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

@fastfreddy19641 There's a minority school of thought which suggests that new variants actually explode into prominence as a reaction to lockdowns. It certainly makes sense to me.
2
What about the case-to-death ratio then?
1
@Hide_and_silk How do you work that out? I've done it by taking the number of cases in the week ending June 7 (46,825) and the number of deaths recorded three weeks later on June 28 (118) which around 0.25%. This compares very favourably with a similar stage in the second wave when on September 21 there were 44,089 cases recorded in the preceding week and 443 deaths three weeks later in the week leading up to October 5, which is around 1%. Can you show me where I'm going wrong?
1
@Hide_and_silk Hmmm.
1
That's probably inevitable. Which is why herd immunity via actual infection is the only answer.
1
Doubt it. Delta seems to be spreading from West to East.
1
Nobody should care much. To a kid covid just means a runny nose.
1
Hospital admissions as a result of reduced and delayed treatments for cancers, heart disease etc are a direct result of lockdowns. It is thought that many people who died with covid in the second wave did so because their life-threatening conditions had been inadequately treated, thus leading them to be too weak to resist covid infection.
1
I'm surprised that someone who follows Vincent Racaniello believes that long covid affects 30% of patients - and how can you possibly predict permanent results? A study currently conducted using 45,000+ participants and access to 1.2 million anonymous GP records shows that debilitating symptoms still occurring after three months affect just 1.2 % of people in their twenties, rising to 4.8% for those in middle age. (Source ZOE)
1
Only if it voted Tory.
1
Surely if all the elderly and vulnerable have been vaccinated the cost of the removal of restrictions will largely been in terms of varying degrees of discomfort for the rest?
1
I think you've been playing too many computer games.
1
@anthonymccarthy4164 I grovel. I too have never played computer games but I assumed that your somewhat colourful assessment of the present situation was based on a simple division of the world into good guys and bad guys. As to media lies it has been my experience that in the US CNN and MSNBC and all anti-Trump lesser channels lie like buggery. Indeed after two years watching them, and by informing myself of the alternatives I gradually completed the admittedly difficult task of realising what Trump is all about. I now admire him bigly. As far as Rupert Murdoch is concerned the only MSM news outlet I have any time for is Sky Australia. Billionaire gangsters meet every year in Davos , Switzerland where they hatch schemes to cast capitalism into a new mould. I don't know if Putin has ever been but what we have to realise is that Russia is a very difficult country to run and a certain amount of bullying has to be involved. I gather that every child in Russia has to read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" which is something I would like to see encouraged in Western countries. To find the truth, insofar as it is possible to do so, one must develop an eye for recognising lies. Sadly, I think you have failed so far to do so.
1
@anthonymccarthy4164 I thought I'd responded to you pretty much point by point. Your remarkable response leads me to suppose that you are troubled by paranoid delusions of some kind. Perhaps you should take up computer games. It might help take your mind off things.
1
On that note there are genuine fears that the Chines are creating a virus which infects via racial profile. Even this one seems to discriminate with black and brown people getting it worse, white people next and Asiatics at the bottom of the list. Much of the West's DNA samples go to China for processing and they keep copies.
1
What are you whinging about? If the strategy works (and it could well do so) then that's got to be good, hasn't it? And if it doesn't Johnson will have to go - which I'm sure will please you mightily.
1
@fazza8352 But with zero chance of forming a government.
1
Herd immunity is the only objective, and it is better achieved by infection rather than vaccination.
1
@peteroneill2991 How can this be so when cases of re-infection are so rare? I haven't been able to find any recent figures but a few months ago there were literally on a few dozen attested cases worldwide. Meanwhile around 6,000 vaccinated people a day are becoming infected in this country alone.
1
@peteroneill2991 But surely the fact that t cell immunity seems to extend perhaps for years outweighs antibody levels? And the January figures are things of the past. The death and hospitalisation rates per case are now only a fraction of what they were then. Viral mutations also seem to spring up as a consequence of altered circumstances as much as they do from increased numbers of cases. As for long covid this is apparently far less prevalent than feared - around 1.2% in people in their twenties rising to about 4.8% in the middle-aged. Herd immunity is the only answer and with the vaccination failure rate being as relatively high as it is immunity via infection of the young and healthy will surely provide a swifter and more efficient and long-lasting route.
1
@peteroneill2991 I entirely agree. The argument against it then was that restrictions protecting the vulnerable would be impossible to organise. Now that the vulnerable can be protected via vaccine that argument no longer applies.
1
@peteroneill2991 And now this is no longer the case. I'm not changing the goalposts; the situation has changed of itself. Personally I believe it would have been possible to set up cordons sanitaire to protect the vulnerable while allowing the young and healthy to develop a group herd immunity and consequently deny the virus routes and territories to reach those liable to die. Such a strategy could have been political suicide of course since it would certainly have relied on a level of discipline probably absent on today's Britain. But that scarcely matters now. Vaccination provides a somewhat shaky but nonetheless reasonable effective protection in that it reduces the severity of symptoms to a level whereby the chance of death is seriously reduced. Some - perhaps many - frail and elderly will die of course, but at this stage of the game we have to accept that this is inevitable. We can only be thankful that our children are safe and our healthy young people likely to be affected no more than by a dose of the flu. We've got to come out of hiding some time or another. It may as well be now. (PS Don't imagine I have any time for Boris Johnson. He's a turd.)
1
Your figures are bonkers. And so-called long covid varies enormously with age. A study currently conducted using 45,000+ participants and access to 1.2 million anonymous GP records shows that debilitating symptoms still occurring after three months affect just 1.2 % of people in their twenties, rising to 4.8% for those in middle age.
1
@johnh9449 I cannot follow the reasoning in the first part of your statement, but since your last statement is provably false I shall not bother to try to unpick the convolutions of the first part.
1
@johnh9449 Sorry, I didn't get the notification of your last two posts and have only just come across them by accident - and I am neither a troll nor am I embarrassed. Your conclusion that long covid affects 1 in 5 people regardless of age is clearly wrong and that is what I was referring to. The ONS figures are of course extrapolated from a simple unchecked survey involving 313,216 respondents. Given that probably it is mainly those who believe themselves to be suffering from long covid who are likely to respond the figures must be treated with care. The ONS itself draws attention to the drawbacks of this method: "This analysis is based on self-reported long COVID. Self-reported measures are subjective and reflect systematic differences between socio-demographic groups in terms of their likelihood to report symptoms given an underlying level of severity, as well as differences in severity." The ongoing survey being conducted by evidence-based medicine group ZOE paints a somewhat different picture. Their results are based on 45,000+ screened participants and access to 1.2million anonymous GP records. Not unexpectedly they find that long covid, as defined by life affecting debilitating symptoms, is experienced on a linear age pattern, as is the case with severe symptoms generally and deaths. They find that 1.2% of patients in their 20's are suffering from the condition, rising to 4.8% in those of middle age. As for your projected cases and deaths I'm not quite sure where you have got this from. Are you extrapolating yourself or has the ONS or some other body done it? It seems to be taking a great deal for granted to me. Simply because rates are doubling every nine days doesn't mean this will be a consistent curve -although of course it may well be. In the week ending June 7 there were 46,825 confirmed cases in the UK. Three weeks later, on the week ending June 28 there were 118 deaths. If one were to crudely assume that most (although not all) of these deaths had occurred from among those 46,825 cases ( allowing time for the infection to develop and the patient to die) this would give a death to case ratio of around .25%. Assuming 100,000 cases a day, as gloomily predicted, this would lead to 250 people dying on the day three weeks following. Once again though these relationships may change drastically in a short period of time. If I have got this all wrong please feel free to tell me - I may be embarrassed, but I will be grateful for any correction!
1
@johnh9449 Tim Spector seems to disagree with you. Here is the relevant broadcast. The information I referred to begins at around 7 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pngE6i3C4vM&t=462s I imagine much of this confusion arises from how people define symptoms. Not being able to taste the Marmite on your breakfast toast may be annoying but it shouldn't stop you going to work. I think the stricter definition should very much be applied. All infections and traumas take a time to clear up, but I hope that one good thing that might come out of this mess is a greater understanding of why a minority of victims of pathogens suffer such long-term consequences.
1
@johnh9449 Thanks. The Zoe document is of course some nine months old and based on a very small sample. I think its findings may have been overtaken by events. Purely in passing do you not find in interesting how left-wing people tend to maximise the impact and extent of the disease while those of the right tend to minimise it? I do.
1
@johnh9449 Yup. It depends what levels of discomfort and inconvenience people are prepared to put up with in the general run of things, I guess. Personally I believe the road to hell is paved with good intentions and in the final analysis lockdowns will prove to have been a huge mistake and masks and social distancing pretty pointless. The death rate in 2020, with two covid waves, was 10.2 per thousand as opposed to the 9.4 predicted and I reckon that many of the deaths in the second wave were due to victims being weakened due to lockdown-induced lack of treatment for pre-existing conditions. Shit happens and it often turns out that tinkering with ineluctable destiny can do more harm than good. The Great Barrington Declaration hit it on the head for me and now that vaccines are at least providing some protection for the elderly and vulnerable that is the quickest way out - and very possibly even the least damaging in the long run. But then of course I'm very right wing!
1
@johnh9449 I have no time for Johnson either, but a manslaughter charge is pushing it. He's no scientist and has been saddled with a bunch of advisors some of whom are pretty suspect, to say the least. I don't think SAGE had a single epidemiologist in its ranks at the start. They are a odd bunch of placemen, computer geeks and communists, most connected to Imperial College in one way or another and have never represented a broad swathe of opinion. Dithering has certainly been the problem but attributing 100,000 deaths to it is in no way reasonable. You're the mathematician, not me, but the curves seem to go their own sweet way and I can see no direct impact from either lockdowns or masking mandates. The number of viruses is so huge that as long as someone is within reach to be infected they are going to be infected and if they are weak enough they are going to die. Trying to hold the tide back only has a slowing down effect as far as I can see, with no long term effect on casualties. Things may even be made worse since delays give new variants time to take a hold. The UK had a large population of very elderly people standing by due to very mild flu seasons, and it has been they who have caught it. The largest single category of deceased has been males over 90 I believe. I suppose I am one of your swivel-eyed loons. The dreadful effects of lockdowns, both at home and in the Third World, far, far outweigh the possibility that they might have given a number of very old people a few more months of existence. More children and young people in Africa and elsewhere are dying or are going to die due to malnutrition, TB, malaria and so on than the unknown quantity of British OAPs who will be spared to sit looking at TV while attended by strangers for a year or two more. No, not a good deal in the general order of things.
1
Why should we when reasonably fit 40-year-olds can shake off the bug quite readily and go on to help provide a cordon of immunity around the more vulnerable?
1
@YouD0ntSay You obviously don't realise that practically no-one under the age of 40 has died of covid in this country. Around four-fifths have been over 80. Go to figure 2a in this official government document if you don't believe me. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report
1
@magoniaciv3308 The idea that more infections equals more mutations is disputed by some, given the fact that the virus exists in such astronomically huge numbers that all viable versions must have already existed several times over. So what happens to give a new variant the chance to take a hold? A change of circumstances is what. Such as occurs when lockdowns are introduced.
1
@YouD0ntSay Did you not manage to find the graph? Practically no-one under the age of 40 has died of covid in the UK and those few that have died almost invariably were suffering from a pre-existing severe illness. Vaccinations will certainly reduce the severity of symptoms and may help a few older people survive. These are the facts; not unintelligible waffle such as you have been spouting.
1
@YouD0ntSay Of the small number of people under 40 who have died most would almost certainly have died quite soon anyway. Against this we must weigh the fact that vaccinations are by no means 100% effective, Around 8,000 vaccinated people a day are currently testing positive. Catching the disease and recovering from it offers something very close to100% immunity. The more people who become immune the more difficult it is for the virus to find routes to the more vulnerable people who may die. Therefore to reduce the number of deaths the more fit, healthy young people who get the disease and recover from it the better. Mass vaccination of people under 40 merely gives the virus more time and more room to play with and at the end of the day more people will die. What does realising this make me? A realist, that's what.
1
Do we? The tests carried out on mass groups with no restrictions showed no transmissions. The Delta variant has come in from India via relatives visiting British homes etc and seems to be following largely domestic routes.
1
@ab-ym3bf The first.
1