Jump to content

The Swedish Experiment


Recommended Posts

On 11/21/2020 at 5:13 PM, jack_sparrow said:

I would remind you where you last left this unanswered.

"Suggest you check here. Apology accepted." 

So how much is 'what ever you got' to put up, PLUS a retraction and give yourself a self imposed ban of 2 weeks from posting on this thread. 

Argue about that and as follows forget it. 

First I don't trust you for reasons that require no explanation. 

I am happy for you to set parameters first, then they are AGREED before wagers are laid. 

For example any influenza pandemic plan that is to GUIDE preparedness of a plan that SHOULD incorporate a RO and IFR that exceeds Covid, BUT no such national plan EXISTED pre-Covid, DOES NOT count.

You have already sought to use that loophole before, so call me gun shy.

As an example the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last pre-Covid update to its pandemic influenza plan in 2017 was designed as a guide ONLY, but was NOT acted upon and NO national plan was adopted. This was despite it stating it was to employed over the next decade for that purpose.

For instance guidance was based upon a plan having a goal of the first vaccine doses being ready within 3 months of pandemic strain emergence. We know when that work started. 

That parameter example is exactly consistent with your original statement posted on 13 November and in context as follows, noting strange, you also suggest NO such plan existed that NYS could employ. :lol: 

So should any parameters you suggest not be consistent, they will NOT be agreed.

You posted;

"There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19. They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

It was stated by you other countries didn't stick to their plans; and

NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked.

Balls in your court. 

Wormed your way out of that didn't you as soon as you were asked to put a stake up.  Keep digging Jacko.  Going to be interesting watching your revisionist view of history in time.

BTW, since you are the local oracle on all sources of data, can you post for your fan club the NHS bed occupancy figures for last year versus this year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is how stupid you sound: I've never had a car crash, so we should get rid of safety regulations and traffic laws.

Im hazarding a guess that you have never had to walk into the waiting room and tell a husband, son daughter father that their wife mother daughter has passed. Because today in the USA 512 doctors or n

Everyone in this thread is probably in a nursing home. They sound like Joe Biden trying to form a cognitive sentence.    "Uh, but, cases only, g.g.g.g.go down with lock-down." 'If you don't w

Posted Images

18 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Wormed your way out of that didn't you as soon as you were asked to put a stake up.

"Wormed your way out of that didn't you as soon as you were asked to put a stake up."

Nope....you can't deliver.

"So how much is 'what ever you got' to put up, PLUS a retraction and give yourself a self imposed ban of 2 weeks from posting on this thread. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

BTW, since you are the local oracle on all sources of data, can you post for your fan club the NHS bed occupancy figures for last year versus this year?

Already cited up thread and you utilised it in a post and a post I replied to, but you ignored as usual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

"Wormed your way out of that didn't you as soon as you were asked to put a stake up."

Nope....you can't deliver.

"So how much is 'what ever you got' to put up, PLUS a retraction and give yourself a self imposed ban of 2 weeks from posting on this thread. "

Still waiting for you to stop rewriting the rules and history.  With you that's a moving target as far as the rest of us can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^

ENTER DAY 8.

Nothing.

On 11/21/2020 at 12:41 PM, jack_sparrow said:
On 11/20/2020 at 10:35 PM, jack_sparrow said:

BUMP

Now DAY 5 and waiting.

On 11/18/2020 at 1:17 PM, jack_sparrow said:
On 11/18/2020 at 1:06 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

I said pre-Covid influenza pandemic plans had a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I really hope no one calls me out on this lie.

It is now DAY 3 waiting.

Still waiting.

On 11/15/2020 at 4:53 PM, jack_sparrow said:

To support your original claim is very simple.

POST an 'extract' from ONE 'National Influenza Pandemic Plan' from YOUR WHO LIST of 50+ countries titled; "Publicly available plans prepared after 2009" which indicates existence of a pre-Covid plan having a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I bet you CAN'T and DON'T. 

  3f2bb696-5866-4e87-8f2a-595b0389ae79.gif.46207a370d3811cee4b4ea7b439fee79.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
38 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Already cited up thread and you utilised it in a post and a post I replied to, but you ignored as usual. 

Which was more than it is this year?  Haven't they been complaining for years that the NHS capacity wasn't enough?

Answered in full and you ignore. More straw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Matagi said:

Sweden_1.jpg.thumb.png.29c8fea650791982c94182f2f0792e0d.png

Just for archiving purposes, the report you quoted earlier in its version as of this afternoon.

Plus: I don't really care. There is no reliable, current, undisputable data coming out of this country.

Well done Matagi you have uncovered an error in the John Hopkins data set.  It seems in the last month that they have been doubling/tripling the actual official figures which are posted here.  https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

For example if you compare their figure on 12 November to the official figure you get 40 vs 17.  You will also notice days where there are zero deaths.  The overall totals seem to compare but their daily recording is wrong.

The same is happening with the number of cases.  

3 days each week there are zero cases/deaths on their graph and then they update but lump the update onto one day.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

"..influenza pandemic (planing) with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.."

^^^^^^^^ That unsubstantiated claim is as good a placeholder as any for this report update on IFR.

Also this Swedish data is incorporated in that updated report and chart below. PHAS - Public Health Agency of Sweden: The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in Stockholm

22 November - This project studies the age-stratified infection fatality ratio (IFR) of COVID-19:

This project studies the age-stratified infection fatality ratio (IFR) of COVID-19:

- compare COVID-19 to seasonal influenza (flu)
- calculate the expected overall IFR based on countries' population pyramids
- calculate the age-stratified IFR of COVID-19 from the Spanish ENE-COVID serosurvey.

The following chart compares the IFR of COVID-19 to the IFR of seasonal influenza.

It shows find that COVID-19 is significantly more fatal than influenza at all ages above 30 years. 

CFR has decreased significantly over time but it's an artifact of the improving case ascertainment rate

IFR has remained relatively constant over time

covid_vs_flu (1).png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you feeling ignored Jacko?  Feeling lonely.

LOL like most of the "research" you roll out that particular one is extremely flawed.  But then Jacko you are not a trained scientist nor even a data analyst but just a rapid social media commentator whose audience seems to be confined to this forum.

Yep and you never look past your dedicated narrative 

Now following your normal modus operandi if someone posts real research that contradicts what you are saying you will jump up and down proclaiming the promotion of Covid-19 denial - minimising the pandemic to that of a bad flu.

"Ban them, ban them all as I'm the sole purveyor of truth and this is my only outlet for my rancid ramblings" - says Jack Sparrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Also this Swedish data is incorporated in that updated report and chart below

The Swedish data is dated April-May. 

