Coronavirus Pandemic

Have you guys seen how Singapore is helping social distancing along?


Personally, I find it reassuring and it in no way reminds me of this (graphic content):

 
Last edited:
We'd probably need to start with a working definition of "facts" and how one comes to know something as "fact".
I did previously write on the difference between truth and facts - I think to dpdownsouth.
He said something along the lines of him "just wanting to know the truth"... but actually it seemed he was looking for certainty concerning facts. Big difference.
The main difference being that some personalities care nothing about how actual their facts are - they only care if they can (or can not) defend them. Basically looking for fights - or think they are in a fight.

But this coVid thing is so much a play on society (test of governing technique) that I am not going to entertain fighting over the "facts".

I actually do not treasure my human body existence over my own existence, so for health reasons or not, I do not care for "one brained" thinking to protect a temporary existence at the cost of a kind of permanent subjugation.

...oh now he is going to want to argue on that. (Hope not).
 
Well, I totally disagree with you.

If you go to doctor A, with a bad infection in your leg, and he says he will give you powerful antibiotics and you'll be ok in time - and then you go to Dr B for second opinion, and he says it's too late for antibiotics, he must amputate the leg, then you have a difference of opinions in an serious and uncertain situation and a reasonable person might make the tough decision to have the leg amputated.

However if Dr C says that the only solution is to amputate your head to protect your brain from the infection, then we have crossed the threshold into madness. We are well beyond a matter of a difference of opinion.

Unless you don't understand what the result of cutting off your head would be; which is where I think you are with regards to the damage to the economy, the healthcare system (for non-covid illnesses) and civil liberties/social unrest.
Ohhhh Eric!!
I really love this reply.
Great. And great imagery.
 
Here is an article in The Telegraph (which is paywalled):

Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College “stepped back” from the Sage group advising ministers when his lockdown-busting romantic trysts were exposed. Perhaps he should have been dropped for a more consequential misstep. Details of the model his team built to predict the epidemic are emerging and they are not pretty. In the respective words of four experienced modellers, the code is “deeply riddled” with bugs, “a fairly arbitrary Heath Robinson machine”, has “huge blocks of code – bad practice” and is “quite possibly the worst production code I have ever seen”.

When ministers make statements about coronavirus policy they invariably say that they are “following the science”. But cutting-edge science is messy and unclear, a contest of ideas arbitrated by facts, a process of conjecture and refutation. This is not new. Almost two centuries ago Thomas Huxley described the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

In this case, that phrase “the science” effectively means the Imperial College model, forecasting potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths, on the output of which the Government instituted the lockdown in March. Sage’s advice has a huge impact on the lives of millions. Yet the committee meets in private, publishes no minutes, and until it was put under pressure did not even release the names of its members. We were making decisions based on the output of a black box, and a locked one at that.

It has become commonplace among financial forecasters, the Treasury, climate scientists, and epidemiologists to cite the output of mathematical models as if it was “evidence”. The proper use of models is to test theories of complex systems against facts. If instead we are going to use models for forecasting and policy, we must be able to check that they are accurate, particularly when they drive life and death decisions. This has not been the case with the Imperial College model.

At the time of the lockdown, the model had not been released to the scientific community. When Ferguson finally released his code last week, it was a reorganised program different from the version run on March 16.

It is not as if Ferguson’s track record is good. In 2001 the Imperial College team’s modelling led to the culling of 6 million livestock and was criticised by epidemiological experts as severely flawed. In various years in the early 2000s Ferguson predicted up to 136,000 deaths from mad cow disease, 200 million from bird flu and 65,000 from swine flu. The final death toll in each case was in the hundreds. In this case, when a Swedish team applied the modified model that Imperial put into the public domain to Sweden’s strategy, it predicted 40,000 deaths by May 1 – 15 times too high.

We now know that the model’s software is a 13-year-old, 15,000-line program that simulates homes, offices, schools, people and movements. According to a team at Edinburgh University which ran the model, the same inputs give different outputs, and the program gives different results if it is run on different machines, and even if it is run on the same machine using different numbers of central-processing units.

Worse, the code does not allow for large variations among groups of people with respect to their susceptibility to the virus and their social connections. An infected nurse in a hospital is likely to transmit the virus to many more people than an asymptomatic child. Introducing such heterogeneity shows that the threshold to achieve herd immunity with modest social distancing is much lower than the 50-60 per cent implied by the Ferguson model. One experienced modeller tells us that “my own modelling suggests that somewhere between 10 per cent and 30 per cent would suffice, depending on what assumptions one makes.”

Data from Sweden support this. Despite only moderate social-distancing measures, the epidemic stopped growing in Stockholm County by mid-April, and has since shrunk significantly, implying that the herd immunity threshold was reached at a point when around 20 per cent of the population was immune, according to estimates by the Swedish public health authority.

The almost covert nature of the scientific debate within Sage, the opaque programming methods of the Imperial team, the unavailability of the code for testing and review at the point of decision, the untested assumptions built into the model, all leave us with a worrying question. Did we base one of the biggest peacetime policy decisions on crude mathematical guesswork?

Neil Ferguson
Perhaps Professor Ferguson should have stepped back from Sage for reasons other than his lockdown-breaking tryst Credit: Thomas Angus/Imperial College London

Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College “stepped back” from the Sage group advising ministers when his lockdown-busting romantic trysts were exposed. Perhaps he should have been dropped for a more consequential misstep. Details of the model his team built to predict the epidemic are emerging and they are not pretty. In the respective words of four experienced modellers, the code is “deeply riddled” with bugs, “a fairly arbitrary Heath Robinson machine”, has “huge blocks of code – bad practice” and is “quite possibly the worst production code I have ever seen”.

When ministers make statements about coronavirus policy they invariably say that they are “following the science”. But cutting-edge science is messy and unclear, a contest of ideas arbitrated by facts, a process of conjecture and refutation. This is not new. Almost two centuries ago Thomas Huxley described the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

In this case, that phrase “the science” effectively means the Imperial College model, forecasting potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths, on the output of which the Government instituted the lockdown in March. Sage’s advice has a huge impact on the lives of millions. Yet the committee meets in private, publishes no minutes, and until it was put under pressure did not even release the names of its members. We were making decisions based on the output of a black box, and a locked one at that.

It has become commonplace among financial forecasters, the Treasury, climate scientists, and epidemiologists to cite the output of mathematical models as if it was “evidence”. The proper use of models is to test theories of complex systems against facts. If instead we are going to use models for forecasting and policy, we must be able to check that they are accurate, particularly when they drive life and death decisions. This has not been the case with the Imperial College model.

At the time of the lockdown, the model had not been released to the scientific community. When Ferguson finally released his code last week, it was a reorganised program different from the version run on March 16.

It is not as if Ferguson’s track record is good. In 2001 the Imperial College team’s modelling led to the culling of 6 million livestock and was criticised by epidemiological experts as severely flawed. In various years in the early 2000s Ferguson predicted up to 136,000 deaths from mad cow disease, 200 million from bird flu and 65,000 from swine flu. The final death toll in each case was in the hundreds. In this case, when a Swedish team applied the modified model that Imperial put into the public domain to Sweden’s strategy, it predicted 40,000 deaths by May 1 – 15 times too high.

We now know that the model’s software is a 13-year-old, 15,000-line program that simulates homes, offices, schools, people and movements. According to a team at Edinburgh University which ran the model, the same inputs give different outputs, and the program gives different results if it is run on different machines, and even if it is run on the same machine using different numbers of central-processing units.

Worse, the code does not allow for large variations among groups of people with respect to their susceptibility to the virus and their social connections. An infected nurse in a hospital is likely to transmit the virus to many more people than an asymptomatic child. Introducing such heterogeneity shows that the threshold to achieve herd immunity with modest social distancing is much lower than the 50-60 per cent implied by the Ferguson model. One experienced modeller tells us that “my own modelling suggests that somewhere between 10 per cent and 30 per cent would suffice, depending on what assumptions one makes.”

Data from Sweden support this. Despite only moderate social-distancing measures, the epidemic stopped growing in Stockholm County by mid-April, and has since shrunk significantly, implying that the herd immunity threshold was reached at a point when around 20 per cent of the population was immune, according to estimates by the Swedish public health authority.

The almost covert nature of the scientific debate within Sage, the opaque programming methods of the Imperial team, the unavailability of the code for testing and review at the point of decision, the untested assumptions built into the model, all leave us with a worrying question. Did we base one of the biggest peacetime policy decisions on crude mathematical guesswork?



Matt Ridley’s new book 'How Innovation Works' is published in June. David Davis is a Conservative MP

David
 
The problem for democratic governments is that they have to represent the people. When folks are potentially losing their lives, or their parents or grandparents they want something done. The polling indicates massive support for the shutdowns from voters. What is a politician meant to do?

In Nz we’ve had a strict, largely successful lockdown and pretty much eradicated it. ‘Going hard and going early’ was considered both better for the health and the economy of the nation. Whilst I don’t entirely agree, the message has been strong and consistent, and overwhelmingly supported by the country. We are now easing out of the lockdown and generally feeling positive about getting the economy moving again.
 
Last edited:
The problem for democratic governments is that they have to represent the people. When folks are potentially losing their lives, or their parents or grandparents they want something done. The polling indicates massive support for the shutdowns from voters. What is a politician meant to do?

In Nz we’ve had a strict, largely successful lockdown and pretty much eradicated it. ‘Going hard and going early’ was considered both better for the health and the economy of the nation. Whilst I don’t entirely agree, the message has been strong and consistent, and overwhelmingly supported by the country. We are now easing out of the lockdown and generally feeling positive about getting the economy moving again.
The trouble is, however successful you are, you will have no immunity, so one person arriving on your shores could kick it off again.

Obviously you benefit from living in a sparsely populated country.

David
 
Two weeks enforced quarantine for anyone coming in.
SARS 2002 - gone in less than two years... same thing will happen here. Stay away from vaccines (flu vaccine increases your risk to all other viruses) Best approach is Sweden's

As Bill Maher says...

"What's the point of life if you can't live it?"

Is living in fear, living?
 
Last edited:
The trouble is, however successful you are, you will have no immunity, so one person arriving on your shores could kick it off again.

Obviously you benefit from living in a sparsely populated country.

David
Natural immunity is also likely to to confer protection from other diseases. This is natures way. This is what viruses do. Measles is a good example, as the once childhood right of passage give more resilience against other conditions including cancer. Vaccinated mothers no longer confer protection through their milk resulting in a susceptibility gap, a weakened generation. A heavily vaccinated population is a weak population prone to disease that nature would have otherwise strengthened. Not only that but the majority of strains are not the wild strain but ones from the vaccines. Imagine what will happen with Bill Gates's plan to vaccinate the world. Maybe you will have immunity from one condition but overall you are setting up for even more disease, sickness and death.

Saying that lock downs have been successful has no basis without a control group. This is like saying that lock downs in NZ have been successful against tiger bites. Obviously it has since the incidence of tiger bites is zero!

However we do have a sort of control group with Sweden and they have done just as well. If people with healthy immune systems were exposed to the virus we would have a stronger population and natural herd immunity. As well the virus would quickly burn out as it is passed from one healthy individual to another.

Basically this is the downside to the simplistic germ theory. Weakness and susceptibility to other diseases. Virus's are not evil their function is to strengthen the immune system. While some bacteria are dangerous others are beneficial yet for most all germs are considered the same, as being generally bad, which is not true. They are essential.
 
Basically what you just stated, LoneShaman, was what Dr. Zach Bush went through in the excellent video of Del Bigtree posted by the also, excellent, David Bailey (and I am grateful - have now listened to it twice... plan to do so again and take notes which I hope to post).
 
Two weeks enforced quarantine for anyone coming in.
Well, David, if you take a point of view that a malf type person is actually still fighting a long ago unresolved problem called "controlling bodies" you might understand that arguing "facts" is as useful as hammering your head against a wall.

It might be that a malf type desires and therefore is able to control human bodies better when there is some object like coVid to use.

It might be that malf now NEEDS coVid to exist. What a great tool for this "controlling bodies" problem. Those bodies respond to this tool (reasonable or not - they respond to it).

But human bodies inhabited with the spirit which is hiding - from anything, is more like a robot.
Controlling such humans is actually rather easy if this is what is actually desired.

It is my opinion, that the malf type's fight will go on and on and on because their actual problem has a time tag of such a long time ago.
His fighting will go on and on regardless of whatever is happening in our actual present time and certainly regardless of the facts - only the usefulness is used.

He will enforce more things (rules and laws and objects - things) which control bodies.
The target (personal goal) then is not any human's health. The target is to control a body (bodies).
 
FWIW, I agree with bill maher. But I’m in the vast minority and we live in a democracy. People want to lengthen the lives their elderly relatives (almost) no matter what. This is a value judgment (not science) that the people have decided on, and politicians would be foolish not to listen.
 
FWIW, I agree with bill maher. But I’m in the vast minority and we live in a democracy. People want to lengthen the lives their elderly relatives (almost) no matter what. This is a value judgment (not science) that the people have decided on, and politicians would be foolish not to listen.
Here's THE value judgement -

That anyone "believes" their elderly relatives would want us all to destroy their younger relative's futures, those of their children and those of their children's children by taking unproven measures "just because Dr. Fauci" (or another "vested" talking head - Speaking of Fauci - if he had any ethics he would have recused himself because of his personal financial stake in "the holy grail 'phantom' vaccine" that never came for SARS and won't come for COVID-19 before its long gone - but he makes sure to tell everyone they'll never be able to touch (except Tinder hookups even though touching is a primary experience of living and I could go on and on... his cohort Bill Gates - telling the world lock down is the only option until a [his] vaccine is ready)...

"Lock Down" has not been tested! I thought you believe in science, malf? Where has this been tested? Where's the control group?

No one needs a test to know what shutting down the global economy will do... I mean, is doing! Far more death and starvation and child rapists back on the streets (for example), suicides, despair, addictions climbing, hope disappearing...

Find me one elderly relative that has their mind reasonably functioning that would say YES! Do it... do all this because it might "save my life" for a few more years (if you even think what you are doing might do so... because most of us don't anyways - but you have convinced me all that will be lost is so, so worth it). When you do, I will have a hundred that tell you the opposite!
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I agree with bill maher. But I’m in the vast minority and we live in a democracy. People want to lengthen the lives their elderly relatives (almost) no matter what. This is a value judgment (not science) that the people have decided on, and politicians would be foolish not to listen.
Bollocks.

People think what they’re told to think. They want what they think everyone else thinks everyone else wants. They fear whatever is fearfully presented to them. And that unknown percentage who dissent will remain unknown because they wear a social mask and pretend to agree with the authorities because that’s what you must do in business or in polite company.
 
Bollocks.

People think what they’re told to think. They want what they think everyone else thinks everyone else wants. They fear whatever is fearfully presented to them. And that unknown percentage who dissent will remain unknown because they wear a social mask and pretend to agree with the authorities anyways because that’s what you must do in business or in polite company.
and why so many of them are called "sheeple."
 
All,
I would encourage you to look into an organization named "Avaaz". Antonia Staats - the married woman that Ferguson was breaking his own shelter at home polices to bang - is a major figure in Avaaz. One should never underestimate the power of pussy on men who are ordinarily unable to obtain it (or at least not obtain it in high quantity and quality). It looks like the classic intel "honey trap" to me. Ferguson probably already had leanings towards Avaaz thinking anyhow. Ferguson and Fauci were in communication. I think we need to consider Avaaz's influence on how covid is being presented to the public and related policies.

The Avaaz Facebook page is especially enlightening. Some people here might even like it and take it seriously. It's all green new deal stuff. Globalism and socialism. Many propaganda posts about how after covid we can go vegetarian, eliminate fossil fuels, become socialists, be one world under one government. It is clear that they want to destroy the current societal structure and replace it with a radical utopian vision.
******
What the feakin hell? egads, YOU THINK? I didn't know this. Did you put this together? Because I was pretty up on Wuhan in Nov. 2019 ... but on another angle... I'm totally in disbelief! I went to look at the F.B page (and I don't scare easy) but I do get "feelings" about things & I wouldn't even (dare) to post on that Avaaz site. They feel dangerous to me & I never get like that (and I've looked at hardened criminals through bulletproof glass). hu. I think you're onto something here.

I haven't heard this on the news anywhere. Where did you or how did you figure this out? I guess it would be obvious if you were following those players, I knew Fauci was bad. hu. This might be something. But, I'd have to think about it. I mean... it would mean the G.D. wolf was in the hen house. Ya know, I do know psychopaths do get real sloppy as they age, but this would be epic.

Just a thought, the new findings on covid seem to have a misfolding of proteins angle (like amyloids) has. Which I don't know if that is possible...

Damn dude thanks for freaking me out. I do have to say though, that any man that could be lead down THAT kind of garden path just for "P" is an idiot. I guess weirder things have happened. This is bad news. I'll alert some media. Yeah, this should definitely be looked at closer. God damn creepers! Just damn them.
 
It's the policies. The data is already compelling.

We know that children are virtually not at risk and that younger healthy adults are at minimum risk. It is the elderly and serious sick that are at risk.
There is no ambiguity in the data.

Additionally, we know that the current policy of "shelter at home" is destroying the economy. We also know that it causing people to become unhealthy and even die because a) they can't their doctor and b) they have been afraid to go to the hospital. We also know that psychiatric prescriptions are up 25% and that drug ODs and suicides are up significantly.

Then there's the damage to civil liberties - less quantifiable, but not without meaning.

So I have no idea what you're hung up on. The path forward is clear cut as it has been for more than a month. Open up the country and isolate the elderly and chronically ill. The cost of not doing far outweighs the cost of "staying the course".
*****
Well, looks like your post is wrong. Not handing out balloons, but it does take down children. The poor. As it mutates it's a problem, but you're right. We are losing a lot by locking up the USA. What a freakin mess.
 
Last edited:
Top