Corona Virus main thread

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

2 minutes ago, T said:

Isn’t it like the economist asked to give a forecast though. If you asked to give a forecast don’t and if you do make sure it is far enough into the future so people forget. Hopefully we will know the infection rates fairly soon if UK can get round to buying and using the antibody tests. Everything is just playing with numbers. 

Yes - but why oh why haven't we had already smaller scale 'research ' base antibody sampling a month ago (I note there was something from Sweden, Germany and indeed China - all gave l think lower values than expected - or wished for !). All these models seem lacking in the most important and obvious 'calibration' figure! We actually don't know how many people have had it!

[Bill 1,788]

10 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes Oh dear Bill.

I can agree with you on many things but you are asking a different statistical question.

I'm just interested in what proportion of the populations as whole or indeed regionally may have had the virus via well established standard sampling theory that's been around for > 100 years. (Blame Guinness for that 😉).

''well established standard sampling theory ''

which has shown to be flawed in this case, and hence the contradictory results

you should be asking to what purpose are these figures being collared

as it we come back to how the data is and has been used

[Bill 1,788]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

So why has the Chancellor extended furlough until October? That would indicate they feel the virus could take a long time to reach a "safe" level or they fear a second wave in autumn.

 

Because so many jobs have been and will be, lost

It is not about being 'safe, as millions have been working through this (not at home either)

it will take a long while for certain jobs to return - albeit via another company in many cases

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

''well established standard sampling theory ''

which has shown to be flawed in this case, and hence the contradictory results

you should be asking to what purpose are these figures being collared

as it we come back to how the data is and has been used

Nothing wrong with the theory - choose the correct randomized sample size.

[Bill 1,788]

correct randomised ?

ignoring the suggestion of contradiction, there is not much chance if the results having any worth given the variations

electoral polls can use known variations - whereas here we don't

we are starting from afresh, and are now only slowly finding out such variables as age, BAME, and yesterday Diabetese sufferers

while collecting numbers may prove interesting to the train spotting fraternity, it should not be something to be used in this situation

(if only that some still think this is one variation of the virus)

and for those still fully absorbed with these train numbers I would look back and ask what number crunching led to this thought

"it remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected'.""

and how can we be certain this will not happen again, or is even happening now ?

[T 190]

17 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - but why oh why haven't we had already smaller scale 'research ' base antibody sampling a month ago (I note there was something from Sweden, Germany and indeed China - all gave l think lower values than expected - or wished for !). All these models seem lacking in the most important and obvious 'calibration' figure! We actually don't know how many people have had it!

I don't know why the results of reported antibody sample tests haven't been published. Heard maybe even lab tests weren't considered that accurate. But just been watching an interesting report and i can get an antibody  test for 20 to 30 Euros as can everyone else which is 99.8pc accurate but no offence to your model  I'd like to see some local sample results first before bothering.  There was confirmed cases at work and I had a bad new cough for a week with no fever so possible but very much doubt it if low percentage of population. If it was the high figures some claim I'd be tempted but not if only few percent. Wil be interesting to see and will impact policy and behaviour and maybe settle one argument on here!. .  .  

[ricardo 7,348]

All very well but its the tea drinking train spotters I worry about.🤔

[Bill 1,788]

10 minutes ago, ricardo said:

All very well but its the tea drinking train spotters I worry about.🤔

or the elderly who were seen in March as collateral damage

now standing at 20,000 plus it would seem

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

or the elderly who were seen in March as collateral damage

now standing at 20,000 plus it would seem

jeez Billo, are you gloating? starting to look like it. must be time for you to burn off some excess energy....but not on here.

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

jeez Billo, are you gloating? starting to look like it. must be time for you to burn off some excess energy....but not on here.

yes, I am gloating about 20,000 deaths

you must be stuck for something to have a pop at me about, if that is the level you have to sink to

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Let's get at the very least some proper random sample antibody data - send it to Roche if need be! Then we can make evidence-based decisions on facts not wild assumptions.

the article below highlights how flawed such a broad brush approach to randomhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-barrow-cumbria-covid-infection-rates-cases-uk-a9516636.html sampling is

any political poll would have previous polls to test against, and would have known variables....age, economic class etc but any 'virus poll' would be starting from almost scratch even with factoring in some of the above

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-barrow-cumbria-covid-infection-rates-cases-uk-a9516636.html

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

8 minutes ago, Bill said:

yes, I am gloating about 20,000 deaths

Thought so. You must be really stuck for something to do other than harangue  anyone who has any opinion  that isn't yours.  

