Coronavirus

[Albert]

9 hours ago, Cardinal said:

I'm not sure you read my post properly. Where did I dismiss academic work?

I was simply highlighting that the authors admit themselves that there is a range of evaluations that can be made from the data, some overwhelmingly large and some almost negligible. That is their words not mine. Hence my comment you have to take it with a pinch of salt. 

As I said I would prefer to listen to the people who are closest to it and not pick and choose the reports and information within them to help me make my point. 

 

 You dismissed their conclusion based on wild speculation, without actually showing that there was any need for such. You're then, in essence, quote mining to try and backpeddle your point here. Their point in the quoted text was that people can misrepresent the data, but based on the argument as they presented, the number is indeed very significant. ie they showed that it did indeed represent a large loss of years of life, unlike others trying to represent it as insignificant. 

Equally, 'listening to the people closest' is usually code for 'I pick and choose the opinions that support my position', as it usually involves just dismissing all the people from those contexts that disagree with you. No single NHS worker, let alone subset, has a full picture of what is going on. Reading through opinion pieces, and discussing with relatives back in the UK, the opinions vary wildly from people working in the NHS. 

10 hours ago, Archied said:

I only ask because you seem to need opposing views to be backed with in depth figures but for you plenty will suffice ?‍♂️

It's very much a 'how long is a piece of string' point. The UK hasn't released their figures on deaths by age, so it's hard to compare with the UK directly, but the numbers, based on elsewhere, aren't going to be small. It also depends on how you define young. 

  

9 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Funny you should use this as a defence. What if we were talking about climate change? Would you dismiss an 'academics work' because he/she was perceived to have a 'motive'?

No. Dismissing work based on motives is a poor way of going about things. You should always start from considering the methodology for both collecting, and analysing the data. The time to start thinking about 'motives' is when you're looking at large sets of publications from a single, usually non-academic group, such as thinktanks. There, the methodology isn't always fully published, with obscures the point, and does leave considering why they'd present their findings in particular ways relevant. A paper, where the methodology is laid out very clearly, is certainly not that kind of situation. 

  

8 hours ago, rammieib said:

I can see @Albert's point about the 11.7 years BUT I would question:

1) How on Earth can they actually put a number against how many years extra that person would have lived unless you compare it against the average life expectancy, and EXCLUDE minus numbers. i.e Someone who is already over the 81 years of age cannot have a negative life expectancy

Life tables give you expected life from a particular age. People who are over the life expectancy aren't 'expected to have died years ago'. As noted, a man who is 80 in the UK is expected to live a further 8 years. You can use more sophisticated models to take into account adjusted life expectancy due to pre-existing conditions, etc. You can then average across the sample space of people who died to achieve such a figure. 

8 hours ago, rammieib said:

2) Isn't this like saying, the average life expectancy of someone who dies from cancer or flu or suicide or car crashes or any numerous number of scenarios that Covid-19 is causing is XXX. All things we don't shut a country down for.

Cancer, flu, suicide, car crashes don't behave the same way as Covid-19. One car accident doesn't start an exponential increase in the number of car accidents, nor does cancer, suicide or even the flu (which only kills a few hundred per year in the UK, and while it spikes at certain times of year, is endemic, so doesn't spread in the same manner). 

  

4 hours ago, Anag Ram said:

From ten years ago but I'm reliably informed the position hasn't changed. 

The average life expectancy for those committed to care homes is just two years. But according to immediate care annuities specialist Partnership, self-funders more typically survive for four years. One in ten self-funders live for eight years in care, meaning the cost could rise to more than £200,000.3 Nov 2010

www.thisismoney.co.uk › pensions

Elderly long-term-care: what you need to know - This is Money (UK)

...this source does not challenge the figure of 2.2 years at all... 

Also, as a correction to my original point, I accidentally only put in the figure for life expectancy at 87 for women, which was 5.89 years, while men is 5.14. As a reminder, this is the median age for going into care homes. So yes, taking into account that this going into care usually involves other conditions already, it's not surprising that it's lower. To get a better picture, we'd need a full picture of other conditions, demographics involved, etc, which we don't have access to at this point. 

None of this is challenging that 11.7 years figure at all, and these kinds of considerations, were discussed in the original paper. 

[Archied]

8 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

So the queen isn’t a lizard?

Make your mind up jimmy

[jimmyp]

Just now, Archied said:

Make your mind up jimmy

I think you should know if she is, or she isn’t. Why don’t you know?

