lockdown every year. This is a fact, so why lockdown now? I am not a government spokesman. My opinion as to why is 1. The effects of the virus are not as well known as the flu virus. There seems to be evidence emerging that there may be long term effects of Covid that do not happen with flu. It would probably be a good thing if we try to restrict the number of people with long term effects. We really need someone like Estranged Son of Faye here. 2. At the start of this less was known about Covid than we know now, it was probably right to treat Covid as more deadly than it has turned out- a bit like building those Nightingale hospitals that weren't eventually needed. Herd immunity would surely have resulted in more than the 40,000+ deaths that have directly been attributed to Covid and it looks, at the moment, like immunity for those that have had Covid is no more than 3 months - this may change as more data becomes available. 3 Countries in SE Asia, who have more experience of events like this, tend to lockdown when outbreaks occur. I think those have been fairly good reasons for the lockdown. The lockdown, and so much else, has been appallingly handled ( a point that surely goes against any conspiracy) however, even I who hates this government and especially the PM, will give them a little slack in that this is an event, that though predicted, no one in western Europe seriously thought would happen. They should have done- and maybe now will. As for the future, I think Covid will be treated like the flu is treated now, with or without a vaccine. We seem to still have sex (as a species that is!) despite there being no cure for HIV/AIDS. And as I said, many people simply don't bother having the flu vaccine. What the ideology of this government will do to the NHS/care sector and any other area of it's responsibility to prepare for life living with Covid as a fact of life I dread to think. PS - in my household we have suffered with the NHS basically being shut down in vast areas. One stepson is a radiographer. They have been inundated with patients unable to have more usual forms of treatment for cancer. My wife has spent weeks in bed due to her pain relieving procedure being cancelled. It is only this Friday, AFTER the pubs have reopened, that she have the procedure 3 months late. Taking the figures at face value, there is absolutely no rationale for saying its less deadly than seasonal flu. Even if you take a bad season like the US in 14/15 where the IFR was 0.17%, (51,000 deaths/ 30,000,000 cases). The lowest estimate I’ve seen for Covid from a collection of studies is 0.26%. That paper collecting those studies is a bit of a standalone in itself too, most papers are consistently estimating 0.5% Covid IFR as a minimum. Every caveat cited for Covid deaths, like what does a positive test actually mean, and did they die of or with Covid can also be applied to flu. For example, deaths included in flu estimations include those where it’s not included on the certificate because of underreporting when its on a background of symptoms of a bacterial superinfection. Yet this is made out to be something only happening to the Covid figures. Flu is exacerbated by stuff like people going into work ill. This is a ridiculous practice that should stop. Case isolation is a very basic health response that would probably limit damage for a lot of diseases. Your other 3 points are pretty spot on, a pandemic isn’t and shouldn’t just be measures by IFR. A disease killing hardly anyone but say only treatable in hospital and potentially overloading hospitals would still carry a massive risk if you couldn’t meet the burden. Information on what this actually is and is doing to the body is still limited. As I write this, DHSC have just commissioned a study into the longer term effects. Autopsies showing macroscopic vascular damage and CT scans in “healthier” patients are revealing some nasty stuff.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jul 7, 2020 13:54:14 GMT
The ONS have said today that only 22% of those that have tested positive have symptoms. Surely to God that's as big a stat as any that we need to be seeing masks and hand washing campaigns? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155It’s caveated by the small numbers actually testing positive in their studies (leading to wide confidence intervals) and issues with patient self reporting. It can’t really be scaled up as a population wide figure yet. Humans are crap at recalling symptoms, even quite severe ones sometimes. For instance the 22% rises to 33% when taking into account symptoms either before or after the day of the test. Symptoms recorded just on the day don’t cover the whole potential infectious course. The very large Spain study that recently came out has it around 66% symptomatic. That’s still a big chunk of people either asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic (minimal symptom likely to be missed) but one that is more in keeping with the literature.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 7, 2020 13:54:48 GMT
Spot on. I think the fundamental issue with conspiracy theorists is that they are just more prone to accepting the 'interesting' story than the 'mundane' story. To an extent, you can't really blame them, as humans we all love a good yarn - that's why we watch films and read books. Unfortunately, whereas most of us will accept that if 95% of the available data or evidence points towards a certain conclusion then that's the likely boring mundane truth, some of us (the conspiracy theorists) will pounce on the 5% of data or evidence which doesn't point towards the same conclusion and use this as evidence that something sinister is occurring. I think it's just how their brains work. They prefer the 'excitement' of the possibility of a conspiracy over the boring reality. And to be 'different' to the 'sheeple' (who are obviously so naive that they blindly swallow the 'authorised' line) is also attractive and probably provides a feeling of intellectual superiority. Here we go with the attempt at psychoanalysis, using the BBC model seen on hitpieces for those questioning any information received. This is actually presenting an attitude of intellectual superiority. Something I've never tried to do. I don't attempt psychoanalysis on those that wish to view authority as some kind of benevolent parent and continue their blind belief, despite a list of evidence to the contrary. Maybe they have 'daddy issues'. See how easy it is to throw in some 'psychoanalysis'. Also, it's amazing how such folk casually overlook and dismiss information that would undermine faith in such authority and keep their belief in the narrative told. How much does it take to start some actual questioning. I'm still waiting for someone to justify this ludicrous lockdown, which will lead to more deaths and poverty, and justify their acceptance future lockdowns? All from virus (even if you believe all the dodgy stats, inflated through the care home system, as I previously stated) that is less deadly than seasonal flu? Let's not forget this lockdown was based on hugely erroneous models of 500,000 deaths from a guy with a disastrous record during foot and mouth. A guy who doesn't even think it worth following his own lockdown. You talk about 5% of evidence. But this is pretty crucial I would say. It has ground the country to a halt for four months. And yet people are still willing to accept more of this shit with random town and pub lockdowns. So whilst you're congratulating yourself on the internet and circle-jerking for avoiding the label of 'conspiracy theorist', maybe you can explain the levels of cognitive dissonance required to accept more and more of this shit and the destruction of lives and livelihoods? Forget targetting the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' and justify this lockdown! Several people have offered you justifications for the lockdown - including myself yesterday - to which you chose not to respond. So stop making things up. The lockdown in the UK was not based on 'one guy' but on the work of a team at Imperial College of which he is the head. The 500k was based on doing nothing in response to Covid. We did do something - rather a lot in fact - to limit the spread - so while the 500k may have been at the higher end of the spectrum it was far from erroneous. However that was only used as justification in the UK - other countries came to the same conclusion independently and for the most part followed a dustinctly similar patter of lockdown. As ESOF has detailed the virus is considerably more deadky than flu. Now again I ask you YET AGAIN- if as you infer there is something untoward going on that is meaning that all countries worldwide are overreacting to the virus: Who is behind it? How are they co-ercing the huhe number of independent health bodies globally to overstate the effects of Covid? What is their endgame?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 7, 2020 13:55:46 GMT
You accused me of being untruthful in my post I have asked you where or what Wasn't true with my post And yet you deflect In a normal society people wouldn't take a cash incentive to put people's lives at risk We do live in Intresting times where one of this boards resident Marxist's fails to condem private health providers No, I was responding to you saying the government had done a good job, you then posted an attempt at deflection. And I'm a democratic socialist not a marxist, marxism is a theory. The post in question was the second one after you had posted some obscure person on Morgans shit show The whole point is no care home had to accept a single hospital patient without a negative test They took the States shilling probably based on greed The government asked the NHS to free up spare capacity some NHS managers decided to use cash inducements that some care homes were more than willing to take This should be exposed not just blanket blaming it all on the government Do you agree with me that care homes should be Nationalised
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 7, 2020 14:10:22 GMT
No, I was responding to you saying the government had done a good job, you then posted an attempt at deflection. And I'm a democratic socialist not a marxist, marxism is a theory. The post in question was the second one after you had posted some obscure person on Morgans shit show The whole point is no care home had to accept a single hospital patient without a negative test They took the States shilling probably based on greed The government asked the NHS to free up spare capacity some NHS managers decided to use cash inducements that some care homes were more than willing to take This should be exposed not just blanket blaming it all on the government Do you agree with me that care homes should be Nationalised Care Homes had no choice but to accept Patients, it's the truth. Not my problem if you refuse to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 7, 2020 14:36:47 GMT
The post in question was the second one after you had posted some obscure person on Morgans shit show The whole point is no care home had to accept a single hospital patient without a negative test They took the States shilling probably based on greed The government asked the NHS to free up spare capacity some NHS managers decided to use cash inducements that some care homes were more than willing to take This should be exposed not just blanket blaming it all on the government Do you agree with me that care homes should be Nationalised Care Homes had no choice but to accept Patients, it's the truth. Not my problem if you refuse to accept it. There's one guy on here who has kept on saying they (or his wife's) care home continually turned away patients from hospitals who hadn't had a test proving negative. There was a choice www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/29/care-homes-refusing-to-take-in-patients-discharged-nhs-hospitals-coronavirus-riskI know a bloke who owns many care homes, he's a multi millionaire and drives a Ferrari around.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 7, 2020 14:37:54 GMT
