Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Daily deaths have actually come down quite dramatically from 150 on 17th Oct to 67 on the 18th Oct.
Come on, everyone knows by now that daily changes in the figures (even dramatically so) mean nothing whatsoever, especially at the weekend.
 
Unless I’m mistaken about exactly what CFR is, surely the ever increasing number of tests being carried out will uncover an increasing number of previously unidentified cases, which as the denominator of the CFR calculation will reduce the result. A horribly long sentence that basically says of course there will be a downward trend in CFR. Another factor that influences the CFR figure is that treatments are improving as more is learnt about the disease, thereby reducing the number of deaths per confirmed case. The time to worry even more is when there’s not a downward trend.
If CFR was not decreasing then everyone classed as a case (positive tier 1 or 2 PCR test) would be dying. That would be Neil Ferguson's ICL original computer pandemic model becoming reality . If you accept that his computer model was garbarge then the "of course there will be a downward trend" applies.

That downward trend has been the case for many months meaning the "epidemic of cases" has not translated into a proportional rise in hospital cases or deaths.
 
If CFR was not decreasing then everyone classed as a case (positive tier 1 or 2 PCR test) would be dying. That would be Neil Ferguson's ICL original computer pandemic model becoming reality . If you accept that his computer model was garbarge then the "of course there will be a downward trend" applies.

That downward trend has been the case for many months meaning the "epidemic of cases" has not translated into a proportional rise in hospital cases or deaths.

or maybe more people are getting ill, as predicted and reported by most of the meda, but not ill enough to go to hospital or die...
 
Come on, everyone knows by now that daily changes in the figures (even dramatically so) mean nothing whatsoever, especially at the weekend.
First off we were told of "exponential" rises but that did not come to pass. See below for deaths in comparison with the previous 4 years.

Florence666.jpg
 
Come on, everyone knows by now that daily changes in the figures (even dramatically so) mean nothing whatsoever, especially at the weekend.
Absolutely true.

It is also perilous (and statistically questionable) to make projections based on short-term trends, especially in situations where absolute numbers are small. Doubling from one instance per trend period to two is totally irelevant; doubling from 500 to 1,000 very probably is significant.

I completely understand the nervousness of those who have policy responsibility when there's potential for exponential growth in any unwanted outcome, but I fancy we are in a sea of disjointed (and sometimes conflicting, sometimes questionable quality) data that people are desperately extrapolating beyond what is reasonable.
 
as a country, we took action, reducing the rise.....
That analysis has the fatal flaw that it assumes the interventions had an impact. The age old correlation vs. causation problem. Even according to the SAGE members who advocated the actions there is low confidence in their efficacy.
 
or maybe more people are getting ill, as predicted and reported by most of the meda, but not ill enough to go to hospital or die...
For me the issue with relying on the “pure” data that is put out is that we don’t really know how bad the spread of Covid was at the turn of the year so we can’t truly compare then and now.

If we accept that up until lockdown that we were all walking around spreading for fun and the death toll was XYZ but with almost zero knowledge of infection rates yet now we have a situation where we’re mostly all adhering to social distancing and wearing masks etc and we have a - albeit unreliable - testing system in place then the only thing we know for certain are the deaths figures (even if we accept all the deaths as truly being Covid related which is doubtful).

What I do find quite astonishing is how much trust people have put into the track and trace when, time and again, it’s shown to be giving “false positives” - I know three people who took the test at home, didn't send the swab back for different reasons but then received a positive result anyway!
 
That analysis has the fatal flaw that it assumes the interventions had an impact. The age old correlation vs. causation problem. Even according to the SAGE members who advocated the actions there is low confidence in their efficacy.
For me, the biggest issue is that no-one really knows the incubation i.e. If we have 100,000 cases now and we go into lockdown again, how long will that take to show as deaths?

The narrative changes so much - one day they’re pushing the death stats, the next the infection rate then whatever gives them the better headline - that it really strikes me that none of them have a clue what they’re doing strategically and are reacting almost on a daily basis to what is highly likely to be spurious data.

As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of deaths are over 70 with tiny percentage under 50 so why talk of total lockdowns again? I hear the argument “don’t be so selfish” but is it not the vocal elders who’ve had their lives being selfish by asking *others* to sacrifice for them? If I was in the at risk bracket I’d quite happily sacrifice my own “freedom” so the rest of the country can try and get back to some notion of normality and get back to earning money to pay for all this!
 
If CFR was not decreasing then everyone classed as a case (positive tier 1 or 2 PCR test) would be dying. That would be Neil Ferguson's ICL original computer pandemic model becoming reality . If you accept that his computer model was garbarge then the "of course there will be a downward trend" applies.

That downward trend has been the case for many months meaning the "epidemic of cases" has not translated into a proportional rise in hospital cases or deaths.
I am not sure what is meant by saying that Ferguson's model was 'garbage'. There seem to be a misunderstanding among the wider public as to what modelling is or how it works.

Essentially, modelling is a tool comprising of a set or mathematical formulas, raw data, and assumptions. A model is considered flawed if the mathematical formulas are incorrect, or the raw data is incorrect.

But there are two important things to note about modelling.

The first is that it is flexible in that the assumptions can be changed so that we can view the various outcomes under different scenarios.

The second is that the purpose of a model is to help us take steps, measures and mitigations, and therefore it is always interactive - because the steps, measures and mitigations that we take will affect the outcome in real life.

So the fact that the actual outcome wasn't as the model showed, can be down to one of three things: (a) we may have used incorrect assumptions due to lack of verifiable data at the time of constructing the model, or (b) the outcome in real-life was different as result of the mitigating steps that we took, or (c) there was an error in the formula or calculations used in the model. But to say that the model is flawed because the result in reality was different, isn't even bad science, it is simply not science at all.

The bigger issue here is that people who have not been trained in critical analysis of data and in research methodology in general tend to make some very common mistakes. In this case most people simply do not understand the purpose and meaning of modelling. The dilemma for the government is that if they keep the information secret, they risk being criticised that SAGE isn't transparent. If they make the information public, any budding journalist can rip into it without knowing what they are talking about.

A good examples was the graph slide used by Patrick Vallance where he said "This is not a prediction... the graph is showing what could happen if we do nothing... again, this is not as prediction..." and he was later being criticised in the press because the daily number of new infections peaked at 22,000 which is nowhere near the 50,000 that he 'predicted'... :doh:

EDIT: Also, there seems to be an inclination in the tabloids to highlight Prof Ferguson's private life and personal misdemeanours, which appears to be a way of discrediting his scientific work. Now, we do have free press, and the tabloids thrive on this sort of stuff, so it's all good and well, but at the same we should keep in mind that we won't win the battle against Coronavirus is we let people's private lives distract us from the science.
 
Last edited:
That analysis has the fatal flaw that it assumes the interventions had an impact. The age old correlation vs. causation problem. Even according to the SAGE members who advocated the actions there is low confidence in their efficacy.

Yes , poor phrasing on my part

The action taken is not proof that is the cause of a reduction.....if the actions had been regional rather than national that may have given a different insight

On the flip side, the evidence doesn't prove the initial model was flawed or its predictions wrong...

The sad reality is we will never know if different action, or non-action, would have resulted in a different outcome..
 
I am not sure what is meant by saying that Ferguson's model was 'garbage'. There seem to be a misunderstanding among the wider public as to what modelling is or how it works.

Essentially, modelling is a tool comprising of a set or mathematical formulas, raw data, and assumptions. A model is considered flawed if the mathematical formulas are incorrect, or the raw data is incorrect.

But there are two important things to note about modelling.

The first is that it is flexible in that the assumptions can be changed so that we can view the various outcomes under different scenarios.

The second is that the purpose of a model is to help us take steps, measures and mitigations, and therefore it is always interactive - because the steps, measures and mitigations that we take will affect the outcome in real life.

So the fact that the actual outcome wasn't as the model showed, can be down to one of three things: (a) we may have used incorrect assumptions due to lack of verifiable data at the time of constructing the model, or (b) the outcome in real-life was different as result of the mitigating steps that we took, or (c) there was an error in the formula or calculations used in the model. But to say that the model is flawed because the result in reality was different, isn't even bad science, it is simply not science at all.

The bigger issue here is that people who have not been trained in critical analysis of data and in research methodology in general tend to make some very common mistakes. In this case most people simply do not understand the purpose and meaning of modelling. The dilemma for the government is that if they keep the information secret, they risk being criticised that SAGE isn't transparent. If they make the information public, any budding journalist can rip into it without knowing what they are talking about.

