Coronavirus

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
1,455
Well there's always a few know all's on here that's for sure - yea you know best,

"Magna Carta is a cornerstone of the individual liberties that we enjoy, and it presents an ongoing challenge to arbitrary rule. But over time, while not envisaged at the time of its drafting, Magna Carta has for many been seen not only as a foundation of liberty, but also one of democracy. And this broader notion of the wider significance of Magna Carta makes it especially relevant today. It is perhaps easiest to think of Magna Carta in two ways: first, as a document of historical and legal significance; and secondly, as a principle underlying how we live, through equality under the rule of law and through accountability. Magna Carta matters both for what it said in 1215 and, perhaps more significantly now, for what it has come to symbolise."

Prof Justin Fisher.
Yeah, you said what I said. If stoneage man hadn't invented the wheel and discovered fire we wouldn't be driving cars now. That's about the significance of the Magna Carta to modern law. Many things are based upon it but its been superceded so may times..... its a historical artefact taken out of context. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with freedom of all men, only rich people who were already free.

Like I said before "You may take our lives, but you'll never take our illusion of freedom!!!"
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
1,455
Anyway, Fixedspool, I think you have dodged a question....what exactly is it about your pre covid life that you miss so much now and you can't do again once all the sunset clauses in the current legislation have been triggered?
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,245
Reaction score
638
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
Here's a bunch of updated graphs using official HMG data from 20/04/20 (hence a couple of weeks post-"peak CV19 Death" and a month and a bit since "peak CV19 infection") to 20th November:


Following are all simple data:

Number of new CV19 tests conducted daily
New Tests 20nov20.png



New CV19 cases identified daily
New cases 20nov20.png



New "CV19 admissions" (unsure with/from?) to hospital daily
New Admissions 20nov20.png



Occupation of ventilator beds daily
Bed Occupation 20nov20.png



New deaths with CV19+ve test within 28 days
CV19 Deaths 28days 20nov20.png



Following are all ratios based on above primary data:

CV19 cases detected per test

CV19 Cases per test 20nov20.png



"CV19 deaths" per admission
CV19 Deaths per admission 20nov20.png



Deaths per patient put on an NHS ventilator
CV19 Deaths per ventilated patient 20nov20.png


And the kicker

Deaths per "+ve CV19 case"
CV19 Deaths per case 20nov20.png




Make your own mind up.

FWIW mine is "this supposed 2nd wave is a damp squib, mind the 1st one was especially hard on temporarily statistically over-abundant oldies"


One of them graphs actually worries me quite a bit about the way the NHS is operating....




Finally, another deaths graph, which appears to tally with my view expressed above.

This is the actual 2020 ONS weekly death data (cf. 2015-19 5ya and 2sd bounds) plus in blue, the HMG predition (i.e. double the first proper peak which itself was at least half what the dreaded Imperial modelled data [that of "Shagger" Fergusson's infamy...
infamy, they've all got it infamy!]:

ONS 2020 vs 2015 2019 5ya and US Model.png





A note for non-scientists: remember it's alright to flirt with a model, but never, ever get married to one!


Memento mori
 
Last edited:

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
1,455
Screenshot_20201125-224538_Opera Touch.jpg

Please explain how the "kicker graph" is in any way relevant when the data in the first part of the graph is apples and the data in the last part is oranges. Please, stop with this graph. It can't be used to show anything is a damp squib.

For the last graph, do you need to check the units - I'm pretty sure nobody predicted 3k deaths per day from covid in the 2nd wave. The most i heard predicted for around now was 200-400 per day.
Screenshot_20201125-225155_Opera Touch.jpg
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,245
Reaction score
638
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
Hello Walleye

I can't help the facts being the facts. :eek:

If you think you can prove your allegation, then do so (you'll need to take it up with HMG and come back to us with the actual test comparisons). I suspect you'll be as successful as I was in trying to get ONS to amit when they started ADDING "CV19 deaths" and "respiratory deaths" together, whereas at first they separated them (I suspect it was when the first peak had passed, but it will take an FOI!).

But I will await your "correct" graph with interest. Till you post it, well, the data are the data. HMGov told me so, Guv.

Re your 2nd: Work it out. The initial peak had ~1,000 deaths on one day. For the catastrophic 2nd wave they were giving it as a 2,000-4,000 peak. If it's "only" double the first proper wave, and has similar trajectory it will parallel the blue line...!

As you know, 1,500-1,700 die on average every day...just in England and Wales

Please read the web reference in the graph and revert when you have, ta.
 
