Controversial Covid post

FabioPorkpie said:
I’ve not read the paper yet, will look this afternoon when I re-read his initial paper.
os the paper saying immunity is vanishing?
If so then that is very very odd and a major major blow to us all, and we are in major trouble without a vaccine.
Click to expand...

It's not odd. Antibodies fall away, not unusual. Antibodies not the only mechanism of immunity. This is very basic stuff.
 
Statto1 said:
I made it, extremely quickly with the raw ONS data, is got 5 yr average, 2017,2018 and 2019 on there. I used to show it like the one above but people kept calming that excess deaths had evened itself back out, as in we didn't still have 55k excess deaths.

Nobody is claiming excess deaths were high after the outbreak, my graph isn't claiming that. But it does show we've started to creep up again, just as we go into winter, as expected.

The graph I showed is the same thing, except excess is cumulative.
Click to expand...

ONS data for 18th Oct
10534 deaths v 9865 for 5 year average. (Insignificant but a bigger uptick in previous week - remember last time the spike rose really quickly)
Respiratory deaths 1016 of which 670 Covid
 
Jostler said:
This data covers a number of studies from the start of the pandemic, so you would have to say, that as a figure it is artificially inflated from outdated data when we didn't have treatments available. If we only started looking at studies from the post dexamethasone discovery period, this number would drop significantly and would be more relevant to what the ongoing risk of mortality would be to us at present (until we find more treatments/vaccine/god forbid virus mutates for the worse)
Click to expand...

How is it artificially inflated? It's the actual data from the actual peak of our pandemic, and was using our widely used deflated covid deaths, rather than our excess deaths (which would have been more accurate and a higher IFR). Using any other data is completely pointless.

I have mentioned previous that treatment and resources have got better, they have, of course, I've certainly not denied that as it would be ludicrous. The same way if we had no masks and no lock downs and open everything up then the hospitals get busy and treatment and resources get worse. They have to get worse, as they can't get better (without a vaccine).
 
1finny said:
ONS data for 18th Oct
10534 deaths v 9865 for 5 year average. (Insignificant but a bigger uptick in previous week - remember last time the spike rose really quickly)
Respiratory deaths 1016 of which 670 Covid
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just saw that this has came out, weekly deaths are now well above (+8%) the 5yr average and 2019,2018 and 2017.

808 excess over the 5 year average, for the week up to 16th October, and that was when we were averaging 100 covid deaths per day.
Now we're on 180 per day average, so that 808 excess will be up near 1500 for the next set of data.
 
Statto1 said:
Erm you did though:



That was a response to me, where I mentioned nothing like that.
Click to expand...

You said you didn't mind being tracked and traced every where and thought cashless was best for most people ...

What you quoted me saying has nothing to do with a chip in your brain.. thus strawman. You know this but you claim it anyway how bizarre.
 
T_A_D said:
It's not odd. Antibodies fall away, not unusual. Antibodies not the only mechanism of immunity. This is very basic stuff.
Click to expand...

I know. Hence my earlier post saying I didn’t understand why it was the main news story on both BBC and Sky as it only confirms what was already known.

point I was trying to make was that antibody prevalence is t the only indicator of immunity, so it would be very very odd if the paper was labelling it as ‘immunity vanished’ rather than simply antibodies reduce/vanish
 
Last edited:
cliverd said:
It's an awful graph.

If you struggled the fully interpret data you would read your graph and think that we were well above excess deaths per month, this is simply not true. I think you're probably better off using the graphs that the ONS produce rather than creating your own.
Click to expand...

It's fine for what I was using it for, it wasn't made for you, you're welcome to make your own if you don't like it, and show it to the class.
I've made some changes though, to make it clearer as I've got a funny feeling it will be needed more often, looking at where the excess line is heading.

The legend described the line as "2020 excess total", if this could not be understood from the graph I posted, and the posts, then people should avoid commenting on graphs. Prefer to use my own, more control and easier to pull out the necessary numbers.



1603803197008.png
 
Alvez_48 said:
You said you didn't mind being tracked and traced every where and thought cashless was best for most people ...

What you quoted me saying has nothing to do with a chip in your brain.. thus strawman. You know this but you claim it anyway how bizarre.
Click to expand...

Right,

1) I didn't say anything about having chips in peoples brains, you said that, not me.
2) I said ok to tracking, I was on about QR codes, like I said about using QR codes.
3) I said nothing about being "controlled by automation" or agreeing to that, again you said that, not me
4) I said nothing about stopping lives
5) You we're on about glitches, hacks, not sure how this relates to scanning a QR code

You're like the god of 2+2=5
 
'I said tracked, I didn't say anything about being controlled, I don't see a QR code running someone's brain, jesus.' - so you implied I said it... Where? Thus the strawman.

You do know that controlled by electronic automation not chips or QR codes running brains right? If not why would you assume it meant that I was saying that?

You're like the god of distraction if I didn't know better that's you're entire modus operandi lest people just have a normal discussion, new member...
 
Alvez_48 said:
'I said tracked, I didn't say anything about being controlled, I don't see a QR code running someone's brain, jesus.' - so you implied I said it... Where? Thus the strawman.

You do know that controlled by electronic automation not chips or QR codes running brains right? If not why would you assume it meant that I was saying that?

You're like the god of distraction if I didn't know better that's you're entire modus operandi lest people just have a normal discussion, new member...
Click to expand...

Well distracted... :rolleyes:
 
Alvez_48 said:
'I said tracked, I didn't say anything about being controlled, I don't see a QR code running someone's brain, jesus.' - so you implied I said it... Where? Thus the strawman.

You do know that controlled by electronic automation not chips or QR codes running brains right? If not why would you assume it meant that I was saying that?

You're like the god of distraction if I didn't know better that's you're entire modus operandi lest people just have a normal discussion, new member...
Click to expand...
If I didn't know any better accusing somebody of challenging you is somehow not "normal discussion" is a little rich. You are confrontational yourself when trying to argue your point and lack patience at times. Nothing about being how long you have been on this Board.
 
cliverd said:
And here is data on excess deaths literally released this morning from PHE:

Excess all-cause (EuroMOMO) mortality in subpopulations, UK In week 42 2020 in England, no statistically significant excess mortality by week of death above the upper 2 z-score threshold was seen overall or by age group. Excess mortality was observed sub-nationally (all ages) in the North East, North West and East Midlands regions after correcting GRO disaggregate data for reporting delay with the standardised EuroMOMO algorithm (Figure 3). This data is provisional due to the time delay in registration; numbers may vary from week to week.
Click to expand...

To be clear, not only were total deaths in England above (6.8%) the 5-year average in week ending 16th October, but they were also above the maximum number observed in that 5-year period.

The reason that this is not classed as statistically significant is that, if you observed 100 years of deaths instead of just this one, then you would expect to see at least 1 year where the number of deaths this week was the same as we have observed. That is very much not the same as saying this is normal or expected.

Also of note is that within the areas of the country that we know have the highest infection rates currently (North West, North East & Yorkshire, Midlands), not only were the total deaths above average but those rises were indeed statistically significant. To use the above explanation again, that means their numbers fall outside the range that you might expect to observe at least once in 100 years.

Edit - I mean in 100 ‘typical’ years, not years of pandemic or war, etc.
 
Billy Horner said:
To be clear, not only were total deaths in England above (6.8%) the 5-year average in week ending 16th October, but they were also above the maximum number observed in that 5-year period.

The reason that this is not classed as statistically significant is that, if you observed 100 years of deaths instead of just this one, then you would expect to see at least 1 year where the number of deaths this week was the same as we have observed. That is very much not the same as saying this is normal or expected.

Also of note is that within the areas of the country that we know have the highest infection rates currently (North West, North East & Yorkshire, Midlands), not only were the total deaths above average but those rises were indeed statistically significant. To use the above explanation again, that means their numbers fall outside the range that you might expect to observe at least once in 100 years.

Edit - I mean in 100 ‘typical’ years, not years of pandemic or war, etc.
Click to expand...

I think i'll follow PHE's quote about not being statistically significant.
 
Billy Horner said:
To be clear, not only were total deaths in England above (6.8%) the 5-year average in week ending 16th October, but they were also above the maximum number observed in that 5-year period.

The reason that this is not classed as statistically significant is that, if you observed 100 years of deaths instead of just this one, then you would expect to see at least 1 year where the number of deaths this week was the same as we have observed. That is very much not the same as saying this is normal or expected.

Also of note is that within the areas of the country that we know have the highest infection rates currently (North West, North East & Yorkshire, Midlands), not only were the total deaths above average but those rises were indeed statistically significant. To use the above explanation again, that means their numbers fall outside the range that you might expect to observe at least once in 100 years.

Edit - I mean in 100 ‘typical’ years, not years of pandemic or war, etc.
Click to expand...

Currently it is described as statistically insignificant.
We should just accept that and hope it continues
If becomes statistically significant we will follow that too
 
1finny said:
Currently it is described as statistically insignificant.
We should just accept that and hope it continues
If becomes statistically significant we will follow that too
Click to expand...

Yep.

Also worth noting that after a previous 'soft' flu season (which we had last year) the following year is likely to see a slight increase in excess deaths. Variable factors are at play in excess deaths so a soft winter often leads to a slight increase the following year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top