Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The rise of the robots will get us all before climate change........ :eek:
 
ToeKnee said:
The rise of the robots will get us all before climate change........ :eek:
Click to expand...
The storyline of the film The Terminator seems to be coming to pass in reality so you may be correct.

Skynet in the film is of course Elon Musks Starlink. Just have to wait until 2029 and Starlink will become self aware and initiate a nuclear war.😱
 
Last edited:
ChipChop said:
The storyline of the film The Terminator seems to be coming to pass in reality so you may be correct.

Skylab in the film is of course Elon Musks Starlink. Just have to wait until 2029 and Starlink will become self aware and initiate a nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Can we leave it a bit longer please? I have plans for 2029.
 
ChipChop said:
The storyline of the film The Terminator seems to be coming to pass in reality so you may be correct.

Skylab in the film is of course Elon Musks Starlink. Just have to wait until 2029 and Starlink will become self aware and initiate a nuclear war.😱
Click to expand...

It was "Skynet" :rolleyes: :)
 
markjay said:
Not news anymore, but here it is anyway:

www.sciencenews.org

It’s time to move on from hydroxychloroquine, scientists say | Science News

Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work as antiviral or a treatment for COVID-19, an abundance of scientific data suggest.
www.sciencenews.org www.sciencenews.org
Click to expand...
It is indeed no surprise that research funded by the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust would come to that conclusion.

Also the definitive statement contained in the title of the article "Hydroxychloroquine can't stop Covid-19" seems unwise when this research has not yet been peer reviewed.
 
After the revelation (uncovered by the Oxford-based Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine) that Public Health England was counting someone who died as a result of being run over as a "Covid-19 death" if they had ever had a positive test registered against their name, PHE has changed its definition of Covid-19 deaths and guess what? There were 12.8% less deaths in England attributable to Covid-19 than have been previously reported:

www.cebm.net

Public Health England has changed its definition of deaths: here’s what it means - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Carl Heneghan, Jason Oke Public Health England has changed its definition of deaths. The new definition is now death in
www.cebm.net www.cebm.net

So it transpires that the stubbornly high Covid-19 death rate in England as the number of infections fell is a fiction. And it takes no great leap of imagination to realise that policy decisions that affect us all have been taken on the basis of rubbish data.

The incompetence of PHE seems boundless.
 
st13phil said:
After the revelation (uncovered by the Oxford-based Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine) that Public Health England was counting someone who died as a result of being run over as a "Covid-19 death" if they had ever had a positive test registered against their name, PHE has changed its definition of Covid-19 deaths and guess what? There were 12.8% less deaths in England attributable to Covid-19 than have been previously reported:

www.cebm.net

Public Health England has changed its definition of deaths: here’s what it means - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Carl Heneghan, Jason Oke Public Health England has changed its definition of deaths. The new definition is now death in
www.cebm.net www.cebm.net

So it transpires that the stubbornly high Covid-19 death rate in England as the number of infections fell is a fiction. And it takes no great leap of imagination to realise that policy decisions that affect us all have been taken on the basis of rubbish data.

The incompetence of PHE seems boundless.
Click to expand...

I think that during this pandemonia it has been more relevant to take the figures as a guide rather than fact,
what our supposed experts take as guidance I 'aint got a clue. There are now too many economic, personal financial gain, and ambition driven incentives to believe all we are told. And that's before we might try to factor in any level of incompetence.

But, this thing is still dangerous. Just because our bleeders are acing in ways that look faulty and corrupt, imho, it doesn't mean that Covid hasn't the potential to cause infrastructure breakdown.

My belief, as I'm too cynical to digest all the supposed experts tell me, is that we now have a greater level of immunity within the population. But that isn't enough by a long way to provide herd immunity. A 2nd wave (very ambiguous term) is coming, there is still potential for this thing to be big and destructive.

Imho.
 
m80 said:
My belief, as I'm too cynical to digest all the supposed experts tell me, is that we now have a greater level of immunity within the population. But that isn't enough by a long way to provide herd immunity. A 2nd wave (very ambiguous term) is coming, there is still potential for this thing to be big and destructive.

Imho.
Click to expand...
Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford positions the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) as being as low as 10-20% not the traditional 50%+ due to our common exposure to coronaviruses (cold & flu) giving us an innate resistance and cross-protection to seasonal coronaviruses. High(er) positive tests (maybe due to no prior tests) but low hospital admissions & consequent deaths currently bodes well.

 
Last edited:
ChipChop said:
Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford positions the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) as being as low as 10-20% not the traditional 50%+ due to our common exposure to coronaviruses (cold & flu) giving us an innate resistance and cross-protection to seasonal coronaviruses. High(er) positive tests (maybe due to no tests prior) but low hospital admissions currently bodes well.

Click to expand...

Loverly I'm sure,
but taking the infection figures and then x10, as was thought to be a better 'estimate', the UK is running at 4.6% of population as of yesterday.

Even taking any figures as a guide the herd immunity, for what ever value you or I might believe it to have, is still a long way off.

There are other extrapolations I've conjured up on my spread sheets, but tbh, they might cause some nappy filling.

My conspiracy theory is that the Gov't are being selective in what they tell us so as to be able to manipulate us toward their believed better result, as they develop those beliefs.
And I don't blame them, the population (generally) continually demonstrates that they need to be manipulated.
That isn't to say I trust them, or more generally the motives of some of our ministers.
 
Last edited:
ChipChop said:
Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford positions the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) as being as low as 10-20% not the traditional 50%+ due to our common exposure to coronaviruses (cold & flu) giving us an innate resistance and cross-protection to seasonal coronaviruses.
Click to expand...

Trouble with trying to make any sense of this is that the 'herd' has changed its behaviour.

So one might surmise that with a normal mingling herd that 50%+ (or whatever) is needed because the transmission opportunities for the virus are more frequent.

OTOH with a herd that starts to change behaviour to protect itself even a bit might get the benefit of a much lower level threshold because of the reduced transmission opportunities.
 
ChipChop said:
It is indeed no surprise that research funded by the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust would come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I didnt realise the source of money to fund the research determined the results...Oh if only we knew where to get "good" money to fund research...
 
ChipChop said:
It is indeed no surprise that research funded by the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust would come to that conclusion.

Also the definitive statement contained in the title of the article "Hydroxychloroquine can't stop Covid-19" seems unwise when this research has not yet been peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

I just put it out there... I didn't really expect the unconvinced to be convinced by it (or by anything else for that matter).
 
greenmanslk said:
I didnt realise the source of money to fund the research determined the results...Oh if only we knew where to get "good" money to fund research...
Click to expand...
This is indeed a murky area.

Suggesting that reputable academic institutions bend their research results to accommodate funding is a stretch.

But while reputable academic institutes will always act independently of the source of funding, the current relationship between interested parties and academic institutes does have some undesirable side effects.

The most notable is that funding is only likely to be available for research that benefits the funding provider. And so, other areas of great scientific interest may never get researched or studied due to unavailability of funding because of lack of interested sponsors.

But I digress....
 
markjay said:
Suggesting that reputable academic institutions bend their research results to accommodate funding is a stretch.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect that these institutions would bite the hand that feeds them if that hand has a bias as to outcome.
They are associated to educational establishments that are no more than a business that very often mis sell their products to the naive.

I witnessed the numbers of criminal psychologists that they turn out, for a fee?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom