"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 08:14:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 20:38:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 02:09:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2020 23:44:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 18:24:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 07:41:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ...
On 10/06/2020 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Pamela has brought this to us :
The authors also observe the UK lockdown had a dramatic
effect and, from
the chart, within 2 weeks Covid infections had fallen
enormously. They
explain if the lockdown had been done even slightly earlier,
it would have
equally dramatically reduced Covid in the UK.

20/20 hindsight.

It was obvious from the rate of rise of confirmed hospital
admissions that transmission in the UK was considerably faster
than in China with the UK number essentially doubling every
three days. That was very clear from about 11/3 when there
were only 500 confirmed cases and it was arguably still
evident a week prior to that. They didn't *want* to believe
what they were seeing - which is not the same thing at all.

See fig 1 in this paper - which also very neatly shows the
defects of the official model fits being used at the time.
Line vs actual dots.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-val...g-Covid-19.pdf

Some published model fits back then were obvious rubbish. I
commented on them at the time but cannot now trick Google
gropes into showing my posts except in summary with keywords
"Covid exponential fit Martin".

Got it! Msgid:

Discussion in sci.electronic.design of US situation.

The justification for not locking down earlier appears to have
been that they thought too many of us would be irresponsible
and do a Cummings.

They prevaricated and we will all pay the price.

For their next trick they will take us out of lockdown too
early and without any working or effective track and trace
resulting in another spike. Mostly it will affect those over
50 and especially over 75 badly since the risk to those under
45 is small enough that you could make a case that they should
never have been locked down in the first place.

The latest UK infection fatality rates for Covid suggest that
for those under 45 and healthy it is about as serious a
fatality risk as seasonal flu (which usually has a ~0.1%
infection fatality rate).

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Select IFR tab to get the very latest UK results.

Age Median 95% CrI (lower) 95% CrI (upper)

1 Overall 0.88% 0.77% 1%
2 1yr,1-4 0.00041% 1.9e-05% 0.0016%
3 5-14 0.001% 0.00048% 0.0018%
4 15-24 0.0039% 0.0026% 0.0057%
5 25-44 0.024% 0.02% 0.029%
6 45-64 0.36% 0.32% 0.42%
7 65-74 2.3% 2% 2.7%
8 75+ 23% 20% 27%

Note that the IFR for those under 45 the new IFR is more than
an order of magnitude lower than the original estimates from
Wuhan data (two orders lower for the U24's and three orders
lower for the U15's).

To put these Covid IFR numbers into context your annual risk
of dying in an RTA in the UK is about 0.005% so driving the
kids to school is a roughly 5x bigger risk to them than
catching the disease itself!

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Ri...nsportpop.html

It is teachers approaching retirement age who need the
protection!

If you unlocked all the U45's then the worst case additional
fatalities if these data are correct would be around 5k.

That's mad because there is no way of stopping them infecting
those
over 60 etc given that everyone is infectious before showing
symptoms.

Yes you would. They simply don't mingle with the over 60s.

Not even possible with their parents and the over 60s out
shopping or walking the dog etc.

Anything is possible.

Try farting your way to the moon.

Is that the limit of your argument?

What happens is down to personal choice.

Not when someone sneezes over you when out shopping.

It is personal choice to go out and accept the risk of being sneezed
upon.

Not possible to say that all the over 60s have
to have everything delivered and their dogs get to never walk
again until we have a viable vaccine.

It is mostly those with health conditions and over 60 who are
at high risk increasing with age.(at the time they had to
decide that predicted number was more like 75k)

Which is less than a fifth of what Ferguson's model predicted.

The fat lady hasn't stop singing with no knowledge of actual
infection rates. That then becomes a pure guess.

Nope, we can see what happened in Sweden

Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about pure guess.

We have real data on that in Sweden.

Only a moron would say the question, "Has the spread of infection
stopped in Sweden?" is a guess.

That wasn't what you stupidly claimed was a pure guess, ****wit.

Then don't reply to, "Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?"
calling it a guess.

I never did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

Are you ion denial you said, you said my question was a "stupid claim
about pure guess"

Your claim that it was pure guess was about infection rates in Sweden,
not that
whether infection had stopped in Sweden, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

From just 1,000 tests in Stockholm,

That number is a bull**** and a lie.

are you saying that is very useful statistics.

Depends on how random the sample is.

I concede that that rather than a pure guess, I should have said "poor
guess".

Still silly given that there have been a lot more
than just 1000 samples in Stockholm and even
if there were only 1000, and they had been
random, that still wouldn't be a poor guess.

Even if the samples had not been random,
that would be poor data, not a poor guess.

I rubbed your stupid nose in the fact that it is real data, nothing
even
remotely like a pure guess.

It may be more of a guess in the UK, but when we are told infection
rates rely just on Stockholm from 1,000 tests in Stockholm

Only by pig ignorant fools.

Quite, which makes your claims, "Nope, we can see what happened in
Sweden" and "We have real data on that in Sweden" even more stupid.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

What matters is whether Stockholm has got anything even
remotely like herd immunity, not the rest of Sweden, stupid.

If Stockholm hasn't, and it hasn't, the rest of the country is
irrelevant.

Are you now suggesting that the rest of Sweden is irrelevant when it comes
to infections?

I am saying that when considering whether it is likely that
we will have herd immunity any time soon, that if Stockholm
with no lockdown at all hasn't got anything even remotely
like enough for herd immunity, no one else will have, ****wit.

that's hardly conclusive but I accept better than nothing.

And nothing even remotely like a pure guess,
you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

There is whole lot more to Sweden than Stockholm.

Irrelevant to whether even Stockholm has managed
to get anything even remotely like herd immunity.

Of course, I would expect someone like yourself to believe infection
rates are independent of immunity.

I believe nothing of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

This subthread is about infection rates in Sweden,

Its actually about whether herd immunity has happened in Stockholm.

you're the idiot who said, "Irrelevant to whether even Stockholm has
managed to get anything even remotely like herd immunity".

Have you changed your mind?

Nope.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:23:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 16/06/2020 22:23:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 08:14:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 20:38:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 02:09:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2020 23:44:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 18:24:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 07:41:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ...
On 10/06/2020 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Pamela has brought this to us :
The authors also observe the UK lockdown had a dramatic
effect and, from
the chart, within 2 weeks Covid infections had fallen
enormously. They
explain if the lockdown had been done even slightly
earlier, it would have
equally dramatically reduced Covid in the UK.

20/20 hindsight.

It was obvious from the rate of rise of confirmed hospital
admissions that transmission in the UK was considerably
faster than in China with the UK number essentially
doubling every three days. That was very clear from about
11/3 when there were only 500 confirmed cases and it was
arguably still evident a week prior to that. They didn't
*want* to believe what they were seeing - which is not the
same thing at all.

See fig 1 in this paper - which also very neatly shows the
defects of the official model fits being used at the time.
Line vs actual dots.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-val...g-Covid-19.pdf


Some published model fits back then were obvious rubbish.
I commented on them at the time but cannot now trick
Google gropes into showing my posts except in summary with
keywords "Covid exponential fit Martin".

Got it! Msgid:

Discussion in sci.electronic.design of US situation.

The justification for not locking down earlier appears to
have been that they thought too many of us would be
irresponsible and do a Cummings.

They prevaricated and we will all pay the price.

For their next trick they will take us out of lockdown too
early and without any working or effective track and trace
resulting in another spike. Mostly it will affect those
over 50 and especially over 75 badly since the risk to
those under 45 is small enough that you could make a case
that they should never have been locked down in the first
place.

The latest UK infection fatality rates for Covid suggest
that for those under 45 and healthy it is about as serious
a fatality risk as seasonal flu (which usually has a ~0.1%
infection fatality rate).

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Select IFR tab to get the very latest UK results.

* Age******** Median 95% CrI (lower) 95% CrI (upper)

1 Overall***** 0.88%******** 0.77%******** 1%
2 1yr,1-4**** 0.00041%*** 1.9e-05%**** 0.0016%
3 5-14******** 0.001%******** 0.00048%**** 0.0018%
4 15-24**** 0.0039%**** 0.0026%**** 0.0057%
5 25-44**** 0.024%******** 0.02%******** 0.029%
6 45-64**** 0.36%******** 0.32%******** 0.42%
7 65-74**** 2.3%******** 2%******** 2.7%
8 75+******** 23%******** 20%******** 27%

Note that the IFR for those under 45 the new IFR is more
than an order of magnitude lower than the original
estimates from Wuhan data (two orders lower for the U24's
and three orders lower for the U15's).

To put these Covid IFR numbers into context your annual
risk of dying in an RTA in the UK is about 0.005% so
driving the kids to school is a roughly 5x bigger risk to
them than catching the disease itself!

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Ri...nsportpop.html

It is teachers approaching retirement age who need the
protection!

If you unlocked all the U45's then the worst case
additional fatalities if these data are correct would be
around 5k.

That's mad because there is no way of stopping them
infecting those
over 60 etc given that everyone is infectious before
showing symptoms.

Yes you would. They simply don't mingle with the over 60s.

Not even possible with their parents and the over 60s out
shopping or walking the dog etc.

Anything is possible.

Try farting your way to the moon.

Is that the limit of your argument?

What happens is down to personal choice.

Not when someone sneezes over you when out shopping.

It is personal choice to go out and accept the risk of being
sneezed upon.

Not possible to say that all the over 60s have
to have everything delivered and their dogs get to never walk
again until we have a viable vaccine.

It is mostly those with health conditions and over 60 who
are at high risk increasing with age.(at the time they had
to decide that predicted number was more like 75k)

Which is less than a fifth of what Ferguson's model predicted.

The fat lady hasn't stop singing with no knowledge of actual
infection rates. That then becomes a pure guess.

Nope, we can see what happened in Sweden

Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about pure guess.

We have real data on that in Sweden.

Only a moron would say the question, "Has the spread of
infection stopped in Sweden?" is a guess.

That wasn't what you stupidly claimed was a pure guess, ****wit.

Then don't reply to, "Has the spread of infection stopped in
Sweden?" calling it a guess.

I never did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

Are you ion denial you said, you said my question was a "stupid
claim about pure guess"

Your claim that it was pure guess was about infection rates in
Sweden, not that
whether infection had stopped in Sweden, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

From just 1,000 tests in Stockholm,

That number is a bull**** and a lie.

How many is it?

are you saying that is very useful statistics.

Depends on how random the sample is.

It isn't, being from a single city.

I concede that that rather than a pure guess, I should have said "poor
guess".

Still silly given that there have been a lot more
than just 1000 samples in Stockholm and even
if there were only 1000, and they had been
random, that still wouldn't be a poor guess.

Even if the samples had not been random,
that would be poor data, not a poor guess.

And if any decision is made from poor data, it might well be regarded as
a poor guess.

I rubbed your stupid nose in the fact that it is real data, nothing
even
remotely like a pure guess.

It may be more of a guess in the UK, but when we are told
infection rates rely just on Stockholm from 1,000 tests in Stockholm

Only by pig ignorant fools.

Quite, which makes your claims, "Nope, we can see what happened in
Sweden" and "We have real data on that in Sweden" even more stupid.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

What matters is whether Stockholm has got anything even
remotely like herd immunity, not the rest of Sweden, stupid.

If Stockholm hasn't, and it hasn't, the rest of the country is
irrelevant.

Are you now suggesting that the rest of Sweden is irrelevant when it
comes to infections?

I am saying that when considering whether it is likely that
we will have herd immunity any time soon, that if Stockholm
with no lockdown at all hasn't got anything even remotely
like enough for herd immunity, no one else will have, ****wit.

That's a very poor judgement from very poor data.

that's hardly conclusive but I accept better than nothing.

And nothing even remotely like a pure guess,
you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

There is whole lot more to Sweden than Stockholm.

Irrelevant to whether even Stockholm has managed
to get anything even remotely like herd immunity.

Of course, I would expect someone like yourself to believe infection
rates are independent of immunity.

I believe nothing of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

This subthread is about infection rates in Sweden,

Its actually about whether herd immunity has happened in Stockholm.

No, this is about some idiot saying, "Nope, we can see what happened in
Sweden", using very poor data from a single Swedish city.

you're the idiot who said, "Irrelevant to whether even Stockholm has
managed to get anything even remotely like herd immunity".

Have you changed your mind?

Nope.

Denial as usual.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 22:23:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 08:14:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 20:38:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 02:09:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2020 23:44:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 18:24:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 07:41:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ...
On 10/06/2020 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Pamela has brought this to us :
The authors also observe the UK lockdown had a dramatic
effect and, from
the chart, within 2 weeks Covid infections had fallen
enormously. They
explain if the lockdown had been done even slightly
earlier, it would have
equally dramatically reduced Covid in the UK.

20/20 hindsight.

It was obvious from the rate of rise of confirmed hospital
admissions that transmission in the UK was considerably
faster than in China with the UK number essentially doubling
every three days. That was very clear from about 11/3 when
there were only 500 confirmed cases and it was arguably
still evident a week prior to that. They didn't *want* to
believe what they were seeing - which is not the same thing
at all.

See fig 1 in this paper - which also very neatly shows the
defects of the official model fits being used at the time.
Line vs actual dots.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-val...g-Covid-19.pdf

Some published model fits back then were obvious rubbish. I
commented on them at the time but cannot now trick Google
gropes into showing my posts except in summary with keywords
"Covid exponential fit Martin".

Got it! Msgid:

Discussion in sci.electronic.design of US situation.

The justification for not locking down earlier appears to
have been that they thought too many of us would be
irresponsible and do a Cummings.

They prevaricated and we will all pay the price.

For their next trick they will take us out of lockdown too
early and without any working or effective track and trace
resulting in another spike. Mostly it will affect those over
50 and especially over 75 badly since the risk to those
under 45 is small enough that you could make a case that
they should never have been locked down in the first place.

The latest UK infection fatality rates for Covid suggest
that for those under 45 and healthy it is about as serious a
fatality risk as seasonal flu (which usually has a ~0.1%
infection fatality rate).

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Select IFR tab to get the very latest UK results.

Age Median 95% CrI (lower) 95% CrI (upper)

1 Overall 0.88% 0.77% 1%
2 1yr,1-4 0.00041% 1.9e-05% 0.0016%
3 5-14 0.001% 0.00048% 0.0018%
4 15-24 0.0039% 0.0026% 0.0057%
5 25-44 0.024% 0.02% 0.029%
6 45-64 0.36% 0.32% 0.42%
7 65-74 2.3% 2% 2.7%
8 75+ 23% 20% 27%

Note that the IFR for those under 45 the new IFR is more
than an order of magnitude lower than the original estimates
from Wuhan data (two orders lower for the U24's and three
orders lower for the U15's).

To put these Covid IFR numbers into context your annual risk
of dying in an RTA in the UK is about 0.005% so driving the
kids to school is a roughly 5x bigger risk to them than
catching the disease itself!

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Ri...nsportpop.html

It is teachers approaching retirement age who need the
protection!

If you unlocked all the U45's then the worst case additional
fatalities if these data are correct would be around 5k.

That's mad because there is no way of stopping them infecting
those
over 60 etc given that everyone is infectious before showing
symptoms.

Yes you would. They simply don't mingle with the over 60s.

Not even possible with their parents and the over 60s out
shopping or walking the dog etc.

Anything is possible.

Try farting your way to the moon.

Is that the limit of your argument?

What happens is down to personal choice.

Not when someone sneezes over you when out shopping.

It is personal choice to go out and accept the risk of being
sneezed upon.

Not possible to say that all the over 60s have
to have everything delivered and their dogs get to never walk
again until we have a viable vaccine.

It is mostly those with health conditions and over 60 who
are at high risk increasing with age.(at the time they had
to decide that predicted number was more like 75k)

Which is less than a fifth of what Ferguson's model
predicted.

The fat lady hasn't stop singing with no knowledge of actual
infection rates. That then becomes a pure guess.

Nope, we can see what happened in Sweden

Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about pure guess.

We have real data on that in Sweden.

Only a moron would say the question, "Has the spread of infection
stopped in Sweden?" is a guess.

That wasn't what you stupidly claimed was a pure guess, ****wit.

Then don't reply to, "Has the spread of infection stopped in
Sweden?" calling it a guess.

I never did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

Are you ion denial you said, you said my question was a "stupid claim
about pure guess"

Your claim that it was pure guess was about infection rates in Sweden,
not that
whether infection had stopped in Sweden, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

From just 1,000 tests in Stockholm,

That number is a bull**** and a lie.

How many is it?

Increases every day, just like with the rest of the first world.

are you saying that is very useful statistics.

Depends on how random the sample is.

It isn't, being from a single city.

Single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere gets
close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

I concede that that rather than a pure guess, I should have said "poor
guess".

Still silly given that there have been a lot more
than just 1000 samples in Stockholm and even
if there were only 1000, and they had been
random, that still wouldn't be a poor guess.

Even if the samples had not been random,
that would be poor data, not a poor guess.

And if any decision is made from poor data, it might well be regarded as a
poor guess.

Only by illiterate fools.

I rubbed your stupid nose in the fact that it is real data, nothing
even remotely like a pure guess.

It may be more of a guess in the UK, but when we are told infection
rates rely just on Stockholm from 1,000 tests in Stockholm

Only by pig ignorant fools.

Quite, which makes your claims, "Nope, we can see what happened in
Sweden" and "We have real data on that in Sweden" even more stupid.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

What matters is whether Stockholm has got anything even
remotely like herd immunity, not the rest of Sweden, stupid.

If Stockholm hasn't, and it hasn't, the rest of the country is
irrelevant.

Are you now suggesting that the rest of Sweden is irrelevant when it
comes to infections?

I am saying that when considering whether it is likely that
we will have herd immunity any time soon, that if Stockholm
with no lockdown at all hasn't got anything even remotely
like enough for herd immunity, no one else will have, ****wit.

That's a very poor judgement from very poor data.

It isnt very poor data, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

all the rest of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

On 17/06/2020 00:49:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 22:23:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 08:14:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 20:38:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 02:09:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2020 23:44:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 18:24:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 07:41:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote
in message ...
On 10/06/2020 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Pamela has brought this to us :
The authors also observe the UK lockdown had a
dramatic effect and, from
the chart, within 2 weeks Covid infections had fallen
enormously. They
explain if the lockdown had been done even slightly
earlier, it would have
equally dramatically reduced Covid in the UK.

20/20 hindsight.

It was obvious from the rate of rise of confirmed
hospital admissions that transmission in the UK was
considerably faster than in China with the UK number
essentially doubling every three days. That was very
clear from about 11/3 when there were only 500 confirmed
cases and it was arguably still evident a week prior to
that. They didn't *want* to believe what they were
seeing - which is not the same thing at all.

See fig 1 in this paper - which also very neatly shows
the defects of the official model fits being used at the
time. Line vs actual dots.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-val...g-Covid-19.pdf


Some published model fits back then were obvious
rubbish. I commented on them at the time but cannot now
trick Google gropes into showing my posts except in
summary with keywords "Covid exponential fit Martin".

Got it! Msgid:

Discussion in sci.electronic.design of US situation.

The justification for not locking down earlier appears
to have been that they thought too many of us would be
irresponsible and do a Cummings.

They prevaricated and we will all pay the price.

For their next trick they will take us out of lockdown
too early and without any working or effective track and
trace resulting in another spike. Mostly it will affect
those over 50 and especially over 75 badly since the
risk to those under 45 is small enough that you could
make a case that they should never have been locked down
in the first place.

The latest UK infection fatality rates for Covid suggest
that for those under 45 and healthy it is about as
serious a fatality risk as seasonal flu (which usually
has a ~0.1% infection fatality rate).

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Select IFR tab to get the very latest UK results.

* Age******** Median 95% CrI (lower) 95% CrI (upper)

1 Overall***** 0.88%******** 0.77%******** 1%
2 1yr,1-4**** 0.00041%*** 1.9e-05%**** 0.0016%
3 5-14******** 0.001%******** 0.00048%**** 0.0018%
4 15-24**** 0.0039%**** 0.0026%**** 0.0057%
5 25-44**** 0.024%******** 0.02%******** 0.029%
6 45-64**** 0.36%******** 0.32%******** 0.42%
7 65-74**** 2.3%******** 2%******** 2.7%
8 75+******** 23%******** 20%******** 27%

Note that the IFR for those under 45 the new IFR is more
than an order of magnitude lower than the original
estimates from Wuhan data (two orders lower for the
U24's and three orders lower for the U15's).

To put these Covid IFR numbers into context your annual
risk of dying in an RTA in the UK is about 0.005% so
driving the kids to school is a roughly 5x bigger risk
to them than catching the disease itself!

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Ri...nsportpop.html

It is teachers approaching retirement age who need the
protection!

If you unlocked all the U45's then the worst case
additional fatalities if these data are correct would be
around 5k.

That's mad because there is no way of stopping them
infecting those
over 60 etc given that everyone is infectious before
showing symptoms.

Yes you would. They simply don't mingle with the over 60s.

Not even possible with their parents and the over 60s out
shopping or walking the dog etc.

Anything is possible.

Try farting your way to the moon.

Is that the limit of your argument?

What happens is down to personal choice.

Not when someone sneezes over you when out shopping.

It is personal choice to go out and accept the risk of being
sneezed upon.

Not possible to say that all the over 60s have
to have everything delivered and their dogs get to never
walk again until we have a viable vaccine.

It is mostly those with health conditions and over 60
who are at high risk increasing with age.(at the time
they had to decide that predicted number was more like 75k)

Which is less than a fifth of what Ferguson's model
predicted.

The fat lady hasn't stop singing with no knowledge of
actual infection rates. That then becomes a pure guess.

Nope, we can see what happened in Sweden

Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about pure guess.

We have real data on that in Sweden.

Only a moron would say the question, "Has the spread of
infection stopped in Sweden?" is a guess.

That wasn't what you stupidly claimed was a pure guess, ****wit.

Then don't reply to, "Has the spread of infection stopped in
Sweden?" calling it a guess.

I never did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

Are you ion denial you said, you said my question was a "stupid
claim about pure guess"

Your claim that it was pure guess was about infection rates in
Sweden, not that
whether infection had stopped in Sweden, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

From just 1,000 tests in Stockholm,

That number is a bull**** and a lie.

How many is it?

Increases every day, just like with the rest of the first world.

The study was 1,000 tests.

are you saying that is very useful statistics.

Depends on how random the sample is.

It isn't, being from a single city.

Single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere gets
close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

Just 1,000 samples in a single city is hardly random.

I concede that that rather than a pure guess, I should have said
"poor guess".

Still silly given that there have been a lot more
than just 1000 samples in Stockholm and even
if there were only 1000, and they had been
random, that still wouldn't be a poor guess.

Even if the samples had not been random,
that would be poor data, not a poor guess.

And if any decision is made from poor data, it might well be regarded
as a poor guess.

Only by illiterate fools.

Well, you do seem to have issues with skills of comprehension.

I rubbed your stupid nose in the fact that it is real data,
nothing even remotely like a pure guess.

It may be more of a guess in the UK, but when we are told
infection rates rely just on Stockholm from 1,000 tests in
Stockholm

Only by pig ignorant fools.

Quite, which makes your claims, "Nope, we can see what happened in
Sweden" and "We have real data on that in Sweden" even more stupid.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

What matters is whether Stockholm has got anything even
remotely like herd immunity, not the rest of Sweden, stupid.

If Stockholm hasn't, and it hasn't, the rest of the country is
irrelevant.

Are you now suggesting that the rest of Sweden is irrelevant when it
comes to infections?

I am saying that when considering whether it is likely that
we will have herd immunity any time soon, that if Stockholm
with no lockdown at all hasn't got anything even remotely
like enough for herd immunity, no one else will have, ****wit.

That's a very poor judgement from very poor data.

It isnt very poor data, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

1,000 samples from one city is not random. You said "Even if the samples
had not been random, that would be poor data".

You now seem to be singing a different song.

all the rest of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

At last, the recognition you've lost your argument.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/2020 00:49:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 22:23:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 08:14:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 20:38:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 02:09:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2020 23:44:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 18:24:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 07:41:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ...
On 10/06/2020 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Pamela has brought this to us :
The authors also observe the UK lockdown had a dramatic
effect and, from
the chart, within 2 weeks Covid infections had fallen
enormously. They
explain if the lockdown had been done even slightly
earlier, it would have
equally dramatically reduced Covid in the UK.

20/20 hindsight.

It was obvious from the rate of rise of confirmed hospital
admissions that transmission in the UK was considerably
faster than in China with the UK number essentially
doubling every three days. That was very clear from about
11/3 when there were only 500 confirmed cases and it was
arguably still evident a week prior to that. They didn't
*want* to believe what they were seeing - which is not the
same thing at all.

See fig 1 in this paper - which also very neatly shows the
defects of the official model fits being used at the time.
Line vs actual dots.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-val...g-Covid-19.pdf

Some published model fits back then were obvious rubbish.
I commented on them at the time but cannot now trick
Google gropes into showing my posts except in summary with
keywords "Covid exponential fit Martin".

Got it! Msgid:

Discussion in sci.electronic.design of US situation.

The justification for not locking down earlier appears to
have been that they thought too many of us would be
irresponsible and do a Cummings.

They prevaricated and we will all pay the price.

For their next trick they will take us out of lockdown too
early and without any working or effective track and trace
resulting in another spike. Mostly it will affect those
over 50 and especially over 75 badly since the risk to
those under 45 is small enough that you could make a case
that they should never have been locked down in the first
place.

The latest UK infection fatality rates for Covid suggest
that for those under 45 and healthy it is about as serious
a fatality risk as seasonal flu (which usually has a ~0.1%
infection fatality rate).

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Select IFR tab to get the very latest UK results.

Age Median 95% CrI (lower) 95% CrI (upper)

1 Overall 0.88% 0.77% 1%
2 1yr,1-4 0.00041% 1.9e-05% 0.0016%
3 5-14 0.001% 0.00048% 0.0018%
4 15-24 0.0039% 0.0026% 0.0057%
5 25-44 0.024% 0.02% 0.029%
6 45-64 0.36% 0.32% 0.42%
7 65-74 2.3% 2% 2.7%
8 75+ 23% 20% 27%

Note that the IFR for those under 45 the new IFR is more
than an order of magnitude lower than the original
estimates from Wuhan data (two orders lower for the U24's
and three orders lower for the U15's).

