Controversial Covid post

[FabioPorkpie]

Project fear like brexit was project fear you mean? Oh wait, no, that turned out to be project fact didn't it.

It's just facts, the stats are facts. You subliminally realise this as you relate these stats and numbers to there being a problem, and you realise this problem is causing fear.

Just accept it, sometimes it's ok to be scared, there's something to be scared about (for a lot of the population, ie those at risk or those that have family at risk or have to care for those at risk).

edit - I’m with you all the way on Brexit Project Fear. It was obvious to anybody with half a brain that was a distractionary slogan designed to embolden and entrench the views of those who don’t care to bother with detail ( ie majority of Brexiteers) straight out of the Cummins playbook.

 

[MolteniArcore]

The analysis of data and conclusions drawn from it, are only as good as the validity of the data being input and propagated.

The issue some people have, myself included, is the quality of data we are being fed, and the narrative attached to it. Such as yesterday’s headline grabbing ‘96 thousand cases per day’.
Now that is way higher than all other case tracking data, such as Zoe and ONS, which are normally fairly similar, with a slight lag between them.
The modelling used would appear to be a little flawed. Some night say is this deliberate? Modelling has been fairly spectacularly wide of the mark throughout this, in SOME aspects, which is a shame, given it’s driving policy (or has been previously.... who knows now?)

Of course, that doesn’t mean the 96 thousand cases per day is correct, or won’t be correct on the future. But if it isn’t and if it is wildly out, then why? And why is it given such far reaching audience?

I'm not sure the science is driving policy, that's one of the problems.

 

[Statto1]

The analysis of data and conclusions drawn from it, are only as good as the validity of the data being input and propagated.

The issue some people have, myself included, is the quality of data we are being fed, and the narrative attached to it. Such as yesterday’s headline grabbing ‘96 thousand cases per day’.
Now that is way higher than all other case tracking data, such as Zoe and ONS, which are normally fairly similar, with a slight lag between them.
The modelling used would appear to be a little flawed. Some night say is this deliberate? Modelling has been fairly spectacularly wide of the mark throughout this, in SOME aspects, which is a shame, given it’s driving policy (or has been previously.... who knows now?)

Of course, that doesn’t mean the 96 thousand cases per day is correct, or won’t be correct on the future. But if it isn’t and if it is wildly out, then why? And why is it given such far reaching audience?

It's 100% absolutely not unrealistic to be on 96,000 new case per day, we could be there easily.
We have a 3 day moving average of 320 deaths per day on 29th Oct, it takes about 18 days to die (so look back at 11th Oct, we were averaging 12,000 cases per day), so 320 deaths per 12,000 cases, which is 2.7% fatality rate, which we know is not right. So, say it's 0.9% like I used earlier in the thread. This means that 12,000 cases is actually 36,000 cases.
Since then we've gone from 12,000 per day to 24,000 per day positives. So take that 36,000 expected cases and double it, you're now on 72,000 cases.
Now also factor in that when testing is overwhelmed, 24 hours test results are not happening, tracking and tracing gets overwhelmed, and it hits the south more, then all of these are reasons for the cases to go up sharply. It could easily have gone up 33% to to get to 96,000. Some parts of London have a suspected "R" of 3 at the minute.

So, if the fatality rate isn't 0.9%, say it's 0.6%.
2.7%/ 0.6% = 4.5
12,000 cases is actually 54,000 cases (for what you're missing)
12,000 cases on 11 Oct is now 24,000 on 29th Oct (actual positives)
So 54,000 cases is actually 108,000 cases (missed cases doubling, as actual cases have doubled)
But that would assume that we don't get more cases when we get overwhelmed, or that 24 hour tests are nt better than 5 day test results and that there isn't a higher "R" in more densely populated areas.

That's how you get 96,000 cases, it's extremely easy.

 

[Statto1]

I'm not sure the science is driving policy, that's one of the problems.

100% on this.
I think we know the science (finally), we're just not using it in government, delaying its use and some of our public don't like science.
Government has also undermined it's own policy and not been firm enough with those that undermine it, which has lead to growth in ignorance of the policies we actually do implement.

 

[bear66]

100% on this.
I think we know the science (finally), we're just not using it in government, delaying its use and some of our public don't like science.
Government has also undermined it's own policy and not been firm enough with those that undermine it, which has lead to growth in ignorance of the policies we actually do implement.

