Like a lot of poker players, I like Maths. Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases. "Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
Like a lot of poker players, I like Maths. Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases. "Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
You would probably need to consult an expert like Tim Martin, to make these statistics at all understandable.
Like a lot of poker players, I like Maths. Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases. "Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
Being serious.
If you could test the whole country in one day, and the test results included those that had contracted the virus, and recovered, as well as whether or not those being tested currently had the virus or not, you could then produce some accurate results.
The low number of tests that have been carried out surely makes accurate forecasting impossible.
As does the lack of knowledge of the numbers that have contracted, but recovered.
The least accurate polls are always those based on low numbers of participants.
Like a lot of poker players, I like Maths. Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases. "Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
Being serious.
If you could test the whole country in one day, and the test results included those that had contracted the virus, and recovered, as well as whether or not those being tested currently had the virus or not, you could then produce some accurate results.
The low number of tests that have been carried out surely makes accurate forecasting impossible.
As does the lack of knowledge of the numbers that have contracted, but recovered.
The least accurate polls are always those based on low numbers of participants.
If only I could think of a poll where EVERYONE had the chance to vote.
No-one could doubt that, because it would be the will of the people
Like a lot of poker players, I like Maths. Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases. "Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
Being serious.
If you could test the whole country in one day, and the test results included those that had contracted the virus, and recovered, as well as whether or not those being tested currently had the virus or not, you could then produce some accurate results.
The low number of tests that have been carried out surely makes accurate forecasting impossible.
As does the lack of knowledge of the numbers that have contracted, but recovered.
The least accurate polls are always those based on low numbers of participants.
If only I could think of a poll where EVERYONE had the chance to vote.
No-one could doubt that, because it would be the will of the people
I will ignore that one, but how do the people that are tested on Monday and are clear, but catch it on Thursday, fit into these stats.
All the people who tested negative, could be positive two weeks later.
1. Not sure how you have access to the underlying data to suggest the 233 is incorrect. With something like this surely the relevant detail is whether the viral infection was causal to death. Pneumonia results from infection. All deaths are caused by the stopping of heart, doesn’t help trying to understand it though.
2. Once you’ve rubbished the number of deaths, and also rubbished the number of cases, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that you can believe the 1% death rate? You’ve not got any credible figures, yet you’ve reached a resultant credible figure. Right.
3. I think the term is current confirmed cases. But the figures only become useful if there is widespread testing.
You don’t need to be precise here, the data is clear. The death progression is on the same trajectory across many countries. The nature of how the thing spreads dictates that it would be growing exponentially. Assume whatever flat % death rate you want to back calculate those affected. This only becomes relevant when trying to work out who is yet to have it, if immunity exists, so you can work out when it might slow down.
The only numbers you need to be sure of are that the U.K. will follow the death progression of Italy, we may even accelerate faster due to a higher population density in London and a U.K. approach on movement that is less stringent than in Italy.
The U.K. hospitals are already overflowing and we haven’t even started yet.
Like a lot of poker players, I like Maths. Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases. "Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
Being serious.
If you could test the whole country in one day, and the test results included those that had contracted the virus, and recovered, as well as whether or not those being tested currently had the virus or not, you could then produce some accurate results.
The low number of tests that have been carried out surely makes accurate forecasting impossible.
As does the lack of knowledge of the numbers that have contracted, but recovered.
The least accurate polls are always those based on low numbers of participants.
I completely agree. But that is no excuse for peddling figures that are known to be totally inaccurate.
Like a lot of poker players, I like Maths. Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases. "Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
Being serious.
If you could test the whole country in one day, and the test results included those that had contracted the virus, and recovered, as well as whether or not those being tested currently had the virus or not, you could then produce some accurate results.
The low number of tests that have been carried out surely makes accurate forecasting impossible.
As does the lack of knowledge of the numbers that have contracted, but recovered.
The least accurate polls are always those based on low numbers of participants.
If only I could think of a poll where EVERYONE had the chance to vote.
