The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said:

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. 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

 

I think you miss the operative word  He said if we kept the deaths to below 20,000, we would be doing very well. If is  a word that means what follows is conditional on an event, not a prediction that the event will happen. In fact saying we would be doing very well suggests that 20,000 is closer to the expected minimum, not the maximum, so really the opposite of what you said. .  

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

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.

The mortality rates were based upon the number of people dying against the number of people infected.

You now seem to be saying that the number of infections is vastly understated to the tune of 2 or 3 times.

If they understated now, then were they not also understated back then?

If so, the mortality rate was much lower back then that what was being claimed.

With the vaccination programme having a significant effect then it must be even more significantly lower now.

[Eddie]

As a footnote to my previous post, here's the link to the ONS study of COVID-19 mortality, vaccinated v unvaccinated, for the first 9 months of 2021...

ONS data

Summary...

Quote

The ASMR for deaths involving COVID-19 for unvaccinated people is 32 times greater than that of people who had received two doses at least 21 days ago.

 

[Norman]

13 minutes ago, Eddie said:

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.

 

Forget all that. 

The ONS were predicting cases were up at 100,000  cases a day this time last year. 

The mortality rates have been massively wrong the whole time. 

[Ram-Alf]

I work for a charity organisation in South Derbys, My Manager has been forwarned if tonights vote in all 4 votes goes the Governments way expect an email.

They have concerts where upto 300 people attend, He's been told to expect a directive from South Derbys district council that mask wearing will be compulsary inside...but if your sitting down with a pint and some crisps then a mask will not have to be worn.

Does the varient know that when a person is sitting down it's not as infectious as when standing up.

[Gone]

12 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

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. 

 

39 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 

 

 

 

FWIW and I not sure you why you want to know, I’m a supply chain Director for a multi National linked to the steel industry, so forecasting global sales, global demand and supply, production rates, capacity projections, projects, financials, import, export globally etc etc in a ever changing and extremely unpredictable environment is my daily work. And if I was as wide of the mark as our “data scientists” then tiny Tim and Tina wouldn’t be getting any Christmas presents this year. 

Just for the craic @Stive Pesley I’m a six sigma black belt (I’m guessing you won’t know what that means re data analysis) have PGDip/Cert in business  strategic and management an MBA so not a data scientist you’re correct, however not to shabby I think ?. 
 

Shame people judge people without knowing the 1st bit about them, make people look a bit silly sometimes?

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The mortality rates were based upon the number of people dying against the number of people infected.

You now seem to be saying that the number of infections is vastly understated to the tune of 2 or 3 times.

If they understated now, then were they not also understated back then?

If so, the mortality rate was much lower back then that what was being claimed.

With the vaccination programme having a significant effect then it must be even more significantly lower now.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that it is being reported TODAY that the infection numbers TODAY are 2 or 3 times higher than the numbers of positive tests TODAY. 

What you seem to be trying to do is to extrapolate a single point in an attempt to plot a graph over the preceding 21 months (that could be the difference between us - scientists and statisticians aren't blessed with that ability - perhaps accountants are) ?

The interesting question would be WHY there is such an apparent disparity. Would it be, perhaps, that being fully vaccinated doesn't stop you from catching the disease (and being in a position to pass it on), but also making it more likely that you would genuinely be asymptomatic (or even to assume that your 'bit of a cold' is actually a 'bit of a cold' when it could be COVID-19 and not bother self-testing)?

[Eddie]

16 minutes ago, Norman said:

Forget all that. 

The ONS were predicting cases were up at 100,000  cases a day this time last year. 

The mortality rates have been massively wrong the whole time. 

The ONS do not predict. They report retrospectively.

 

[Gone]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

No, I'm not. I'm saying that it is being reported TODAY that the infection numbers TODAY are 2 or 3 times higher than the numbers of positive tests TODAY. 

What you seem to be trying to do is to extrapolate a single point in an attempt to plot a graph over the preceding 21 months (that could be the difference between us - scientists and statisticians aren't blessed with that ability - perhaps accountants are) ?

The interesting question would be WHY there is such an apparent disparity. Would it be, perhaps, that being fully vaccinated doesn't stop you from catching the disease (and being in a position to pass it on), but also making it more likely that you would genuinely be asymptomatic (or even to assume that your 'bit of a cold' is actually a 'bit of a cold' when it could be COVID-19 and not bother self-testing)?

It was also reported TODAY by Dominic Raab that’s there was 250 people in hospital with Omicron, no there are 10, then finally 9, all in the space of 2hrs.  I wouldn’t believe any numbers reported 

[Stive Pesley]

19 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Shame people judge people without knowing the 1st bit about them, make people look a bit silly sometimes?

you mean like you just did by assuming I won't know what a six sigma black belt is? When you have no idea what I do for a living...tsk tsk

[Norman]

13 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The ONS do not predict. They report retrospectively.

