The British Public are Pathetic!

I presume most of the uk has lost all common sense. This isnā€™t going away anytime soon so unless you are elderly or are carrying an underlying health problem (accepted you need to stay isolated) then surely you can make some common sense adult decisions for yourselves. All this waiting for Boris to tell you what to do then spending the next day jumping on the moaning bandwagon is driving me nuts. I have not missed a day off work since Xmas and have spent many a day at high risk places for work (Hospital) and have had to use common sense and follow the advise from the medical professionals. I wonder how many of the people complaining are happy to keep taking the furlough money whilst slagging them off at the same time. We have to at least try to go back to normal as soon as we practically can.
Absolutely nailed it Scara. The bone idle teaching unions are angling for 6 months off on full whack. They just donā€™t want to offer any assistance at all. Mind you the 7 week school holidays are coming up soon!
 
Yes... That's right Sweden will 'continue' to fare better.... As things progress Sweden will go on to fare much better than most (Germany being a prime example) IMO.

I suspect Britain, Italy & Spain will also fare better than Germany as things move on, simply due to having likely developed much higher levels of immunity. Essentially Germany are no better off than they were at the outset in so many respects as a huge proportion of their population are at risk of infection, due to such low levels of immunity.

I doubt that ā€œHerd Immunityā€ theory will prove true or benefit the UK at all. Randomised testing trials show that, even with 40,000+ deaths in the UK, less than 4% of the population have been exposed to the CV. That leaves 96% of the population unprotected and there is no Herd Immunity until you get to greater than 60% of people with some degree of immunity. Immunity without deaths is only possible with complete vaccination. The recent increase in measles following the false MMR vaccine-autism scare showed that. And that assumes the vaccine continues to be effective, which may not be the case as the CV has shown the ability to rapidly mutate.

I suspect that the 2nd Wave theory is more likely to occur and the UK will have repeated lockdowns, perhaps localised, as each CV infection centre flares up. And there will be flare-ups as the disease can be asymptomatic for a week or more allowing many to be infected before it becomes obvious.

The only way to detect a small incipient centre is through widespread and repeated testing, perhaps millions of people each week. Which this country has shown it cannot achieve. So there will be more events and more deaths. Call it the Hokey-Cokey Lockdown strategy if you like. Or, as Bozo has described it... a game of Whack-A-Mole. As if itā€™s a game, FFS!
 
Last edited:
I doubt that ā€œHerd Immunityā€ theory will prove true or benefit the UK at all. Randomised testing trials show that, even with 40,000+ deaths in the UK, less than 4% of the population have been exposed to the CV. That leaves 96% of the population unprotected and there is no Herd Immunity until you get to greater than 60% of people with some degree of immunity.

Where has the 4% come from?

Reports I am seeing suggest that the calculated mortality rate based on credible antibody testing is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.6% and expert opinion is leaning towards a figure closer to 0.2-0.3%. Based on 40,000 UK deaths, that anywhere from 10-60%, more likely 20-30% of the population who have already been infected.

Leading epidemiologists suggesting that only a very small percentage of those infected likely to present with any symptoms and then a much smaller percentage likely to have any need for hospital treatment.

Hugely respected world leading Swedish Epidemiologist Johan Geisecke, a man responsible for formulating the WHO emergency response to epidemics has already suggested that Stockholm County is only a matter of weeks away from achieving herd immunity. This isn't some back-street conspiracy theorist talking, he's among a very small number of people who are suitably respected and qualified to speak with authority on the subject.
 
Where has the 4% come from?

Reports I am seeing suggest that the calculated mortality rate based on credible antibody testing is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.6% and expert opinion is leaning towards a figure closer to 0.2-0.3%. Based on 40,000 UK deaths, that anywhere from 10-60%, more likely 20-30% of the population who have already been infected.

Leading epidemiologists suggesting that only a very small percentage of those infected likely to present with any symptoms and then a much smaller percentage likely to have any need for hospital treatment.

Hugely respected world leading Swedish Epidemiologist Johan Geisecke, a man responsible for formulating the WHO emergency response to epidemics has already suggested that Stockholm County is only a matter of weeks away from achieving herd immunity. This isn't some back-street conspiracy theorist talking, he's among a very small number of people who are suitably respected and qualified to speak with authority on the subject.

Isnā€™t the four per cent figure just an estimated exposure not a death rate?
So assuming 40,000 deaths with only a 4 per cent exposure would give a million with 100 per cent? Very rough guesses obviously?
 
