Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The death numbers that just don't add up
What do the daily death figures, supposedly from Covid-19, really mean?
People who don't know that 1,600 people die normally every day, and who don't study the sombre official figures, or listen carefully to what officials say, may get the wrong impression.
Here are some facts for you.
A week ago, at the daily official briefing, Dr Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, confirmed my point that many deaths with Covid are not necessarily from Covid. She said: 'These are Covid-associated deaths, they are all sad events, they would not all be a death as a result of Covid.'
What nobody says is how many are as a result of the virus.
Then, if you look at the Office for National Statistics weekly death charts, for week 13 of each year (the week which this year ended on March 27), you find some interesting things.
The total of deaths for that week in 2020 is higher than the five-year average for that time of year, which is 10,130. In fact, it is up to 11,141.
This is 1,011 more deaths than normal per week, 144 more deaths than normal per day, regrettable but not gigantic. Do these figures justify the scale of our reaction?
If you add up the total deaths for the first quarter of the year from respiratory diseases, the figure so far for 2020 (22,877) is less than those for 2013 (25,495), 2015 (28,969), 2017 (25,800), 2018 (29,898) and 2019 (23,336).
Again, is this event as exceptional as we are being told? If not, why the shutdown?
What do the daily death figures, supposedly from Covid-19, really mean?
People who don't know that 1,600 people die normally every day, and who don't study the sombre official figures, or listen carefully to what officials say, may get the wrong impression.
Here are some facts for you.
A week ago, at the daily official briefing, Dr Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, confirmed my point that many deaths with Covid are not necessarily from Covid. She said: 'These are Covid-associated deaths, they are all sad events, they would not all be a death as a result of Covid.'
What nobody says is how many are as a result of the virus.
Then, if you look at the Office for National Statistics weekly death charts, for week 13 of each year (the week which this year ended on March 27), you find some interesting things.
The total of deaths for that week in 2020 is higher than the five-year average for that time of year, which is 10,130. In fact, it is up to 11,141.
This is 1,011 more deaths than normal per week, 144 more deaths than normal per day, regrettable but not gigantic. Do these figures justify the scale of our reaction?
If you add up the total deaths for the first quarter of the year from respiratory diseases, the figure so far for 2020 (22,877) is less than those for 2013 (25,495), 2015 (28,969), 2017 (25,800), 2018 (29,898) and 2019 (23,336).
Again, is this event as exceptional as we are being told? If not, why the shutdown?
Show More
On the other side of the argument less people outside means less deaths from accidents or misadventure
A&Es are apparently very quiet at the moment
A&Es are apparently very quiet at the moment
There will be loads of raw data which can be manipulated however you want to using pivot charts and graphs on excel
I could produce all kinds of misleading graphs etc to create a specific narrative
I could produce all kinds of misleading graphs etc to create a specific narrative
Apr 12, 2020 -- 8:28PM, jucel69 wrote:
On the other side of the argument less people outside means less deaths from accidents or misadventureA&Es are apparently very quiet at the moment
Which, of course, is an intended consequence. Freeing up resources to be redirected elsewhere if needed.
As someone has pointed out on more than one occasion, there will be more deaths from the economic fallout of Corona Virus than deaths from Corona Virus itself long term.
"You appear to change your mind on COVID-19 on an hourly basis." 
Pmsl
Pmsl
Apr 12, 2020 -- 8:39PM, Angoose wrote:
Apr 12, 2020 -- 7:28PM, jucel69 wrote:On the other side of the argument less people outside means less deaths from accidents or misadventureA&Es are apparently very quiet at the momentWhich, of course, is an intended consequence. Freeing up resources to be redirected elsewhere if needed.
My main point is that the 1600 deaths per week has to be adjusted downwards by Hitchens as a lot of folk are on lockdown
Must be 300/400 deaths per week
I agree with you, but Hitchins and the like will argue otherwise.
By the way, it's 1,600 per day, 1,688 in 2019, approx. 450 of which are cancer related.
By the way, it's 1,600 per day, 1,688 in 2019, approx. 450 of which are cancer related.
Establishing the true affect of this virus will prove very difficult. Lives lost v lives saved +/- economic impact long term and of course ‘regular’ deaths.
If very poorly folk die this year, death rates could be far lower next year.
