Coronavirus science and statistics(no politics)

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
Going with the flow is a far safer option.Even if it doesn't work too well you can always claim that everyone else was doing it and get yourself off the hook and stay in a job...... Perhaps that's a bit cynical but I'll wager it's not too far away from the truth. In fairness I suppose you have to balance that out with if the herd immunity approach was adopted ( still with restrictions of course) and it failed then those advocating it would be strung up. Mind you in that case we'd have all snuffed it so it wouldn't matter. :)

Joking aside and I'm not sure how many there are but I'd like to see head to heads between the Stadlers of this world and those putting forward the popular views...I doubt that we'll see it too often though..
In the video above the immunity prof says that modelling is based on using a margin of error that can let them off being so far out and above with overestimated death figures but can't be allowed to underestimate deaths. This is like you say above. If you state that there will be 100000 deaths but due to measures you put in place there are only 50000 it makes you look good.
 

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
In the video above the immunity prof says that modelling is based on using a margin of error that can let them off being so far out and above with overestimated death figures but can't be allowed to underestimate deaths. This is like you say above. If you state that there will be 100000 deaths but due to measures you put in place there are only 50000 it makes you look good.

Which isn't what most of us expect of great minds is it?...... Are they really great individuals or just a load of hand picked, predictable yes men that can remember answers in order to pass exams?...Sorry I was being cynical again... You get that way at my age....It's called experience.. :)
 

wld

Forum Patron
Patron
Exactly - and that, really, has been our point all along. I have no idea if I am 'right' with my line of thinking (the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle), but it is important to look at everything.

That is not happening at the moment, sadly - even now, talking about the alternatives on Twitter sees you labelled as a genocidal manic, eugenicist, or hard right. That isn't helping us understand this virus and how to tackle it.
I look at it from what I think is a common sense direction. If I have a cold, no matter how stinking a cold it is, not everyone in my house or classroom gets the same cold - even if I cough, sneeze etc all day. Some will catch it, most won’t. Why does that happen? Surely it must be a lot to do with immunity and the T Cell ‘theory’ explains it perfectly for me.
 

raefil

Shit Fan
Patron
In the video above the immunity prof says that modelling is based on using a margin of error that can let them off being so far out and above with overestimated death figures but can't be allowed to underestimate deaths. This is like you say above. If you state that there will be 100000 deaths but due to measures you put in place there are only 50000 it makes you look good.
That worked well then, didnt it?

"

The minister had said that if we come through this crisis with 20,000 deaths or less, that would be an acceptable result! My jaw dropped. That’s not right! It can’t be right.



After some moments the “bolt out the blue” had finally sunk in, so I returned my thoughts to the bulletin and sure enough, shortly afterwards, Professor Powis repeated that 20,000 deaths would be an acceptable result! “Never!” I screamed at the telly!

C’mon folks, who are these people who can treat human life so cheaply! Are they from a different planet? This is not right! One life lost due to Covid-19 is bad enough, but 20,000?

These people cannot properly represent what normal folks want. They don’t seem to value life as any normal person would. I’m utterly appalled that life can be regarded as so meaningless.

A Business Secretary who only seems to deal with figures and money, that’s hardly surprising, but a Chief Medical Officer who has a duty to save lives? This is unforgivable."

 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
I look at it from what I think is a common sense direction. If I have a cold, no matter how stinking a cold it is, not everyone in my house or classroom gets the same cold - even if I cough, sneeze etc all day. Some will catch it, most won’t. Why does that happen? Surely it must be a lot to do with immunity and the T Cell ‘theory’ explains it perfectly for me.
I was pretty poorly at Christmas on holiday in Oz. Proper flu symptoms and I felt dreadful for days. I was there with two other families sharing the same house, living areas, cars etc. It was something picked up on the journey im sure, may have been covid I dont know, but no one else caught it, not even my wife.
I would have thought in those close quarters somebody should have caught it, but maybe they were already covered.
 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
That worked well then, didnt it?

"

The minister had said that if we come through this crisis with 20,000 deaths or less, that would be an acceptable result! My jaw dropped. That’s not right! It can’t be right.



After some moments the “bolt out the blue” had finally sunk in, so I returned my thoughts to the bulletin and sure enough, shortly afterwards, Professor Powis repeated that 20,000 deaths would be an acceptable result! “Never!” I screamed at the telly!

C’mon folks, who are these people who can treat human life so cheaply! Are they from a different planet? This is not right! One life lost due to Covid-19 is bad enough, but 20,000?

These people cannot properly represent what normal folks want. They don’t seem to value life as any normal person would. I’m utterly appalled that life can be regarded as so meaningless.

A Business Secretary who only seems to deal with figures and money, that’s hardly surprising, but a Chief Medical Officer who has a duty to save lives? This is unforgivable."

Its called being a realistic. Being in the medical profession you have to take the emotion out of it.
No matter what they did this was always going to be a high death event, that's what pandemics do, kill people. I prefer a bit of honesty and realism instead of not hurting peoples sensitivities., it gets the seriousness of the situation across.

I'm sure you haven't mourned or worried yourself with previous bad year flu deaths.