To put these Covid IFR numbers into context your annual
risk of dying in an RTA in the UK is about 0.005% so
driving the kids to school is a roughly 5x bigger risk to
them than catching the disease itself!

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Ri...nsportpop.html

It is teachers approaching retirement age who need the
protection!

If you unlocked all the U45's then the worst case
additional fatalities if these data are correct would be
around 5k.

That's mad because there is no way of stopping them
infecting those
over 60 etc given that everyone is infectious before
showing symptoms.

Yes you would. They simply don't mingle with the over 60s.

Not even possible with their parents and the over 60s out
shopping or walking the dog etc.

Anything is possible.

Try farting your way to the moon.

Is that the limit of your argument?

What happens is down to personal choice.

Not when someone sneezes over you when out shopping.

It is personal choice to go out and accept the risk of being
sneezed upon.

Not possible to say that all the over 60s have
to have everything delivered and their dogs get to never walk
again until we have a viable vaccine.

It is mostly those with health conditions and over 60 who
are at high risk increasing with age.(at the time they had
to decide that predicted number was more like 75k)

Which is less than a fifth of what Ferguson's model
predicted.

The fat lady hasn't stop singing with no knowledge of actual
infection rates. That then becomes a pure guess.

Nope, we can see what happened in Sweden

Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about pure guess.

We have real data on that in Sweden.

Only a moron would say the question, "Has the spread of
infection stopped in Sweden?" is a guess.

That wasn't what you stupidly claimed was a pure guess, ****wit.

Then don't reply to, "Has the spread of infection stopped in
Sweden?" calling it a guess.

I never did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

Are you ion denial you said, you said my question was a "stupid
claim about pure guess"

Your claim that it was pure guess was about infection rates in
Sweden, not that
whether infection had stopped in Sweden, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

From just 1,000 tests in Stockholm,

That number is a bull**** and a lie.

How many is it?

Increases every day, just like with the rest of the first world.

The study was 1,000 tests.

Irrelevant to how many tests have been done in Stockholm.
Given the number they know have been infected in Sweden,
we know that must be far more than 1000.

are you saying that is very useful statistics.

Depends on how random the sample is.

It isn't, being from a single city.

Single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere gets
close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

Just 1,000 samples in a single city is hardly random.

Random in a single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere
gets close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

I concede that that rather than a pure guess, I should have said "poor
guess".

Still silly given that there have been a lot more
than just 1000 samples in Stockholm and even
if there were only 1000, and they had been
random, that still wouldn't be a poor guess.

Even if the samples had not been random,
that would be poor data, not a poor guess.

And if any decision is made from poor data, it might well be regarded as
a poor guess.

Only by illiterate fools.

Well, you do seem to have issues with skills of comprehension.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

I rubbed your stupid nose in the fact that it is real data, nothing
even remotely like a pure guess.

It may be more of a guess in the UK, but when we are told
infection rates rely just on Stockholm from 1,000 tests in
Stockholm

Only by pig ignorant fools.

Quite, which makes your claims, "Nope, we can see what happened in
Sweden" and "We have real data on that in Sweden" even more stupid.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

What matters is whether Stockholm has got anything even
remotely like herd immunity, not the rest of Sweden, stupid.

If Stockholm hasn't, and it hasn't, the rest of the country is
irrelevant.

Are you now suggesting that the rest of Sweden is irrelevant when it
comes to infections?

I am saying that when considering whether it is likely that
we will have herd immunity any time soon, that if Stockholm
with no lockdown at all hasn't got anything even remotely
like enough for herd immunity, no one else will have, ****wit.

That's a very poor judgement from very poor data.

It isnt very poor data, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

1,000 samples from one city is not random.

There gave been a hell of a lot more than just 1000 samples
in Stockholm.

And since this mindless **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your ever sillier ****.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:49:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:43:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On 17/06/2020 05:43:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/2020 00:49:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 22:23:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 08:14:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 20:38:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 02:09:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2020 23:44:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 18:24:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 07:41:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote
in message ...
On 10/06/2020 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Pamela has brought this to us :
The authors also observe the UK lockdown had a
dramatic effect and, from
the chart, within 2 weeks Covid infections had
fallen enormously. They
explain if the lockdown had been done even slightly
earlier, it would have
equally dramatically reduced Covid in the UK.

20/20 hindsight.

It was obvious from the rate of rise of confirmed
hospital admissions that transmission in the UK was
considerably faster than in China with the UK number
essentially doubling every three days. That was very
clear from about 11/3 when there were only 500
confirmed cases and it was arguably still evident a
week prior to that. They didn't *want* to believe what
they were seeing - which is not the same thing at all.

See fig 1 in this paper - which also very neatly shows
the defects of the official model fits being used at
the time. Line vs actual dots.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-val...g-Covid-19.pdf


Some published model fits back then were obvious
rubbish. I commented on them at the time but cannot
now trick Google gropes into showing my posts except
in summary with keywords "Covid exponential fit Martin".

Got it! Msgid:

Discussion in sci.electronic.design of US situation.

The justification for not locking down earlier appears
to have been that they thought too many of us would be
irresponsible and do a Cummings.

They prevaricated and we will all pay the price.