As stated before, I'm no Boris boy, but I refuse to believe  that any of the bunch In charge wilfully  allowed those deaths to occur. Yes, mistakes were made  but it was not genocide or ageist cleansing.

I'm  starting to feel a little sorry for you chap  , what has life dealt you to make you so bitter and contentious....about virtually everything.  

Goodbye. 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I appreciate that - my calculation was a simple 'sanity' check on the numbers.

Another way of getting to the same rough number was to say the 150,000 actual positive antigen over 2 weeks (actually last 2 weeks of April when tested more or less) actually corresponds to infections across the peak (early April) - it takes several weeks to 'clear' the virus - so 150,000 may well have a lot of the peak counts in them i.e. it is at or near the 'worst'.

The rest of my simple calculations just assumes these numbers extended fortnightly (it's an over- exageration) from all of March onwards for 12 weeks at 150,000 every 2 weeks - and I get a number of the order of 2 to 4 %. - vaguely in-line with Whitty.

What I don't think the real-number is or was is 10 x greater!

What I want is some proper numbers!

I agree, but I think there is a middle ground between assuming the recent 150k level has been flat from March and the other extreme where people start hoping 40% of the population have been infected, I think both those extremes are unrealistic.  Also I suspect Whitty has been erring on the side of caution on this.  What he said was he thought the likely numbers were around 10% in London and 4% for the rest of the country, last time I saw him (Sunday or Monday I think).  I'm guessing those are cautious numbers.

 

If we look at the numbers that are reasonably solid and should be consistent, they would be hospital admissions and deaths in hospital (looking at date of death, not date it is reported) - to me, I think those are likely to have tracked the total number of infections fairly consistently over this period (albeit with a lag).  And both those show a clear increase, peak, and then a reduction.  So if we're looking at 150k active infections recently, the peak was clearly a lot higher and that means total people who've been infected at some point will be considerably higher than you get if you just assume 150k as a flat number over the whole period.

 

Some people seem to want to get to a number that is very high, which is understandable because it means the worst is probably over.  Others seem to want to find a very low number, (for reasons I don't understand).  I just want the best estimate that we can sensibly derive from the information we have currently.

 

I'm sure we'll have better information in future and I wish they could do an antibody test now, but we can only work with the information that's out there.

[Bill 1,788]

16 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

You must be really stuck for something to do other than harangue  anyone who has any opinion  that isn't yours.  

As stated before, I'm no Boris boy, but I refuse to believe  that any of the bunch In charge wilfully  allowed those deaths to occur. Yes, mistakes were made  but it was not genocide or ageist cleansing.

I'm  starting to feel a little sorry for you chap  , what has life dealt you to make you so bitter and contentious....about virtually everything.  

Goodbye. 

oh dear irony not being one of your strong points I see

and none one has claimed anything was "genocide or ageist cleansing" - that is just you making up stuff, again

and part of a forum is that people exchange different ideas - rather than simply throw insults ... as has been your contribution

as to what happened, we don't know as the government won't release what was said

but we do have

"The report claimed that at one private event at the end of February, Cummings outlined then government’s strategy at the time in a way that was summarised by some present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

The allegations, which have been widely shared online, connect with wider criticisms that the government response to the virus was initially too weak, based on a notion that rather than limiting its spread, enough people could be allowed to contract it to give population-wide “herd immunity”.

Which does rather suggest that far from 'haranguing anyone - there is merit in my bringing this to the fore

 

[Bagster 101]

If you have never seen a you tube channel called "rebel wisdom" then maybe it's time you had a look.

It's left leaning , so fellow hard , extremely extreme right leaning people beware, some of your views will be challenged.

TBF whether you are left or right this channel will challenge some of your beliefs

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Bagster
Correction

[Bagster 101]

If you believe mainstream media is unbiased, maybe you should watch this

 

[Herman 9,717]

Isn't Rebel Wisdom the fuller figured Australian actress? 

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

28 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

I agree, but I think there is a middle ground between assuming the recent 150k level has been flat from March and the other extreme where people start hoping 40% of the population have been infected, I think both those extremes are unrealistic.  Also I suspect Whitty has been erring on the side of caution on this.  What he said was he thought the likely numbers were around 10% in London and 4% for the rest of the country, last time I saw him (Sunday or Monday I think).  I'm guessing those are cautious numbers.

 

If we look at the numbers that are reasonably solid and should be consistent, they would be hospital admissions and deaths in hospital (looking at date of death, not date it is reported) - to me, I think those are likely to have tracked the total number of infections fairly consistently over this period (albeit with a lag).  And both those show a clear increase, peak, and then a reduction.  So if we're looking at 150k active infections recently, the peak was clearly a lot higher and that means total people who've been infected at some point will be considerably higher than you get if you just assume 150k as a flat number over the whole period.

 

Some people seem to want to get to a number that is very high, which is understandable because it means the worst is probably over.  Others seem to want to find a very low number, (for reasons I don't understand).  I just want the best estimate that we can sensibly derive from the information we have currently.

 

I'm sure we'll have better information in future and I wish they could do an antibody test now, but we can only work with the information that's out there.

Agreed. The 150K is almost the only 'solid' population wide random data we have at present - although I did multiply it by 2 and integrate over 12 weeks solid not 3 or 4. Deaths however are self-selecting (no pun intended) of the elderly - largely males etc - please let's not wind Bill up - a bit too much sun!

Edited May 15, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[Crafty Canary 495]

57 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Thought so. You must be really stuck for something to do other than harangue  anyone who has any opinion  that isn't yours.  

As stated before, I'm no Boris boy, but I refuse to believe  that any of the bunch In charge wilfully  allowed those deaths to occur. Yes, mistakes were made  but it was not genocide or ageist cleansing.

I'm  starting to feel a little sorry for you chap  , what has life dealt you to make you so bitter and contentious....about virtually everything.  

Goodbye. 

Wcorkcanary, he is a windup merchant. He just loves taking a fixed view so he gets reactions and can abuse people in return. I blocked him as I can’t be bothered with his utter tripe.

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

30 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Some people seem to want to get to a number that is very high, which is understandable because it means the worst is probably over.  Others seem to want to find a very low number, (for reasons I don't understand).  I just want the best estimate that we can sensibly derive from the information we have currently.

Bit more on this - there are two camps I think.

There is one a bit like I think you or me who just want the plain vanilla facts to form policy - or at least to know what trade-offs are we are making.

Then there are those that seem desperate (as in many ways we all are) for economic reasons to relax the lockdown - and the 'Swedish' model if they have achieved a degree of herd immunity (or even immunity suppression) is almost a get out of jail free card. We won't ask if there are any long term side effects from the disease.

Hence the true number infected, and the deaths or disabilities that result are critical  numbers to drive policy options.

If its low - 5% (or even less in Norfolk as I suspect) we remain wide open to a 2nd, 3rd and 4th wave. If it is 50% - almost home and dry.

[Bill 1,788]

15 minutes ago, Crafty Canary said:

Wcorkcanary, he is a windup merchant. He just loves taking a fixed view so he gets reactions and can abuse people in return. I blocked him as I can’t be bothered with his utter tripe.

ooops, there's another coincidence

an angry righty who just happened by to agree with another anget right whining about how awful Bill is

odd that he had not posted for over 28 hours or so before

yep, another one of those coincidences

[ricardo 7,348]

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

ooops, there's another coincidence

an angry righty who just happened by to agree with another anget right whining about how awful Bill is

odd that he had not posted for over 28 hours or so before

yep, another one of those coincidences

Are you clocking us all in and out Bill?

[Bill 1,788]

10 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Bit more on this - there are two camps I think.

There is one a bit like I think you or me who just want the plain vanilla facts to form policy - or at least to know what trade-offs are we are making.

Then there are those that seem desperate (as in many ways we all are) for economic reasons to relax the lockdown - and the 'Swedish' model if they have achieved a degree of herd immunity (or even immunity suppression) is almost a get out of jail free card. We won't ask if there are any long term side effects from the disease.

Hence the true number infected, and the deaths or disabilities that result are critical  numbers to drive policy options.

If its low - 5% (or even less in Norfolk as I suspect) we remain wide open to a 2nd, 3rd and 4th wave. If it is 50% - almost home and dry.

you have (inadvertently0 highlighted the flaws

other than deaths we really don't know anything precise - so the concern has to be what decisions are being made on the basis of guess work ?

have a look at the clip below where Hancock said (after a Cobra meeting) that the risk to the public remains low

now either he was intentionally lying, or relying upon the flawed data that still keeps getting thrown up

and my point is not to mock the trainspotter types, or the need for some to want reassurance, but to questions what decisions are going to be made in future in this regard to quite inaccurate guesswork....that is being passed off as 'science'

[Essjayess 307]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

or the elderly who were seen in March as collateral damage

now standing at 20,000 plus it would seem

careful bill...and you told me that such statitistics and graphs are utterly pointless...thats a statistic  so is it not utterly pointless because you yourself use it?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

other than deaths we really don't know anything precise 

There seems to be a feeling abroad that the death toll is far greater than the official figures, Bill

[Bill 1,788]

14 minutes ago, Essjayess said:

careful bill...and you told me that such statitistics and graphs are utterly pointless...thats a statistic  so is it not utterly pointless because you yourself use it?

oh dear, there's always one

that is a recorded number, not guesses, as are the ones I refer to

(do try to keep up 😉)

[Bill 1,788]

9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

other than deaths we really don't know anything precise 

There seems to be a feeling abroad that the death toll is far greater than the official figures, Bill

I would certainly agree on that - but we can only work with what we know

the death toll is that recorded as being due to the virus - the rest is guess work, other than cases that have been admitted as being infected, but even then they are only those admitted as folk are advised to stay at home and sit it out

and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that folk had the symptoms last autumn

so the problem lies in drawing definite conclusions and making future predictions based on guesswork, as clearly in the UK that guesswork has failed badly

so until we find out what guesswork the advice was based on (see the TV clip above) we are really just shoving folk out to work, on a 'suck it and see' basis

much as what happened to the poor bu ggers who witnessed the Atom bomb tests in the 40./50s

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

3 hours ago, Bill said:

correct randomised ?

ignoring the suggestion of contradiction, there is not much chance if the results having any worth given the variations

electoral polls can use known variations - whereas here we don't

we are starting from afresh, and are now only slowly finding out such variables as age, BAME, and yesterday Diabetese sufferers

while collecting numbers may prove interesting to the train spotting fraternity, it should not be something to be used in this situation

(if only that some still think this is one variation of the virus)

and for those still fully absorbed with these train numbers I would look back and ask what number crunching led to this thought

"it remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected'.""

and how can we be certain this will not happen again, or is even happening now ?

You seem to want it both ways. You pull up the quote

"it remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected'.""

As a criticism of government strategy, by asking how it can be certain to not happen again.

 

And at the same time you reply to KG who asks about continuing furloghing, with this quote:

Because so many jobs have been and will be, lost

It is not about being 'safe, as millions have been working through this (not at home either)

it will take a long while for certain jobs to return - albeit via another company in many cases

So is it about being safe or not? Is the solution going into lockdown to protect the elderly whom you describe as "collateral damage" or is it to ease up in order to prevent more jobs being lost?

From what statistics we do have it is clear that the elderly and those with underlying illnesses are the worst affected - and therefore should be under lockdown. Whereas the effect of this virus is minimal in children and those of working age. So there is no reason why we shouldn't follow the Swedish strategy and open up the country for all but the elderly and vulnerable. 

Listening the the Swish CMO, he admitted to one mistake, which was to not lockdown on care homes at an early stage and had they done so numbers would have been much lower. Our government, not admitting to any mistakes, funnelled covid-bearing patients into care homes thereby seeding an unnecessary and calamitous amount of deaths among the elderly. 

 

[Herman 9,717]

🤨🤨🤨

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

you have (inadvertently0 highlighted the flaws

other than deaths we really don't know anything precise - so the concern has to be what decisions are being made on the basis of guess work ?

have a look at the clip below where Hancock said (after a Cobra meeting) that the risk to the public remains low

now either he was intentionally lying, or relying upon the flawed data that still keeps getting thrown up

and my point is not to mock the trainspotter types, or the need for some to want reassurance, but to questions what decisions are going to be made in future in this regard to quite inaccurate guesswork....that is being passed off as 'science'

Well I actually agree with you here, Bill. Inasmuch as we are here because the the Imperial Model of Ferguson that predicted an upper range of 500k deaths that the media ran with as we are looking at 500k deaths at which point the government panicked and science went out of the door. To be perfectly honest I don't think we should worry too much about whether infection rates are 5% or 50%. What we do know is that most people will be ok if they get infected, and we know who will not be ok, so we can prepare for that. By continuing the lockdown you are merely prolonging the inevitable as this virus is expected to be with us for ever just as the flu virus is, so best to bite the bullet and save the economy.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Rock The Boat