FabSwingers.com forum: UK infections thought to be 10 times more than official reports

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/uk-s-covid-19-infections-almost-10-times-official-level-says-former-who-director-as-curfews-loom-1.1079025

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not read it...but if your self employed and cant get a test to confirm you've got it or not.

Would you stay home for 10 days every time you come in contact with a covid infection...or go to work.

I think you will find that will be a factor in it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ackandtheunicornCouple
over a year ago

liverpool

Isn't that a good thing? If infections are 10 times higher than reported but hospitalisations and deaths remain very low, then surely the virus is not as deadly as we have been led to believe.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andR510Couple
over a year ago

St Neots/Wisbech

Seems to be a lot of maybes, possibly, could, mights etc and not enough definitive fact.

We know loads about this virus, specifically that its nowhere near as deadly as first thought, yet the media still hedge there bets on scaring people to sell more papers.

If the facts were published with the same minset, then this country would be back on its feet again in no time.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

"Seems to be a lot of maybes, possibly, could, mights etc and not enough definitive fact.

We know loads about this virus, specifically that its nowhere near as deadly as first thought, yet the media still hedge there bets on scaring people to sell more papers.

If the facts were published with the same minset, then this country would be back on its feet again in no time. "

So what are these facts? I give you that the virus is not as deadly as they originally thought, but this makes it more dangerous as it makes it easier to spread than if it was very deadly like SARS or MERS. I don't see how we can get the country back on its feet anytime soon.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It all sounds a fair bit sketchy to attribute this to anything but hearsay.

So my skeptical sense was tingling and then I read the article.

This is a FORMER deputy director of the WHO.

It's NOT from his work, it's from hearsay of another person he can't identify.

It's post on his Twitter of all things, not in any official report or peer reviewed study.

How on earth they could come up with that figure without some heavy statistical work I don't know. If the levels are 10x higher, that would just mean that everywhere was 10x higher, unless they've got some method of testing people who have it without actually testing them.

There has to be some other variable to attribute this to in order to come up with that number, but because it's off of 'some guy' from Twitter, it's worthless as a source.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It all sounds a fair bit sketchy to attribute this to anything but hearsay.

So my skeptical sense was tingling and then I read the article.

This is a FORMER deputy director of the WHO.

It's NOT from his work, it's from hearsay of another person he can't identify.

It's post on his Twitter of all things, not in any official report or peer reviewed study.

There has to be some other variable to attribute this to in order to come up with that number, but because it's off of 'some guy' from Twitter, it's worthless as a source."

I seem to remember that Whitty and Valance predicted that the number of infections could be 10 times higher back in March as they were only testing those in hospital.

I doubt it’s that much of a difference now that testing is so much higher.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It all sounds a fair bit sketchy to attribute this to anything but hearsay.

So my skeptical sense was tingling and then I read the article.

This is a FORMER deputy director of the WHO.

It's NOT from his work, it's from hearsay of another person he can't identify.

It's post on his Twitter of all things, not in any official report or peer reviewed study.

There has to be some other variable to attribute this to in order to come up with that number, but because it's off of 'some guy' from Twitter, it's worthless as a source.

I seem to remember that Whitty and Valance predicted that the number of infections could be 10 times higher back in March as they were only testing those in hospital.

I doubt it’s that much of a difference now that testing is so much higher."

Testing levels have gone down to back in June, and its been rising rapidly...so add to that the self employed who would be lucky to get 13 quid a day to isolate every time they might come into contact it...yeah I would think it's quite possible.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

"Isn't that a good thing? If infections are 10 times higher than reported but hospitalisations and deaths remain very low, then surely the virus is not as deadly as we have been led to believe."
Looking at it that way yes but is it correct?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

The random testing programme to identify people with antibodies, may be onof our better ways to evaluate past infection levels.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread