So basically lockdown should never of happened

[Indoctro]

Ok so this article is a little long but theirs doctor speak sense

Has our economy be destroyed and job lost for nothing and kids missed out on so much school because of some crazy mathematical modelling which was totally incorrect

Thoughts please

drmalcolmkendrick.org/author/drmalcolmkendrick/

@Derbygerbil

Dr Kendrick’s falling death rates take no account of the fact that it is younger people who have largely been infected in recent weeks.... Of course the rate is going to be lower, but recognising that glaring omission would destroy his argument. Either he is too stupid to realise this, or he’s a charlatan. I can’t work out which.

Yes and that's just one of many omissions and errors. In fact he doesn't seem to mention age based IFR at all, when age is the single biggest risk factor. An overall IFR is fairly meaningless for Covid19 when it varies so dramatically by age. Any overall figure will also vary depending on the average age of a population and who in that population is being infected. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2?

He also quotes Fauci (from March) totally out of context.

He mentions Iceland as being a reliable indicator of IFR when Iceland had 10 deaths in total - you cannot accurately extrapolate a population wide IFR from a sample size of 10 people!

He fails to mention all the large serological studies (Spain, UK etc) which gave an IFR of for example 0.9% from the UK study excluding care and nursing home deaths.

He goes on and on about CFR but we already know that CFR is fairly meaningless for this disease.

He complains about the confusion between CFR and IFR but then appears to confuse them himself. In any case epidemiologists and virologists don't confuse the two, the media might be, but experts aren't.

I see he has also edited it to change the title, previously it said:

Stop panicking – it’s over

Whilst everyone is panicking about the ever-increasing number of cases, we should be celebrating them. "

He mentions Iceland because they have tested around 2/3 of the population. The sample size isn’t 10, it is well over 200,000.

Derbygerbil We don’t know how many young people were infected earlier in the year because people could mostly only get tested if they were ill enough to be hospitalised. There may have been many thousands of infections in young people that we simply know nothing about. It may well be that the proportions are similar now but the numbers are much lower.

I have no idea what this guy’s credentials are or not and haven’t read the article. But you’ll get nowhere posting anything other than relentless negativity on here.

@Mintychoc1

He’s right. We shouldn’t have locked down. When Covid 19 is studied in future I am convinced this will be an acknowledged fact. It will be well established that the destruction of the economy and the sabotage of the education system killed many more people than the virus itself.

And that says it all really!

Hindsight. Used as a stick with which to beat anyone and everyone who, nonsensically, relied on information available at the time!

Pshaw!

@SarahMused

We do have a good idea due to antibody tests.

But you’ll get nowhere posting anything other than relentless negativity on here. No! You'll have to point that one out to me.

Negativity? Has that been redefined to mean - Looking at credible stats and using common sense?

Or maybe: Not relying on hindsight to make absolute statements of fact!

Or what about: Not taking the word of any keyboard warrior but preferring to use gold standard stats, global experts and using a modicum of critical thinking?

Because unless you really believe Covid does not exist, has no effect on human beings and is just an error, a hoax, population control on a global level then I don't understand how you can see any of the posters who debunk the OP as being negative!

@SarahMused

Derbygerbil We don’t know how many young people were infected earlier in the year because people could mostly only get tested if they were ill enough to be hospitalised. There may have been many thousands of infections in young people that we simply know nothing about. It may well be that the proportions are similar now but the numbers are much lower.

But we do! There are long running studies asking random households to test, more than one in the UK alone!

These scientists are clever bods you know! Anything Joe Public can come up with is often already being addressed by them. Mainly because that's their every day job and they get quite good at it!

Derbygerbil Antibody tests do give an indication of prevalence but don’t tell the whole story. Incidentally they show that there were many more young people infected than older ones, even in March and April. But the point I am trying to make is that there are many more that will have been infected but will not test sero positive because they will have fought the infection off in other ways or the test is not sensitive enough. We do not know this number. My daughter is most likely one of these. She was a med student in London in Feb and March based in hospital and mixing with other Drs and med students. She then has been working in hospital from April as an FY1 Dr, treated patients who have later tested pos for covid, but has tested ab- herself. If it is as infectious as everybody says, surely she would have had it by now?

I haven’t read the article as a source it’s trash... however it’s written with hindsight that no governments had! They had to act and try and do what was felt to be best!

What a load of bollocks that article is.
45,000 deaths in this country when antibody tests suggest that 5% of people have been infected.
Yet he is saying 0.01% death rate.
Our population is 68million.
So if he's right we would end up with max. 68000 deaths if everyone was infected.
But we already have more than half of that on a 5% infection.
Duh. He's talking arse.

Please don't try to silence posters because of grammar mistakes. As long as we understand the gist of a communication, discussion is possible and discussion is good

Whilst I don't agree with OP, I fully agree with disorganised's comment, above.

Not everybody has the same education levels

Not everybody has the same keyboard skills.

Not everybody notices when predictive text/autocorrect has interfered with their post.

Doesn't mean any of us are stupid.

Derbygerbil 3.3% of over 75s had antibodies and 7.9% of 18-24 yr olds mostly from March and April according to Prof Helen Ward who was the lead author www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173690v2.full.pdf

7.9% of 18-24 yr olds mostly from March and April nooooooooooooo!

Stop demonising Da Yoof @SarahMused!

There was another woman from a youth service harping on about that again today! Another woman, journalist think, responded as I would have: "It ain't demonising to name a cohort with higher than expected infection rates, it is identifying them. That cold save lives!" ! You could hear the sharp intake of breath!

@SarahMused

Thank you. I stand corrected.

@SarahMused

He mentions Iceland because they have tested around 2/3 of the population. The sample size isn’t 10, it is well over 200,000.

Lots of testing, yes, but the sample size for an IFR calculation will always be total estimated number of infections and total deaths. In Iceland they had very few infections proportionate to their population (total estimated infected = 0.9% of the population, so just over 3000 infections and 10 deaths).

However, if you age adjust the IFR to reflect the proportion of cases in the Icelandic population (more young people infected giving an uneven prevalence among ages) you get an IFR of 0.57%.

Even if this is an accurate IFR for Iceland it doesn't mean it applies to the UK or to other European countries as IFR will vary depending on age profile of the population and health of the population.

The IFR is higher in most studies that have an number of deaths greater than 10 and should be age-adjusted. Small number of deaths = greater uncertainty.

This particular doctor goes in for rather 'contrarian' or shall we say nutty theories. I had previously been aware of him in the context of his arguing that cholesterol and dietary fat don't contribute to heart disease.