Coronavirus science and statistics(no politics)

Sepp Blatter

Lord of Geeks
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 immunologist was very much having a dig at Imperial College, who have been trying to say that, because there were not 500,000 deaths, their model was a success.

Not, our model was wrong and there were not going to be 500,000 deaths.

This is the view of one French scientist, but I have seen many other similar criticisms:

 

Sepp Blatter

Lord of Geeks
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.
Correct - I deliberately try to avoid pointing things like that out on the other thread, because posters on there have lost people or been through it themselves, and it would be unfair to speak so bluntly.

On here, where we are looking at the science and the data, it's a valid and essential topic to discuss. Although I agree that the original statement should have been worded better.
 

Nobber

Forum Patron
Patron
Here you go nobber.
Pretty horrific figures that you or I knew nothing about until this year.

You stated that it was due to population. The population of California is 40million, with 500k cases. Compare that to the Uk! 😉
 

sliper

Forum Patron
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?
Except the government used the Imp College model which predicted 300-500k deaths.. if nothing was done.
 
OP
J

jakehake

Preachs PA
Staff member
Patron
We need to have trust in our figures and reporting methods first I think.
Which figures are we interested in. People who are dead or what they died of? I’m not a statistics master but I know when something isn’t looking like it’s normal trend
 

Sepp Blatter

Lord of Geeks
Patron
Levitt's model has been pretty good, so far - one of the few to predict the growth curves for the virus.


 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
Which figures are we interested in. People who are dead or what they died of? I’m not a statistics master but I know when something isn’t looking like it’s normal trend
The number of dead, as the PHE numbers are being investigated I think.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
That's a great video.. I find it hard to disagree with any of it.
I’ve not watched it yet - but I now expect to disagree with at least half of it. Indeed, that will be my primary task 😁.

Right. I am off to bed. There is a bastard mouse gnawing away somewhere in my front room and the sound is driving me mad. It occasionally pops out from under the sofa and sits there and taunts me. Cute little thing but wish it would bugger off.
 

Sepp Blatter

Lord of Geeks
Patron
An interesting viewpoint about the potential progression of the disease from the world of insurance and risk - and the difference that even small changes to variables can make. Gives a different angle:

 

Nobber

Forum Patron
Patron
I’ve not watched it yet - but I now expect to disagree with at least half of it. Indeed, that will be my primary task 😁.

Right. I am off to bed. There is a bastard mouse gnawing away somewhere in my front room and the sound is driving me mad. It occasionally pops out from under the sofa and sits there and taunts me. Cute little thing but wish it would bugger off.
Try moving the sofa then shoot it with a twelve bore.
 

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?

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

Its a pandemic.
Good morning.

I just wondered if you’d managed to explain the above.

Forty million population in California. 500k cases.

Population in uk 69 million. 300k cases.

How many died of flu in California last year?

I saved you the trouble. It states that in 2018/2019 that it was a particularly bad year for flu and that there was 100 deaths that year. Here is the Covid info......so far.
14185001-37B5-48C2-92CD-5B8167A60F4B.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
The video that Snicky put in the other thread - it raises some very interesting points and draws together some topics we covered already and some questions we had:


These are some of the main points I remember.
  • That there is a higher level of pre-existing immunity to Covid-SAR-2 than thought, from previous similar viruses, even for people who have never been exposed to it.
  • Failure to take this cross-immunity into account is why Ferguson's model was very wrong - they assumed no existing immunity and therefore exponential growth, which has not happened.
  • Michael Levitt tried to warn Ferguson's group about the flaws in their model, but was ignored. Levitt's model, created back in March, is the only one that accurately predicted the progress of the disease.
  • Mortality in almost every country has followed the same curve, suggesting that lockdown has little effect. This includes Argentina, which has had one of the harshest and longest lockdown/mask regimes in the world.
  • The hospitals in Italy that struggled are the same ones that struggle with bad flu outbreaks.
  • Diabetics and people who are overweight but not immuno-compromised, are susceptible because they express a secondary cell receptor that the virus can bind to.
  • It could be seasonal - spikes in the North and South temperate areas six months apart, while tropical area see a more gradual, year round curve.
  • There is a dangerous group think amongst epidemiologists, politicians, and journalists.
  • Lockdown and face masks are now largely ineffective because the disease has already killed the people it is going to kill, as shown by the mortality curves and the suggestion that excess deaths in many countries are now negative.
  • Tests for the virus do not necessarily mean that someone is carrying the disease - the tests pick up virus fragments, so even if someone's immune system destroyed the virus quickly, they will test positive.
Will watch the rest tonight.

An article about Levitt's model - with interview.

Tried to watch it when too tired last night and after a few minutes, drifted in and out (mainly out). But what I don’t get is the big reliance in the curves supposedly following what he would have expected, in all countries- no matter what lockdown rules have been applied.

Maybe I need to have another go - but I just don’t get the evidence for that. Especially when everyone is measuring the data differently. Even in the uk - our newsreaders now have to tortuously explain the different ways the four nations contribute numbers to the latest 46,000+ figure.
 

Sepp Blatter

Lord of Geeks
Patron
Tried to watch it when too tired last night and after a few minutes, drifted in and out (mainly out). But what I don’t get is the big reliance in the curves supposedly following what he would have expected, in all countries- no matter what lockdown rules have been applied.

Maybe I need to have another go - but I just don’t get the evidence for that. Especially when everyone is measuring the data differently. Even in the uk - our newsreaders now have to tortuously explain the different ways the four nations contribute numbers to the latest 46,000+ figure.
Because, as long as countries are internally consistent about how they collect data, then the shape of the curves will remain the same - it's the magnitude that will be different.
 

sliper

Forum Patron
Patron
Because, as long as countries are internally consistent about how they collect data, then the shape of the curves will remain the same - it's the magnitude that will be different.
It seems counter inutitive..

But if "lockdown" resulted in lower mortality rates then countries with "lockdown" would see a noticeably sharper drop in excess deaths than those that didn't have lockdown... following the logic "because lockdown causes excess deaths to decline".

If lockdown reduced deaths rates then countries without lockdown would presumably see deaths continue to increase (or decline slower than those with lockdown) while those with lockdown would be the only ones with a visible reduction. But Sweden's mortality curve is much the same as other European countries.

Add to that the figures showing that "excess deaths at home" are still well above the 5 yr average. And you can reasonably make the case that lockdown has and is causing more deaths than it prevents... these deaths maybe Covid related or people simply not wanting to risk going to hospital and then dying from an otherwise treatable condition.

The Profs conclusion is that some other factor is causing the general decline in mortality right across Europe.. (which Chris Whitty has accepted started as we went into lockdown) and the Prof has seen similar curves before and recognises it as an indicator that herd immunity is taking effect.. but the other possibility must be that the decline in mortality is seasonal. The main driver of our new restrictions is "fear of a second wave" but he sticks with the argument that the curve indicated "HIT herd immunity threshold" because he has seen these charts before.

He is generally aghast that scientists aren't recognising something he says is classic HIT curve

But either way "lockdown" appears to have little visible effect on excess levels of mortality.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Sepp Blatter

Lord of Geeks
Patron
And if "lockdown" had reduced the mortality rates then countries with "lockdown" would see a noticeably sharper drop in excess deaths than those that didn't have lockdown... because lockdown is the reason deaths start to decline.

If lockdown reduced deaths rates then countries without lockdown would presumably see deaths continue to increase while those with lockdown would be the only ones with a reduction

The Profs conclusion is that some other factor is causing the general decline in mortality.. and he has seen similar curves before and recognises them as an indicator that her immunity is taking effect.. but the other possibility must be that the decline is seasonal.

But either way "lockdown" appears to have little effect.
Exactly - it's not the total number of deaths that we are comparing. It's the rate of change that the shape of the curve tells us.

These curves are textbook perfect - like the examples we used back in the 90s.
 

Snicky

Like a bad smell.....
Patron
I'd like to see Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick, who I have a lot of respect for, address these findings and rebut them.

I cannot remember seeing them faced with this info on camera and reacting to it.
 
Top