No-one could doubt that, because it would be the will of the people
The will of the people is not always correct.
If we had a referendum in a months time, when everyone was bored with self isolating, on keeping pubs open, Stanley Johnson would be in charge of the YES Campaign, funded by Tim Martin, who could confidently predict the outcome?
1. Not sure how you have access to the underlying data to suggest the 233 is incorrect. With something like this surely the relevant detail is whether the viral infection was causal to death. Pneumonia results from infection. All deaths are caused by the stopping of heart, doesn’t help trying to understand it though.
2. Once you’ve rubbished the number of deaths, and also rubbished the number of cases, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that you can believe the 1% death rate? You’ve not got any credible figures, yet you’ve reached a resultant credible figure. Right.
3. I think the term is current confirmed cases. But the figures only become useful if there is widespread testing.
You don’t need to be precise here, the data is clear. The death progression is on the same trajectory across many countries. The nature of how the thing spreads dictates that it would be growing exponentially. Assume whatever flat % death rate you want to back calculate those affected. This only becomes relevant when trying to work out who is yet to have it, if immunity exists, so you can work out when it might slow down.
The only numbers you need to be sure of are that the U.K. will follow the death progression of Italy, we may even accelerate faster due to a higher population density in London and a U.K. approach on movement that is less stringent than in Italy.
The U.K. hospitals are already overflowing and we haven’t even started yet.
In order:-
1. That is common knowledge, and admitted by the relevant experts. "Causal to death?" depends on how you define it. Point is, being defined differently than every other cause of death 2. I believe the 1% death rate, because the whole world is saying that. Other countries have more meaningful statistics, both because they actually test people, and that many are further along the curve 3. Agree. but fact remains people are making assumptions on totally flawed "statistics"
We need to be as precise as we can. and where we haven't got a clue, to stop peddling "statistics" that are known to be wrong. Because people are justifying dangerous behaviour as a result.
Of course things will get worse. But giving out known inaccurate figures rather than projections based on the limited figures we DO have is not helping.
If only ( old ) were dying pubs would be open. Don't be too hard on this Government at being slow to hand out money ..... they have no experience ........ only decades of collecting it. cough!
1. Not sure how you have access to the underlying data to suggest the 233 is incorrect. With something like this surely the relevant detail is whether the viral infection was causal to death. Pneumonia results from infection. All deaths are caused by the stopping of heart, doesn’t help trying to understand it though.
2. Once you’ve rubbished the number of deaths, and also rubbished the number of cases, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that you can believe the 1% death rate? You’ve not got any credible figures, yet you’ve reached a resultant credible figure. Right.
3. I think the term is current confirmed cases. But the figures only become useful if there is widespread testing.
You don’t need to be precise here, the data is clear. The death progression is on the same trajectory across many countries. The nature of how the thing spreads dictates that it would be growing exponentially. Assume whatever flat % death rate you want to back calculate those affected. This only becomes relevant when trying to work out who is yet to have it, if immunity exists, so you can work out when it might slow down.
The only numbers you need to be sure of are that the U.K. will follow the death progression of Italy, we may even accelerate faster due to a higher population density in London and a U.K. approach on movement that is less stringent than in Italy.
The U.K. hospitals are already overflowing and we haven’t even started yet.
In order:-
1. That is common knowledge, and admitted by the relevant experts. "Causal to death?" depends on how you define it. Point is, being defined differently than every other cause of death 2. I believe the 1% death rate, because the whole world is saying that. Other countries have more meaningful statistics, both because they actually test people, and that many are further along the curve 3. Agree. but fact remains people are making assumptions on totally flawed "statistics"
We need to be as precise as we can. and where we haven't got a clue, to stop peddling "statistics" that are known to be wrong. Because people are justifying dangerous behaviour as a result.
Of course things will get worse. But giving out known inaccurate figures rather than projections based on the limited figures we DO have is not helping.
