- Time of past OR future Camino
- To Santiago + back
2400 km + 950 nmi
160 days
For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Really???I'm truly not pointing fingers at anyone, but this thread is beginning to remind me of why discussing politics and religion is not allowed on this forum.
Yes, really, but I only speak for myself and what I seem to be observing as of late.Really???
I learnt a bunch of useful and interesting things, even from the comments I don't agree with 100%. I'd even go so far as to say in particular from those comments.
This was an eye-opener, because that is exactly how I'm relating to this."Pandemics are not like hurricanes. You don’t hunker down, weather the storm".
So I have not read the paper in Nature,, so am asking from a place of complete ignorance.I distinctly remember that my friends and I had stopped our habit of hugging and kissing on cheeks twice or three times at the beginning and end of every meeting at a point in time at least one week before the severe national lockdown was declared, and maybe we had already modified our behaviour even earlier.
Well yes...maybe ..be careful
One of our own very eminent Epidemologists from Imperial college in London ...no names mentioned
2001 ......Foot and mouth ......150,000 will die in the Uk!
200 died and thousands of animals slaughtered.....
.....PS....I got most of the statistics ..well all really from Google and Wikipedia!!!
Best wishes
Annette
That is your individual choice. But aren't you curious to know why decisions are taken on a wider level that affect you individually? Why some people support these decisions (support them; not the same as comply ☺) while others oppose them and engage in having them changed?I adhere to the basics that are known to do as an individual and wait for a vaccine.
And a walkhere....Time now to go out for a run...
I'm sorry but I don't know what factors various research teams are modeling and just for the avoidance of doubt, the Nature paper that peer reviewed the Ferguson model code did not evaluate the factors that influence the model.This was an eye-opener, because that is exactly how I'm relating to this.
But, really, the dynamic nature of the system is what defines it.
I appreciate the background about Ferguson's model, @Doughnut NZ .
So I have not read the paper in Nature,, so am asking from a place of complete ignorance.
The compliance may have been a hallmark of the first few months, but now many places are facing a second iteration with less compliance and more active resistance to restraint. So I would not expect the behaviour of the system to be the same as the first time around through. On top of that there are potential second-order interactions, not the least because of feedback resulting in amplification. Is anyone modelling this?
I read somewhere (I can't find the source right now) that one thing that was underestimated in the Ferguson models as to the input data that they used was the compliance of households during a lockdown. They used a figure of only 50% but the actual compliance turned out to be much higher.
I totally agree.try to make a reasoned response in the middle taking into account the best information available. And it seems to me that models, for all their flaws, have got to be the best information available
Perhaps @DoughnutNZ can confirm my understanding (maybe I am just arguing semantics), but isn't it the case that @Peregrina's example showed a flawed assumption for one variable, but not a flaw in the model itself. That is important because it is too easy to dismiss the validity of a mathematical model, when the problem actually lies in the decision of the social scientists on what assumptions to make and examine.Because of errors in the model.
Perhaps @DoughnutNZ can confirm my understanding (maybe I am just arguing semantics), but isn't it the case that @Peregrina's example showed a flawed assumption for one variable, but not a flaw in the model itself. That is important because it is too easy to dismiss the validity of a mathematical model, when the problem actually lies in the decision of the social scientists on what assumptions to make and examine.
Again, if I remember correctly, this is actually one of the fallacies/misleading comments in the earlier video. Provided I remember correctly, the whole course of Covid-19 epidemics is described as something immutable predestined
@JabbaPapa, you react to the last post instead of looking at the whole exchange that lead to it. I find such reactions (from anyone, I hasten to add, and I've probably done it myself) sometimes frustrating because the whole exchange becomes pointless and I regret that I engaged at all - but then it would look like I agreed with a reply when I don't. This is exactly why the quote says: "Pandemics are not like hurricanes. You don’t hunker down, weather the storm". Isn't it obvious that this covers measures to protect oneself? And that these measures don't change the storm? That it's an essential difference between storms and epidemics because in the latter case protective measures do influence the course of the epidemic???
I simply don't see a very low death rate preceding Covid for the whole time period inside the oval shape.
What do you see?
View attachment 83037
View attachment 83039
I'm truly not pointing fingers at anyone, but this thread is beginning to remind me of why discussing politics and religion is not allowed on this forum.
Flatten the storm surge?For this pandemic: "Flatten the curve!"
What's the equivalent for hurricanes?
For the hurricane itself it's: "Flatten the trees!"For this pandemic: "Flatten the curve!"
