Getting back out and about?

Keith S30S said:
I can't stop in now!

We went for tea in the King's Head in Lanchester yesterday 😁
Click to expand...
My first job in there! Just before the smoking ban came in.

We went up to the Cook House in Ouseburn. Apart from one big table full of rich people the social distancing was very good & was very impressed at how well organised it all was.
Food was spot on as well, been clever with the ingredients, pork belly, lamb chops, trout instead of salmon, loads of veg. Must have to be very conservative with buying in expensive produce to be able to break even.

lovely just to be out again enjoying some nice bait.
 


FootballFan said:
www.bbc.com

Coronavirus: Lockdowns in Europe saved millions of lives

The researchers say the death toll would have been "huge" without a lockdown.
www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, 'research' from Imperial College London, the same place that came up with the ridiculous number of 500,000 that sent the world into panic. With professor Neil Ferguson who has been wildly inaccurate in about anything he's ever tried to model. Can't imagine why they'd be saying this :rolleyes:
ivanthereasonable said:
Idiot.


He covers it in that video. It is now thought to be airbourne much longer than previously thought. Especially indoors.
Click to expand...

With what do you disagree?

If you could provide an argument I'm always happy to correct you.
 
Tinyfooty said:
Oh yeah, 'research' from Imperial College London, the same place that came up with the ridiculous number of 500,000 that sent the world into panic. With professor Neil Ferguson who has been wildly inaccurate in about anything he's ever tried to model. Can't imagine why they'd be saying this :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The world were in panic long before Imperial college
 
Tinyfooty said:
Oh yeah, 'research' from Imperial College London, the same place that came up with the ridiculous number of 500,000 that sent the world into panic. With professor Neil Ferguson who has been wildly inaccurate in about anything he's ever tried to model. Can't imagine why they'd be saying this :rolleyes:


With what do you disagree?

If you could provide an argument I'm always happy to correct you.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you calling him a charlatan, let a lone a massive one.

By most accounts his coding was rubbish but the data he used of R0-3.5 and IFR of about 1% would've led to similar conlusions.

I disagree with your comment that it was his prediction that sent the world into panic; it existed well before this.

I'm sceptical of your claim of innate immunity. What's your evidence of innate immunity? I'm aware of our innate immune response and the theories of viral loading but can't recall any firm evidence of innate immunity in relation to Covid.

I disagree with your follow on assumption about supermarkets. You claim of supermarkets become breeding grounds is quite frankly a huge leap verging on stupidity. There's huge amounts of evidence that suggests prolonged contact with others at shorter distances is primary source of transmission rather indirect contact via surfaces. Then there's the massive amounts of evidence of the value of distancing measures, use of masks (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...applenews&utm_medium=applenews#seccestitle150) along with reduced capacities, trolley cleaning etc to further reduce risks in supermarkets. Just find your comment on innate immunity a bit puzzling?

Happy for you to further my understanding though!
 
Last edited:
rudd said:
I disagree with you calling him a charlatan, let a lone a massive one.

By most accounts his coding was rubbish but the data he used of R0-3.5 and IFR of about 1% would've led to similar conlusions.

I disagree with your comment that it was his prediction that sent the world into panic; it existed well before this.

I'm sceptical of your claim of innate immunity. What's your evidence of innate immunity? I'm aware of our innate immune response and the theories of viral loading but can't recall any firm evidence of innate immunity in relation to Covid.

I disagree with your follow on assumption about supermarkets. You claim of supermarkets become breeding grounds is quite frankly a huge leap verging on stupidity. There's huge amounts of evidence that suggests prolonged contact with others at shorter distances is primary source of transmission rather indirect contact via surfaces. Then there's the massive amounts of evidence of the value of distancing measures, use of masks (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...applenews&utm_medium=applenews#seccestitle150) along with reduced capacities, trolley cleaning etc to further reduce risks in supermarkets. Just find your comment on innate immunity a bit puzzling?

Happy for you to further my understanding though!
Click to expand...

He's a massive charlatan that benefits from doomsday predictions as his YouTube Chanel views go up. His basic layout is that he reads cherry picked statistics and then makes massive assumptions based on something he has no real knowledge of.

His coding of 15,000 assumptions of things that would happen and the lethality of the disease was rubbish, I mean just a small detail. That and the fact he's grossly over estimated every single epidemic the last 20 years should perhaps count for something. Panic maybe spread amongst those most fearful early but that 'report' if you can call it that panicked the UK and USA to go into a wholly unnecessary shut down of the country and caused this dramatic over reaction and enormous self harm.

There is no real study to say that innate immunity is definitely the cause of the slowing that is correct, but if you follow the data a pretty clear picture emerges of how long the virus lasts in circulation before dramatically dropping away to the point of vanishing.

I claimed if you take the governments view, which I don't, then they could be perceived viral breeding grounds. Personally I'm happy to be in any indoors space and don't have any reason to believe the risk is great.

In that study you quote it actually tells you there have been no random sampling, data was limited and it's hard to extrapolate anything from the findings. Even by SAGE's own advice mask wearing would have around a 3% impact which just isn't statistically significant. Would you advocate wearing masks forever to protect against influenza out of interest? There is no evidence that social distancing or wearing a muzzle reduced any deaths at all by and tried and tested repeatable science. There is no evidence that this virus is fundamentally different from other viruses.

