China Coronavirus

[screenexile]

Not sure if it should be here or the WTF thread but Conor McGregor going on a seemingly coked up rant to the Covid task force talking about "my nation" and  "Vice Admiral Mellet" is right up there with the weirdest shit I've seen in my time... would it class as meta??

Anyway we'll be grand now the Notorious has cleared it up!

Bonkers!!

[Solo_run]

Not sure if it should be here or the WTF thread but Conor McGregor going on a seemingly coked up rant to the Covid task force talking about "my nation" and  "Vice Admiral Mellet" is right up there with the weirdest shit I've seen in my time... would it class as meta??

Anyway we'll be grand now the Notorious has cleared it up!

Bonkers!!

While he isn't wrong there is an increasingly annoying arrogance about him that is becoming unbearable these days.

[armaghniac]

They can model all they want - but there is no way the thing was here spreading to half the population since mid Jan without a corresponding exponential curve in hospital submissions and deaths tracking from that time period.

A virus simply doesn't selectively pick out good carriers that won't succumb early so it can spread better. That's just not the way it works - at all.

Oxford is a serious university in most respects. However, I find it difficult to believe this. If a large proportion of people had the virus, then a proportion of those would need hospitalisation and sooner or later ICU and somebody would have noticed.

[J70]

Saw a link to an article in the FT there regarding a study done by Oxford University. They're saying that 50% of the UK already have it or have had it. They also said it has been around in the uk since mid January. If that's the case the lockdown won't be as long as first thought. They also think only 1 in 1000 will require hospital care as a high percentage are getting very little symptoms.

That study is bullshit. Doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

They can model all they want - but there is no way the thing was here spreading to half the population since mid Jan without a corresponding exponential curve in hospital submissions and deaths tracking from that time period.

A virus simply doesn't selectively pick out good carriers that won't succumb early so it can spread better. That's just not the way it works - at all.


I agree that anti-body tests are essential, but that is as far as I agree with Gupta. If initial anti-body testing does start to produce the kind of returns that supports their hypothesis, then I'll pay attention. But not a minute before. It was the inept modelling assumptions of Whitty and Vallance that got us deeper into this mess in the first place.

I would look at the study first before just casually dismissing it out of hand based on a post summarizing a news article about it.

[seafoid]

They can model all they want - but there is no way the thing was here spreading to half the population since mid Jan without a corresponding exponential curve in hospital submissions and deaths tracking from that time period.

A virus simply doesn't selectively pick out good carriers that won't succumb early so it can spread better. That's just not the way it works - at all.

Oxford is a serious university in most respects. However, I find it difficult to believe this. If a large proportion of people had the virus, then a proportion of those would need hospitalisation and sooner or later ICU and somebody would have noticed.

Depends what the incidence rate for serious symptoms is.
We need to clarify this quickly

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

https://www.gov.ie/en/service/be74d3-covid-19-pandemic-unemployment-payment/

Can someone interpret this, its for a colleague who needs to go off and quarantine. The company will not pay, lads will have to go unpaid over the period if self quarantining, but it will not be classed as absence(wile good of them).

Can he apply for this? Also he is resident in NI but working and paying taxes in ROI.

Thanks

[Smokin Joe]

This may seem a strange question.  Even if the government pays the most of the wages to companies' employess and they are closed for , say 6 weeks.  Will that company go out of business (even though there's no cash coming in during that time)?

Or are they in status quo and just start off again where they left off?

Say it's a bar or restaurant. Will be shut for the duration. Costs during shutdown should be manageable. As soon as life returns to normal they will open again.

That still won't be enough to save all businesses.  Most companies take a month to pay their invoices.  With no revenue coming in they may not be able to / won't be paying their suppliers who are looking payment.  Unless, the new norm for this time, is that no customers make payments to any suppliers until we get through this.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

And there you go. Westminster closing down, protecting themselves, but  a lot of us still have to go to work, says it all really

[imtommygunn]

I would seriously hope these pricks are working remotely. Even in the face of such circumstances they still give no shites about anyone but themselves.

Really iif or when we come out of this something needs to be done about this government

[quit yo jibbajabba]

Saw a link to an article in the FT there regarding a study done by Oxford University. They're saying that 50% of the UK already have it or have had it. They also said it has been around in the uk since mid January. If that's the case the lockdown won't be as long as first thought. They also think only 1 in 1000 will require hospital care as a high percentage are getting very little symptoms.

That study is bullshit. Doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

They can model all they want - but there is no way the thing was here spreading to half the population since mid Jan without a corresponding exponential curve in hospital submissions and deaths tracking from that time period.