Surely the most important stat that they are missing, is those that have contracted the virus and survived, that is assuming that you cant catch it for a second time. We have people self isolating that haven't got it, and others going to work that have. Any that test negative, can later test positive. If you assume a large percentage of the country will contract the virus, then the most important stat, other than the number of deaths, is the survivors. Any reassurance gained from the number of negative tests is surely misplaced, if the majority will contract the virus anyway. A negative test merely means that the person that was tested hasn't got it yet, but is likely to at some point in the future.
Which dangerous behaviour is occurring that you’re not in support of?
I don’t understand your point around other country’s figures. Why would we be the only country that’s struggling with accuracy? Death rates are markedly different across many countries for what will undoubtedly be very different reasons. See Germany’s death rate. Then see Italy’s.
The 233 absolute number doesn’t matter in itself. If the real underlying number was say 150, we’d be back up to 233 in 2 days anyway. If it’s actually 35 then we’re still only one week ahead of making the dangerous behaviour the right thing to do?
It’s ok to use uncertain figures for modelling, that’s why the imperial paper stress tests various scenarios, I’m sure you know this. You create bounds and assess a most likely, a worst case etc.
The only thing that is material right now is the current capacity of ICU, and the rate of patients coming in requiring use of those facilities.
When I read things like this it just makes me think people still don’t want to believe what is about to come. I’m sure a Tory government, and a Trump administration doesn’t shut down an entire economy without just cause.
Surely the most important stat that they are missing, is those that have contracted the virus and survived, that is assuming that you cant catch it for a second time. We have people self isolating that haven't got it, and others going to work that have. Any that test negative, can later test positive. If you assume a large percentage of the country will contract the virus, then the most important stat, other than the number of deaths, is the survivors. Any reassurance gained from the number of negative tests is surely misplaced, if the majority will contract the virus anyway. A negative test merely means that the person that was tested hasn't got it yet, but is likely to at some point in the future.
That’s why they’ve spoken about developing and rolling out the antibodies test, which will show who has had it and recovered. The premise is still that the antibodies will be sufficient to prevent re-infection, but this is way more reliable that a negative test for the infection itself.
Which dangerous behaviour is occurring that you’re not in support of?
I don’t understand your point around other country’s figures. Why would we be the only country that’s struggling with accuracy? Death rates are markedly different across many countries for what will undoubtedly be very different reasons. See Germany’s death rate. Then see Italy’s.
The 233 absolute number doesn’t matter in itself. If the real underlying number was say 150, we’d be back up to 233 in 2 days anyway. If it’s actually 35 then we’re still only one week ahead of making the dangerous behaviour the right thing to do?
It’s ok to use uncertain figures for modelling, that’s why the imperial paper stress tests various scenarios, I’m sure you know this. You create bounds and assess a most likely, a worst case etc.
The only thing that is material right now is the current capacity of ICU, and the rate of patients coming in requiring use of those facilities.
When I read things like this it just makes me think people still don’t want to believe what is about to come. I’m sure a Tory government, and a Trump administration doesn’t shut down an entire economy without just cause.
I appreciate you do not understand it. That is why I am trying to explain it.
All countries are struggling with accuracy. Except us-we are choosing to avoid attempting to be accurate.
timing is everything. We need to be making decisions based on what the numbers really are. Not at the death end, at the getting the virus end. Because that is the bit that Governments can try to control.
Germany's death rate is out of line with similar countries. They are undoubtedly using a different definition as to when coronavirus "causes" death.
The number 1 priority should be trying to limit the spread of disease, in particular in relation to ICU capacity. But an important part of that is limiting people, particularly the elderly, getting it in the first place.
"Dangerous behaviour"? London needs to be in lockdown. There needs to be clear rules in relation to workplace behaviour-plenty of rules for TV programmes, none for call centres. Commuting needs to be restricted. There needs to be rules about visiting the elderly on Mothers Day. Not "guidance"-rules.
We are taking steps in relation to the economy. But not enough in relation to slowing the spread of the virus.
