The media and the politicians that are supposed to question the strategy have been hopeless.. in fact worse than hopeless.
The fact that not one single journo has asked these questions is IMO why conspiracy theories are running rampant.
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online.
Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.
Coronavirus science and statistics(no politics)
- Thread starter jakehake
- Start date
The media and the politicians that are supposed to question the strategy have been hopeless.. in fact worse than hopeless.
The fact that not one single journo has asked these questions is IMO why conspiracy theories are running rampant.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,365
(Edit - I missed off the quote - added belatedly)
That FEELS like a very big assumption. Surely the shape of curves (not just the magnitudes) WILL be influenced by what you choose to measure and how you choose to measure it (and on many other factors too.) The question then becomes: How significantly are the curves changed? And the jury is still out on that for me - but my reading is not yet wide on this.
The other assumption involved in the above statement is that governments are being consistent in their reporting. We know some are not. Also, whilst many governments may have set out with good intentions to be scientifically rigorous, the world soon started creating league tables- and the political pressure to downplay figures must, in some cases, have led to massaging of the numbers. Potentially the real reason for the “exponential reduction in growth rates” that one of your links suggest 😁
Finally, the link in #1129 claims good fits of global data but seems to make an awful lot of assumptions- and modellers in any scientific field are often very able to find fudge factors (“coefficients” and “constant”) that allow them to draw straight lines through data - but I don’t think the article offers any evidence that these straight lines can be extrapolated well (not saying they are wrong but that the (not peer reviewed) article could be someone showing off their mathematical prowess rather than putting their finger on something actually really useful going forward.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,365
Is it still the case that the world’s media have tended to get political journalists to ask the questions- as it was in the early weeks? (I stopped watching the Downing Street Press conferences a long time back)
California_PNE
Patron
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 13,223
The shape of the curve describes the general behaviour or development of the epidemic within that sample being measured, i.e. the curves being discussed all have the same shape
Btw, the paper (imperial college London) that got the UK in this mess was not peer reviewed
Michael Levitt..
The Stanford Daily [TSD]: Could you tell me about your research on the trajectory of China’s outbreak?
Michael Levitt [ML]: I started studying the outbreak in China around Jan. 20. Everyone talks about viruses growing exponentially, and when you divide the number of deaths today by the number of deaths yesterday, you should expect to get the same number. But when looking at the outbreak in China, I noticed that in three or four successive days, the amount it was increasing was actually getting less. I think one day it was 30%, the next day it was 26%, then 22% and 18%. I thought “Wow, this is actually heading toward no increase.”
TSD: How did you make a prediction about when the outbreak would peak from this data?
ML: The [rate at which deaths had increased from the day before] looked like [it] fell in a straight line. Sure enough, there were some jumps in the numbers, but each day, there was a smaller percentage increase than you would have expected. From this, you could get a pretty good idea of when it would end, or if not end, when we’d reach a point where it would stop growing and start to slow down.
TSD: Could you tell me about how you went on to study outbreaks in other countries?
ML: Well, after China, it was then South Korea, and then Italy. And to my surprise, other countries actually looked a lot like China, even though China had very, very strict social distancing. I sort of said, well, social distancing might be very important. But the fact is, even without this, the virus seems to be working to flatten the curve. The virus seems to have this intrinsic property of not growing exponentially but actually growing slower and slower each day.
I think general mortality statistics are the most consistent between different countries..
Are you saying the curves are "textbook perfect" ? Or are you quoting the Prof ? Curious
Not really - if you are consistent about how you measure mortality from Covid, then the shape of the curve will be the same. I have seen nothing to suggest that countries like Sweden and Germany have been manipulating their figures at all, so I am not really convinced by your argument. There are no steep drops that such a change in recording methods would cause.
As I said, those curves fit the theoretical curves beautifully. Most models used had multiple variables and complex equations. Levitt's is a simple equation yet was the most accurate prediction so far.
Last edited:
From my own experience - I studied some epidemiology back in the 90s and also had to use simple models for work.
The curves we are seeing from Covid are the exact same shape as the examples I saw in the textbooks as 'typical' curves.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,365
.
Probably- but is the “ most consistent” dataset actually consistent enoughTake our country’ - just as a pertinent example. How consistent do you think that has been? Factors that affect consistency (that come to mind instantly)
Probably- but is the “ most consistent” dataset actually consistent enoughTake our country’ - just as a pertinent example. How consistent do you think that has been? Factors that affect consistency (that come to mind instantly)
- Changing number of people tested (therefore counted as a covid death if hit by a bus some months later)
- Deaths at home/care home - are we really clear what’s included month by month?
- Deaths in hospital changes with changing public confidence in going to hospital
- Doctors won’t be consistent in how likely to mention COVID on a death certificate.
- Changing clinical practices
- Changing ways of gathering stats. e.g. between the 4 nations.
These are off the top- and some more impactful than others- but all countries will have inconsistencies like this - and the degree to which each of the factors is varying will not be consistent!
beagleman
Patron
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,577
Exactly...... Take two Asdas... One in Manchester.. One in Preston
Asda head office ring up and ask how many bananas did you throw away yesterday?
Manchester say 25, Preston say 90.
Manchester counted bunches.. Preston counted individual bananas.... Therefore when compared like for like Preston threw out 15 bunches of 6....
Manipulation of data will always occur to make someone look better/more efficient.
Asda head office ring up and ask how many bananas did you throw away yesterday?
Manchester say 25, Preston say 90.
Manchester counted bunches.. Preston counted individual bananas.... Therefore when compared like for like Preston threw out 15 bunches of 6....
Manipulation of data will always occur to make someone look better/more efficient.
With all due respect I am pretty confident that the scientists involved in interpreting this data, and Sepp who is experienced in this field, have been doing so all their professional lives and would be assured of the data's authenticity and value before using it as evidence for their research and results.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,365
Like the professionals at Imperial College?
I only studied the basics, so don't belong in the same sentence as the scientists.
You mean the ones who incorrectly assumed that there would be no preexisting immunity in the population? Leading to a very flawed model.
It seems that they don't have much a grasp on immunology and how the body reacts to viruses - and that has been the problem.
I've heard it suggested that funding is the main reason few scientists are not prepared to challenge the official line ?
If you produce results that counter the already agreed course you are less likely to receive funding from government or folks like the Gates Foundation to undertake more research.
I believe Imperial College received a 200 million grant from the GF... whose main objective in all this appears to be the development of a vaccine.
Are Imp College more likely to produce results that fit with the aims of a large funding source ?
If you produce results that counter the already agreed course you are less likely to receive funding from government or folks like the Gates Foundation to undertake more research.
I believe Imperial College received a 200 million grant from the GF... whose main objective in all this appears to be the development of a vaccine.
Are Imp College more likely to produce results that fit with the aims of a large funding source ?
Last edited:
Prof Stadler seemed to think that was the case with immunologists who disagreed with the present narrative - although that is only hearsay, of course.
The effects of funding in science is a very murky topic that stretches far beyond coronavirus.
Quite a few times, I have edited papers that I thought were a bit shaky and skewed towards a particular result, but it wasn't my job to point that out.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,365
The premise for my argument could OBVIOUSLY be boiled down to “The world is not consistent in what it measures and how it measures it, with respect to COVID. And therefore...“
And you casually dismiss my point with those words? I do wonder why! 🤔
I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing. You like to challenge “the accepted norms” - and so you will appreciate that I am just taking a step back when a group of scientists declare that they have “cleaned the data“ from thousands of datasets around the world- and then draw a straight line through them. It might be brilliant work. Or (as I am sure you have witnessed yourself in the past), it could be a group of scientists justifying the deletion of inconvenient data, and finding a way to get data to fit perfectly against textbook curves.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,365
As stated yesterday, some of the Bill Gates conspiracy theories would be funny if they weren’t so dangerous.
I declare an interest here - I have read some ridiculous horrendous libellous stuff about Gates on a Facebook group, on which a relative is prominent. I might be sensitised to it!
But for sure, a post that starts “I’ve heard that...” and then blames Bill Gates for manipulating the global response to COVID for his own wealth creation, at the expense of millions of lives and the world economic future - it does make me raise a quizzical eyebrow!
I don't have the time today to respond fully to your long posts. Not casual dismissal, just that I have work to do. It's as simple as that.