I think it went:
September - SCI BODS - we advise circuit breakers : GOV - No
Mid October - GOV - 3 Tiers : SCI BODS 3 Tiers not enough
End October - GOV - SAGE saying circuit breakers won't work : SCI BODS - Circuit breakers too late, Tier 3 won't work, now we need a lockdown because of your inaction.

 

[Randy]

Exam Stress, Struggling to live away from home, financial issues, general undiagnosed mental health issues, drug use. Plenty of triggers unfortunately for the student population, which people don't think of when they think students have an easy life.

In my head (but I may be wrong) a lot of these seemed to happen in the first few months of term, so whether it's the struggling to adapt to the new experience element / been free reign which results in maybe hitting it too hard and suffering the negative mental health as a result, I'm not sure.

Reminds me of the time my missus was at university. She had a breakdown, had to go pick her up at 1am in the morning and bring her home for a few days. Did Boro to Leeds in an hour

 

[Randy]

Turn down the gas, until it's under control.

The gas is the virus. You can't turn down mother nature.

 

[Randy]

Project fear like brexit was project fear you mean? Oh wait, no, that turned out to be project fact didn't it.

It's just facts, the stats are facts. You subliminally realise this as you relate these stats and numbers to there being a problem, and you realise this problem is causing fear.

Just accept it, sometimes it's ok to be scared, there's something to be scared about (for a lot of the population, ie those at risk or those that have family at risk or have to care for those at risk).

I'm not scared about the virus, same as I'm not scared about getting twatted by a car or possibly been the victim of a terrorist attack.
Living in fear is incredibly unhealthy.

Edit - that's my personal view, others can feel how they want to feel. It's all good.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

It's 100% absolutely not unrealistic to be on 96,000 new case per day, we could be there easily.
We have a 3 day moving average of 320 deaths per day on 29th Oct, it takes about 18 days to die (so look back at 11th Oct, we were averaging 12,000 cases per day), so 320 deaths per 12,000 cases, which is 2.7% fatality rate, which we know is not right. So, say it's 0.9% like I used earlier in the thread. This means that 12,000 cases is actually 36,000 cases.
Since then we've gone from 12,000 per day to 24,000 per day positives. So take that 36,000 expected cases and double it, you're now on 72,000 cases.
Now also factor in that when testing is overwhelmed, 24 hours test results are not happening, tracking and tracing gets overwhelmed, and it hits the south more, then all of these are reasons for the cases to go up sharply. It could easily have gone up 33% to to get to 96,000. Some parts of London have a suspected "R" of 3 at the minute.

So, if the fatality rate isn't 0.9%, say it's 0.6%.
2.7%/ 0.6% = 4.5
12,000 cases is actually 54,000 cases (for what you're missing)
12,000 cases on 11 Oct is now 24,000 on 29th Oct (actual positives)
So 54,000 cases is actually 108,000 cases (missed cases doubling, as actual cases have doubled)
But that would assume that we don't get more cases when we get overwhelmed, or that 24 hour tests are nt better than 5 day test results and that there isn't a higher "R" in more densely populated areas.

That's how you get 96,000 cases, it's extremely easy.

It's 100% absolutely not unrealistic to be on 96,000 new case per day, we could be there easily.
We have a 3 day moving average of 320 deaths per day on 29th Oct, it takes about 18 days to die (so look back at 11th Oct, we were averaging 12,000 cases per day), so 320 deaths per 12,000 cases, which is 2.7% fatality rate, which we know is not right. So, say it's 0.9% like I used earlier in the thread. This means that 12,000 cases is actually 36,000 cases.
Since then we've gone from 12,000 per day to 24,000 per day positives. So take that 36,000 expected cases and double it, you're now on 72,000 cases.
Now also factor in that when testing is overwhelmed, 24 hours test results are not happening, tracking and tracing gets overwhelmed, and it hits the south more, then all of these are reasons for the cases to go up sharply. It could easily have gone up 33% to to get to 96,000. Some parts of London have a suspected "R" of 3 at the minute.

So, if the fatality rate isn't 0.9%, say it's 0.6%.
2.7%/ 0.6% = 4.5
12,000 cases is actually 54,000 cases (for what you're missing)
12,000 cases on 11 Oct is now 24,000 on 29th Oct (actual positives)
So 54,000 cases is actually 108,000 cases (missed cases doubling, as actual cases have doubled)
But that would assume that we don't get more cases when we get overwhelmed, or that 24 hour tests are nt better than 5 day test results and that there isn't a higher "R" in more densely populated areas.

That's how you get 96,000 cases, it's extremely easy.

Come on mate, you’re a smart guy. You’ve taken a non peer reviewed headline grabbing figure that had been questioned by plenty of reasonable, fence sitting science types, and you’ve seemingly accepted it, or are at least trying to show how that figure could be reached.
I’m not arguing that it could be reached.
I’m saying it’s a controversially flawed model that is yet to be peer reviewed but is grabbing all the headlines and putting the fear of god into people, DESPITE it being inconsistent with the other commonly accepted case measuring tools.

You seem to be trying to justify the headlines without questioning them. You keep talking about stats and data yet you keep making major suppositions and assumptions and ignoring evidence.

 

[Jostler]

Historically too if you are the autism spectrum which has previously been under diagnosed and probably still is this adjustment will be harder for them

Yep I can imagine, if you're thrust into social living, especially if you end up with a flat that's very party orientated, it could be very easy to suddenly feel isolated and alone.

 

[Jostler]

Reminds me of the time my missus was at university. She had a breakdown, had to go pick her up at 1am in the morning and bring her home for a few days. Did Boro to Leeds in an hour

Yep I had the same thing just before Christmas in 2nd year where my dad had to come up to Newcastle because I felt so low. Luckily it passed and in the vast majority I have great memories of uni!

 

[Statto1]

The gas is the virus. You can't turn down mother nature.

Ok, what about Ebola, Aids, Measles, Rubella, Polio, we managed to fight those and they would be a lot worse if we just rolled over and let them out.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

It's 100% absolutely not unrealistic to be on 96,000 new case per day, we could be there easily.
We have a 3 day moving average of 320 deaths per day on 29th Oct, it takes about 18 days to die (so look back at 11th Oct, we were averaging 12,000 cases per day), so 320 deaths per 12,000 cases, which is 2.7% fatality rate, which we know is not right. So, say it's 0.9% like I used earlier in the thread. This means that 12,000 cases is actually 36,000 cases.
Since then we've gone from 12,000 per day to 24,000 per day positives. So take that 36,000 expected cases and double it, you're now on 72,000 cases.
Now also factor in that when testing is overwhelmed, 24 hours test results are not happening, tracking and tracing gets overwhelmed, and it hits the south more, then all of these are reasons for the cases to go up sharply. It could easily have gone up 33% to to get to 96,000. Some parts of London have a suspected "R" of 3 at the minute.

So, if the fatality rate isn't 0.9%, say it's 0.6%.
2.7%/ 0.6% = 4.5
12,000 cases is actually 54,000 cases (for what you're missing)
12,000 cases on 11 Oct is now 24,000 on 29th Oct (actual positives)
So 54,000 cases is actually 108,000 cases (missed cases doubling, as actual cases have doubled)
But that would assume that we don't get more cases when we get overwhelmed, or that 24 hour tests are nt better than 5 day test results and that there isn't a higher "R" in more densely populated areas.

That's how you get 96,000 cases, it's extremely easy.

Give this a watch -

 

[Randy]

Ok, what about Ebola, Aids, Measles, Rubella, Polio, we managed to fight those and they would be a lot worse if we just rolled over and let them out.

I'm done fella.

Will have to discuss any virus related issues with others now.

Thanks.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Anybody who is fearful about the major headline grabbing ‘news’ that SARS-cov 2 antibodies wane could do worse than watching this extremely interesting video for a bit of reassurance that that ‘news’ was a complete non story-

 

[Statto1]

It’s a non peer reviewed study that done very reasonable, fence sitting scientists ha
Come on mate, you’re a smart guy. You’ve taken a non peer reviewed headline grabbing figure that had been questioned by plenty of reasonable, fence sitting science types, and you’ve seemingly accepted it, or are at least trying to show how that figure could be reached.
I’m not arguing that it could be reached.
I’m saying it’s a controversially flawed model that is yet to be peer reviewed but is grabbing all the headlines and putting the fear of god into people, DESPITE it being inconsistent with the other commonly accepted case measuring tools.

