OV9

The ‘Spoons across the road from us re opened yesterday.

The police were out 3 times that I noticed and there were people shouting in the street til the early morning

Glad to see people are being sensible with it

This is an interesting paper. Let's hope they're right (well - they are logically correct regarding the effect of an immune portion of the population on the herd immunity threshold - let's hope we may be already there and no second wave results as they suspect).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... l.pdf+html

Amazing really how little research has been done on Coronaviruses that the mechanisms of immunity are such a mystery to scientists.

I'll leave that unreviewed preprint till someone else has verified it's not just utter bobbins.

Feel free not to waste our time telling us you won't read it!

GG. wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:23 pm Feel free not to waste our time telling us you won't read it!

Explaining that the paper isn't peer reviewed, and has been put on there specifically to get it out before peer review (to then be retweeted by the likes of Toby Young, which is likely where you got it from) doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.

So its all a right wing conspiracy!

Just because something has been released before peer review doesn't mean its worthless or not interesting to read even if you'd put an asterisk against it until others have commented.

The article is from the Oxford team that originally challenged Neil Ferguson's modelling (also not peer reviewed!) so it is worth your time in my opinion.

Feel free not to but I'm not interested in crackpot theories about everything being a political plot.

I won’t read it until Beany has reviewed it.1

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:26 pm I won’t read it until Beany has reviewed it.1

Not sure that will help, he isn't a peer of the realm (that's what peer review is, right?).

DeskJockey wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:36 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:26 pm I won’t read it until Beany has reviewed it.1

Not sure that will help, he isn't a peer of the realm (that's what peer review is, right?).

He’s “a guy on a forum”, that outranks any peer of the realm.

Because of a joke I heard a long time ago, the phrase "peer review" immediately conjures an image of taking a crafty look at another chap's chap while going for a wee.

Consequently, "peer of the realm" is quite hilarious

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:46 pm

DeskJockey wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:36 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:26 pm I won’t read it until Beany has reviewed it.1

Not sure that will help, he isn't a peer of the realm (that's what peer review is, right?).

He’s “a guy on a forum”, that outranks any peer of the realm.

I bow to your superior knowledge in these complex matters. I'm apparently not as observant of my adopted culture as I thought!

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:46 pm

DeskJockey wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:36 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:26 pm I won’t read it until Beany has reviewed it.1

Not sure that will help, he isn't a peer of the realm (that's what peer review is, right?).

He’s “a guy on a forum”, that outranks any peer of the realm.

Fucking right!

BOW DOWN TO MY INTERNET EXPERT STATUS

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:46 pm

DeskJockey wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:36 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:26 pm I won’t read it until Beany has reviewed it.1

Not sure that will help, he isn't a peer of the realm (that's what peer review is, right?).

He’s “a cunt on a forum”, that outranks any peer of the realm.

EFA.

Yeah, that too

I see trouble's brewing with PHE again - this time it's the potential significant over-reporting of CV19 related deaths.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:30 am I see trouble's brewing with PHE again - this time it's the potential significant over-reporting of CV19 related deaths.

Got a link to a story? Wild assumption is that I guess deaths related to other causes have dropped a lot?

drcarlos wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:33 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:30 am I see trouble's brewing with PHE again - this time it's the potential significant over-reporting of CV19 related deaths.

Got a link to a story? Wild assumption is that I guess deaths related to other causes have dropped a lot?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53443724

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has called for an urgent review into the compilation of coronavirus deaths data in England.

It follows confirmation from Public Health England that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died.

The other UK nations are only thought to include those who die within 28 days of having coronavirus.

Yeah, something is odd in the world figures. Our “cases per million population” is 36th in the world, whereas our “deaths per million population” is 4th worst.

I know that could be a LOT of different factors!

It's almost pointless comparing countries because of many factors:

1) How are they measuring the deaths? Covid cause of death? Covid present at death? Excess deaths?
2) Who is reporting the figures. India has a million cases but just 25k deaths? Russia 750k and 12k deaths? So much bollocks out there.
3) How many untested ppl exist in the populus?

Yes, I'm sure that in the context of Europe we're not going well, and by christ Johnson and co have handled it terribly, but I'm a little tired of hearing international comparisons because not one body is actually measuring across all countries using the same measures.