Corona Virus main thread

[Throwaway 4]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

Or Central Scotland despite having less inequality, a lower population density & a healthier population

 

 

That could make sense though? The factors you mentioned Vs the lack of lockdown at all?

[Mark .Y. 351]

30 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear

your post merely demonstrates my point

that none of this addresses the question of how the UK has such high numbers and what is being done to get control of those as most other countries have

in fact, it is seemingly more likely that adherence to numbers' and celestial charts has been the cause, as we don't seem to have followed best medical practice

and I didn't know that the numbers rose on Tuesday due to different methods of collation over the weekend, thanks

I shall go and lie down for a bit to recover from that stunning insight 😉

Oh dear to you too......

I specifically and very carefully only addressed the point in your post that was basically saying nobody could predict the number of deaths announced today. Nothing else, nothing at all - you do understand that now, don't you.

And don't try and pretend that you remembered the reason for the rise before you posted. You clearly didn't.

You do need a lie down, that is for sure.

[Bill 1,788]

Jeremy Hunt explains this further

The former health secretary has slammed scientific advice given to the government on how to tackle the coronavirus crisis as “one of the biggest failures… in our lifetimes”.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Jeremy Hunt said the “secrecy that shrouds” the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) hindered the UK’s response.

He argued that it was clear there had been a “major blindspot” in the approach to the virus taken in Europe and America, as both continents prepared for pandemic flu, not pandemic coronaviruses such as Sars or Mers.

Asian countries, such as South Korea and Singapore, focused on the latter and have seen lower death tolls since the start of the outbreak.

Mr Hunt told MPs: “The failure to look at what these countries were doing at the outset will rank, I am afraid, as one of the biggest failures of scientific advice to ministers in our lifetimes.”

Jeremy Hunt explains this further

The former health secretary has slammed scientific advice given to the government on how to tackle the coronavirus crisis as “one of the biggest failures… in our lifetimes”.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Jeremy Hunt said the “secrecy that shrouds” the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) hindered the UK’s response.

He argued that it was clear there had been a “major blindspot” in the approach to the virus taken in Europe and America, as both continents prepared for pandemic flu, not pandemic coronaviruses such as Sars or Mers.

Asian countries, such as South Korea and Singapore, focused on the latter and have seen lower death tolls since the start of the outbreak.

Mr Hunt told MPs: “The failure to look at what these countries were doing at the outset will rank, I am afraid, as one of the biggest failures of scientific advice to ministers in our lifetimes.”

He added that there was a “systematic failure caused by the secrecy that shrouds everything Sage does” and the group’s advice could not be challenged as it is not published.

Had Sage’s advice been published in January when the pandemic started in full swing, he said: “An army of scientists from our universities could have challenged why testing and contact tracing was not being modelled. They could have demanded a rap up of testing and challenged the behavioural assumptions that delayed lockdown.”

 

 

Which re-enforces my point that no star gazing will solve this - in fact not only is it a major distraction but is almost certain to be the cause of where we are and why we seem to be continuing with this failure. As the final paragraph outlines.

And if the government is still using this 'pseudo science' to determine how things progress is there not a danger that like a driver with a flawed satnav, we are continuing along the road to further deaths ?

Because the one question that is not being asked, never mind answered is what advice/model has Johnson followed to now change course. One which even his own ministers do not seem to understand.

Whatever it is, it is clearly not suited o dealing with this virus, as so much backlash has shown. Woolly 'advice'  that smacks more of suggesting folk wander over a minefield to test how many there are, rather than throwing everything at mine detectors and safety equipment. Advice that also seems to be so vague that those offering it up haven't really a clue.

No mathematical equations will deal with this, when clearly that approach has failed disastrously - as 32,000 (50,000 ?) deaths show.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

Oh dear to you too......

I specifically and very carefully only addressed the point in your post that was basically saying nobody could predict the number of deaths announced today. Nothing else, nothing at all - you do understand that now, don't you.

And don't try and pretend that you remembered the reason for the rise before you posted. You clearly didn't.

You do need a lie down, that is for sure.

Ah, I see it is the old make it up and answer that instead ploy. 🤔

Where was that predicted ? were the words not " nobody could predict the number of deaths"

and I understand why you avoided the uncomfortable bits that questioned what the point of something that has no obvious use - other than a bit of intellectual mast***tion

And given I have commented on numbers from a Tuesday at least a couple of times previous I would appreciate you not lying about that either, if only that some might think you are hand crank

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

23 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

You do need a lie down, that is for sure.

