How many people do you think there still are who have genuinely not made their mind up already? To the bolded point; so that people with medical exemptions don't end up getting verbally or even physically abused by the vicious mob? You really have to ask that?
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
As people turn up for first jabs all the time, quite a few.
Anybody with an exemption will know they have an exemption, it doesnt need offering up to everybody. There's a constant subliminal message my wife and I have noticed that it's OK to question the government advice. That's perhaps why the UK vaccine rate is lower than others.
God forbid we lived in a country where it's not OK to question government advice! The message is not for the person with an exemption, it's for everybody else to serve as a reminder to remain courteous to your fellow passenger.
People with exemptions would be wearing a lanyard no? For the rest it’s just an excuse
Agreed. He seems to be taking the ridiculous 'it's not perfect, so I'm not interested' stance.
I live like a hermit at the best of times. I'm not really sociable and I work from home. I also have a long standing phobia of needles. Yet, despite this, I had my 3 vaccinations. It's bizarre to me that people who are trusted to provide health care to all sections of society are deciding not to bother, as it only reduces transmissiblity rather than stops it completely.
They might do, they might not. I don’t think they’re compelled to. Too dystopian for a lot of people I think.
Well if they are so worried about people having a go they have a way to show they don’t need to wear one so they can’t be that bothered
So hypothetically if someone with an exemption got assaulted for not wearing a mask, who would you blame?
Subliminal message some of you are just as nuts as the people you are moaning about 
The person assaulting. Even if there were no exemptions, it would still be the person assaulting. There shouldn't be vigilante justice for any reason.
I find it interesting how many more people seem to be exempt from wearing masks in the UK though compared to other European countries.
Its not really that interesting, we just have a bunch of idiots like every other country in the world theres no deep meaning to it obviously some people will have a genuine reason a lot will take the piss just like the majority of countries in the world unless you are under some ridiculous oppressive regime or government.
I'd say not, as anyone can buy those lanyards and they serve no real purpose.
Those lanyards are more designed to tell people that you’re on the autistic spectrum (or other similar hidden disability)
https://hiddendisabilitiesstore.com/
@Pogue Mahone , your boy Luke O’Neill going all-in here:
“By the time we get to March and April, it will be a different story entirely – watch…
…Because this is a seasonal virus, once we come into the spring, the counts will start to fall and the boosters will have worked, for definite…
…by the time we get to St Patrick’s Day, the virus will have gone away almost from Ireland, it will seem to be in the background.”
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/professor-luke-oneill-shares-more-25887529
“By the time we get to March and April, it will be a different story entirely – watch…
…Because this is a seasonal virus, once we come into the spring, the counts will start to fall and the boosters will have worked, for definite…
…by the time we get to St Patrick’s Day, the virus will have gone away almost from Ireland, it will seem to be in the background.”
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/professor-luke-oneill-shares-more-25887529
He's a bit of a dreamer
Lovely fella, Luke, but he’s always been biased to the positive. So I’d take that with a pinch of salt. Although I do kind of agree with him on this one. The sucker punch that could screw us over is, obviously, another variant but we might be lucky this time. Fingers crossed.
Lots of talk about the government stopping free lateral flow test kits. On the basis that it is costing the treasury too much money. And therefore making people having to pay for them.
But the people pay for them already. Where do they think that the money comes from in the first place.
And all that is going to result in is a sharp increase in demand; people stockpiling them. With the likely consequence of more waste.... and cost.
But the people pay for them already. Where do they think that the money comes from in the first place.
And all that is going to result in is a sharp increase in demand; people stockpiling them. With the likely consequence of more waste.... and cost.
Just a couple of observations on the (much derided!) epidemic modelling for the UK. First and foremost that a model isn't a prediction, it's a "what happens if ..."
The models referred to as the October models were based on Delta. When the actual hospitalisations started to diverge from the expected, we accelerated the booster campaign in the over 50s and that started pulling the numbers down again.
LSHTM December was the first attempt to analyse the impact of Omicron using the early data from SA and elsewhere, and the lab work being done globally - this is the "some behavioural changes, more vaccines," version of the model. The response was to bring in the rest of the plan B controls and massively increase the booster program - which they hoped would do enough to keep us inside this "some reduction in contacts, some reduction in infections/hospitalisations due to boosters and new vaccinations" curve.
In terms of the numbers now. Though you have to dig down into this week's reports to see it, the hospitalisations are starting to flatten. It still looks as if we are somewhere in that LSHTM curve, but we may be heading to the lower, flatter version of it.
At any rate, that's why there are unlikely to be any major rule changes in England - it's behaving pretty much as was expected in early December. It's now almost entirely about how long can the NHS sustain that admission level for. That's mostly about staffing and other demands on the health and care system Vs the vaccines (and prior infection) plus anything about Omicron itself leading to fewer and shorter hospital stays.
The models referred to as the October models were based on Delta. When the actual hospitalisations started to diverge from the expected, we accelerated the booster campaign in the over 50s and that started pulling the numbers down again.
LSHTM December was the first attempt to analyse the impact of Omicron using the early data from SA and elsewhere, and the lab work being done globally - this is the "some behavioural changes, more vaccines," version of the model. The response was to bring in the rest of the plan B controls and massively increase the booster program - which they hoped would do enough to keep us inside this "some reduction in contacts, some reduction in infections/hospitalisations due to boosters and new vaccinations" curve.
In terms of the numbers now. Though you have to dig down into this week's reports to see it, the hospitalisations are starting to flatten. It still looks as if we are somewhere in that LSHTM curve, but we may be heading to the lower, flatter version of it.
At any rate, that's why there are unlikely to be any major rule changes in England - it's behaving pretty much as was expected in early December. It's now almost entirely about how long can the NHS sustain that admission level for. That's mostly about staffing and other demands on the health and care system Vs the vaccines (and prior infection) plus anything about Omicron itself leading to fewer and shorter hospital stays.
Current data on age distribution says in the North, a bigger proportion of cases are in the 60+ groups compared to London (where the majority are in the under 40s). So it's still not quite clear how that will play out over the next couple of weeks. Plus, I'll throw in - Christmas/New year aren't normal times - next week we'll start to see schools and colleges back in action. All, very fragile stuff when it comes to predictions etc.
So (with those provisos about guessing where we're heading) an update on the England NHS current stats, this time from the guy who represents the hospital trusts.
So (with those provisos about guessing where we're heading) an update on the England NHS current stats, this time from the guy who represents the hospital trusts.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You are using the model to make a prediction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model#General_remarks
With regards to the hospitalisations flattening, maybe in the admittance we are starting to see it (see 1 or 3 month views):
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare#card-patients_admitted_to_hospital
Last edited:
They’re using the model to make a prediction under certain conditions, and in most of these cases they expect those conditions to change based on the prediction themselves. Hence it becomes a prediction of what would happen if we didn’t change this path based on the measures we subsequently recommend. Otherwise shortened to what if… in this case.
Which is not what was said by the other poster.
“Don’t tempt fate” and all that, but isn’t it quite unlikely we get a variant that’s more infectious than Omicron and at the same time, more severe?
The captain hindsight use of pandemic modelling to argue one side or the other is particularly grating. As has already been mentioned loads of times in this thread, modelling is done in good faith, before the event, using the best data available, to the best of their abilities to guide planning for public safety.
I don’t think anything says “arse hole” more than using said modelling a year later to win an Internet argument. The models are produced by scientists interested in minimising human suffering.
I don’t think anything says “arse hole” more than using said modelling a year later to win an Internet argument. The models are produced by scientists interested in minimising human suffering.
Nothing screams "arse hole" then someone who rants about something which has not even happened.
EDIT: Or are you referring to something on Twitter?
Don’t feel personally attacked, I haven’t even read your posts. It was in response to what I’ve seen on Twitter countless times and I’m sure in this thread too. I glanced over recent posts and saw models/predictions being discussed.Ah I see, sorry, I was just so confused because I was genuinely not trying to criticise any model there
If you look at the models you'll see dozens of different inputs and outputs modelled. When you see it shortened down by the clickbait headline writers they usually go for the most extreme (typically the scariest) version and ignore the inputs that fed the model. A year later the same headline writers describe them as ridiculous (or even deliberately misleading) predictions, which they weren't - they were a possible scenario presented for planning purposes, usually one of lots of scenarios.
So, sure, you can call them predictions if you want. I just don't think it helps people understand them as "what if" scenarios, which is how they are actually used.
Maybe. From original, to alpha, to delta they became more infectious and more severe each time. So it was always a worry that there’s a link between transmissibility and severity of disease. Omicron bucked that trend. Which is a huge relief.
I would say that the general public understand what a "prediction" means. Saying something is "not a prediction" may have the adverse effect of implying to the general public that said outcome(s) will definitely occur if the conditions are met. A model can of course never be definitive. If anything, the language you are using in my view therefore also leads to confusion.
Having said that, the best solution would simply be for journalists to not use clickbait titles in the first place!
When the line between model-based policy making and policy-based modelling blurs and impacts people's livelihood then scrutiny of the SAGE models and evidence is fair game. The distance between the models and reality have been huge, to the point where there's a strong argument for how useful they are with such a huge error rate.
Imperial College's model for SAGE suggested back in March last year that only 45% of the country would have protection from the virus by late June, despite a month later ONS figures was showing an estimated 68.3% of the adult population having antibodies and second doses scheduled after the ramp up in January & February of last year. A rhetoric question, but why would they under call the impact of prior infection and the vaccination programme? With that level of gap and inaccuracy in the data affecting policy, then to hold them beyond reproach isn't useful for this and future pandemics.