[Archied]

10 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

So the queen isn’t a lizard?

On a serious note (if that’s what you actually want ) ,when people play silly buggers by throwing extreme labels and examples aroUnd if you disagree with them be that whether you believe the queen is a lizard or you are a right wing bigot or homophobic ect ect ect I’m just as happy to play silly games back ??‍♂️Hence the lizard thing has not been disproved yet eddies experts charts and figures are regularly Disproved within half an hour, 

[Archied]

9 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

I think you should know if she is, or she isn’t. Why don’t you know?

Because it doesn’t interest me , why do you need me to want to know?

[Archied]

22 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

So the queen isn’t a lizard?

Maybe it’s just an age and botox thing

[jimmyp]

7 minutes ago, Archied said:

On a serious note (if that’s what you actually want ) ,when people play silly buggers by throwing extreme labels and examples aroUnd if you disagree with them be that whether you believe the queen is a lizard or you are a right wing bigot or homophobic ect ect ect I’m just as happy to play silly games back ??‍♂️Hence the lizard thing has not been disproved yet eddies experts charts and figures are regularly Disproved within half an hour, 

I just wanted to know if you think the queen is a lizard, or if you think the queen isn’t a lizard?

You say it hasn’t been disproven yet so I am curious if you think it is possible? 

Not personally interested in throwing extreme labels or examples around. 

Making conversation Archied. 

 

I understand this is a covid thread and do not wish it to go off topic so other users / mods tell us to shut up if you wish ?

[Albert]

11 minutes ago, Archied said:

On a serious note (if that’s what you actually want ) ,when people play silly buggers by throwing extreme labels and examples aroUnd if you disagree with them be that whether you believe the queen is a lizard or you are a right wing bigot or homophobic ect ect ect I’m just as happy to play silly games back ??‍♂️Hence the lizard thing has not been disproved yet eddies experts charts and figures are regularly Disproved within half an hour, 

What charts do you feel have been 'disproved' exactly? 

[Comrade 86]

This thread!

 

[Archied]

Just now, jimmyp said:

I just wanted to know if you think the queen is a lizard, or if you think the queen isn’t a lizard?

You say it hasn’t been disproven yet so I am curious if you think it is possible? 

Not personally interested in throwing extreme labels or examples around. 

Making conversation Archied. 

Wasn’t saying you were throwing labels , Eddie was and got the silly games right back ,

do I think the queens a lizard ? In my opinion no ,,, 

do people think Cummings went on a drive to test his eyesight ? Him , boris and his cabinet and told us his did ,his scientific sidekicks didn’t condemn it , yet plenty hang on they’re every word??‍♂️

[Archied]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

What charts do you feel have been 'disproved' exactly? 

Oh for gods sake they came out and admitted their charts / projections were wrong themselves when pulled on it 

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

Oh for gods sake they came out and admitted their charts / projections were wrong themselves when pulled on it 

???

Who said this? Which charts? Do you have a source? I must have missed this. 

[jimmyp]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

Wasn’t saying you were throwing labels , Eddie was and got the silly games right back ,

do I think the queens a lizard ? In my opinion no ,,, 

do people think Cummings went on a drive to test his eyesight ? Him , boris and his cabinet and told us his did ,his scientific sidekicks didn’t condemn it , yet plenty hang on they’re every word??‍♂️

Thanks.

Not sure the scientists should condemn the behaviour, that wouldn’t be a scientists job.

[Archied]

Just now, jimmyp said:

Thanks.

Not sure the scientists should condemn the behaviour, that wouldn’t be a scientists job.

I do take that onboard regards the scientist but if your going to put them either side of you to address the country regularly and put them in the position of justifying your decisions and policy and get them to take questions from the media then we get on shaker ground ,, if I was one of them and put on the spot if I really believed in what I was saying the I couldn’t hold back to protect the indefensible, but hey maybe that’s just me

[Archied]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

???

Who said this? Which charts? Do you have a source? I must have missed this. 

Plenty ,, more than a few 

[jimmyp]

10 minutes ago, Archied said:

I do take that onboard regards the scientist but if your going to put them either side of you to address the country regularly and put them in the position of justifying your decisions and policy and get them to take questions from the media then we get on shaker ground ,, if I was one of them and put on the spot if I really believed in what I was saying the I couldn’t hold back to protect the indefensible, but hey maybe that’s just me

do you think the sage scientists are holding something back to protect the indefensible? 