What's the equivalent for hurricanes?
I couldn't remember where I had read it but in the meantime I have found it again: It was the article on Neil Ferguson in Wikipediaan earlier comment about household compliance being set at 50%.
Yes, your understanding is correct. However this sensitivity to input variables is a known issue and so in my own work, for example, I "tune" the variable settings until my models match my reality as closely as possible.I totally agree.
Perhaps @DoughnutNZ can confirm my understanding (maybe I am just arguing semantics), but isn't it the case that @Peregrina's example showed a flawed assumption for one variable, but not a flaw in the model itself. That is important because it is too easy to dismiss the validity of a mathematical model, when the problem actually lies in the decision of the social scientists on what assumptions to make and examine.
This very recent review paper in Nature explicitly assumes immunity is stable:
COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we? - Nature Reviews Immunology
During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of herd immunity has become a topic of much debate. This Comment examines the factors that determine it, discusses how far we have come and considers what it will take to reach herd immunity safely.www.nature.com
Thank you, the BMJ review of T Cell incidence is indeed interesting. However, and this is very important, the idea that T Cell "memory" is significant is a theory not a proven fact. This paper emphasises strongly that additional research is needed to prove this one way or another.Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
It seemed a truth universally acknowledged that the human population had no pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but is that actually the case? Peter Doshi explores the emerging research on immunological responses Even in local areas that have experienced some of the greatest rises in excess...www.bmj.com
Published yesterday in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). It is accessible to all without subscription.
It is a review article (with references) so the information is not new but a lot of topics are pulled together, quite usefully, in my opinion. The author covers the problem of antibody levels not being as informative as once thought thus leading on to T-cell responses etc.
"“As we have learned more about this challenging infection, it is time to admit that we really need the T cell data too.”"
Yes, so is the answer contained in this news story (which I seem to have missed...)?
Coronavirus: Test for Covid-19 T cells immunity developed
The test has identified past infection even when an antibodies test is negative, scientists say.www.bbc.co.uk
Reported on 16 August. Sounds good ("results from a single tube of blood in 24 hrs, carried out in almost any lab") but my further research seems to suggest that the test is still very much under development as opposed to being close to "roll-out". My understanding of T-cell assessment (by normal methods) is that it is laborious and expensive so unsuitable for mass screening. The rapid test is viewed as being useful for assessing response to immunisation but clearly might be helpful at a personal level though there will, inevitably, be some degree of inaccuracy.
However, and this is very important, the idea that T Cell "memory" is significant is a theory not a proven fact. This paper emphasises strongly that additional research is needed to prove this one way or another.
In addition, and this is one of the weaknesses of reviews, the information is out of date.
When a population has people with pre-existing immunity, as the T cell studies may be indicating is the case, the herd immunity threshold based on an R0 of 2.5 can be reduced from 60% of a population getting infected right down to 10%,
Hmm, no proof possible in natural science? I guess that you are referring to the conundrum of logic that requires researchers to prove the null hypothesis in order to show a high probability of a causal correlation. If so I apologise for my sloppy wording.Thank you @mjal.
@Doughnut NZ, fair enough. But I'd posit that 'proof' in natural science is actually impossible, so validating precise and accurate hypotheses is the best we can hope for.
In this case, we throw the word 'immunity' around, but this review is a reminder that cell-mediated and humoral immunity are both distinct and interelated in mind-bendingly complicated ways that are unique to each pathogen.
SARS-Cov-2 is a new pathogen, so right now every viral immunologist on the planet is scrambling - and a bit on the back foot - to tease out the important components of our immunity to it, all within the context of an unfolding pandemic. So it's to be expected that the reporting of results are not perfectly in sync with current conditions.
The review paper is very useful in summarizing many of the moving parts of this whole picture, and describing what needs more work. Where this is pertinent to models of herd immunity is neatly summarized in Box 2 of the paper:
The strength or weakness of a model is predicated on the assumptions it assumes at the outset, and whether these are accurate in the real world. In this case, assuming a lack of pre-existing immunity may not be such an accurate assumption.
Meanwhile policies are being put in place.
Decisions have to be made, even with partial understanding.
We do the best we can...
Yes, but I would substitute 'considered' for 'ignored.' And I mean considered scientifically, not considered by the commentariat and peanut gallery of instant experts. Real expertse needs to chew and digest all the evidence and ideas at hand, not ignore that which is not yet fully understood.Until the research is done the concept of "evidence based medicine" requires that this idea and all other "good" ideas that are not supported by scientific evidence are ignored except for remote case scenarios.
No - although of course there is debate. I follow Popper in this regard. Biology is not mathematics, but even Einstein was said to have opined that the best you get from nature is a 'maybe.' Even nailing down causality is incredibly difficult, so hypotheses can be falsified decisively but not 'proven.'Hmm, no proof possible in natural science?
The ideas in this paper point the way to that clarity that needs to be acheived in order to make decisions about what evidence counts as evidence in policy terms.
Si! Exactamente.It looks like we are saying the same thing with different words.
Thank you, the BMJ review of T Cell incidence is indeed interesting. However, and this is very important, the idea that T Cell "memory" is significant is a theory not a proven fact. This paper emphasises strongly that additional research is needed to prove this one way or another.
In addition, and this is one of the weaknesses of reviews, the information is out of date. For example, they used the absence of a increase in infections in London to support their theory but the most recent data shows that there is a massive increase in infections in London, to such an extent that the Lord Mayor of London has just yesterday advocated for another lockdown in London because the London hospitals are getting close to crisis point with the number of Covid-19 patients needing treatment.
I also note another article from yesterday where the Mayor of Madrid has asked for areas of Madrid to be locked down because current infections are over 1,200 per 100,000 per day in some suburbs.
I also note that they seem to have only looked at Europe and parts of Asia where there have been social distancing interventions but they have not looked at countries like Brazil where there has been almost no interventions. This may well have been because there hasn't been any research within Brazil that they can review.
I am not an statistician with medial background... but the results I found for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in a short search are mixed. I think that a country - study needs to be done very carefully because the difference between e. g. USA and e. g. Greece may be not only the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) - treatment but other differences as well... e. g. the interventions including masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quarantine, and border restrictions.... Furthermore, there is evidence that safe and cheap drugs available on the market also reduce symptoms, e.g. https://hcqtrial.com/#top
...
Christian, my devices will not allow me to download and view the document. Please is there any chance that you could post a screenshot of the part you're talking about?However I read this some time ago:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Excellent approach. Stick to your own government's advice and guidelines, and when in France or in Spain or any other "camino" country, also stick to the advice, guidelines and rules of the national, regional or local administrations in that country.I stick to our government's advice and guidelines. This is because my community does and I don't want to upset people.
Yes, "however" indeed. We could discuss the 3 propositions that you raised, namely that "lockdowns don't work", that "hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)" is a wonderful drug both for prevention and treatment of the Covid-19 disease and that "Sweden" is the model to follow. Papers have been written about it, blogs have expanded about it, YouTube videos have been made about it. Is much gained when we on this forum add to this output? I am doubtful.However
@VNwalking, try to google for "Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza" by Thomas V. Inglesby and others.my devices will not allow me to download and view the document
I have sent a pmChristian, my devices will not allow me to download and view the document. Please is there any chance that you could post a screenshot of the part you're talking about?
The website that the poster has given us as a reference is https://hcqtrial.com/#top. The site looks super scientific and well made. Maybe it is. There is no way to find out on the website who the people are who run it and provide the content.I am not an statistician with medial background... but the results I found for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in a short search are mixed.
I respect your measured and serious application to topics posted on the forum. If you consider it worthwhile, please do act if the link is doubtful. We cannot support disinformation, misinformation, false information.The website that the poster has given us as a reference is https://hcqtrial.com/#top. The site looks super scientific and well made. Maybe it is. There is no way to find out on the website who the people are who run it and provide the content.
Dig a bit deeper and you will find this: COVID Analysis network. A network of websites that have cherry-picked and misrepresented research to promote hydroxychloroquine as a proven treatment for COVID-19, despite clinical trials finding that it is not effective. Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards. Score: 39.5/100. Ownership and Financing: The COVIDAnalysis network, which includes C19Study.com, C19HCQ.com, and HCQTrial.com, does not disclose its ownership on the sites and would not disclose it to NewsGuard, nor could NewsGuard independently determine who owns the network.
Now I could ask the poster or the moderators to remove this doubtful link from this thread. However, I won't. I find it important to show and to understand how to distinguish between reliable sources of scientific information and others.
Correct - this is dealt with in the study, which is ongoing and continually updated.I am not an statistician with medial background... but the results I found for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in a short search are mixed. I think that a country - study needs to be done very carefully because the difference between e. g. USA and e. g. Greece may be not only the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) - treatment but other differences as well... e. g. the interventions including masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quarantine, and border restrictions.