The main reason people do not want to believe how serious this is, is that they are being fed figures that massively underestimate the extent of problems now.
Surely the most important stat that they are missing, is those that have contracted the virus and survived, that is assuming that you cant catch it for a second time. We have people self isolating that haven't got it, and others going to work that have. Any that test negative, can later test positive. If you assume a large percentage of the country will contract the virus, then the most important stat, other than the number of deaths, is the survivors. Any reassurance gained from the number of negative tests is surely misplaced, if the majority will contract the virus anyway. A negative test merely means that the person that was tested hasn't got it yet, but is likely to at some point in the future.
That’s why they’ve spoken about developing and rolling out the antibodies test, which will show who has had it and recovered. The premise is still that the antibodies will be sufficient to prevent re-infection, but this is way more reliable that a negative test for the infection itself.
I understand that, but doesn't that mean testing everyone again.
Surely the most important stat that they are missing, is those that have contracted the virus and survived, that is assuming that you cant catch it for a second time. We have people self isolating that haven't got it, and others going to work that have. Any that test negative, can later test positive. If you assume a large percentage of the country will contract the virus, then the most important stat, other than the number of deaths, is the survivors. Any reassurance gained from the number of negative tests is surely misplaced, if the majority will contract the virus anyway. A negative test merely means that the person that was tested hasn't got it yet, but is likely to at some point in the future.
That’s why they’ve spoken about developing and rolling out the antibodies test, which will show who has had it and recovered. The premise is still that the antibodies will be sufficient to prevent re-infection, but this is way more reliable that a negative test for the infection itself.
I understand that, but doesn't that mean testing everyone again.
And binning all the current stats, other than the deaths.
All countries are struggling with accuracy. Except us-we are choosing to avoid attempting to be accurate.
All countries have a different approach on testing, we do not have enough testing kits for everyone who has a cough. There are also issues with negative tests that occur too early in the symptom cycle. The cautious approach is to tell everyone exhibiting systems to self-isolate, which they have.
timing is everything. We need to be making decisions based on what the numbers really are. Not at the death end, at the getting the virus end. Because that is the bit that Governments can try to control.
The death end infers the virus end. If we're sure the other countries have the virus end and death % nailed, we can overlay our death data onto theirs to estimate. This is good enough to propose actions.
Germany's death rate is out of line with similar countries. They are undoubtedly using a different definition as to when coronavirus "causes" death.
There are a number of factors that could be at play here, they could be testing many more, they could have better access to medical equipment (I think I read they had 4x as many ventilators than the UK for a similar level of population), or they could have a different definition of death of course. The point is each country will have its own set of unique figures, so it makes no sense to work up from a globally established 1%.
The number 1 priority should be trying to limit the spread of disease, in particular in relation to ICU capacity. But an important part of that is limiting people, particularly the elderly, getting it in the first place.
Yes. But as you said, timing is key. You go into lockdown too early you have to stay there for longer. Then when you emerge from lockdown, assuming there's no vaccination by this time, the whole thing starts again with the acceleration based on the amount of 'herd immunity' that's been created (if we believe that's a thing), less the earlier you go.
"Dangerous behaviour"? London needs to be in lockdown. There needs to be clear rules in relation to workplace behaviour-plenty of rules for TV programmes, none for call centres. Commuting needs to be restricted. There needs to be rules about visiting the elderly on Mothers Day. Not "guidance"-rules.
We are taking steps in relation to the economy. But not enough in relation to slowing the spread of the virus.
The main reason people do not want to believe how serious this is, is that they are being fed figures that massively underestimate the extent of problems now.
You started above by declaring that the number of virus related deaths is overstated. This is where my confusion has come from. You weren't clear in which behaviours you deemed dangerous (which is why I asked) - I had thought you were on the side of 'closing business is dangerous' given the numbers are unreliable and deaths overstated. I think the government have given people the chance to take the advice (in the name of freedom?), then started removing opportunities for people to congregate given a lot of people aren't staying home. The latest messages appear to be a warning that we will be locked down if people don't do this of their own volition. I agree they could have been tougher in this respect. It hasn't helped small businesses as it's pushed the decision to them and anecdotally had caused some not to be insured under business interruption.