Also how "updated" is the report/data that the graph depicts Jacko?  Suggest you dive below the headline and stop promoting a flawed study which is NOT based on current data.  After all you are just misinforming.

How do I know that the graph is out of date?  Just plot the latest CDC estimates on it for one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Elaborate.

[Edit:]

Please.

For a start it is not up to date as has been inferred. 

It relies on data from early in the pandemic (only part of) and compares against influenza data which has been retrospectively collated and is complete.

The respective data sets (the red lines) are not comparable to the CDC (blue lines).  They represent different discrete heterogeneous populations in different countries.  The CDC data is for the USA.  To put it another way is the population of Northern Italy, the oldest in the world, comparable with the USA?

Many of the data sources (red lines) are based on research which significantly underestimate the number of infections.  Therefore their IFR's are higher than they actually are.  Remember IFR is the number of fatalities divided by the number of infections.  In that respect the REACT2 research in the UK is representative of this flaw.  But that's an entirely new topic in itself.

Is the IFR for Covid-19 worse than the seasonal flu?  Most likely yes but not by the order of magnitude as displayed in the graph above.  Is it worse than the Swine Flu epidemic(s) and the Asian Flu Pandemic - No.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Is the IFR for Covid-19 worse than the seasonal flu?  Most likely yes but not by the order of magnitude as displayed in the graph above.  Is it worse than the Swine Flu epidemic(s) and the Asian Flu Pandemic - No.

'From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.' [CDC]

That's what Covid kills in a week in the US. 

No wonder the 15 teams behind the papers didn't simply call you for an answer.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Matagi said:

'From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.' [CDC]

That's what Covid kills in a week in the US. 

 No wonder the 15 teams behind the papers didn't simply call you for an answer.

 

But that wasn't the question you posed was it?  You asked how the graph and data posted was wrong.  I gave you the reasons why in my opinion the red lines in the graph overstate what is an accurate IFR.  I actually said that Covid-19 couldn't be said to be the same as seasonal flu - overall.  

As for "the 15 teams behind the papers" what about the other teams that have more up to date information and offer a significantly different IFR?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Are you feeling ignored Jacko?  Feeling lonely.

LOL like most of the "research" you roll out that particular one is extremely flawed.  But then Jacko you are not a trained scientist nor even a data analyst but just a rapid social media commentator whose audience seems to be confined to this forum.

You know nothing about me. 

I have missed the scientific papers you have written, your podcast maybe ?? 

8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
9 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Also this Swedish data is incorporated in that updated report and chart below

The Swedish data is dated April-May. 

Also how "updated" is the report/data that the graph depicts Jacko?  Suggest you dive below the headline and stop promoting a flawed study which is NOT based on current data.  After all you are just misinforming.

The Swedish data is dated April-May.

Said the report was updated NOT that Swedish inclusion.

"Swedish data is incorporated in that updated report and chart below"

And 

"Also how "updated" is the report/data that  the graph depicts Jacko? ... a flawed study which is NOT based on current data."

Said it was updated didn't say CURRENT.

As for for currency and being flawed YOU take it up with the head of the programme who says as follows and includes data from around 190 countries 

Updated: 22 Nov 2020

Author: Marc Bevand

This project studies the age-stratified infection fatality ratio (IFR) of COVID-19:

- compare COVID-19 to seasonal influenza (flu)
- calculate the expected overall IFR based on countries' population pyramids
- calculate the age-stratified IFR of COVID-19 from the Spanish ENE-COVID serosurvey

I'm sure he knows of you, recognise and be overawed by your global epedemoligy and data analysis credentials.

9 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

22 November - This project studies the age-stratified infection fatality ratio (IFR) of COVID-19:

This project studies the age-stratified infection fatality ratio (IFR) of COVID-19:

- compare COVID-19 to seasonal influenza (flu)
- calculate the expected overall IFR based on countries' population pyramids
- calculate the age-stratified IFR of COVID-19 from the Spanish ENE-COVID serosurvey.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Said it was updated didn't say CURRENT.

As for for currency and being flawed YOU take it up with the head of the programme who says as follows and includes data from around 190 countries 

Updated to when?  End of June?  Look at the calendar its now nearly December.  As for the author - Bevan what are his credentials?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You really are struggling at the moment Jacko.  The truth catching up?

Go knock yourself out.

6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

As for for currency and being flawed YOU take it up with the head of the programme who says as follows and includes data from around 190 countries 

I'm sure he knows of you, recognise and be overawed by your global epedemoligy and data analysis credentials.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

  As for the author - Bevan what are his credentials?

Denigrating the work of professionals BUT REFUSING TO BACK UP YOUR OWN WORK. 

DAY 9 AND COUNTING

On 11/23/2020 at 4:54 AM, jack_sparrow said:
On 11/18/2020 at 1:17 PM, jack_sparrow said:
On 11/18/2020 at 1:06 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

I said pre-Covid influenza pandemic plans had a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I really hope no one calls me out on this lie.

It is now DAY 3 waiting.

Still waiting.

On 11/15/2020 at 4:53 PM, jack_sparrow said:

To support your original claim is very simple.

POST an 'extract' from ONE 'National Influenza Pandemic Plan' from YOUR WHO LIST of 50+ countries titled; "Publicly available plans prepared after 2009" which indicates existence of a pre-Covid plan having a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I bet you CAN'T and DON'T. 

  3f2bb696-5866-4e87-8f2a-595b0389ae79.gif.46207a370d3811cee4b4ea7b439fee79.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^ More diversions and more straw.

Already posted 5 days ago, a post which you IGNORED as always.

On 11/20/2020 at 1:10 PM, jack_sparrow said:
On 11/20/2020 at 9:14 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

As for UK hospital occupancy they have yet to reach the levels of the first wave (in terms of bed numbers) even though the number of reported cases is higher by several magnitudes.

"As for UK hospital occupancy they have yet  to reach the levels of the first wave (in terms of bed numbers)"

You continually lie about UK hospital occupancies and the stress on the health care system for treating Covid, particularly critical care. 148 of 226 NHS trusts critical care is over 80% by bed capacity. 32 over 95% or full.

EnGp3YFW8AUeNgv.thumb.png.a0c1e1d3448946cc3742f4edb6da1d93.png

 

You said lockdown in Sept was too late.

You said peak new cases peaked on 5 Nov. It didn't and rose by one-third.

You said lockdown that occured on 5 Nov was too late

IMG_20201118_101602.jpg.c09e1dd7f63e59afe8253c6fabea7cfd.jpgIMG_20201118_101750.jpg.4a64456a096ea8e48aa4a43a2323ed54.jpg

You now in effect say 'lockdown threshold' or point for 'initiating' lockdown should match first wave hospital occupancy and totally ignore today's critical care capacity above. 

BTW this was the point health care in UK collapsed for a short time aka Italy with people not even making it to hospital and dropping like flies. Over 600 health care workers died in the first wave.

You are a very very dangerous cunt. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One day you will read......no one will be holding their breath.

From the Report.

"IFR based on countries' population pyramids...data from around 190 countries."

13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

This project studies the age-stratified infection fatality ratio (IFR) of COVID-19:

- calculate the expected overall IFR based on countries' population pyramids.

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

As for for currency and being flawed YOU take it up with the head of the programme who says as follows and includes data from around 190 countries 

 

Then the dribble starts.

190 countries is not enough.  

11 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The respective data sets (the red lines) are not comparable to the CDC (blue lines).  They represent different discrete heterogeneous populations in different countries.  The CDC data is for the USA.  To put it another way is the population of Northern Italy, the oldest in the world, comparable with the USA?

But wait there is more.

Report indicates.

"CFR has decreased significantly over time but it's an artifact of the improving case ascertainment rate....IFR has remained relatively constant over time.

13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

The following chart compares the IFR of COVID-19 to the IFR of seasonal influenza....

..CFR has decreased significantly over time but it's an artifact of the improving case ascertainment rate

IFR has remained relatively constant over time

The dribble has no end.....it just gushes out uncontained.

Ignores that the study has already accommodated differences between CFR rates over time and that correlation DOESN'T apply to IFR.

11 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Many of the data sources (red lines) are based on research which significantly underestimate the number of infections.  Therefore their IFR's are higher than they actually are.  Remember IFR is the number of fatalities divided by the number of infections.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Matagi said:
12 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Is the IFR for Covid-19 worse than the seasonal flu?  Most likely yes but not by the order of magnitude as displayed in the graph above.  Is it worse than the Swine Flu epidemic(s) and the Asian Flu Pandemic - No.

'From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.' [CDC]

That's what Covid kills in a week in the US. 

No wonder the 15 teams behind the papers didn't simply call you for an answer.

And that weekly Covid number is with national (varies) mitigation and suppression NPI's in place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"IFR based on countries' population pyramids...data from around 190 countries."

190 different countries Covid-19 IFR compared against one country's IFR (USA).  No attempt made to account for the heterogeneity of each population.

11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Ignores that the study has already accommodated differences between CFR rates over time and that correlation DOESN'T apply to IFR.

The fact is it hasn't.  

 

15 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

The Swedish data is dated April-May.

Said the report was updated NOT that Swedish inclusion.

"Swedish data is incorporated in that updated report and chart below"

 

Your initial post was written to infer that the report did have the latest Swedish data - you even posted the link to the Swedish report.  However after I pointed out that this data was not up to date (nor in fact was the original data updated) you proceed to again infer (no evidence provided) that one or other of the other data sets had been updated.  When in fact they haven't.

15 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Updated: 22 Nov 2020

 Author: Marc Bevand

 This project studies the age-stratified infection fatality ratio (IFR) of COVID-19:

 - compare COVID-19 to seasonal influenza (flu)
 - calculate the expected overall IFR based on countries' population pyramids
 - calculate the age-stratified IFR of COVID-19 from the Spanish ENE-COVID serosurvey

 I'm sure he knows of you, recognise and be overawed by your global epedemoligy and data analysis credentials

It isn't clear what Bevand has actually updated - that isn't good scientific method.  Yes and unlike you I have read through his detail.

As for Marc Bevand's credentials well they aren't as credentialled as mine in his area of expertise which isn't as it turns out global epidemiology.  https://www.zorinaq.com/

Note his Coronavirus work is linked at the bottom of the page under the section Miscellaneous.  The majority of his "work" in this area is just posting links to published work that matches his predetermined narrative (much like yourself) and not surprisingly, given his CV, doesn't reach any standard of scientific method.

Profile

I graduated in 2003 with a Master's Degree from ÉPITA (École Pour l'Informatique et les Techniques Avancées), with a specialization in computer security. Shortly afterwards I moved from France to the US and worked for various companies, most recently at Google as a whitehat hacker. I took a sabbatical in 2015–2016 to travel the world with my wife, and have since then been working for myself as a researcher, angel investor, and entrepreneur. I have a keen interest in: reverse engineering, security vulnerability research/exploitation, cryptography, software optimization, GPGPU, decentralized cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin), hardware hacking, home automation, IoT, just to name a few things.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

...Is the IFR for Covid-19 worse than the seasonal flu?  Most likely yes but not by the order of magnitude as displayed in the graph above.  Is it worse than the Swine Flu epidemic(s) and the Asian Flu Pandemic - No.

You shouldn't have said Swine Flu epidemic(s).  What is referred to as the Swine Flu pandemic was in 2009, which turned out to be much less lethal than originally predicted.  My guess is you were referring to the 1958 (H2N2) and 1968 pandemics (H3N2) which were both avian in origin. H3N2 is a re-assorted (mutated) H2n2.  Confusingly enough there is an H3N2v which is a re-assorted H3N2 and is considered a Swine Flu even though the H3N2 of 1968 was an Avian Flu.  Strange things these viruses.

22 hours ago, Matagi said:

'From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.' [CDC]

That's what Covid kills in a week in the US. 

No wonder the 15 teams behind the papers didn't simply call you for an answer.

 

I wanted to say you were cherry picking data, but Kate kind of handed that one to you (see above).

However, the 1958 and 1968 influenza pandemics mentioned above both killed over 1M globally and over 100,00 in the US.  Todays COVID 19 numbers (1.4M globally and 258,000 US) certainly exceed either of those pandemics, but not by an order of magnitude - so far.

Something I found interesting on the web was in some old paper written about the 1968 pandemic where the authors were surprised that the US numbers were as bad as 1958.  In other words, some things just don't change from the looks of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

You shouldn't have said Swine Flu epidemic(s).  What is referred to as the Swine Flu pandemic was in 2009, which turned out to be much less lethal than originally predicted.  My guess is you were referring to the 1958 (H2N2) and 1968 pandemics (H3N2) which were both avian in origin. H3N2 is a re-assorted (mutated) H2n2.  Confusingly enough there is an H3N2v and is a re-assorted H3N2 which is a Swine Flu even though the H3N2 of 1968 was an Avian Flu.  Strange things these viruses.

I wanted to say you were cherry picking data, but Kate kind of handed that one to you (see above).

However, the 1958 and 1968 influenza pandemics mentioned above both killed over 1M globally and over 100,00 in the US.  Todays COVID 19 numbers (1.4M globally and 258,000 US) certainly exceed either of those pandemics, but not by an order of magnitude - so far.

All good however the "Sweden Experiment" had digressed to discussing comparative IFR's.  Comparing global head counts in terms of cases and deaths isn't a good way to compare IFR's.  You have to isolate and massage all sorts of variables to get a comparative IFR.  Even in the graph posted above the CDC US Influenza IFR's are derived figures using various parameter estimates.  They were even further "massaged" by Bevand where he made estimates about the "true" infection burden.

The latest IFR research is showing a completely different picture to the one posted above.  Actually even earlier research shows a different picture to above.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Your initial post was written to infer that the report did have the latest Swedish data - you even posted the link to the Swedish report.  However after I pointed out that this data was not up to date (nor in fact was the original data updated) you proceed to again infer (no evidence provided) that one or other of the other data sets had been updated.  When in fact they haven't.

You now go from I said to I infer. 

This is your own deluded rabbit hole trying to suggest IFR is lower today than it was yesterday.  

This is a Swedish thread.

If I wanted to infer I would have said PHAS study coincidently closest to study all ages mean and also closest to the IFR adopted by WHO and over a thousand scientists. 

However that would burst a blood vessel in your head.

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

It isn't clear what Bevand has actually updated - that isn't good scientific method.  Yes and unlike you I have read through his detail.

As for Marc Bevand's credentials well they aren't as credentialled as mine in his area of expertise which isn't as it turns out global epidemiology.  https://www.zorinaq.com/

He said he has updated you don't accept that. He has published credentials you havent. He has published on the subject you haven't. 

More blah blah blah. 

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The latest IFR research is showing a completely different picture to the one posted above.  Actually even earlier research shows a different picture to above.

"The latest IFR research is showing a completely  different  picture to the one posted above."

You provide no cite as usual.

You have a fixation that Covid IFR has changed or is lower than the seasonal flu differential indicated in the above chart. You avoid that influenza is not a reportable disease when referencing. 

Time you put up or shut up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

All good however the "Sweden Experiment" had digressed to discussing comparative IFR's. 

"..however the "Sweden Experiment" had  digressed to discussing comparative IFR's."

You digressed it :lol: :lol:

You said.

"There is a section on the WHO website that lists links  to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment "?"

And now you CAN'T back up what you said. 

DAY 10 AND STILL SILENCE

BTW would this be because you say you are NOT credentialed in global epidemiology???

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

As for Marc Bevand's credentials well they aren't as credentialled as mine in his area of expertise which isn't as it turns out global epidemiology.  https://www.zorinaq.com/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

He said he has updated you don't accept that. He has published credentials you havent. He has published on the subject you haven't. 

 

What has he updated?  He may have published credentials but they certainly aren't anything to do with epidemiology unless you consider bitcoin and cyber security to be part of it!  He hasn't published anything.  All he has done is take data freely available online and churned out a graph to support his narrative.  Anyone can do that!  Using your logic you could say that jack_sparrow of Sailing Anarchy has "published"!

Can you find ONE paper in any academic journal that Marc Bevand has had published?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I have never said anything about your credentials. 

Your own words always sink yourself. 

Rubbish Jacko.  You posted (again - as you first did it many weeks ago) a graph/analysis comparing IFR's which has no credibility in the science world whatsoever.  I've pointed that out and now you are scrambling.  So who's the fraud?

Yet you keep reposting it Bevand's work!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I have never said anything about your credentials. 

Your own words always sink yourself. 

Rubbish Jacko.  You posted (again as you first did it many weeks ago) a graph/analysis comparing IFR's which has no credibility in science world whatsoever.  I've pointed that out and now you are scrambling.  So who's the fraud?

That doesn't even make sense. 

Are you drinking??

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Can you find ONE paper in any academic journal that Marc Bevand has had published?

More relevant is if you cited papers you reference but you never do.

You can't cite even what you say.

Fraud.

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The latest IFR research is showing a completely different picture to the one posted above.

38 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

"The latest IFR research is showing a completely  different  picture to the one posted above."

You provide no cite as usual.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
53 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

More relevant is if you cited papers you reference but you never do.

  You can't cite even what you say.

 Fraud.

Actually I do however you are so fixated on your narrative that your mind is closed hence the reposting of the Bevand crap analysis. 

You cite?

Have you been posting using lemon juice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Oh and before you start banging on about my opinion of the 4 October UK lockdown I suggest you have a squiz at recently released research.  

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full

"Oh and before you start banging on about my opinion of the 4 October UK lockdown I suggest you have a squiz at recently released research."

YOU are the one that keeps raising the UK NOT me, and now you do it yet AGAIN.

Are you posting from a place with white walls, no windows but has WiFi?

On 11/23/2020 at 4:04 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

BTW, since you are the local oracle on all sources of data, can you post for your fan club the NHS bed occupancy figures for last year versus this year?

On 11/23/2020 at 4:19 AM, jack_sparrow said:

Already cited up thread and you utilised it in a post and a post I replied to, but you ignored as usual

On 11/23/2020 at 4:39 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Which was more than it is this year?  Haven't they been complaining for years that the NHS capacity wasn't enough?

On 11/23/2020 at 4:59 AM, jack_sparrow said:

Answered in full and you ignore. More straw.

 

Relevance of that report to what you said is what? 

There is NO relevance.

That report doesn't give ANY support to you saying of UK lockdowns three (3) things as follows;

- You said one in mid September would have been too late, noting new cases then increased over 11 fold.

- You said the actual one on 5 November was too late and new cases had peaked, noting they then rose by one third during lockdown and now retreated to below that on 5 November. 

- You said or suggested 5 November was then too early as Covid hospital admissions were well below 1st wave. You said that ignoring occupancy of acute care beds, their occupancy by England's regions and new cases loads in those regions. You also ignored the UK's contact/trace system is broken, presumably because you support the Barrington Declaration stating contact/trace doesn't work with Covid-19.

That leaves you with an alternative to what was done. You DON'T furnish one. 

By objective assessment your views are 'dangerous'. That is why you were banned on SA for a period, only joining/rejoining under a different name in September for the express purpose of articulating those dangerous views.

It is lucky you aren't published on the subject, for equally dangerous people to prosecute the same views.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

That report doesn't give ANY support to you saying of UK lockdowns three (3) things as follows;

 

From the report - to translate for you.  This piece of research found that the actions undertaken by various governments did not impact the infectiousness nor mortality of Covid-19.  This is clearly apparent in the UK where the lockdown imposed in the first week of November had no impact on the curve.  Indeed just prior to the imposition of the lockdown the Rby region was below 1 and dropping.  The Rbriefly increased post lockdown to above 1 (there are suggestions that this was caused by last minute shopping and partying) but has now since returned to levels below 1 i.e. the rate of infection is such that the pandemic will fizzle out.  