A virus simply doesn't selectively pick out good carriers that won't succumb early so it can spread better. That's just not the way it works - at all.


I agree that anti-body tests are essential, but that is as far as I agree with Gupta. If initial anti-body testing does start to produce the kind of returns that supports their hypothesis, then I'll pay attention. But not a minute before. It was the inept modelling assumptions of Whitty and Vallance that got us deeper into this mess in the first place.

I would look at the study first before just casually dismissing it out of hand based on a post summarizing a news article about it.

I always find it strange that people are prepared to believe all the armageddon stuff but as soon as something more positive comes along its dismissed. Not targetting anyone on here im surrounded by ones at the minute happy to read all the bad stuff then ignore any of the better forecasts. Like who knows really...

[Rossfan]

Not sure if it should be here or the WTF thread but Conor McGregor going on a seemingly coked up rant to the Covid task force talking about "my nation" and  "Vice Admiral Mellet" is right up there with the weirdest shit I've seen in my time... would it class as meta??

Anyway we'll be grand now the Notorious has cleared it up!

Bonkers!!

While he isn't wrong there is an increasingly annoying arrogance about him that is becoming unbearable these days.

No pontifications from Bono or Geldoff??

[Itchy]

Saw a link to an article in the FT there regarding a study done by Oxford University. They're saying that 50% of the UK already have it or have had it. They also said it has been around in the uk since mid January. If that's the case the lockdown won't be as long as first thought. They also think only 1 in 1000 will require hospital care as a high percentage are getting very little symptoms.

That study is bullshit. Doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

They can model all they want - but there is no way the thing was here spreading to half the population since mid Jan without a corresponding exponential curve in hospital submissions and deaths tracking from that time period.

A virus simply doesn't selectively pick out good carriers that won't succumb early so it can spread better. That's just not the way it works - at all.


I agree that anti-body tests are essential, but that is as far as I agree with Gupta. If initial anti-body testing does start to produce the kind of returns that supports their hypothesis, then I'll pay attention. But not a minute before. It was the inept modelling assumptions of Whitty and Vallance that got us deeper into this mess in the first place.

I would look at the study first before just casually dismissing it out of hand based on a post summarizing a news article about it.

I will read it fully later but I have to agree those conclusions seem odd. I presume they give a reason why the virus is with us 2 months yet no one died initially and now suddenly loads of people die. Or did people die and just go unreported for Covid and were treated as having standard Pneumonia?

[RadioGAAGAA]

I would look at the study first before just casually dismissing it out of hand based on a post summarizing a news article about it.

I didn't base my opinion on Lennys post!

[RadioGAAGAA]

Depends what the incidence rate for serious symptoms is.
We need to clarify this quickly

But it doesn't really.

For it to ramp up as early as they claim, and for it to have infected half the population then we'd have seen several things:

1. Admissions to hospital of many more with symptoms far earlier in 2020
2. Admissions to hospital of many more people with symptoms, far earlier in 2020 with no obvious trace to travellers (i.e. community transmission)
3. Far more deaths.

None of the history of the parameters, "number of cases", "number of cases from travel vs. number of cases from community transmission" and "number of deaths from COVID" align with their theory. Plot them up vs. time and it does not align with their timescales. At all.

In the absence of anti-body tests, which would prove it either way, nothing is backing their argument.

[marty34]

Saw a link to an article in the FT there regarding a study done by Oxford University. They're saying that 50% of the UK already have it or have had it. They also said it has been around in the uk since mid January. If that's the case the lockdown won't be as long as first thought. They also think only 1 in 1000 will require hospital care as a high percentage are getting very little symptoms.

That study is bullshit. Doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

They can model all they want - but there is no way the thing was here spreading to half the population since mid Jan without a corresponding exponential curve in hospital submissions and deaths tracking from that time period.

A virus simply doesn't selectively pick out good carriers that won't succumb early so it can spread better. That's just not the way it works - at all.


I agree that anti-body tests are essential, but that is as far as I agree with Gupta. If initial anti-body testing does start to produce the kind of returns that supports their hypothesis, then I'll pay attention. But not a minute before. It was the inept modelling assumptions of Whitty and Vallance that got us deeper into this mess in the first place.

I would look at the study first before just casually dismissing it out of hand based on a post summarizing a news article about it.

I always find it strange that people are prepared to believe all the armageddon stuff but as soon as something more positive comes along its dismissed. Not targetting anyone on here im surrounded by ones at the minute happy to read all the bad stuff then ignore any of the better forecasts. Like who knows really...

All too true. Too many 'experts' and really nobody knows what is happening or will happen as every country is different.

A lot of experts on here too!