Mutating Corona Virus

[maroondevo52]

My son and his colleague's who work for Police Scotland had to attend and disperse 20 odd folk having a house party in edinburgh.

Most of them drugged up, total moron's.

[brassnecked]

Thoughtless and moronic, They obviously don't give a damn need locking up that sort.

[tobyjugg2]

On 04/04/2020 at 21:57, brassnecked said:

meanwhile another "expert" wants the UK to go back to the Herd Immunity let granny die plan

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8186507/PMs-virus-adviser-warns-Britain-need-adopt-herd-immunity.html

 

I know we shouldn't take the mail seriously ... but

 

If he's an expert - no wonder we are in the state we are.

 

 

We aren't painted into a corner by the policy as he allegedly laims

We are 'painted into a corner' by the lack of testing.

 

Testing everyone, repeatedly if necessary - is the ONLY sane way forward, and also essential preparedness for next winter and any future outbreaks

Everything else is filler

(not intending to minimise the benefits or costs of current and 'other policies)

 

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[brassnecked]

Which is what Dr Richard North said was essential, but their planning and Centralisation put the kibosh on that as the resources aren't there locally.

[cjcregg]

5 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Well I can confirm that those desperately needed supplies are reaching the hospitals although far more is needed

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure that the entire nation is reassured and lost in gratitude to you for this heart-warming confirmation.

 

Do keep us updated.

[cjcregg]

2 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

 

 

Testing everyone, repeatedly if necessary - is the ONLY sane way forward

 

 

 

Just out of interest, how long did it take you to formulate this conclusion? I'm not looking for a particularly accurate answer, just round it up to the nearest nano second.

 

 How is this going to work then?

 

Where are the medical personnel and laboratory staff required to undertake this massive project going to come from? Now this is just a stab in the dark but I'd imagine they'd be quite busy at the moment.

 

Even South Korea, who are recognised as having one of the most aggressive testing policies have only managed to test 1% of their population. You clearly have no conception as to the scale of what you're proposing.

 

Even if it was possible to plan, organise and execute it would take years to achieve, by which time all the data would have been redundant and completely meaningless. I was tested last week and it took 2 days for the result, which by the time I received it was already out of date as I was then and now just as likely to be infected as I was when I took the test.

 

Think about it.

 

 

[BazzaS]

I don’t see some users posts, but since they’ve been quoted .........

 

I agree (in parts) with 2 contributors postings.

 

WHO says “test, test, test”, so more tests ARE key. That is part agreeing with one contributor.

 

I also agree with cjcregg. One has to understand the limitations of a test : (sensitivity, specificity and its positive and negative predictive values - which involves sensitivity / specificity AND prevalence!).

 

One also has to understand which test, to apply those limitations.

a) RNA NAAT? (Commonly called PCR, though PCR is a tradename, so ‘PCR’ is to ‘NAAT’ like ‘Hoover’ is to ‘vacuum cleaner’)

b) Antigen testing?

c) Antibody testing? (If so, IgM? IgG? Both??)

 

Knowing which test(s), their limitations, and thus what the result actually MEANS is more important than a blanket statement of “test everyone!”, (and repeatedly ??! ) .... especially as it allows prioritisation of who gets what test to maximise benefit, until “testing for all” is more than a pipe-dream .....

 

Would you repeat a positive IgG test? If so, in what circumstances??

Edited April 7, 2020 by BazzaS

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, BazzaS said:

 

 

I agree (in parts) with 2 contributors postings.

 

WHO says “test, test, test”, so more tests ARE key. That is part agreeing with one contributor.

 

 

 

The 'test, test, test' call from WHO specifically applies to just ''suspected cases'' and those who recently had contact with confirmed cases. WHO isn't calling for speculative testing.

 

I assume Prof Tobyjug is referring to a PCR test but as testing the entire nation for anything is a fantasy it doesn't matter much.

[tobyjugg2]

Tests are not fantasy, only your ramblings are.

 

Tests aren't even significant cost compared to the economic and social cost of locking down millions of people who may have already had it.

... Let alone the absolute disgrace that front line NHS and shop assistants aren't being tested.

 

That johnsons  ridiculous 'herd immunity' policy has brought us here and you seem hell bent on excusing it is the only fantasy sold as a real option.

It was just the do nowt until its too late option. Not the sensible one.

 

So which is a real achievable option, and which isn't?

* Locking down the whole population (any not locked down and untested are almost certain to be spreading it) for at least 3 months - and as things are going even longer next year is likely and deal with the REAL social and economic fallout from that

 

* Test the whole population, repeatedly if necessary.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

I agree with testing, TJ, as clearly the WHO do. But as I understand it there is meant to be a strategy around it so that test results help the outbreak to be managed to best effect.

 

The WHO's test, test, test recommendation may be a bit short on detail.

[cjcregg]

57 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

 

So which is a real achievable option, and which isn't?

* Locking down the whole population (any not locked down and untested are almost certain to be spreading it) for at least 3 months - and as things are going even longer next year is likely and deal with the REAL social and economic fallout from that

 

* Test the whole population, repeatedly if necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

Testing the whole population isn't achievable.

[cjcregg]

48 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

 

 

The WHO's test, test, test recommendation may be a bit short on detail.

 

The detail is crystal clear and as I described it, here's the head of WHO explaining it.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-51916707/who-head-our-key-message-is-test-test-test

[BazzaS]

54 minutes ago, cjcregg said:

 

Testing the whole population isn't achievable.

Yup, I agree.

 

You’ve quoted a poster who wants the whole population tested, repeatedly.

 

 

Even without that poster explaining what of the different available tests they are considering, perhaps they could explain:

a) how many tests per day they want performed, and

b) how many tests they feel there will be capacity to take, transport and assay, while

 c) how many they feel are currently available

d) (where are the extra testing platforms coming from? and the reagents, the staff and space for them all??).
 

I want £1000 (as a universal baseline income, regardless of employment) per month for every person in the U.K.

It is a great idea, but just not feasible . Just like the “test everyone, repeatedly” idea.

 

My expectation is that the details (of this great plan they want instituting) won’t be forthcoming ..... 

Edited April 7, 2020 by BazzaS

[tobyjugg2]

1 hour ago, cjcregg said:

 

Testing the whole population isn't achievable.

 

So which of those options is more achievable

Probably cost less

Allow vast amounts of people to return to work and careful social gathering

Puts processes in place for when this DOES happen again

etc etc

 

and which one doesn't?

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

I agree with testing, TJ, as clearly the WHO do. But as I understand it there is meant to be a strategy around it so that test results help the outbreak to be managed to best effect.

 

The WHO's test, test, test recommendation may be a bit short on detail.

 

Yes, it seems to me they (understandably I suppose) clearly don't want to define something that is politically unacceptable.

 

But not testing is quite clearly NOT the or any answer.

 

That we are this far in and STILL without wholesale testing of the front-line staff (Nurses, Doctors, careworkers, deliverymen and shop assistants to name a few) is unconscionable, neglectful and reprehensible IMO.

 

The testing can be ramped up from there. But we have to GET there first.

and its long overdue.

 

 

[cjcregg]

27 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

So which of those options is more achievable

Probably cost less

Allow vast amounts of people to return to work and careful social gathering

Puts processes in place for when this DOES happen again

etc etc

 

and which one doesn't?

 

Is this post available in English?

 

Honestly, if you can't be bothered to articulate yourself then I can't be bothered to answer.

 

 

 

 

[brassnecked]

Really worth reading this blog today, ignore the title the author is a Phd in Public Health and worked in that sector before he was a Eurosceptic, was a co-author with the late Christopher Booker on various subjects , over the last 2 weeks has forensically analysed the response to the pandemic and the planning to control it.  They followed the plan for therwrong disease, they assumed it was a flu, its not its a SARS and needed a much different response well worth a read, source documents and links to relevant information is well provided.

 

Some insights into the mindset of the "Experts" and advisors in the blog Neil Ferguson he of the Computer Modelling, and doesn't fare well, he fell into the assumptions trap, with computer modelling, as in flawed data gives flawed results with no bearing on a real situation. the classic GIGO Garbage In Garbage Out.

 

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87571#disqus_thread

[honeybee13]

Richard North talks a lot of sense, in my view. The other commentator I rate is Prof John Ashton who was director of public health in Liverpool and then president of the Faculty of Public Health.

[brassnecked]

Perhaps he should rename his blog  but he has been on various inquiries as Expert Witness, and spoken to Select Committees in Parliament.  He is very thorough with research.  Too good as they no platform him as he tends to get it right and the others then refuse to listen and carry on down the wrong road

[unclebulgaria67]

Have read the Richard North blogs. Yes they do make sense.

 

I see Trump is blaming the WHO, saying they sided with China too much going back a few months and by not recommending stronger actions to contain the virus, it allowed it to be spread more.

 

Does Trump have a point ?  If China was locked down earlier, with flights incoming/outgoing stopped, would it have made any difference ?

 

The problem with this virus is that many people have it, without showing any visable symptons. Therefore any lockdown will stop the spread temporarily, but as soon as lockdown over, you will have more outbreaks occurring.

[brassnecked]

Don't know, as the source of the virus is (purposely?) vague in some ways, but it is clear its a SARS, and needed a different plan from get go.  WHO are likely complicit for allowing the misinterpretation as a flu type to continue.  Some of the rejoin/remain camp should ignore the blogs title and go have a look, its certainly more illuminating and coherent than anything from legacy and mainstream media at the moment.

[brassnecked]

Perhaps Trump's response to W H O is down to this theory that Covid-19 is an escaped bioweapon that got out and China hid it  https://www.siasat.com/covid-19-biowarfare-says-bioweapon-creator-dr-francis-boyle-1866058/

[honeybee13]

This article has some interesting views on why Boris Johnson responded to coronavirus the way that he did initially.

 

https://www.socialeurope.eu/how-his-brexit-project-explains-johnsons-dithering-on-covid-19

[brassnecked]

Interesting, but it presupposes the UK is still in the EU, it isn't it is in a  transition,  having actually  left under the Article 50 process; but if the UK decided to stay in, it might need an Article 49 Rejoin application, it couldn't just cancel Brexit, more debate there ad nauseum probably.  Either way its a mess in UK and EU.

[honeybee13]

I wasn't trying to rekindle the Brexit debate, it was more about how it affected the PM's thinking about the virus.