Thank you. To be honest, I don't know how best to deal with this viral stuff. One can provide information to bring about a bit of clarity about the origin and raise attention/attentiveness or ask for cautiousness but such efforts are often simply ignored. People just forward and post stuff without questioning it in the least. Maybe we need a different approach than deletion. Slapping a warning label on such posts, perhaps?I respect your measured and serious application to topics posted on the forum. If you consider it worthwhile, please do act if the link is doubtful. We cannot support disinformation, misinformation, false information.
After all that has been posted in this thread in the meantime, surely you meant to write: in the hcqtrial ""study"".Correct - this is dealt with in the study, which is ongoing and continually updated.
YesYou meant to write: in the hcqtrial ""study"", right?
I am not an statistician with medial background... but the results I found for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in a short search are mixed.
What precisely "strengthens one's immunity"?Secondly, I think we should prepare for becoming infected - there is plenty of evidence that strengthening one's immunity is a successful strategy.
AstroTurf is fake grass, so the expression makes a lot of sense— fake grassroots! Very clever.Now I am going to try and find out why and how this term was coined.
One of the things that happens in severe cases a covid-19 is that the immune system gets too strong and over-reactive— you get a severe cytokine storm, and that's what kills people. So I'm not sure strengthening one's immune system, even were that possible, would be the best idea. As you say common sense precautions like getting enough rest and adequate nutrition — not to mention keeping your weight down and keeping blood sugar and blood pressure within normal range — are far more useful.What precisely "strengthens one's immunity"?
It says "pre-print, not peer reviewed. That's a flashing red light alerting you to read what follows with a good dose of healthy skepticism. And when I read it (admittedly not carefully), I come to the conclusion that there may be correlation - but correlation and causality are two very different things. Correlation is never by itself evidence of causality - this is basic statistics.The attached paper which I think is mainstreamregarding Vitamin D.
Thanks for this reminder, @VNwalking! I had seen the recent headlines about Vitamin D and Covid-19 and this recent meta study. As I am of the age where a Vitamin D deficiency is often diagnosed, I had been advised by my GP to take it, based on my regular blood test results. Of course I tend to become non-compliant, especially during the summer. But seeing these headlines and being in Covid-19 risk groups for more than one reason, I started to take it more regularly again.correlation and causality are two very different things
It's way too early to say how Sweden is doing in this "second phase". But a genuine question to the No Lockdown/Sweden fans, the country without compulsory lockdown and often touted by some as a great example due to their approach. What exactly makes you believe that Sweden is such a virtuous example? The excess death rate (ie the number of deaths during a specific period of time exceeding the 5 year average number of deaths during the same time) is often taken as a measure of how badly a country was hit by the pandemic in the spring/how well or how badly it dealt with it.I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Sweden is doing as well as anyone in this 'second phase'.
As someone who uses statistics in my work, I'm well aware of this fact. However I picked one simple reference at random amongst many. To protect myself and my family, I went to the trouble of looking into reducing risk if we should become infected. We can do no more until there is a vaccine.It says "pre-print, not peer reviewed. That's a flashing red light alerting you to read what follows with a good dose of healthy skepticism. And when I read it (admittedly not carefully), I come to the conclusion that there may be correlation - but correlation and causality are two very different things. Correlation is never by itself evidence of causality - this is basic statistics.
As this is a maths thread, here is some red meat about that, for fans of statistics, maths included:
Association, correlation and causation - Nature Methods
Correlation implies association, but not causation. Conversely, causation implies association, but not correlation.www.nature.com
Ditto. It is also usual for Norwegians, also pre-CovID, to take Vit. C and Omega3 during autumn/winter (lack of sun). I do.Thanks for this reminder, @VNwalking! I had seen the recent headlines about Vitamin D and Covid-19 and this recent meta study. As I am of the age where a Vitamin D deficiency is often diagnosed, I had been advised by my GP to take it, based on my regular blood test results. Of course I tend to become non-compliant, especially during the summer. But seeing these headlines and being in Covid-19 risk groups for more than one reason, I started to take it more regularly again.
Same here. My GP's order.Just to clarify for myself: the results of my regular blood tests show my GP that I am vitamin D deficient and my GP tells me that my body is unlikely to be able to produce enough through being in the sun and eating the right food. A question of age, apparently, and latitude. I would hate to say old age.
I am not taking vitamin D because someone peddles it on the internet or because medical laypersons claim or imply on the internet that it is a cure or a means of prevention for Covid-19. Which is how vitamin D got into the maths thread it seems to me.
I am not taking vitamin D because someone peddles it on the internet or because medical laypersons claim or imply on the internet that it is a cure or a means of prevention for Covid-19. Which is how vitamin D got into the maths thread it seems to me.
I've managed to refrain from replying for more than 12 hours and slept over itSome of the recent Ivor Cummins content has been far too political to even try to refer to in here --though it's interesting to see that he is starting to become a lot more mainstream.
IOW, it's politics.This is not maths. It's anti-lockdown lobbying and it's modelling of the sort that does not approximately describe a common growth event. It's modelling that tries to predict the future, and these models are only as good as their input and we here cannot judge the quality and extend of these inputs or even know what these inputs are.
So I suggest a forum moratorium on these kind of posts.
an autodidactic amateur
This is not maths. It's anti-lockdown lobbying
and it is not modelling of the sort that approximately describes a common or characteristic growth event. It's modelling of the sort that tries to predict the future, and these models are only as good as their input
Just because it has diagrams and curves in it, doesn't make it maths.
Doctor Ivor Cummins isn't one -- he is an experienced biohazard risk assessment professional.
There are few "autodidactic amateurs" who are experienced professionals with a doctorate in the field of objective diseases risk assessment.
He seems not to be a "Doctor" of any description.he is not a medical doctor of any description.
According to this website, he has 25 years of "corporate technical leadership and management positions" and 8 weeks (yes, weeks) of intense biochemical study.He specialised in biochemical, in his professional life mostly it seems
The eight weeks of intense study led him to the earth-shattering discovery that...He seems not to be a "Doctor" of any description.
According to this website, he has 25 years of "corporate technical leadership and management positions" and 8 weeks (yes, weeks) of intense biochemical study.
Edited to add/correct: The 8 weeks were the time it took him to figure out his own metabolism through intense study. Maybe his biochemical "studies" went on for years, but it seems to have been self-taught and combined with a life of professional speaking engagements
When I took out most of the carbohydrate in a knife edge switch, within six to eight weeks I lost over 30 pounds in weight and my bloods essentially all resolved
Since we have no scientifically credentialled moderator, who is going to determine what is pseudo-science and what is real science? I say that, Doughnut and Kathar1na, not as a challenge to your reasonable request, but to highlight the difficulty of implementing it.
Thank you.Would it be possible to stop the political lobbying by Youtube psuedo-experts from being posted on this forum please?
The forum has a wealth of member expertise to draw on. Some of us are MDs, some are PhDs, some work in Public Health and epidemiology. Just ask and I bet someone could suss it out for you.Since we have no scientifically credentialled moderator, who is going to determine what is pseudo-science and what is real science?
8 weeks (yes, weeks) of intense biochemical study.
QEDI did not find any mainstream press or scientific article that referred to him in a positive light. I did find that he has made many youtubes and blog posts on weight loss (his twitter name is FatEmperor).
I have a PhD in Bioscience, and have had training in histology, pathology, and physiology/cell biology. But I'm absolutely sure that I would not be able to claim any understanding of virology or epidemiology without a whole lot more than 8 weeks of "intense study." My Dad was a cancer epidemiologist with close to 50 years of experience and many accolades. We were talking about the epidemiology of Ebola, and while he had an opinion — we all have that — even he said his experience was not enough to have any expertise.Doctor Ivor Cummins isn't one -- he is an experienced biohazard risk assessment professional
I have a PhD in Bioscience
It was a perfectly reasonable extension of the (sidebar) debate regarding Cummins' qualifications (which were misrepresented in your post).In what way is this unrelated quote relevant to mathematics or Covid19 ?
It is an ad hominem "argument", providing no information nor insight as to the validity or otherwise of the claims that have been made about this epidemic.
It spills across virology, epidemiology, biology, chemistry, psychology, public health etc etc and thence over into politics.
Fair enough, Tom, assuming the person doing the summarizing both knows what they're talking about and (this is essential) does not have an axe to grind. Which definitely does not apply in this case.We actually rely on armchair summarisers to make sense of the interrelationship of all these often disparate and competing perspectives and simplify the key points for us
The first Cummins video is still there in this thread. His name is mentioned often enough in this thread that it will be no problem for any reader here to find his output on his YouTube channel, on his website, on his Twitter account, on his Facebook page, and also in news media.I do hope the links to the original Ivor Cummings Youtube piece can remain intact on this thread.
[...] We don’t need to censor well-presented arguments because they challenge our own knowledge sets - we can unpick the arguments and argue back if we want, actually quite calmly!
Best wishes, tom
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?