These two papers I read today sum up precisely the problem with the notion that we are simply following the science. The first paper linked below is the result of a team of scientists that came together under the auspices of the Royal Society (the RAMP initiative), to act as an independent group of scientists who can act as a check and balance of the SAGE group.
The second is from one of the leading lights of the alternative SAGE group (also convened to be an independent check on the SAGE team), Prof Karl Friston.
The conclusions speak for themselves. In both cases, I added the highlighting.
Enjoy
Reproducing the long term predictions from Imperial College CovidSim Report 9
Conclusion
A key thing seems to be that scenarios that are very effective when the interventions are in place, can then lead to a second wave during which most of the infections, and deaths, occur. Our comparison of updated model results with the published death data suggests that a similar second wave could occur later this year if interventions are fully lifted.
‘Dark matter’,second waves and epidemiological modelling
Conclusion
Put simply, an effective herd immunity — that works hand-in-hand appropriate public health and local lockdown measures — requires less than 20% seroprevalence. This seroprevalence has already been reached in many countries and is sufficient to preclude a traumatic second wave, even under pessimistic assumptions about loss of humoral immunity endowed by antibodies.
I apologise if this is in the wrong thread, but its vitamin D and T cells again!
An excellent well informed letter that includes reference to a vitamin D RCT, and covers much of the things already said here (and completely dissed on Lifeboat) in different threads. Several things really jumped out at me.
a) Maybe 50% of the UK population is already immune to Corona virus
b) Fauci takes 6,000 iu of vitamin D a day, yet the UK’s recommended level is 400 iu!
c) A clear explanation of why Japanese elderly have fared so well
5F really stands out as a place where we can discuss these tricky matters soberly, like friends and adults, without the usual hysteria springing up instantly amongst the TDS chorus. Thank god for that! This ‘crisis’ has really sorted out the goats from the sheep-in-radicals’-clothing, hasn’t it!
I agree Rhis. There is so much information being shared from a wide range of different perspectives and all the discussion is really interesting and informative even when people disagree. The more I am getting used to this board format the more I like it too because I think it really does help facilitate more serious discussion. We are still a relatively small group of course but hopefully by starting out as we mean to go on this tone of the board will persist even as the number of people posting increases.
not the wrong thread at all. It was a thread to discuss the current state of polarisation of the science, and T-Cells etc are a great example of that. As is HCQ and other treatments. Vitamin-D, however is not at all controversial - its efficacy is proven beyond a doubt - and yet I’ve not heard any of our public health officials come out and speak about it.
The standard that a vaccine would have to meet, incidentally, is it has to be shown to be effective in (at least) 50% of the people to whom it is administered. Vitamin-D already meets that threshold in terms of reducing people’s likelihood of getting sick with the illness in the first place, and even higher in reducing the admission to ICU. Good scientific advice should reflect that.
I though the letter was really good. And completely in line with the arguments by Friston in the paper I linked to above. He’s been saying for ages that he thinks there is a good deal more pre-existing immunity than has been generally acknowledged.
I hope he’s right!
The science on this issue has been very politicised in ways that can only end up hurting public. And damage a lot of trust in the process.
I am far from believing that I know what’s going on, though. I hear arguments from different sources, and many of them sound plausible to me. I’ll post a few more thoughts on issues with testing etc in the next few days. Perhaps the folk here will be able to help me work through some of them.
One thing that I will add, and is that it’s becoming clearer to me that mathematical modelling and science are far from being the same thing. When our government said that they were following the science, that claim is dubious at best!
Thanks RG and JMC! It’s nice to have a place to discuss difficult topics in an attempt to understand them better! Rare in my experience.
great to hear
And as for starting as we meant to go on - completely agree! This is early days. There are lots of things that we can do to keep growing this space, and I’d love to keep those discussions ongoing.
@RhisiartGwilym and @JMC. Very interesting what you both have said about the discussion here.
From a personal perspective, here’s what I have found. I’m normally aggressive, intransigent, and opinionated in argument (or debate). The adult tone of those here has meant I’m more considered and not quite so intransigent. Still very opinionated, but thanks to all those who have (albeit unknowingly) helped me to curb my natural aggression and anger. Really, thanks, and I enjoy the debate more this way.
