O/T Coronavirus Thread (3)

[Exiletyke]

Expressly is an interesting choice of word; used to wriggling out of the word implied maybe?

I actually agree with you WCM
This nitpicking is catching don't you think?

[KerrAvon]

Didn't WHO report that 3.4% of people reported to have coronavirus had died but it was impossible to know the exact mortality rate because it was impossible to know how many people had the virus but were not reported (perhaps they didn't even know they had it)

Trump then said:

"Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number," Trump told the Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday night. "Now, this is just my hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people who do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild. They'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor."

Hard to believe but it appears that Donald may not have grasped the exact meaning of the WHO report

Exactly right. We don't know how many people have had the disease and there are issues around the number of people who have tragically died, hence it is not possible to calculate the mortality rate.

We are in the early days of antibody testing to identify people who have been infected. Only a limited number of people have been tested and many of those tested were self selected making it hard to be certain that a reprentative sample was tested.

Early days.

[great_fire]

Yes but the estimate is 0.2% to 0.5%, the WHO were way out.

And the media have been acting like it's 34%.

[animallittle3]

Yes but the estimate is 0.2% to 0.5%, the WHO were way out.

And the media have been acting like it's 34%.

Fire where are you going with this because you come across as a bit dismissive .

The world hasn't ground to a halt for nowt now has it .

I wouldn't be expecting too much on sunday night either with regard to lifting the lockdown .

[WanChaiMiller]

I pointed out that Chinese government officials had 'disciplined' a doctor who spoke up about Covid19 at a time when rapid government action might have stopped the infection in its tracks. That is criticism based upon fact, unless you know otherwise? I have not joined in with the 'it escaped from a lab in Wuhan' type speculation.

P.s. I don't think I have ever expressly claimed to have been a lawyer.

My point is that you're doing exactly what you're accusing John, me and others of doing.

Quote: "It’s like this, Wan: You, John and others may think that Johnson should be tried in the court of public opinion and in the absence of any clear evidence, whereas I dont."

Your claim is that "Chinese government officials had 'disciplined' a doctor who spoke up about Covid19 at a time when rapid government action 'might' have stopped the infection in its tracks."

Surely, like you say, we should "wait for the science and an objective analysis of the British and world response to Covid19".

Yey you already have Chinese Government Officials strung up on that sturdy tree.* You are the 'pitchfork and torch brigade' in this instance.

[wrinkly]

Yes but the estimate is 0.2% to 0.5%, the WHO were way out.

And the media have been acting like it's 34%.

I can only find that the WHO stated that the mortality rate for reported cases was 3.4%. This was a fact, not an estimate. Also they stated that nobody could know the overall death rate, because the number of unreported cases was impossible to guess. Your man Donald appears to be accusing WHO of saying something they didn't say

[KerrAvon]

My point is that you're doing exactly what you're accusing John, me and others of doing.

Quote: "It’s like this, Wan: You, John and others may think that Johnson should be tried in the court of public opinion and in the absence of any clear evidence, whereas I dont."

Your claim is that "Chinese government officials had 'disciplined' a doctor who spoke up about Covid19 at a time when rapid government action 'might' have stopped the infection in its tracks."

Surely, like you say, we should "wait for the science and an objective analysis of the British and world response to Covid19".

Yey you already have Chinese Government Officials strung up on that sturdy tree.* You are the 'pitchfork and torch brigade' in this instance.

I understand the point that you are making, Wan. I just don't agree with it.

Unless you are telling me otherwise, it's a fact – acknowledged by the Chinese government- that Chinese government officials warned a doctor off in Wuhan after he tried to raise concerns about the viral illness that was emerging there. You may not agree - in which case I would be interested in your argument - but it seems to me that a government response of that type certainly cannot have helped to halt the spread of the disease and is likely to have hindered it.

I could be wrong – I am cool with that concept - in which case that would reinforce the point that I am making about criticising from the basis of facts instead of sending out the lynch mob.

[John2]

My point is that you're doing exactly what you're accusing John, me and others of doing.

Quote: "It’s like this, Wan: You, John and others may think that Johnson should be tried in the court of public opinion and in the absence of any clear evidence, whereas I dont."

Your claim is that "Chinese government officials had 'disciplined' a doctor who spoke up about Covid19 at a time when rapid government action 'might' have stopped the infection in its tracks."

Surely, like you say, we should "wait for the science and an objective analysis of the British and world response to Covid19".

Yey you already have Chinese Government Officials strung up on that sturdy tree.* You are the 'pitchfork and torch brigade' in this instance.

Yes, Kerr also implies that its too early for us to judge the UK govt response, but there are things we already can assess.

We know there was a Pandemic simulation in 2016 and the government has admitted that not all the report's recommendations were implemented.

We know Boris went on holiday, skipped COBRA meetings and consistently downplayed the virus at a time when we should have been preparing and stockpiling PPE.

We know that experts have been advising us that a pandemic is inevitable for some time now.

We know that despite this, front line workers are going without adequate PPE.

We know that our testing capacity has been woefully inadequate.

Whilst by fluke to have not needed them, we know the government blundered an opportunity to bulk buy ventilators and other equipment with the EU.

We know for a fact the government dragged its heels and events like Cheltenham races should not have been allowed to happen.

This is something I know for a fact - one of my closest friends is a front line doctor treating Covid patients in Cheltenham - for a period almost every new patient they were getting had gone to the races. Also, they have not had the proper PPE, they have had people volunteering to 3d print face marks, they have been given yellow plastic gowns when they ran out of the proper equipment.


I agree we can judge the Chinese government for its treatment of the whistle blowing doctor.

Can we not also judge the British government for all the things I list above Kerr? Do you dispute any of them?

[KerrAvon]

I am familiar with the newspaper and other media reports that you have been reading, John. Whether they are factual, I do not know, just like you.

The Boris going on holiday and missing COBRA meeting points are a bit silly. Confirmation bias and prejudice at full pelt.

I cannot argue with what your doctor friend in Cheltenham is saying, which is presumably why you made the point. It's very difficult to deal with an 'argument from self', particularly one that is also likely to be based on confirmation bias. But who would have thought it – people from Cheltenham going to the race meeting.

[John2]

I am familiar with the newspaper and other media reports that you have been reading, John. Whether they are factual, I do not know, just like you.

The Boris going on holiday and missing COBRA meeting points are a bit silly. Confirmation bias and prejudice at full pelt.

I cannot argue with what your doctor friend in Cheltenham is saying, which is presumably why you made the point. It's very difficult to deal with an 'argument from self', particularly one that is also likely to be based on confirmation bias. But who would have thought it – people from Cheltenham going to the race meeting.

Wow. This is all quite a stretch. Do you at least acknowledge that Cheltenham going ahead was a bad idea?

Ignore the stuff about my doctor friend... you can't just casually dismiss the rest. Can you!?

Whether they are confirmation bias or not, can you make a case that any of them aren't factual? At least give me the chance to prove or be disproven.