People die, its called life.
 

Sepp Blatter

Lord of Geeks
Patron
I look at it from what I think is a common sense direction. If I have a cold, no matter how stinking a cold it is, not everyone in my house or classroom gets the same cold - even if I cough, sneeze etc all day. Some will catch it, most won’t. Why does that happen? Surely it must be a lot to do with immunity and the T Cell ‘theory’ explains it perfectly for me.
It does - and the majority of the science now supports that view.

There is no doubt that T-cell immunity plays an important role. How much? If it really is as high as the study Snicky posted (although the paper has a few complexities), then lockdown strategies have to be questioned.
 

Nobber

Forum Patron
Patron
That worked well then, didnt it?

"

The minister had said that if we come through this crisis with 20,000 deaths or less, that would be an acceptable result! My jaw dropped. That’s not right! It can’t be right.



After some moments the “bolt out the blue” had finally sunk in, so I returned my thoughts to the bulletin and sure enough, shortly afterwards, Professor Powis repeated that 20,000 deaths would be an acceptable result! “Never!” I screamed at the telly!

C’mon folks, who are these people who can treat human life so cheaply! Are they from a different planet? This is not right! One life lost due to Covid-19 is bad enough, but 20,000?

These people cannot properly represent what normal folks want. They don’t seem to value life as any normal person would. I’m utterly appalled that life can be regarded as so meaningless.

A Business Secretary who only seems to deal with figures and money, that’s hardly surprising, but a Chief Medical Officer who has a duty to save lives? This is unforgivable."

“If some old people die, they die”
 

Nobber

Forum Patron
Patron
Its called being a realistic. Being in the medical profession you have to take the emotion out of it.
No matter what they did this was always going to be a high death event, that's what pandemics do, kill people. I prefer a bit of honesty and realism instead of not hurting peoples sensitivities., it gets the seriousness of the situation across.

I'm sure you haven't mourned or worried yourself with previous bad year flu deaths.

People die, its called life.
I think you’ll find it’s called death.
 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
It does - and the majority of the science now supports that view.

There is no doubt that T-cell immunity plays an important role. How much? If it really is as high as the study Snicky posted (although the paper has a few complexities), then lockdown strategies have to be questioned.
I know this is worse than flu, in regards to the nastiness of it, but it isn't worse than flu in infection mortality terms.
Lockdowns and precautions can't happen like this every bad flu season.
 

Nobber

Forum Patron
Patron
I know this is worse than flu, in regards to the nastiness of it, but it isn't worse than flu in case mortality terms.
Lockdowns and precautions can't happen like this every bad flu season.
Half a million cases in California.

Bad flu 🙄
 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
Half a million cases in California.

Bad flu 🙄
I'll reply to you on this sensible thread Nobber.

America is a big country. Do you have any idea about the data of flu outbreaks and mortality rates in the US?

And its not if some old people will die, its how many WILL die.

Its a pandemic.
 

Nobber

Forum Patron
Patron
I'll reply to you on this sensible thread Nobber.

America is a big country. Do you have any idea about the data of flu outbreaks and mortality rates in the US?
Don’t put yourself out Snicky, I didn’t realise there were different categories of threads now. Who labels them? You?

what is the population of California.
 

chorleythehord

Forum Patron
Patron
That worked well then, didnt it?

"

The minister had said that if we come through this crisis with 20,000 deaths or less, that would be an acceptable result! My jaw dropped. That’s not right! It can’t be right.



After some moments the “bolt out the blue” had finally sunk in, so I returned my thoughts to the bulletin and sure enough, shortly afterwards, Professor Powis repeated that 20,000 deaths would be an acceptable result! “Never!” I screamed at the telly!

C’mon folks, who are these people who can treat human life so cheaply! Are they from a different planet? This is not right! One life lost due to Covid-19 is bad enough, but 20,000?

These people cannot properly represent what normal folks want. They don’t seem to value life as any normal person would. I’m utterly appalled that life can be regarded as so meaningless.

A Business Secretary who only seems to deal with figures and money, that’s hardly surprising, but a Chief Medical Officer who has a duty to save lives? This is unforgivable."

The brutality of the presentation might not be what everyone likes, but the statement was a perfectly valid one. As would be 150,000 cancer deaths this year would be a good outcome.
 

raefil

Shit Fan
Patron
The brutality of the presentation might not be what everyone likes, but the statement was a perfectly valid one. As would be 150,000 cancer deaths this year would be a good outcome.
I was making the point that snicky said they would overestimate an outcome to enable them to claim success when the outcome was lower.

It worked well didnt it, in this case?
 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
I'll reply to you on this sensible thread Nobber.

America is a big country. Do you have any idea about the data of flu outbreaks and mortality rates in the US?

And its not if some old people will die, its how many WILL die.

Its a pandemic.
Here you go nobber.
Pretty horrific figures that you or I knew nothing about until this year.

 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
I was making the point that snicky said they would overestimate an outcome to enable them to claim success when the outcome was lower.

It worked well didnt it, in this case?
I was talking about the modellers and their worse case scenarios.
Is different than asking for a good result.
 
Top