Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tweeted by Sir David Spiegelhalter / derived from source data stated.

Wretched over 75's still grabbing all the action.





Et97JpuWgAAsy3Z.jpeg
 
Agreed. And to compound that, "the rules" have changed multiple time (65 times since the start of the pandemic, ISTR) sometimes quite subtly, sometimes significantly, and are now both byzantine and often illogical. That's the trouble with trying to be prescriptive about what to the majority is common sense.
Coronavirus Act 2020 rule changes tally is now up to 67 amendments. A couple of new amendements have been made during the January 2021 lockdown.
 
Last edited:
Despite all these rule breakers, cases are still falling so the rule breaking can't be that terrible from a risk perspective

Possibly, but difficult to know for certain without a control group. With only one set of data (from the live group), it's not possible to rule-out that with a higher level of compliance the decline in deaths would have been steeper, more lives would have been saved, and the lockdown would have ended sooner. Possibly.
 
Possibly, but difficult to know for certain without a control group. With only one set of data (from the live group), it's not possible to rule-out that with a higher level of compliance the decline in deaths would have been steeper, more lives would have been saved, and the lockdown would have ended sooner. Possibly.
(Cough) With the Care Home Crew and the Over 85's monopolising the deaths and ICU occupancy, there's still a post-mortem that needs to be had around whether "Cases in the Community" really do drive the number of deaths in Care Homes or amongst over 75's in Hospital.
 
Despite all these rule breakers, cases are still falling so the rule breaking can't be that terrible from a risk perspective
It’s not going anywhere - Covid is here to stay - but the mentality of some on here will remain “do shut up and do as you’re told” and the irony is that they won’t personally have to deal with the economic and social fallout - their mortgages are already paid and they’ve got cushy little pensions; why would they care about those who are suffering the most?

Having said all that, thankfully I don’t personally know anyone with this outlook (but then again I know very few middle class people!) so I know that at least - in the real world - the sacrifices are appreciated which does help.
 
I just had the AstraZeneca vaccine today. Will let you know if the Iranian chap is right....
Have to say, you're looking very fetching today. Is that Onesie new ? That red velour really suits you.

Mike (Pfizer 2 weeks ago)
 
too simplistic in my view ..

CV19 will not be going away, we can't lock ourselves away ad infinitum - the public won't wear it, and the economy can't withstand it

the real metric is numbers of hospitalisations and deaths .. as long as these are an acceptable level such that the NHS is not in real danger of being overwhelmed, we should get on with our lives.

Just like the 'flu ... which seems to have disappeared this winter.
 
Why the bandage on your head .. did they miss.?

You think the vaccine was incorrectly administered?

total-recall-brain.jpg
 
Unless you live in a cave, you will have heard (actually, you've been bombarded by) the message that "1 in 3 people who have the virus have no symptoms". I have always had my suspicions about that claim, and here's a statistical analysis by Norman Fenton, Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, as to why it's a wild exaggeration:

 
Unless you live in a cave, you will have heard (actually, you've been bombarded by) the message that "1 in 3 people who have the virus have no symptoms". I have always had my suspicions about that claim, and here's a statistical analysis by Norman Fenton, Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, as to why it's a wild exaggeration:

It is all part of scaring the public into lockdown compliance, which is increasingly fraying

folks have had enough ..
 
It is all part of scaring the public into lockdown compliance, which is increasingly fraying

folks have had enough ..
My experience (which is necessarily limited!) is that as time as gone on, those who have always had reservations about the benefits vs. costs of lockdown have become even more convinced that lockdown is a net negative, while those who are more inclined to the view that "any life saved is worth the cost" remain convinced that lockdown is beneficial. It's much harder to get a handle on those who have switched from a "lockdown is good" to "lockdown is bad" position.

My gut feel is that the prohibitions on social contact - that would normally happen in a pub or other social setting - are stifling discussions that would normally be had, and that people who would in normal times form their own opinions based upon a healthy mixture of media input and discourse with their peers are swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
 
My experience (which is necessarily limited!) is that as time as gone on, those who have always had reservations about the benefits vs. costs of lockdown have become even more convinced that lockdown is a net negative, while those who are more inclined to the view that "any life saved is worth the cost" remain convinced that lockdown is beneficial. It's much harder to get a handle on those who have switched from a "lockdown is good" to "lockdown is bad" position.

My gut feel is that the prohibitions on social contact - that would normally happen in a pub or other social setting - are stifling discussions that would normally be had, and that people who would in normal times form their own opinions based upon a healthy mixture of media input and discourse with their peers are swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
In London at least, I have noticed more and more folks in bigger groups walking around, folks chatting in the streets, queues outside takeaways a bit like a social gathering etc

public definitely nowhere near as fearful as 1st lockdown
 
It is all part of scaring the public into lockdown compliance, which is increasingly fraying

folks have had enough ..

I agree that the government isn't clear on this issue. We have covered it here as well.

There's a difference between the scientific interest in better understanding how SARS-Cov-2 behaves, and the practical need to limit the spread of the pandemic.

For the former, the difference between asymptomatic and presymptomatic is important. For the latter, it isn't.

All that matters for the prevention of the spread of SARS-CoV-2, is what proportion of people who have no symptoms are infectious, at any point of time.

So, again, for disease prevention, all that matters is to know what proportion of people who have no symptoms at current are statistically likely to be infectious.

Whether they later go on to develop symptoms (i.e. they were presymptomatic), or not (i.e. they were asymptomatic), is not directly relevant for the immediate purpose of disease prevention.
 
Unless you live in a cave, you will have heard (actually, you've been bombarded by) the message that "1 in 3 people who have the virus have no symptoms". I have always had my suspicions about that claim, and here's a statistical analysis by Norman Fenton, Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, as to why it's a wild exaggeration:


Struggling to understand the relevance of sampling 4000 students at Cambridge University. "Is this not a skewed sample?"

Completely accept that a sample size of 4,000 is a statistically sound. Just uncomfortable about projecting national numbers from such a cloistered, elite group of young students in a remote area of the UK.

Or have I misunderstood the sample group?

.
 
As for Dr Yeadon being taken off-air.... just look at these three graphs:


39218130-9255421-image-a-26_1613202396955.jpg



39240642-9256565-image-a-19_1613207604776.jpg



39218220-9255421-image-a-27_1613202396959.jpg


He simply lost all credibility when he insisted on hanging-on to his claim that the pandemic was over, which essentially means that the correlation between the three graphs is purely coincidental.

To anyone who still accepts Dr Yeadon's view, I offer a wager - I am willing to bet that the three graphs will continue to be correlated in the weeks to come. Anyone who still thinks the correlation is coincidental, should seize the opportunity to make some easy money off me....
 
Last edited:
I see that Melbourne and the rest of Victoria has just gone back into lockdown following a handful of new cases. Not messing around there appears to be working quite well.
And interestingly, the outbreak stemmed from an airport quarantine hotel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom