Social distancing, .. what's that?

[artie]

• Mass hysteria
  • There is a bit of a frenzy related to all this, but are you really surprised? CV19 spreads fast and silently, with outbreaks blooming almost overnight in communities that were fine before, filling up emergency wards in hospitals

This is what they said would happen, but reality was quire different.

 

[Regex]

This is what they said would happen, but reality was quire different.

Are you referring to the wards filling up? At the time they were looking to Italy and China, which did indeed have this problem. I remember seeing footage from fraught hospital staff showing videos of patients lining corridors and extra buildings. Do you remember China's publicity stunt where they live streamed building a new hospital in record time?

Overall I am not completely clued up on how the capacity situation was here in the UK.

Even in hindsight it is hard to say what should have been the correct course of action, so even the following scenarios seem plausible:
- Would it have been a lot worse with no lockdown?
- Was the lockdown an overreaction?
- Did the lockdown work as intended? (ergo the nhs could get by and still manage to treat other non related issues?)

 

[Selwyn]

How can you say we are out of proportion to this virus?

Deaths from all other causes aren't preventable
With Covid, the R value can be reduced by simple social distancing and infection control measures.

This isn't necessarily true. The virus could be simply following a typical virus curve anyway.

Also if lockdowns worked why has there not be a corresponding decline in other respiratory diseases?

 

[RobinBHM]

Also if lockdowns worked why has there not be a corresponding decline in other respiratory diseases?

I presume you are referring to communicable diseases, in which case there has:

"Global social distancing rules targeting coronavirus have pushed influenza infection rates to a record low, early figures show, signalling that the measures are having an unprecedented impact on other communicable diseases."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/seasonal-flu-reports-record-lows-global-social-distancing/

 

[RobinBHM]

Where is your scientific basis for what we are doing now? Show us your peer reviewed studies?

Hitchens Razor

The majority of governments around the world are following the best advice available for reducing the virus spread: ie social distancing and infection control.

you are challenging that, so the burden of proof lies with you

So, in your own time......

 

[RobinBHM]

How can you claim herd immunity hasn't been reached when folk cannot get a test and the track and trace system is on a ventilator.
What scientific evidence do you have to prove its not been reached

because all scientific modelling says it has not been reached

the largest anti body study suggest 6% of people have been infected:
"under 6% of the population may have antibodies for the virus by the end of June – an estimated 3.4 million people"
https://www.imperial.nhs.uk/about-us/news/largest-home-antibody-testing-publishes-results

Is herd immunity possible even with Covid?

short answer: we don't know, there is insufficient evidence as yet.

 

[RobinBHM]

I didn't claim it had been reached? When did I say that?

here:

shows that anyone who was going to die with C19 has already done so

because that would be the only reasonable conclusion.

you could claim that everybody susceptible to covid has already had or has immunity, but since the number of vulnerable people far exceeds that, it must be ruled out

 

[RobinBHM]

I'll back pedal a little and say I haven't been able to find one, maybe you can show me?

I am sorry I dont know what you are asking?

in a previous post you said "there is no test for covid 19"

but there clearly is:
"Currently there are two types of diagnostic tests which detect the virus – molecular tests, such as RT-PCR tests, that detect the virus’s genetic material, and antigen tests that detect specific proteins on the surface of the virus."


If you claim there isnt a test, perhaps you could elaborate.......

 

[Rorschach]

here:

because that would be the only reasonable conclusion.

you could claim that everybody susceptible to covid has already had or has immunity, but since the number of vulnerable people far exceeds that, it must be ruled out

No you are attributing meaning to something I did not say. Saying everyone who was going to die does not imply we have reached herd immunity, simply that the most vulnerable have succumbed already, that's a totally different thing to herd immunity. I know that there are still plenty of people who have not yet caught it (but they will eventually) but they are younger, healthier and will not die from it, they are the people that need to get it in order that the more vulnerable will be protected later on.

 

[Rorschach]

I presume you are referring to communicable diseases, in which case there has:

"Global social distancing rules targeting coronavirus have pushed influenza infection rates to a record low, early figures show, signalling that the measures are having an unprecedented impact on other communicable diseases."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/seasonal-flu-reports-record-lows-global-social-distancing/

Seasonal flu could also be lower because the people who would have caught/died from flu have already died from C19. I predicted earlier this year that we would see a lower mortality this winter due to the harvesting effect of C19.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Lots of contentious views out there. The idea that the PCR test is of questionable value is explored here: COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

The idea that herd immunity may not require 80% infection of the population has been extensively reported even in mainstream publications - here's one example: Opinion | Herd Immunity May Be Closer Than You Think

The problem is that the media have a habit of lying, misrepresenting or ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative. A lot of people have worked this out, and are seeking the truth in places not controlled by the gatekeepers, which has its own dangers.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

TN - A quick search on the authors of the paper to which you refer - Torsten Englebrecht has a background in economics and finance and now works as an independant journalist. The other, Konstantin Demeter, I can find nothing of substance about.

