Jump to content

Coronavirus


1of4

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Albert said:

Somehow you're still confusing the percentage of people protected against serious disease and confidence intervals. The authors never claimed a '100% confidence interval', no self respecting researcher would on those kinds of numbers. Really, the only conclusion I can reach from what you've tried to argue is that you don't understand how confidence intervals actually work. Given that you've claimed you used them in your line of work, that is quite concerning. Ultimately though, this point is now well and truly moot though. 

Confidence level is what I based it upon. Using sample methodology you can apply that percentage based on 17k, not really concerning tbh, unless you are now claiming to be an expert in my line of work as well ?‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
26 minutes ago, Andicis said:

 

Hang on, 99.2 percent at preventing serious illness but only 98.9 at preventing death ?

last time I looked death was fairly serious when it came to measuring severity of an illness. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Norman said:

Interesting data between California and Florida. 

One had a much harsher lockdown and PPE policy than the other. 

Data looks the same. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of variables. 

Same as Sweden etc etc, if we had done nothing ( eg not locked down)  I’m confident the numbers would have been no different to what they are now. Others think this is crazy talk, but they can’t explain why Florida and Sweden etc have the metrics they have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Same as Sweden etc etc, if we had done nothing ( eg not locked down)  I’m confident the numbers would have been no different to what they are now. Others think this is crazy talk, but they can’t explain why Florida and Sweden etc have the metrics they have. 

I did just that a while back, you are just choosing to ignore it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norman said:

Interesting data between California and Florida. 

One had a much harsher lockdown and PPE policy than the other. 

Data looks the same. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of variables. 

California is against the norm, for many reasons, a lot of people have focussed on the two bad use they tell the story they want. There are loads of other states in America that have been in lockdown, these would be better comparisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

California is against the norm, for many reasons, a lot of people have focussed on the two bad use they tell the story they want. There are loads of other states in America that have been in lockdown, these would be better comparisons.

What reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

California is against the norm, for many reasons, a lot of people have focussed on the two bad use they tell the story they want. There are loads of other states in America that have been in lockdown, these would be better comparisons.

Ah against the norm, of course. Let’s just say it as it is, it’s not explainable. Sweden & Florida there is no reason their cases shouldn’t have gone though the roof and they haven’t in comparison. Maybe the way we measure is all wrong, maybe that’s it, but we’re to far down the road now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

 Lockdown now, quick before it’s too late ........

Avian flu has been present in the UK since early December - thankfully limited to just birds atm.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/avian-influenza-bird-flu-national-prevention-zone-declared

I started the following thread back in December but given the lack of replies I guess I'm the only one with any chickens in the back garden!  I have since bought a 15x10ft pony shelter and converted it into a makeshift chicken house (its actually working really well tbh - should have thought of it earlier!) and covered 2x 9x24ft runs with tarps and bird netting.  £1500 bill I wasn't expecting ? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Ah against the norm, of course. Let’s just say it as it is, it’s not explainable. Sweden & Florida there is no reason their cases shouldn’t have gone though the roof and they haven’t in comparison. Maybe the way we measure is all wrong, maybe that’s it, but we’re to far down the road now. 

No California is against the norm. Both Florida and Sweden are higher than their comparative countries / states. It's just that for some reason that when comparing the worst figures are used to show them as doing a lot better. 
 

Simple question, how are Sweden doing against their comparative Scandinavian countries throughout this pandemic ? Should be easy enough to use this to show Sweden doing a lot better In guessing ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

,No California is against the norm. Both Florida and Sweden are higher than their comparative countries / states. It's just that for some reason that when comparing the worst figures are used to show them as doing a lot better. 
 

Simple question, how are Sweden doing against their comparative Scandinavian countries throughout this pandemic ? Should be easy enough to use this to show Sweden doing a lot better In guessing ?

How about Sweden vs us? Also you don’t think Florida and Cali are similar, climates, demographics etc etc. Pick your numbers to compare to fit your narrative, but no one can explain the differences........oh I can lockdowns don’t work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

How about Sweden vs us? Also you don’t think Florida and Cali are similar, climates, demographics etc etc. Pick your numbers to compare to fit your narrative, but no one can explain the differences........oh I can lockdowns don’t work 

Once again you seem to miss the point, we have done poor at the lockdowns, we are also a different demographic. How many times has it been argued that we are different to Australia...just in case your struggling, here you go...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coronavirus-deaths-in-the-nordics/

 

Sorry, missed your comment about California being the same as Florida...no where near the same sorry, just search my previous post and you will see why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Once again you seem to miss the point, we have done poor at the lockdowns, we are also a different demographic. How many times has it been argued that we are different to Australia...just in case your struggling, here you go...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coronavirus-deaths-in-the-nordics/

 

Sorry, missed your comment about California being the same as Florida...no where near the same sorry, just search my previous post and you will see why.

Ok lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maxjam said:

No my argument remains the same.  If anyone else on this forum thinks I've strayed from my original point please feel free to let me know.

You claimed it was exactly 100%... you keep emphasising that point. Presented with other data, you're now claiming you've said otherwise all along... cool. 

7 hours ago, maxjam said:

I fully acknowledge that I do (try to at least) drop arguments and run with you when for 99% of the other forum users they have run their course. 

And whilst we're on the subject of telling others how to behave maybe you could drop the unnecessary pedantry and point scoring and take note of others using the forum when they point out the repetitive and boring nature of whats being posted - as they have done above ?

So, actually fact checking is 'unnecessary pedantry'. Cool. 

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

It still is a key bit of data and fully backs up the point that @maxjamwas making. 

Of course you will overlook that because you will be congratulating yourself on thinking you've proved that his point was wrong by 0.1%.

I didn't prove it was wrong by '0.1%', his claim was that it was actually 100%, while my point was that it wasn't and is a bit pointless to claim it as such, and that we also need to consider people that haven't been vaccinated. @maxjam just outright ignored the latter and doubled down on the former. 

Also, 7 severe cases out of 0.1% of 81k is about 9% of cases being serious infections. So while overall the protection the vaccine gives appears to be excellent, it is unhelpful to suggest 100% protection against serious disease and death, when out of the cases in the sample the rate of serious disease is still quite large. That kind of fraction still supports the idea that it should be staged reopening, assuring that the R number remains below 1. That should be very achievable given the numbers we've seen. 

4 hours ago, BIllyD said:

Confidence level is what I based it upon. Using sample methodology you can apply that percentage based on 17k, not really concerning tbh, unless you are now claiming to be an expert in my line of work as well ?‍♂️

Got to be honest, if you think that's how confidence intervals work, you're not an expert in the concept. You need samples of the event occurring to determine one, at least in the usual way, and by definition there were zero in the set, hence one was unable to be calculated, which was the whole point. You've managed to confuse number of people with that however. You can state a confidence interval in terms of maximum likelihood based on the lack of events in a sense. Here, that would be about 1 in 5500 as the upper limit for 95%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...