Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

By filbertway, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Sol thewall Bamba

Sol thewall Bamba

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

 

It didn't

So the graph where the line goes to 250K is what? Out of context or not they've published a scenario where cases go to 250K, and the points you included in your earlier posts basically say "this could happen but it might not, we're not sure", which was kind of my point all along. 

 

Oh and thanks for pointing me back in the direction of that thread as I was looking for it, as it points out Warwick's upper estimate was closer to 350K cases a day this summer, not 250K. Luckily that doesn't seem to have been picked up on by many people. 

Edited by Sol thewall Bamba
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

So the graph where the line goes to 250K is what? Out of context or not they've published a scenario where cases go to 250K, and the points you included in your earlier posts basically say "this could happen but it might not, we're not sure", which was kind of my point all along. 

You mentioned above you understand modelling so apologies if you know this already, but they're simply models showing potential outcomes.  All these are projections based on variable input parameters to see what happens in different situations.  In the "250k" people have wrongly tagged on to, they were seeing what could happen with full mixing, a pessimistically high R ratio and lower than expected vaccine efficacy.  They do this as a sensitivity to see if the worse case situation is tolerable; If we can live with the worst case scenario, jobs a good 'un usually.  The report also provide different confidence bounds on the data as well as "best-estimate" data and concluded that it was so sensitive that the model was inaccurate and shouldn't be used.  That was the conclusion of the report that contained the model, the 250K is an utterly meaningless number.  It's like looking at your pension forecaster and taking the 99.9999999999% upper-bound value of £x million and using that as the basis of financial decisions, it's nonsense.  What I would add on this though, is that we recorded 68,053 cases on 8th January with the less transmissible Alpha variant whilst we'd had some level of restrictions in place.  If we completely opened up, with a significantly more transmissible variant, then having 100k+ per day doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

 

The only other general point I want to raise, is that are so many input parameters to the decisions being made.  As I said in an earlier post, the ALARP and tolerable for lockdown and other restrictions were made on the parameters defined by the conditions originally imposed last March.  There is a misunderstanding that the modelling is THE source of all the restrictions imposed on us.  This is simply untrue, there will be ALARP papers written on the decision being made based on all the socio-economic inputs, other health issues in addition to the modelling.  All these reports are multi-legged assessments to provide the ALARP scoping against the restrictions being imposed.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sol thewall Bamba

Sol thewall Bamba

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

You mentioned above you understand modelling so apologies if you know this already, but they're simply models showing potential outcomes.  All these are projections based on variable input parameters to see what happens in different situations.  In the "250k" people have wrongly tagged on to, they were seeing what could happen with full mixing, a pessimistically high R ratio and lower than expected vaccine efficacy.  They do this as a sensitivity to see if the worse case situation is tolerable; If we can live with the worst case scenario, jobs a good 'un usually.  The report also provide different confidence bounds on the data as well as "best-estimate" data and concluded that it was so sensitive that the model was inaccurate and shouldn't be used.  That was the conclusion of the report that contained the model, the 250K is an utterly meaningless number.  It's like looking at your pension forecaster and taking the 99.9999999999% upper-bound value of £x million and using that as the basis of financial decisions, it's nonsense.  What I would add on this though, is that we recorded 68,053 cases on 8th January with the less transmissible Alpha variant whilst we'd had some level of restrictions in place.  If we completely opened up, with a significantly more transmissible variant, then having 100k+ per day doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

 

The only other general point I want to raise, is that are so many input parameters to the decisions being made.  As I said in an earlier post, the ALARP and tolerable for lockdown and other restrictions were made on the parameters defined by the conditions originally imposed last March.  There is a misunderstanding that the modelling is THE source of all the restrictions imposed on us.  This is simply untrue, there will be ALARP papers written on the decision being made based on all the socio-economic inputs, other health issues in addition to the modelling.  All these reports are multi-legged assessments to provide the ALARP scoping against the restrictions being imposed.

Yes, the upper boundary numbers were ridiculous, and they're a even worse than worst case scenario, I appreciate that. But going back to my original points though about these projections being picked up and ran with by the media, and then that damaging people still remains totally valid. Like I say it's a good job the 350K number seems to have flown under the radar, that would have been a lovely front page for whoever felt scummy enough to print it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

Of course it shouldn’t be forgotten that being vaccinated doesn’t mean you can’t carry the infection

 

But you’re unlikely to be particularly ill with it and also to pass it on v easily 

 

so even in the vaccinated population you could be looking at tens of thousands of cases per day 

 

it’s just that these people won’t appear in official figures as they won’t get tested cos they won’t have symptoms 

 

I expect you will see an even bigger disconnect between the daily govt numbers and the ONS survey data issued on a Friday 

 

that’s just how it will likely be whilst the delta variant is still widely circulating 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Yes, the upper boundary numbers were ridiculous, and they're a even worse than worst case scenario, I appreciate that. But going back to my original points though about these projections being picked up and ran with by the media, and then that damaging people still remains totally valid. Like I say it's a good job the 350K number seems to have flown under the radar, that would have been a lovely front page for whoever felt scummy enough to print it. 

Completely agree and I think this goes back to the earlier points about "the expert" that we agreed on.  How this stuff is being presented in the news/social media is borderline damaging to the cause.  The double edged sword to the "free" media, that they can write as they please with little accountability.  We've seen with social media how they don't give a toss about dealing with personal abuse/racism, they'll given even less of a toss about news headlines about COVID modelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

What I would add on this though, is that we recorded 68,053 cases on 8th January with the less transmissible Alpha variant whilst we'd had some level of restrictions in place.  If we completely opened up, with a significantly more transmissible variant, then having 100k+ per day doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

Unlikely as we now have the vaccine and it's the summer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Completely agree and I think this goes back to the earlier points about "the expert" that we agreed on.  How this stuff is being presented in the news/social media is borderline damaging to the cause.  The double edged sword to the "free" media, that they can write as they please with little accountability.  We've seen with social media how they don't give a toss about dealing with personal abuse/racism, they'll given even less of a toss about news headlines about COVID modelling.

It's not just the way it's presented in this case.  The Warwick estimate for the number of cases today was about 100,000 to 200,000.  It's a big range.  It's wildly wrong.  If we want to use that as a starting point for "what would happen if we reopen today", we'd be fools.  They could have used Warwick's "optimistic" scenario and still produced out-of-proportion scary headlines.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/993510/S1287_SPI-M-O_Summary_Roadmap_step_4.pdf

 

It was figure 4, and the dotted line represents step 4 day, and the line right of the dotted line represents what the model predicts will happen if step 4 goes ahead.

Edited by dsr-burnley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's not just the way it's presented in this case.  The Warwick estimate for the number of cases today was about 100,000 to 200,000.  It's a big range.  It's wildly wrong.  If we want to use that as a starting point for "what would happen if we reopen today", we'd be fools.  They could have used Warwick's "optimistic" scenario and still produced out-of-proportion scary headlines.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/993510/S1287_SPI-M-O_Summary_Roadmap_step_4.pdf

 

It was figure 4, and the dotted line represents step 4 day, and the line right of the dotted line represents what the model predicts will happen if step 4 goes ahead.

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Models as inaccurate as that should never have gotten near the public. That they did is down to reporters looking for a story, because there is no logical reason whatsoever a scientist would stick their reputation down the pan by putting it out there and standing by it themselves if it was that error strewn.

 

I know it seems like I'm blaming everyone but the scientific community here, but I'm doing so because it just makes sense to think that they have nothing to gain from releasing information that can so obviously have holes poked in it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Time to revisit this graph...

 

Image

 

Are we there yet?  

Not quiet, but at currently 10000+ cases per day, we’re not far off. What they fail to predict is hospitalisations which is more important IMO. It doesn’t matter if there are a million cases a day if the numbers of people being admitted and then being put on life support are low. In fact I’d have thought more conclusions could be arrived at if there were tons of people catching it yet hardly anyone needing icu treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

People shouldn't be forced to take it really if its killing people anyone under the age of 40 should be good

Now you’re entering v interesting territory

 

whats more important?  You (as an individual) or society (as a whole) ?  
 

i know what I think as an individual but I also know what I think as a member of society……… 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Time to revisit this graph...

 

Image

 

Are we there yet?  

image.thumb.png.3b2276081a0ca36195d52958cce007a3.png


Once the ONS data appears we probably are well past it …..  the Zoe graph for sleepy and covidless St Albans shows the trajectory 

judging by boris’ comments yesterday, they’re confident there won’t be a correlation with hospitalisations and could be that they take their chances with variants appearing within a mass rise of mild or asymptomatic infections 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Col city fan

Col city fan

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Anyone else felt like you've got a cold after the vaccine?

 

First one felt like Flu, second one definitely feels more like a cold, with a runny nose. 

I had the runny nose about two days after the first vaccine. It was literally streaming for a couple of hours, then weirdly stopped

Second vaccine... nothing at all, just a sore arm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted
On 20/06/2021 at 18:09, Paninistickers said:

Exactly. I'm guessing your question is rhetorical. 

 

We have helter skeltered into such  a feeble, compliant, lily livered nation nowadays.

 

Wouldn't say boo to a goose most people.

 

 

So feeble and compliant that we've taken one of the best political partnerships, in which we had many special benefits over others because we refused to be feeble and compliant, and thrown it in the bin over fears of being seen as too feeble and compliant.  No that's not England's problem, it's the toxic machismo, exceptionalism and xenophobia running rampant through the dead brains of the British public thanks to years of unaccountable print media spreading fear and falsehoods.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...