I have found my enjoyment of this forum has grown exponentially by blocking Bill, Teemu and Dr green thumb is it?

I would invite you all to do the same.

[Ian 1,129]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Ian - I honestly believe you're asking for the impossible or living in a 'perfect' world. Nobody has verifiable models for Covid 19 in the UK setting -  it's always a 'research' work in progress. Give it a year or two and I'm sure we can all look back with hindsight and make a professional review. Nor will it have currently an idiots guide users manual and be open source. However we are in 'real-time' at the present and decisions must be made on the best available data / estimates. That happened to Imperial.

What I am sure about is that it's predictions at the time with caveats where looked at by 'Sage' and a range of experts (and the government) and deemed reasonable enough for it to 'act' and force a lock down. Good.

I think everybody understands that the models are based on research works, and as such subject to change, errors, and imperfections. Indeed I do not know of anybody who doesn't understand that all models are likely to be wrong to some degree, but this of course, does not undermine their usefulness. I don't recall suggesting the Imperial model should be "verified as correct" before being used, clearly that is impossible and indeed it is not the point at all. I also do not understand why you are trying to muddy the waters and put words in my mouth.

To be clear, what I, and other taxpayers should expect from publically funded software that is used in such high echelons of Government, is that it has a reasonable level of quality such that it can be replicated and critiqued by peers, or even better, curious members of the public. I am talking about identifying obvious bugs and issues that could invalidate their results entirely.

Utilising a 15-year old model that is so poorly implemented it cannot be easily reviewed or understood by anybody other than the authors (they themselves seem to have struggled) and requires a team of coders to bring it up to a level where you are not embarrassed to release it is just not acceptable.

I cannot grasp how anybody would think it "Good" that a piece of science, which clearly cannot be replicated for the above reasons, should be used in such a manner. On that note, I do not apportion much blame to the Imperial team, as I am sure that they were put in a tricky situation to show their "best science" as soon as possible.

The blame lies at a higher level, and I really do think that SAGE and/or the Government as a whole should have identified the huge level of risk involved with utilising such a model in what appears to much such a prominent fashion in their overall decision making. I do hope that I am wrong and the prominence given to it has just been over-exaggerated.

[ricardo 7,347]

11 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

I have found my enjoyment of this forum has grown exponentially by blocking Bill, Teemu and Dr green thumb is it?

I would invite you all to do the same.

If we all did that we would never know who the liars are😉

[Van wink 2,994]

A little bit more positive news

WHO says there is "potentially positive data" on Covid-19 drugs

The World Health Organization said on Tuesday that some treatments appear to be limiting the severity or length of the Covid-19 respiratory disease and that it was is focusing on learning more about four or five of the most promising ones.

“We do have some treatments that seem to be, in very early studies, limiting the severity or the length of the illness, but we do not have anything that can kill or stop the virus,” spokeswoman Margaret Harris told a virtual briefing, referring to the body’s “solidarity trial” of drugs against the disease.

“We do have potentially positive data coming out but we need to see more data to be 100% confident that we can say this treatment over that one,” she added.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

If we all did that we would never know who the liars are😉

or who's who

or is it whose who

[Mark .Y. 351]

41 minutes ago, Bill said:

Ah, I see it is the old make it up and answer that instead ploy. 🤔

Where was that predicted ? were the words not " nobody could predict the number of deaths"

and I understand why you avoided the uncomfortable bits that questioned what the point of something that has no obvious use - other than a bit of intellectual mast***tion

And given I have commented on numbers from a Tuesday at least a couple of times previous I would appreciate you not lying about that either, if only that some might think you are hand crank

I can't help myself.......

The intention of your words was that "nobody could predict the number of deaths", that is what you meant by "where was that predicted", even you can see that it essentially means exactly the same thing.

I didn't need to avoid any uncomfortable bits, I was addressing simply that point. It has a very obvious use which, at the moment, you clearly are unable to see, presumably because your alcohol fix has kicked in. The obvious use is that it shows the death rate is continuing to decline - for the benefit of your embittered and feeble mind - that is good news.

I know you have commented on the Tuesday numbers a couple of times because I'm pretty sure I have previously advised you of your apparent blindness to the way the figures come out. Just because you have commented on them before does not mean that you can still remember what you have been told a few days later.

And no, I'm not anybody else...............except maybe Spartacus. 

