On 01:54 18 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> On 17/01/2022 22:12, Pamela wrote:
>> On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
>>>
>>> Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4
>
> They're both radio, Radio 4 and World Service.

Quite true. My mistake about the format.

> [Question about the Sounds App]
>
> Sorry, I can't help you with the BBC Sounds app, mine wants me to
> sign in, but when I do so, errors. This is probably related to the
> fact that I haven't allowed cookies, which is in turn related to the
> fact that there doesn't appear to be a way of saving my
> disallow-all-that-I-can preferences. Talking about pissups and
> breweries, I notified them a week or more back that the track listing
> for the Viennese New Year Concert has been showing that for last
> year's concert, but when I looked a few days later it was still doing
> so.

I was trying to understand why the BBC site often presents the same
information in two different ways. Even the schedule itself appears in
two different places on the BBC site and with slightly different
appearance. This is what I mean for Radio 4.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j
Black and white favicon on browser

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/schedules/bbc_radio_fourfm
Orange Sounds favicon on browser

I use mainly the Sounds app but find it lacks all the text information
about a programme as found on the web site. Seems perverse.

On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
> I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and it's
> clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
>
Around Easter 2020 one of the hospitals near me had a problem that a lot
of patients who became in-patients for something else appeared to be
infected with Covid during their stay.

The hospital stopped all new admissions for a few days while they did a
100% test of all staff and all patients, and this revealed that around
25% of those who tested positive either had no symptoms or had mild
symptoms which they assumed was something else. Further monitoring
indicated that those testing positive but showing no symptoms did show
symptoms a few days later. In that asymptomatic window, patients were
being infected by other patients or non-medical staff (porters, cleaners
etc) who were not expected to wear full PPE.

This was reported in a BBC Points West news item.

Jim

In article <ss6jiu$vbq$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> Around Easter 2020 one of the hospitals near me had a problem that
> a lot of patients who became in-patients for something else
> appeared to be infected with Covid during their stay.

Yes. The majority of covid infections were picked up in hospitals and
care homes which lockdowns didn't stop.

> The hospital stopped all new admissions for a few days while they
> did a 100% test of all staff and all patients, and this revealed
> that around 25% of those who tested positive either had no
> symptoms or had mild symptoms which they assumed was something
> else.

Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
they had symptoms?

Surely people with symptoms are far more likely to infect others with
coughing and sneezing etc. and there's was 3 times more of them.

So what evidence was offered that the transmission was from the 25%
not coughing and not the 75% that were?

I'm sorry but testing positive for covid (no doubt with far too many
cycles in a PCR test) does not mean you're infected and it certainly
doesn't mean infected enough to pass it on.

In addition I've argued many times that in the current situation
anyone with respiratory infection symptoms should not be mixing.

> Further monitoring indicated that those testing positive
> but showing no symptoms did show symptoms a few days later. In
> that asymptomatic window,

Yes, There is a brief asymptomatic window but it's not a few days and
passing it on in that window is not easy unless you have your tongue
down someone's throat.

> patients were being infected by other patients or non-medical staff
> (porters, cleaners etc) who were not expected to wear full PPE.

True but your story does not convince me that asymptomatics were the
cause of the spreading. I looks to me as though you've seen what you
wanted to see in the story with no evidence.

> This was reported in a BBC Points West news item.

That only tells me it was useful as a propaganda message at the time.
Yes, I'm that cynical about the awful BBC.

Bob.

On 14:41 18 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
> On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and
>> it's clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
>>
> Around Easter 2020 one of the hospitals near me had a problem that a
> lot of patients who became in-patients for something else appeared to
> be infected with Covid during their stay.
>
> The hospital stopped all new admissions for a few days while they did
> a 100% test of all staff and all patients, and this revealed that
> around 25% of those who tested positive either had no symptoms or had
> mild symptoms which they assumed was something else. Further
> monitoring indicated that those testing positive but showing no
> symptoms did show symptoms a few days later. In that asymptomatic
> window, patients were being infected by other patients or non-medical
> staff (porters, cleaners etc) who were not expected to wear full PPE.
>
> This was reported in a BBC Points West news item.
>
> Jim

That is a larger group than was anticipated and recently led
statisticians like Spiegelhalter to believe deaths from complications
caused by a Covid supra-infection (sic) were not fully detected,
especially long ago

This means the headcount usually used for deaths from Covid while in
hospital may be an underestimate.