I think the government is learning as it goes, they couldn't close schools until they had a way forward for key workers, now they have that. They still have an issue where a lot of the key workers are at home not knowing if their or their families symptoms are necessary to isolate with. Tests should be expedited to those to release people back to their jobs.
They need to be scaring people into their wits. Far more coverage of the state of Italian hospitals. A demonstration of how we're on the same trajectory as them, and just a couple of weeks behind. More focus on the current state of our own ICU capacity, and just how the red line is on the imperial report relative to the expected spike of the number of people expected to need it. More focus on reports of doctors and nurses already experiencing capacity problems. Less hollow 'thanks for everything you do' to NHS workers by businesses giving them discounts, and more plans for increasing capacity.
Comments
Which is why, in the face of the worst health crisis in 100 years, i am becoming increasingly annoyed with "experts" continually giving us what they KNOW to be completely bogus figures.
1. The 233 "deaths" "from" coronavirus.
They are nothing of the sort, and they know that. They are 233 people who have died WITH coronavirus. That's not the same thing. some will have died because of it, but others (like thousands of deaths every year) die because pneumonia creates the final step in an inevitable pattern.
So-for example-in a typical year, 8,000 people die because of flu. Many more thousands die with flu, but they calculate the extra deaths. You know, like you would expect ANY scientist to do.
2. The current status of people who they say have the virus.
Today (like every day) we are given an update on active and closed cases.
"Active"? Today, there are 4,672 "mild" and 20 "serious" cases. And (typically) close to 100 people will die. And yet that 20 figure never moves. And "Chief Scientists" don't appear to notice.
"Closed" cases? 326. 93 recovered, and 233 died. When they are SURE (and I believe them) that the mortality rate is between 0.5% and 1%. When their rubbish figures are showing a mortality rate of about 70%.
3. 5,018 current cases
Really? Do the Maths.
If 233 have died, then, on the 0.5%-1% figures, it is not the case that c.35,000 HAVE the disease. It is that c.35,000 have already RECOVERED from it, or are known to have it and have a 0% chance of dying. You can't include people who currently have it, cos they are not completed statistics.
IF only 5,000 currently have the virus, it would be safe to see your elderly relatives. But, logically, the figure is WAAAAY higher.
Either we have scientists who cannot understand basic maths, or they are being told to give us figures that they know fine well are wrong.
If you could test the whole country in one day, and the test results included those that had contracted the virus, and recovered, as well as whether or not those being tested currently had the virus or not, you could then produce some accurate results.
The low number of tests that have been carried out surely makes accurate forecasting impossible.
As does the lack of knowledge of the numbers that have contracted, but recovered.
The least accurate polls are always those based on low numbers of participants.
No-one could doubt that, because it would be the will of the people
All the people who tested negative, could be positive two weeks later.
1. Not sure how you have access to the underlying data to suggest the 233 is incorrect. With something like this surely the relevant detail is whether the viral infection was causal to death. Pneumonia results from infection. All deaths are caused by the stopping of heart, doesn’t help trying to understand it though.
2. Once you’ve rubbished the number of deaths, and also rubbished the number of cases, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that you can believe the 1% death rate? You’ve not got any credible figures, yet you’ve reached a resultant credible figure. Right.
3. I think the term is current confirmed cases. But the figures only become useful if there is widespread testing.
You don’t need to be precise here, the data is clear. The death progression is on the same trajectory across many countries. The nature of how the thing spreads dictates that it would be growing exponentially. Assume whatever flat % death rate you want to back calculate those affected. This only becomes relevant when trying to work out who is yet to have it, if immunity exists, so you can work out when it might slow down.
The only numbers you need to be sure of are that the U.K. will follow the death progression of Italy, we may even accelerate faster due to a higher population density in London and a U.K. approach on movement that is less stringent than in Italy.
