The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Bob The Badger]

12 hours ago, TexasRam said:

But if on reflection and reviewing the accuracy of the scenarios they are constantly wrong and constantly wrong by some bias, then you have to question the people putting them together. If my forecast accuracy at work as so outrageously wrong, especially using the data to make huge strategic decisions like the government have to make, then I would be out of a job by now. 

What do you do and what data do you rely on to make your forecasting?

Without knowing that your statement is utterly pointless and means nothing to anybody other than you and people who already agree with you and don't want to think it through. 

[Bob The Badger]

7 hours ago, TexasRam said:

@Bob The Badger and @Stive Pesley defence of the wayward modelling in picture form

Unless that's meant to be you saying the barrier is on the wrong side, when I'm guessing it's from overseas, I've no clue what you mean. 

I am looking on my phone though, so I could be missing some subtle visual nuance. 

[Gone]

4 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Unless that's meant to be you saying the barrier is on the wrong side, when I'm guessing it's from overseas, I've no clue what you mean. 

I am looking on my phone though, so I could be missing some subtle visual nuance. 

I’ll not explain, if you don’t get it we’ll leave it. 

[Andicis]

30 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

To be fair - it was heading that way - peaked at between 50,000 and 60,000 new cases per day by the end of July. He had the trajectory right, but something changed (warmer summer months, school holidays and uptake of vaccinations I guess?) and it dropped back down again for a couple of months. Hit 50,000 per day again by the end of October, then another dip and now we're back on the upward past 50,000 a day again. Where will it go next?

Shouldn't all those things be factored into the model anyway, or how is it ever going to be an accurate model? 

[Norman]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Give it time. The stupidity of people knows no bounds. Remember that the 'official' figures are confirmed positive tests.

I wouldn't like to estimate how many cases there actually are, given that many infected people are said to be 'asymptomatic'.

You don't have to. The ONS have done it for every week for the last 18 months. 

The week ending 27 Nov was an estimated  850,000 cases. 

[1of4]

Get Boosted Now.

Oooh, not seen a three word slogan since Dominic Cummings left to get his eyes retested. 

Has Johnson found a new slogan writer or was it an answer to a question in a quiz, held during an impromptu cheese and wine party at number 10?

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Norman said:

You don't have to. The ONS have done it for every week for the last 18 months. 

The week ending 27 Nov was an estimated  850,000 cases. 

That's based upon their 'seed group' of 50k plus people who are tested regularly, then extrapolated across the entire population to give an overall estimate.

I daresay that there are going to be people on here who will pooh-pooh those figures, but if true, then we are already over the '100k daily cases' which has been disparaged on here as recently as today.

Many newspapers are reporting that there could be as many as 200,000 daily cases now.

[G STAR RAM]

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

That's based upon their 'seed group' of 50k plus people who are tested regularly, then extrapolated across the entire population to give an overall estimate.

I daresay that there are going to be people on here who will pooh-pooh those figures, but if true, then we are already over the '100k daily cases' which has been disparaged on here as recently as today.

Many newspapers are reporting that there could be as many as 200,000 daily cases now.

Hope so, that's absolutely excellent news and shows that the virus is nowhere near as deadly as some posters have been saying for the past 20 months.

I'm fully prepared to hold my hands up and admit I was wrong to pooh pooh Neil Fergusons predictions.

I look forward to people now correcting their scaremongering mortality rates. 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Hope so, that's absolutely excellent news and shows that the virus is nowhere near as deadly as some posters have been saying for the past 20 months.

I'm fully prepared to hold my hands up and admit I was wrong to pooh pooh Neil Fergusons predictions.

I look forward to people now correcting their scaremongering mortality rates. 

The “scaremongering” mortality rates were based on the more deadly variant spreading through an unvaccinated population. 

 

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

At least the roads are now quieter on the drive in to work. Probably my last venture in this year… Better water the office plants before I leave.

[G STAR RAM]

53 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The “scaremongering” mortality rates were based on the more deadly variant spreading through an unvaccinated population. 

Ah right, so the official figures were right back then but wrong now are you saying?

[Ram-Alf]

12 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

But you say he predicted that deaths would be below 20,000. He didn't at all. In fact he sort of suggested that he didn't  expect them to be below that level. 

This is what I said he said.

"I remember in the 1st couple of weeks of the Sage broadcasts that Sir Patrick Vallance predicted Covid-19 will have an impact of a maximum 20,000 deaths, This was when we were at the very low end of the 1000s, This made my eyebrows raise, Now were at circa 150,000, Scientists aye...don't know Didly Squat!"

So just to refresh the bold statement...a Maximum 20,000 deaths

Then you said

"He didn't say that. He said if we kept the deaths to below 20,000 we would be doing very well. Which is not the same thing at all"

It was you who said below 20,000.

May I suggest you take a little time away from figuers, If it's not the figuers of HMRC and administration, It's the 20,000 deaths below or the reaching a maximum of 20,000

 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Hope so, that's absolutely excellent news and shows that the virus is nowhere near as deadly as some posters have been saying for the past 20 months.

I'm fully prepared to hold my hands up and admit I was wrong to pooh pooh Neil Fergusons predictions.

I look forward to people now correcting their scaremongering mortality rates. 

You cannot write off the 'excess deaths' statistic as scaremongering, surely?

[Ram-Alf]

12 hours ago, Eddie said:

No, he most definitely didn't.

He said, in March 2020, that 20,000 deaths would be "...a good outcome".

That figure was exceeded just one month later.

That was said at a Parlimentary session, He said maximum when giving his and Professor Whittys TV presentation with the PM.

[Stive Pesley]

11 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

What do you do and what data do you rely on to make your forecasting?

I'm willing to bet that he's not a data scientist at all ?

I am enjoying the irony though of people revelling in the idea of data scientists being wrong, when their grasp of how infectious disease scenario modelling works is itself, very wrong.  Dunning–Kruger in full effect 

 

 

 

[RoyMac5]

15 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I'm willing to bet that he's not a data scientist at all ?

I am enjoying the irony though of people revelling in the idea of data scientists being wrong, when their grasp of how infectious disease scenario modelling works is itself, very wrong.  Dunning–Kruger in full effect 

 

I'm not a data scientist and hated stats, but I still don't get where is the modelling for what might happen if we 'wore masks' or if 'we locked down' as opposed to the ones that say 'we'll all die if we do nothing'?

[Ram-Alf]

Sir Patrick Vallance on the Radio said this.

The maximum deaths I predicted of 20,000 last year would appear not to be the good outcome I thought, As I thought it would be below my stated figures.

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

Did he even bother to check the numbers before doing the original interview? 
 

 

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by QuitYourJibbaJivin

[Eddie]

27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nope.

The supposed 2% or 3% mortality rate that was being quoted I clearly can though if we are at somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 cases per day as you now appear to be claiming.

Come on Eddie don't be a Tory and dodge every question posed to you...

The mortality rates quoted were based upon the first year of the pandemic, when nobody had been vaccinated.

Now something like 88% of the UK's population over the age of 11 have had at least one shot, and 40% have had a booster.

What we are now seeing is a far greater protection against death or serious illness in overall terms - in other words, the vaccines are doing their job.

I'm not 'claiming' anything - just reporting what was stated widely in the first editions of this morning's newspapers.

I don't think I've dodged anything either. Sure, there are times when I don't respond to some people on here - but that's usually where I think that the questioner is two sheets and I would be banging my head against a brick wall. Voicing those thoughts usually sees me receiving a forum holiday, so I'm learning.