Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

And as I said in my previous reply, in the part of the post that you did not respond to, the UK is already projected to exceed your 80,000 deaths target this year by a considerable measure.


so what number between 20,000 and 80,000 plus required a lockdown and banning meeting more than six people? I’m not, in any way suggesting it should not have happened, or saying it was ineffective. I just want to know what the metrics are?
 
There was a story going around that the Swedes were very concerned when the government insisted on a two metre rule. Being good citizens and believing in their government, the people put up with it until the problem receded and they could go back to their normal social distancing of five metres.

Yeh, just more bollox.
 
Sweden didn't overwhelm their hospitals either, with simple social distancing, hand washing, and other light-touch measures.

Same goes for the Motherland (Japan).


Many other countries did however.

The story in Sweden also seems a bit more complicated: Is Sweden's coronavirus strategy a cautionary tale or a success story?

And even their scientists/advisors are not sure if they are going to experience a second wave or not: Sweden has escaped a second coronavirus wave so far. The question is why
 
You would have to put those questions to the best prime minister ever*

*copyright whey_aye_banzai
As I said earlier, the public don’t won’t to ask how expendable they are and the government doesn’t want to answer.
 

AfricaExpat

Old-Salt
I am talking about 7.5% TEST positivity. That is the figure quoted in todays Scottish Government daily update. Clearly, that is a very different thing to 7.5% prevalence in the population, which I assume is what you are referring to.
So, 2 months with about 0.5% test positivity, followed by a week or so where the test positivity has ramped up daily to 7.5%. As I said, this cannot be solely false positives.
Sorry can't answer that except to say since I believe a lot of testing is routine swabbing of people like NHS staff everyone in Scotland will either be dead or immune in 6 weeks.
 
I have COPD, a mask restricts my breathing, so, I choose to wear a face shield
I go in shops only when it can't be avoided, I have not been in a supermarket
since the start of the lockdown,
So, think on before you criticize people,
Alright, I'll admit that I didn't think of that situation. I apologise for that comment and admit that I was wrong to say that it applied across the board to all people and that there may be some special circumstances in which a face shield and no mask is better than nothing at all for people with certain legitimate medical conditions.

I would guess that you are of much smaller risk to other people than they are to you and your wearing a face shield does reduce the amount your breath and coughs get projected onto other people and you are taking measures which are appropriate to your particular unavoidable circumstances.
 
The story in Sweden also seems a bit more complicated: Is Sweden's coronavirus strategy a cautionary tale or a success story?

And even their scientists/advisors are not sure if they are going to experience a second wave or not: Sweden has escaped a second coronavirus wave so far. The question is why

The 70% infection rate for herd immunity may not be required. Your top link doesn't even mention that. See Prof Gupta for further details.

And sure, Sweden will have to wait to find out; they might well just be much further behind Spain/France/UK. But one thing I like about Tegnell is that he's open, honest, and happy to be interviewed in a prolonged one-to-one setting. Maybe that's why I trust him over Whitty?
 
Rather than plough back would you republish the source URL please?
The link was posted in this post"

This is the University of Washington. They collect health data from all over the world and have been acting as one of the centres of international cooperation in this field.

I've not seen it. You're machine-gunning the posts out.
See above. This was in a post which you replied to, but for which you only quoted and addressed the first paragraph.

But any prediction that says we're going to double our coronavirus death count from now and to the end of the year is for the birds.
Your approach requires some sort of prediction mechanism in order to work. I've given you an example. If you've got a better scientific basis, then let's see your workings or a direct reference to a reputable scientific data site or paper which explains it in details.

Keep in mind that it's you not me that has to come up with the solid scientific evidence to support your plan.
 
The 70% infection rate for herd immunity may not be required. Your top link doesn't even mention that. See Prof Gupta for further details.

And sure, Sweden will have to wait to find out; they might well just be much further behind Spain/France/UK. But one thing I like about Tegnell is that he's open, honest, and happy to be interviewed in a prolonged one-to-one setting. Maybe that's why I trust him over Whitty?

For herd immunity to be achieved, or to considered realistic, we need evidence that there is no reinfection - we don't have evidence yet.
 

Truxx

LE
I'll say 80,000 would be acceptable for the UK. That's like double a really bad flu year.

It's a bit less than half of our annual cancer deaths.
current Govt thinking is that we will be lucky to get away with fewer than 100,000 in the next wave ( son in law, cabinet office).

remember the so-called "pandemic army" have, at its disposal, a couple of million body bags.
 

As this number is greater than your 80,000 by a considerable margin, does this mean you don't think the UK government are currently doing enough to control the pandemic in the UK? What additional measures do you think are necessary in order to get the projected number of deaths below the 80,000 mark?

That prediction is about as reliable as Neil Ferguson's.
 
For heard immunity to be achieved, or to considered realistic, we need evidence that there is no reinfection - we don't have evidence yet.
How do you plan to prove the absence of something? You can't prove that reinfection is impossible, all you can prove is that reinfection hasn't happened yet.

I'm not aware of any pathogen that does not provide acquired immunity without sufficient mutation to effectively be a new subspecies (barring pathogens never destroyed by the body like HIV and the various hepatitis species). If COVID-19 mutates to the extent it is no longer recognised by the immune system then a vaccine will also be pointless.

I am genuinely baffled by this argument that reinfection is possible but a vaccine will solve the problem. Given a vaccine just gives you the immunity you would gain from the infection then it's one or the other. Unless I'm missing something?
 
How do you plan to prove the absence of something? You can't prove that reinfection is impossible, all you can prove is that reinfection hasn't happened yet.

I'm not aware of any pathogen that does not provide life-long immunity without sufficient mutation to effectively be a new subspecies (barring pathogens never destroyed by the body like HIV and the various hepatitis species). If COVID-19 mutates to the extent it is no longer recognised by the immune system then a vaccine will also be pointless.

I am genuinely baffled by this argument that reinfection is possible but a vaccine will solve the problem. Given a vaccine just gives you the immunity you would gain from the infection then it's one or the other. Unless I'm missing something?

That's not proving the absence of something - it's proving that immunity exists. There is no evidence about how long people who have caught COVID-19 are immune for.

Here's a Nature Reviews Paper which makes the same point: COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we? (and makes the point that vaccines are different to acquired immunity - boosters being one example).
 
so what number between 20,000 and 80,000 plus required a lockdown and banning meeting more than six people? I’m not, in any way suggesting it should not have happened, or saying it was ineffective. I just want to know what the metrics are?
I'm prepared to follow the government's (Canada and Ontario in my case) guidance on this matter. Their reaction is based on trends, not absolute numbers, because we are dealing with a new disease and we have only a few months of experience in dealing with it. We can look at other diseases, but this one has some unique twists of its own.

Early in the pandemic the press demanded set trigger points so they would have nice graphs to show the public and numbers they could use to beat the government over the head with when the latest data didn't exactly match up with the projections.

There were models which showed very roughly how bad things could get if nothing was done, and where the bottlenecks were in the health system. They were general guidelines though, not precise maps.

We're prodding our way through a minefield day by day. We know roughly the limits of the minefield and the direction we need to take to get out of it, but we don't know where each mine is buried. We do know though that if we run out of patience and just run blindly forward we will almost certainly get blown up on a mine.
 

Latest Threads

Top