I think as is becoming depressingly apparent, the consequences of this massive over reaction will dwarf the effects of the virus itself.
FootballFan said:
"bed wetting" what do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

People that have become massively over fearful with a heightened awareness of their own mortality. Brainwashed, conformist, mask wearing, bed wetters.
 
Last edited:
Tinyfooty said:
He's a massive charlatan that benefits from doomsday predictions as his YouTube Chanel views go up. His basic layout is that he reads cherry picked statistics and then makes massive assumptions based on something he has no real knowledge of.

His coding of 15,000 assumptions of things that would happen and the lethality of the disease was rubbish, I mean just a small detail. That and the fact he's grossly over estimated every single epidemic the last 20 years should perhaps count for something. Panic maybe spread amongst those most fearful early but that 'report' if you can call it that panicked the UK and USA to go into a wholly unnecessary shut down of the country and caused this dramatic over reaction and enormous self harm.

There is no real study to say that innate immunity is definitely the cause of the slowing that is correct, but if you follow the data a pretty clear picture emerges of how long the virus lasts in circulation before dramatically dropping away to the point of vanishing.

I claimed if you take the governments view, which I don't, then they could be perceived viral breeding grounds. Personally I'm happy to be in any indoors space and don't have any reason to believe the risk is great.

In that study you quote it actually tells you there have been no random sampling, data was limited and it's hard to extrapolate anything from the findings. Even by SAGE's own advice mask wearing would have around a 3% impact which just isn't statistically significant. Would you advocate wearing masks forever to protect against influenza out of interest? There is no evidence that social distancing or wearing a muzzle reduced any deaths at all by and tried and tested repeatable science. There is no evidence that this virus is fundamentally different from other viruses.

I think as is becoming depressingly apparent, the consequences of this massive over reaction will dwarf the effects of the virus itself.


People that have become massively over fearful with a heightened awareness of their own mortality. Brainwashed, conformist, mask wearing, bed wetters.
Click to expand...
His "cherry picked statistics" that he used were the only data available at the time and it was clearly stated a model of worst case scenario.

Which data are you following? Seems there's quite a differing trend on here (granted it isn't per capita but that's irrelevant to you point really, can't see a clear time here?). I mean there is a bit of a noticeable trend in of certain countries but given your viewpoint I'm unsure you'll identify it.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1282657108836732930

The study I linked is a meta analysis of unconnected studies. Good luck getting an ethics committee agreeing a random sampling study in the height of a pandemic. I agree the data itself isn't of the gold standard but the sheer vastness of it and the range of data sources adds great backing imo. There's also clear evidence that distance between people has a significant effect on transmission which, as you say, isn't fundamentally different to other viruses (not sure why you keep saying it as nobody is saying it is).

I haven't seen the 3% figure from the brief readings I've done of minutes from SAGE, the last one I read was end of April. Wouldn't mind looking at it if it's available? There has been studies since the last minutes, such as https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018 showing the effect of various masks on dispersal.

No, I wouldn't advocate wearing them indefinitely because I agree with SAGE with the concerns about not being used correctly, wearing them too long, taking them off and back on, as well as worries that some people wouldn't follow other simple recommendations as a result.
 
rudd said:
His "cherry picked statistics" that he used were the only data available at the time and it was clearly stated a model of worst case scenario.

Which data are you following? Seems there's quite a differing trend on here (granted it isn't per capita but that's irrelevant to you point really, can't see a clear time here?). I mean there is a bit of a noticeable trend in of certain countries but given your viewpoint I'm unsure you'll identify it.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1282657108836732930

The study I linked is a meta analysis of unconnected studies. Good luck getting an ethics committee agreeing a random sampling study in the height of a pandemic. I agree the data itself isn't of the gold standard but the sheer vastness of it and the range of data sources adds great backing imo. There's also clear evidence that distance between people has a significant effect on transmission which, as you say, isn't fundamentally different to other viruses (not sure why you keep saying it as nobody is saying it is).

I haven't seen the 3% figure from the brief readings I've done of minutes from SAGE, the last one I read was end of April. Wouldn't mind looking at it if it's available? There has been studies since the last minutes, such as https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018 showing the effect of various masks on dispersal.

No, I wouldn't advocate wearing them indefinitely because I agree with SAGE with the concerns about not being used correctly, wearing them too long, taking them off and back on, as well as worries that some people wouldn't follow other simple recommendations as a result.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Campbell the charlatan YouTuber but in any event I think professor pants down can be cast into the same category of uselessness.

The data on cases just doesn't tell you anything and as I'm sure you're aware can be down to any number of factors as to why they're new cases and it's an extremely loose definition of what actually constitutes a case of infection. You can only really look at the relatively (Even with our over estimating of the figure) reliable number of deaths and all countries including those that had no lockdown to the strongest possible all follow the same curve.

Then why would we wear them now as the virus is all but gone?
 
Am out just about every day. Bike ride.

Nights out (Publess). Was out for a meal last night. Very enjoyable. Restaurant had removed a few tables and we were well spaced out. All the waiters wearing masks.
Place was busy, and owner said it was his busiest night yet. Going back next week. Very welcome break of routine.
 

Back
Top