As one level-headed doctor put it, it's hard to think of a condition
that requires hospital admission which wouldn't be made worse by Covid.

Needless to say, disgruntled Covid-deniers completely misunderstood
this co-incidence of factors and instead chanted a mantra which asked
"Did someone die FROM Covid or WITH Covid?".

On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but testing positive for covid (no doubt with far too many
> cycles in a PCR test) does not mean you're infected and it certainly
> doesn't mean infected enough to pass it on.

[...]

> Yes, There is a brief asymptomatic window but it's not a few days and
> passing it on in that window is not easy unless you have your tongue
> down someone's throat.

False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED AGAIN!

PCR Testing:

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REPEATED!

1) PCR False Positive Rate measured to be around 0.001%

As Bob so helpfully linked the other day to something that completely
undermines his continuous fake news about the PCR test:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v4

"We in germany do re-testing of positives on a regular basis, and the
result is that false-positive diagnostic findings that are actually
filed to the patient are in the range of 0,001 %. Even if testing
activity of healthy subject was high up to September, the number of
people that had a wrong test result is something like a handful a week
and totally acceptable in the face of the alternative. Especially since
one does a second test some days later."

2) PCR False Positive Rate measured to be around 0.02%

https://nhsproviders.org/topics/covid-19/coronavirus-member-support/national-guidance/government-updates/daily-updates

"Tuesday 21 July

Health and Social Care Committee oral evidence: Management of the
Coronavirus outbreak

[...]

[Sir] Paul Nurse [...].

He didn’t think that false positive tests are much of a problem – their
research shows that they have 1 false positive for every 5000."
[= 0.02%]

3) PCR False Positive Rate cannot be greater than around 0.045%

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-false-positives-testing-covid-19-test-b550133.html

"Speaking to the BBC, Professor David Spiegelhalter from the University
of Cambridge said that the figure touted for a false positive rate of
0.8 per cent “seems far too high” when looking at other ONS surveys.

“The ONS survey [from June] did 112,000 tests and only got 50 positive
tests out of it," [=0.045%] he said, noting that even if all of these
were false positives, the rate would be under 0.05 per cent.

He described the false positive issue as “a complete red herring” that
was distracting from the actual issue of a rapidly spreading virus."

Asymptomatic cases:

More Or Less - Asymptomatic Covid-19 cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0py6

Findings of studies looking for truly asymptomatic carriers *throughout*
the course of their 'disease' range from 15% to 28%. The researcher
interviewed on the programme found 23%:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

"Now, evidence suggests that about one in five infected people will
experience no symptoms, and they will transmit the virus to
significantly fewer people than someone with symptoms. But researchers
are divided about whether asymptomatic infections are acting as a
‘silent driver’ of the pandemic."

Additionally, many people are pre-symptomatic:

Coronavirus: Majority testing positive have no symptoms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

"Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for National
Statistics."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10:21 18 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
> In article <XnsAE2359F8E19D937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
>> > On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab
>> >> works and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab
>> >> doesn't work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are
>> >> putting the jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't
>> >> protect the jabbed.
>> >
>> > You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
>> > outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
>> >
>> > That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
>
>> Reductio ad Latham. :)
>
> I like that. :-) It could come to be a standard phrase in this
> newsgroup!
>
> You'll have noticed that Bob's ultimate denialist response is to
> brand people "leftie', or 'woke'. He uses this as a shield against
> actually dealing with what they wrote.
>
> Jim

I imagine Bob's use of "left" and "right" comes mainly from how America
has divided over Covid. It probably comes from reading American Twitter
feeds or antivax sites. His use of "leftie" is largely a wind up.

In article <XnsAE23A0BDC352737B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14:41 18 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
> > On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and
> >> it's clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
> >>
> > Around Easter 2020 one of the hospitals near me had a problem that a
> > lot of patients who became in-patients for something else appeared to
> > be infected with Covid during their stay.
> >
> > The hospital stopped all new admissions for a few days while they did
> > a 100% test of all staff and all patients, and this revealed that
> > around 25% of those who tested positive either had no symptoms or had
> > mild symptoms which they assumed was something else. Further
> > monitoring indicated that those testing positive but showing no
> > symptoms did show symptoms a few days later. In that asymptomatic
> > window, patients were being infected by other patients or non-medical
> > staff (porters, cleaners etc) who were not expected to wear full PPE.
> >
> > This was reported in a BBC Points West news item.
> >
> > Jim

> That is a larger group than was anticipated and recently led
> statisticians like Spiegelhalter to believe deaths from complications
> caused by a Covid supra-infection (sic) were not fully detected,
> especially long ago

> This means the headcount usually used for deaths from Covid while in
> hospital may be an underestimate.