I think I will go with the scientific consensus, and ignore the outlier theories which are more likely corruptions of reality . Anybody with a bit of time, intelligence and creativity can selectively join bits of "evidence" together to drive entirely questionable conclusions.

Flu - right now more are dying of flu than Covid, but there are some fundamental differences which are conveniently ignored:

1. The reproduction rate for flu is estimated at ~ 1.3 compared with 2.5-3.0 for Covid pre lockdown
2. Incubation rate for flu is ~ 2 days vs ~ 5 days for Covid
3. Flu vaccine for the old and vulnerable limits flu infections
4. Mortality for flu is ~ 0.1%. Covid mortality allowing for estimated asymptomatic cases is currently estimated at ~0.5 - 1%.

There is substance to the argument that we over-react to Covid as a new threat, but Covid is a far greater threat if left uncontrolled than flu.

The only positive is that herd immunity through either vaccine or community infection is now lower than in March if behaviour changes (hands, face, space, constraints etc) become embedded - eg:

• March R ~2..5 - 60% of the population is required for a herd
• R at (say) 1.5 - 33% of the population are required for a herd

 

[artie]

I am sorry I dont know what you are asking?

in a previous post you said "there is no test for covid 19"

but there clearly is:
"Currently there are two types of diagnostic tests which detect the virus – molecular tests, such as RT-PCR tests, that detect the virus’s genetic material, and antigen tests that detect specific proteins on the surface of the virus."


If you claim there isnt a test, perhaps you could elaborate.......

As "The Donald" says "I'm no scientist" but All I can find are tests which detect, antibodies, proteins, nucleic acid, any and all of which can be found in any of us and if amplified enough will give the desired result.
Look up the current amplification used in the testing.

 

[RobinBHM]

No you are attributing meaning to something I did not say. Saying everyone who was going to die does not imply we have reached herd immunity, simply that the most vulnerable have succumbed already, that's a totally different thing to herd immunity. I know that there are still plenty of people who have not yet caught it (but they will eventually) but they are younger, healthier and will not die from it, they are the people that need to get it in order that the more vulnerable will be protected later on.

The point when all those that would've died, have died is the same point as herd immunity.
There is no logical argument that can separate them

will not die from it, they are the people that need to get it in order that the more vulnerable will be protected later on

You are making the assumption that infection creates immunity.....scientific research hasn't proven that.
As things stand herd immunity by natural infection is not a valid option

the most vulnerable have succumbed already

There are 2 million most vulnerable, so I think we are a bit short

 

[RobinBHM]

As "The Donald" says "I'm no scientist" but All I can find are tests which detect, antibodies, proteins, nucleic acid, any and all of which can be found in any of us and if amplified enough will give the desired result.
Look up the current amplification used in the testing.

Research shows Covid tests are sufficiently accurate to be worthwhile.

What you are saying is risk of false positives, sure no doubt a % will be.

You have conflated: "there isn't a 100% accurate test for covid
With "there is no test for Covid"

 

[RobinBHM]

Seasonal flu could also be lower because the people who would have caught/died from flu have already died from C19. I predicted earlier this year that we would see a lower mortality this winter due to the harvesting effect of C19.

Social distancing and infection control procedures have involved a high percentage of the entire population, whereas the percentage of those vulnerable to flu that have died from Covid would seem to be much lower.

Flu is less infectious than Covid, so it is logical that social distancing has reduced the spread of flu.

 

[Rorschach]

Social distancing and infection control procedures have involved a high percentage of the entire population, whereas the percentage of those vulnerable to flu that have died from Covid would seem to be much lower.

Flu is less infectious than Covid, so it is logical that social distancing has reduced the spread of flu.

If that is the case, why are more people dying with flu than C19 at the moment (possibly as much as 5x). Surely the mitigation methods are giving even more protection from flu, there should be hardly any flu deaths.

 

[RobinBHM]

The problem is that the media have a habit of lying, misrepresenting or ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative

Most mainstream media has not been lying or misrepresenting Covid as far as I can see.

However those wanting to believe in conspiracy theories quickly seek out the outlier research.

Science isn't black or white, we have to go with the direction of the bulk of research direction.

Orange twits and QAnon conspiracy nut jobs don't help

 

[artie]

Research shows Covid tests are sufficiently accurate to be worthwhile.

What exactly does that mean?

 

[artie]

so it is logical that social distancing has reduced the spread of flu.

Sorry but logic and covid don't belong in the same sentence.