Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. Well I've heard a lot of people speculating but no actual evidence; just what does that speculation ultimately boil down to other than "lab in the same general area"?
  2. So where are we when you do the same thing for the UK? Simply going on total reported cases we've had considerably more than SA. I suspect we've done more testing too, so you can't scale that up.
  3. OK just going on the first Google results I've found but they give 3.2 million cases in South Africa out of a population of 59 million. Even allowing for probably a high percentage of undetected and unreported cases "close to 100%" is still a large gap to make up.
  4. You claimed it, based on, erm, nothing much. I do know that and I didn't say anything at all about absolute proof, those are your words, not mine. Heaven help whoever was being tried if you were on the jury and you think there's nothing in between "in the same general area" and "absolute proof."
  5. The information which appears to boil down to nothing more than "there's a lab in Wuhan"? Hope you're never on a jury - "yeah, that person was seen in the same county as the crime, must be guilty."
  6. What are the solid previous infection numbers comparisons between the UK and SA?
  7. You can however look at how the situation is changing in SA. The *4 for age seems a bit arbitrary. There should be an adjustment in the UK's favour for a much higher vaccination rate.
  8. A country like China will deny anything and everything automatically and refuse to admit to anything that could possibly portray it in even the slightest negative light (blind to realising that such an approach is utterly transparent). Strenuous denial on their part is meaningless, they'll make it whatever the situation.
  9. Your argument is that because they wouldn't admit one if it happened then that must be what happened? Denial is proof? The point is that you've got to have a good reason to think there's something to search for in the first place, and "there happened to be a lab in the same general area" is extremely tenuous. The insistence on it also seems to be grounded in an idea that this couldn't have happened naturally, despite the evidence of every disease outbreak throughout history and beyond.
  10. You need to ask? What was it doing there, how did it escape, if they found it then why wasn't it spreading anyway, if they made it where's the evidence that anyone's really got the capability (and where are the signs of anything artificial in it). Really the evidence for "it's from a lab!" is merely "there happens to be one in Wuhan," and that's pretty weak stuff. With disease outbreaks being a fact of existence anyway it's odd that some people are desperate to assume human activity must be involved.
  11. On the first part - it's the type of country that never wants to admit anything bad could come from it. Looks shameful dontchaknow. On the second, why not? How many similar labs are there around the world, meaning the chances of it popping up near one are not all that small?
  12. Why? Certainly that bit FallingAwake posted offers no reason whatsoever to believe it, and frankly the whole lab leak idea still raises masses more questions than it answers.
  13. How different? If that was the case then there would be no perceptable change in cases to serious illness rates when Omicron rolled around. Whilst it's possible to think up situations where there may indeed be an apparent but not real difference in seriousness there appears to be a depressing keeness in some quarters to ramp up any bad news sides of it and dismiss any positives; I'm not seeing what appears to be a neutral position. Another example - people seem to be very quick to leap on "vaccines are much less effective against Omicron" - even though I don't believe SA has a very high vaccination rate, so why so much confidence in that story?
  14. Cheers for that, that does look promising, although with the caveat that there's possibly a weekend dip in the latest numbers on there (there seems to be quite a pronounced one on the previous weekends). Although even without the dip the rate of increase flattened off rapidly.
  15. It's easy on the assumption of no pre-existing factors such as vaccination and exposure to other variants, but both of those will no doubt come in to play, as will changes in behaviour even without any changes to rules and guidelines - take this story for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59665134 - "Omicron: Music venues report 'catastrophic' audience declines." And I suspect even without that the numbers tend to tail off more quickly than would be the case if herd immunity was the only factor. From a quick Google all I've found are the likes of the Daily Mail saying it's peaked in Gauteng, do you have a better source? I'm all for some good news but I'm also just as sceptical of it as I am of the "we're all doomed, need to stick everyone under house arrest!" brigade.
  16. Got mine due on Friday. I've been feeling a little under the weather anyway for the past couple of days (very mild headache and slight chestiness, which has pretty much gone now). Three negative tests so far. There's been a cold going around.
  17. How long a particular rate of change will continue for is a very good point, but one that's probably very hard to make any good models of. It's worth noting too that there have been the odd day throughout the pandemic where the day's figures were an unusually high spike that hasn't then gone on to be repeated. So just today I wouldn't read too much in to a single high value; note that I'm not saying that it will definitely just be an isolated spike either, just too early to tell, not worth drawing conclusions on it as of today.
  18. Funny how it's not as risky yet people worry more and more about risks, "it could happen is enough to make me worry, how likely it is is, at that point, beside the point" to many.
  19. Was that 200k a prediction for the number of people with Covid by now or the number of new cases expected per day? The latter will be a smaller number (because people only become a new case on one day but remain a case for several, something some previous comparisons have confused). I'm curious to know what the current estimate is for the number of cases being detected, random testing has been going on for long enough now that I suspect we should have a reasonable idea but it doesn't get reported on.
  20. Which is all well and good for working out what the situation is and what it is likely to become - with all the various uncertainties included in that assessment. The mistake all too many people make though is believing that provides more than one of the inputs to the decision-making process. The scientific method is great for working out what the facts are. It can even be used to estimate a course of action given various assumptions of what a desirable outcome is. But it is not so good at saying what those assumptions should be, based as they inevitably are on subjective value (there is no scientific answer to the question how much freedom is worth one life). A frequent mistake is to treat society as a machine with a predetermined, unarguable functionality it should be nudged towards. As an aside, it's interesting to note just how many scientific theories are not set in stone, how often there is continual ongoing debate about them, often not completely resolved until many, many years later, if at all. There are too many contributors to the discussion who appear to take the "I'm a scientist and I do things scientifically therefore I am definitely correct" line, which makes me doubt their scientific credentials. Particularly when they're defending a position that's been filtered through a scientifically illiterate government and press. How do you avoid over-caution though?
  21. I usually only put people on ignore when they're incapable of disagreement without getting instantly abusive, or appear to have their heads so firmly wedged up their backsides it's a wonder that they can see to type.
  22. They can work it out for themselves. It's been used throughout history. Have a problem, find a suitable group to dump the blame on, and demonise them. Sometimes with no cause, sometimes with a cause but blown out of all proportion, doesn't really matter, it always boils down to giving the impression of "everything would be fine if it wasn't for that lot." Gets the leaders off the hook and appeals to the simple black and white view of the world where everything is predictable and everything would be fine and dandy if it wasn't for certain people. That said the ones on the receiving end engage in pretty much the same thinking, only with even less justification and a completely batty foundation.
  23. Two extremes there though. The amount of damage done by "got to go with the money" is immense, and often unforgiveable.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.