> As one level-headed doctor put it, it's hard to think of a condition
> that requires hospital admission which wouldn't be made worse by Covid.

> Needless to say, disgruntled Covid-deniers completely misunderstood
> this co-incidence of factors and instead chanted a mantra which asked
> "Did someone die FROM Covid or WITH Covid?".

The daughter of one of my cousins was in hospital for another reason,
caught and survived Covid, but died due to the original reason she went
into hospital.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <59acc773f0bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,

[Snip]

> Yes, There is a brief asymptomatic window but it's not a few days and
> passing it on in that window is not easy unless you have your tongue
> down someone's throat.

As someone who caught the disease, the asymptotic time is 3 or 4 days. And,
no, I did not put my tongue down my wife's throat. We just breathed the
same air for a few days.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

A interesting and optimistic video that I've only just picked up.
It's about immunity and is based on the data from South Africa.

It explained some things to me that I was aware of but didn't
understand.

YMMV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLbJ0H8zdc

Bob.

This is what happens when you believe computer models..

Very short video from Steve Baker MP.

https://t.co/axf3B1jyGf

Bob.

On 18/01/2022 17:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> A interesting and optimistic video that I've only just picked up.
> It's about immunity and is based on the data from South Africa.
>
> It explained some things to me that I was aware of but didn't
> understand.

I fear there are some things in the paper that the video maker didn't
understand.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLbJ0H8zdc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

"John L. Campbell is a British YouTuber, retired nurse educator and
author of nursing textbooks who has posted a number of widely-viewed
YouTube videos on his Dr. John Campbell channel commenting on the
COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2020 Campbell's channel was referred to by
UNICEF's regional office for Europe and Central Asia as good example of
expert engagement with social media. By September 2020 his videos had
been viewed more than 50 million times.

In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the
antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] A few weeks
later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination
activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause
widespread heart attacks, which he had not said.[4]

[...]

COVID-19 misinformation
Further information: Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic

In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have
been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan.
However, the drug had never been officially authorised for such use in
the country—its use was merely promoted by the chair of a
non-governmental medical association in Tokyo, and it has no established
benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] Meaghan Kall, the lead
epidemiologist for COVID-19 at the UK Health Security Agency, said that
Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said
that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in
Japan; rather, she said it "appears this was based on anecdata on social
media driving wildly damaging misinformation".[3]

In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal
abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart
problems. Campbell said he was not sure about the claim or its quality,
but did not mention the expression of concern that had been published
for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly
significant". The video was viewed over 2 million times within a few
weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the
misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart
attacks. According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video
drawn attention to the poor quality of the research on which these
claims were based, pointing to typos in the abstract, poor methodology,
and a lack of clear data.[4]"

So not an epidemiologist, and has made some unfortunate errors, but
seems to mean well, so let's see what he has to say ...

01:35 The paper he is discussing is ...

https://www.ahri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/MEDRXIV-2021-268439v1-Sigal_corr.pdf

.... and this is an excerpt from p2 (my caps):

"The ability of one variant to elicit immunity which can
cross-neutralize another variant varies by variant 9-11. Immunity
elicited by Delta infection does not cross-neutralize Beta virus and
Beta elicited immunity does not cross-neutralize Delta well 12,13.
However, participants in this study have likely been previously
infected, and more than half were vaccinated. THEREFORE, IT IS UNCLEAR
IF WHAT WE OBSERVE IS EFFECTIVE CROSS-NEUTRALIZATION OF DELTA VIRUS BY
OMICRON ELICITED ANTIBODIES, OR ACTIVATION OF ANTIBODY IMMUNITY FROM
PREVIOUS INFECTION AND/OR VACCINATION.

These results are consistent with Omicron displacing the Delta variant,
since it can elicit immunity which neutralizes Delta making re-infection
with Delta less likely. In contrast, Omicron escapes neutralizing
immunity elicited by Delta 6 and therefore may re-infect Delta infected
individuals. The implications of such displacement would depend on
whether Omicron is indeed less pathogenic than Delta. If so, then the
incidence of Covid-19 severe disease would be reduced and the infection
may shift to become less disruptive to individuals and society."

So straight away there are doubts expressed even in the paper itself
about the conclusions being drawn, and I express further doubts in my
comments below.

Having said that, it would be entirely expected that antibodies
resulting from either previous infection or vaccination would be both
broadened and strengthened by (re-)infection by a different strain.
However, there is nothing unexpected or new about this, and it's not
worth over 18 minutes of 'alternative' opinion, particularly when all
that opinion is actually doing is paraphrasing the introduction to the
paper that we can read in less than a minute, but we'll stick with it
for a while, as it helps illustrate the doubts that I have ...

02:45 "Omicron has extensive evasion of neutralising antibody immunity,
elicited by vaccination and previous SARS-Cov-2 infection."

He puts a tick against both halves of this claim, but actually the
situation seems to be much more uncertain than that. So far the UK's
experience of Omicron has seemed to be at least somewhat inconsistent
with it, in that those who have had boosters of a different type to
their first two vaccines do seem to have significant protection against
omicron, against all of: getting it, becoming infectious with it, and
getting it severely, as previously linked:

Science In Action - 2021: The year of variants
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l4t

04:02 Does neutralizing immunity elicited by Omicron also enhance[s]
neutralizing immunity against the Delta variant?"

Again, he puts a tick against this, but actually this too is uncertain,
because this research is not being done on antibodies in UNVACCINATED
people for whom it is certain that they have been infected by omicron
*ONLY*, something which would be quite difficult to do in SA, as in the
programme linked above their leading expert states that they believe as
many as 80% of their population have had covid-19, and of the rest many
have been vaccinated. I dare say suitable subjects for such research do
exist in the world, but as most of it has been battling with previous
variants for over a year now, they're probably going to be hard to find.
But the point that matters here is that this research does not appear
to include such people, and therefore can *NOT* claim that any extra
immunity against delta measured is entirely due to being infected by
omicron *ALONE*.

07:06 "Volunteers: Previously vaccinated [&] unvaccinated individuals
who were infected in the Omicron infection wave"

See above, what is definitely *NOT* stated in either the paper's summary
or his paraphrasing of it quoted above, is whether, as seems almost
inevitable, any of these individuals, especially the unvaccinated ones,
had previously suffered from the previous variants, and that is crucial
to the report's claim.

Thus it is unlikely that this report will tell us anything much about
whether omicron ON ITS OWN will prevent infection by delta, and on the
face of it, this seems an illogical claim, because if the two variants
are different enough that omicron can escape anti-delta antibodies, how
can they be similar enough that delta will be unable to escape
anti-omicron antibodies? However, as already stated above, I have no
difficulty accepting that the more the body is challenged by *DIFFERING*
vaccines and variants of covid-19, the better it will be able to defend
itself against them all. This is only to be expected, and is consistent
with the findings reported in the Science In Action episode linked
above, but the crucial point is that it is the *DIFFERING* nature of the
challenges presented by *DIFFERING* vaccines and variants that would be
doing this, not omicron in and of itself. It is unscientific to think
wishfully that there is anything 'magic' about omicron, in the way
suggested by this report and this video.

This is certainly by far the best link that Bob has produced in a while,
but even so yet again we have a self-appointed expert vanity publishing
his own opinions and pontificating about something that seems to be
beyond his level of expertise. I do not doubt his nursing skills and
associated knowledge, but he should stick to those subjects, where his
expertise lies, and not stray into areas where he is more likely to make
mistakes of the sort he has made already previously and now here.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
> tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
> they had symptoms?

Er ... It is a hospital in the early days of the pandemic, before
vaccines became available. That specific hospital was doing the 100%
survey because patients going in for reasons other than Covid infections
were developing Covid symptoms, plus the large area of the hospital
already treating the patients who had come in with serious Covid symptoms.

Why is it so difficult to imagine that 75% of those showing a positive
Covid test actually showed symptoms?

Jim

On 18/01/2022 19:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> This is what happens when you believe computer models..
>
> Very short video from Steve Baker MP.
>
> https://t.co/axf3B1jyGf

Just another of the current crop of Tory serial liars ...

"In June 2015 he became co-chair of Conservatives for Britain, a
campaigning organisation formed of Eurosceptic MPs.[3]

[...]

