Controversial Covid post

Hey, @Statto1.
What do the latest ONS daily cases say?
Are they more in line with the Zoe symptom tracker app?
Or the non-peer reviews flawed headline grabbing, scaremongering report of 96 thousand from yesterday?

Nobody needs a hugely patronising lesson in how to get to daily 96k figure. It’s not the point.
We may even be at 96k. (Unlikely given the ONS and Zoe figures) Again, it’s not the point.

One figure, the scariest, from a non peer-reviewed study, (the methodology of which has easily been questioned by plenty of sensible, non-covid denying/non-Anti-lockdown, non conspiracy-theorist scientists), a study which was contradictory to all the other studies and assessment tools that have been employed for the past 8 months, made headline news, the main story in the mainstream media. On the radio news bulletins. On the telly.

The other figures, which have been considered the most reliable throughout, did not.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?!

Stop arguing with yourself about irrelevant maths that nobody is questioning.

Stop painting everyone with a question as a conspiracy theorist covid denier.

That’s my last post to you on the topic.
Have a good weekend, genuinely.
And stop looking for fights where they don’t exist.
 
Yay, my imperial college survey test came back negative.
Only took 8 days to get the results.
Bizzare really as felt like **** the day I took it. Didn't have any of the symptoms and had already booked a week off of work that week anyways.
 
bear66 said:
Clearly a false negative (only joking) 👍
Click to expand...
The letter I've just received did say it wasn't 100% accurate but everybody knows that. Felt back to normal the day after the test so put the s***y feelings down to stress and other mental health issues I'm working through. 🥴
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Give this a watch -

Click to expand...

Here lies your problem:
  • There are currently 43,569 daily new symptomatic cases of COVID in the UK on average over the two weeks up to 25 October (excluding care homes)
1) It's not the 25th October
2) Why use a 2 week average from 11 Oct - 25th October, to compare it to TODAYS figure
3) Why not use the expected current new cases per day
4) Do care homes not count?

11 Oct 12,000 cases/ positive tests
25 Oct 20,000 cases/ positive tests

Average, say 16,000 cases, agreed?
Lets say the average of those contracted the virus on the 18th (average of 11+25th), and the cases was about 16,000 then (which it was about)
From those figures YOUR data says 43,000 actual cases, on average (so a multplyer of 2.7, from 43k/ 16k)
We're now on 22,000 cases per day (rather than 16,000), so multiply that by 2.7, gives you 60k cases currently (I think this is under, by at least 50%, by the way)

So, using that 43,000 expected cases from around the 18th, and that they all died already (current av death is 320).
So 43,000/320 = 1 in 134 die, so a 0.75% death rate per case, from your data, assuming all those that caught on the 18th who are gonna die, are all dead, already.
We know they're not all dead yet, as most die on average after 18 days or so, so that rate can only go up, and it doesn't seem to include care homes.

So that's why the data he is using is not comparable to the current possible expected cases.
You don't use averages to predict current cases, you're better off looking at the most recent data, or at least plot it on a graph and try and see where it's going.
You don't use old data (using an average from around the 18th) to predict current cases, this is ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, that 43,000 cases per day seems to be symptomatic cases, taken from an app, heavily relying on users. There's obviously a lot more asymptomatic cases too, to add onto that, that the app won't get and that people won't realise. It doesn't actually seem possible to find their actual data.

The ILC 96k predicted is from actual tests, not an app, and will also pick up asymptomatic cases.
The percentage of positives it picks up has increased, that is what is causing their increased prediction
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Hey, @Statto1.
What do the latest ONS daily cases say?
Are they more in line with the Zoe symptom tracker app?
Or the non-peer reviews flawed headline grabbing, scaremongering report of 96 thousand from yesterday?

Nobody needs a hugely patronising lesson in how to get to daily 96k figure. It’s not the point.
We may even be at 96k. (Unlikely given the ONS and Zoe figures) Again, it’s not the point.

One figure, the scariest, from a non peer-reviewed study, (the methodology of which has easily been questioned by plenty of sensible, non-covid denying/non-Anti-lockdown, non conspiracy-theorist scientists), a study which was contradictory to all the other studies and assessment tools that have been employed for the past 8 months, made headline news, the main story in the mainstream media. On the radio news bulletins. On the telly.

The other figures, which have been considered the most reliable throughout, did not.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?!

Stop arguing with yourself about irrelevant maths that nobody is questioning.

Stop painting everyone with a question as a conspiracy theorist covid denier.

That’s my last post to you on the topic.
Have a good weekend, genuinely.
And stop looking for fights where they don’t exist.
Click to expand...

You're talking about 43k symptomatic cases, based on old averaged data, from random people putting input into an app of a private company, and think that has relevance to predicted actual cases of symptomatic and asymptomatic today, from actual tests?

You're basically proving that there are more than 96,000 cases (symptomatic and asymptomatic) with your 43k number!!!!! It's your (old, averaged) data, it's just you're misunderstanding what it relates to, and how it has little relevance on today either.

You're clueless.

I actually didn't think you misunderstood that much before, but I realise now, you're just never going to understand. You can't teach someone that is incapable or who doesn't want to learn.

It's not irrelevant maths, it's maths proving my points (and you disproving your own points), just because you don't understand, does not make it irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Statto1 said:
Hmm, that 43,000 cases per day seems to be symptomatic cases, taken from an app, heavily relying on users. There's obviously a lot more asymptomatic cases too, to add onto that, that the app won't get and that people won't realise. It doesn't actually seem possible to find their actual data.

The ILC 96k predicted is from actual tests, not an app, and will also pick up asymptomatic cases.
The percentage of positives it picks up has increased, that is what is causing their increased prediction
Click to expand...
What about ons figure of 56k
 
Statto1 said:
Here lies your problem:
  • There are currently 43,569 daily new symptomatic cases of COVID in the UK on average over the two weeks up to 25 October (excluding care homes)
1) It's not the 25th October
2) Why use a 2 week average from 11 Oct - 25th October, to compare it to TODAYS figure
3) Why not use the expected current new cases per day

11 Oct 12,000 cases/ positive tests
25 Oct 20,000 cases/ positive tests

Average, say 16,000 cases, agreed?
Lets say the average of those contracted the virus on the 18th (average of 11+25th), and the cases was about 16,000 then (which it was about)
From those figures YOUR data says 43,000 actual cases, on average (so a multplyer of 2.7, from 43k/ 16k)
We're now on 22,000 cases per day (rather than 16,000), so multiply that by 2.7, gives you 60k cases currently (I think this is under, by at least 50%, by the way)

So, using that 43,000 expected cases from around the 18th, and that they all died already (current av death is 320).
So 43,000/320 = 1 in 134 die, so a 0.75% death rate per case, from your data, assuming all those that caught on the 18th who are gonna die, are all dead, already.
We know they're not all dead yet, as most die on average after 18 days or so, so that rate can only go up, and it doesn't seem to include care homes.

So that's why the data he is using is not comparable to the current possible expected cases.
You don't use averages to predict current cases, you're better off looking at the most recent data, or at least plot it on a graph and try and see where it's going.
You don't use old data (using an average from around the 18th) to predict current cases, this is ludicrous.
Click to expand...


Honestly, you hear what you want to hear.
For starters, you do realise that it isn’t HIS data, right?
And you do realise that the last swans for the imperial college were taken on SUNDAY 25th, right?

I have no idea what you are prattling on about half the time!
You are so arrogant you have repeatedly dismissed international peer reviewed studies carried out by actual credible scientists, in favour if your own magic sums .
You keep arguing about things that people aren’t arguing about,
You keep putting words in people’s mouths.
You keep declaring yourself the ‘winner’ and being pleased with how clever you are 😂

You keep distracting with utter drivel and chuck some random numbers in as if it justifies you in some way.

I should have known right at the beginning what you were all about -
You arrived as a brand new poster, in tandem with your sidekick kingofthetribes, and BOTH proceeded ARGUING ABOUT DISCUSSION POINTS IN A PODCAST AND VIDEO THAT NEITHER OF YOU HAD EVEN WATCHED!

At that point right there I should have given your replies the credibility they deserved,
You keep looking for covid-denying arguments that aren’t there.

I can’t believe I’ve wasted my time even reading through your replies. But the penny has dropped now and I really won’t indulge your game anymore.
You demonstrably aren’t half as clever as you think you.
With your repeated rebuttal of multiple credible peer reviewed scientific stuff you have shown that you are as arrogant as I think you are.

So I’m done. Got the measure of you now and I suspect I know who you are. Penny has dropped ‘new poster’. SUSSED.

And if you think this jeans you’ve ‘won’ something and makes you feel more complete, then that’s good for you, crack on 👍
 
It's worth remembering that the government employ people to give disinformation on public forums whenever you engage anyone on a topic @FabioPorkpie, not saying he is but it's factually correct that the practice occurs. 😉
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Honestly, you hear what you want to hear.
For starters, you do realise that it isn’t HIS data, right?
And you do realise that the last swans for the imperial college were taken on SUNDAY 25th, right?

I have no idea what you are prattling on about half the time!
You are so arrogant you have repeatedly dismissed international peer reviewed studies carried out by actual credible scientists, in favour if your own magic sums .
You keep arguing about things that people aren’t arguing about,
You keep putting words in people’s mouths.
You keep declaring yourself the ‘winner’ and being pleased with how clever you are 😂

You keep distracting with utter drivel and chuck some random numbers in as if it justifies you in some way.
Click to expand...

Zoe is his private company, that Tim guy or whatever he's called, but his website does say symptomatic cases.
The dude on your video is comparing predicted 96k cases (from actual physical tests (not an app), for any case, symptomatic or asymptomatic) with 43k averaged symptomatic cases (he doesn't tell you this) from people using an app, and claiming they're the same thing, they're not, they're miles from the same thing.

You're then using this 43k symptomatic per day, to deny we're on 96k total cases per day, which is crazy unless everyone gets symptoms (which we know is not the case).

If you have no idea what I'm going on about, then that explains it a fair bit. For anyone one with a degree in maths and stats it should be extremely simple to understand.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Honestly, you hear what you want to hear.
For starters, you do realise that it isn’t HIS data, right?
And you do realise that the last swans for the imperial college were taken on SUNDAY 25th, right?

I have no idea what you are prattling on about half the time!
You are so arrogant you have repeatedly dismissed international peer reviewed studies carried out by actual credible scientists, in favour if your own magic sums .
You keep arguing about things that people aren’t arguing about,
You keep putting words in people’s mouths.
You keep declaring yourself the ‘winner’ and being pleased with how clever you are 😂

You keep distracting with utter drivel and chuck some random numbers in as if it justifies you in some way.

I should have known right at the beginning what you were all about -
You arrived as a brand new poster, in tandem with your sidekick kingofthetribes, and BOTH proceeded ARGUING ABOUT DISCUSSION POINTS IN A PODCAST AND VIDEO THAT NEITHER OF YOU HAD EVEN WATCHED!

At that point right there I should have given your replies the credibility they deserved,
You keep looking for covid-denying arguments that aren’t there.

I can’t believe I’ve wasted my time even reading through your replies. But the penny has dropped now and I really won’t indulge your game anymore.
You demonstrably aren’t half as clever as you think you.
With your repeated rebuttal of multiple credible peer reviewed scientific stuff you have shown that you are as arrogant as I think you are.

So I’m done. Got the measure of you now and I suspect I know who you are. Penny has dropped ‘new poster’. SUSSED.

And if you think this jeans you’ve ‘won’ something and makes you feel more complete, then that’s good for you, crack on 👍
Click to expand...
Hence why I've removed myself from covid discussions too.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
So I’m done. Got the measure of you now and I suspect I know who you are. Penny has dropped ‘new poster’. SUSSED.
Click to expand...

Good, if it stops your disinformation, then job done (y)

43k symptomatic cases from an app, imputed by a user (no actual test), from 11-25th data (averaged, not most recent), and you think this is more reliable than actual tests used all over the world, and you also don't think that 43k cases with symptoms couldn't reach 96k cases with/ without symptoms, that's like a 45% symptom rate, it's more like 20%.
 
Last edited:
GazC_MFC said:
What about ons figure of 56k
Click to expand...

From where? I looked for that but can't find it.

I can't even find anything about 56k cases per day on the latest ONS release which only goes up to the 23rd.

It does say there could be 54,500 testing positive per day by the 23rd, which is the 95% upper confidence interval (so don't go off that, the modelled number is 28,200 positive tests per day). But again, that's positive tests per day, it's not actual estimation of cases (symptomatic/ asymptomatic).
 
Last edited:
FabioPorkpie said:
Hey, @Statto1.
What do the latest ONS daily cases say?
Are they more in line with the Zoe symptom tracker app?
Or the non-peer reviews flawed headline grabbing, scaremongering report of 96 thousand from yesterday?

Nobody needs a hugely patronising lesson in how to get to daily 96k figure. It’s not the point.
We may even be at 96k. (Unlikely given the ONS and Zoe figures) Again, it’s not the point.

One figure, the scariest, from a non peer-reviewed study, (the methodology of which has easily been questioned by plenty of sensible, non-covid denying/non-Anti-lockdown, non conspiracy-theorist scientists), a study which was contradictory to all the other studies and assessment tools that have been employed for the past 8 months, made headline news, the main story in the mainstream media. On the radio news bulletins. On the telly.

The other figures, which have been considered the most reliable throughout, did not.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?!

Stop arguing with yourself about irrelevant maths that nobody is questioning.

Stop painting everyone with a question as a conspiracy theorist covid denier.
Click to expand...

Still no response @Statto1 ?
Sussed.
 
Statto1 said:
From where? I looked for that but can't find it.

I can't even find anything about 56k cases per day on the latest ONS release which only goes up to the 23rd.

It does say there could be 54,500 testing positive per day by the 23rd, which is the 95% upper confidence interval (so don't go off that, the modelled number is 28,200 positive tests per day). But again, that's positive tests per day, it's not actual estimation of cases (symptomatic/ asymptomatic).
Click to expand...
Was released today and was on the bbc website. It’s from random phone calls they make
 
GazC_MFC said:
Was released today and was on the bbc website. It’s from random phone calls they make
Click to expand...

The 51,900 on twitter?

This linked to ONS site:
For England, the incidence rate continues to increase; during the most recent week (17 to 23 October 2020), we estimate there were around 9.52 new COVID-19 infections for every 10,000 people per day (95% credible interval: 7.06 to 14.53) in the community population in England, equating to around 51,900 new cases per day (95% credible interval: 38,500 to 79,200).

From there, a link:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...atasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata

Tab 2b, Cell J49 (363,300 infections per week up to 17 October)
Tab 2b, Cell F49 51,900 infections per day, on 17 October (363,300 / 7)
Tab 2a, this same figure then gets used for the week 17-23 of October, strangely, when on the breakdown of days it was going up by 4% each day, but anyway, we will go with that for the week, as option 1.

Option 1: 51,900 av for wk 17-23 Oct, so call this the 20th Oct, it's been 10 days since then and in that time positive tests have gone up by 25%, so say 65k cases per day (makes no sense to use is option)
Option 2: Actually using the 17th date (seeing as that's the week the data is from), then test positives are up by about 50%, so say 80k cases
Option 3: If you follow the direction the graph for that data is is going and assume the same 4% increase then you're also into 80k cases, about 50% increase
1604075944264.png
Option 4: In that time hospital admissions are up by 50%, which marries up to 2 and 3.

But, and it's a big but, that 51,900 cases is from the low end of the 95% credible level, the range is like 38,500 to 79,200. Based on 17th of October, the middle of the range is more like 59k cases, which again would go up about 50% as test positives and hospital admissions are up 50%. But I must reiterate, this range is based on info from the 17th of October, hard to use that for now, unless you need to know how that relates to now.

So, roughly 51,900 is old news from the 17th, transposed into the next week (17-23) and then used as a low ball estimate of a range, but it still ends up close to 80k cases, even by doing that.

Also, it's missing out a big chunk of the at risk population, but is using the actual test data.

In this bulletin, we refer to the number of current COVID-19 infections within the community population; community in this instance refers to private residential households and it excludes those in hospitals, care homes and/or other institutional settings.

We use current COVID-19 infections to mean testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, with or without having symptoms, on a swab taken from the nose and throat.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top