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

12 minutes ago, Ian said:

I think everybody understands that the models are based on research works, and as such subject to change, errors, and imperfections. Indeed I do not know of anybody who doesn't understand that all models are likely to be wrong to some degree, but this of course, does not undermine their usefulness. I don't recall suggesting the Imperial model should be "verified as correct" before being used, clearly that is impossible and indeed it is not the point at all. I also do not understand why you are trying to muddy the waters and put words in my mouth.

To be clear, what I, and other taxpayers should expect from publically funded software that is used in such high echelons of Government, is that it has a reasonable level of quality such that it can be replicated and critiqued by peers, or even better, curious members of the public. I am talking about identifying obvious bugs and issues that could invalidate their results entirely.

Utilising a 15-year old model that is so poorly implemented it cannot be easily reviewed or understood by anybody other than the authors (they themselves seem to have struggled) and requires a team of coders to bring it up to a level where you are not embarrassed to release it is just not acceptable.

I cannot grasp how anybody would think it "Good" that a piece of science, which clearly cannot be replicated for the above reasons, should be used in such a manner. On that note, I do not apportion much blame to the Imperial team, as I am sure that they were put in a tricky situation to show their "best science" as soon as possible.

The blame lies at a higher level, and I really do think that SAGE and/or the Government as a whole should have identified the huge level of risk involved with utilising such a model in what appears to much such a prominent fashion in their overall decision making. I do hope that I am wrong and the prominence given to it has just been over-exaggerated.

Given that this modelling software is so old and the last time it was used in a real situation it proved to be wildly unreliable it means that we've had fifteen years to get this right. The 2016 epidemic exercise flagged several deficiencies in areas such as lack of equipment but I cannot remember seeing any reports of the auditing of the modelling software at that time.

So we have gone into this pandemic without checking whether the tools in place were adequate or not. And we have made decisions critical to people's health and critical to the country's economy based on a trashy piece of cobbled together software code. Combined with other errors such as failure to close airports, failure to lockdown early, failure to have test and tracing systems in place, failure to have sufficient equipment we have created one of the highest death rates which ever way you want to splice and dice the data. And perhaps the biggest tragedy was to move elderly patients out of hospital and into care homes without providing them with protective gear and withdrawing treatment to those allowed to die. We exported the virus out of the ICU into totally unprepared care homes. Well that what happens when you have a soviet-style health care system based on rationing. 

Perhaps the modelling software is indicative of what's wrong in the UK. We allow so-called experts free reign to do what they want because those that govern us don't understand what experts are doing. Our leaders come out of universities with degrees in humanities, never having worked in the real world. They lack any kind of useful knowledge so are unable to provide useful leadership in times of crisis. All they know is how to muddle through.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

5 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

I can't help myself.......

 

You really are going to regret it believe me.

[Ian 1,129]

7 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Given that this modelling software is so old and the last time it was used in a real situation it proved to be wildly unreliable it means that we've had fifteen years to get this right. The 2016 epidemic exercise flagged several deficiencies in areas such as lack of equipment but I cannot remember seeing any reports of the auditing of the modelling software at that time.

So we have gone into this pandemic without checking whether the tools in place were adequate or not. And we have made decisions critical to people's health and critical to the country's economy based on a trashy piece of cobbled together software code. Combined with other errors such as failure to close airports, failure to lockdown early, failure to have test and tracing systems in place, failure to have sufficient equipment we have created one of the highest death rates which ever way you want to splice and dice the data. And perhaps the biggest tragedy was to move elderly patients out of hospital and into care homes without providing them with protective gear and withdrawing treatment to those allowed to die. We exported the virus out of the ICU into totally unprepared care homes. Well that what happens when you have a soviet-style health care system based on rationing. 

Perhaps the modelling software is indicative of what's wrong in the UK. We allow so-called experts free reign to do what they want because those that govern us don't understand what experts are doing. Our leaders come out of universities with degrees in humanities, never having worked in the real world. They lack any kind of useful knowledge so are unable to provide useful leadership in times of crisis. All they know is how to muddle through.

I agree with a lot of this. You can't expect your leaders to be experts in very specific scientific matters, but you should certainly expect them to be able to grasp the basics, understand the limitations of what the science can tell them, and at the very least recognise if their advisory bodies are acting in their own self-interest.

At the risk of going all T, perhaps this does partly explain why Germany's response has been far more consistent that our own, given her background in a hard science and their general reputation for technical understanding.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Ian

[Herman 9,716]

Most of that I agree with Rocky. 👍

[BigFish 1,986]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

He wrote an article referencing the Swedish Chief Epidemiologist and the experience of the Swedish handling of the lockdown in that country. Having spent nine years at the Economist as science editor, Washington correspondent and US editor, I think he adds a lot to the debate. You seem to have a problem that he is a Viscount,though.

No, I had a problem that most of his sources were anonymous. Still his journalism makes up for bankrupting a bank I suppose.

And of course the article doesn't reference the Swede you refer to, all anonymous, all assertions, nothing is supported.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by BigFish

[Bill 1,788]

25 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

I can't help myself.......

The intention of your words was that "nobody could predict the number of deaths", that is what you meant by "where was that predicted", even you can see that it essentially means exactly the same thing.

I didn't need to avoid any uncomfortable bits, I was addressing simply that point. It has a very obvious use which, at the moment, you clearly are unable to see, presumably because your alcohol fix has kicked in. The obvious use is that it shows the death rate is continuing to decline - for the benefit of your embittered and feeble mind - that is good news.

I know you have commented on the Tuesday numbers a couple of times because I'm pretty sure I have previously advised you of your apparent blindness to the way the figures come out. Just because you have commented on them before does not mean that you can still remember what you have been told a few days later.

And no, I'm not anybody else...............except maybe Spartacus. 

So, I never actually said those words - just a matter of how you want to spin them

Only one other name claimed I was an alcoholic

And I have never posted about Tuesday figures, you can check - but I did put that up, as I knew there was one poster who always tries to lie his way out

And as pointed out you have not addressed the point, merely spouted out some old guff instead

So, " if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck..... " maybe it's not only me with a bill .... it would seem 😂

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

56 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

I can't help myself

Sugar pie honey bunch

[Bill 1,788]

54 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

I know you have commented on the Tuesday numbers a couple of times because I'm pretty sure I have previously advised you of your apparent blindness to the way the figures come out.

"And don't try and pretend that you remembered the reason for the rise before you posted. You clearly didn't. "

 

Getting a bit confused are we, hand crank ?  🙄

[T 190]

US UK and Brazil. Not exactly a great advert for hard right politics. 

[Herman 9,716]

7 minutes ago, T said:

US UK and Brazil. Not exactly a great advert for hard right politics. 

... and Russia. 

[Ian 1,129]

7 minutes ago, T said:

US UK and Brazil. Not exactly a great advert for hard right politics. 

Sorry, are you saying the current UK Gov't is hard right? 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

1 hour ago, Mark .Y. said:

I can't help myself.......

 

Well don't say you were not warned. No surprise the multiple account card has been used.

[Van wink 2,994]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Well don't say you were not warned. No surprise the multiple account card has been used.

Your words were prophetic but it’s becoming a racing certainly now with any opposing view, it’s like watching an episode of Midsummer Murders 😂

[Barbe bleu 814]

A while back someone asked about the five year average and how this impacts on excess deaths

I've just noticed some of this is on the ft charts.  Basically it seems that winter death rate is much more variable than summer (not surprising really as flu can be really bad one winter and mild the next). 

So excess death data for winter is probably less reliable than that for summer as it might be that really high covid deaths are being disguised by unusually low deaths from 'flu and other causes whereas this natural variation does not exist in summer.

 

[Barbe bleu 814]

Good news is that covid 19 caused resurrections in Israel over Easter 

[Herman 9,716]

26 minutes ago, Ian said:

Sorry, are you saying the current UK Gov't is hard right? 

What else would you describe it as? It's not centrist or moderate Conservative as they were all forced out, who woud be classed as right wing, but it's not the BNP which would be classed as far right. Somewhere in between.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

A while back someone asked about the five year average and how this impacts on excess deaths

I've just noticed some of this is on the ft charts.  Basically it seems that winter death rate is much more variable than summer (not surprising really as flu can be really bad one winter and mild the next). 

So excess death data for winter is probably less reliable than that for summer as it might be that really high covid deaths are being disguised by unusually low deaths from 'flu and other causes whereas this natural variation does not exist in summer.

 

BB. Thst exactly what Z scores capture and neutralize. Standard deviations automatically take account of the seasonal variability.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

What else would you describe it as? It's not centrist or moderate Conservative as they were all forced out, who woud be classed as right wing, but it's not the BNP which would be classed as far right. Somewhere in between.

A better word is Populist. They can be left or right.

[Herman 9,716]

True, so we have a hard right populist government.😀

[Ian 1,129]

12 minutes ago, Herman said:

True, so we have a hard right populist government.😀

So the furlough scheme is an example of a hard right policy?