The U.K. hospitals are already overflowing and we haven’t even started yet.
But that is no excuse for peddling figures that are known to be totally inaccurate.
If we had a referendum in a months time, when everyone was bored with self isolating, on keeping pubs open, Stanley Johnson would be in charge of the YES Campaign, funded by Tim Martin, who could confidently predict the outcome?
1. That is common knowledge, and admitted by the relevant experts. "Causal to death?" depends on how you define it. Point is, being defined differently than every other cause of death
2. I believe the 1% death rate, because the whole world is saying that. Other countries have more meaningful statistics, both because they actually test people, and that many are further along the curve
3. Agree. but fact remains people are making assumptions on totally flawed "statistics"
We need to be as precise as we can. and where we haven't got a clue, to stop peddling "statistics" that are known to be wrong. Because people are justifying dangerous behaviour as a result.
Of course things will get worse. But giving out known inaccurate figures rather than projections based on the limited figures we DO have is not helping.
We have people self isolating that haven't got it, and others going to work that have.
Any that test negative, can later test positive.
If you assume a large percentage of the country will contract the virus, then the most important stat, other than the number of deaths, is the survivors.
Any reassurance gained from the number of negative tests is surely misplaced, if the majority will contract the virus anyway.
A negative test merely means that the person that was tested hasn't got it yet, but is likely to at some point in the future.
I don’t understand your point around other country’s figures. Why would we be the only country that’s struggling with accuracy? Death rates are markedly different across many countries for what will undoubtedly be very different reasons. See Germany’s death rate. Then see Italy’s.
The 233 absolute number doesn’t matter in itself. If the real underlying number was say 150, we’d be back up to 233 in 2 days anyway. If it’s actually 35 then we’re still only one week ahead of making the dangerous behaviour the right thing to do?
It’s ok to use uncertain figures for modelling, that’s why the imperial paper stress tests various scenarios, I’m sure you know this. You create bounds and assess a most likely, a worst case etc.
The only thing that is material right now is the current capacity of ICU, and the rate of patients coming in requiring use of those facilities.
When I read things like this it just makes me think people still don’t want to believe what is about to come. I’m sure a Tory government, and a Trump administration doesn’t shut down an entire economy without just cause.
All countries are struggling with accuracy. Except us-we are choosing to avoid attempting to be accurate.
timing is everything. We need to be making decisions based on what the numbers really are. Not at the death end, at the getting the virus end. Because that is the bit that Governments can try to control.
Germany's death rate is out of line with similar countries. They are undoubtedly using a different definition as to when coronavirus "causes" death.
The number 1 priority should be trying to limit the spread of disease, in particular in relation to ICU capacity. But an important part of that is limiting people, particularly the elderly, getting it in the first place.
"Dangerous behaviour"? London needs to be in lockdown. There needs to be clear rules in relation to workplace behaviour-plenty of rules for TV programmes, none for call centres. Commuting needs to be restricted. There needs to be rules about visiting the elderly on Mothers Day. Not "guidance"-rules.
We are taking steps in relation to the economy. But not enough in relation to slowing the spread of the virus.
The main reason people do not want to believe how serious this is, is that they are being fed figures that massively underestimate the extent of problems now.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598778/
I think the government is learning as it goes, they couldn't close schools until they had a way forward for key workers, now they have that. They still have an issue where a lot of the key workers are at home not knowing if their or their families symptoms are necessary to isolate with. Tests should be expedited to those to release people back to their jobs.
They need to be scaring people into their wits. Far more coverage of the state of Italian hospitals. A demonstration of how we're on the same trajectory as them, and just a couple of weeks behind. More focus on the current state of our own ICU capacity, and just how the red line is on the imperial report relative to the expected spike of the number of people expected to need it. More focus on reports of doctors and nurses already experiencing capacity problems. Less hollow 'thanks for everything you do' to NHS workers by businesses giving them discounts, and more plans for increasing capacity.