The associations found among two opposed groups of countries suggest important inherent factors, predetermining the consequences of global threats. Properly understanding the relations between those parameters may help to provide new prevention strategies. Covid-19 has prompted a wide range of responses from governments around the world, yet the contagion and mortality curves are very homologous among countries (33). This is reinforced by our findings regarding the lack of any association with the government's actions taken during the pandemic. In that sense, the determining demographic, health, development, and environment factors seem much more important to anticipate the lethal consequences of the Covid-19 than government's actions, especially when such actions are led by political goals more than by sanitary ones. This last result however cannot predict that other types of measure would not reduce the pandemia death load.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Your views are dangerous. That is why you were banned on SA for a period, joining/rejoining under different name in September for the express purpose of articulating those dangerous views.

They are not dangerous.  However for a moment accepting that they may be -  is it not equally dangerous to promote an intervention that has no or little direct impact on what it is targeting but will have a larger impact on other health outcomes.  Outcomes that we know will happen but the full impact will not be felt until sometime in the future.  

Surely any sane person can see how illogical it is to say that Covid-19 is more infectious in the dark (curfew 10pm) and less infectious in supermarkets than restaurants.

Equally isn't it illogical to spend billions on testing as many people as you can when the tests you are using are unreliable, do not give any measure of infectiousness and then are analysed in labs that have been expanded and staffed sub-optimally thereby giving inaccurate results.  There are three parts to testing (actually this applies to any process) - speed, volume and quality.  You can only have two of those at once in the short time frame that testing has been ramped up.

Would it not be better to focus on speed and quality and identify those who are vulnerable and/or infectious?

Any contact tracing system is reliant on the veracity of the testing - if the quality of the testing is poor then contact tracing cannot succeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

From the report - to translate for you.  This piece of research found that the actions undertaken by various governments did not impact the infectiousness nor mortality of Covid-19. This is clearly apparent in the UK where the lockdown imposed in the first week of November had no impact on the curve.

That is not what you said in the three things you said and no impact bollucks.

Fuck off.

13 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

That report doesn't give ANY support to you saying of UK lockdowns three (3) things as follows;

- You said one in mid September would have been too late, noting new cases then increased over 11 fold.

- You said the actual one on 5 November was too late and new cases had peaked, noting they then rose by one third during lockdown and now retreated to below that on 5 November. 

- You said or suggested 5 November was then too early as Covid hospital admissions were well below 1st wave. You said that ignoring occupancy of acute care beds, their occupancy by England's regions and new cases loads in those regions. You also ignored the UK's contact/trace system is broken, presumably because you support the Barrington Declaration stating contact/trace doesn't work with Covid-19.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
20 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Your views are dangerous. That is why you were banned on SA for a period, joining/rejoining under different name in September for the express purpose of articulating those dangerous views.

They are not dangerous.

"They are not dangerous"

Wow that is a surprising response.

8 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Surely any sane person can see how illogical it is to say that Covid-19 is more infectious in the dark (curfew 10pm) and less infectious in supermarkets than restaurants.

"Surely any sane person can see how illogical it is to say that Covid-19 is more infectious in the dark (curfew 10pm ) and less infectious in supermarkets than restaurants."

I can surely assure you outside those walls of yours sane people see the logic. Even the insane Swedes see that logic closing bars at 10.00pm.

26 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Are you posting from a place with white walls, no windows but has WiFi?

When do you line up to take your daily medication?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

- You said the actual one on 5 November was too late and new cases had peaked, noting they then rose by one third during lockdown and now retreated to below that on 5 November. 

 - You said or suggested 5 November was then too early as Covid hospital admissions were well below 1st wave. You said that ignoring occupancy of acute care beds, their occupancy by England's regions and new cases loads in those regions. You also ignored the UK's contact/trace system is broken, presumably because you support the Barrington Declaration stating contact/trace doesn't work with Covid-19. 



No what I said was that the November 5 lockdown intervention was too late to impact the infection curve or related metrics.  The course was set for this stage of the pandemic in the UK.  I also said that the curve had plateaued which was and still is clearly evident in all the data.

With regard to hospital bed occupancy it was clearly evident that action on November 5 would not impact that - how could it when the infection rates/number had already begun to plateau!

With regard to the SAGE advice of a "circuit breaker" lockdown in early September there is no evidence to say it would have reduced this current peak.  With infections running at 3,000 a day the virus had bolted from the stable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

"Surely any sane person can see how illogical it is to say that Covid-19 is more infectious in the dark (curfew 10pm ) and less infectious in supermarkets than restaurants."

 I can surely assure you outside those walls of yours sane people see the logic. Even the insane Swedes see that logic closing bars at 10.00pm.

But what is the logic?  How does it reduce Covid-19 infections?  Covid-19 doesn't become more active at night - in fact it appears to be to the contrary where its life in the sun is shorter lived!  Did Australia ever have mandatory closing hours for bars?  I think they did.  Do you remember what happened?  The cram as many drinks in as you can before the bar is closed?  Then hordes of people full to the kite staggering all at once out through the doors.  

Or what about Supermarkets - reduce the opening hours and force people to queue - does that sound logical?  

Or are Supermarkets less infectious than bars or sit down restaurants?

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

35931780-8971669-image-a-1_1606164222237.jpg

35921088-8971669-image-a-8_1606164226932.jpg

Critical care 'can cope' is NOT what you said.

You made NO mention of critical care ON 5 November saying on 5 November lock down was too late.

You ignored England's region's and you STILL do.

58 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

- You said or suggested 5 November was then too early as Covid hospital admissions were well below 1st wave. You said that ignoring occupancy of acute care beds, their occupancy by England's regions and new cases loads in those regions. You also ignored the UK's contact/trace system is broken, presumably because you support the Barrington Declaration stating contact/trace doesn't work with Covid-19.

You have just now posted a graph showing infections RISING to over 33,470 and hospital admissions RISING from from this on 4 November, the day before lock-down.

On Wednesday 4 November, reported 5 November.

25,177 new cases the largest one day rise since 21 October and the second largest rise since March.

- 1421 record hospital admissions since the 1st wave.

-  492 deaths - highest  daily increase for 5 months & 58% higher than last Wednesday . Already over half the 8 April record.

Yet you said just 5 minutes earllier this.

"..actions undertaken by various governments did not impact the infectiousness nor mortality of Covid- 19.  This is clearly apparent in the UK where the lockdown imposed in the first week of November had no impact on the curve."

49 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

...actions undertaken by various governments did not impact the infectiousness nor mortality of Covid-19.  This is clearly apparent in the UK where the lockdown imposed in the first week of November had no impact on the curve. 

You are truly fucked in the head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

"..actions undertaken by various governments did not impact the infectiousness nor mortality of Covid- 19.  This is clearly apparent in the UK where the lockdown imposed in the first week of November had no impact on the curve."

