Coronavirus Thread

[Babylon]

4 hours ago, shade said:

The use of 'qualified' in a derogatory manner is definitely misplaced in this instance. He was wrong about the second wave, but SAGE and numerous government advisors have been wrong, a lot. Including when they claimed that there would be 7000 deaths a day if restrictions were lifted in the summer. Or when Neil Ferguson took the first lockdown so seriously he repeatedly travelled across London to romance his married mistress. Mike Yeadon's 'qualified' nonsense comes from a position of being:

 

-Senior Principal Scientist, Wellcome Research (1998 - 1995)

-Chief Scientific Officer, Allergy & Respiratory Research, Pfizer (1995 - 2011)

- VP, Allergy & Respiratory Head, Research, Pfizer Global R&D (2005-2008)

- CSO and VP, Allergy & Respiratory Research Head, Pfizer Global (2006 - 2011)

- Consultant Pulmatrix (2011-2016)

- Consultant, Apellis Pharmaceuticals (2011 - 2016)

- Co founder, Ziarco (2011 - 2017)

 

You're welcome to disagree with his views on this pandemic, but shouldn't try and discredit him by implying he isn't qualified. He is a LOT more qualified than almost all government advisors on this particular topic.

 

To quote st albans above.. I'm intrigued (as should you be) why some of the most accredited names in their field (Robert Malone - one of the originators of MRNA technology (himself vaccinated), Mike Yeadon - Chief scientific officer of allergy and respiratory research at PFIZER from 1995 - 2011) would destroy their lives and their careers to oppose the current science?

Sage never said there would be 7000 deaths a day, that’s just a straight out lie. 
 

Yeadon has little experience in vaccines, or viruses / infectious diseases. To suggest he is better qualified is just another bold faced lie. 
 

And even if he was, he’s been out of Pfizer for a decade and been working mainly on histamines. 
 

Robert Malone (self proclaimed inventor) hasn’t worked on the latest technology for decades.

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, reynard said:

Is this the case or is everyone who goes into hospital tested and some then discovered to be covid positive? it isn't clear to me how many are in this category and how many are actually catching it in hospital?

The way infections are going we're going to be effectively unable to operate hospitals and businesses etc very efficiently as so many staff will be off isolating.

 

The official number of people admitted to hospital with covid is actually made up of three numbers.  One, number of admissions who test positive on arrival; two, number of admissions who have tested positive in the last 14 days; three, number of people who tested negative on arrival but subsequently test positive while they are in hospital.

 

According to the ONS, about 4% of the population had covid on 23rd December.  I think it's fair to assume that number is higher now - let's call it 5%.  Based on that alone, you would expect 5% of the general hospital admissions to have covid even if we assumed covid had no health effect at all.  There are typically 15,000 admissions per day across the country, and 5% of that is 750.

 

Then you can add a few more for people who don't have covid now but have tested positive in the last 14 days.  Roughly speaking it takes a week to stop recording positive tests after infection, so in round numbers we can assume that most of the 800,000 who tested positive in the week ended 24th December will now be clear.  so let's call that (for ease of numbers) 670,000 or 1% of the population.  So another 150 people have turned up who tested positive for covid within the last 14 days and haven't got it now.

 

Then the people who catch it on the premises.  They are a bit chary about saying how many of these there are.  I have seen a figure of 20% mentioned in the Guardian.  So 2,370 admissions in England on 29th December, latest info, which we can pro rate upwards to 2,700 across the UK (the "colonies" are a bit slower with their data!).  So 540 of them are estimated to catch it in hospital.  So we now have 750 + 150 + 540 = 1,440 people on the hospitalisations list who aren't there to be treated for covid, out of 2,700 official numbers.  That would be a touch over 50%.

 

Yes, this is all very broad brush.  If you want a confidence interval, in view of all the estimates and lack of detail (eg. no analysis by age because it would take forever) then say over 1,100 - 1,800.  Intuitively the upper end feels a bit high, but intuition is a high risk tool to use in these things.  But my point is, a lot of these covid hospitalisations are there for other reasons.

 

(Guardian figure of 20% reported here.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions )

[Babylon]

34 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Pressumably those models assumed everyone in hospital was admitted to hospital because of Covid, rather than people catching it whilst being in there for something else?

Those “admitted with Covid”, no more no less.

 

We are starting to see a rise in general admissions, it’s not a coincidence is it.

[Babylon]

15 hours ago, shade said:

I confess I dont understand statistics and want to understand it better, I see it like this.

 

They said the vaccine was over 90% effective at stopping infection in trials, but this definitely isn't true right, you're basically just as likely to catch it so it must be in low double digits if not 0%?

 

The narrative changed to it stops you getting seriously ill, but 75% of hospitalisations are vaccinated in some form, from a population of 90%, I mean, is that great statistically?

Not again.

 

The original trials were all based on Alpha, it’s been said time and time again that efficacy will change depending on variants. We are now on omicron and you need the booster to get anywhere close to 90% for that, even the newest data shows it’s probably lower. 

 

They’ve said time and time again that efficacy reduces over time…. Hence the booster. 

I mean nearly a third of cases are those that haven’t had the two original vaccinations we were told were needed yet most of the population that can be fully vaccinated, are. 

The 40% of the not fully vaccinated population (2 + booster) account for 80% of the cases.

 

Whichever way you want to cut it, it’s bad for those not fully vaccinated in terms of cases, I’m unsure how it can be interpreted any other way. 

[CosbehFox]

47 minutes ago, brucey said:

I think this is a big issue when you put originally planned operations / procedures in it too. Who’d want to have a major operation but have a good chance of being covid infected? 
 

Unfortunately time is going to be the biggest thing here when it comes to an answer and will tell us the extent of omicron. Hoping it’s good news of course and that the symptoms are mild enough for a good chunk of the population that we downgrade how we deal with it. 

[brucey]

56 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

I think this is a big issue when you put originally planned operations / procedures in it too. Who’d want to have a major operation but have a good chance of being covid infected? 
 

Unfortunately time is going to be the biggest thing here when it comes to an answer and will tell us the extent of omicron. Hoping it’s good news of course and that the symptoms are mild enough for a good chunk of the population that we downgrade how we deal with it. 

Patients don't even need to pick up the infection for their treatment (or the hospital) to be affected. All they need to have is contact with a positive person, whether that be a visitor from days before, or another patient in their 6-person ward bay who suddenly pops up a positive test. Even if they test negative, they still need to be isolated for the next week with daily testing. Which means delays to getting inpatient investigations like scans, as they are treated as potential positives and the scanning area needs to be isolated/cleaned for these patients. That in turn delays discharges, and so further reduces bed availability.

 

You need separate wards for those with the plague, wards for those who don't have it, and wards for those who have been exposed and are biding their time to see if they caught it or not. You can't put that third group in with the infected as they might be negative and catch it off them, and you can't put them in with the non-infected as they might be positive and infect all of them. So actually it's probably more like trying to run three hospitals in one.

 

Edited 2 January 2022 by brucey

[casablancas]

2 hours ago, reynard said:

Is this the case or is everyone who goes into hospital tested and some then discovered to be covid positive? it isn't clear to me how many are in this category and how many are actually catching it in hospital?

The way infections are going we're going to be effectively unable to operate hospitals and businesses etc very efficiently as so many staff will be off isolating.

 

I’m a nurse and work in psych. COVID has completely changed how we approach our role. We swab on admission . Not just on admission but regularly and routinely. I wonder whether our figures are taken into the national data? But to answer one of your questions everyone in hospital WILL be tested and yes some will be positive. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

Who disagreed with it?

How many ‘with’ covid or ‘for’ covid arguments have we had on here and watched on the news/social media for the past 20 months. 
 

Lots 

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, shade said:

I would be interested  for @leicsmac and @st albans fox to listen to this and critique it? Over 3 hours long though.

 

 

 

"This content is not available in your country."

 

Sorry, mate.

 

3 hours ago, Dunge said:

Presumably because of its relevance to the response.

 

A less infectious but more deadly virus will logically result in fewer cases coming into hospitals for other reasons, but those cases would have theoretically relatively serious outcomes.

 

A more infectious but less deadly virus will logically result in more cases coming into hospitals for other reasons, but those cases would have theoretically relatively less serious outcomes.

 

I’m guessing the guy who’s screaming blue murder in the tweet is someone who is more ideologically against restrictions and doesn’t care for the nuance, just hoping to label his foe as a hypocrite.

Lot of that going round, really.

 

People like certainty, but paradoxically enough the one certainty about the world and the future is that it *isn't* certain.

 

Sounds a bit Fortune Cookie that, but it's true.

[Babylon]

4 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

How many ‘with’ covid or ‘for’ covid arguments have we had on here and watched on the news/social media for the past 20 months. 
 

Lots 

I’ve seen nobody argue against the fact some people catch it in there, or are in with something else but also have Covid. Or someone died with Covid rather than from Covid.
 

They release the split numbers basically telling us most of that. 
 

Sounds to me like people are trying to conflate things. Arguments about with or from generally stem from someone saying something like “it’s made up, all deaths are just getting put down as Covid”. And people will argue against that point as it’s not true.

 

[shade]

8 hours ago, Babylon said:

Sage never said there would be 7000 deaths a day, that’s just a straight out lie. 
 

Yeadon has little experience in vaccines, or viruses / infectious diseases. To suggest he is better qualified is just another bold faced lie. 
 

And even if he was, he’s been out of Pfizer for a decade and been working mainly on histamines. 
 

Robert Malone (self proclaimed inventor) hasn’t worked on the latest technology for decades.

Yeadon literally spent his life working on respiratory diseases, it's his field, that's not a bold faced lie.

 

Robert Malone isn't the "self proclaimed" inventor, his name is literally on the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were originally filed in 1989 (including both the idea of mRNA vaccines and the original proof of principle experiments) and RNA transfection. He has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications which have been cited over 12,000 times. He is the President of the Global Covid Summit, an organization of over 16,000 doctors and scientists analysing COVID pandemic research and treatment.

 

The deaths wasn't a straight out lie, but I did mistype, apologies, this is what I meant (remember this is before Omicron)...

 

 

 

[shade]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

"This content is not available in your country."

 

Sorry, mate.

 

Lot of that going round, really.

 

People like certainty, but paradoxically enough the one certainty about the world and the future is that it *isn't* certain.

 

Sounds a bit Fortune Cookie that, but it's true.

what country are you in you lucky little man, is it sunny?

[shade]

9 hours ago, reynard said:

Well it does reduce the chance of you ending up in hospital and greatly reduces the chance of you ending up in a high dependency bed which could have been used for someone else who might need it for another life threatening condition. You are also less likely to need medical attention which in turn frees up resources for other people. Whilst vaccinated people can, of course end up in hospital, there are many unvaccinated people there who had they been vaccinated probably wouldn't have required medical hospital treatment which in turn is helping to protect society. I think you could in your own words call them selfish?

Obviously it is your choice. Of course if everyone was as nervous as you about the vaccine we would be in even more sh*t than we are now.

 

Just our of interest if you ever need to go to the doctor and require medication will you be asking for the efficacy report of the drug you are given, checking the number of people who have died from it , whether it is new drug just brought into use and if so can you see the full clinical trial reports? 

Truth is no drug/vaccine however, well tested and tried is going to be either 100% effective or indeed 100% safe for everyone who takes it.

I mentioned further back in the thread, the chance of me ending up in hospital, let alone ICU was miniscule, that's not bravado, it's just fact. The fundamental problem as I see it is we have a population of people who are guzzling sugar and who's bodies are suffering chronic inflammation, obesity is rife and the chickens are coming home to roost.

 

I don't think I've had to take any medicines that I can remember apart form antibiotics for bacterial tonsillitis (ironically my body doesn't like penicillin, cefalexin or doxycycline), but yes, I would definitely study a drug before taking it, wouldn't you?

 

I shouldn't admit this because I know how it sounds in a thread like this, but this pandemic has made me sceptical about big pharma, the more I've read about them and their past misdemeanors.

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, shade said:

Yeadon literally spent his life working on respiratory diseases, it's his field, that's not a bold faced lie.

 

Robert Malone isn't the "self proclaimed" inventor, his name is literally on the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were originally filed in 1989 (including both the idea of mRNA vaccines and the original proof of principle experiments) and RNA transfection. He has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications which have been cited over 12,000 times. He is the President of the Global Covid Summit, an organization of over 16,000 doctors and scientists analysing COVID pandemic research and treatment.

 

The deaths wasn't a straight out lie, but I did mistype, apologies, this is what I meant (remember this is before Omicron)...

 

 

 

And the actual projections of which there were several, one of them was near enough exactly what happened, but we’ll ignore that hey. So you are still lying, obtuse or being purposely misleading. 

 

“It’s his field” Notice you miss the allergy part, which is what his company’s post Pfizer focused on. And his respiratory work focused on Asthma, COPD, PAH and pulmonary fibrosis. His work has feck all to do with viruses or infectious diseases, or vaccines.

 

Suggesting he’s more qualified than the likes of Witty or Van Tam is just once again utter nonsense. 

Malone was one of a number of co-authors and researchers. Suggesting he invented MNRA in its current form is like suggesting Henry Ford invented a modern formula one car. There is no doubting his involvement, but were many issues to overcome to create what we have today, of which he wasn’t involved as it took place elsewhere without him. With others given far more credit for its development. 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, shade said:

what country are you in you lucky little man, is it sunny?

Sadly it is not, haha.

 

Cold right now.

Northern Hemisphere,  Pacific.

Squid Game.

 

That should be enough to go on.

 

With respect to the above discussion, I would ask again to consider that the scientific method will verify claims of single or small group scientific experts if they are accurate. Until then, their claims are not as valid as that of the scientific consensus.

[Babylon]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sadly it is not, haha.

 

Cold right now.

Northern Hemisphere,  Pacific.

Squid Game.

 

That should be enough to go on.

 

With respect to the above discussion, I would ask again to consider that the scientific method will verify claims of single or small group scientific experts if they are accurate. Until then, their claims are not as valid as that of the scientific consensus.

They’ve all been paid off by big Pharma silly…. Mike Yeadon begging right wing media to broker a move to the US on LinkedIn is absolutely in no way compromised.

[Stivo]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The official number of people admitted to hospital with covid is actually made up of three numbers.  One, number of admissions who test positive on arrival; two, number of admissions who have tested positive in the last 14 days; three, number of people who tested negative on arrival but subsequently test positive while they are in hospital.

 

According to the ONS, about 4% of the population had covid on 23rd December.  I think it's fair to assume that number is higher now - let's call it 5%.  Based on that alone, you would expect 5% of the general hospital admissions to have covid even if we assumed covid had no health effect at all.  There are typically 15,000 admissions per day across the country, and 5% of that is 750.

 

Then you can add a few more for people who don't have covid now but have tested positive in the last 14 days.  Roughly speaking it takes a week to stop recording positive tests after infection, so in round numbers we can assume that most of the 800,000 who tested positive in the week ended 24th December will now be clear.  so let's call that (for ease of numbers) 670,000 or 1% of the population.  So another 150 people have turned up who tested positive for covid within the last 14 days and haven't got it now.

 

Then the people who catch it on the premises.  They are a bit chary about saying how many of these there are.  I have seen a figure of 20% mentioned in the Guardian.  So 2,370 admissions in England on 29th December, latest info, which we can pro rate upwards to 2,700 across the UK (the "colonies" are a bit slower with their data!).  So 540 of them are estimated to catch it in hospital.  So we now have 750 + 150 + 540 = 1,440 people on the hospitalisations list who aren't there to be treated for covid, out of 2,700 official numbers.  That would be a touch over 50%.

 

Yes, this is all very broad brush.  If you want a confidence interval, in view of all the estimates and lack of detail (eg. no analysis by age because it would take forever) then say over 1,100 - 1,800.  Intuitively the upper end feels a bit high, but intuition is a high risk tool to use in these things.  But my point is, a lot of these covid hospitalisations are there for other reasons.

 

(Guardian figure of 20% reported here.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions )

The ons figure is I think already the % who would test positive with a pcr - it’s calculated by random population sampling using PCRs ( I have been part of it )  so I think your adjustment in the third paragraph is already included.

 

Then you need to add a factor  for length of stay.  If we assume that the length of stay for incidental covid  is shorter (many surgeries discharge after 1 or 2 days) then their contribution to beds in use is proportionally reduced 

 

The daily mail published some data - the first graph doesn’t have axes that start at zero mind.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10358545/Proportion-NHS-beds-taken-incidental-Covid-patients-rises-33-figures-show.html

 

 

 

[Raj]

I know more people at this time who have tested positive than in the last 2 years.

Must be spreading like anything at the moment 

[Guest Col city fan]

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-contingency-plans-drawn-up-over-fears-a-quarter-of-public-sector-workers-could-be-absent-due-to-omicron-12507186
 

[Guest Col city fan]

30 minutes ago, Raj said:

I know more people at this time who have tested positive than in the last 2 years.

Must be spreading like anything at the moment 

Look up

It is all over the place 

👍

Edited 2 January 2022 by Col city fan

[Jon the Hat]

We must be getting close to the point in the Usk where you just stay home if you aren’t well enough to go to work, and otherwise just get on with it?

[st albans fox]

Glass really half empty question 

 

is it possible to be re infected by omicron within a few weeks ?.

 

obviously no one will have the answer to that for another few weeks but on a virological level, is it possible ??  Can a virus be complex enough to evade natural immunity within a few weeks ?

 

that would force a rethink to isolation rules ……

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

We must be getting close to the point in the Usk where you just stay home if you aren’t well enough to go to work, and otherwise just get on with it?

You mean like ‘normal’ virus’ and illness’ …….

 

yes this is where we need to get to - when it’s ‘safe’ to do that ….

 

reckon that should be at some point this year but alway the fear of a mutation that drags us back ……at least in the msm ! 

Edited 2 January 2022 by st albans fox

[Babylon]

Malone making a tool of himself on Rogan, things to you love to see.

 

”Mandates are illegal” No they aren’t.

”Against the Nuremberg code” No it’s not.

 

Rolling out every anti vax knobhead trope there is.

[Guest Col city fan]

16 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

You mean like ‘normal’ virus’ and illness’ …….

 

yes this is where we need to get to - when it’s ‘safe’ to do that ….

 

reckon that should be at some point this year but alway the fear of a mutation that drags us back ……at least in the msm ! 

The problem is this isn’t like a ‘normal virus’

Omicron spreads like wildfire. God knows what’s happening with Covid 19 but the speed of mutation IS NOT like anything seen before 

Or, as far as my limited knowledge dictates anyway.

Literally, it is spreading so amazingly quickly

You would not believe the amount of work that is going on in the NHS every time we have an infected member of staff or patient. The IPC rules are vast (quite rightly), the documentation is immense and staff are burning out with it. And this is over and above ‘the day job’

I say again, IF this is some type of germ warfare, gotten out of some lab somewhere and designed to wreck economies….. it’s worked 

 

Edited 2 January 2022 by Col city fan