South African Covid-19 News and Discussions 3

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,730
The rugby study explicitely takes note of this and produces results that show the players are not actually in contact for longe periods of time.

However, I won't engage further on this, you may insert your head back into the hole you took it momentarily out of.
Ja sure but you can't really think that a set scrum with one of the 16 huffing and puffing with Covid is a low risk environment for spread.
 

pinball wizard

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
28,826
Ja sure but you can't really think that a set scrum with one of the 16 huffing and puffing with Covid is a low risk environment for spread.
Well, you see the rub, don't you?

Asymptomatic spread is largely disproven, and if you are sick enough to have sufficient viral load to spread this thing easily, you're not really trotting out onto the rugby pitch are you?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,599
Ja sure. The study was done to please the industry. Explain why so many are down now with Covid?

I understand much better than you and the industry does.

This virus is AIRBORNE! It does NOT follow those trumped-up WHO rules about how it spreads. It NEVER followed those rules. It was too clever to read the WHO rule book.

The more people in close proximity with each other over long periods the higher the risk. Simple clean and completely factual.
The study was done on the ASSUMPTION that it is spread by droplets and contact with those droplets BEFORE the little bugger mutated and became the Delta variant. Those studies are therefore now completely and utterly USELESS.
Read the original report. And start listing the problems with the data collection, when it was collected, where it was collected, and relate that to the state of the epidemic at the time. Then check on what variants were present in those countries at the time. Then check on the way in which the test data was collelcted.

Then list the base assumptions made about how the virus was thought to spread at the time when the data was collected.

Already at that point, the study collapses because the set of data used is virtually totally compromised.

Now get to the statistical analysis. I does not take long to show that like many other studies, the researchers had already determined the outcome they were looking for and simply ignored ANY and ALL stats that did not suit their purpose by drawing generalised unsubstantiated conclusions with NO technical backing whatsoever.

All that wonderful GPS "stuff" is just spurious technical noise.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,730
Well, you see the rub, don't you?

Asymptomatic spread is largely disproven, and if you are sick enough to have sufficient viral load to spread this thing easily, you're not really trotting out onto the rugby pitch are you?
Asymptomatic, presymptomatic, minimally symptomatic. Little job security, worried about your place in the team. You will be surprised what sportsmen will do.

Anyway how many of them are infected again? Clearly no spread in the team.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,599
Starting to believe we need this virus to keep going, We might just rid this country of all of these idiots that way.
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
8,339
No, the method of capturing the data was not ideal but still interesting stats nonetheless. Why take a chance, eat healthy!! I feel like I should post this in the Non-Vaccination Brag Thread though as someone is going to complain that this is fake science....


How eating your five-a-day may spare you from Covid: People who consume plenty of fruit and vegetables and cut out processed foods 'are up to 40% less likely to fall severely ill with virus'

  • King's College London scientists asked 600,000 people about their diets
  • They were then monitored for nine months in case they caught the virus
  • Professor Tim Spector said eating greens could 'improve your immune system'
Eating five-a-day day could cut your risk of falling severely ill with Covid, scientists claimed today.

King's College London experts asked 600,000 people to log what they were eating before the pandemic began.
Volunteers were divided into five groups based on how healthy their diets were.

They were also tracked for nine months and asked to tell researchers if they caught the coronavirus and log how ill they became.

Results showed those who ate the most greens were 40 per cent less likely to be hospitalised and need oxygen if they were infected.

And they were 10 per cent less likely to catch the virus in the first place.

The researchers defined the healthiest eaters as those who ate two pieces of fruit a day and three different vegetables.

They also had 200g of oily fish such as salmon and sardines every week and kept fatty and sugary processed foods to a minimum.

On the other hand, the unhealthiest eaters had fewer than two bits of fruit over the course of a week and went some days without eating any vegetables.

They also steered clear of oily fish, and consumed more fatty and sugary processed foods than recommended.

Professor Tim Spector, one of the researchers, said there was 'no need to go vegan' to reap the benefits of healthy eating.

But he said eating a more plant-laden diet could 'improve your immune system' and 'potentially reduce your risk from Covid'.

Professor Spector said: 'People who eat higher quality diets (with low levels of ultra-processed foods) have a healthier collection of microbes in their guts, which is linked to better health.'

Study co-author Dr Sarah Berry said: 'For the first time we've been able to show that a healthier diet can cut the chances of developing Covid.'

The study was run through health-tech firm ZOE's Covid Symptom Study app, which has been downloaded more than a million times.

The software — which allows people to log their symptoms and whether they had a positive test — is used to track the coronavirus outbreak in Britain.

Academics used data from more than 31,000 participants who were thought to have caught Covid across the UK and US.

Only a quarter actually tested positive for the virus — the rest were assumed to have been infected based on the symptoms they showed.

At the start of the pandemic there was a lack of tests available, leading to millions of cases being missed officially.

Participants were asked about what they ate in February last year, before the virus took hold.

They were followed until early December — through the first wave and the start of the second wave — and asked to log if they had the virus, or were hospitalised.

Data showed there were 72.2 cases of Covid for every 10,000 person-months among participants with the healthiest diets.

But for volunteers at the other end of the dietary spectrum, the rate stood at around 95.4.

The difference was even worse for cases of severe illness — defined as patients who were admitted to hospital and required oxygen.

After analysing the results for other potential factors that may have skewed the findings such as sex, ethnicity and underlying health conditions, they found those with the best diets were 40 per cent less likely to suffer severe disease and 10 per cent likely to catch the virus in the first place.

The study, which was published on medRxiv, also involved scientists from Harvard Medical School.

Source
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
8,339
When is this lot going to realise they are supposed to be civil servants, not soldiers.

Still have their heads in USSR propaganda mode. Not sure when they will figure out they actually won the battle and the time to embrace our Republic as public servants is long past.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,599
You did indeed...but do you actually want to be called Prof. Epidemiologist given how poorly actual epidemiologists have performed?
Definitely not! :laugh:

And it has nothing to do with being an expert. All to do with understanding human behaviour and reading stats properly.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18,573

Gaz{M}

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
6,931
But the numbers in the Western Cape are so much lower than Gauteng.

People in Cape Town weren't following protocols religiously either.

I wonder if the higher infection rate for Beta influenced this.

Gauteng had mild first and second waves compared to other provinces like WC. So it stands to reason that GP would have a bad 3rd wave, others more mild 3rd waves.
 
Top