Last edited:

westie4566

Well-known member
Messages
8,679
Reaction score
2,263
Location
Aberdeen
Nearly 700 people died today. The maximum daily deaths in the first wave was just over 1,000. How have we become so... unbothered?
Hello Walleye

I can't help the facts being the facts. :eek:

If you think you can prove your allegation, then do so (you'll need to take it up with HMG and come back to us with the actual test comparisons). I suspect you'll be as successful as I was in trying to get ONS to amit when they started ADDING "CV19 deaths" and "respiratory deaths" together, whereas at first they separated them (I suspect it was when the first peak had passed, but it will take an FOI!).

But I will await your "correct" graph with interest. Till you post it, well, the data are the data. HMGov told me so, Guv.

Re your 2nd: Work it out. The initial peak had ~1,000 deaths on one day. For the catastrophic 2nd wave they were giving it as a 2,000-4,000 peak. If it's "only" double the first proper wave, and has similar trajectory it will parallel the blue line...!

As you know, 1,500-1,700 die on average every day...just in England and Wales

Please read the web reference in the graph and revert when you have, ta.

Nearly 700 people died today. The maximum daily deaths in the first wave was just over 1,000. How have we become so... unbothered?
Of what? 700 is actually below the national average daily deaths for this time of year.
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
1,455
Hello Walleye

I can't help the facts being the facts. :eek:

If you think you can prove your allegation, then do so (you'll need to take it up with HMG and come back to us with the actual test comparisons). I suspect you'll be as successful as I was in trying to get ONS to amit when they started ADDING "CV19 deaths" and "respiratory deaths" together, whereas at first they separated them (I suspect it was when the first peak had passed, but it will take an FOI!).

But I will await your "correct" graph with interest. Till you post it, well, the data are the data. HMGov told me so, Guv.

Re your 2nd: Work it out. The initial peak had ~1,000 deaths on one day. For the catastrophic 2nd wave they were giving it as a 2,000-4,000 peak. If it's "only" double the first proper wave, and has similar trajectory it will parallel the blue line...!

As you know, 1,500-1,700 die on average every day...just in England and Wales

Please read the web reference in the graph and revert when you have, toodle pip.
Seeking, you know for most of the start of the first graph, we were only testing folk admitted to hospital. Then testing was expanded and more people were tested who were showing symptoms. Latterly, you can almost just turn up and get a test with no symptoms they are so desperate to fill the number of available tests. So you know the method of testing has changed radically yet you dismiss this ever so lightly without interrogating your own interpretation given to your "ratio" graph. Its irresponsible at best. I've created that graph several times and looked at it and thought, nah, its nonsense and means nothing, because the means of testing has changed so much.

Can you post the link to the prediction you used for the 2nd graph. I can barely see it in the image of the graph. I am really interested in that because I know of nobody who was predicting double the deaths of the first wave, at the same rate of increase and decline of the first wave. Looks like dodgy graphing to me.

BTW, thats not me "having a go" or "trolling". Just being blunt.
 

Grassy_Knollington

Well-known member
Messages
3,463
Reaction score
993
Seeking, you know for most of the start of the first graph, we were only testing folk admitted to hospital. Then testing was expanded and more people were tested who were showing symptoms. Latterly, you can almost just turn up and get a test with no symptoms they are so desperate to fill the number of available tests. So you know the method of testing has changed radically yet you dismiss this ever so lightly without interrogating your own interpretation given to your "ratio" graph. Its irresponsible at best. I've created that graph several times and looked at it and thought, nah, its nonsense and means nothing, because the means of testing has changed so much.

Can you post the link to the prediction you used for the 2nd graph. I can barely see it in the image of the graph. I am really interested in that because I know of nobody who was predicting double the deaths of the first wave, at the same rate of increase and decline of the first wave. Looks like dodgy graphing to me.

BTW, thats not me "having a go" or "trolling". Just being blunt.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54757446
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,573
Reaction score
2,018

The errors in projections were recorded at the start of the month and have been corrected. They still show us on course for what is a second wave, not a bump or ripple. We really have been here before, at the end of summer, using graphs to dismiss covid while it just quietly marches on. 700 deaths yesterday. 200 a day was laughed at and dismissed by sceptics. At least the end is in sight.
 

paddymc

Well-known member
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
259

The errors in projections were recorded at the start of the month and have been corrected. They still show us on course for what is a second wave, not a bump or ripple. We really have been here before, at the end of summer, using graphs to dismiss covid while it just quietly marches on. 700 deaths yesterday. 200 a day was laughed at and dismissed by sceptics. At least the end is in sight.
Hmmmmm, I’m not fully convinced.

What is the latest on the mutation in Denmark, and do the vaccines cover it ?
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,683
Reaction score
1,755
Location
edzell
For "errors in projections"

Does that mean, purely made up numbers for convenience.
Or simply lies!!!

You would think, that if the models were done correctly, sometimes they would have underestimated numbers as well, but so far we seem to have only had, ridiculously high estimated numbers, with the lowest estimates still far higher than actual.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
724
Reaction score
511
Ssssssshhhhh no one speak of the mink mutation. Did you see that their bloated corpses are rising from the grave? Zombie covid corpses!

No vacc for that.

Ssssshhhh.
It's like you guys actually want this stuff to happen

COVID mink analysis shows mutations are not dangerous — yet​


 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,573
Reaction score
2,018

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,573
Reaction score
2,018
For "errors in projections"

Does that mean, purely made up numbers for convenience.
Or simply lies!!!

You would think, that if the models were done correctly, sometimes they would have underestimated numbers as well, but so far we seem to have only had, ridiculously high estimated numbers, with the lowest estimates still far higher than actual.
We are higher than the reasonable worst case scenario for November by a considerable amount. Given it was reasonable WORST case - that we are exceeding - you’d expect there was an ever lower BEST case.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,245
Reaction score
638
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
Seeking, you know for most of the start of the first graph, we were only testing folk admitted to hospital. Then testing was expanded and more people were tested who were showing symptoms. Latterly, you can almost just turn up and get a test with no symptoms they are so desperate to fill the number of available tests. So you know the method of testing has changed radically yet you dismiss this ever so lightly without interrogating your own interpretation given to your "ratio" graph. Its irresponsible at best. I've created that graph several times and looked at it and thought, nah, its nonsense and means nothing, because the means of testing has changed so much.

Can you post the link to the prediction you used for the 2nd graph. I can barely see it in the image of the graph. I am really interested in that because I know of nobody who was predicting double the deaths of the first wave, at the same rate of increase and decline of the first wave. Looks like dodgy graphing to me.

BTW, thats not me "having a go" or "trolling". Just being blunt.
Walleye, Dear fellow brother of the angle

Please do me a great favour and use a laptop before commenting on something you find difficult to see/understand on a "smart"phone;

I am not your skivvie.

Likewise please DO NOT EVER put words into my mouth or condescend to know what I know or think again. Re: "Seeking, you know for most of the start of the first graph, we were only testing folk admitted to hospital. Then testing was expanded and more people were tested who were showing symptoms."

I do not know that at all.

I know you claim it but you have presented no credible evidence for it and in reality the number of tests increasing is the reason for the rise in cases. That is why you have to use the ratio of deaths/cases. You cannot have it both ways.

More to the point, if you have a problem with this graph below, which is based on the best available data from HMG (as referenced):

CV19 Deaths per case 20nov20.png


anyway again, if you have different information please post it (I suspect you will find absolutely nothing to support your allegation but will continue to follow your posts with interest to see if you can actually prove it! Come on, you give it a try. Please.


Regarding your second.

Really?

If you cannot be bothered to put yourself out a bit by doing all the above, but can be bothered enough by the dismal argument you make to comment, surely you can understand how that will raise all manner of flags.

The graph is here, so you can see it better (your reproductions degrade the image):

ONS 2020 vs 2015 2019 5ya and US Model.png



Note also that the HMG B/S about the so-called 2nd Wave (promoted only by Lockdown proponents as far as I can see) has also been called out by an eminent statistician with far more clout than I :

Under the headline:

"Number 10 cherry-picked 'spurious' Covid data to justify England's second lockdown and may have intended to frighten the public, top Cambridge statistician claims

  • Sir David Spiegelhalter suggested the Government tried to 'manipulate' Britons
  • Cherry-picked 'worst-case scenarios' to 'instill a certain emotional reaction'
  • No10 lambasted for its apocalyptic graphs and spurious data shown to public"

Are the following words spoken by him:

"The Cambridge professor told MPs today: 'I don't want to ascribe motivation to anyone of course. But if someone was really trying to manipulate the audience and frighten them and persuade them that what was being done was correct, rather than genuinely inform them, then this is the kind of thing they might do...

Doom-mongering graphs which predicted 50,000 cases by mid-October and 4,000 deaths a day by late November were used by Downing Street to justify England's second lockdown...


At the beginning we were told up to 500,000 deaths could occur, yeah, okay, if we did absolutely nothing.

Then we had that graph, the famous one where cases were going to double every week and we'd end up with 49,000 by the end of October. In fact we had 14,000 by the end of October reported...

Those projections were made by one team early in October under certain very pessimistic assumptions.


They'd already been revised twice by the time they were shown to the public so it was completely inappropriate to present them to the public.