The post in question was the second one after you had posted some obscure person on Morgans shit show The whole point is no care home had to accept a single hospital patient without a negative test They took the States shilling probably based on greed The government asked the NHS to free up spare capacity some NHS managers decided to use cash inducements that some care homes were more than willing to take This should be exposed not just blanket blaming it all on the government Do you agree with me that care homes should be Nationalised Care Homes had no choice but to accept Patients, it's the truth. Not my problem if you refuse to accept it. Then how did some refuse then
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 7, 2020 14:43:02 GMT
Maybe now you have posted from the leftist Liberal Bible some on here might actually belive Care homes did not have to accept hospital discharges without a negative test Not that it suits the let's blame the government agenda
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Jul 7, 2020 14:49:50 GMT
The ONS have said today that only 22% of those that have tested positive have symptoms. Surely to God that's as big a stat as any that we need to be seeing masks and hand washing campaigns? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155It’s caveated by the small numbers actually testing positive in their studies (leading to wide confidence intervals) and issues with patient self reporting. It can’t really be scaled up as a population wide figure yet. Humans are crap at recalling symptoms, even quite severe ones sometimes. For instance the 22% rises to 33% when taking into account symptoms either before or after the day of the test. Symptoms recorded just on the day don’t cover the whole potential infectious course. The very large Spain study that recently came out has it around 66% symptomatic. That’s still a big chunk of people either asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic (minimal symptom likely to be missed) but one that is more in keeping with the literature. Also there is still little/no evidence suggesting how infectious, if at all, entirely asymptomatic people are, or even why they are asymptomatic.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 7, 2020 14:53:20 GMT
I think Mark Adams summed up this chancing bastard Prime Minister and his heinous Government best.
Mark Adams, who runs the charity Community Integrated Care, told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme the prime minister's comments were "cowardly" and a "travesty of leadership".
Mr Adams added: "If this is genuinely his view, I think we're almost entering a Kafkaesque alternative reality where the government sets the rules, we follow them, they don't like the results, they then deny setting the rules and blame the people that were trying to do their best."
The National Care Forum said Mr Johnson's remarks were “totally inappropriate” and "hugely insulting" to care workers.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 7, 2020 14:59:05 GMT
Spot on. I think the fundamental issue with conspiracy theorists is that they are just more prone to accepting the 'interesting' story than the 'mundane' story. To an extent, you can't really blame them, as humans we all love a good yarn - that's why we watch films and read books. Unfortunately, whereas most of us will accept that if 95% of the available data or evidence points towards a certain conclusion then that's the likely boring mundane truth, some of us (the conspiracy theorists) will pounce on the 5% of data or evidence which doesn't point towards the same conclusion and use this as evidence that something sinister is occurring. I think it's just how their brains work. They prefer the 'excitement' of the possibility of a conspiracy over the boring reality. And to be 'different' to the 'sheeple' (who are obviously so naive that they blindly swallow the 'authorised' line) is also attractive and probably provides a feeling of intellectual superiority. Here we go with the attempt at psychoanalysis, using the BBC model seen on hitpieces for those questioning any information received. This is actually presenting an attitude of intellectual superiority. Something I've never tried to do. I don't attempt psychoanalysis on those that wish to view authority as some kind of benevolent parent and continue their blind belief, despite a list of evidence to the contrary. Maybe they have 'daddy issues'. See how easy it is to throw in some 'psychoanalysis'. Also, it's amazing how such folk casually overlook and dismiss information that would undermine faith in such authority and keep their belief in the narrative told. How much does it take to start some actual questioning. I'm still waiting for someone to justify this ludicrous lockdown, which will lead to more deaths and poverty, and justify their acceptance future lockdowns? All from virus (even if you believe all the dodgy stats, inflated through the care home system, as I previously stated) that is less deadly than seasonal flu? Let's not forget this lockdown was based on hugely erroneous models of 500,000 deaths from a guy with a disastrous record during foot and mouth. A guy who doesn't even think it worth following his own lockdown. You talk about 5% of evidence. But this is pretty crucial I would say. It has ground the country to a halt for four months. And yet people are still willing to accept more of this shit with random town and pub lockdowns. So whilst you're congratulating yourself on the internet and circle-jerking for avoiding the label of 'conspiracy theorist', maybe you can explain the levels of cognitive dissonance required to accept more and more of this shit and the destruction of lives and livelihoods? Forget targetting the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' and justify this lockdown! Just my opinion on why I think certain people are more prone to believing in conspiracies behind everything and others aren't. It's exciting. I think everything behind the (chaotic) government approach has been an attempt to cope with the acute crisis as best they could (not very well) - nothing more scary or sinister than that! Different governments have done it differently and had better or worse results. I subscribe to the cock-up theory rather than the conspiracy one, but each to their own. www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 7, 2020 15:05:32 GMT
