TheCat

As someone who deals with data or varying qualities on a daily basis.....I thought I'd indulge the antivax view and have a little look at this VAERS database to see what its all about.... Im sorry Upland, but OMFG...quite frankly...from a data integrity perspective....that is the biggest pile of complete horsesh!t I have seen in many a year....Im assuming the only reason its a thing is because of some powerful antivax lobby group in the US....I wouldn't even call it data, I'd call it a collection of unverified anecdotes.... There was even a bloke who 'Reported' into the system that a vaccine had turned him into the Incredible Hulk. Unlikely, as his name wasn't even Bruce....

Nancy Cartwright has been putting yellow skinned, spikey-haired, 4 fingered, 10 year old boys out of work for over 30 years now....

siousxiesue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichFox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Spartacus Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > 21st June for everything, if all goes well > > > > > > Then we can really party like its 1999 > > > > > > My Hair will be down to my arse by then.. > > > > Foxy > > > It's good that you can get a hair cut from 12th > April then, isn't it What are the styles permitted? As some will involve longer periods of close contact than others...perhaps just unisex crew-cuts for all?...I imagine the government will publish that guidance when we also get the update of what is acceptable pub grub...fingers crossed the scotch egg still makes the cut....

Woot woot. I'll keep quiet on my views on the speed of the unlocking, as it is what it is, and it not a particularly useful or interesting debate....for some it will be too fast, and for some too slow.... ....but one thing is for sure....those people moaning last year as we exited the first lockdown (that the rules weren't prescriptive/clear enough on what they could and could not do) should be overjoyed that we now have a 50-page handbook to cover nearly every eventuality one may encounter over the next 6 months or so. No chance of a politician being mocked this time for asking the public to exercise common-sense it seems. Anyway, must dash, as I need to consult the handbook - I am going to visit my elderly relative after march 8, and am not sure which is the correct hand that I am permitting to offer her to hold....

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm not supporting Uplannd's broader position > on > > this thread KK....but to this specific point, > > isn't this actually directly relevant to the > point > > about mis-recorded deaths? > > > > I.e. If someone who has had a positive Covid > test > > within 4 weeks prior of death, then actually > dies > > of undiagnosed cancer...then it will be > recorded > > as a Covid death..... > > > > Am I missing something? > > No, because this in not how it works. The > conditions covid induces or exacerbates to cause > death are pretty well understood by now. There has > to be a strong opinion that covid played some role > in the death of a person for it to be recorded as > a covid death. A better question to ask might be > 'where are the grey areas?'. > > So a grey area might be someone who has an > underlying condition that can be deadly, even with > treatment. If their death is not expected, and > they have covid, then that may be an explanation > offered for the sudden turn for the worse in their > underlying condition. Why? Because covid is > triggering the immune system, and if the immune > system is already having to work hard on something > else, then you can see where logically, covid may > be argued to have played a role. So linking back > to my previous post, it becomes about excess > deaths again. Higher numbers of people in any > group, suddenly dying isn't coincidence. There > will always be a common causal factor. Will the > conclusion around covid in every case be right? No > it won't, but it will be right enough of the time > to indicate where we are realistically in relation > to the virus. Umm...Yep...I know....there's clearly some cross wires here (perhaps conflation with what others have said earlier on this thread?)....I understand excess deaths, I understand why that is the best metric to use. I didn't think that was being questioned here (admittedly I just asked my own question on this speficic data set, and wasn't really involved in the previous discussion) As I understood it, the discussion was specifically about the death 'tally' regularly quoted on the BBC and in the Guardian etc on a daily basis....and that data specifically, and it's potential problems given the 'any death within 28 days of a positive test' thing. I don't believe there's any meaningful problem with the data overall. As has been said here the 'with not by' thing is unlikely to be massively significant. But it is a potential discrepancy in the context of this specific data set....as all 3 recent posts seem to agree on (whether that's called 'grey area' or 'daily discrepency' that's ironed out once cross correlated with excess death data at a later date). So I'm not sure why I'm being lectured on excess deaths?

I'm not supporting Uplannd's broader position on this thread KK....but to this specific point, isn't this actually directly relevant to the point about mis-recorded deaths? I.e. If someone who has had a positive Covid test within 4 weeks prior of death, then actually dies of undiagnosed cancer...then it will be recorded as a Covid death..... Am I missing something?

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Even shadier is saving one ?ego? for supposedly > funny stuff and the other for the more unsavoury > political musings is worryingly odd. Just be you > out-best-self why not? Agree broadly with this SB...particularly if one (or is it two?) is a more regular poster in some of the more heated Lounge area threads, where everyone can sometimes get a little frustrated/stressed/emotional at the views of others that we may or may not like. Of course, it must be said though, I can sometimes see the temptation to manufacture fake support for a potentially controversial position. As one (yes, just one) who has sometimes put forth views counter to the general EDF consensus, it does sometimes happen that the 'opposition' can gang up on opposing views, which occasionally verges on bullying....and while I have never done it myself, I can see that perhaps how having a fake friend to lend some support might be appealing!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder who runs the Larry the Cat account > (@number10cat) - some people are asking questions > about his fame ;) > > https://twitter.com/cneedham53/status/136144599429 > 0888704 Dammit....you got me JohnL......

This is a very bizarre thread..... It's sort of like each participant is just talking to themselves, each about something related, but actually slightly different.....

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We went to order from the website and there was a > message saying you were "closed today", and also > the website says that your delivery hours are the > same as the restaurant opening hours? > > Very disappointed as we were looking forward to > trying your food. > > Are you not open for deliveries on a Saturday > night??? We got a delivery from there tonight. Food was very good. That said, when first ordered online at about 6pm, the order got rejected by their on-line system. I then phoned them and they basically said that they were so busy and wouldn't be able to deliver until around 8:30pm, which is why the online orders were being rejected becuase of the unusually long wait. The young woman who answered the phone was very apologetic, and said they were trying to individual phone everyone back who had an online order rejected, and explain the situation. In anycase, after we said to her that 8:30pm was fine for a delivery time, the food showed up bang on time, and was delicious. I'm going to guess that by the time it got to after 7pm (when you might have ordered sue?) they closed the restaurant to online orders as they weren't going to be getting to people until quite late.

For those who are interested in a few modelling numbers from the team at Bristol, who have proven one of the more accurate during the pandemic... https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-soon-will-vaccines-let-us-re-open-society-

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure that every person who's life is saved by > a slow unlocking, wouldn't agree with your last > statement Cat > > It's a matter of perspective, too slow for > businesses and economy, but too fast to stop > additional infections and deaths > > Not a roadmap I would want to draw up or be held > accountable for. This raises a more philosophical questions then. Do we stay locked down until cases are totally eradicated? Is any risk of death, no matter how small, deemed unacceptable? How do these risks balance off against other health risks associated with lockdown? (I.e. should we ban the motor-car because some people die in traffic accidents?) Of course as you say, not an easy thing to plot out. But I am of the opinion that now there seems to be a massivly over-cautious tone in government that does not seem commensurate with previous statements about risk. The lack of transparency and ever-shifting goal posts is a significant frustration. I appreciate a need to remain flexible, but it seems to me that there is everr-changing criteria applied in the interpretation of risk the the data shows. Previously it was about protecting NHS capacity and minimising risk of death...now it's about minimising rates of infection (irrespective of mortality and hospitalization rates?) as the main focus? Of course they go hand in hand, but the subtle difference in focus I think is important All remains to be seen, but I can't understand how there is a risk that we may be in a situation where we have similar restrictions this summer to last summer...when nearly all adults should be vaccinated by the summer.... As the article says, what's the point of such a large scale vaccination programme, if we aren't going to meaningfully leverage it's benefits?

Sober article about how the previous desire for swift reopening, has now seemingly been replaced by ever shifting goalposts, and drip-feeding of restriction removal.... I appreciate that it's a bit of goldilocks scenario in trying to get the speed of things right, but the rhetoric now does seem to be erring significantly on the side of too slow.... https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/vaccines-are-working-so-why-isnt-society-reopening

Sturgeon stoking the fires of division her EU flag stunt as well this week...

Tarquin, Tabitha...and Trolley?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just doing some research, are you the chef at the > Grand Trunk Road or are there two Dayashankar > Sharma's. You are from Rajasthan? If so where > and how is the cuisine in this part of India. Are > you offering discounts to those from this site? > In particular following India's victory this > morning! I'm probably on your black list but that > is a different subject. Nice Mal....trying to get something positive out of England's shellacking....I like the endeavour......

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m missing Trolley and Steven Taylor already. > > I felt with a little (well ok, a lot) more work > and he?d have had his genre nailed. > > I look forward to the next incarnation. Im having a Tuesday night beer.....so I could easily be a bit more of a c#nt than normal if you like seabag? Purely for the good of the forum of course.......

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When will we ever sit at the Bar in the EDT with a > Beer or glass of Wine without any restrictions. ? > > Foxy Pretty soon, I reckon...I saw two chaps rolling some kegs in there yesterday (Pic attached)....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was using NZ/Aus as an example, not an model case > study (although many seem to think that we should > have gone this way). Agree with your points Cat, > shame others aren't as well informed. But as said > when NZ/Aus do open their borders they will have > to live with an element of endemic Covid-19. > Worry that we will relax too soon, as we did last > summer. Yep. Sorry! Conscious you were just mentioning aus/NZ as an example. My verbose response was more a reaction to general/broader frustration to hearing many people often do exactly as you say and hold australia up as a model that we should follow here, while not appreciating the significant differences!

I've said it before on this forum...the comparisons to Australia and New Zealand, are woefully misleading unfort. As an Australian, I have obvioulsy been following this pretty closely, as one might do if they are cooped-up inside for the best part of a year, while close friends and family in Australia go about their normal business. I particularly loved all the social media posts before Xmas, showing big groups of friends out at restaurants, beaches and bars all lamenting what a 'tough year' it had been......anyway, I digress.... In anycase, Australia is a country that already operates largely as an isolated nation...of course there is import and export, but (by necessity) the lionshare of its day to day needs are sourced domestically. Similarly, the mindset of the place is much more domestically focused (some might say inwards looking), so culturally just closing borders wasn't really as big of a deal as it would be (and will be) here. Additionally, you can throw in... - Population density - Percentage of population who travel interstate - International travellers (both inbound and outbound) as a percent of population - totally different cultural norms around quarantine (of both goods and people) - complete differing climates - a significant greater outdoor/open-air lifestyle And you have the proverbial chalk and cheese comparison.... Thats not to say that the over-zealous approach to 1 or 2 cases popping up in Australia (plus the strict quarantine) hasn't had a decent result, but I dont think we could ever get down to the base level of effectively 0 cases most of the time, so I wouldn't look to Australia (or NZ) as good guides for how to tackle this problem personally. That being said, I think the UK border closures and quarantine is a good thing. I think the key focus with regards to 'unlocking' should be on when vaccine programme vaccinates (both doses) enough people who are at risk of death (to make it negligible),and enough people at risk of hospitalization (to make it far below Hospital capacity). I read somewhere that after the first 9 priority groups are vaccinated, that would cover 99% of people at risk of death, and 80% at risk of hospitalization. Assumeing those stats are true, at that point, I would think its seems very hard to justify the ongoing economic/mental/societla damages that lockdown is creating....

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ianr Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I see that "Trolley Snatcha" is no more. > Does > > > anyone know what triggered the eventual > > > deactivation? > > > > > > Jay will be very relieved..... > > Mr Jay if you don?t mind We're pretty tight. I read his article each Sunday. And I always comment. One time he even replied. [Okay, I think I've milked this joke enough. I'll stop now;)]

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see that "Trolley Snatcha" is no more. Does > anyone know what triggered the eventual > deactivation? Jay will be very relieved.....

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Cat wrote: > > PS..with regards to the Post Script discussion > on 'woke'. > > What/where is this? alex_b Wrote: --------------------------------------------------. > > PS Woke is such a moronic epithet. TheCat Wrote: > > PS. It's notable that it was the 'woke' who first > started calling themselves 'woke'..go back trawl > through guardian articles from 3-4 years ago, and > you'll find many call to arms on how to be 'woke'. > But since everyone else started also calling them > the woke (and perhaps not in the most > complimentary manner), it's suddenly now dismissed > as a right wing generated slur

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Wokery" has become a hobby and a lifestyle for > many. It won't last. Something else will come > along and the fast-clicking "first-to-like" types > will leave it behind. There's a kind of > corporateness to it, a sort of mass-scale aspect - > there are unofficial but strictly adhered-to > checklists of good and bad and every effort has to > be made to show you are with A and against B and > any absence of such demonstration is an indication > you are siding with the baddies. Social media has > permitted the fast and furious spread of the fight > for social justice but it seems flimsy and shallow > to me, which is a pity as real change in certain > areas is needed. Just be nice and don't apologise > to yourself or anyone for being short, black, gay, > academically gifted, double-jointed, blind, - it > is just the way you are and you, despite your > feelings of "empowerment" and "agency" and other > such buzzwords, cannot change your genes and nor > should you. Attitudes can alter, of course, but > most people are fundamentally OK so don't beat > yourself up if you are not able to turn yourself > into a shining example of the W-word, let alone > maintain it. great comment.