A good examples was the graph slide used by Patrick Vallance where he said "This is not a prediction... the graph is showing what could happen if we do nothing... again, this is not as prediction..." and he was later being criticised in the press because the daily number of new infections peaked at 22,000 which is nowhere near the 50,000 that he 'predicted'... :doh:

EDIT: Also, there seems to be an inclination in the tabloids to highlight Prof Ferguson's private life and personal misdemeanours, which appears to be a way of discrediting his scientific work. Now we have free press and tabloid thrive on this sort of stuff, but we won't win the battle against Coronavirus is we let people's private lives distract us from the science.

Terms such as "garbage" are pejorative and have no place in a reasoned argument...but it is what we have come to expect from those unwilling or unable to engage in reasoned debate
 
The sad reality is we will never know if different action, or non-action, would have resulted in a different outcome..
I think the vast majority of people would agree that *something* had to be done and I fully understand why the lockdown came into force in March - it was a known unknown - but now we know so much more (the vast majority of deaths are those over 70 and/or with underlying issues) it should be adjusted accordingly and I think it will do over time;

1. Schools and the young should continue uninterrupted irrespective of “outbreaks”

2. if you’re “vulnerable” ie over 70 or have health issues then everything will be done to shield you from that risk of contracting

3. Those of working age will adhere to social distancing and masks where necessary until the infections and deaths are more stable.

4. The many tens of thousands of people that have had things like their cancer appointments cancelled can start again to be checked and treated this slowing down what is probably going to be a surge in deaths over the coming months and years.
 
Why are the deaths recorded with people being diagnosed within 28 days when the self isolating is only 14 days? Are the death numbers being inflated as a result? Had we had the 50,000 nurses we are short, would the NHS need protecting?
 
I have previously expressed my non-expert concerns regarding the Great Barrington Declaration and how it fails to address the reality of implementing its “focussed protection” approach. It’s interesting to see that many real experts have the same opinion. One even goes as far as to say that there’s a danger of the Declaration already potentially harmful by virtue of its mere existence: “The dangers of seizing upon dissatisfaction and political failings to support what amounts to little more than an ideology, runs the risk of inaction and an ensuing limbo of cyclical epidemic waves of infection for the foreseeable future.”

Here's a good musing on the Great Barrington declaration and a link to a Trump-supporting group with anti-lockdown aims: The pursuit of herd immunity is a folly – so who's funding this bad science?

The whole thing has a "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" feel about it in terms of timing and agenda...
 
1. Schools and the young should continue uninterrupted irrespective of “outbreaks”

2. if you’re “vulnerable” ie over 70 or have health issues then everything will be done to shield you from that risk of contracting

3. Those of working age will adhere to social distancing and masks where necessary until the infections and deaths are more stable.

4. The many tens of thousands of people that have had things like their cancer appointments cancelled can start again to be checked and treated this slowing down what is probably going to be a surge in deaths over the coming months and years.

^ This.
Before the country is totally bankrupted and people are throwing themselves off high buildings in despair. The government handouts have to be paid back somehow and the future is already grim for taxpayers.
We need to get back back to normality whilst taking precautions for ourselves and protect the vulnerable.

And a quick rant to get it off my chest.
Is anyone already sick of hearing these new buzzwords like "circuit breakers" and "covid marshalls"? What moron is dreaming all this up? The press are loving it.
 
I think the vast majority of people would agree that *something* had to be done and I fully understand why the lockdown came into force in March - it was a known unknown - but now we know so much more (the vast majority of deaths are those over 70 and/or with underlying issues) it should be adjusted accordingly and I think it will do over time;

1. Schools and the young should continue uninterrupted irrespective of “outbreaks”

2. if you’re “vulnerable” ie over 70 or have health issues then everything will be done to shield you from that risk of contracting

3. Those of working age will adhere to social distancing and masks where necessary until the infections and deaths are more stable.

4. The many tens of thousands of people that have had things like their cancer appointments cancelled can start again to be checked and treated this slowing down what is probably going to be a surge in deaths over the coming months and years.
What makes you think that in time physical inteventions such as lockdowns, local/ circuit breaks whatever buzzword they use will be adjusted accordingly. The deaths from April & early May have now morphed into a casedemic or an epidemic of what they call cases. The goalposts have moved for a reason.
 
Here's a good musing on the Great Barrington declaration and a link to a Trump-supporting group with anti-lockdown aims: The pursuit of herd immunity is a folly – so who's funding this bad science?

The whole thing has a "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" feel about it in terms of timing and agenda...
What an incredible title for an article. A vaccine is the artificially induced version of herd immunity. It should be used alongside community transmission as a means to create herd immunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom