Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

The current numbers suggest that herd immunity can be reached within a matter of weeks - as long as we keep our nerve. Just so you know.
5
The widening gap between infection levels and death levels should solve these problems quite quickly, it is hoped.
1
@jiversteve How else do you think epidemics are defeated? Magic? The power of prayer?
1
@Yeknodathon Experience in dealing with influenza epidemics is obviously of benefit in dealing with the current situation. Ingrowing toenails - not so much.
1
@JohnSmall314 My reasoning is as follows. Please feel free to criticize and correct: For the week ending July 12 there were131 deaths with covid recorded in the UK. When these victims contracted the disease cannot be exactly known but assuming a reasonable pattern of infection we might say that many of them contracted covid three weeks before. That would be the week ending June 28 when 161,805 cases were recorded. 131 is .08% of 161,805. This may be contrasted with a similar position at the start if the second wave. On Nov 23 there were 3,404 deaths recorded in the preceding week. Three weeks before that in the week ending Nov 2 there were 160,104 cases recorded. 3,404 is 2.1% of 160,104 This clearly shows the huge impact vaccinations are having. It might also indicate that the delta variant is following a widely expected evolutionary pattern in being more transmissible but less virulent than preceding variants. Javid has said that daily cases might reach 100,000. If the current death to case ratio is maintained .08% of 700,000 will mean 560 deaths a week. This is entirely sustainable, considering that the current death rate from all causes is below the 5-year average and the covid victims continue to be very elderly and many of whom would have been likely to die from pre-existing conditions anyway. I cannot calculate how long it would be before the HIT is passed but with 700,000 people a week contracting the disease and becoming immune it cannot be be more than a few weeks.
1
@Yeknodathon I refer you to my answer to John Small elsewhere in this thread.
1
@atomiccritter6492 Please look at my actual response to John Small. Don't worry, I don't require an apology.
1
@jiversteve Through herd immunity created via vaccination.
1
@brianharris7243 Don't quite agree with the second part. I hold the somewhat heretical view that mutations often achieve prominence THROUGH social intervention.
1
@Yeknodathon How many? Any idea?
1
@atomiccritter6492 The figures come from my favoured source: The World Health Organisation website.
1
@Yeknodathon My information is gained from the World Health Organisation's own website. I am entirely willing to listen to alternative interpretations of the figures.
1
@Yeknodathon It's vague enough. The WHO were against masks at the start but now give them faint praise, as is the case here. Only high-spec fitted masks in crowded, poorly ventilated conditions can be proved to have any effect. Cloth masks and the little blue jobbies are virtually useless in all situations.
1
@Yeknodathon We are at cross purposes. The figures I gave are WHO figures. Herd immunity will be achieved through vaccination, as they say. The fact that vaccinations are proving not to prevent infection in all cases, but to dramatically reduce symptoms, is of great benefit. It means that millions of people will become immune with just the mild inconvenience of suffering something which is no worse than a bad cold in most cases.
1
@Yeknodathon Once again, yes. The advice is that healthy people under 60 CAN wear non-medical masks. The emphasis is clear: only proper high spec masks are really any good. In any case these recommendations date back to December and the situation has changed quite radically since then with the discovery that 60% of covid infections are caused via aerosols which masks do nothing to contain. The emphasis is now on ventilation and reducing crowding, something which backs up the WHO and other medical bodies' reservations in the first place, namely that placing too much reliance on the protective capabilities of masks can lead people to ignore dangerous situations.
1
@lazytitan9987 I think it is preferable to judge the situation on a week to week basis, since daily counts are subject to greater variation. So to put the numbers back another week to fit your 4 week criterion: June 21 there were 96,843 cases in the preceding week July 12 there were 131 deaths in the preceding week That is to say.135% .135% of 700,000 equals 910 deaths a week. This is surely acceptable given the gravity of the situation and that at this rate of recovered cases HIT is very much on the horizon. The other figures you mention are even more imponderable than this! Hospital admissions are increasing only slightly and given that those who have been vaccinated are generally experiencing only mild symptoms and that the percentage of vaccinated people on the case list is increasing - to say nothing of the fact that the number appears to be levelling out and I don't think at all unlikely to suggest that this is a scenario with which hospitals should well be able to cope with. As for long covid, latest research is suggesting that 1.2% of patients under 30 experience long-term symptoms, rising to 4.8% in the middle-aged. As to permanent damage - we just don't know. On that note though, one good thing which ought to come out of this mess is that it should spark much-needed research into the long-term effects of respiratory pathogens on a small proportion of patients.
1
@Yeknodathon No. I quote their guidelines as written. You sent me the paper. Try reading it.
