We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Just over half of coronavirus-linked deaths in England have been people aged 80 and above(53%). Only 1% were in people aged 20-39, according to the stats from NHS England.
Also a further Meanwhile, 39% were 60-79 years old
People aged 60 or over die anyway, only the EXCESS number of deaths should be included in the Virus figures.
From this it is clear the Virus although tragic, is not damaging the economy of this country
But the LOCKDOWN is, so what is the point of it???????????
Also a further Meanwhile, 39% were 60-79 years old
People aged 60 or over die anyway, only the EXCESS number of deaths should be included in the Virus figures.
From this it is clear the Virus although tragic, is not damaging the economy of this country
But the LOCKDOWN is, so what is the point of it???????????
Show More
IT
The open University have written a short article about virus defence. Perhaps you can explain to them that they have forgotten to mention that for most people tge virus comes into a healthy body , then decides not to start infection as would be defeated anyway. The OU seem to suggest will take 3-4 days for human body to build up enough defences to defeat the virus.
But IT you are saying the virus decides not to infect millions of people. Your work is very interesting, I hope you can get the OU to include it .
Still lacking any links to anything to back up your "basic science " but clearly you know more than those crazy professors.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/biology/how-does-the-human-body-fight-viral-infection
The open University have written a short article about virus defence. Perhaps you can explain to them that they have forgotten to mention that for most people tge virus comes into a healthy body , then decides not to start infection as would be defeated anyway. The OU seem to suggest will take 3-4 days for human body to build up enough defences to defeat the virus.
But IT you are saying the virus decides not to infect millions of people. Your work is very interesting, I hope you can get the OU to include it .
Still lacking any links to anything to back up your "basic science " but clearly you know more than those crazy professors.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/biology/how-does-the-human-body-fight-viral-infection
life expectancy is all over the shop in the UK ...class,wealth,location,occupation ...you'd never get a meaningful relationship
It
What do you mean by peaking at 4-6 weeks.
The virus was in UK in January and peaked in April. Would have peaked later if we didn't have social distancing.
What do you mean by peaking at 4-6 weeks.
The virus was in UK in January and peaked in April. Would have peaked later if we didn't have social distancing.
Mexico
23 May 20 12:51
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,483 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
It
What do you mean by peaking at 4-6 weeks.
The virus was in UK in January and peaked in April. Would have peaked later if we didn't have social distancing.
^
After the first 20-100 deaths depending on population size. Check out all the charts country by country. The pattern is clear.
23 May 20 12:51
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,483 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
It
What do you mean by peaking at 4-6 weeks.
The virus was in UK in January and peaked in April. Would have peaked later if we didn't have social distancing.
^
After the first 20-100 deaths depending on population size. Check out all the charts country by country. The pattern is clear.
Mexico
23 May 20 12:47
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,483 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
IT
The open University have written a short article about virus defence. Perhaps you can explain to them that they have forgotten to mention that for most people tge virus comes into a healthy body , then decides not to start infection as would be defeated anyway.
^
The virus has no brain. It does not make decisions of the kind you are talking about.
23 May 20 12:47
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,483 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
IT
The open University have written a short article about virus defence. Perhaps you can explain to them that they have forgotten to mention that for most people tge virus comes into a healthy body , then decides not to start infection as would be defeated anyway.
^
The virus has no brain. It does not make decisions of the kind you are talking about.
Exactly IT , we agree.
So why did you post that stuff about millions not being infected because they were healthy.
The virus doesn't have a brain, it infects a cell & makes a copy to infect another cell
Those with strong immune systems get infected they fight it off. Hence those professors look for antibodies as a way of knowing who has had the virus.
Still no link to back up the millions too healthy to be infected theory.
So why did you post that stuff about millions not being infected because they were healthy.
The virus doesn't have a brain, it infects a cell & makes a copy to infect another cell
Those with strong immune systems get infected they fight it off. Hence those professors look for antibodies as a way of knowing who has had the virus.
Still no link to back up the millions too healthy to be infected theory.
It
Brazil had 100 deaths by end of March, so when did they hit peak?
It is hardly surprising that different countries following similar methods to deal with virus have peak at similar times is it. Rather shows the need for social distancing. Maybe should have been a week earlier in UK?
Brazil had 100 deaths by end of March, so when did they hit peak?
It is hardly surprising that different countries following similar methods to deal with virus have peak at similar times is it. Rather shows the need for social distancing. Maybe should have been a week earlier in UK?
How many are dying in other countries that aren't really testing? if Mexico and Brazil anything to go by huge numbers not counted.
If I remember correctly there was a distinct difference in contraction and deaths rates between care homes under early lockdown on their own accord (and against the advice of government) and those that did not and still receiving new clients discharged from hospitals.
I firmly believe lockdown can reduce the rate of infection from these virus thus death rate too.
I firmly believe lockdown can reduce the rate of infection from these virus thus death rate too.
There is concern lap about some countries having low number of deaths.
Iran was an early case, Tanzania more recently. Even Russia are using a "more scientific " approach to determine cause of death.
If people die at home & don't have access to hospital/doctors in developing world there is every chance they won't be recorded on official Covid figures.
Iran was an early case, Tanzania more recently. Even Russia are using a "more scientific " approach to determine cause of death.
If people die at home & don't have access to hospital/doctors in developing world there is every chance they won't be recorded on official Covid figures.
Mexico
23 May 20 13:17
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,486 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
Exactly IT , we agree.
So why did you post that stuff about millions not being infected because they were healthy.
The virus doesn't have a brain, it infects a cell & makes a copy to infect another cell
Those with strong immune systems get infected they fight it off. Hence those professors look for antibodies as a way of knowing who has had the virus.
Still no link to back up the millions too healthy to be infected theory.
^
Are you suggesting that everyone that is exposed to the virus becomes infected and then develops anti-bodies?
23 May 20 13:17
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,486 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
Exactly IT , we agree.
So why did you post that stuff about millions not being infected because they were healthy.
The virus doesn't have a brain, it infects a cell & makes a copy to infect another cell
Those with strong immune systems get infected they fight it off. Hence those professors look for antibodies as a way of knowing who has had the virus.
Still no link to back up the millions too healthy to be infected theory.
^
Are you suggesting that everyone that is exposed to the virus becomes infected and then develops anti-bodies?
I'm suggesting that the professors/doctors/statistician running antibodies tests are checking the number of people who have been infected by the virus.
You have made this claim (still waiting for a post to back it up) that these top medics don't know what they are doing and there are millions who were infected but their immune defence is so good they didn't need to produce antibodies. Yet the Open University seems to be completely unaware of this "basic science " which professor InsiderTrader talks about (but can't provide a link to back up theory)
Provide a link IT. Simples.
You have made this claim (still waiting for a post to back it up) that these top medics don't know what they are doing and there are millions who were infected but their immune defence is so good they didn't need to produce antibodies. Yet the Open University seems to be completely unaware of this "basic science " which professor InsiderTrader talks about (but can't provide a link to back up theory)
Provide a link IT. Simples.
Mexico
23 May 20 13:26
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,486 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
It
Brazil had 100 deaths by end of March, so when did they hit peak?
It is hardly surprising that different countries following similar methods to deal with virus have peak at similar times is it. Rather shows the need for social distancing. Maybe should have been a week earlier in UK?
^
Brazil huge country with 210 million people. Different areas got infected at different times. Like Italy peaking before the UK because deaths started there earlier.
Social distancing helps slow the spread but ultimately once 10-20% of the population have had it you have built up enough immunity when combined with people who will never get you have herd immunity.
23 May 20 13:26
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,486 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
It
Brazil had 100 deaths by end of March, so when did they hit peak?
It is hardly surprising that different countries following similar methods to deal with virus have peak at similar times is it. Rather shows the need for social distancing. Maybe should have been a week earlier in UK?
^
Brazil huge country with 210 million people. Different areas got infected at different times. Like Italy peaking before the UK because deaths started there earlier.
Social distancing helps slow the spread but ultimately once 10-20% of the population have had it you have built up enough immunity when combined with people who will never get you have herd immunity.
It
You also forgot to tell us when Brazil hit peak & how many weeks that was after 20 or 100 Covid deaths.
You also forgot to tell us when Brazil hit peak & how many weeks that was after 20 or 100 Covid deaths.
IT
Who exactly are these people "who would never get it"
Are these magic people who scare off the virus before it can enter their bodies and start to infect them.
Any link to back up this. Once again the top bods in medical profession have forgotten about your magic millions who can never be infected.
Who exactly are these people "who would never get it"
Are these magic people who scare off the virus before it can enter their bodies and start to infect them.
Any link to back up this. Once again the top bods in medical profession have forgotten about your magic millions who can never be infected.
Mex,
Do you think that everyone that is exposed to the virus will catch it? Serious question.
Do you think that everyone that is exposed to the virus will catch it? Serious question.
Mexico
23 May 20 14:23
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,489 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
It
You also forgot to tell us when Brazil hit peak & how many weeks that was after 20 or 100 Covid deaths.
^
Where in Brazil are you talking about?
23 May 20 14:23
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,489 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
It
You also forgot to tell us when Brazil hit peak & how many weeks that was after 20 or 100 Covid deaths.
^
Where in Brazil are you talking about?
For instance we cannot say 'Europe' has peaked yet because many countries/areas shut everything down so fast they might get an outbreak to get up to the 10-20% level. Place like London UK and Stockholm Sweden have peaked.
Mexico
23 May 20 14:27
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,489 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
IT
Who exactly are these people "who would never get it"
Are these magic people who scare off the virus before it can enter their bodies and start to infect them.
Any link to back up this. Once again the top bods in medical profession have forgotten about your magic millions who can never be infected.
^
Simple example is people under 20 are 50% less likely to get infected if exposed to the virus.
23 May 20 14:27
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,489 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
IT
Who exactly are these people "who would never get it"
Are these magic people who scare off the virus before it can enter their bodies and start to infect them.
Any link to back up this. Once again the top bods in medical profession have forgotten about your magic millions who can never be infected.
^
Simple example is people under 20 are 50% less likely to get infected if exposed to the virus.
IT
That 50% figure could be achieved in two rather separate ways. (Note thies studies are in very early days )
There could be 50% of children who have a sort of superpower which means they cannot become infected- I.e. They will never catch Covid 19
Or it could mean,
Children required more exposure to the virus to become infected.
I.e. If an adult has a 5 minute chat with an infected person they have a 30% chance of becoming infected. For children this is 15%.
You seem to be saying it is definitely option 1 - and there are millions of "naturally immuned" people who can't ever be infected.
You once again have failed to provide any evidence to support your theory and prove all those professors are wrong.
That 50% figure could be achieved in two rather separate ways. (Note thies studies are in very early days )
There could be 50% of children who have a sort of superpower which means they cannot become infected- I.e. They will never catch Covid 19
Or it could mean,
Children required more exposure to the virus to become infected.
I.e. If an adult has a 5 minute chat with an infected person they have a 30% chance of becoming infected. For children this is 15%.
You seem to be saying it is definitely option 1 - and there are millions of "naturally immuned" people who can't ever be infected.
You once again have failed to provide any evidence to support your theory and prove all those professors are wrong.
Mex,
I did not say XYZ person could never be infected. If there situation changed that of course they could.
What you have is a different probability that different types of people will become infected on exposure. More exposure and that could go up.
The point is every person that currently has a low chance of catching it (previous virus exposure, stronger nose membrane, less developed cells for the virus to clip onto etc) to more the chain of infection is destroyed.
The 5-20% that have have had anti-bodies in the UK are people that caught it. Likely the most likely to catch it probability wise. Combine that with the rest of the population where more people are less likely to catch it and you can send the virus packing in 12 weeks or so.
I did not say XYZ person could never be infected. If there situation changed that of course they could.
What you have is a different probability that different types of people will become infected on exposure. More exposure and that could go up.
The point is every person that currently has a low chance of catching it (previous virus exposure, stronger nose membrane, less developed cells for the virus to clip onto etc) to more the chain of infection is destroyed.
The 5-20% that have have had anti-bodies in the UK are people that caught it. Likely the most likely to catch it probability wise. Combine that with the rest of the population where more people are less likely to catch it and you can send the virus packing in 12 weeks or so.
Pre immunity is a big factor in diseases historically so no reason why it wouldn't be a factor with this.
That there is no 'proof' of it yet is not surprising, as a disease has to be around and studied for a long time before it is understood why certain people will be immune or much less affected.
That there is no 'proof' of it yet is not surprising, as a disease has to be around and studied for a long time before it is understood why certain people will be immune or much less affected.
Ton
Possibly a reason take "pre immunity " won't be a factor this time is because it is a new virus unknown to homans.
That may not be the case but best not to say...
So no reason why it wouldn't be .....
As far as I'm aware none of the scientists working on the problem have mentioned "pre immunity " as an important factor. But hay-Ho what do these microbiologists know that the chit-chat elite don't.
Possibly a reason take "pre immunity " won't be a factor this time is because it is a new virus unknown to homans.
That may not be the case but best not to say...
So no reason why it wouldn't be .....
As far as I'm aware none of the scientists working on the problem have mentioned "pre immunity " as an important factor. But hay-Ho what do these microbiologists know that the chit-chat elite don't.
Pre immunity has been discussed in the studies suggesting 10-20% infection could be enough for herd immunity. Not discussed so much by scientists employed by governments that support lockdown.
You can be pre immune to a new disease. That is how evolution works. Genetic mutations are random and do not arise in response to anything in the environment. But they may be useful to someone who inherits them thousands of years later.
eg there is a genetic mutation that one individual was born with in prehistoric times. Two thousand years ago only 1 in 20,000 Europeans had it. Now 1 in 10 have it. It is theorized that much higher incidence today is because those that didn't have the mutation were killed by The Black Death.
You can be pre immune to a new disease. That is how evolution works. Genetic mutations are random and do not arise in response to anything in the environment. But they may be useful to someone who inherits them thousands of years later.
eg there is a genetic mutation that one individual was born with in prehistoric times. Two thousand years ago only 1 in 20,000 Europeans had it. Now 1 in 10 have it. It is theorized that much higher incidence today is because those that didn't have the mutation were killed by The Black Death.
Oh yes those professors who work for the government are controlled by the NWO . To find the truth It is best to listen to scientists on you-tube
Any chance of a link to this news article about UK pretty much already having heard immunity due to the "Pre immunity "
Seems like important news - would have thought these scientists who have worked this out would want their work to be published so life can get bact to norm.
Come on ton - this is to important to keep secret- post the news here.
Any chance of a link to this news article about UK pretty much already having heard immunity due to the "Pre immunity "
Seems like important news - would have thought these scientists who have worked this out would want their work to be published so life can get bact to norm.
Come on ton - this is to important to keep secret- post the news here.
London boroughs were far out in front for cases in March, now there are hardly any new cases there in late May.
How can this be ? Is it the lockdown ? If so, why are there many more cases at this time in areas that are also locked down ?
Seems that infected people in London are just running into people that were already infected or immune.
How can this be ? Is it the lockdown ? If so, why are there many more cases at this time in areas that are also locked down ?
Seems that infected people in London are just running into people that were already infected or immune.
Still no link to all these scientists discussion "pre immunity "
If there a 4 hour you tube video where we can discover "the truth " provided you hav an "open mind" and don't believe the MSM?
Come on rob, waiting for this link with shows all those professors don't know what they are talking about & we are basically all safe to return to "normal" lives.
If there a 4 hour you tube video where we can discover "the truth " provided you hav an "open mind" and don't believe the MSM?
Come on rob, waiting for this link with shows all those professors don't know what they are talking about & we are basically all safe to return to "normal" lives.
Interesting read from the former head of the Israeli health ministry who is against lockdown.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/22/nothing-can-justify-this-destruction-of-peoples-lives/#
Key paragraph (as stated in so words many times here and by other experts)
"Any reasonable expert – that is, anyone but Professor Ferguson from Imperial College who would have locked down everybody when we had swine flu – will tell you that lockdown cannot change the final number of infected people. It can only change the rate of infection. And people argue that by changing the rate of infection and ‘flattening the curve’, we prevented the collapse of hospitals. I have shown you the costs of lockdown, but this was the argument in favour of it. But look at Sweden. No lockdown and no collapse of hospitals. The argument for the lockdown collapses."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/22/nothing-can-justify-this-destruction-of-peoples-lives/#
Key paragraph (as stated in so words many times here and by other experts)
"Any reasonable expert – that is, anyone but Professor Ferguson from Imperial College who would have locked down everybody when we had swine flu – will tell you that lockdown cannot change the final number of infected people. It can only change the rate of infection. And people argue that by changing the rate of infection and ‘flattening the curve’, we prevented the collapse of hospitals. I have shown you the costs of lockdown, but this was the argument in favour of it. But look at Sweden. No lockdown and no collapse of hospitals. The argument for the lockdown collapses."
"Any reasonable expert – that is, anyone but Professor Ferguson from Imperial College who would have locked down everybody when we had swine flu – will tell you that lockdown cannot change the final number of infected people. It can only change the rate of infection.
will you give me a tenner for every reasonable expert i name who disagrees with this view? tia
will you give me a tenner for every reasonable expert i name who disagrees with this view? tia
The elephant in the room is still the economy.
Whether the lockdown was right or not can be argued both ways. What is not in doubt is that it was too late and now it is too long.
The economic catastrophe debate has been kicked down the road. Forgetting the financial impact I do Ashley believe more people will die from non corona virus related issues.
I could accept the lockdown because of ignorance but the timing was political, which, is a disgrace and it’s continuation is just plain stupidity and will have serious implications for all of us for years to come.
Whether the lockdown was right or not can be argued both ways. What is not in doubt is that it was too late and now it is too long.
The economic catastrophe debate has been kicked down the road. Forgetting the financial impact I do Ashley believe more people will die from non corona virus related issues.
I could accept the lockdown because of ignorance but the timing was political, which, is a disgrace and it’s continuation is just plain stupidity and will have serious implications for all of us for years to come.
"Dominic's Law" basically signals the end of lockdown. unless he gets emptied.
So thegigglio says Israel are "absolute vermin". Once again one of the forums most sick bigoted scumbags shows his colours.
The link I posted is an intelligent thoughtful article by an intelligent man, it's unsurprising it won't be read by the likes of "thegigglio" or the mob of pitch fork wavers on here..
Mexico
23 May 20 21:20
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,493 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
Still no link to all these scientists discussion "pre immunity "
^
Do you accept the premise that some people are likely less susceptible to becoming infected that others or are you one of the people that think it is likely for 100% of the population to be infected eventually?
We have had many threads of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine paper last month. Gupta says the same thing. As do everyone apart from Ferguson when pushed.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3.full.pdf
The reality is a terrible mistake was made by government and other scientists when Ferguson produced his numbers. Now the code has been discredited it is very hard for other scientists on SAGE and the government to admit they got it wrong by falling into a group think alternate reality in mid-March.
The cost of focusing on clearing the NHS for Covid at the expense of everything else has cost countless lives already.
The unnecessary lockdown will cost lives and livelihoods for years to come.
23 May 20 21:20
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,493 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
Still no link to all these scientists discussion "pre immunity "
^
Do you accept the premise that some people are likely less susceptible to becoming infected that others or are you one of the people that think it is likely for 100% of the population to be infected eventually?
We have had many threads of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine paper last month. Gupta says the same thing. As do everyone apart from Ferguson when pushed.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3.full.pdf
The reality is a terrible mistake was made by government and other scientists when Ferguson produced his numbers. Now the code has been discredited it is very hard for other scientists on SAGE and the government to admit they got it wrong by falling into a group think alternate reality in mid-March.
The cost of focusing on clearing the NHS for Covid at the expense of everything else has cost countless lives already.
The unnecessary lockdown will cost lives and livelihoods for years to come.
I don’t think the lockdown was unnecessary it was just too late and too long.
Did you read the Sunday Times article that was posted here?
Why are you blaming Ferguson and not the Government?
Did you read the Sunday Times article that was posted here?
Why are you blaming Ferguson and not the Government?
I am blaming Ferguson, SAGE for not asking questions and getting a second opinion (if they didn't) and the government for not getting a second opinion (if they didn't).
They are all to blame for focusing too much on clearing the NHS due to Ferguson dossier suggesting the NHS going to be overrun.
Skynews putting out wall to wall coverage from a hospital in Italy did not help things either.
They are all to blame for focusing too much on clearing the NHS due to Ferguson dossier suggesting the NHS going to be overrun.
Skynews putting out wall to wall coverage from a hospital in Italy did not help things either.
Perhaps at the next General Election you can vote Ferguson out of office!
Haha.
No Imperial College standing by him and saying the government use a variety of different inputs.
Imperial gets a lot of funding from foundations and companies.
No Imperial College standing by him and saying the government use a variety of different inputs.
Imperial gets a lot of funding from foundations and companies.
Nobel winning scientist says Lockdown was a waste of time and cost more lives than it saved:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/23/lockdown-saved-no-lives-may-have-cost-nobel-prize-winner-believes/
"Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, sent messages to Professor Neil Ferguson in March telling the influential government advisor he had over-estimated the potential death toll by "10 or 12 times"."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/23/lockdown-saved-no-lives-may-have-cost-nobel-prize-winner-believes/
"Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, sent messages to Professor Neil Ferguson in March telling the influential government advisor he had over-estimated the potential death toll by "10 or 12 times"."
Levitt has been saying this for months since the first data came out of China.
He was one of the first to spot the trend of deaths flattening and going into decline in a an effected area after 4-6 weeks.
Of course pro-Lockdown fanatics hate him and everyone else that has worked out the trend of the virus.
It does not suit people like Boris and Macron to admit they made a mistake.
He was one of the first to spot the trend of deaths flattening and going into decline in a an effected area after 4-6 weeks.
Of course pro-Lockdown fanatics hate him and everyone else that has worked out the trend of the virus.
It does not suit people like Boris and Macron to admit they made a mistake.
Of course, there are more expert opinions on this complex topic than you can shake a stick at.
Simply pick the one that aligns with your views, and you have constructed a rock solid case.
Simply pick the one that aligns with your views, and you have constructed a rock solid case.
Angoose you got anything up to date that suggestions/proves UK style lockdown has saved lives.
Ferguson apparently wanted us to have a lockdown during feckin "swine flu".
What a track record he has. His "tips" are worse than Money Trees.
Yes I know this is the mail but if the figures are wrong, please point out where.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294439/ROSS-CLARK-Neil-Fergusons-lockdown-predictions-dodgy.html
"The next year, Ferguson was back to claim that vCJD, the human form of mad cow disease, could kill between 50 and 50,000 Britons – a range so broad as to be almost useless for policy-makers. He also said the human death toll could rise to 150,000 if the disease passed to sheep.
That apocalypse never came: today the death toll from vCJD stands at just 178.
Undaunted, the prophet of doom returned in 2005, this time warning of bird flu. ‘Around 40million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak,’ he declared. ‘There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200million people probably.’
No you couldn’t. To date, according to the World Health Organisation, H5N1 avian flu has killed just 455 people globally.
In 2009 Ferguson claimed that the mortality rate from swine flu was in the range of 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent, but was ‘most likely’ to be 0.4 per cent. Based on this figure, the Government’s ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ suggested that Britain would suffer 65,000 deaths.
By the end of the year it was reported the actual mortality rate had been just 0.026 per cent. The UK death toll at the time was 283."
What a track record he has. His "tips" are worse than Money Trees.
Yes I know this is the mail but if the figures are wrong, please point out where.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294439/ROSS-CLARK-Neil-Fergusons-lockdown-predictions-dodgy.html
"The next year, Ferguson was back to claim that vCJD, the human form of mad cow disease, could kill between 50 and 50,000 Britons – a range so broad as to be almost useless for policy-makers. He also said the human death toll could rise to 150,000 if the disease passed to sheep.
That apocalypse never came: today the death toll from vCJD stands at just 178.
Undaunted, the prophet of doom returned in 2005, this time warning of bird flu. ‘Around 40million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak,’ he declared. ‘There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200million people probably.’
No you couldn’t. To date, according to the World Health Organisation, H5N1 avian flu has killed just 455 people globally.
In 2009 Ferguson claimed that the mortality rate from swine flu was in the range of 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent, but was ‘most likely’ to be 0.4 per cent. Based on this figure, the Government’s ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ suggested that Britain would suffer 65,000 deaths.
By the end of the year it was reported the actual mortality rate had been just 0.026 per cent. The UK death toll at the time was 283."
Here's one expert claiming that entering lockdown one week earlier would have saved 11,000 lives.
It's in one of the newspapers that you like.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8339497/Coronavirus-UK-deaths-limited-11-000-lockdown-started-sooner.html
It's in one of the newspapers that you like.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8339497/Coronavirus-UK-deaths-limited-11-000-lockdown-started-sooner.html
That is the Southampton model a think. It does not account for deaths from NHS shifting resources, people being scared into not using the NHS, mental health deaths and deaths from cost of lockdown on livelihoods.
Whisperingdeath
24 May 20 11:26
Joined: 25 Dec 11
| Topic/replies: 27,606 | Blogger: Whisperingdeath's blog
So why did the Government listen to Ferguson?
^
Good question and one that needs to be answered at some point.
I think the government got spooked by Ferguson, Italy and other countries.
Get it wrong you can just say we followed the science and other countries were locking down so we did it.
They did not want to be an outlier. Look at the criticism the Swedes are getting from the lockdown fanatics for having for having the right policy.
24 May 20 11:26
Joined: 25 Dec 11
| Topic/replies: 27,606 | Blogger: Whisperingdeath's blog
So why did the Government listen to Ferguson?
^
Good question and one that needs to be answered at some point.
I think the government got spooked by Ferguson, Italy and other countries.
Get it wrong you can just say we followed the science and other countries were locking down so we did it.
They did not want to be an outlier. Look at the criticism the Swedes are getting from the lockdown fanatics for having for having the right policy.
The next time there is widespread fear-mongering(backed/financed by big bank, big pharma and/or other assorted elite interests)will the governed/people blindly follow the dictates of their govt/leaders(who are mainly the approved selections of the aforementioned fear-mongers)? Modern societies are primed/trained to obey 'authoritarian' figures so I wont hold my breath.
We'll soon find out now. All we gotta do is keep our eyes on the figs from Southend.
ffaith i agree. my big concern is how readily everything was accepted and all the new normal things being trotted out accepted too.there must be some underlying reason to all this
If you catch Covid-19, your risk of death if you're over 80 is 15%. If you are under 50, it is less than 1%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52783865
Yeah, a lockdown makes perfect sense....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52783865
Yeah, a lockdown makes perfect sense....
exactly.we are being treat like morons.its not needed now we know who the vunerable are.
np - it’s an incredible stat. Even the BBC can’t hide the truth.