The lockdown had no impact - prove it did?  Why don't you use the same methodology as described and referred to in the paper I posted today that agrees.  Go for it genius!

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
56 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

- 1421 record hospital admissions since the 1st wave.

Interesting how you play with the statistics.  1421 isn't a record is it?  It is just the most "since" the first "record".

Yes that is a diabolical statistical manipulation by me indicating a record since a record. 

Shall you alert the statistics police or shall I?

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The lockdown had no impact - prove it did?  Why don't you use the same methodology as described and referred to in the paper I posted today that agrees.  Go for it genius!

"The lockdown had no impact - prove it did? ..Go for it genius!"

I'm not the genius promoting lockdowns having no impact. You are the one doing that. You are at odds with all the UK Govt professional advisors and all but scientific fringe dwellers on that.

I am agreeing with every utterance by those advisors, end of story

I don't have to do a fucking thing here except quote ACTUAL before and after numbers that show lockdown did have an impact as those advisors advised.

The ball is in your court to show what the peak numbers would have been WITHOUT the 5 November lockdown.

And so you won't forget I will repeat that 3 times as follows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:
2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

- You said the actual one on 5 November was too late and new cases had peaked, noting they then rose by one third during lockdown and now retreated to below that on 5 November. 

 - You said or suggested 5 November was then too early as Covid hospital admissions were well below 1st wave. You said that ignoring occupancy of acute care beds, their occupancy by England's regions and new cases loads in those regions. You also ignored the UK's contact/trace system is broken, presumably because you support the Barrington Declaration stating contact/trace doesn't work with Covid-19. 



No what I said was that the November 5 lockdown intervention was too late to impact the infection curve or related metrics. The course was set for this stage of the pandemic in the UK.  I also said that the curve had plateaued which was and still is clearly evident in all the data.

"No what I said was that the November 5 lockdown  intervention was too late to impact the infection curve or related metrics....I also said that the curve had plateaued "

So going from 25,177 new cases at lockdown peaking at 33,470 after lockdown (also rising on 7 day rolling average). a rise by one-third is NOT an increase in infections, that is a PLATEAU and lockdown had NO impact. 

Putting aside that absurdity, what would YOUR new cases peak and daily deaths peak be had there been NO LOCKDOWN occuring as you promoted on 5 November and are still promoting today?

Normally I would insist on a cite but quite happy for you to STATE those two numbers together with their BASIS AND referencing the 1st wave.

You are promoting this. Ball is in your court.

I bet you can't and don't.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

With regard to hospital bed occupancy it was clearly evident that action on November 5 would not impact that - how could it when the infection rates/number had already begun to plateau!

"With regard to hospital bed occupancy it was clearly evident that action on November 5 would not impact that  - how could it when the infection rates/number had already begun to plateau!"

That nonsense has already been answered.

What is now required is this. 

You STATING without 5 November lockdown YOUR new daily cases and daily deaths peak together with their basis AND referencing the 1st wave.

You are promoting this. Ball is in your court.

I bet you can't and don't.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

With regard to the SAGE advice of a "circuit breaker" lockdown in early September there is no evidence to say it would have reduced this current peak.  With infections running at 3,000 a day the virus had bolted from the stable.

"With regard to the SAGE advice of a "circuit breaker" lockdown in early September there is no evidence to say it would have reduced this current peak.  With infections running at 3,000 a day the virus had bolted from the stable."

You are saying no lockdown at 3,000 new cases in mid September would NOT have reduced the peak of 25,177 occuring nearly 2 months later and rose to over 33,000 after lockdown before reducing. 

Another way of expressing that nearly two months is 60 days or 6 ten day incubation periods with the resultant exponential growth that ACTUALLY occured.

Putting aside this nonsense that lockdown would not have impacted on any one of those 6 periods, the ball is in your court. 

You STATING without 5 November lockdown, YOUR new daily cases and daily deaths peak together with their BASIS AND referencing the 1st wave is now required.

You are promoting this. Ball is in your court.

I bet you can't and don't.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^ And just to get in front of your potential objection to further questions if you do, shock horror reply with two substantiated NO LOCKDOWN new daily cases and deaths PEAKS.

What would the new cases and deaths be 14 days AFTER this lockdown hypothetically didn't occur on 5 November or 19 November?

Actual 5 November: New cases 25,177 and deaths 492.**

Actual 19 November: New cases 22,915 and deaths 501.**

** Not 'excess deaths' but deaths within 28 days of testing positive which is the UK daily reporting method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed this bullshit.

5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

From the ZOE Covid Symptom app:

 This chart is from the ZOE Covid Symptom Study app showing daily new cases up to November 8

35931774-0-image-a-19_1605919036501.jpg

"From the ZOE Covid Symptom app"

To explain which you don't. ZOE is a UK App introduced mid year. I know people who have it, favouring it over the Govt App and CT system which is shambolic.

Currently around 6% of UK pop are members. The data they generate is used to support the NHS and Kings College scientists in the UK.

The App's algorithm shows there are 32,061 new cases in the UK today. This compares to the NHS reporting there is 11,299 today. The NHS only publish confirmed tested positive cases. Their contact/trace/test system shambolic. 

This difference is therefore hardly startling news, in fact a 3 fold difference is regarded as conservative. That difference would have the effect of driving IFR UP from that accepted by the scientific community AND that of your utterances.

The point of you posting that ZOE chart? Wouldn't have a fucking clue.

_______________________

As for your chart 'Death Predictions - And Reality.'

The predictions shown on that chart are if NOTHING was done. That is not marked. The actual deaths to date marked to date correspond to those predictions up UNTIL the lockdown date of 5 November. 

The point of you posting chart that was to deliberately mislead. 

______________

Guidance on material attached to your posts.

I note that chart was taken from UK Spectator Magazine a RW publication whose editorial policy has been one of opposing lock-downs since day one.

I'm sure that's not why you chose it. :lol:

For instance they published on 28 March 5 days after the UK locked down an article titled "How deadly is the coronavirus?"

The author a pathologist wrote;

"That’s why, when Britain had 590 diagnosed cases, Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, suggested (12 March) that the real figure was probably between 5,000 and 10,000 cases, ten to 20 times higher. If he’s right, the headline death rate due to this virus is likely to be ten to 20 times lower, say 0.25 per cent to 0.5 per cent. That puts the Covid-19 mortality rate in the range associated with infections like flu

Clearly, the various lockdowns will slow the spread of Covid-19 so there will be fewer cases. When we relax the measures, there will be more cases again. But this need not be a reason to keep the lockdown: the spread of cases is only something to fear if we are dealing with an unusually lethal virus."

9 days after publication the UK PM was in intensive care fighting for his life and the UK's record daily death rate occured.

I presume the author has retreated back to pathology where he belongs.

Maybe you should join him as a teaching aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

note that chart was taken from UK Spectator Magazine a RW publication whose editorial policy has been one of opposing lock-downs since day one. I'm sure that's not why you chose it. :lol:

LOL - easy to keep you busy. Yes but is the chart wrong?  Regardless of all the BS you posted - is the chart wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

  Did Australia ever have mandatory closing hours for bars?  I think they did.  Do you remember what happened? 

Ah , that bought back memories of Steves , Nedlands park hotel in the 80's.

We lived opposite the hotel ,as teenagers.

Sunday Afternoon session, open for 3 hours and so packed that you only had one chance of reaching the bar for service.

Everyone drinking  out of jugs, girls using the urinal because the que to the womens was toooooooo long.

Anyway I digress,

Thanks for keeping Wacko Sparrow Twitt busy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Thanks for keeping Wacko Sparrow Twitt busy.

A pleasure Mrs Octopus.

Yes the limited licensing hours.  Obviously these boomers in power don't remember them or never experienced them.  Meanwhile they have become supposedly an effective tool against Covid-19 which must only be around after 10pm.

Now last orders will be 10pm and you can drink to 11pm.  Mmmmm guess what will happen?  2 or 3 jugs lined up at 9:59pm.

Surely you would have to special not to see the lunacy of some of these regulations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
22 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

note that chart was taken from UK Spectator Magazine a RW publication whose editorial policy has been one of opposing lock-downs since day one. I'm sure that's not why you chose it. :lol:

LOL - easy to keep you busy. Yes but is the chart wrong?  Regardless of all the BS you posted - is the chart wrong?

"Yes but is the chart wrong?  Regardless of all the BS you posted - is the chart wrong ?"

I wish you would fucking read.

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was wrong or "not marked". Actual deaths WITH NPI's versus predicted deaths with NO NPI's. I even said actual deaths aligned up until lockdown. 

But you knew that. It is why you posted it.

22 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

The predictions shown on that chart are if NOTHING was done. That is not marked. The actual deaths to date marked to date correspond to those predictions up UNTIL the lockdown date of 5 November. 

Shouldn't you be going through your back log of unanswered questions?

So to the predictions on your chart showing deaths with NO NPI's.

That means you are now in a real fucking bind with this one.:lol:

"..what would YOUR new cases peak and daily deaths peak be had there been  NO LOCKDOWN occuring as you promoted on  5 November and are still promoting today?"

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Putting aside that absurdity, what would YOUR new cases peak and daily deaths peak be had there been NO LOCKDOWN occuring as you promoted on 5 November and are still promoting today?

Normally I would insist on a cite but quite happy for you to STATE those two numbers together with their BASIS AND referencing the 1st wave.

You are promoting this. Ball is in your court.

I bet you can't and don't.

As I said, it is always your own words that crucifies your dangerous narrative. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

  Did Australia ever have mandatory closing hours for bars?  I think they did.  Do you remember what happened? 

Ah , that bought back memories of Steves , Nedlands park hotel in the 80's.

We lived opposite the hotel ,as teenagers.

Sunday Afternoon session, open for 3 hours and so packed that you only had one chance of reaching the bar for service.

Everyone drinking  out of jugs, girls using the urinal because the que to the womens was toooooooo long.

Anyway I digress,

Thanks for keeping Wacko Sparrow Twitt busy.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A pleasure Mrs Octopus.

Yes the limited licensing hours.  Obviously these boomers in power don't remember them or never experienced them.  Meanwhile they have become supposedly an effective tool against Covid-19 which must only be around after 10pm.

Now last orders will be 10pm and you can drink to 11pm.  Mmmmm guess what will happen?  2 or 3 jugs lined up at 9:59pm.

Surely you would have to special not to see the lunacy of some of these regulations.

 

I have no quarrel with the "drinking culture" aspect BUT you have not read the rules for both UK and Sweden. Do you read anything? 

"Now last orders will be 10pm and you can drink to 11pm."

Rules say premises CLOSE at 10.00om and are empty. 

Also you made NO mention of drinking culture in your first post.

You bizzarely said it was a night versus day Covid infectious thinking;

"...illogical  it is to say that Covid-19 is more infectious in the dark (curfew 10pm) and less infectious in supermarkets than restaurants."

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Surely any sane person can see how illogical it is to say that Covid-19 is more infectious in the dark (curfew 10pm) and less infectious in supermarkets than restaurants.

You repeat that here.

"Meanwhile they have become  supposedly an effective tool against Covid-19 which must only be around after 10pm."

You make 'misleading' an art form.

To further add a 10.00 curfew doesn't impact upon drinking culture when premises are open. But does that culture extend across hours open?

There are views it DOES impact upon evening patronage by younger people who normally 'pre-load' off premises and arrive after 10.00. Now they stay at home is the thought or change their behaviour as a consequence of that curfew? Requires thought that you would think authorities turn their mind to.  

PS. 8Cunts you have come looking for me I see. I feel blessed. Your new friend here badly needs friends. Steve's on a weekend is hardly a good reference point for normal. I lived around the corner in Cooper St for a while. Maybe it was me who kept pissing in your beer glass week in week out and you could never work out who? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I have no quarrel with the "drinking culture" aspect BUT you have not read the rules for both UK and Sweden. Do you read anything? 

 "Now last orders will be 10pm and you can drink to 11pm."

Rules say premises CLOSE at 10.00om and are empty. 

Also you made NO mention of drinking culture in your first post.

You bizzarely said it was a night versus day Covid infectious thinking;

"...illogical  it is to say that Covid-19 is more infectious in the dark (curfew 10pm) and less infectious in supermarkets than restaurants."

You repeat that here.

"Meanwhile they have become  supposedly an effective tool against Covid-19 which must only be around after 10pm."

You make 'misleading' an art form.

Jacko - you are the expert in reading - read this - the new Tier rules for the UK - note the change to the curfew.  Please keep trying to explain how a 10pm curfew makes a difference to Covid-19 infections.

New-Tiers.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Jacko - you are the expert in reading - read this - the new Tier rules for the UK - note the change to the curfew.

"Jacko - you are the expert in reading  - read this - the new Tier rules for the UK -  note the change to the curfew."

(To the sound of uncontrolled laughter)

I keep saying you NEVER read and you NEVER disappoint. 

The 3 Tier Rule is nationwide for coming OUT OF LOCKDOWN (that commenced 5 November) and is a proposal ONLY for winter and put forward by PM ONLY 2 days ago.

It is a plan NOT in place, it DOESN'T exist except in draft form, it HASN'T even been debated in Parliament yet. There is no agreement from the 3 devolved administrations. The principle opposition is from WITHIN the Government to the extent the Government will need Opposition support to implement it.