For their next trick they will take us out of lockdown
too early and without any working or effective track
and trace resulting in another spike. Mostly it will
affect those over 50 and especially over 75 badly
since the risk to those under 45 is small enough that
you could make a case that they should never have been
locked down in the first place.

The latest UK infection fatality rates for Covid
suggest that for those under 45 and healthy it is
about as serious a fatality risk as seasonal flu
(which usually has a ~0.1% infection fatality rate).

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Select IFR tab to get the very latest UK results.

* Age******** Median 95% CrI (lower) 95% CrI (upper)

1 Overall***** 0.88%******** 0.77%******** 1%
2 1yr,1-4**** 0.00041%*** 1.9e-05%**** 0.0016%
3 5-14******** 0.001%******** 0.00048%**** 0.0018%
4 15-24**** 0.0039%**** 0.0026%**** 0.0057%
5 25-44**** 0.024%******** 0.02%******** 0.029%
6 45-64**** 0.36%******** 0.32%******** 0.42%
7 65-74**** 2.3%******** 2%******** 2.7%
8 75+******** 23%******** 20%******** 27%

Note that the IFR for those under 45 the new IFR is
more than an order of magnitude lower than the
original estimates from Wuhan data (two orders lower
for the U24's and three orders lower for the U15's).

To put these Covid IFR numbers into context your
annual risk of dying in an RTA in the UK is about
0.005% so driving the kids to school is a roughly 5x
bigger risk to them than catching the disease itself!

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Ri...nsportpop.html

It is teachers approaching retirement age who need the
protection!

If you unlocked all the U45's then the worst case
additional fatalities if these data are correct would
be around 5k.

That's mad because there is no way of stopping them
infecting those
over 60 etc given that everyone is infectious before
showing symptoms.

Yes you would. They simply don't mingle with the over 60s.

Not even possible with their parents and the over 60s out
shopping or walking the dog etc.

Anything is possible.

Try farting your way to the moon.

Is that the limit of your argument?

What happens is down to personal choice.

Not when someone sneezes over you when out shopping.

It is personal choice to go out and accept the risk of being
sneezed upon.

Not possible to say that all the over 60s have
to have everything delivered and their dogs get to never
walk again until we have a viable vaccine.

It is mostly those with health conditions and over 60
who are at high risk increasing with age.(at the time
they had to decide that predicted number was more like
75k)

Which is less than a fifth of what Ferguson's model
predicted.

The fat lady hasn't stop singing with no knowledge of
actual infection rates. That then becomes a pure guess.

Nope, we can see what happened in Sweden

Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about pure guess.

We have real data on that in Sweden.

Only a moron would say the question, "Has the spread of
infection stopped in Sweden?" is a guess.

That wasn't what you stupidly claimed was a pure guess, ****wit.

Then don't reply to, "Has the spread of infection stopped in
Sweden?" calling it a guess.

I never did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

Are you ion denial you said, you said my question was a "stupid
claim about pure guess"

Your claim that it was pure guess was about infection rates in
Sweden, not that
whether infection had stopped in Sweden, you pathetic excuse for
a bull**** artist.

From just 1,000 tests in Stockholm,

That number is a bull**** and a lie.

How many is it?

Increases every day, just like with the rest of the first world.

The study was 1,000 tests.

Irrelevant to how many tests have been done in Stockholm.
Given the number they know have been infected in Sweden,
we know that must be far* more than 1000.

The study was 1,000 tests.

are you saying that is very useful statistics.

Depends on how random the sample is.

It isn't, being from a single city.

Single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere gets
close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

Just 1,000 samples in a single city is hardly random.

Random in a single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere
gets close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

It might just as well been a different country. One city is not
representative of a whole country.

The fact you think otherwise suggests you've lost so much grey matter
you can no longer think clearly.

I concede that that rather than a pure guess, I should have said
"poor guess".

Still silly given that there have been a lot more
than just 1000 samples in Stockholm and even
if there were only 1000, and they had been
random, that still wouldn't be a poor guess.

Even if the samples had not been random,
that would be poor data, not a poor guess.

And if any decision is made from poor data, it might well be
regarded as a poor guess.

Only by illiterate fools.

Well, you do seem to have issues with skills of comprehension.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Sign of a lost argument. Is that the best you can do?

I rubbed your stupid nose in the fact that it is real data,
nothing even remotely like a pure guess.

It may be more of a guess in the UK, but when we are told
infection rates rely just on Stockholm from 1,000 tests in
Stockholm

Only by pig ignorant fools.

Quite, which makes your claims, "Nope, we can see what happened
in Sweden" and "We have real data on that in Sweden" even more
stupid.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

What matters is whether Stockholm has got anything even
remotely like herd immunity, not the rest of Sweden, stupid.

If Stockholm hasn't, and it hasn't, the rest of the country is
irrelevant.

Are you now suggesting that the rest of Sweden is irrelevant when
it comes to infections?

I am saying that when considering whether it is likely that
we will have herd immunity any time soon, that if Stockholm
with no lockdown at all hasn't got anything even remotely
like enough for herd immunity, no one else will have, ****wit.

That's a very poor judgement from very poor data.

It isnt very poor data, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

1,000 samples from one city is not random.

There gave been a hell of a lot more than just 1000 samples
in Stockholm.

And since this mindless **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your ever sillier ****.

