• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

DOOM: "Omicron Covid cases ‘doubling every two to three days’ in UK"

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #71
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    Hospitalisation rates in the UK are currently 6.4 per 100,000. That's 0.0064%, rather less than the above "even if Omicron causes a less severe hospitalisation rate of 1% or 0.5% compared with Delta’s 1.5%, " and the bulk of those are for unvaccinated patients. So why trust the rest of the article?

    Scientists have agendas too, you know.

    As for the evolutionary pressure thesis, it's neither the Darwin/Wallace speciation mechanism nor Lamarck's deterministic one but the rather more recent studies on how evolution works and the speed at which Darwin's "beneficial mutations" operate in a real world population. Facebook is oddly quiet on that subject sadly, so I had to go and read some published (and peer reviewed) papers. It's what happens when you have a life-long interest in the subject. But agsint ignoraance, the Gods themselves strive in vain.
    I think you’re confusing two separate things. There’s a hospitalisation rate and an infection hospitalisation rate. Two different denominators.

    Comment


      #72
      Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

      I think you’re confusing two separate things. There’s a hospitalisation rate and an infection hospitalisation rate. Two different denominators.
      Quite possibly. I'm rather losing interest in the whole non-debate. But in my defence (such as it is!) I was using the figures from the ONS website, which should be accurate. A lot of other numbers come from American research results, which are not directly comparable to the UK situation..
      Blog? What blog...?

      Comment


        #73
        Originally posted by malvolio View Post

        Quite possibly. I'm rather losing interest in the whole non-debate. But in my defence (such as it is!) I was using the figures from the ONS website, which should be accurate. A lot of other numbers come from American research results, which are not directly comparable to the UK situation..
        Fwiw, I don't think the Graun is helping matters with their reporting. There's a difference between the actual science and the reporting of it, which is often quite bad.

        Comment


          #74
          Originally posted by malvolio View Post
          Scientists have agendas too, you know.
          Yes - the pursuit of truth, which is the essense of science that should be validable/verifiable.

          Much better bias than just wanting to get re-elected or stay as a Minister.

          Comment


            #75
            Originally posted by AtW View Post

            Yes - the pursuit of truth, which is the essense of science that should be validable/verifiable.

            Much better bias than just wanting to get re-elected or stay as a Minister.
            Or, equally, the continuation of funding for their research establishments or academic posts, which means getting your name out there as well as getting papers in peer-reviewed journals..

            One problem is that scientists work in isolation and are focussed on their own little speciality. Governments have to weigh up rather more factors when making decisions on behalf of the country. All those U turns by the current bunch probably show that they're not very good at it, but it does not mean the scientists proposed solutions are correct.
            Blog? What blog...?

            Comment


              #76
              Originally posted by malvolio View Post
              Or, equally, the continuation of funding for their research establishments or academic posts, which means getting your name out there as well as getting papers in peer-reviewed journals..
              Yes (and why should not science be funded?), and when they get things wrong it fecks up their careers pretty badly, something we can't say about scumbag politicians who lie all the time without any real consequences.

              Comment


                #77
                Originally posted by malvolio View Post

                Hospitalisation rates in the UK are currently 6.4 per 100,000. That's 0.0064%, rather less than the above "even if Omicron causes a less severe hospitalisation rate of 1% or 0.5% compared with Delta’s 1.5%, " and the bulk of those are for unvaccinated patients. So why trust the rest of the article?

                Scientists have agendas too, you know.

                As for the evolutionary pressure thesis, it's neither the Darwin/Wallace speciation mechanism nor Lamarck's deterministic one but the rather more recent studies on how evolution works and the speed at which Darwin's "beneficial mutations" operate in a real world population. Facebook is oddly quiet on that subject sadly, so I had to go and read some published (and peer reviewed) papers. It's what happens when you have a life-long interest in the subject. But agsint ignoraance, the Gods themselves strive in vain.
                The hospitalisation rate clearly refers to the rate of the infected, not the general population.
                I am not arguing against the possibility that Omicron is milder - it could be, it looks like it might well be, and I hope it is - just against the statement that this is an inevitable evolutionary path for any virus, which is a thesis not supported by any evidence.

                Comment


                  #78
                  Originally posted by mattster View Post

                  The hospitalisation rate clearly refers to the rate of the infected, not the general population.
                  I am not arguing against the possibility that Omicron is milder - it could be, it looks like it might well be, and I hope it is - just against the statement that this is an inevitable evolutionary path for any virus, which is a thesis not supported by any evidence.
                  At least, none that you are prepared to accept or understand. I'm talking general evolution, not mutation within a single strain of a virus, which is a specific case. I could go into viral mutation process and where viruses originated in the first place, wander off into transmissible inheritance in viruses and bacteria in general or all sorts of other blind alleys that are more about biochemistry or the underlying science(s) of killing bugs without killing hosts but I may just resist that temptation.

                  The fact remain that any parasite or pathogen has a better chance of survival if it doesn't kill its host.
                  Blog? What blog...?

                  Comment


                    #79
                    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
                    The fact remain that any parasite or pathogen has a better chance of survival if it doesn't kill its host.
                    “99% of transmission occurs before anybody even gets to hospital,” the severity of disease is “a very minor selection pressure”.

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

                    This

                    Comment


                      #80
                      "Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April, say scientists

                      Omicron could cause between 25,000 and 75,000 deaths in England over the next five months without tougher Covid restrictions, experts have told the government.

                      Scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) also warned that Omicron, first discovered in southern Africa, is likely to be the dominant coronavirus variant by the end of the month.

                      Even in the most optimistic scenario, projected infections could lead to a peak of more than 2,000 daily hospital admissions, with a total of 175,000 hospital admissions and 24,700 deaths between 1 December and 30 April."

                      https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...say-scientists

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X