For a year from 2005 he was director of product development at
CoreFiling Ltd, Oxford. He was the chief architect of global financing
and asset service platforms at Lehman Brothers, 2006–2008.
[The bank filed for bankruptcy in 2008]

[..]

That year, Baker attracted controversy after he was one of three
Conservative MPs who went on a luxury trip to Equatorial Guinea, funded
by the Government of the state, via a trust based in Malta. They
reported at the end of the trip that human rights violations in the
country were "trivial", in contrast to Amnesty International, who had
reported repeated incidents of torture in the country.[29][30]

[...]

In 2017, the Unite Union raised concerns that Baker had lobbied for the
deregulation of white asbestos. In 2010, in a series of parliamentary
questions, Baker asked the Work and Pensions Secretary: "If he will
bring forward proposals to distinguish the white form of asbestos and
the blue and brown forms of that substance," also questioning: "If he
will commission an inquiry into the appropriateness of the health and
safety precautions in force in respect of asbestos cement."[36][37]

[...]

In February 2018, as a minister in the Department for Exiting the
European Union he was forced to apologise after inaccurately claiming
that civil servants had deliberately produced negative economic models
to influence policy. Answering questions in the House of Commons, Baker
confirmed a claim by the Eurosceptic backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg that
Charles Grant, the Director of the Centre for European Reform, had
reported that Treasury officials "had deliberately developed a model to
show that all options other than staying in the customs union were bad,
and that officials intended to use this to influence policy". Audio then
emerged of the event in question, which showed the Grant had not made
the comments attributed to him. By the time the audio was released by
Prospect magazine, the Prime Minister's spokesman had already backed
Baker's claims. The spokesman later said that Baker had made a "genuine
mistake".[38] On 8 July 2018, Baker resigned following the resignation
of the Brexit Secretary, David Davis after working on a Brexit white
paper which Baker said "did not accord with what was put to the cabinet"
a few days earlier.[5]"

.... you couldn't make it up, could you? So why should anyone believe
anything he says about covid-19!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Baker_(politician)

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19:46 18 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>
> [...]
>
> This is certainly by far the best link that Bob has produced in a
> while, but even so yet again we have a self-appointed expert vanity
> publishing his own opinions and pontificating about something that
> seems to be beyond his level of expertise. I do not doubt his
> nursing skills and associated knowledge, but he should stick to those
> subjects, where his expertise lies, and not stray into areas where he
> is more likely to make mistakes of the sort he has made already
> previously and now here.

The article which nurse John Campbell discusses is a PRE-PRINT. It's
not peer reviewed or checked.

With only 13 participants, the study is very underpowered. Despite its
impressively detailed methodology, the paper has too few participants
to be properly certain of its results. It does not calculate confidence
limits nor statistical significance as these are likely to be
embarassing.

Most participants were under 40, with a few under 50 and only one over
60, so this is a relatively young group whose response to infection is
not typical of older people at risk.

Following your point about vaccinated participants, at 13m30s Campbell
says:

"More than half were vaccinated, which could skew the results a
little bit".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLbJ0H8zdc#t=13m30s

If you're comparing the protective effect of previous infections then
you don't want ANY subjects to have had the vaccine, never mind half of
them.

John Campbell is a shrewd YouTube who has drummed up hundreds of
thousands of highly monetisable views from those who watch his lengthy
videos. I recall he devoted dozens of videos promoting the idea the
vaccine injection should be aspirated. In the end, the vaccine worked
perfectly well without aspiration although Campbell still received his
cut from YouTube and all his protracted (money-making) notions about
aspiration get forgotten.

On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
>>> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
>>> upwards - extreme transmission.
>
>> Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
>
> Yes, thankfully that's true.
>
> Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
> moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
> lower health risk than the current vaccines.
>
> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
> interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
> but most things are.
>

The point to my comment, which you seem to have ignored, is that your
claim that "The graphs are vertical upwards" is incorrect.

Andy

On 18/01/2022 20:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
>> Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
>> tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
>> they had symptoms?
>
> Er ... It is a hospital in the early days of the pandemic, before
> vaccines became available. That specific hospital was doing the 100%
> survey because patients going in for reasons other than Covid infections
> were developing Covid symptoms, plus the large area of the hospital
> already treating the patients who had come in with serious Covid symptoms.
>
> Why is it so difficult to imagine that 75% of those showing a positive
> Covid test actually showed symptoms?

What surprises me from that (and for once I'm in agreement with Bob) is
that in the middle of a pandemic people with symptoms of the disease are
going in to work without having been tested already.

Andy

On 18/01/2022 21:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 18/01/2022 20:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
>>> tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
>>> they had symptoms?
>>
>> Er ... It is a hospital in the early days of the pandemic, before
>> vaccines became available. That specific hospital was doing the 100%
>> survey because patients going in for reasons other than Covid infections
>> were developing Covid symptoms, plus the large area of the hospital
>> already treating the patients who had come in with serious Covid symptoms.
>>
>> Why is it so difficult to imagine that 75% of those showing a positive
>> Covid test actually showed symptoms?
>
> What surprises me from that (and for once I'm in agreement with Bob) is
> that in the middle of a pandemic people with symptoms of the disease are
> going in to work without having been tested already.
>
> Andy

The Government advice at that time was that if anyone *had symptoms*
they should self-isolate. It did not require anyone without symptoms to
test themselves before going to work.

You also have to bear in mind that the 100% check was on "staff and
patients", but there was no breakdown (or at least none made public) of
what proportion of those testing positive were staff or patients. In a
hospital there will always be a lot fewer staff than patients, but
without the proportions being sub-divided there is no way of knowing how
many of the ones in the "positive and showing symptoms" category were
not patients. What can be assumed is that the majority of them would be
patients.

Jim

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:49:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>What surprises me from that (and for once I'm in agreement with Bob) is
>that in the middle of a pandemic people with symptoms of the disease are
>going in to work without having been tested already.

Maybe because some of the symptoms of covid are also symptoms of other
things, so they didn't know they'd got it?

Maybe (probably beyond the comprehension of the millionaire elite who
make the rules) not everyone can afford two weeks off work?

Human beings are not robots. Not everyone has the same motivations, or
the same understanding of the world. The aforementioned millionaire
elite don't seem to have much understanding of this either. It doesn't
seem surprising to me at all to find mismatches between government
policy, mathematical predictions, and reality.

Rod.

In article <XnsAE238216F8A9F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was trying to understand why the BBC site often presents the same
> information in two different ways. Even the schedule itself appears in
> two different places on the BBC site and with slightly different
> appearance. This is what I mean for Radio 4.

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j Black and white favicon on
> browser
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/schedules/bbc_radio_fourfm Orange Sounds
> favicon on browser

> I use mainly the Sounds app but find it lacks all the text information
> about a programme as found on the web site. Seems perverse.

I'm not sure. I've suspected that the reason is that the initial
'schedules' pages constructors work nicely for those who come in to the
site via the main 'radio' schedules pages. But when 'Sounds' was added for
'podcasts' they built a different constructor.

I'll see if I can find out if no-one here already knows. But it may have
made sense to avoid risking 'breaking' the old radio arrangement to cover
'sounds' as well. And instead generate a new constructor. Might also be
that two different (groups of) people enter data for linear or podcast.

FWIW I tend to starts off from the radio / TV broadcast shedules and divert
into the poodcasts as and when. These days many of the R4 items are
'extended' podcast versions anyway if downloaded via either way using the
pid. Or at least, that's what gip finds if I ask for the radio version.i.e.
I often get a result that is longer than the broadcast slot.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <ss76pv$62f$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> > Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
> > tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
> > they had symptoms?

> Er ... It is a hospital in the early days of the pandemic, before
> vaccines became available. That specific hospital was doing the
> 100% survey because patients going in for reasons other than Covid
> infections were developing Covid symptoms, plus the large area of
> the hospital already treating the patients who had come in with
> serious Covid symptoms.

> Why is it so difficult to imagine that 75% of those showing a
> positive Covid test actually showed symptoms?

My understanding was that if you had symptoms you were required to go
to a test centre, get tested and not go to work unless you were clear.
So symptomatic people shouldn't have been at work. That was all there
was to that comment and indeed that doesn't apply at all to patients
in the hospital.

Bob.

In article <ss7c24$4ia$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
> > Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
> >>> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
> >>> upwards - extreme transmission.
> >
> >> Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
> >
> > Yes, thankfully that's true.
> >
> > Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
> > moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
> > lower health risk than the current vaccines.
> >
> > I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
> > interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
> > but most things are.
> >

> The point to my comment, which you seem to have ignored, is that
> your claim that "The graphs are vertical upwards" is incorrect.

:-)

Oh I see, you weren't discussing the infection rate, you were
criticizing my description of the graphs.

That's disappointing.

Bob.

On 18/01/2022 20:38, Pamela wrote:
>
> On 19:46 18 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> This is certainly by far the best link that Bob has produced in a
>> while, but even so yet again we have a self-appointed expert vanity
>> publishing his own opinions and pontificating about something that
>> seems to be beyond his level of expertise. I do not doubt his
>> nursing skills and associated knowledge, but he should stick to those
>> subjects, where his expertise lies, and not stray into areas where he
>> is more likely to make mistakes of the sort he has made already
>> previously and now here.
>
> The article which nurse John Campbell discusses is a PRE-PRINT. It's
> not peer reviewed or checked.

TBF, ISTR he did mention that.

> With only 13 participants, the study is very underpowered. Despite its
> impressively detailed methodology, the paper has too few participants
> to be properly certain of its results. It does not calculate confidence
> limits nor statistical significance as these are likely to be
> embarassing.
>
> Most participants were under 40, with a few under 50 and only one over
> 60, so this is a relatively young group whose response to infection is
> not typical of older people at risk.
>
> Following your point about vaccinated participants, at 13m30s Campbell
> says:
>
> "More than half were vaccinated, which could skew the results a
> little bit".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLbJ0H8zdc#t=13m30s
>
> If you're comparing the protective effect of previous infections then
> you don't want ANY subjects to have had the vaccine, never mind half of
> them.
>
> John Campbell is a shrewd YouTube who has drummed up hundreds of
> thousands of highly monetisable views from those who watch his lengthy
> videos. I recall he devoted dozens of videos promoting the idea the
> vaccine injection should be aspirated. In the end, the vaccine worked
> perfectly well without aspiration although Campbell still received his
> cut from YouTube and all his protracted (money-making) notions about
> aspiration get forgotten.

All valid points.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <ss926g$rd5$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> > John Campbell is a shrewd YouTube who has drummed up hundreds of
> > thousands of highly monetisable views from those who watch his lengthy
> > videos. I recall he devoted dozens of videos promoting the idea the
> > vaccine injection should be aspirated. In the end, the vaccine worked
> > perfectly well without aspiration although Campbell still received his
> > cut from YouTube and all his protracted (money-making) notions about
> > aspiration get forgotten.

> All valid points.

I read "YouTube" above as "You Tuber"... as in him being a root vegetable!
:-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14:52 18 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
> In article <XnsAE238216F8A9F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was trying to understand why the BBC site often presents the same
>> information in two different ways. Even the schedule itself appears
>> in two different places on the BBC site and with slightly different
>> appearance. This is what I mean for Radio 4.
>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j Black and white favicon
>> on browser
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/schedules/bbc_radio_fourfm Orange
>> Sounds favicon on browser
>
>> I use mainly the Sounds app but find it lacks all the text
>> information about a programme as found on the web site. Seems
>> perverse.
>
> I'm not sure. I've suspected that the reason is that the initial
> 'schedules' pages constructors work nicely for those who come in to
> the site via the main 'radio' schedules pages. But when 'Sounds' was
> added for 'podcasts' they built a different constructor.

I could understand it if there were several entry points (in the Sounds
app or on the web site) which all routed to the same page. However, the
BBC site has more than one *destination* page.

> I'll see if I can find out if no-one here already knows. But it may
> have made sense to avoid risking 'breaking' the old radio arrangement
> to cover 'sounds' as well. And instead generate a new constructor.
> Might also be that two different (groups of) people enter data for
> linear or podcast.
>
> FWIW I tend to starts off from the radio / TV broadcast shedules and
> divert into the poodcasts as and when. These days many of the R4
> items are 'extended' podcast versions anyway if downloaded via either
> way using the pid. Or at least, that's what gip finds if I ask for
> the radio version.i.e. I often get a result that is longer than the
> broadcast slot.
>
> Jim

On 19/01/2022 11:13, Bob Latham wrote:
> Oh I see, you weren't discussing the infection rate, you were
> criticizing my description of the graphs.
>
> That's disappointing.

When you describe a rapidly dropping infection rate as "almost
vertically upwards" you are factually incorrect.

I hesitate to ascribe reasons for this in a public place.

Andy