COVID19

[Doobs]

Think he has actually got some form of attention seeking disorder now, as he can't put his phone down.

Whoever owns the pubs he manages must wonder wtf is going on, as he's never off Twitter.

Wouldn't surprise me if he has a meltdown when this is over, and all he has left to Tweet is pics of the menu for this Sunday.

Thought he owned the pubs, though that was probably just an assumption? 

Got my first block on Twitter the other day; Allison Pearson rocked up on James Ward's timeline telling him he was wrong and should get better data (when she had messed up her numbers).  Wouldn't have minded if I said something offensive to her, but only said something like she could learn about impartiality from him and that was that.  Had been happily ignoring her for ages.  Wish I'd given her the full Keith Hawkins now, she has been pretty relentless in her love of misinformation over the last couple of years.

I thought so as well, but seen it posted by a few people that they looked into the pubs and they're managed houses. Could be wrong, but wasn't interested enough to delve any further

She's a muppet, and right up there with Hartley-Brewer. See her touting Heneghan's latest interview as a 'superb listen', which just about sums her up.

Am not interested enough to find out what she is saying, but does Heneghan only ever appear when cases are going down?   Their 15 minutes will be over soon enough? 

Think we'll all be moving on soon enough, even people like me who do mortality as a day job. 

[Marky147]

They only have guests who have views that align with the viewers, so I imagine they'll be having him on until the clicks start dropping.

Rogan has turned into the biggest global version of Talk Radio around, and only seems to give platforms to people that have a POV that aligns with his, unless it goes that way by accident.

His mental gymnastics when Josh Zepps explains how he is mistaken are painful.

Peer reviewed studies no good.

Vinay Prasad's substack good

'VAERs doesn't say that, so I'm not sure you're right'

[Marky147]

Interesting thread from John Burn-Murdoch, with lots of pictures for those like myself

NEW: our big story as trailed on Friday is a detailed analysis of the critical importance of vaccination in beating Covid

Top-line: if US had matched vaccination coverage of leading European countries, it would have *halved* its Covid hospitalisations


https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1488084513829924867


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1488084513829924867.html

[nirvana]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

piece I found.

FYP

I am an actuary and have been mathematically modelling for 30 years.  I am not Woodsey's bloke down the pub.

These type of articles are thouroughly misleading.   There are some scenarios where the death rate is kept to a few thousand and mortality is just like a bad flu epidemic.   If that happens great, and we went too far.  We lost a lot of jobs because we were too cautious.  That isn't so good, but we can celebrate most of us have our health and can resume our lives.

There are a lot of scenarios where this does not happen.   500,000 deaths in a few weeks wasn't some extreme scenario, I looked through the paper and you wouldn't really argue with any of it.  In these scenarios we lose hundreds of thousands of people we didn't need to.    We lose a lot of jobs too as we were too reckless.  We will get on with our lives too, but we lose a lot of people and the economy is trashed anyway. 

It isn't the fact it is new that has caused the reaction, it is the fact it will leave huge numbers of bodies piled up in a very short period.  We can cope with 500,000 deaths over the year, we can't cope with 500,000 extra ones in a month. 

I could go through the article and criticise a lot of it, but am home schooling so don't have the time right now.  But focussing on current death rates is idiotic, really idiotic.  We know what is likely to happen in 2 weeks with inadequate action, we can see Italy and Spain.  We know people don't die the second they are infected, they die 17 days later on average.  We know this lag is there.  We know cases were increasing every 2 or 3 days and it will take a couple of weeks until we can see the effect of the new measures. 

If in a month or so there is a really good outcome, and our NHS isn't overwhelmed, and we discover half the population already has immunity.  We overeacted and we can all go back to booking our holidays and reopening our pubs.  Some businesses that were on the brink already will be lost.  I can look for work again, and my hope to retire a bit before pension age may be tralistic again.   I think that would be a good result in the circumstances, and will be happy we avoided the really bad results.

Some of the assumptions will be shown to be wrong, so what?

I'm totes sold on we're overreacting but tbf, I don't believe there's a climate emergency either

It is a similar thinking.

If you think there is an element of doubt, so there is only a 90% chance that the climate warming had been caused by human action.  

Do you
a) stop burning coal or

b) write an article in the Spectator saying there is a 10% chance this isn't down to us, and tell people assumptions can be wrong, so go build loads of coal powrler stations and go buy yourself big V8 cockmobiles.

Different ways of looking at the same thing, but I'd be firmly trying to do something rather than do nothing.

Is it b) ?

Now we've beaten the pandemic I fancied a brief look back to the beginning of things.

Amused me to find this reference to V8 cockmobiles in a thread I posted in as, last year I bought a V8, 4.2L, XKR

I'm now very long at the front

[Doobs]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

piece I found.

FYP

I am an actuary and have been mathematically modelling for 30 years.  I am not Woodsey's bloke down the pub.

These type of articles are thouroughly misleading.   There are some scenarios where the death rate is kept to a few thousand and mortality is just like a bad flu epidemic.   If that happens great, and we went too far.  We lost a lot of jobs because we were too cautious.  That isn't so good, but we can celebrate most of us have our health and can resume our lives.

There are a lot of scenarios where this does not happen.   500,000 deaths in a few weeks wasn't some extreme scenario, I looked through the paper and you wouldn't really argue with any of it.  In these scenarios we lose hundreds of thousands of people we didn't need to.    We lose a lot of jobs too as we were too reckless.  We will get on with our lives too, but we lose a lot of people and the economy is trashed anyway. 

It isn't the fact it is new that has caused the reaction, it is the fact it will leave huge numbers of bodies piled up in a very short period.  We can cope with 500,000 deaths over the year, we can't cope with 500,000 extra ones in a month. 

I could go through the article and criticise a lot of it, but am home schooling so don't have the time right now.  But focussing on current death rates is idiotic, really idiotic.  We know what is likely to happen in 2 weeks with inadequate action, we can see Italy and Spain.  We know people don't die the second they are infected, they die 17 days later on average.  We know this lag is there.  We know cases were increasing every 2 or 3 days and it will take a couple of weeks until we can see the effect of the new measures. 

If in a month or so there is a really good outcome, and our NHS isn't overwhelmed, and we discover half the population already has immunity.  We overeacted and we can all go back to booking our holidays and reopening our pubs.  Some businesses that were on the brink already will be lost.  I can look for work again, and my hope to retire a bit before pension age may be tralistic again.   I think that would be a good result in the circumstances, and will be happy we avoided the really bad results.

Some of the assumptions will be shown to be wrong, so what?

I'm totes sold on we're overreacting but tbf, I don't believe there's a climate emergency either

It is a similar thinking.

If you think there is an element of doubt, so there is only a 90% chance that the climate warming had been caused by human action.  

Do you
a) stop burning coal or

b) write an article in the Spectator saying there is a 10% chance this isn't down to us, and tell people assumptions can be wrong, so go build loads of coal powrler stations and go buy yourself big V8 cockmobiles.

Different ways of looking at the same thing, but I'd be firmly trying to do something rather than do nothing.

Is it b) ?

Now we've beaten the pandemic I fancied a brief look back to the beginning of things.

Amused me to find this reference to V8 cockmobiles in a thread I posted in as, last year I bought a V8, 4.2L, XKR

I'm now very long at the front

To be fair, the XKR is a bit of a bargain as V8 cockmobiles go.   

And it looks a bit rosier now than it looked a couple of months after that article.   Still think lateral flow tests wouldn't cost the earth, and not isolating with Covid is bonkers.  Omicron was a bit of a damp squib, but the average covid variant has been significantly worse so far. 

Am going to fly in a few weeks, as global warming is beaten too. 

[Marky147]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

piece I found.

FYP

I am an actuary and have been mathematically modelling for 30 years.  I am not Woodsey's bloke down the pub.

These type of articles are thouroughly misleading.   There are some scenarios where the death rate is kept to a few thousand and mortality is just like a bad flu epidemic.   If that happens great, and we went too far.  We lost a lot of jobs because we were too cautious.  That isn't so good, but we can celebrate most of us have our health and can resume our lives.

There are a lot of scenarios where this does not happen.   500,000 deaths in a few weeks wasn't some extreme scenario, I looked through the paper and you wouldn't really argue with any of it.  In these scenarios we lose hundreds of thousands of people we didn't need to.    We lose a lot of jobs too as we were too reckless.  We will get on with our lives too, but we lose a lot of people and the economy is trashed anyway. 

It isn't the fact it is new that has caused the reaction, it is the fact it will leave huge numbers of bodies piled up in a very short period.  We can cope with 500,000 deaths over the year, we can't cope with 500,000 extra ones in a month. 

I could go through the article and criticise a lot of it, but am home schooling so don't have the time right now.  But focussing on current death rates is idiotic, really idiotic.  We know what is likely to happen in 2 weeks with inadequate action, we can see Italy and Spain.  We know people don't die the second they are infected, they die 17 days later on average.  We know this lag is there.  We know cases were increasing every 2 or 3 days and it will take a couple of weeks until we can see the effect of the new measures. 

If in a month or so there is a really good outcome, and our NHS isn't overwhelmed, and we discover half the population already has immunity.  We overeacted and we can all go back to booking our holidays and reopening our pubs.  Some businesses that were on the brink already will be lost.  I can look for work again, and my hope to retire a bit before pension age may be tralistic again.   I think that would be a good result in the circumstances, and will be happy we avoided the really bad results.

Some of the assumptions will be shown to be wrong, so what?

I'm totes sold on we're overreacting but tbf, I don't believe there's a climate emergency either

It is a similar thinking.

If you think there is an element of doubt, so there is only a 90% chance that the climate warming had been caused by human action.  

Do you
a) stop burning coal or

b) write an article in the Spectator saying there is a 10% chance this isn't down to us, and tell people assumptions can be wrong, so go build loads of coal powrler stations and go buy yourself big V8 cockmobiles.

Different ways of looking at the same thing, but I'd be firmly trying to do something rather than do nothing.

Is it b) ?

Now we've beaten the pandemic I fancied a brief look back to the beginning of things.

Amused me to find this reference to V8 cockmobiles in a thread I posted in as, last year I bought a V8, 4.2L, XKR

I'm now very long at the front

Incred

I got the 4.2L V8 motor fad done in my 20s, which is just as well. I'd need to be significantly richer than I am now if I wanted to fuel it up with my right foot/hand

[nirvana]

Haha, flying is bad but necessary sometimes

Car's for polishing not driving Marky, quite cheap to run in that respect :-)

[Marky147]

Haha, flying is bad but necessary sometimes

Car's for polishing not driving Marky, quite cheap to run in that respect :-)

This is true, and cheaper still if you polish it yourself!

[Pokerpops]

Haha, flying is bad but necessary sometimes

Car's for polishing not driving Marky, quite cheap to run in that respect :-)

This is true, and cheaper still if you polish it yourself!

It’s always better if someone else polishes it for you…
Or you could try polishing it left-handed

[RED-DOG]

Haha, flying is bad but necessary sometimes

Car's for polishing not driving Marky, quite cheap to run in that respect :-)

This is true, and cheaper still if you polish it yourself!

It’s always better if someone else polishes it for you…
Or you could try polishing it left-handed

If you sit on your hand for a few minutes first it feels like someone else is polishing it.

[nirvana]

Haha, so many children here

[Marky147]

Well, that escalated quickly

[Ironside]

Well, that escalated quickly

Without the aid of performance enhancing drugs