 

'In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) increased over the last two weeks, but the trend was uncertain in the week ending 1 December 2021; we estimate that 891,500 people in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 842,000 to 941,200), equating to around 1 in 60 people.'

I'm sure it says the word ' estimate' in there somewhere. As this isn't a technical submission I think the words predict and estimate can be interchangeable. 

But I'm not going to argue over typos. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Norman

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

you mean like you just did by assuming I won't know what a six sigma black belt is? When you have no idea what I do for a living...tsk tsk

Haha touché ?? Good point 

[Norman]

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

you mean like you just did by assuming I won't know what a six sigma black belt is? When you have no idea what I do for a living...tsk tsk

You're an activist bot that trawls the internet to push a left-wing agenda that Dianne Abbott should have the head of the Department for Wearing Shoes on The Correct Foot. 

[GboroRam]

21 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

It was also reported TODAY by Dominic Raab that’s there was 250 people in hospital with Omicron, no there are 10, then finally 9, all in the space of 2hrs.  I wouldn’t believe any numbers reported 

Thank god it wasn't Diane Abbot saying it eh? We'd be finding her hilarious. Instead we just find the numbers unbelievable..

[DarkFruitsRam7]

37 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

 

FWIW and I not sure you why you want to know, I’m a supply chain Director for a multi National linked to the steel industry, so forecasting global sales, global demand and supply, production rates, capacity projections, projects, financials, import, export globally etc etc in a ever changing and extremely unpredictable environment is my daily work. And if I was as wide of the mark as our “data scientists” then tiny Tim and Tina wouldn’t be getting any Christmas presents this year. 

Just for the craic @Stive Pesley I’m a six sigma black belt (I’m guessing you won’t know what that means re data analysis) have PGDip/Cert in business  strategic and management an MBA so not a data scientist you’re correct, however not to shabby I think ?. 
 

Shame people judge people without knowing the 1st bit about them, make people look a bit silly sometimes?

Completely off topic, but is it worth taking a Six Sigma course as someone who's looking to be running a business next year?

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Thank god it wasn't Diane Abbot saying it eh? We'd be finding her hilarious. Instead we just find the numbers unbelievable..

Oh no I thought it was hilarious 

[Gone]

1 minute ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Completely off topic, but is it worth taking a Six Sigma course as someone who's looking to be running a business next year?

Yes and no, for data analysis and a data driven project framework then yes. I would say where you work with a lot of data and data sources (like big companies with numerous systems/processes) then yes it’s worth it. Depends on the business and what level of analysis you need or want to go to. I would say to anybody who wants a good process and structure for data analysis/ project delivery then six sigma is fantastic. You do however need some supplementary software, excel can do it but I’d go and get Minitab. 
Its also great to have on the CV as well 
 

[Eddie]

28 minutes ago, Norman said:

'In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) increased over the last two weeks, but the trend was uncertain in the week ending 1 December 2021; we estimate that 891,500 people in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 842,000 to 941,200), equating to around 1 in 60 people.'

I'm sure it says the word ' estimate' in there somewhere. As this isn't a technical submission I think the words predict and estimate can be interchangeable. 

But I'm not going to argue over typos. 

The ONS figures are based entirely upon a sample pool of in excess of 1% of the population. These are real people. What they do is to arrange for that subset to be regularly tested, and to submit their results for collation.

Those results are then extrapolated to cover the population as a whole. So what they are saying is that there is a 95% chance that, over the period concerned, according to their returned statistics, there were between 842,000 and 941,200 people in the UK with COVID-19. It implies, therefore, that there is only a 5% chance that the actual number falls outside that range.

You seem to be implying that the published figures are a guess and therefore can be ignored or discarded, based upon semantics.

Edit: It's probably just under 1%. They enrolled around 400,000 people in England during the period to August 2020 to take part in these surveys. It's still a hugely significant number, and is perfectly adequate for trends analysis and other statistical studies.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Eddie

[DarkFruitsRam7]

8 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Yes and no, for data analysis and a data driven project framework then yes. I would say where you work with a lot of data and data sources (like big companies with numerous systems/processes) then yes it’s worth it. Depends on the business and what level of analysis you need or want to go to. I would say to anybody who wants a good process and structure for data analysis/ project delivery then six sigma is fantastic. You do however need some supplementary software, excel can do it but I’d go and get Minitab. 
Its also great to have on the CV as well 
 

Thanks. Doesn't sound like it would be worth it for me as the work wouldn't be too data heavy.

[maxjam]

More evidence that vaccine passports not only don't work but won't achieve what they are being introduced for.

 

 

From the article - study in Denmark of approx 3500ppl, 75% with omnicron were double vaxxed.