I'd still say some of the early modelling that was pushed in some media was worst case scenarios (which wasn't made clear, it was as if it was going to happen) and over blown to make people more scared. Doom and gloom sells. Obviously it wasn't all media outlets.
I know you said the scientists done the modelling, some will have been quite wrong I understand as it's not exact, but the way most people get their info is direct from media, and they chose to cherry pick whichever they wanted to fit their story, so if they wanted a big headline they'd grab the worse case scenario one.
We got a lot of feedback from students that our (in-person) labs were the high points of their (otherwise virtual) semesters. The one I taught was strictly distanced and much quieter than it used to be pre-covid, but they still liked it. So even with much older students, even with restrictions, in-person is important. I get that.
But I'm teaching in a rich private university that could afford to reduce class sizes, install HEPA filters, give every student a fresh surgical mask* for every lab, this was before even delta... It was a microbio course with most of the students aiming for medicine or research, they were old, informed, and motivated enough to respect masking and distancing rules. Our group of 18 had either zero or one case over 4 months of teaching. I am asthmatic, fat and unfit but not obese, live alone, and am 30, not zero risk but not terrible.
In the US, where this debate is very much part of the culture war:
Many regular schools have crowded classes, no ventilation, often no testing, young kids with very different information and motivations and hence very variable masking, older and at-risk teachers with multiple comorbidities, all living with others in their household. Basic safety requirements demanded by teachers unions are not being provided by city govts even when they are funded.
Inevitably, as you said, it's spreading like wildfire through schools (an amazing graph here). And while most people aren't getting anything serious, with hospitalisations and deaths rising as quickly as in previous waves, those who do get serious symptoms might well have to fend for themselves.
Add to this that the people pushing fairy-tale science in 2020 regarding schools are back and prominently pushing re-opening, it's bound to increase suspicion. (For example, Emily Oster, an economist who in 2020 said covid can't spread much in schools and created a deliberately undercounted dashboard, whose data she used in the WaPo and NYT, is back prominently on CNN with the same recommendations)
And that's the impact on teachers and households without going into the students themselves. Since your post I've seen these stories:
It's better to say
1. We have lost the current phase of the fight to contain covid
2. Full re-opening of schools means an estimated x deaths and possibly y long-term issues for students and teachers (it's tough to model households)
3. But we must prioritise face-to-face human social contact over other issues.
And let parents and teachers decide accordingly. Clarity instead of what seems to be haphazard, dysfunctional nonsense.
Is there a link between severity and transmissibility? I'd say there were far few data points to suggest a significant causal link at the moment. Severity can go up or down a bit without affecting the fitness of each variant significantly whereas any new dominant variant has to be more infectious or it will die out. So on average new variants will be less infectious than Omicron so new dominant variants will become less and less likely. If we can get to an endemic state with a reduction in the number of infections, particularly long term infections that many think tend to produce new variants most often, then we will be less likely again to get a new more infectious variant.
So in summary we will get a new more harmful and infectious variant by COB today
Can I ask if the bolded is opinion or fact?Is there a link between severity and transmissibility? I'd say there were far few data points to suggest a significant causal link at the moment. Severity can go up or down a bit without affecting the fitness of each variant significantly whereas any new dominant variant has to be more infectious or it will die out. So on average new variants will be less infectious than Omicron so new dominant variants will become less and less likely. If we can get to an endemic state with a reduction in the number of infections, particularly long term infections that many think tend to produce new variants most often, then we will be less likely again to get a new more infectious variant.
So in summary we will get a new more harmful and infectious variant by COB today
It is more or less just basic probability. A new variant will be more or less infectious than the dominant variant. For the sake of argument the initial probability that a new variant would be more infectious would be approx 50/50. As each more infectious dominate variant arises the chances of each new variant being more infectious gets less and less because there are only so many mutations possible for the virus to remain functional. In other words instead of there being a 50/50 probability of a new variant being more infectious that the dominant strain the vast majority will less infectious and die out. I was told by a friend who works vaguely in the area that this is (partly) why highly infectious diseases like Measles tend to be more stable than the common cold. It doesn't mean more infectious variants can't arise, just that they are likely to do so less often. If they aren't more infectious severity is irrelevant as they won't become the dominant strain and/or will die out.
Severity is more likely to go either way because as long as the virus can be passed on during the infectious period severity doesn't really make much difference to viral fitness. I'm sure there is more nuance to it all but that seemed to be the basics of what I was told.
Last edited:
Thanks, that logic makes sense. Although all this seemingly positive news is making me a bit nervous though. I'm waiting for the next kick in the nuts.
We now need to get the world vaccinated as this will further reduce the odds of a new dominant variant.
My body: You have symptoms, better get tested.
My body during wait for test result: This is bad, you're burning up, probably will be hospitalised and die.
My body after negative test result: Symptoms? What symptoms, pussy?
My body during wait for test result: This is bad, you're burning up, probably will be hospitalised and die.
My body after negative test result: Symptoms? What symptoms, pussy?