1
@lazytitan9987 I don't think we're too far apart. Both of us are performing the usual very human trick of viewing our figures to the advantage of our case. So, putting the calculations to one side, can you be sure that your 1000+ deaths a week are preventable? My view, for what it is worth, is that since the majority of deaths are occurring in the elderly and all have pre-existing conditions the fact that covid is getting through to them first could well mean that might have died very soon anyway. And deaths from all causes are currently low. Apart from that, the deaths may well have been prevented or postponed if lockdowns had not been imposed, thus driving a coach and horses through their care plans in many instances. (I have to say at this point I am feeling more and more like some old buffer during World War I or II stuck at home sticking coloured flags in a map, but no matter. Let's keep calm and carry on.) The caseload does actually seem to be levelling out at the moment and the proportion of those who are vaccinated is increasing. This would seem to me to indicate a reasonably optimistic scenario in which, while HIT will take longer to attain, the bill in terms of deaths and poor outcomes will be lower - or at least appear to be since it too will be spread over a longer period.
1
@Yeknodathon But as I have explained already my views on masks, lockdowns and herd immunity coincide with those of the WHO, generally speaking. What you have to realise is that the WHO is subjected to incredible political pressures and has to bend with the wind. If you read these documents carefully you will learn that the WHO only recommends lockdowns as a short-term measure to allow governments to organise healthcare facilities. They give details of the type of masks to be worn by which categories of people, and say simply that cloth and a medical masks MAY be worn by healthy people under 60 - thus clearly implying that, unlike the other categories, whatever good they do won't matter, since you are unlikely to die or get very ill if you are healthy and under 60. It says that HIT should only be approached when vaccination programmes are in place. Which is exactly what we are doing. The WHO naturally enough has to express itself very carefully, whereas I can say what I like. That's the difference. And if my views depart from official WHO guidelines -that's too bad. Even within the WHO there is wide disparity of opinion and the guidelines are evolved via committee, with all the disadvantages this implies.
1
@lazytitan9987 I too hear what you are saying but cannot agree. Covid, like it or not, is something which in times past we would have called "the old folks' friend" and the current low overall death rate could well be due, in considerable part, to the fact that covid has swept so many of them away in recent months. And you can't die twice. I disagree about children too. All evidence suggests that not only do they only not get the disease severely, but rarely pass it on to adults. The virus is generally neutralised in the immune systems in their noses and throats before it reaches their lungs and therefore it is not coughed out and does not achieve transmission very readily. Teacher, leave those kids alone! I'm not convinced by the 86% threshold either. It could be far, far less than that. Once the virus finds its infection pathways blocked it will die out, or be reduced considerably in number, very quickly indeed. I really think we've got this thing beat if we hold our nerve.
1
@lazytitan9987 I didn't say without antibodies- just that the antibodies in their noses and throats seem strong enough to kill off the infection before it reaches their lungs, and this has been cited as a reason why their symptoms are so mild and why they appear to pass the disease on in mild form when they do. Anyway here is the latest BMJ assessment - I haven't had time to get through it yet and the view expressed above was based on some American research a few months ago. I have also included a study from Scotland which makes no great claims for its findings, but it is interesting enough just the same. There is also another in vitro study going on in Scotland I believe which suggests that the antibodies which deal with rhinoviruses may be effective against C19. Yes, obviously I think the international condemnation is wrong. So perhaps it's just as well it doesn't matter what I think! https://adc.bmj.com/content/106/5/429 Covid in kids https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21.20196428v1 Young children may convey immunity!
1
@Yeknodathon You still don't get it, do you? Medical opinion is of course divided sharply on all these issues. The WHO's guidelines adopt a course best suited to political stability - although you can be sure there are many experts whose views differ, but who have lost the vote. And again, despite this my views coincide with WHO's official guidelines to a considerable degree as I have already clearly explained.
1
@Yeknodathon Ignore me as much as you like. The "conspiracy site" little atomic kitten refers to is Swiss Policy Research. It is indeed considered as such by the establishment but it actually provides a useful service in collecting together scientific evidence which goes against the official view, and which is consequently hidden away. It includes papers from the CDC, the BMA etc etc which portray views suddenly reversed as well as access to other lesser-known organisations. All the evidence is the work of experts and much of it is peer reviewed. You are being given only a very narrow view of the situation and one which is affected by political considerations as much as issues of public health. If you do not feel you have the confidence to consider a wider spectrum of views without your head exploding, then I quite understand.
1
@lazytitan9987 Here's that year-old US study's details, for what it's worth. As I said everyone cherry picks the data to suit their position and instincts. As for the CDC it seems to be swayed by political pressure even more than the WHO and the BMA. I genuinely worry about possible long-term effects on young developing bodies of these vaccines, I must say. If they could be proved to be unnecessary I would think it a good thing. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200710100934.htm
1
@atomiccritter6492 But I agreed that it was so considered the first time you made the accusation. This doesn't mean that it is - and it doesn't detract from the validity of the papers it directs you towards.
1
@atomiccritter6492 Sometimes it's best to do nothing - as is the case now.
1
@atomiccritter6492 Only if you're being conspired against. When supplying information is considered a conspiracy you know you're in trouble.
1
Why shouldn't hospitals cope? Admissions are as low as deaths relative to the second wave and the hospitals coped then.
1
Not necessarily excessive deaths since the death rate from all causes is now below the 5-year average and the gap between cases and deaths is widening. The current strategy could lead to up to 600 deaths "with" covid a week, but the number of people recovering could be up to 70,000 a week which would lead to rapid herd immunity and it would all be over.
1