On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:14:02 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they
talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

Excess deaths this year, compared with the 5 year average, are greater
than the Blitz and more than half the UK civilian deaths in WW2. That's
not trivial or overplayed.

Deaths are up by 25% on this time last year. Its hardly the zombie apocalypse.
Yes it would probably be higher without lockdown but I suspect not much given
how many people ignored it anyway.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:58:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:14:02 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they
talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

Excess deaths this year, compared with the 5 year average, are greater
than the Blitz and more than half the UK civilian deaths in WW2. That's
not trivial or overplayed.

Deaths are up by 25% on this time last year. Its hardly the zombie apocalypse.
Yes it would probably be higher without lockdown but I suspect not much given
how many people ignored it anyway.

Particularly, if the growing suspicions that the virus arrived here
earlier than previously thought, and via many more people, are proven
right, then the input data in the models was probably wrong. The virus
might have been spreading much longer, and with more points of origin,
than thought, and therefore more slowly than calculated. Or more
people than thought have fought it off, without showing antibodies to
it. So the IC model's apoplectic forecast of explosive growth might
have been based on the wrong initial data.

From your favourite tabloid:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/the-costs-are-too-high-the-scientist-who-wants-lockdown-lifted-faster-sunetra-gupta

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:37:34 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:58:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:14:02 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
It is, a virus that unlike flu produces no symptoms in the vast majority of
people and in the ones that do get symptoms they're usually mild. Excuse me
if I don't panic about it. Sometimes I think that given half a chance the
government and BBC would play the Jaws music in the background whenever they

talked about it, its become that farcically overplayed.

Excess deaths this year, compared with the 5 year average, are greater
than the Blitz and more than half the UK civilian deaths in WW2. That's
not trivial or overplayed.

Deaths are up by 25% on this time last year. Its hardly the zombie apocalypse.

Yes it would probably be higher without lockdown but I suspect not much given
how many people ignored it anyway.

Particularly, if the growing suspicions that the virus arrived here
earlier than previously thought, and via many more people, are proven
right, then the input data in the models was probably wrong. The virus
might have been spreading much longer, and with more points of origin,
than thought, and therefore more slowly than calculated. Or more
people than thought have fought it off, without showing antibodies to
it. So the IC model's apoplectic forecast of explosive growth might
have been based on the wrong initial data.

Well indeed. And given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can
say that the model needed a bit of tweaking.

From your favourite tabloid:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...high-the-scien
tist-who-wants-lockdown-lifted-faster-sunetra-gupta

To be fair I mentally divide Guardian journalists into the science journos
who know what they're talking about the woken idiots who make up the rest.

In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

The question is, how much of that was sheer incompetence, and how much
trying to manage the degree of panic?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

The question is, how much of that was sheer incompetence, and how much
trying to manage the degree of panic?

Well, there's certainly plenty of incompetence on display in 'Appless
Hancock's department:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/19/100000-coronavirus-antibody-tests-gathering-dust-warehouses/

Macclesfield-based medical supplier Avonchem is currently sitting on
100,000 antibody tests it bought from US firm CTK Biotech.

It says the tests could be used to help identify individuals who have had
the virus and are unlikely to get it again, giving employers, schools and
health services vital information needed to reopen the economy.

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
and being widely used in other countries.

The pin-prick test is 99.4 per cent accurate, according to independent
verification obtained by Avonchem, with results available in 10 to 15
minutes. But the firm now warns it may have to ship the tests overseas if
it can not secure the necessary approval for their use in this country in
the near future.

James Gray, the managing director of Avonchem, told The Telegraph: "We're
not interested in profiteering. We want to do the right thing and give the
Government the opportunity to use them, but their lack of interest and
engagement until now has been very sad and frustrating."

It comes as the Government faces growing questions about its approach to
the purchase of antibody testing, after it emerged that PHE's coronavirus
test misses a third of positive results.

In message , at 09:56:43 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

What jurisdiction are they based in?

and being widely used in other countries.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:56:43 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:

Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

What jurisdiction are they based in?

You've obviously been learning from Tim — who is 'they'?



and being widely used in other countries.

In message , at 10:17:46 on Sat, 20 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Avonchem contacted the Government in March, offering to supply the
finger-prick test, but has still not secured Public Health England (PHE) or
Department of Health (DoH) approval for the kits, despite the test being
approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

What jurisdiction are they based in?

You've obviously been learning from Tim — who is 'they'?

MHRA, the word immediately before my "What..."

[Even I can work out the PHE and DoH are based in the UK]
--
Roland Perry