In short it is currently a dream and NO guarantee it will occur.

5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Please keep trying to explain how a 10pm curfew makes a difference to Covid-19 infections.

"Please keep trying to explain how a 10pm curfew makes a difference to Covid-19 infections."

Straw question. I'm not interested in your fucking straw questions. Go ask the plans promoter, the UK Prime Minister or Downing Street. 

Two bigger questions. 

- Why do you REFUSE TO CITE the claims you keep making?

- Why do you ALWAYS IGNORE posts that expose your misleading statements and falsehoods behind your anti-lockdown promotion?

These two questiond are not hard and the answer easy. 

Fraud.

Fuck off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

The 3 Tier Rule is nationwide for coming OUT OF LOCKDOWN (that commenced 5 November) and is a proposal ONLY for winter and put forward by PM ONLY 2 days ago.

 It is a plan NOT in place, it DOESN'T exist except in draft form, it HASN'T even been debated in Parliament yet. There is no agreement from the 3 devolved administrations. The principle opposition is from WITHIN the Government to the extent the Government will need Opposition support to implement it.

 

But that wasn't the question was it Jacko.  How does a curfew make a difference?  The reality is it doesn't make a difference.  If you don't care then why the hell do you always bite?  

This is what I said in reply to Mrs Octopus.  But no Jacko had to step in and continue his irrational crusade.  It seems Jacko agrees that some of these regulations are lunacy.  Which just happened to be the point I was making.  But I guess the problem is it wasn't Jacko making the point.

18 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A pleasure Mrs Octopus.

Yes the limited licensing hours.  Obviously these boomers in power don't remember them or never experienced them.  Meanwhile they have become supposedly an effective tool against Covid-19 which must only be around after 10pm.

Now last orders will be 10pm and you can drink to 11pm.  Mmmmm guess what will happen?  2 or 3 jugs lined up at 9:59pm.

Surely you would have to special not to see the lunacy of some of these regulations.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 4:09 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Please keep trying to explain how a 10pm curfew makes a difference to Covid-19 infections.

Covid loves people socialising, the closer and longer the better.

Please explain why you are cheering on Covid by barracking against "team humanity" attempts at control? This constant nit-picking of virus control measures is stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ncik said:

Please explain why you are cheering on Covid by barracking against "team humanity" attempts at control? This constant nit-picking of virus control measures is stupid.

I'm NOT "cheering on Covid-19" but the difference is you and Jacko are promoting central control and punishment rather than informing and allowing individual choice.  Do you know why your approach is failing?  

You assume I'm promoting Covid-19 infection.  I'm not.  But what is the best way of achieving the goal of minimising Covid-19 impacts?  That's where we differ in OPINION.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

....and dangerous by eroding "collective responsibility," the primary pillar for controlling this virus. 

OK how do you achieve "collective responsibility" without individual action?

"OK how do you achieve "collective responsibility" without individual action?"

So you play 'sentence semantics' 

OK let's play with your "individual action". 

So WHOSE messaging erodes individual 'responsible actions' in that 'chain of collective responsibility,' a message that transmits exponentially, EXACTLY like the virus?

That 'chain of responsible actions' is BROKEN by irresponsible cunts like you.

 

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:
2 hours ago, Ncik said:

Please explain why you are cheering on Covid by barracking against "team humanity" attempts at control? This constant nit-picking of virus control measures is stupid.

I'm NOT "cheering on Covid-19" but the difference is you and Jacko are promoting central control and punishment rather than informing and allowing individual choice.  Do you know why your approach is failing?  

You assume I'm promoting Covid-19 infection. I'm not...

"..you and Jacko are promoting central control and punishment rather than informing and allowing individual choice..Do you know why your approach is failing?"

More bullshit.

I am NOT promoting anything here other than dismantling your bullshit when it is posted. MOST replies you get here are in the same vein. 

As outlined above ONLY dangerous people seek to BREAK the 'chain of collective responsibility' when that is the pillar underpinning the control of this virus. 

"You assume I'm promoting Covid-19 infection. I'm not ..."

Bullshit. You are doing EXACTLY that. 

You actively 'promote' a position on subjects CONTRARY to the wide body of opinion adopted by professionals worldwide.

This just a sample from YOUR CURRENT 'promotional' campaign on SA:

- Covid IFR is LOWER.

- The IFR difference between Covid and seasonal flu is LOWER.

- 'Lock-downs' DON'T significantly reduce Covid transmission rates.

- Contact/Trace/Test DOESN'T work with Covid.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

..But what is the best way of achieving the goal of minimising Covid-19 impacts?  That's where we differ in OPINION.

"But what is the best way of achieving the goal of minimising Covid-19 impacts? That's where we differ in OPINION."

More bullshit by the bucket load.

You have offered NO ALTERNATIVE "way of achieving the goal of minimising Covid-19 impacts." 

You ONLY seek to DEMOLISH the wide body of opinion adopted by professionals worldwide. You go NO FURTHER.

You do so here by REFUSING TO CITE with authority the claims you keep making.

You ALWAYS IGNORE posts that expose your misleading statements and falsehoods.

You are one of those 'irresponsible' and 'dangerous' cunts who has already been banned here once. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

How do you know that I haven't taken individual responsibility to protect myself and my family?

So you don't practise what you promote then. 

There is a name for cunts like you. 

It must have a really long name.

I would need to look it up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

OK how do you achieve "collective responsibility" without individual action?

By not publicly nit-picking the experts advice and trying to jusify it constantly as a legitimate option. It isn't fucking rocket science.

  1. Don't interact with other people extensively.
  2. Practice good hygience.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I'm NOT "cheering on Covid-19" but the difference is you and Jacko are promoting central control and punishment rather than informing and allowing individual choice.  Do you know why your approach is failing?  

You assume I'm promoting Covid-19 infection.  I'm not.  But what is the best way of achieving the goal of minimising Covid-19 impacts?  That's where we differ in OPINION.

I'm promoting listening to and acting on the expert advice. You continue to nit-pick the expert advice.

All around the world, individuals are promoting an alternative process of controlling this compared with the experts. You are in the grey area other promoting individual choice. There is no individual choice with this, either we all work together or the virus takes its toll. In fact I think you are promoting being selfish above community good.

The best way of minimising Covid-19 impacts is to listen to the experts, not armchair nit-pickers like you. This pandemic will not last forever, but it will last longer if the experts are not listened to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Hang on you are assuming I don't play by the "rules"!  Nothing I have posted at any stage suggests that I don't play by the "rules".  

QED

By your own admission you need "rules". Remind me again what you've been arguing against and nit-picking the last 15 pages?

Link to post
Share on other sites