The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

 

science is very hard.. (any one who has not got some GCSE’s or O levels just have to take what us genius’ say at face value ok..?.)

[PistoldPete]

8 hours ago, Unlucky Alf 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!

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. 

[Bob The Badger]

4 hours ago, Ramarena said:

Your finally question is basically, how do we stop confirmation bias. Not sure how you can deal with that.

Funny thing at the the moment is- watching people who’ve spent the last year or so slagging off scientists, doctors, experts and their data/modeling, now going full circle and hailing any that say the initial data points to Omnicrom being “mild”.

I've been looking everywhere to find proof that we need to stop confirmation bias and all I could find was a report from Luxemburg from 1979 that says that we do in fact need to do that.

Good enough for me.

If you agree with me, we're good to go. if you don't, then there is little point sharing the link.

 

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, i-Ram said:

To be fair, he also said it before Hancock decided to send loads of sick people into care homes to keep hospital numbers down.

To be even fairer, it was Vallance who sent thousands of sick people into care homes to spread it around.

Lots of things I could say about Hancock too but none of them on a public forum.

 

[Ram-Alf]

12 minutes ago, PistoldPete 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. 

20,000 deaths maximum

20,000 deaths below

So in effect I was only 1 out, Your equation would be 19,999.

 

[RoyMac5]

 

[Ramarena]

18 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I've been looking everywhere to find proof that we need to stop confirmation bias and all I could find was a report from Luxemburg from 1979 that says that we do in fact need to do that.

Good enough for me.

If you agree with me, we're good to go. if you don't, then there is little point sharing the link.

 

Is there a third option?

[G STAR RAM]

10 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

But they aren't "wrong". You are misunderstanding how this works, based on being manipulated by a Spectator article!

1. The scenarios say - "Based on current data and if these variables remain unchanged then this is what will happen"

2. The government then make decisions to change the variables in order to AVOID the scenario

3. The changes have an impact and the scenario does not come to pass

4. Click bait media publish graphs that show how the reality therefore does not match the scenario and makes impressionable people lose trust in experts

rinse and repeat

Professor Neil Ferguson said it was inevitable that we would hit 100,000 infections per day when we eased restrictions in July and that it would possibly reach 200,000 per day.

So with no restrictions in place between July and now, we should be able to assess the accuracy of one of the modellers advising the Government.

[PistoldPete]

51 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

20,000 deaths maximum

20,000 deaths below

So in effect I was only 1 out, Your equation would be 19,999.

 

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. 

[G STAR RAM]

On 12/12/2021 at 14:18, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

Tend do agree with you, but I do want the NHS to be there for me if I fall off the roof in my Santa Outfit ?

? there you go...happy now?!?!

[Eddie]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Professor Neil Ferguson said it was inevitable that we would hit 100,000 infections per day when we eased restrictions in July and that it would possibly reach 200,000 per day.

So with no restrictions in place between July and now, we should be able to assess the accuracy of one of the modellers advising the Government.

In fairness, an awful of of people (not enough really, but more than I expected at the time) continued to not act like complete and utter tosspots, continuing to wear masks in crowds or indoors, continuing to socially distance, continuing to ensure that there was adequate ventilation etc. It started wearing a bit thin from October, but by and large, up until then, people seemed to respect others by keeping their distance. By November, though, mask-wearing in supermarkets seemed to be a distant memory, although now it seems to be in the ascendancy again.

 

[Eddie]

10 hours ago, Unlucky Alf 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!

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.

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

In fairness, an awful of of people (not enough really, but more than I expected at the time) continued to not act like complete and utter tosspots, continuing to wear masks in crowds or indoors, continuing to socially distance, continuing to ensure that there was adequate ventilation etc. It started wearing a bit thin from October, but by and large, up until then, people seemed to respect others by keeping their distance. By November, though, mask-wearing in supermarkets seemed to be a distant memory, although now it seems to be in the ascendancy again.

 

So given that people behaved like complete and utter tosspots from October onwards, I assume that this is when we would have hit the more pessimistic of his predictions?

Just checked the data and, to my surprise, we didn't even hit the 'inevitable' 100,000 per day.

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So given that people behaved like complete and utter tosspots from October onwards, I assume that this is when we would have hit the more pessimistic of his predictions?

Just checked the data and, to my surprise, we didn't even hit the 'inevitable' 100,000 per day.

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'.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Eddie

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

 

science is very hard.. (any one who has not got some GCSE’s or O levels just have to take what us genius’ say at face value ok..?.)

... Or we could wait for a written report... from the geniuses who managed a grade 4 CSE in English!   ?

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Professor Neil Ferguson said it was inevitable that we would hit 100,000 infections per day when we eased restrictions in July and that it would possibly reach 200,000 per day.

So with no restrictions in place between July and now, we should be able to assess the accuracy of one of the modellers advising the Government.

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? 

 

 

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

56 minutes 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'.

Arent they the same 'official' figures that you have used in the past to tell us how deadly the disease is?

Are you now saying that the infections are much higher than the official figures and you knowingly over egged the mortality rate?

Edited December 13, 2021 by G STAR RAM

[i-Ram]

Just now, 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? 

I have no idea, but it’s a good game, good game.

[G STAR RAM]

3 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? 

 

How is 50,000 to 60,000 heading towards 200,000 exactly?

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that the Government have been making decisions based upon figures plucked out of the sky?

[Gone]

6 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? 

 

 

 

 

50/60k a day is not 200k is it? But he was close wasn’t he ? 

Anyway so what if there 200k, 300k, 400k 500k cases a day? if the hospitalisations stay in control as they are currently. The vaccines work, no need for the other BS, and if the vaccines don’t work then what’s the point in having them.