I'm not saying the judgment [to decide to go into lockdown] was wrong, I'm not making any comment about that.

What I'm objecting to strongly is the fact such spurious data and graphs were being presented to the public as a justification for the decisions that were being made.

You didn't need that graph, you just needed quite short-term projections to tell something needed to be done or we could be in real trouble very quickly.

There is good data available and yet at some point the need to persuade people, to instill a certain emotional reaction in people seems to take over at really quite a high level of decision making. I think it's quite unfortunate....

That is not trustworthy communications, these are based on extreme assumptions that we just don't do anything.


I don't want to ascribe motivation to anyone of course but if someone were really trying to manipulate the audience and frighten them and persuade them that what was being done was correct, rather than genuinely inform them, then this is the kind of thing they might do.

Because no matter what you say about scenarios they will be interpreted as predictions.'
"


And that is because they were presented by HMG's top bods (conflicted ones at that) as predictions.

Note I am not endorsing the Mail as a brilliant source of knowledge, but his words should give ANYONE pause for thought before supporting fascistic control (whether they think it is only temporary or not)






Also, knowing how both SFF and Lockdown proponents operate, I expect that their only take away from all the above to justify their extreme view is:

"I'm not saying the judgment [to decide to go into lockdown] was wrong..."



Perhaps the cheerleaders of Lockdown need to understand where I am coming from

1. I know nobody who has died of CV19 or been harmed by the virus, though I am aware 2nd hand of very rare but nasty stories of "long covid" and I know many who've had it.

2. I wish it had been around a couple of years ago to quickly take away a close relative with cancer and other comorbidities who spent 3 months being pumped full or morphine and dying a dismal long death in a care home.

3. The social and economic impact of the overreactions to CV19 (Lockdown, which data comparisons between most European countries c.f. Sweden indicates was not required) has directly impacted, in a very bad way, the lives and livelyhoods of myself and many very close young and middle aged relatives and friends in ways I could never have envisaged, whilst the "Chattering Classes" bleat about long CV19 whilst trying to justify how the lives of folk who are above-average life expectancy are more important than the vast majority of joe public.

A pox on their houses.


Make it all up, aye right...
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,573
Reaction score
2,018
seeking, what would you do about our hospital capacity, to avoid them becoming overwhelmed and no one being able to be treated for anything?

I’m not enjoying lockdown. My business is struggling and I’m crying at jigsaw puzzles now. So I’m very happy to hear solutions that keep the NHS moving. Are the projections in that 31 Oct deck showing when we reach capacity/surge capacity/stop treating everything else also flawed data?
 

Attachments

  • F1AC399E-50C1-41AB-9916-5F7AA90B9B07.jpeg
    F1AC399E-50C1-41AB-9916-5F7AA90B9B07.jpeg
    122.2 KB · Views: 12

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,683
Reaction score
1,755
Location
edzell
Excess deaths are interesting.
It doesn't seem that easy to get a straight answer on what the figure is.
Probably partly because of the time lag in registering.
However, I thought you had to do it within a week and that it was input into the computer when it was registered, so one week lag would be understandable.

Interestingly, in the government graph, there has been absolutely no excess deaths due to anything other than Covid for the last 3 weeks of the graph.
I find this hard to believe, but if true, would indicate, that the lack of healthcare provision since March has had no detrimental effect on life expectancy.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20201126-084756.png
    Screenshot_20201126-084756.png
    248.6 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot_20201126-085200.png
    Screenshot_20201126-085200.png
    258 KB · Views: 12

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
1,455
Walleye, Dear fellow brother of the angle

Please do me a great favour and use a laptop before commenting on something you find difficult to see/understand on a "smart"phone;

I am not your skivvie.

Likewise please DO NOT EVER put words into my mouth or condescend to know what I know or think again. Re: "Seeking, you know for most of the start of the first graph, we were only testing folk admitted to hospital. Then testing was expanded and more people were tested who were showing symptoms."

I do not know that at all.

I know you claim it but you have presented no credible evidence for it and in reality the number of tests increasing is the reason for the rise in cases. That is why you have to use the ratio of deaths/cases. You cannot have it both ways.

More to the point, if you have a problem with this graph below, which is based on the best available data from HMG (as referenced):

View attachment 53116

anyway again, if you have different information please post it (I suspect you will find absolutely nothing to support your allegation but will continue to follow your posts with interest to see if you can actually prove it! Come on, you give it a try. Please.


Regarding your second.

Really?

If you cannot be bothered to put yourself out a bit by doing all the above, but can be bothered enough by the dismal argument you make to comment, surely you can understand how that will raise all manner of flags.

The graph is here, so you can see it better (your reproductions degrade the image):

View attachment 53115


Note also that the HMG B/S about the so-called 2nd Wave (promoted only by Lockdown proponents as far as I can see) has also been called out by an eminent statistician with far more clout than I :

Under the headline:

"Number 10 cherry-picked 'spurious' Covid data to justify England's second lockdown and may have intended to frighten the public, top Cambridge statistician claims

  • Sir David Spiegelhalter suggested the Government tried to 'manipulate' Britons
  • Cherry-picked 'worst-case scenarios' to 'instill a certain emotional reaction'
  • No10 lambasted for its apocalyptic graphs and spurious data shown to public"

Are the following words spoken by him:

"The Cambridge professor told MPs today: 'I don't want to ascribe motivation to anyone of course. But if someone was really trying to manipulate the audience and frighten them and persuade them that what was being done was correct, rather than genuinely inform them, then this is the kind of thing they might do...

Doom-mongering graphs which predicted 50,000 cases by mid-October and 4,000 deaths a day by late November were used by Downing Street to justify England's second lockdown...


At the beginning we were told up to 500,000 deaths could occur, yeah, okay, if we did absolutely nothing.

Then we had that graph, the famous one where cases were going to double every week and we'd end up with 49,000 by the end of October. In fact we had 14,000 by the end of October reported...

Those projections were made by one team early in October under certain very pessimistic assumptions.


They'd already been revised twice by the time they were shown to the public so it was completely inappropriate to present them to the public.

I'm not saying the judgment [to decide to go into lockdown] was wrong, I'm not making any comment about that.

What I'm objecting to strongly is the fact such spurious data and graphs were being presented to the public as a justification for the decisions that were being made.

You didn't need that graph, you just needed quite short-term projections to tell something needed to be done or we could be in real trouble very quickly.

There is good data available and yet at some point the need to persuade people, to instill a certain emotional reaction in people seems to take over at really quite a high level of decision making. I think it's quite unfortunate....

That is not trustworthy communications, these are based on extreme assumptions that we just don't do anything.


I don't want to ascribe motivation to anyone of course but if someone were really trying to manipulate the audience and frighten them and persuade them that what was being done was correct, rather than genuinely inform them, then this is the kind of thing they might do.

Because no matter what you say about scenarios they will be interpreted as predictions.'
"


And that is because they were presented by HMG's top bods (conflicted ones at that) as predictions.

Note I am not endorsing the Mail as a brilliant source of knowledge, but his words should give ANYONE pause for thought before supporting fascistic control (whether they think it is only temporary or not)






Also, knowing how both SFF and Lockdown proponents operate, I expect that their only take away from all the above to justify their extreme view is:

"I'm not saying the judgment [to decide to go into lockdown] was wrong..."



Perhaps the cheerleaders of Lockdown need to understand where I am coming from

1. I know nobody who has died of CV19 or been harmed by the virus, though I am aware 2nd hand of very rare but nasty stories of "long covid" and I know many who've had it.

2. I wish it had been around a couple of years ago to quickly take away a close relative with cancer and other comorbidities who spent 3 months being pumped full or morphine and dying a dismal long death in a care home.

3. The social and economic impact of the overreactions to CV19 (Lockdown, which data comparisons between most European countries c.f. Sweden indicates was not required) has directly impacted, in a very bad way, the lives and livelyhoods of myself and many very close young and middle aged relatives and friends in ways I could never have envisaged, whilst the "Chattering Classes" bleat about long CV19 whilst trying to justify how the lives of folk who are above-average life expectancy are more important than the vast majority of joe public.

A pox on their houses.


Make it all up, aye right...
I find it incredible that a scientist wouldn't look at that deaths per case graph and not be extremely hesitant to use it for any purposes. You can say you don't know, and you can ask me to provide evidence but you and I both know if I'd put a similar graph up about decreasing survival rate at sea, with as many issues as your graph has, I am certain it would have been subject to much questioning and criticism, and rightly so! Quite why you choose to present this graph as the "kicker" and dismiss any questioning of it really is beyond me.

Your 2nd graph in question - why did you not plot the reasonable worst case scenario on there? The rest of the plots with much higher peaks were to show if nothing is was done. Clearly, things were being done, by everyone.
And did you just multiply the first peak by ~2x and add it to the graph for effect? Why did you not take into account the very different rate of increase in the 2nd wave?

All fudd if you want my opinion. If you don't want my opinion, then carry on misleading folk with these graphs.

At the end of the day, all I am asking you, a scientist and obviously a very clever and capable guy, is to put as much thought and analysis in to what you present on this issue as you clearly do on many other issues discussed on here.
 
Top