What is the indefensible?

What opinion do you think they have that they aren’t sharing?

 

[Albert]

22 minutes ago, Archied said:

Plenty ,, more than a few 

So, the answer is no, you don't have a source that this is the case. 

Cool. 

[Archied]

10 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

do you think the sage scientists are holding something back to protect the indefensible? 

What is the indefensible?

What opinion do you think they have that they aren’t sharing?

 

They held back when questioned on Cummings incident ,mixed with boris jumping in too , the only one who came out with a bit of integrity was van tam who at a later stage in a veiled way made his feeling s known

[Cardinal]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

You dismissed their conclusion based on wild speculation, without actually showing that there was any need for such. You're then, in essence, quote mining to try and backpeddle your point here. Their point in the quoted text was that people can misrepresent the data, but based on the argument as they presented, the number is indeed very significant. ie they showed that it did indeed represent a large loss of years of life, unlike others trying to represent it as insignificant. 

Equally, 'listening to the people closest' is usually code for 'I pick and choose the opinions that support my position', as it usually involves just dismissing all the people from those contexts that disagree with you. No single NHS worker, let alone subset, has a full picture of what is going on. Reading through opinion pieces, and discussing with relatives back in the UK, the opinions vary wildly from people working in the NHS.

Again, where did I dismiss their conclusion? I merely quoted what they said in their report. They admitted that the data they have collected can show something overwhelming or something not so significant. They did that in the first few paragraphs. They have chosen to focus on the overwhelming. Fair play. That's their choice. 

Also, you have made a complete wrong assumption. I don't listen to people closest just to support my position. I actually don't have a particular position. I just choose to listen to the people who work in the NHS that I know rather than what is said in the media. I find them more trustworthy than someone trying to sell newspapers or get clicks.

[Anag Ram]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

 You dismissed their conclusion based on wild speculation, without actually showing that there was any need for such. You're then, in essence, quote mining to try and backpeddle your point here. Their point in the quoted text was that people can misrepresent the data, but based on the argument as they presented, the number is indeed very significant. ie they showed that it did indeed represent a large loss of years of life, unlike others trying to represent it as insignificant. 

Equally, 'listening to the people closest' is usually code for 'I pick and choose the opinions that support my position', as it usually involves just dismissing all the people from those contexts that disagree with you. No single NHS worker, let alone subset, has a full picture of what is going on. Reading through opinion pieces, and discussing with relatives back in the UK, the opinions vary wildly from people working in the NHS. 

It's very much a 'how long is a piece of string' point. The UK hasn't released their figures on deaths by age, so it's hard to compare with the UK directly, but the numbers, based on elsewhere, aren't going to be small. It also depends on how you define young. 

  

No. Dismissing work based on motives is a poor way of going about things. You should always start from considering the methodology for both collecting, and analysing the data. The time to start thinking about 'motives' is when you're looking at large sets of publications from a single, usually non-academic group, such as thinktanks. There, the methodology isn't always fully published, with obscures the point, and does leave considering why they'd present their findings in particular ways relevant. A paper, where the methodology is laid out very clearly, is certainly not that kind of situation. 

  

Life tables give you expected life from a particular age. People who are over the life expectancy aren't 'expected to have died years ago'. As noted, a man who is 80 in the UK is expected to live a further 8 years. You can use more sophisticated models to take into account adjusted life expectancy due to pre-existing conditions, etc. You can then average across the sample space of people who died to achieve such a figure. 

Cancer, flu, suicide, car crashes don't behave the same way as Covid-19. One car accident doesn't start an exponential increase in the number of car accidents, nor does cancer, suicide or even the flu (which only kills a few hundred per year in the UK, and while it spikes at certain times of year, is endemic, so doesn't spread in the same manner). 

  

...this source does not challenge the figure of 2.2 years at all... 

Also, as a correction to my original point, I accidentally only put in the figure for life expectancy at 87 for women, which was 5.89 years, while men is 5.14. As a reminder, this is the median age for going into care homes. So yes, taking into account that this going into care usually involves other conditions already, it's not surprising that it's lower. To get a better picture, we'd need a full picture of other conditions, demographics involved, etc, which we don't have access to at this point. 

None of this is challenging that 11.7 years figure at all, and these kinds of considerations, were discussed in the original paper. 

It wasn’t meant to challenge anything.

 I was merely adding detail and the fact is that self funders, by definition those of higher wealth, last longer than those whose care is funded by the state.