You seem to be trying to justify the headlines without questioning them. You keep talking about stats and data yet you keep making major suppositions and assumptions and ignoring evidence.

I'm not justifying the headline, that's where I thought the case figure would be roughly, before the headline was announced, that's my point. I was explaining how the figure is likely reasonable.
Tell me which of the numbers is wrong?
If it's not as deadly (<1%), then there are more cases
If there are not that many cases then it's more deadly (>1%)

You HAVE to pick one, you can't be on the side of "it's not that deadly, there are not that many cases", as they are inversely proportional, if one goes down, the other goes up. If one goes up, the other goes down.

We're not catching all cases, never were, never will, but we're just catching more as a percentage, compared to what we were. This has to be true as we're testing 5 x more than we were and we have less cases now than we did in March/ April.
People are definitely dying or covid, or covid is having a massive impact, the doctors, nurses and stats prove this, and are also likely underestimated (unless covid stops at 28 days).

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I'm not justifying the headline, that's where I thought the case figure would be roughly, before the headline was announced, that's my point. I was explaining how the figure is likely reasonable.
Tell me which of the numbers is wrong?
If it's not as deadly (<1%), then there are more cases
If there are not that many cases then it's more deadly (>1%)

You HAVE to pick one, you can't be on the side of "it's not that deadly, there are not that many cases", as they are inversely proportional, if one goes down, the other goes up. If one goes up, the other goes down.

We're not catching all cases, never were, never will, but we're just catching more as a percentage, compared to what we were. This has to be true as we're testing 5 x more than we were and we have less cases now than we did in March/ April.
People are definitely dying or covid, or covid is having a massive impact, the doctors, nurses and stats prove this, and are also likely underestimated (unless covid stops at 28 days).

I don’t know what your game is, but I’m not going to indulge it anymore.
You keep missing the point (deliberately?) and you are repeatedly trying to make arguments out of points that nobody is making, so crack on
You are looking for conspiracy theories in the wrong places, I’m afraid.
Have a good day.

 

[Statto1]

I don’t know what your game is, but I’m not going to indulge it anymore.
You keep missing the point (deliberately?) and you are repeatedly trying to make arguments out of points that nobody is making, so crack on
You are looking for conspiracy theories in the wrong places, I’m afraid.
Have a good day.

Right, you and others are saying there's not as many cases, and that the virus isn't as deadly, it can't be both, unless you're denying it exists?

What is your actual point?
You made a point saying that cases can't be as high as 96,000 per day, and I've shown how they probably are.
Now it's your turn to prove which of my stats are or were wrong.

What I'm saying is:
If you don't think it's as deadly as 1%, then there must be more cases (currently 2.7% deaths per case)
If you don't think there are more cases, then it must be more deadly than 1% (ie you think it's more deadly than I do!)

Which of my numbers are incorrect, and how?

There's a reason that nobody will argue against them, as they can't, they just keep diverting everywhere with some other crap.

Like I said before, it's like trying to play tennis with someone that keeps serving new balls over and over again, without paying any attention to the balls you're returning. If that was a tennis game I've won every point.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Right, you and others are saying there's not as many cases, and that the virus isn't as deadly, it can't be both, unless you're denying it exists?

What is your actual point?
You made a point saying that cases can't be as high as 96,000 per day, and I've shown how they probably are.
Now it's your turn to prove which of my stats are or were wrong.

What I'm saying is:
If you don't think it's as deadly as 1%, then there must be more cases (currently 2.7% deaths per case)
If you don't think there are more cases, then it must be more deadly than 1% (ie you think it's more deadly than I do!)

Which of my numbers are incorrect, and how?

There's a reason that nobody will argue against them, as they can't, they just keep diverting everywhere with some other crap.

Like I said before, it's like trying to play tennis with someone that keeps serving new balls over and over again, without paying any attention to the balls you're returning. If that was a tennis game I've won every point.

Whatever you say pal

 

[MolteniArcore]

And that's how the thread ends. You show the doubters evidence and they still can't change their minds or prove you wrong, so they go elsewhere in search of others who share their views. Like a Brexiteer who can't admit they fell for the biggest con in recent history.