Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 13375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline donsdaft

  • Midfield Maestro
  • ****
  • Posts: 2469
  • Rating: -54
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #440 on: May 11, 2020, 06:55:44 AM »
I don't expect anything to make any actual sense from now on.

This 14 day quarantine thing?
Do you just promise to stay in for 14 days?
Ha!

Anyway, regarding my proposed car journey to Budapest, I went to sleep last night thinking " no quarantine for me" because the twat had said air travel only.
I woke this morning to find that it didn't include France anyway.
As far as I am aware the tunnel doesn't go all the way to Hungary.
Now this means I get to not quarantine twice, not that I would have anyway.




« Last Edit: May 11, 2020, 06:57:46 AM by donsdaft »

Offline tom_widdows

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 4838
  • Rating: 40
  • Miserable Cúnt & Architectural Killjoy
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #441 on: May 11, 2020, 04:05:46 PM »
Quote
'Stay at home if you can. Go to work if you must'.
???

That sounds like something from a passive aggressive domestic argument. Perhaps it was the last thing he heard before he headed off to Westminster this morning
I'm a man, and as a man I crave disappointment.

That's why I support Aberdeen Football Club & Scotland.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7049
  • Rating: -199
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #442 on: May 12, 2020, 09:45:10 AM »
Starmer playing a stormer

Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7049
  • Rating: -199
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #443 on: May 12, 2020, 10:04:16 AM »
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

I thought from the start there was something fishy about this virus. Now I'm hoping it was (and is continuing to be) government incompetence rather than something more sinister.
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3513
  • Rating: 77
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #444 on: May 12, 2020, 10:06:20 AM »
Starmer playing a stormer

Aye, but can he eat a bacon roll?

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7049
  • Rating: -199
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #445 on: May 12, 2020, 10:21:39 AM »
Aye, but can he eat a bacon roll?

Ed: Millions ban together to avoid pig eating, for reasons not known to me. Perhaps they fear that their ancestors were fed to them. Perhaps that should've been millions banned.

Edit: Millions band together... That's it.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 10:24:30 AM by rocket_scientist »
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3513
  • Rating: 77
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #446 on: May 12, 2020, 10:32:19 AM »
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

I thought from the start there was something fishy about this virus. Now I'm hoping it was (and is continuing to be) government incompetence rather than something more sinister.

Interesting, but some fairly flawed arguments in there for something supposedly working against propaganda. Citing a rate of 0.2% is a little misleading. That 0.2% is inclusive of a lockdown. Giving the example of South Korea as an example of a country not in lockdown doesn't really tell the whole picture, and their approach directly opposes their other point on privacy. The flippant suggestion along the lines of that the old were going to die anyway sounds like something Cummings thought up and has been debunked elsewhere. The suggestion that kids are safe and should be at school is bizarre; as if kids aren't in contact with adults and couldn't spread the disease.

I'm all for seeing the other side, but these aren't balanced arguments and raises questions about the swprs and who they represent. I'm guessing that they're probably correct in many of their assertions but it's lack of nuance is difficult to look past. Also, I expect the government to take a cautious approach to something that isn't fully understood. If only they'd do that with other things, such as chemicals, antibiotics etc.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7049
  • Rating: -199
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #447 on: May 12, 2020, 10:43:55 AM »
Rico, given that your comments on the piece aren't even half an hour old, are you sure you've researched both the organisation and the many cited sources sufficiently in order to be so disparaging?

It's a debate I've been following from day one and tweeted a month ago that Hitchens may have been right all along. Even Trump came out with the cure can't be worse than the problem. As someone with no epidemiological expertise, I'm personally not qualified to strategise on the major crisis. I am qualified to observe however and I see incompetence - mostly of management and communication - and fear-mongering. This "media-epidemic" may have contorted the truth, adversely influenced our weak government and may have resulted in a disproportionate response. I don't know. All I do know is that nobody I know personally has been infected far less died of Covid-19 or with it (the distinction being absolutely key).
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3513
  • Rating: 77
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #448 on: May 12, 2020, 12:20:09 PM »
Rico, given that your comments on the piece aren't even half an hour old, are you sure you've researched both the organisation and the many cited sources sufficiently in order to be so disparaging?

Nope, that's why I said it raises questions, rather than provides proof. I had a look at a few of the sources (Sputnik etc), but I was commenting on the lack of balance in the article, nothing else. It presents very basic arguments that raise very basic questions that should have been addressed in a good article. There is no good reason to over-simplify an article if you're confident of its accuracy and don't have an agenda. Countering one perceived agenda with your own isn't necessary. I'm just saying that the article isn't helpful, balanced or one I'd trust off the bat. I'll definitely look through it though.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7049
  • Rating: -199
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #449 on: May 12, 2020, 12:49:12 PM »
Nope, that's why I said it raises questions, rather than provides proof. I had a look at a few of the sources (Sputnik etc), but I was commenting on the lack of balance in the article, nothing else. It presents very basic arguments that raise very basic questions that should have been addressed in a good article. There is no good reason to over-simplify an article if you're confident of its accuracy and don't have an agenda. Countering one perceived agenda with your own isn't necessary. I'm just saying that the article isn't helpful, balanced or one I'd trust off the bat. I'll definitely look through it though.

Nope, you haven't researched it sufficiently and yet you are very disparaging? That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think "proof" of much pertaining to this crisis is available generally but I don't agree that the presentation of a wide collection of opinions needs to be "balanced" when it's putting forward a particular argument, for which some (starting with 25) relevant facts are being provided in support of this view.

Edit: please ask three questions raised from reading this article?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 12:53:39 PM by rocket_scientist »
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3513
  • Rating: 77
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #450 on: May 12, 2020, 02:39:15 PM »
Nope, you haven't researched it sufficiently and yet you are very disparaging? That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think "proof" of much pertaining to this crisis is available generally but I don't agree that the presentation of a wide collection of opinions needs to be "balanced" when it's putting forward a particular argument, for which some (starting with 25) relevant facts are being provided in support of this view.

Edit: please ask three questions raised from reading this article?

I wouldn't say I was very disparaging, just critical, but fair enough.

1. Who defined the ascertainment bias in the 0.2% figure and how was it established?

2. Absolute risk doesn't seem to make any sense in the non-peer-reviewed backup. Why would this not change over time? Certainly when randomly compared with driving (a very known rate of deaths generally speaking). Why split into <65 and >65? Especially given the significantly higher rate in 40-65 year olds (who would also be more at risk than from driving) and the fact that the under 18s don't drive.

3. "Up to 80% remain symptom free". Unless your own objective is the production of propaganda, why would you use this stat in questioning the need for lockdown? One, it's very well known and repeated often by government and in the media. Two, what about the very high figure of the remaining 20%? It's just not a stat that would appear in a balanced article. It doesn't belong there. It's like the person was trying to reach an arbitrary target of 25 reasons rather than a good, balanced article.

That's just from the first three points. These are 3 pretty weak arguments (in the article I mean!) In my opinion. There's probably some good stuff in there too, that is really quite relevant, but if they'd focused on the two or three important points it'd have made a convincing case I expect. It strikes me that the author has a pre-defined position (as we all do of course) and tried to find every single thing that backed that position without filter. Certainly not the work of an "anti-propaganda" proponent. The problem is that we/they're criticising the media, but any good journalist would question nearly all the points the article makes. Like you, I think there's a story there, but this doesn't find it and nor did hitchens from a month or so back. They both suffer from quantity over quality, throwing lots of little accusations/criticisms around without anything smoking gun and the basic inaccuracies (hitchens - who I quite enjoy - had a glaring one, I can't remember what it was) or deficiency of argument. Hopefully they'll keep looking.


Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7049
  • Rating: -199
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #451 on: May 12, 2020, 04:00:07 PM »
1. Who defined the ascertainment bias in the 0.2% figure and how was it established?

If you click on the link - the about 0.2% which is highlighted - you will see all 52 studies and the websites to back up their results (the first one being published in the Lancet).

Fuck knows about your other two questions but I think on this first question alone, there's a lot more detail than you first thought available to you, which until we examine the evidence, means that we can't be sceptical or disparaging about the whole text.


It strikes me that the author has a pre-defined position (as we all do of course) and tried to find every single thing that backed that position without filter.

I vehemently disagree. There are detailed FACTS being presented here and whilst the whole casts doubt on the extreme lockdown measures taken by most governments, this is exactly what democracy and opposition is all about, examining the alternatives and establishing the boundaries of the debate, even seeking to look beyond them.

I also dispute that Hitchens has left ANY holes in his position, far less any glaring ones. One of the sources that he quotes, Lord Sumption, was interviewed by Evan Davis on Radio 4 and said exactly what he has consistently been saying for months. Even the government in the 50 page document this week is coming round to admitting that Hitchens was right all along from their words on page 10.

As I said, you and I - or at least me - are not qualified to know what the best strategy might have been. We are qualified to look and listen however and you would need to be a wee bit more diligent in your looking and listening before jumping to conclusions about the group who coordinated these facts or their purpose in presenting them. Personally, it never crossed my mind what their agenda might be. I was just interested in the facts they presented, some of which I had seen before and were sources that I strongly believe have been correct, Professors John Ioannidis of Stanford and Sucharit Bhakdi of Mainz in particular, both having been introduced to me by Hitchens in March, which I shared widely.
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3513
  • Rating: 77
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #452 on: May 12, 2020, 07:15:59 PM »
If you click on the link - the about 0.2% which is highlighted - you will see all 52 studies and the websites to back up their results (the first one being published in the Lancet).

Fuck knows about your other two questions but I think on this first question alone, there's a lot more detail than you first thought available to you, which until we examine the evidence, means that we can't be sceptical or disparaging about the whole text.


I vehemently disagree. There are detailed FACTS being presented here and whilst the whole casts doubt on the extreme lockdown measures taken by most governments, this is exactly what democracy and opposition is all about, examining the alternatives and establishing the boundaries of the debate, even seeking to look beyond them.

I also dispute that Hitchens has left ANY holes in his position, far less any glaring ones. One of the sources that he quotes, Lord Sumption, was interviewed by Evan Davis on Radio 4 and said exactly what he has consistently been saying for months. Even the government in the 50 page document this week is coming round to admitting that Hitchens was right all along from their words on page 10.

As I said, you and I - or at least me - are not qualified to know what the best strategy might have been. We are qualified to look and listen however and you would need to be a wee bit more diligent in your looking and listening before jumping to conclusions about the group who coordinated these facts or their purpose in presenting them. Personally, it never crossed my mind what their agenda might be. I was just interested in the facts they presented, some of which I had seen before and were sources that I strongly believe have been correct, Professors John Ioannidis of Stanford and Sucharit Bhakdi of Mainz in particular, both having been introduced to me by Hitchens in March, which I shared widely.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, I said "it raises questions". I haven't concluded anything. I asked about ascertainment bias, which is only mentioned in the backup, which I obviously opened. The attachment to the Lancet does not back up the 0.2% figure, it backs up the 7.1 figure that has an ascertainment bias attributed to it to make up the 0.54%. If that bias is slightly amended it has a big affect on the result. I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm saying that they haven't given the backup for the bias, or I've missed it.

There are not detailed facts, there are a mixture of facts and opinion. That's fine of course, but instead of chasing the 25, they could have concisely provided 3 or 4 good challenges like ionnadis' cruise ship one rather than the one of his that they link here in point 2, which I've read and added questions here (again, I could be wrong, but that's my conclusion on reading the available text, hence why I'm questioning it). Point 4 suggests a background immunity, but that isn't the conclusion of the article linked, which is a small study that raises questions that could be answered in a larger study.

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3513
  • Rating: 77
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #453 on: May 12, 2020, 07:45:44 PM »
Facts about covid-19

9 Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old.

They link to 3 cases where that occurred (1 still tbc). That's not "many". That's a handful among thousands if you include the young lass in the UK too, which they didn't mention. So it isn't "a fact about covid-19" at all, it's misleading and inaccurate.

The biggest issue is that this article and the publisher are presenting themselves as an antidote to the inaccuracies of the mainstream media. If they're going to do that then they need to be beyond reproach and certainly not easily taken apart by the links they provide. I'm annoyed, because cunts like this are part of the problem. They need to do better. As I've said, like you, I think there's a story there. This isn't it. Hitchens seems a lot closer to the mark and a lot more careful with his claims.

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3513
  • Rating: 77
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #454 on: May 12, 2020, 07:58:18 PM »
And this is the bit from hitchens' otherwise excellent article that you linked a while back:

"Crucially, those who began by claiming that we faced half a million deaths from the Coronavirus in this country have now lowered their estimate.  Professor Neil Ferguson was one of those largely responsible for the original panic, claiming half a million people could die. He or others from Imperial college have twice revised his terrifying prophecy, first to fewer than 20,000 and then on Friday to 5,700"

They didn't revise the figures, the figures were with and without lockdown (or other, i.e.do nothing) measures, the 500k being if we did nothing. A hugely important distinction - massive difference - which I was surprised to read from someone as diligent as hitchens. The rest is good reading and thought provoking. I'm not anti hitchens at all, despite not agreeing with him on a lot of things. He makes his points properly and is light years away from the Tories in government despite sharing much of their ideology.

Offline minijc

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Rating: -183
Just fuck off and die.

LIMA OSCAR LIMA

Offline donsdaft

  • Midfield Maestro
  • ****
  • Posts: 2469
  • Rating: -54
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #456 on: May 12, 2020, 11:47:54 PM »
It's hard to believe, but they're actually going to try and take credit for the death rate falling in care homes.

All that's happening is that they're running out of old people.

Offline minijc

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Rating: -183
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #457 on: May 13, 2020, 12:16:04 PM »
Starmer has just murdered Boris at PMQs again, as one sided as you can get.
Just fuck off and die.

LIMA OSCAR LIMA

Offline TheDeeDon

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 971
  • Rating: 19
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #458 on: May 13, 2020, 12:24:38 PM »
Starmer has just murdered Boris at PMQs again, as one sided as you can get.

What makes it harder to take is the fact he was voted into power, first by his party and then by the electorate.

The man is a clown, albeit a very dangerous clown who should not be anywhere near power. Labour should be exploting the current situation and hammering him and his party on their many failings.


Offline tom_widdows

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 4838
  • Rating: 40
  • Miserable Cúnt & Architectural Killjoy
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #459 on: May 13, 2020, 12:42:03 PM »
Only reading a transcript from the Guardian but FFS the questions/ comments coming from the Tories compared to the opposition parties

1 Tory asks about a fucking steam railway
1 Tory asks what fuckwit thinks about the Hay-on-Wye Book festival going on line

Theres people dying, people living on the streets, and others soon to join them and these 'elected' officials waste their constituency's questions on that?


I'm a man, and as a man I crave disappointment.

That's why I support Aberdeen Football Club & Scotland.