Opening Up Results


(Edward) #254

:grinning::smile:


(Polly) #255

It's over - Ivor Cummins discusses the data (Let's stick with COVID) - this title got UNfiddled
(Elmo) #256

Really embarrassing for Ivor Cummins there. Yet again he’s left an area where he really does know something (diet stuff; related issues), and gone into Goofytown.

“Viral Issue Crucial Update…” And “The ultimate update on our viral issue, bar none…”

:roll_eyes::smile: One almost has to think he’s deliberately lampooning himself. :wink:

Silly conclusions, loony speculation, an obviously slanted approach, horrendous cherry-picking of data, deliberately deceptive presentation - this is what it really is.

Some of it’s interesting - I liked seeing the graphs of how past viruses have behaved, for example.

But he falls all over himself with the fake/obviously deceptive stuff. Or just plain nutty stuff - toward the end he mentions that “we may have squandered the chance for ‘safe spread’” (of the virus) - as if we should have done more to spread the virus and presumably increase herd immunity. Yet for a good bit of the video he’s been going on how social distancing and masks have effectively made no difference in the virus spread. :smile:

Let’s dig into one example of clear nonsense, deceptive presentation, and cherry-picking of data. About 8:20 he starts talking about Sweden versus other countries. "why Sweden would have been higher (in mortality) than other countries." Later he says, “So this is most likely the biggest factor driving Sweden’s numbers, and most countries’ numbers, actually independent of lockdown and distancing.” The “biggest factor”? :smile: Insanity!

I won’t spell it out right now. Anybody else see what’s wrong, there? There are many things to choose from. Ivor, oh Ivor… :neutral_face:


#257

I would love if someone could explain what herd immunity actually is because it sounds like a fairy tale… How can someone else’s immune system make others immune?


(Polly) #258

It is very straight forward @Consistency. The virus can only transfer from person to person in a group who do not already have immunity. Virus carried by A will not pass to B if B is immune. The more Bs in a population the fewer virus carriers and transmitters are available to act as hosts for the virus and eventually there is very little transmission possible.

This is how all vaccines work. The fit and well are vaccinated to protect the weak who cannot be vaccinated.


(Polly) #259

I think Ivor Cummins will be proved right in the end. I believe we should have let the virus spread through the population in summer when it would have done the least harm. I understood the political panic caused by visions of the health service being over-whelmed but did not agree with their chosen route.

This virus is among us and until we reach the herd immunity level (if that is possible with this virus) we probably just need to face the fact that some of us are at risk of more serious infection and death. If herd immunity is not possible then no vaccine will work either.

The man who tested positive for the virus months after recovering from an earlier strain was asymptomatic with the second infection which suggests that herd immunity of a sort is probable.


(Doug) #260

:clap: Excellent description, Polly. :slightly_smiling_face:

What is he actually predicting, though? He seems to be trying to have it both ways, i.e. “we should have let the virus spread through the population” but then he also spends considerable time saying that we didn’t and couldn’t stop the virus spread.

He has this picture up for the best part of 2 minutes - his theme really is that the virus was going to do what it was going to do, and that our measures make no real difference.

No matter what occurs in the future, Ivor can say, “Well yes - the virus was going to do what it was going to do.” Or, if things seem “bad” with the virus this winter, he can say, “Yep, we squandered our chance for ‘safe spread.’” In the end I don’t think he’s really saying anything, there.

Some health services were overwhelmed, some were not. The ones that were wish more had been done, the ones that were not are darn glad they weren’t overwhelmed.

Even Ivor mentions that a worry is protecting the elderly and the vulnerable. Most of this year is gone and few places have enough herd immunity to make much of a difference - just look at how the virus takes off and spreads rapidly under certain conditions, i.e. we still have a largely unexposed population. New York or New Jersey, for example - had ‘big’ virus outbreaks and ‘many’ deaths but there still are lots of very-vulnerable people there. The “average” person that the virus kills is elderly and has multiple comorbidities. How many such people are left, even in NY and NJ? A majority of them are left.

The appearance of a good vaccine would blow much of Ivor’s reasoning away, and if that would be later this year or in 2021 then a vast amount of lives would be saved.

If herd immunity is not possible then most of Ivor’s conclusions and theses totally fall apart.

It’s come up before - I couldn’t find it (other discussions about Ivor Cummins videos/Covid-19) when I searched, just now, but there is a real sense that Ivor has stepped outside his area of knowledge and understanding; perhaps is even just looking to increase webpage views, regardless of the cost - and I think this was a theme in past discussions.

I agree that his whole video, above, is slanted. I would probably disagree with 70% of his sentences, or more, on the grounds that they are false, or only half-true, or are missing a necessary larger context, or stem from cherry-picked information.

I could make a similar “anti-mask” or “anti-social distancing” presentation, as long as I could cherry-pick data. I would not have to go as far outside the truth and logic as Ivor does.

You debunk it, and by tomorrow there are ten more videos like it. Whaddayagunnado?

He makes mountains out of molehills, for one thing. He’s got his peaks and troughs on the graphs, and he tries to say that because 2019 was a ‘low deaths’ year in some countries, that they were then set up with a lot of “dry tinder,” i.e. people vulnerable to being killed by the virus. I couldn’t get to those same graphs at mortality.org - anybody know how to do that? I registered and everything…

If we would see the real numbers, I imagine that Ivor’s full of crap, here - he’s essentially taking normal, random variation and trying to make a case from that (he’s pretending that the larger context is not there). He’s also cherry-picked 2018 as a year for comparison - this has come up before in talking about the flu/Covid-19 - 2018 was a relatively bad year for the flu and respiratory deaths in general.

Here, the ratio is what’s important. I realize the total numbers look “small” - they don’t include pneumonia cases not known to be related to the flu, for example. It was the same in Europe - the 2018 flu season was relatively severe. So Ivor is cherry-picking a relatively “high” year as his basis for comparison, trying to make 2019 look “low.” This is like climate-change deniers picking 1998 - it’s trying to use data to mislead people. And I imagine the actual numbers and percentages show that Ivor’s off-base.


It's over - Ivor Cummins discusses the data (Let's stick with COVID) - this title got UNfiddled
(Polly) #261

#262

Have just read this and totally agree. I’m getting fed up with the fact that we seem to be attempting to eliminate this disease by keeping us all locked up.

My only question is what do the likes of myself, a healthy woman in her mid 50’s do with regards to my mother, a not so healthy person in her mid 80’s, whom I help a lot as amongst other things she is nearly blind.


(Doug) #263

The U.K. does still have comparatively ‘hard’ limits on gatherings - 6 people, 30 people, etc., no? I think it’s really more about protecting the vulnerable than “locking everybody up.” Is anybody truly “locked up”?

It seems to me that Kendrick forgets about the large number of people affected in substantially bad ways by the virus even though they are not killed by it. I also think he ought to talk to Ivor Cummins - Ivor is saying that things are going to proceed by the ‘Gompertz curves,’ anyway, regardless of what we do.

Indeed - this is it - just how would we protect the vulnerable? If we get a good vaccine later this year or early next year, then it’s a lot better for many people to wait, rather than to increase their risk of exposure to the virus. Even without a vaccine, treatment has improved substantially over the past 6 months; were your mother to get the virus today, her odds are better than they were earlier this year.

All that said, I do see that virus deaths in the U.K. are almost down to nothing. One’s own perspective will probably determine this, but yes, maybe the gov’t should let up on the restrictions.

One thing I’d like to see is how many people that are really vulnerable there are. Most will be elderly and have multiple comorbidities. So, how many people is that? I’ve searched around and it’s hard to find the answer. It’d also be hard to quantify, i.e. we’re still making an overall guess, before the fact, of who would die and what their chances would be. Ideally, we’d be able to say, “There are this many people with a 50% chance of dying, this many at 25%, this many at 10%,” etc.


(Ideom) #264

Seemed like nothing more than a rehash of what he’s said before, to me. Ivor may really be losing his way, being misled by some people and also just wanting to make a lot of videos rather than maintain his prior level of credibility. The dizzy and hyperbolic descriptions do make one wonder, and his pleas for money seem to be increasing in number and stridency.

I looked at the video about a week ago, and one thing that has changed is the description - he has removed some stuff that made him look like more of a conspiracy nut. To some extent I think Ivor sees himself as “a warrior against the establishment,” as with the diet/nutrition area, but he may be tilting at some pretty silly windmills, now.

“the mission to share good science!” - a worthy goal, but Ivor can do this without being deceptive, deliberately or otherwise. He’s failing in this, as of now.

Some of his graphs/pictures are badly out of context, and he does cherry-pick, to a fault.

Malcolm Kendrick - he proposes exposing nearly everyone in the UK within a month, which is insanity. Look at the burden on the hospitals earlier this year and the overall number of cases that led to it. And he’s talking about 54 million+ cases in 28 days…


(bulkbiker) #265

And that is a complete misrepresentation of what he says.


#266

Nope. People that whine like selfish babies truly make my blood boil because they truly don’t give a crap about anything and anyone. These people will go to the store while infected just out of spite because they feel limited. So many people with the superiority complex.

All A+ and maybe AB+ blood types regardless of age or health status. We are the long haulers which nobody takes into account.


(Ideom) #267

Nope, in no way is it a complete misrepresentation. “Done in a month” is what he says. I guess you could split hairs about the exact numbers - Kendrick himself says “it doesn’t quite work like that,” but he also said “my 24,773 figure is a major underestimate of the true starting point.” And he does affirm “However, the general principle stands.”


(bulkbiker) #268

He suggests allowing the healthy general population who are by far at least risk of death from COVID to develop immunity whilst shielding the vulnerable and elderly.
That is in no way “exposing nearly everyone in the UK” His shielded vulnerable cohort would be in the millions.


#269

What about all the healthy athletes with post covid myocarditis(heart damage)? Who dictates who is vulnerable?


(bulkbiker) #270

No-one can be sure that was from COVID? Maybe they had previous viral infections or maybe their training caused the damage… scans post COVID only prove cause if there was a negative scan pre COVID.
Pretty basic science.


#271

@MarkGossage

You’re forgetting the lack of anti-A isoantibodies in certain blood types which are required to protect organs.

There’s no basic science. It’s always easier to deny whatever doesn’t fit your bias (fairy tale).


(bulkbiker) #272

So you have seen their pre and post COVID scans?


#273

I don’t need to. I lived through it as a healthy fit male with A+ blood type, no CVD and symptoms of heart failure post covid.