Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Same old, same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old same old, same old, same old....

Yes this is pretty much a summary of what you have to offer in discussions in terms of input and critical thinking ability. Pretty much what a four year old might have to offer. Stick you fingers in your ear and go 'nah nah nah nah'. Impressive.

[Tim Drayton]

This is science too

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927870

Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 Near 1.4%, Increases With Age

I can't access that article, unfortunately, but I see it dates from the end of March when less data was available. Prof. Hendrick Streeck's groundbreaking study in Heinsberg first appeared on May 4. This later work, based on solid empirical data surely trumps less reliable earlier speculation.

Incidentally, the headline above speaks of the CFR and not IFR, anyhow, and a case fatality ratio, i.e. the percentage of people who present to doctors or hospitals with severe symptoms, of 1.4% is not very high and is far removed from all the alarmist hysteria the dominant media were pumping out.

It has just occurred to me that, since it is by now pretty well established that at least 80% of cases are asymptomatic, to convert the CFR to IFR you need to divide by 5, in which case a CFR of 1.4% converts to an IFR of just under 0.3% which is in line with the results of the first serious studies based on hard data to determine the IFR in particular populations.

All you prove Tim is that you just ignore anything that does not suit. I just plucked out two scientific reports at random to make the point that there is currently no scientific consensus on IFR or CFR or R or countless other numbers and the first, which you can read, that says explicitly 'reveals a global IFR of 1.04%' you just ignore. Instead you talk about the report than yopu can NOT read and start banging on about how the headline is talking about CFR. You literally ignore the report you can read that does not say what you want it to and go on to 'prove' the result you always wanted using the report that you can not read whilst ignoring the first. QED

Yes, but the first of these two studies is simply an attempt to put together as reliable an overall picture as was possible at the time from the available information and was not based on any original research. It may have given some kind of idea based on the available knowledge at the time, but since then a few rigorous scientific studies have appeard based on original research using a large sampe of data from a given population, so the corpus of available knowledge has changed significantly since then. The second, as I have shown, tends to confirm the IFR that the firt large-scale studies are coming up with. So I don't really see anything inconsistent.

[erolz66]

The point is Tim your claim that there is consensus around the IFR figure of 0.3% based on hard known data is bollocks. It was bollocks 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago , 2 weeks ago and is still bollocks now. There is not such scientific consensus. What there is is you cherry picking experts 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago and still now. I personally see little point in doing such

CG creams his pants every time he finds an expert that confirms his bias or you find one for him. I cream my pants when I find simple clear unambiguous understandable ways to test if what I currently suspect and think is supported by facts that are known or not, like RW 'chart' or the ONS numbers. That is the difference here.

[cyprusgrump]

The point is Tim your claim that there is consensus around the IFR figure of 0.3% based on hard known data is bollocks. It was bollocks 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago , 2 weeks ago and is still bollocks now. There is not such scientific consensus. What there is is you cherry picking experts 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago and still now. I personally see little point in doing such

CG creams his pants every time he finds an expert that confirms his bias or you find one for him. I cream my pants when I find simple clear unambiguous understandable ways to test if what I currently suspect and think is supported by facts that are known or not, like RW 'chart' or the ONS numbers. That is the difference here.

Nope...

Every day I can post data that confirms the virus is not as deadly as you would like us to believe... Lets have a look at today's figures...

Population 7bn...

Infected 5m...

Deaths ~350,000

Recovered ~2m

It is you that selects data that suits your opinion... It is bizarre that you can't see what a hypocrite you are!

[Tim Drayton]

The point is Tim your claim that there is consensus around the IFR figure of 0.3% based on hard known data is bollocks. It was bollocks 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago , 2 weeks ago and is still bollocks now. There is not such scientific consensus. What there is is you cherry picking experts 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago and still now. I personally see little point in doing such

CG creams his pants every time he finds an expert that confirms his bias or you find one for him. I cream my pants when I find simple clear unambiguous understandable ways to test if what I currently suspect and think is supported by facts that are known or not, like RW 'chart' or the ONS numbers. That is the difference here.

Yet this is the consensus (around 0.37% not 0.3%) to emerge from all the studies conducted so far using rigorous scientific methodology taking a random sample from a reasonably representative portion of a given population and studying the raw data. No such data existed prior to May 4 when the first such study was published.

[Tim Drayton]

A Republican state representative asked prosecutors to bring criminal charges against Colorado’s top public health official Thursday, claiming that she illegally falsified death records to inflate COVID-19 death totals.

https://www.anti-empire.com/colorado-fo ... -19-death/

[erolz66]

Every day I can post data that confirms the virus is not as deadly as you would like us to believe

How deadly would I like you to believe it to be ? As deadly as the numbers indicate. Already in the UK it has resulted in more excess deaths from all causes than any prior flu event since at least 67/8 and probably since 1917/8. That is clear from the ONS numbers. It is just fact. Fact that you deny. And posting the daily global numbers even as they have gone from zero to millions infected and hundreds of thousands dead and keep climbing by the day is NOT an argument. How high do these numbers have to get before they show the virus is as deadly as 'I' would like you to believe ? You will not answer this question. You can not answer it because quoting these ever rising number is not an argument.

It is you that selects data that suits your opinion... It is bizarre that you can't see what a hypocrite you are!

I select number that are records of fact from places with a decades long history of collecting such, because they are records of fact. I do not just chuck out a subset of reports that confirm a pre given bias. You keep claiming I do and I keep challenging you to show ONE example and you keep failing to do so. Why is that ? That they do not suit your opinion is not my problem. They remain records of fact regardless, which is why you have to ignore them and resort to your daily global figures. Globally we may well just be where Italy was at beginning of March. There is not way to know if that is the case or not from those figures. Which is why quoting them is not an argument. It will not stop you no matter how high they go.

[Londonrake]

I don't know what the situation is here in Cyprus but if you really want to know then today Superdrug in the UK are offering a C-19 antibody test for £69.

https://www.brightonandhoveindependent. ... ne-2859689

.

[repulsewarrior]

[erolz66]

The point is Tim your claim that there is consensus around the IFR figure of 0.3% based on hard known data is bollocks. It was bollocks 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago , 2 weeks ago and is still bollocks now. There is not such scientific consensus. What there is is you cherry picking experts 6 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago and still now. I personally see little point in doing such

CG creams his pants every time he finds an expert that confirms his bias or you find one for him. I cream my pants when I find simple clear unambiguous understandable ways to test if what I currently suspect and think is supported by facts that are known or not, like RW 'chart' or the ONS numbers. That is the difference here.

Yet this is the consensus (around 0.37% not 0.3%) to emerge from all the studies conducted so far using rigorous scientific methodology taking a random sample from a reasonably representative portion of a given population and studying the raw data. No such data existed prior to May 4 when the first such study was published.

No it is not. As far as there is any consensus it looks like the figure is near 0.7% but it is just far to early to know this is accurate. It could be out by .5 % either way. If it is .7% that makes this virus seven times more deadly than flu. And it is novel. At 0.7 % ifr that relates to approx 450,000 UK death at 100% infection or 280,000 dead at 60% infection , which is round about where herd immunity might start kicking in. Or to use CG' s global figures at 60% global herd immunity that would represent about 29.5 million deaths globally and that is not factoring in that the ifr guesses have been almost totally in countries with 'first world' health care systems. 30,000,000 dead globally - no doubt still not enough for CG to posting posting the figures and shouting 'see all over reaction and media hype' but sane people might not be so convinced. Even at .37% IFR and global 60% immunity that relates to 15.5 million people dead.

And I still say this is all still speculation at this point. We do not know what ifr is with sufficient accuracy yet. We do not know how long immunity will last. And other crucial unknowns. I still say start with the numbers we do know, that are absolute and simple and work out form there. SK with effective control has kept deaths down to under 300 in first three months. there is no reason to think they can not continue to do so. So 1,200 a year. Vs their 60% herd immunity .7% ifr deaths of around 220,000. Which works out in about 183 years the deaths following their current policy would equal those if they just went all out to get to 60% herd immunity all in one go and get it over and done with.