155 new deaths reported today 581 positive tests
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 7, 2020 15:27:58 GMT
Maybe now you have posted from the leftist Liberal Bible some on here might actually belive Care homes did not have to accept hospital discharges without a negative test Not that it suits the let's blame the government agenda I'm afraid you are wrong as usual and Northy also. So how come 25,000 older patients were moved out of hospital and into care homes? Or did that just not happen?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 7, 2020 16:08:43 GMT
155 new deaths reported today 581 positive tests Deaths same as last Tuesday, 155
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 7, 2020 16:09:02 GMT
The ONS have said today that only 22% of those that have tested positive have symptoms. Surely to God that's as big a stat as any that we need to be seeing masks and hand washing campaigns? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155It’s caveated by the small numbers actually testing positive in their studies (leading to wide confidence intervals) and issues with patient self reporting. It can’t really be scaled up as a population wide figure yet. Humans are crap at recalling symptoms, even quite severe ones sometimes. For instance the 22% rises to 33% when taking into account symptoms either before or after the day of the test. Symptoms recorded just on the day don’t cover the whole potential infectious course. The very large Spain study that recently came out has it around 66% symptomatic. That’s still a big chunk of people either asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic (minimal symptom likely to be missed) but one that is more in keeping with the literature. In their report they say that 0.32% of the 36,061 people who've ever supplied swab tests have tested positive. That's 114 people.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 7, 2020 16:10:15 GMT
Maybe now you have posted from the leftist Liberal Bible some on here might actually belive Care homes did not have to accept hospital discharges without a negative test Not that it suits the let's blame the government agenda You just know the ones that won't, even though it's in front of them and as you say from their bible .........
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jul 7, 2020 16:27:14 GMT
It’s caveated by the small numbers actually testing positive in their studies (leading to wide confidence intervals) and issues with patient self reporting. It can’t really be scaled up as a population wide figure yet. Humans are crap at recalling symptoms, even quite severe ones sometimes. For instance the 22% rises to 33% when taking into account symptoms either before or after the day of the test. Symptoms recorded just on the day don’t cover the whole potential infectious course. The very large Spain study that recently came out has it around 66% symptomatic. That’s still a big chunk of people either asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic (minimal symptom likely to be missed) but one that is more in keeping with the literature. In their report they say that 0.32% of the 36,061 people who've ever supplied swab tests have tested positive. That's 114 people. Yeah exactly, so that’s the pool of asymptomatic/symptomatic reporting they have to deal with. So the 22% figure equates to 25 people. So even slight underreporting figure either due to autobiographical memory or because of a lack of follow up (they explain not all groups have been tested or followed up equally) would massively shift this figure. Hence why it can’t be weighted to a whole population sample.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 16:29:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 7, 2020 16:34:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jul 7, 2020 16:41:44 GMT
Perhaps there is a god after all.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 7, 2020 16:44:42 GMT
Well his mask certainly helped him.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Jul 7, 2020 17:13:08 GMT
Well his mask certainly helped him. :) I cant stand the man but he has rarely worn a mask and encouraged his supporters not to. The significant thing is people think his bravado partly came from the fact its fairly sure he's already had it once in around March but suppressed the information. Everyone around him had it and two names were redacted out of the hospital list of positive tests "for security reasons". Anyway he's an utter bell end who deserves it. And he deserves your scorn.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 7, 2020 17:14:39 GMT
Maybe now you have posted from the leftist Liberal Bible some on here might actually belive Care homes did not have to accept hospital discharges without a negative test Not that it suits the let's blame the government agenda I'm afraid you are wrong as usual and Northy also. So how come 25,000 older patients were moved out of hospital and into care homes? Or did that just not happen? So the Gaurdian is wrong The care home owner is wrong The Labour MP for Hove who was quoted was wrong That's an awful lot of wrongs How many deaths have happened with covid as the cause in care homes
|
|