From testing all the staff of nine hospitals in Holland, thousands of people, in mid-March. 4% positive. So, perhaps not fully random nor fully representative of the general public but, if anything, an overestimate of the likely infection rate. So conservatively high.
 
Yes, 4% is the positive CV exposure potentially. You can work backwards from deaths with some assumptions. If there have been 60k deaths to date in total inc all care homes/community/hospitals, and the death rate is 1 in 30, that makes 1.8 million CV cases. As the UK population is ca 60 million, then the infection rate is 1.8*100/60 = 3%. Which approximately meets the Dutch trial result.

Of course, the death rate is the key assumption. Itā€™s not known how many cases are completely asymptomatic. Iceland has suggested 50% are. That would half the death rate from known cases. But claiming 0.3% mortality suggests that only 3 in 1000 people who get CV die, which seems optimistically low.

0.3% mortality also means that with 40k deaths (your figure) between 6.5 million to 13 million people should have reported the CV sniffles and gone into isolation. The lower number taking into account that 50% are without symptoms. Clearly, that is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Where has the 4% come from?

Reports I am seeing suggest that the calculated mortality rate based on credible antibody testing is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.6% and expert opinion is leaning towards a figure closer to 0.2-0.3%. Based on 40,000 UK deaths, that anywhere from 10-60%, more likely 20-30% of the population who have already been infected.

Leading epidemiologists suggesting that only a very small percentage of those infected likely to present with any symptoms and then a much smaller percentage likely to have any need for hospital treatment.

Hugely respected world leading Swedish Epidemiologist Johan Geisecke, a man responsible for formulating the WHO emergency response to epidemics has already suggested that Stockholm County is only a matter of weeks away from achieving herd immunity. This isn't some back-street conspiracy theorist talking, he's among a very small number of people who are suitably respected and qualified to speak with authority on the subject.
The issue there is that there is no credible antibody testing. No one is saying that there is one as yet.
 
Yes... That's right Sweden will 'continue' to fare better.... As things progress Sweden will go on to fare much better than most (Germany being a prime example) IMO.

I suspect Britain, Italy & Spain will also fare better than Germany as things move on, simply due to having likely developed much higher levels of immunity. Essentially Germany are no better off than they were at the outset in so many respects as a huge proportion of their population are at risk of infection, due to such low levels of immunity.
It would be great if this was true but the evidence does not support this.
Antibody tests have put the level of immunity in London at 10% (i.e. one in ten has had CV and recovered) and at 4% in the rest of the country
 
Your ā€œJohan Geiseckeā€ is well qualified but he seems to be somewhat of a lone voice.
He's not a lone voice at all....In fact, it is Neil Ferguson, who is increasingly becoming the 'Lone Voice' in all of this...And his 'voice' is not even based on most recent evidence. Incidentally, Mid March and Mid May are quite significantly different points in the progression of a virus that's natural course would be 45-90 days in entirety.

 
Holland was weeks ahead of the UK. And our ā€œpeakā€ was supposed to 11th April, wasnā€™t it? I am not a fan of Neil Ferguson. Nor is our establishment it seems, the way they had him stitched up. šŸ˜ But, yes, your Swede is swimming against the flow. And the maths seem to be an order of magnitude out.
 
Holland was weeks ahead of the UK. And our ā€œpeakā€ was supposed to 11th April, wasnā€™t it? I am not a fan of Neil Ferguson. Nor is our establishment it seems, the way they had him stitched up. šŸ˜ But, yes, your Swede is swimming against the flow. And the maths seem to be an order of magnitude out.
The case profile in Holland seems to mirror that of ours, peaking around 10/11 April. There is also time for antibodies to develop as well as the quality of the antibody testing itself...I think it makes sense to use the most up to date information available, don't you think?

What is interesting is how the criticism of the Swedish Model has suddenly turned into international interest, since they too have reached a peak and strated to progress the downslope.

I think it is also worth bearing in mind that both Patrick Valance and Chris Whitty were initially behind a policy that was exactly along the lines promoted by Giesecke, prior to intervention from Ferguson and possible knee jerk reaction from our Government.

I've linked you another expert opinion above, it is by no means the only one that is saying pretty much the same thing.... Even the Doctor on the Jeremy Vine show was advising individuals of much lower, revised mortality rates as if this was now becoming widely accepted fact within the scientifc community. If we have an accurate mortality rate, then that is a pretty accurate means by which to back-calculate the number infected.
 
For every Knave like Johan Geisecke there is the Ace of Dr Anthony Fauci to trump him (pun intended).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top