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html
If I’m reading the above correctly, these are the % chances of dying by age, regardless of covid.
65-75 2.38%
75-84 6.66%
85+ 16.66 %
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html
If I’m reading the above correctly, these are the % chances of dying by age, regardless of covid.
65-75 2.38%
75-84 6.66%
85+ 16.66 %
it is without doubt a horrible thing which sadly has took way too many lives.these things come around ,we learn,we adapt and we get on with life.thats how we evolve.the way this government are going about this though,telling us this,that and the other will have to change leads me to think theres more to this.
defo pointa...and the more that people comply the worse it will get
the best thing that people can do is go out whenever they want, to wherever they want, with whoever they want
don't wear a face mask, don't adhere to social distancing, ditch your smartphone
eat healthy
exercise regularly
go out in the fresh air & in direct sunlight
have social contact and stimulate the mind
no toxins
no msm media, government or big pharma solutions
it really aint rocket science
the best thing that people can do is go out whenever they want, to wherever they want, with whoever they want
don't wear a face mask, don't adhere to social distancing, ditch your smartphone
eat healthy
exercise regularly
go out in the fresh air & in direct sunlight
have social contact and stimulate the mind
no toxins
no msm media, government or big pharma solutions
it really aint rocket science
May 24, 2020 -- 9:54AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Whole thing is a farce.
agree
Has this become a danger of being a severe bout of after timing?
Go back to the middle of March (when govt advice first started coming out about not going out to pubs/restaurants etc) and ask how many scientists were saying that a lockdown wasn't necessary for this virus?
This pandemic stuff obviously isn't like forecasting the weather where you would expect a high degree of confidence to get decent estimated/actual values.
Sweden was a huge outlier at the time even in Sweden they wad a lot of wrangling among their experts about not locking down.
A big disadvantage in early march that can't be ignored was that testing was utter sh1te,the virus was too seeded for the sh1te testing to be of any benefit in the early stages.
Where were all these scientists shouting that a lockdown wasn't needed, having seen the lockdowns from china and then through Europe I'm not surprised we went down that road.
Go back to the middle of March (when govt advice first started coming out about not going out to pubs/restaurants etc) and ask how many scientists were saying that a lockdown wasn't necessary for this virus?
This pandemic stuff obviously isn't like forecasting the weather where you would expect a high degree of confidence to get decent estimated/actual values.
Sweden was a huge outlier at the time even in Sweden they wad a lot of wrangling among their experts about not locking down.
A big disadvantage in early march that can't be ignored was that testing was utter sh1te,the virus was too seeded for the sh1te testing to be of any benefit in the early stages.
Where were all these scientists shouting that a lockdown wasn't needed, having seen the lockdowns from china and then through Europe I'm not surprised we went down that road.
There were up to 20 scientists in some of these early meetings and all we ever hear about is Neil Ferguson.What were the others thinking?
I can't speak for others SE but I haven't changed my tune on this throughout the whole debacle
Very early on the average age of those dying in Italy was 79.5. 99% had 1 or more serious health conditions. The air pollution in the north where most deaths occurred was horrendous. The pattern from China and Italy was clear. The old and ill were at risk.
Precautions yes. Lockdown madness.
Precautions yes. Lockdown madness.
May 24, 2020 -- 10:27AM, stridingedge wrote:
There were up to 20 scientists in some of these early meetings and all we ever hear about is Neil Ferguson.What were the others thinking?
on 19th march 2020 the UK government posted on its website that it no longer classed CV19 as a HCID (high consequence infectious disease)
the ICL computer models were the catalyst for the lockdown shortly after that
I wa stalking about the experts Wonders, there was no consensus and nearly all countries on it's way to us had locked down.
May 24, 2020 -- 10:34AM, Injera wrote:
Very early on the average age of those dying in Italy was 79.5. 99% had 1 or more serious health conditions. The air pollution in the north where most deaths occurred was horrendous. The pattern from China and Italy was clear. The old and ill were at risk.Precautions yes. Lockdown madness.
good post
quite frankly SE I would use these " " when using the E word
All i'm saying is there was certainly far more science saying lockdown than not, I'm not challenging peoples opinions now that it was not needed.
I'mnot having it that ot was all obvious back in March, it clearly wasn't.
I'mnot having it that ot was all obvious back in March, it clearly wasn't.
After timing is fine by me for this issue.
There were scientists like the Stanford guy, the Swedes, Levitt and a few others arguing in March that a lockdown was a bad move.
It's true that most seemed to back the lock down in March and believe that it was necessary to substantially reduce case numbers. That's OK, but to still be arguing that 2 months later and insisting the lockdown must continue when the facts say otherwise is what I have a problem with.
There were scientists like the Stanford guy, the Swedes, Levitt and a few others arguing in March that a lockdown was a bad move.
It's true that most seemed to back the lock down in March and believe that it was necessary to substantially reduce case numbers. That's OK, but to still be arguing that 2 months later and insisting the lockdown must continue when the facts say otherwise is what I have a problem with.
to still be arguing that 2 months later and insisting the lockdown must continue when the facts say otherwise is what I have a problem with
there's a lot of these people about too tobes, fkin dangerous individuals imo
there's a lot of these people about too tobes, fkin dangerous individuals imo
Tobes I was on about from the beginning I'm certainly not arguing whether it was needed or not just that I understand why it was chosen back then.
The Swedes were at loggerheads within their country with their experts, that's a 100% fact.
The Swedes were at loggerheads within their country with their experts, that's a 100% fact.
The real tragedy of all this is locking everyone down and focusing on preparing the NHS for Fergusons tsunami of covid patients has meant more deaths in carehomes.
And yes the nodding dogs that went along with Ferguson are also to blame.
And yes the nodding dogs that went along with Ferguson are also to blame.
in the UK there was no excess mortality before lockdown was imposed and 4 days prior the government said their scientific advisers informed them that CV19 was no longer a HCID
on that basis there was no justification for a lockdown
they tried to justify the lockdown on the back of computer models produced by ICL
on that basis there was no justification for a lockdown
they tried to justify the lockdown on the back of computer models produced by ICL
its meant more deaths everywhere IT, not just carehomes
Has this become a danger of being a severe bout of after timing?
Definitely but what was needed at the time was foresight. The scientists had the figures and knowledge before we did. I have a timeline on this as I attended a function in London on 6th March and was due to fly to Rome on 13th March for the Six Nations game the next day. My flight to Rome left without me!
It was clear two weeks prior there was a big big problem and the game wasn’t cancelled till a few days before it was due. The FCO didn’t warn us not to go.........no flight refund!
This annoyed the hell out of me because we were not following the science even though that phrase had not been concocted at that stage!
The Govt abdicated their duty imho. Banning flights was almost unheard of although Chump did it but that was more politics than health. Flights and travel between highly infected areas should have been stopped. Hospitals, Care Homes and old people should have been protected, they were not. Then all hell broke loose and we could not see the woods from the trees fir a shirt while after 24th March
Imho political considerations got in the way of good advice
I think the figures highlighted by some on here are really stark in hindsight absolutely shocking
Definitely but what was needed at the time was foresight. The scientists had the figures and knowledge before we did. I have a timeline on this as I attended a function in London on 6th March and was due to fly to Rome on 13th March for the Six Nations game the next day. My flight to Rome left without me!
It was clear two weeks prior there was a big big problem and the game wasn’t cancelled till a few days before it was due. The FCO didn’t warn us not to go.........no flight refund!
This annoyed the hell out of me because we were not following the science even though that phrase had not been concocted at that stage!
The Govt abdicated their duty imho. Banning flights was almost unheard of although Chump did it but that was more politics than health. Flights and travel between highly infected areas should have been stopped. Hospitals, Care Homes and old people should have been protected, they were not. Then all hell broke loose and we could not see the woods from the trees fir a shirt while after 24th March
Imho political considerations got in the way of good advice
I think the figures highlighted by some on here are really stark in hindsight absolutely shocking
I will reiterate my comments were based on the question of whether there was at the time of making the policy decision in March any sort of consensus that a lockdown was not the right path to take.
The thing for me is we all started this blind and If you've seen the science from the start it has often been inconclusive between the 'experts' from the outset.
Of course there were some experts that were theorising a lockdown was not necessary but to assume they should have been the ones backed by our govt in March for me is a case of looking back after the event somewhat.
Scientists are often conflicting and on this issue I've seen more divergence than anything I can recall among them. Sometimes the answers are not clear, the right thing to do is not obvious at the time.
The thing for me is we all started this blind and If you've seen the science from the start it has often been inconclusive between the 'experts' from the outset.
Of course there were some experts that were theorising a lockdown was not necessary but to assume they should have been the ones backed by our govt in March for me is a case of looking back after the event somewhat.
Scientists are often conflicting and on this issue I've seen more divergence than anything I can recall among them. Sometimes the answers are not clear, the right thing to do is not obvious at the time.
'Lockdown' of healthy young people has never been done before like this.
It was an idea out of Communist China that the west foolishly adopted.
It was an idea out of Communist China that the west foolishly adopted.
Communist China, take me to heaven
Somebody wrong
We'll throw glass in your face
Call it new propaganda
Still we've been waiting for so long
Somebody wrong
We'll throw glass in your face
Call it new propaganda
Still we've been waiting for so long
Yes by just about every country when it looked like China had stopped it's spread with minimal deaths.
This was logically part of the decision process for other countries?
We've not had a pandemic here before in our lifetimes so it was all on the hoof.
IT you certainly didn't have the view lockdown was a bad move back in March.We were all in the dark and the science was often disputed among the scientists.
Very few scientists were hinting that a lockdown was likely to be the wrong move.
This was logically part of the decision process for other countries?
We've not had a pandemic here before in our lifetimes so it was all on the hoof.
IT you certainly didn't have the view lockdown was a bad move back in March.We were all in the dark and the science was often disputed among the scientists.
Very few scientists were hinting that a lockdown was likely to be the wrong move.
In March there were few scientists again that thought or were openly stating 20% was going to be a likely infection rate that stopped transmission.
I certainly did not have any answers in March except it was bleedin’ obvious the rugby should have been cancelled and flights refunded!
I had no concept of a blanket travel ban or a lockdown. It happened in other countries not ours! I was furious at the ban at the time because I felt our work could have carried on safely. It was not Bubonic Plague. We knew it affected older people but that I think all that got forgotten when panic set in.
The whole thing has been a shambles not just in hindsight but at the time. That much is clear.
I had no concept of a blanket travel ban or a lockdown. It happened in other countries not ours! I was furious at the ban at the time because I felt our work could have carried on safely. It was not Bubonic Plague. We knew it affected older people but that I think all that got forgotten when panic set in.
The whole thing has been a shambles not just in hindsight but at the time. That much is clear.