You seem to have come around in your thinking and finally thrown in your
towel. Well done.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/2020 05:43:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/2020 00:49:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 22:23:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2020 08:14:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 20:38:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/06/2020 02:09:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2020 23:44:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 18:24:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2020 07:41:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote
in message ...
On 10/06/2020 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Pamela has brought this to us :
The authors also observe the UK lockdown had a
dramatic effect and, from
the chart, within 2 weeks Covid infections had fallen
enormously. They
explain if the lockdown had been done even slightly
earlier, it would have
equally dramatically reduced Covid in the UK.

20/20 hindsight.

It was obvious from the rate of rise of confirmed
hospital admissions that transmission in the UK was
considerably faster than in China with the UK number
essentially doubling every three days. That was very
clear from about 11/3 when there were only 500 confirmed
cases and it was arguably still evident a week prior to
that. They didn't *want* to believe what they were
seeing - which is not the same thing at all.

See fig 1 in this paper - which also very neatly shows
the defects of the official model fits being used at the
time. Line vs actual dots.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-val...g-Covid-19.pdf

Some published model fits back then were obvious
rubbish. I commented on them at the time but cannot now
trick Google gropes into showing my posts except in
summary with keywords "Covid exponential fit Martin".

Got it! Msgid:

Discussion in sci.electronic.design of US situation.

The justification for not locking down earlier appears
to have been that they thought too many of us would be
irresponsible and do a Cummings.

They prevaricated and we will all pay the price.

For their next trick they will take us out of lockdown
too early and without any working or effective track and
trace resulting in another spike. Mostly it will affect
those over 50 and especially over 75 badly since the
risk to those under 45 is small enough that you could
make a case that they should never have been locked down
in the first place.

The latest UK infection fatality rates for Covid suggest
that for those under 45 and healthy it is about as
serious a fatality risk as seasonal flu (which usually
has a ~0.1% infection fatality rate).

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Select IFR tab to get the very latest UK results.

Age Median 95% CrI (lower) 95% CrI (upper)

1 Overall 0.88% 0.77% 1%
2 1yr,1-4 0.00041% 1.9e-05% 0.0016%
3 5-14 0.001% 0.00048% 0.0018%
4 15-24 0.0039% 0.0026% 0.0057%
5 25-44 0.024% 0.02% 0.029%
6 45-64 0.36% 0.32% 0.42%
7 65-74 2.3% 2% 2.7%
8 75+ 23% 20% 27%

Note that the IFR for those under 45 the new IFR is more
than an order of magnitude lower than the original
estimates from Wuhan data (two orders lower for the
U24's and three orders lower for the U15's).

To put these Covid IFR numbers into context your annual
risk of dying in an RTA in the UK is about 0.005% so
driving the kids to school is a roughly 5x bigger risk
to them than catching the disease itself!

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Ri...nsportpop.html

It is teachers approaching retirement age who need the
protection!

If you unlocked all the U45's then the worst case
additional fatalities if these data are correct would be
around 5k.

That's mad because there is no way of stopping them
infecting those
over 60 etc given that everyone is infectious before
showing symptoms.

Yes you would. They simply don't mingle with the over 60s.

Not even possible with their parents and the over 60s out
shopping or walking the dog etc.

Anything is possible.

Try farting your way to the moon.

Is that the limit of your argument?

What happens is down to personal choice.

Not when someone sneezes over you when out shopping.

It is personal choice to go out and accept the risk of being
sneezed upon.

Not possible to say that all the over 60s have
to have everything delivered and their dogs get to never
walk again until we have a viable vaccine.

It is mostly those with health conditions and over 60
who are at high risk increasing with age.(at the time
they had to decide that predicted number was more like
75k)

Which is less than a fifth of what Ferguson's model
predicted.

The fat lady hasn't stop singing with no knowledge of
actual infection rates. That then becomes a pure guess.

Nope, we can see what happened in Sweden

Has the spread of infection stopped in Sweden?

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about pure guess.

We have real data on that in Sweden.

Only a moron would say the question, "Has the spread of
infection stopped in Sweden?" is a guess.

That wasn't what you stupidly claimed was a pure guess,
****wit.

Then don't reply to, "Has the spread of infection stopped in
Sweden?" calling it a guess.

I never did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

Are you ion denial you said, you said my question was a "stupid
claim about pure guess"

Your claim that it was pure guess was about infection rates in
Sweden, not that
whether infection had stopped in Sweden, you pathetic excuse for a
bull**** artist.

From just 1,000 tests in Stockholm,

That number is a bull**** and a lie.

How many is it?

Increases every day, just like with the rest of the first world.

The study was 1,000 tests.

Irrelevant to how many tests have been done in Stockholm.
Given the number they know have been infected in Sweden,
we know that must be far more than 1000.

The study was 1,000 tests.

Irrelevant to how many tests have been done in Stockholm.
Given the number they know have been infected in Sweden,
we know that must be far more than 1000.

are you saying that is very useful statistics.

Depends on how random the sample is.

It isn't, being from a single city.

Single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere gets
close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

Just 1,000 samples in a single city is hardly random.

Random in a single city is fine when you are checking if anywhere
gets close to herd immunity and it's the biggest city in the country.

It might just as well been a different country.

No other similar country had no lockdown, ****wit.

One city is not representative of a whole country.

Doesn't need to be. The capital of the country that
had no lockdown is the best one to use to see if it
got anything even remotely like herd immunity.

If it didn't, no one else will either.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: