Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
InsiderTrader
12 Aug 20 09:17
Joined:
Date Joined: 25 Aug 05
| Topic/replies: 54,583 | Blogger: InsiderTrader's blog
New Zealand's most populous city has gone back under lockdown after new locally transmitted coronavirus cases broke the 102-day streak the country had gone without recording a local infection.
New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern confirmed four new locally transmitted coronavirus cases on Tuesday night, and announced that Auckland will temporarily see level three restrictions introduced for three days starting from midday on Wednesday, local time.

All four of the cases were found within one household in South Auckland according to New Zealand's Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield. He added that none of the new cases had recently traveled outside of New Zealand.

"We have been preparing for that time, and that time is now," said Dr Bloomfield adding that the "health system is well prepared."
"In line with our precautionary approach we will be asking Aucklanders to take swift actions with us, as of 12 noon tomorrow, Wednesday August 12, we will be moving Auckland to level 3 restrictions," said Ardern.
She added that this will give health officials time to conduct urgent contact tracing and assess the situation.
The new restrictions mean that businesses including restaurants, bars and non-essential shops will have to close. People will also now only be allowed to leave their homes to conduct essential activities such as picking up supplies from grocery stores. Gatherings over 10 people will also be restricted in Auckland.

Schools in Auckland will also be closed for three days. Outside of Auckland, the rest of New Zealand will go into level two restrictions. Under the restrictions groups of no more than 100 people can gather in one place.

Social distancing must also be practiced at hospitality businesses, while public venues such as museums, libraries and pools can open if they comply with public health measures and ensure one meter physical distancing and record keeping.
The new restrictions across Auckland and New Zealand will take place from midday on Wednesday and last at least three days until midnight on Friday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/11/world/new-zealand-restrictions-intl-scli/index.html
Pause Switch to Standard View NEW ZEALAND back into lockdown due to...
Show More
Loading...
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 5:50 PM BST
Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunized ?
If you want to know R0
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 5:51 PM BST
Take your time ...
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 5:51 PM BST
I am losing patience with you. Just answer my last question please.
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 5:55 PM BST
No answer , take your time ....

Here it is again.

Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunise ?
If you want to know R0
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 5:56 PM BST
Go ahead , let’s see Grin
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 5:57 PM BST
To save time I'll just tell you.
no other individuals are infected hopefully you can understand that
or immunized (naturally or through vaccination) we're talking antibodies: natural immunity is obtained by having the virus before, vaccination is artificially inducing a virus so that immunity is gained.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 5:58 PM BST
introducing not inducing
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 5:58 PM BST
I know that

You haven’t answered the question .....
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:01 PM BST
If your question was Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunized ? then that is the definition used in R0 to differentiate it from Re.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:03 PM BST
I really think you are trying all techniques to avoid saying you got it wrong.

Immunization does not refer to people being kept apart from each other as you said it did above.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:05 PM BST
lfc1971 • August 16, 2020 5:37 PM BST
No one who is immune ,   ( cocooned) will die obviously


Cocooned isn't the same as immunised.
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 6:05 PM BST
No Charlie there’s no point answering a different question

Here it is again ..

Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunised ?
If you want to know R0

I’m losing patience with you ...
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:06 PM BST

Aug 16, 2020 -- 12:05PM, Charlie wrote:


lfc1971 • August 16, 2020 5:37 PM BSTNo one who is immune ,   ( cocooned) will die obviouslyCocooned isn't the same as immunised.


I'll repeat that in case you missed it.

Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 6:08 PM BST
ok , no answer from Charlie

That’s ok , sometimes the question is more important than the answer
more revealing., more beautiful

( have to check the rangers match )
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:09 PM BST
It's 0-0
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:10 PM BST

Aug 16, 2020 -- 12:08PM, lfc1971 wrote:


ok , no answer from Charlie That’s ok , sometimes the question is more important than the answer more revealing., more beautiful ( have to check the rangers match )


Start taking your medication again.

Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:10 PM BST
I answered your question. What don't you like about the answer?
Report peckerdunne August 16, 2020 6:11 PM BST
Im not aware of any definitive timeline for immunity.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:13 PM BST
But we do know what immunity means.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:13 PM BST
Unless you're lfc.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:15 PM BST
Who doesn't understand anything.
Report peckerdunne August 16, 2020 6:16 PM BST
I believe immunity has a clearly defined meaning but without definitive timelines in the case of this virus, thus drawing conclusion would Grin
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:18 PM BST
I'm certainly not trying to draw any conclusions pecker I'm merely trying to explain to lfc what R0 means.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:21 PM BST
It's such a simple thing that I thought even the biggest moron would be capable of understanding it. Seems I was wrong.
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 6:31 PM BST
Stop waffling charlie ....still no answer Grin
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:33 PM BST
Look I answered your question. Plus I asked you a question at 5:48 which you haven't answered.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:35 PM BST
You seem to be a deluded individual who thinks their questions should be answered first even when they haven't replied to an earlier question.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:44 PM BST
So far there are at least six things I have learned from this thread about lfc:
1: He doesn't understand what R0 means
2. He doesn't understand what immunised means
3. He's still conceited and ignorant
4. He can't concentrate on the important parts of a discussion
5. He still tries anything to deflect from what he said
6. He's still dumb so wont understand this
7. He probably can't understand this last point
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:52 PM BST
To recap on the first two points.

lfc1971 • August 14, 2020 6:19 PM BST
deary me :(  the r number is the inherent CONTAGIOUSNESS of the virus

It is not.

lfc1971 • August 16, 2020 5:37 PM BST
No one who is immune ,   ( cocooned) will die obviously

Cocooned does not mean immune.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 6:59 PM BST
Perhaps I should have said for 2 that immunised does not mean cocooned.
Report peckerdunne August 16, 2020 7:09 PM BST
Being cocooned means you dont have to be immunised but does not mean your immune, whilst being immunised does mean you don't have to cocoon but may not always be immune..
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 7:15 PM BST
There is no relationship between cocooned and immunised. They mean completely different things. They may achieve the same thing but that isn't what the terms mean.

Much in the same way as having no sex and having sex using birth control may achieve the same thing but don't mean the same.
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 7:20 PM BST
Charlie • August 16, 2020 7:15 PM BST
There is no relationship between cocooned and immunised. They mean completely different things. They may achieve the same thing but that isn't what the terms mean.


Not my greatest ever explanation. There could be a relationship in that they may achieve the same thing. But the terms are not interchangeable. In medical terms immunised has a specific meaning.
Report peckerdunne August 16, 2020 7:31 PM BST
Exactly, the terms are not interchangeable but have consequence that offer different options a bit like this debate.........
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 7:41 PM BST
Don't understand the "a bit like this debate".
Report Charlie August 16, 2020 7:41 PM BST
I'll jump the gun a bit and say I'm 100% correct in what I say about this.
Report peckerdunne August 16, 2020 8:20 PM BST
Well a bit like Ro and Re is what i really mean..they have definitions but 3 people on here have not the same interpretation, i think thats for a number of reasons

immunity has no time line

the virus is always changing

and peoples understanding of susceptible community

I think you are nearest the truth Charlie, but i am no expert on it...
Report lfc1971 August 16, 2020 10:56 PM BST
I cannot  go through all that charlie

Large and difficult tasks I cannot perform
Report Fatslogger August 16, 2020 11:51 PM BST
This time Charlie is obviously right, although I repeat that some definitions of R0 exclude any changes to population behaviour. You could somewhat argue that the cocoon thought experiment is therefore cheating but it makes the point that has been said a few times, that viruses can have different contagiousness but R0 still depends on what the population the virus is in looks like and behaves like (and that’s the case whether the definition allows the population to change behaviour or not).

Oh and even more obviously, immunity and isolation are very much not the same thing.
Report lfc1971 August 17, 2020 12:07 AM BST
Someone else who can’t answer the question Sad
Report lfc1971 August 17, 2020 12:09 AM BST
here’s a little clue , immunity and isolation are obviously the same thing
Report lfc1971 August 17, 2020 12:16 AM BST
Here it is again ...

Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunised ?
If you want to know R0

Let’s see if anyone can answer before the morning ...
Report peckerdunne August 17, 2020 11:45 AM BST
immunity is not solely if at all dependent on isolation, you can argue that isolation results in immunity, except it's not really immunity, just isolation from infection..
Report Fatslogger August 17, 2020 11:02 PM BST

Aug 16, 2020 -- 6:09PM, lfc1971 wrote:


here’s a little clue , immunity and isolation are obviously the same thing


Here’s a little clue? You haven’t got even a ghost of a clue to offer on this one by this point. Immunity and isolation are utterly different things. Try looking them both up and see whether any online resource you try thinks they are. I could reiterate the points I’ve already made about the problems with the R0 definition but it would be wasted effort.

Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 12:19 AM BST
You’ll have to explain why they are different

take your time ...
Report Fatslogger August 18, 2020 5:07 AM BST

Aug 17, 2020 -- 6:19PM, lfc1971 wrote:


You’ll have to explain why they are different  take your time ...


Will I? Okay. as I’m sitting with my children, who’ve woken me up:

Immunity is a function of the immune system protecting the body against the effects of an infection and also against its spread. This arise from prior infection or vaccination.

Isolation is remaining apart from social contact. This reduces the spread of infectious diseases.

Neither of these necessarily completely protects against infection. In the case of complete isolation, this is only really possible in theory, as in Charlie’s example and immunity is often partial too. It’s fair to say that we don’t yet know how effective previous infection is at preventing new Covid infections and spread, although with the current strain that’s circulating, probably at least moderately effective. We obviously don’t yet know how efficacious vaccines will be either.

Is that helpful? That two things can cause the same outcome in one respect doesn’t make them the same. As far s definitions of R0 go, all of them exclude populations with natural or artificial immunity, some exclude isolation by excluding behaviour change and some don’t.  I’ve discussed this at some length before.

Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 7:09 AM BST
I knew that of course,

You have just described why immunity and isolation are the same thing , not different
( Charlie’s describes it as cocooned in their own bubble )!
 
Now that’s of course in theory as in Charlie’s example , that’s what we were talking about
I suggest you go back and read again , oh and stop giving examples of why things are the same to argue that they are different
That’s upside down logic , cheers
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 7:21 AM BST
Oh and here is the question , again
Charlie couldn’t answer it and it seems you cannot either

Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunised ?
If you want to know R0
Report Fatslogger August 18, 2020 12:08 PM BST

Aug 18, 2020 -- 1:21AM, lfc1971 wrote:


Oh and here is the question , again Charlie couldn’t answer it and it seems you cannot either Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunised ?If you want to know R0


Yes, I do know why they mention this, as would be blindingly apparent if you’d understood my many posts discussing R0 and the importance of whether you use the definition that excludes behaviour change or the one which doesn’t. Based on the definition that excludes behavioural change, you somewhat have a point overall but you are just so obviously wrong about isolation and immunity being the same that it’s hilarious. I get, as does Charlie, that in certain contexts they can have the same result. That doesn’t make them the same thing, which is obvious in and of itself and even more obvious once you read the definition of R0, which I would suggest you do again but I fear it would be futile, because you obviously don’t properly understand it. Try a different thought experiment though, which works just fine with the stricter definition too:

What’s the R0 in a society which is almost entirely rural, with at most small settlements, very limited contact between distant groups and no crowding whatsoever? Is this the same as a society that is mostly urban and crowded into limited space, with frequent large gatherings? Take as long as you want.

Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 12:28 PM BST
Not so fast fs, let’s just se if you understand Charlie’s thought experiment first

Why is isolation different from immunity , in relation to Charlie’s thought experiment )

And why do they mention a state where no one is immunised ?
If you want to know R0

Those are the questions , take your time ....
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 12:45 PM BST
Your second thought experiment ? possibly Re will cover that ( haven’t time just now )
Report PorcupineorPineapple August 18, 2020 1:16 PM BST
The year is 2160 and another poor, unsuspecting punter logs on to Betfair and tries to speak sense to lfc before deciding to throw his pc out the window and give up.
Report lapsy pa August 18, 2020 1:24 PM BST
Throwing the computer away does no good,it will be replayed in your mind for a considerable time,betfairs mental trauma helpline gets inundated and crashes.
Time spent alone in the cupboard under the stairs with a packet of hard boiled rhubarb and custard sweets can have a beneficial effect, (so i'm told)
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 1:25 PM BST
ok Charlie if you wish to move on to your second example

R0 is a statistical estimate of how a virus will spread in a particular population if left unchecked

So the rural population R0 will be a certain no ( as I have explained this doesn’t change unless the virus or people change
And R0 for the urban population will be a certain no

R0 is a statistical estimate of how a virus will spread in a ‘ particular ‘ environment if left unchecked
Report Facts August 18, 2020 1:26 PM BST
Lfc1971

You are nothing more than an attention seeking troll
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 1:28 PM BST
Cool heaven knows what nonsense fatslogger will come back with

Let’s see  ...Grin
Report politicspunter August 18, 2020 1:28 PM BST
lfc1971 • August 18, 2020 1:25 PM BST
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user. [Manage blocked users]

This is what everyone should do with lfc. Block him immediately. The forum was so much better when he disappeared for a month or so recently.
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 1:40 PM BST
lfc you're squirming again and trying to redefine words.

Another thought experiment. Imagine two populations A and B. Both are covid free except for one individual in each population who has covid. In both populations individuals are fully isolated from everyone else as before. Everyone (except the person with covid) in population A is vaccinated against covid and are immune. Population B are not inoculated and all individuals are susceptible to infection. We then lift the isolation and allow people to mingle with other people in their own population. People are actively encouraged to meet the person with covid without any attempt to prevent infection.

Which population is likely to end up with more cases of covid?
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 1:45 PM BST
Oh lord Charlie’s back Happy
Report screaming from beneaththewaves August 18, 2020 1:47 PM BST
"Lock me down! Inject me! Command me! Mask me!"

Fecking pervs.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 1:48 PM BST
Thought experiment no three ...
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 1:58 PM BST
Charlie it’s quite stressful having to think LOGICALLY for everyone

Here you go R0 is measured for a given population. (All populations have variables , genetic etc )

R0 does not measure the number of deaths , but the ability of a virus to spread in any given population

So the R0 number when measured for population A will be something   ?
And B something
And A +B will be something

Depending on the inherent contageousness of the virus that doesn’t change
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:02 PM BST
Are you going to give a coherent answer?
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:05 PM BST
read it , read it slowly , and then read it again
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:06 PM BST
SARS for example may have had a much higher R0 number than the flu
But much less deaths
It’s not about the number of deaths
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:06 PM BST
It does not make sense and in no shape or form answers my question.

All you had to say was A or B or they would be equal.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:10 PM BST
Of course
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:11 PM BST
What point are you making ?
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:12 PM BST
Answer the question then I will tell you.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:13 PM BST
Thought exp no 4 coming up from Charlie :)
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:14 PM BST
As you have admitted several times you aren't very bright. This is one of the few things I agree with you on.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:14 PM BST
one covid case A , none in B
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:15 PM BST
Still doesn't answer my question but getting closer.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:17 PM BST
What answer do you get  ?
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:17 PM BST
Read my previous post.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:18 PM BST
Sorry one in each if A initially one and B
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:19 PM BST
Still doesn't answer my question but getting closer.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:29 PM BST
Population. A R0 will be zero  for that given population
Population R0 will be something higher depending on the inherent contageousness of the virus for that given population 

As said many times before ....
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:31 PM BST
R0 measured the ability of a virus to spread in any ‘ particular ‘ population
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:34 PM BST
We can call my example of where A+ B are allowed to mix thought exp no 4

It doesn’t matter R0 remains the same
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:37 PM BST
Any other thoughts charlie ?
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:37 PM BST
Are you on drugs? I purposely avoided mentioning R0. Do you know what question you are answering?
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:47 PM BST
You seem muddled charlie , what do you not understand

Go ahead and I will see if I can help ...
Read what I’ve explained to you first
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:48 PM BST
Try not to waffle
Question. 1 .....
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:49 PM BST

Aug 18, 2020 -- 7:40AM, Charlie wrote:


lfc you're squirming again and trying to redefine words.Another thought experiment. Imagine two populations A and B. Both are covid free except for one individual in each population who has covid. In both populations individuals are fully isolated from everyone else as before. Everyone (except the person with covid) in population A is vaccinated against covid and are immune. Population B are not inoculated and all individuals are susceptible to infection. We then lift the isolation and allow people to mingle with other people in their own population. People are actively encouraged to meet the person with covid without any attempt to prevent infection.Which population is likely to end up with more cases of covid?


Which population is likely to end up with more cases of covid?

Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 2:55 PM BST
I’ve answered that but I’ll answer again B
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:56 PM BST
Why?
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 2:58 PM BST
I'll ignore the fact that you didn't answer before.
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 3:04 PM BST
You will have to get to the point Charlie
I’m becoming bored :(
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 3:05 PM BST
The answer is obviously B as nobody in A can catch it because they're immune. Agreed?
Report peckerdunne August 18, 2020 5:32 PM BST
Appears to be no other possible answer...............but Laugh
Report Charlie August 18, 2020 6:15 PM BST
There is no but apart from I was making a point which when lfc regains consciousness and agrees I will tell you.
Report Fatslogger August 18, 2020 10:36 PM BST
Not so fast fs, let’s just se if you understand Charlie’s thought experiment first

Why is isolation different from immunity , in relation to Charlie’s thought experiment )

And why do they mention a state where no one is immunised ?
If you want to know R0

Those are the questions , take your time ....


This is a bit of guess where on the board the knight will end up after 8 random moves taken by a drugged idiot savant but okay. Isolation and immunity are different things but they could be argued to have the same effect in Charlie’s experiment, which, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly depends which definition of R0 you use.  More precisely speaking, if you use the stricter definition, the thought experiment fails because R0 is defined as transmission per case in a population that doesn’t change its behaviour. This is why I suggested a different thought experiment.

Why is R0 in a non immune population? Because that’s how it’s defined. Why is it defined that way? To get a measure of infectivity in a population without the practical difficulties to calculation introduced by some people not being vulnerable to infection.

ok Charlie if you wish to move on to your second example

R0 is a statistical estimate of how a virus will spread in a particular population if left unchecked


So the rural population R0 will be a certain no ( as I have explained this doesn’t change unless the virus or people change
And R0 for the urban population will be a certain no

R0 is a statistical estimate of how a virus will spread in a ‘ particular ‘ environment if left unchecked


So without actually admitting it and by this point without remembering whether it was me or Charlie, you probably agree that the rural population has a lower R0?
Report lfc1971 August 18, 2020 11:30 PM BST
Ah, good fatslogger now you finally agree that immunity and isolation are the same thing  , that’s progress

now whether R0 is higher of lower in a rural or urban population is neither here nor there , let’s see if you can understand ....

R0 is a statistical estimate of how a disease spreads in a particular population if left unchecked
Report Charlie August 19, 2020 7:39 AM BST
My first thought experiment was solely designed to prove that R0 does not measure the inherent contagiousness of a virus as lfc maintained.

Charlie • August 16, 2020 11:33 AM BST
A little thought experiment should help explain why R0 does not measure the inherent contagiousness of a virus.


Something it did admirably. And by the way there was no change in the population's behaviour.


My second thought experiment was designed to prove this wrong:
lfc1971 • August 17, 2020 12:09 AM BST
here’s a little clue , immunity and isolation are obviously the same thing


If they were the same thing then both populations would be equally likely to catch covid when isolation was lifted but we know that's not true.
Report lfc1971 August 19, 2020 8:12 AM BST
You’re not reading very well charlie Sad
R0 is a statistical estimate of how a disease spreads in a ‘ particular ‘ population ( dependiant on the makeup of that population , genetic , age etc and the inherent contagiousness of the virus )
Report Charlie August 19, 2020 8:59 AM BST
Thankfully my reading is better than your comprehension.
Report Fatslogger August 22, 2020 12:12 AM BST

Aug 19, 2020 -- 1:39AM, Charlie wrote:


My first thought experiment was solely designed to prove that R0 does not measure the inherent contagiousness of a virus as lfc maintained.Charlie • August 16, 2020 11:33 AM BSTA little thought experiment should help explain why R0 does not measure the inherent contagiousness of a virus.Something it did admirably. And by the way there was no change in the population's behaviour. My second thought experiment was designed to prove this wrong: lfc1971 • August 17, 2020 12:09 AM BSThere’s a little clue , immunity and isolation are obviously the same thingIf they were the same thing then both populations would be equally likely to catch covid when isolation was lifted but we know that's not true.


Fair points but your original thought experiment was rather obviously a non real world example. In that sense the behaviour described was a change from any previous human behaviour. But okay, that’s allowed in thought experiments. Certainly better than experiments in demonstrating inability to think anyway.

Report SontaranStratagem August 22, 2020 1:27 AM BST
"new no socialising rules come into affect"

That's some weird phrasing don't you think? that's beyond 1984, that book was a cartoon compared to this going off right now
Report lfc1971 August 22, 2020 9:04 AM BST
lays head on keyboard
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com