I'll obviously add a big * in assuming China's official figures are correct as have been presented to the world.
The main thing for me has been the failure to protect the most vulnerable, it's very hard for anyone to put a feasible argument to suggest that back in March we were not aware of who was most vulnerable there was plenty of evidence.
You are right because we did not have full access to the science in mid-March.
My personal view was, and remains, to lockdown with my wife 100% on 16th March after reading papers on how badly Covid gets you if you have a bad heart condition.
By early April I was questioning full lockdown. It seemed pointless to have low risk young people locked down most of the time but have them all gather in the same supermarkets when they went out and also to have multiple staff going in and out of carehomes.
Once it became clear Ferguson's code was not going to be released in full it became more and more obvious the whole thing was unncessary. It was based on bad science. We were trying something new and destructive that was not evidence based.
Then the information of growth flattening in Sweden proved full lockdown was not needed.
It should be targeted on at risk people rather than blanket on the whole population. Remember that was the original plan. If we had stuck to the original plan and focused our resources on the vulnerable I am convinced lives would have been saved.
Thankfully Boris is finally turning the tanker round. But having scared people it is going to take time and cost more lives and money to do so. Some people are even complaining at schools returning despite only a handful of under 20s dying with the virus.
My personal view was, and remains, to lockdown with my wife 100% on 16th March after reading papers on how badly Covid gets you if you have a bad heart condition.
By early April I was questioning full lockdown. It seemed pointless to have low risk young people locked down most of the time but have them all gather in the same supermarkets when they went out and also to have multiple staff going in and out of carehomes.
Once it became clear Ferguson's code was not going to be released in full it became more and more obvious the whole thing was unncessary. It was based on bad science. We were trying something new and destructive that was not evidence based.
Then the information of growth flattening in Sweden proved full lockdown was not needed.
It should be targeted on at risk people rather than blanket on the whole population. Remember that was the original plan. If we had stuck to the original plan and focused our resources on the vulnerable I am convinced lives would have been saved.
Thankfully Boris is finally turning the tanker round. But having scared people it is going to take time and cost more lives and money to do so. Some people are even complaining at schools returning despite only a handful of under 20s dying with the virus.
Absolutely
Also I believed the most important thing to them was not to see the NHS overrun as they would be blamed for it.
I am not a scientist so did not and do not know the sums but I knew I and my boys could work safely. I was outraged when the pubs were told to close but they knew almost 3 weeks prior they should have done that.
The fact we are still in lockdown shows how much they have got this wrong then and now!
I am still not working but comforted by the maximum furlough and bright sun I am happy to fiddle while Rome burns.
They are still not addressing the economy!
Also I believed the most important thing to them was not to see the NHS overrun as they would be blamed for it.
I am not a scientist so did not and do not know the sums but I knew I and my boys could work safely. I was outraged when the pubs were told to close but they knew almost 3 weeks prior they should have done that.
The fact we are still in lockdown shows how much they have got this wrong then and now!
I am still not working but comforted by the maximum furlough and bright sun I am happy to fiddle while Rome burns.
They are still not addressing the economy!
It certainly wasn't a dig IT it was reasonable in March for most of us blind to this to believe that a lockdown was probably the right thing.It has got harder for anyone to suggest as time has gone on that the lockdown has been effective as the evidence has grown.
IT still doesn't want to acknowledge yesterdays Sunday Times article and the two independent models that produced similar results.
I still think the problem is they weren't sure in March what role the less vulnerable actually played in the transmission and what level of the population were likely to be infected as the disease ran it's course. Despite the low infection mortality rate (though I'm sure with most evidence it is significantly higher than seasonal flu and this will be confirmed in due course) the fear was that enough people would still be infected with the fact it was a new disease and natural immunity likely to be low.
Enough would be infected to compromise the NHS and lead to a higher death tally than seen as the population exposure would be so high, of course this has hence been shown to not be the case. There's very little doubt for me that the scientists advising the govt were fully aware who the most likely risk group were but they weren't sure how the disease was actually spread around at the time.
Schools going back now seem like a no brainer, the risks appear to be practically non existent especially with such reduced transmission in the community!
Enough would be infected to compromise the NHS and lead to a higher death tally than seen as the population exposure would be so high, of course this has hence been shown to not be the case. There's very little doubt for me that the scientists advising the govt were fully aware who the most likely risk group were but they weren't sure how the disease was actually spread around at the time.
Schools going back now seem like a no brainer, the risks appear to be practically non existent especially with such reduced transmission in the community!
What I don’t understand is we are in ninth week of lockdown and thousands of people are still being infected every day?
It appears that it has almost cleared in London yet we are masked and gloved up still as a precaution
It appears that it has almost cleared in London yet we are masked and gloved up still as a precaution
I knew in February that I had to do my mums shopping.
Angoose
25 May 20 09:35
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 16,630 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
IT still doesn't want to acknowledge yesterdays Sunday Times article and the two independent models that produced similar results.
^
I have responded to it if it is the Southampton paper.
What papers are they? I do not get the Sunday Times.. paywall.
25 May 20 09:35
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 16,630 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
IT still doesn't want to acknowledge yesterdays Sunday Times article and the two independent models that produced similar results.
^
I have responded to it if it is the Southampton paper.
What papers are they? I do not get the Sunday Times.. paywall.
Someone helpfully posted the full article on the forum yesterday.
A long but interesting read.
A long but interesting read.
So much misinformation, lies and sheer stupidity on display in this thread I don't know where to start....so I won't!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539