BBO Discussion Forums: Coronavirus - BBO Discussion Forums

hrothgar, on 2020-July-25, 15:39, said:

I see you've ignored the WHO article I linked because it doesn't back your position. I didn't say coronavirus wasn't infectious in the asymptomatic, I said it wasn't HIGHLY infectious in them.

Quote

I'm fortunate perhaps to live in a relatively sensible city where there is none of this that I've come across even reported. It's much worse in bits of the US and I suspect a few very particular areas of England.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-25, 16:27, said:

You mean the report with the big section titled

SARS-CoV-2 infected persons without symptoms can also infect others

Quote

No. Your specific quote was

Quote

What you are doing now is lying about your original claims.

The fancy word for what you are doing is a motte-and-bailey argument

https://heterodoxaca...rategy-to-know/

But, it really boils down to you're lying about your original claim

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-25, 16:27, said:

So, that would be the city that does not have a football team. Which one is that? I'm packing my bags now.

pilowsky, on 2020-July-25, 16:49, said:

We have a football team, we've just been relegated from the premier league, even the football fans are relatively sensible, it's a family club (I live 300 yards from the ground and have had no trouble whatsoever). Of course there are no fans at games atm

And sorry Hrothgar you're an idiot, you didnit read what you quoted.

Quote

So yes I did say exactly what I claimed I said

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-25, 15:21, said:

Sorry we have the same government, and our government said no such *****. Otherwise, the early strategy of "those with symptoms stay home" would have worked and we wouldn't have needed a lockdown.
Most studies I have seen estimate that may 40-50% of transmissions happen before onset of symptoms, or from asymptomatic patients.
Still believing in July 2020 that you are unlikely to transmit while you don't have symptoms is extremely misguided, and explains some of your earlier selfish ignorant excuses not to wear masks in shops.

Just give it a rest instead of further digging the hole you are in.

pilowsky, on 2020-July-24, 17:48, said:

shyams, on 2020-July-25, 00:26, said:

Just leave him - that pillowsky didn't get my sarcasm just means I targeted my audience properly

However, his claim that the incubation period is 2 weeks is non-sense - it's most typically something like 5 days (but I've seen a range of 2-14 days stated). I agree that the turn in the graph is just a little bit too early to match perfectly - but not by much. If symptom set in 5 days after, and it takes 2-3 days to get a test result, you might expect cases to start going up 7-8 days after opening. But the blue line is a moving average for 7 days, meaning from 3 days prior to 3 days after. So you'd expect this line to start turning 4-5 days after opening. Which matches reasonably well.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-25, 17:02, said:

No shiite for brains, you did not.

You read the article
It's very careful to distinguish between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic.

Your original claim was "unless you have symptoms"
You later claim was "I didn't say coronavirus wasn't infectious in the asymptomatic"
In and of itself, thats a BIG change in you position.

I'd also argue that "highly infectious" and "not that contagious" are very different claims

Thank you guys so much for the entertainment. This is more fun than watching a monkey trying to f$$k a football.

Chas_P, on 2020-July-25, 18:26, said:

Glad to help

I guess masturbating to Birth of a Nation gets old after so many years.
Or maybe you just can't get it up any more...

I live to serve.

One research study/report I would be very interested in is an analysis of the number of media reports, social media posts, discussions and even the number of additional Under-review academic research that has been written and/or reported based on pre-prints over the last 6 - 8 months. Personally, while I understand the importance of the review process within expert circles I feel it has made something of a mockery of academic research processes. I also think quantity vs quality metrics come into consideration too. When a fully reviewed Lancet paper seems to get equivalent media standing to some rather half-baked attempt that would never pass review I get concerned. This has been the first pandemic post the massive growth in social media and MSM, in addition it seems to soemthing of a wild west reduced quality academe. Its hard to sort the wheat from the chaff and in the middle of a global crisis that is concerning

Quoting from Medrxiv "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information"

SInce I last checked the number of preprints it appears our poor health research reviewers (in the middle of a crisis doing other rather important stuff I imagine) are drowning and unable to flatten the publication curve

And while I know the important aspect of peer-reviewed research within academia, surely during a global health crisis there are more important things to do and use research resources for than just expanding bibilographies. I understand how it happens of course. You have existing studies and datasets. A big topical issue comes along. Small tweak to the objectives and hypotheses and away you go. Forgive me, I'm just bitter and twsited. There was one skill I lacked to prevent me becoming a professor or some other senior academic, the ability to churn out papers oh and the interest and motivation to pursue an academic career

This not the first pandemic post social media.
The metabolic syndrome is in pandemic proportions.
I am pretty sure that it is the reason that Americans have such a high morbidity and mortality rate from COVID19.

The first one where we have had global lockdown and unprecedented media

I wish we had a global lockdown.
Then we would not be in the ***** that we are in.

Well it's close to being global and brutal for many.

Shall I rephrase. Global pandemic response of that magnitude for an infectious illness

hrothgar, on 2020-July-25, 17:13, said:

Not highly infectious and not that contagious were identical in the way I meant them and you're dancing on the head of a pin.

I may have been slightly lazy in my terminology, asymptomatic I used in the way the word is actually defined in the dictionary as meaning "without symptoms", so asymptomatic or presymptomatic are both included (as would recovered be but I'm not sure whether you can be infectious post symptoms in this case).

Well it doesn't matter any more because Lord Trump and Queen De Vos just announced that:
As coronavirus cases surge across the country, President Donald Trump is ramping up his push for schools to open for in-person instruction in the fall following weeks of downplaying the risks of children spreading the virus."Every district should be actively making preparations to open," Trump said at Thursday's coronavirus-focused press conference. "This is about something very, very important. This is not about politics."


But Trump and Cabinet officials like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have made several misleading claims in their pitch to reopen schools, with DeVos even claiming that children are "stoppers" of the virus, despite health officials saying there’s no evidence of that. On the question of whether kids spread the virus less than adults, task force Drs. Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci have cautioned that the issue needs more study before drawing conclusions.



By the way, did I mention my theory that Donald Trump has no brains at all above the spinal cord?

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-26, 03:54, said:

Once again, classic motte and bailey

You start with bunch of exaggerated claims, then you slowly try to walk them back as people call you on your bullshit.

Fine, you now say that you are confounding presymptomatic and asymptotic...
Well, in this case you're misrepresenting the WHO study that you referenced early.

Not overly surprising given that you're also selectively ignoring a whole bunch of other work...

Cyberyeti, can you point to ONE recent example where the UK government claimed that people who do not (yet) have symptoms are not very contagious? Just one?