If very poorly folk die this year, death rates could be far lower next year.
So no one dying of cancer now ?
And into missed appointments, the long last affect this is going to have is going to be horrible. Shutting down a country because it saved money isnt going last long.
And into missed appointments, the long last affect this is going to have is going to be horrible. Shutting down a country because it saved money isnt going last long.
Excess winter mortality can add 400 a day so 2k a day in bad winters.
Apr 12, 2020 -- 8:27PM, Injera wrote:
How do you know the death rate?
I am talking deaths per 100k of population so far, not the rate of cases per death. Nobody knows the actual death rate of this disease. It is about the only worthwhile comaparison you can make at present, provided both countries are at at the same stage of the epidemic.
Apr 12, 2020 -- 8:56PM, Ibrahima Sonko wrote:
So no one dying of cancer now ?And into missed appointments, the long last affect this is going to have is going to be horrible. Shutting down a country because it saved money isnt going last long.
How do you figure shutting down the country saves money?
Each country is different. Population density, family demographics, culture variables and govt policy on lockdown. Then you have the issue of transport hubs.
Sadly we are a hub and a destination for millions each week from around the world.
Sadly we are a hub and a destination for millions each week from around the world.
Yes. All the more reason to lockdown, especially with England's population density. Shutting off travel from Italy and China would have been smart as well but nobody did that early enough. The UK still has herd immunity as its primary goal, that is the main difference and it is predicted to have the most deaths in Europe as a result.
The modellers estimated 260k deaths without lockdown and perhaps 20k with a lockdown (probably higher now due to allowing it to spread first and not locking down early enough).
The modellers estimated 260k deaths without lockdown and perhaps 20k with a lockdown (probably higher now due to allowing it to spread first and not locking down early enough).
That's why I don't get why anyone like Hitchens questions the lockdown based on number of deaths occurring during the lockdown period. You are talking about potentially a quarter of a million difference in death numbers based on what the modellers said and then Hitchens completely ignores that number and writes an article about it?
What are these articles you talk of ? 250k more deaths, one thinks you have been watching too much tv.
Given they dont even know how the virus spreads apart from coughing into someones face.
Given they dont even know how the virus spreads apart from coughing into someones face.
Maybe because it’s hard to predict something that may have happened. Not sure PH is advocating no lockdown. Maybe a more subtle one?
PH is scathing of Ferguson and his modelling. He doesn’t rate him at all.
PH is scathing of Ferguson and his modelling. He doesn’t rate him at all.
Apr 12, 2020 -- 7:12PM, SontaranStratagem wrote:
You must stay in for 1 year? in what reality are they living? It wont take this virus a year to infect everyone, we are currently seeing a 50% SR for infected from the "tests" they've produced, this thing would be over in 3 weeks if they let it do its thing... A year? they are properly taking the utter pish, and its a culling of the old quite clearly
exactly right
How much do you need to have drunk before you start agreeing with SontaranStratagem
The idiocy of the man. Preying on the uneducated masses. Never seen new hospitals being opened with the annual flu virus that goes around. I dont know and have no proof with regard the following but common sense tells me the following. Everyone should be wearing a facemask outside. If its good enough for doctors, nurses and nearly every chinese or korean you see on the news it should be good enough for us.obviously it is an airbourne virus that lives on metal plastic, animal fur surfaces. Secondly all politicians are corrupt. The figures have been corrupted. Why is it so complicated counting dead bodies and the doctors reason why they died ? Thirdly you cant believe
You cant believe anything you hear and only half of what you see
irish...viruses are not even living organisms, I don't where people are getting this bs about viruses living on surfaces
If everyone wears a facemask there won't be enough for NHS staff
Counting the dead is complicated by the various other ailments that may have contributed to it
Counting the dead is complicated by the various other ailments that may have contributed to it
I am talking about the UK's own modellers who came up with that figure if the virus was allowed to spread with no restrictions - then your hospitals get overwhelmed for the longest amount of time and more people die from this virus and everything else. That's what happens in a pandemic/epidemic if there are no restrictions.
The same modellers came up with lower figures based on certain lockdown provisions being introduced.
Look at the last part of what Hitchens wrote - he is using death numbers which are a lot lower because of the lockdown (and before the peak has even been reached), comparing them with periods where there was no pandemic and asking why are we having a lockdown? The only reason the current death rate is any way similar to those years is because of the lockdown and it will still go higher, yet in the same breath he asks why is a lockdown necessary.
Your government, notorious for underfunding the NHS, is throwing up hospitals in 10 days all over the country and that's with a lockdown in place. Do you think they think they would have had enough hospital cover for all the sick at the peak if they are doing that? Did they do that in all those previous years Hitchens mentions?
You are locking down the entire country and building numerous new hospitals at a frantic pace, why would you do that if there's not a lot worse to come? I think the govt know they have f'd up in encouraging the spread in the early stages.
The same modellers came up with lower figures based on certain lockdown provisions being introduced.
Look at the last part of what Hitchens wrote - he is using death numbers which are a lot lower because of the lockdown (and before the peak has even been reached), comparing them with periods where there was no pandemic and asking why are we having a lockdown? The only reason the current death rate is any way similar to those years is because of the lockdown and it will still go higher, yet in the same breath he asks why is a lockdown necessary.
Your government, notorious for underfunding the NHS, is throwing up hospitals in 10 days all over the country and that's with a lockdown in place. Do you think they think they would have had enough hospital cover for all the sick at the peak if they are doing that? Did they do that in all those previous years Hitchens mentions?
You are locking down the entire country and building numerous new hospitals at a frantic pace, why would you do that if there's not a lot worse to come? I think the govt know they have f'd up in encouraging the spread in the early stages.
Apr 12, 2020 -- 9:35PM, wondersobright wrote:
you are confusing viruses with bacteria
He is not. A virus needs a host but this one can still survive for a short period without a host on certain surfaces. That's what the experts say anyway.
Apr 12, 2020 -- 9:35PM, wondersobright wrote:
you are confusing viruses with bacteria
a german passed it onto another german via a salt shaker
a virus needs a host that is itself a LIVING organism
Apr 12, 2020 -- 9:43PM, lurka wrote:
Apr 12, 2020 -- 8:35PM, wondersobright wrote:you are confusing viruses with bacteriaHe is not. A virus needs a host but this one can still survive for a short period without a host on certain surfaces. That's what the experts say anyway.
Apparently they found covid in a cruise ship days after it had been empty, on a surface
Apr 12, 2020 -- 9:45PM, wondersobright wrote:
a virus needs a host that is itself a LIVING organism
https://www.webmd.com/lung/how-long-covid-19-lives-on-surfaces
In order to survive longer term it does, but it does not die immediately once it touches a surface. It can survive for a short time and can infect another host if picked up during that time.
viruses can't "die" because they are not even living
No one knows if the lockdown works. So saying there would be 10X the number of deaths without it is pretty dubious
Apr 12, 2020 -- 9:47PM, wondersobright wrote:
viruses can't "die" because they are not even living
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/long-can-viruses-live-on-surfaces.htm
Apr 12, 2020 -- 9:51PM, wondersobright wrote:
they can say what they want juce, the only way a virus is transmissible from person to person is via injection"surviving" on surfaces & passing through the air from person to person, impossible
You had a good start when you recognised that viruses are not technically alive.
...then you made that post.
The virus survives inside of droplets expelled when people cough (or just breathe perhaps), for how long nobody knows.
Too bad. I thought it was a sensible suggestion towards someone so sure that viruses can only be transmitted through injection.
It is not a new thing for a virus to be spread from a surface. Altho this virus seems to survive for a lot longer than others on surfaces. And whether it is alive or not is a matter of opinion/classification. Some scientists consider them a form of life others don't. But it's largely irrelevant because it can survive on surfaces.
edy • April 12, 2020 9:55 PM BST
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user. [Manage blocked users]
don't waste your time, end of conversation
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user. [Manage blocked users]
don't waste your time, end of conversation
we cant believe a thing we are told at the moment, google, wikopaedia, social media, reality t v , have all given joe public the temerity to stand up and shout bollux, be believed, to lie and to pontificate to grab attention. Then add fake news and uncontrolled media. I
They've openly come out recently and admitted to tracking people through their phones
Its 1984 through the back door, under the guise of a pandemic
They've got people to demand their chains and ball, add in 5G and the internet of things and you are quite welcome I'm sure
Its 1984 through the back door, under the guise of a pandemic
They've got people to demand their chains and ball, add in 5G and the internet of things and you are quite welcome I'm sure
Crashing the economy, 1984 style control, internet of things, 5G, the biometric chip along with a vaccine
Welcome to the NWO
Welcome to the NWO
the only thing that surprises me is they are so openly talking about it in the mainstream SS
google bill gates CV vaccine ID2020 for anybody not aware
google bill gates CV vaccine ID2020 for anybody not aware
1st link "disinfo" lol
they've had a conference about it ffs microsoft, gavi etc
ID2020 digital ID meets vaccines through nano technology
no secrets being hidden
they've had a conference about it ffs microsoft, gavi etc
ID2020 digital ID meets vaccines through nano technology
no secrets being hidden
The scary thing about billionaires is that they have the power and influence to affect millions of lives, good intentions or not
It's just one person/one mind
We should never allow that, but we do!
It's just one person/one mind
We should never allow that, but we do!
Apr 12, 2020 -- 10:34PM, jucel69 wrote:
The scary thing about billionaires is that they have the power and influence to affect millions of lives, good intentions or notIt's just one person/one mindWe should never allow that, but we do!
agree with this completely
Why did they send a letter to every home in the country, what a way to spread germs/virus?
There is talk in the US that China hid the true extent of the virus until after they signed phase 1 of their trade deal with the US and it includes a clause which allows them to renegotiate in the case of an unforeseen event or act of God. They will use the pandemic to renegotiate their commitment to buy $200bn of US goods and services over the next 2 years and then hope that Trump doesn't get re-elected and renegotiate the whole thing. This would explain why they were so eager to silence doctors etc and only confirmed person to person transmission 5 days after the deal was signed.
Of course that doesn't tie in with the theory that the pandemic is fake and all that ID2020 stuff because the US would have known that a pandemic was imminent. Seems that the Chinese have really tried to stitch Trump.
Of course that doesn't tie in with the theory that the pandemic is fake and all that ID2020 stuff because the US would have known that a pandemic was imminent. Seems that the Chinese have really tried to stitch Trump.
Does it literally say "act of God"?
lurka, there is this YouTuber called leowhy86. I first saw him when Platini posted a video like 10 days ago in which he discussed the virus potentially having escaped a university lab in Wuhan instead of having had originated on the wet market like the Chinese government says when it isn't blaming the Americans. I felt maybe at some parts in that particular video he looked too hard for clues to connect, and his titles tend to be a bit clickbaity in general (the video I mean is titled "I Found The Source of the Coronavirus"), but he doesn't appear like one of the loony grifters and total BS merchants (I've only watched a few videos). In general there seem to be some videos in which he simply gives a view into Chinese perspective and point of view, and why China might've hidden it for so long. He's an American that lived in China for a long time, and does so again now I think.
Maybe you'll find him interesting (and if he turns out to be a BS merchant I apologise in advance
)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChvithwOECK5g_19TjldMKw
lurka, there is this YouTuber called leowhy86. I first saw him when Platini posted a video like 10 days ago in which he discussed the virus potentially having escaped a university lab in Wuhan instead of having had originated on the wet market like the Chinese government says when it isn't blaming the Americans. I felt maybe at some parts in that particular video he looked too hard for clues to connect, and his titles tend to be a bit clickbaity in general (the video I mean is titled "I Found The Source of the Coronavirus"), but he doesn't appear like one of the loony grifters and total BS merchants (I've only watched a few videos). In general there seem to be some videos in which he simply gives a view into Chinese perspective and point of view, and why China might've hidden it for so long. He's an American that lived in China for a long time, and does so again now I think.
Maybe you'll find him interesting (and if he turns out to be a BS merchant I apologise in advance
)https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChvithwOECK5g_19TjldMKw
Twelve minutes listening to someone who appears genuine enough.
I just wonder if the changes he experienced in China were as much to do with the tint fading on his rose tinted spectacles as they were with changes in government behaviour.
I just wonder if the changes he experienced in China were as much to do with the tint fading on his rose tinted spectacles as they were with changes in government behaviour.
If there is anything worse than the clueless going on about 5G, it's them going on about the "Internet of Things" as if it's a conspiracy.
No, it's a marketing term for sticking a feckin thing on your fridge to auto order milk when it runs out.
No, it's a marketing term for sticking a feckin thing on your fridge to auto order milk when it runs out.
"Act of god" is a legal term I'm sure, it doesn't mean literally an act of god.
I'm sadly someone who has read enough contractual fine print and that rings a bell as a term and .. yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a common term in House Insurance contracts.
In fact (again) I've a feeling it might be in my current one as I remember reading it recently and I'd read my insurance terms.
So .. just don't mock the big guy too much if you have a mansion :)
I'm sadly someone who has read enough contractual fine print and that rings a bell as a term and .. yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a common term in House Insurance contracts.
In fact (again) I've a feeling it might be in my current one as I remember reading it recently and I'd read my insurance terms.
So .. just don't mock the big guy too much if you have a mansion :)
edy - Seen similar video - and read similar articles, too.
What I cannot give any credence to, however is ...
"He's an American that lived in China for a long time, and does so again now I think."
--------
Why would anybody, especially an American - give up the freedom of the USA, to go and live in oppressive China ... and, then, worse still, go back for more?
'Not a full shilling' in my book.
Same as that silly Englishwoman who went to sh!thole India ON HOLIDAY - after the outbreak, and then whinged about the Government not rushing to get her home.
She could have/should have been told to stop there.
What I cannot give any credence to, however is ...
"He's an American that lived in China for a long time, and does so again now I think."
--------
Why would anybody, especially an American - give up the freedom of the USA, to go and live in oppressive China ... and, then, worse still, go back for more?
'Not a full shilling' in my book.
Same as that silly Englishwoman who went to sh!thole India ON HOLIDAY - after the outbreak, and then whinged about the Government not rushing to get her home.
She could have/should have been told to stop there.
He might not have gone back. I was likely trolled on that part by one of his clickbaity video titles.
The term "Internet of things" was likely coined by Kevin Ashton of Procter & Gamble, later MIT's Auto-ID Center, in 1999, though he prefers the phrase "Internet for things".
At that point, he viewed radio-frequency identification (RFID) as essential to the Internet of things, which would allow computers to manage all individual things.
At that point, he viewed radio-frequency identification (RFID) as essential to the Internet of things, which would allow computers to manage all individual things.
The idea of the ioT is amazing (for certain things), but the implementation is by and large a proprietary shitshow of horror.
All depends on which type of "things" you are interested in .....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo
Article 7.6 2. In the event that a natural disaster or other unforeseeable event outside the control of the Parties delays a Party from timely complying with its obligations under this Agreement, the Parties shall consult with each other.
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/phase%20one%20agreement/Economic_And_Trade_Agreement_Between_The_United_States_And_China_Text.pdf
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/phase%20one%20agreement/Economic_And_Trade_Agreement_Between_The_United_States_And_China_Text.pdf
Could be argued that it wasn't unforeseeable to China on 15 Jan I suppose.
ONS stats released today show deaths in week to April 3 16,387 - average over last 5 years 10,305 - Hitchens should to do a piece about this
He was on Sky News just now saying that the government needs to unwind the lockdown gradually.
Quite a change from his views just a few short weeks ago when he claimed that it wasn't necessary.
Now, he was framing his current view to suggest that if you were to rapidly unwind the lockdown, the public would think that it was never required in the first place.
But wasn't that the very argument you were presenting just two weeks a ago
Quite a change from his views just a few short weeks ago when he claimed that it wasn't necessary.
Now, he was framing his current view to suggest that if you were to rapidly unwind the lockdown, the public would think that it was never required in the first place.
But wasn't that the very argument you were presenting just two weeks a ago
So he didn't think a lockdown was worth the economic pain in the first place and now, even if you could rapidly unwind it (which, practically, you can't) and rapidly start the economic recovery, we should prolong the economic pain because people might get the wrong idea? OK Peter. Another mug who can't admit he was wrong. Just ignore people like that.
Apr 14, 2020 -- 10:18AM, A_T wrote:
ONS stats released today show deaths in week to April 3 16,387 - average over last 5 years 10,305 - Hitchens should to do a piece about this
Yep if only Hitchens was patient and waited till these figures came on.
Week on week a 60% increase on the 5year average of deaths at this time of year.
I expect the figures for the week ending April 10th to have an even higher increase. I would say around 90%.
I said at the start of this thread 'he should wind his neck in' pompous narcissist.
You will need to wait to see the figures for the 12 months after this is all finished to get the full picture. That period could well show a large fall in deaths implying most Covid victims had less than 12 months to go anyway.
At the moment nobody gets enough information to judge.
At the moment nobody gets enough information to judge.
Could also be a massive increase in non-Covid deaths in the coming months.
During this time barely anyone seeing a doctor or dentist. Outpatients are basically empty. Cancer tumours growing. Hearts failing etc.
We will never know if we should have just shielded the old and the vulnerable and let everyone else keep working on with basic social distancing.
During this time barely anyone seeing a doctor or dentist. Outpatients are basically empty. Cancer tumours growing. Hearts failing etc.
We will never know if we should have just shielded the old and the vulnerable and let everyone else keep working on with basic social distancing.
Correct, we will never know for sure.
But that will not prevent many from providing "factual" accounts of how much better it would have all turned out had an alternative course of action been pursued.
We do, however, have the Imperial College model that provided an estimate on the impact on NHS critical care capacity under a range of alternate measure sceanrios.
But that will not prevent many from providing "factual" accounts of how much better it would have all turned out had an alternative course of action been pursued.
We do, however, have the Imperial College model that provided an estimate on the impact on NHS critical care capacity under a range of alternate measure sceanrios.
Thats true but I heard (could well be fake news) that Neil Ferguson at Imperial made a dreadful error over mad cow disease and the model used for the 500k prediction was several years old, not made for Covid-19 and used assumptions that might well be way off the mark.
have they released their estimates prior to using the italian data? i would like to see that as it is what was behind the original herd immunity strategy.
the model is 13 years old trader. imperial (not sure if ferguson) were heavily involved in the amazing foot and mouth strategy of killing 6 million animals to prevent them getting disease. he also made some predictions on variant cjd which were out a couple of decimal places.
the model is 13 years old trader. imperial (not sure if ferguson) were heavily involved in the amazing foot and mouth strategy of killing 6 million animals to prevent them getting disease. he also made some predictions on variant cjd which were out a couple of decimal places.
Indeed Jolly,
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/health/estimates-of-future-human-death-toll-from-mad-cow-disease-vary-widely.html
But Dr. Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist in another group of highly respected researchers led by Dr. Roy Anderson at Imperial College in London, said the new estimates were ''unjustifiably optimistic.'' His group published estimates a year ago predicting that the number of variant C.J.D. cases might reach 136,000 in coming decades.
Total death toll from v-cjd was 177 in the UK by 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/health/estimates-of-future-human-death-toll-from-mad-cow-disease-vary-widely.html
But Dr. Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist in another group of highly respected researchers led by Dr. Roy Anderson at Imperial College in London, said the new estimates were ''unjustifiably optimistic.'' His group published estimates a year ago predicting that the number of variant C.J.D. cases might reach 136,000 in coming decades.
Total death toll from v-cjd was 177 in the UK by 2017.
the model was built for flu so the assumption about length of stay in icu was for flu. putting italian data for covid in to the model, the length of stay was twice as long which resulted in the big change in predicted deaths and so the change in policy.
that's not bad is it trader, i was being generous, more like three decimal places out.
and yet he and his team are well respected, the usa use them too.
that's not bad is it trader, i was being generous, more like three decimal places out.
and yet he and his team are well respected, the usa use them too.
How?
They most have got some other things correct I guess.
They most have got some other things correct I guess.
It's not science in a laboratory setting, it's in the big wide world with lots of irrational human behavior. 
i doubt they will tell us what the original estimates were and he is being very precious with his code so other 'experts' havent been able to examine it.
they never modelled testing, isolating and contact tracing which is the standard way of dealing with a pandemic. i find that incredible.
i have heard our 'expert modellers' described as naive empiricists.
they never modelled testing, isolating and contact tracing which is the standard way of dealing with a pandemic. i find that incredible.
i have heard our 'expert modellers' described as naive empiricists.
he says he will but has made some excuses why this hasnt been done so far.
Third, the models themselves are only a simplified version of reality. They cannot reflect the complications of different situations in which people get infected or infect others. Capturing the specific characteristics of a society, and of sub-sections of that society, such as church-goers or football fans, is always going to be difficult.
The modellers at Imperial have made some best guesses at all of these factors. Other research teams have made different assumptions to guess at how the virus might progress. For example, one group at the University of Oxford speculates, on the basis of their own model, that half the population of the UK may already have the virus. The lead author, Professor Suneptra Gupta, said: “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model.” Forecasts for how many people might die could swing wildly depending on relatively small variations in these assumptions.
Although these difficulties afflict all modelling, there has been particular criticism in recent days of Professor Ferguson's track record. He worked on initial estimates for the possible death toll of variant-CJD, aka the “human form of mad cow disease,” in 1996, estimating with others a range from 50 deaths to 50,000. But these were far from the most lurid estimates for a disease that has actually killed just 176 people. During the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in 2001, his estimates led to a far wider cull of animals than previously thought necessary, ultimately costing the economy an estimated £10 billion.
One critic, Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, has since written two papers that are highly critical of the research led by Ferguson on FMD. One of the papers, from 2006, argues that “the models were not fit for the purpose of predicting the course of the epidemic and the effects of control measures. The models also remain unvalidated. Their use in predicting the effects of control strategies was therefore imprudent.”
Another academic critic, Dr Paul Kitching, told The Telegraph: “In view of the low numbers of Covid-19 tests being reported as carried out in affected countries, it is difficult to understand what informs the current models. In particular the transmission rate. How many mild and subclinical infections are occurring?”
Ferguson has responded to the FMD criticism, saying: “We were doing modelling in real time as the other groups were in 2001 — certainly the models weren’t 100% right, certainly with limited data and limited time to do the work. But I think the broad conclusions reached were still valid.”
The real problem is the way that models are latched on to at a time when information is very limited. They take on a life of their own, rather than being treated as preliminary estimates, feeding into a sense that we should always prepare for the worst-case scenario rather than the most realistic one. Interestingly, the government has delayed introducing tests for the disease until they are proven to be accurate. So why is it apparently relying on models that haven't been tested?
But while criticism of Ferguson may be valid, he is right to point out that his work is just one line of expertise and argument feeding into policy. There are plenty of others, too, from behavioral scientists to economists and, of course, political voices. It wasn't Ferguson who made the decision to focus on short-term deaths rather than long-term harms to society from suppression measures. On what basis was that decision made? Has the government made any attempt to model the harm that could be caused — to the economy, to health, to education, to the general social fabric — of an extended lockdown? If so, where is this research?
Governments are also faced with a moral dilemma: how to balance different kinds of harm. For example, it is clear that Covid-19 is particularly lethal to the elderly and those with serious health problems already. Even Ferguson has admitted that two-thirds of those who would die without suppression policies could be dead by the end of the year anyway. Are we hobbling society for years to come in order to buy some of its members a few more weeks and months?
From the outside, it looks like the government had a plausible mitigation strategy, but then panicked under pressure from the media and members of its own party to adopt a more draconian policy. If Ferguson is right, senior politicians will congratulate themselves on listening to the experts. If Ferguson is wrong, he may end up being the fall guy.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/484622-expert-behind-covid-19-shutdown/
The modellers at Imperial have made some best guesses at all of these factors. Other research teams have made different assumptions to guess at how the virus might progress. For example, one group at the University of Oxford speculates, on the basis of their own model, that half the population of the UK may already have the virus. The lead author, Professor Suneptra Gupta, said: “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model.” Forecasts for how many people might die could swing wildly depending on relatively small variations in these assumptions.
Although these difficulties afflict all modelling, there has been particular criticism in recent days of Professor Ferguson's track record. He worked on initial estimates for the possible death toll of variant-CJD, aka the “human form of mad cow disease,” in 1996, estimating with others a range from 50 deaths to 50,000. But these were far from the most lurid estimates for a disease that has actually killed just 176 people. During the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in 2001, his estimates led to a far wider cull of animals than previously thought necessary, ultimately costing the economy an estimated £10 billion.
One critic, Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, has since written two papers that are highly critical of the research led by Ferguson on FMD. One of the papers, from 2006, argues that “the models were not fit for the purpose of predicting the course of the epidemic and the effects of control measures. The models also remain unvalidated. Their use in predicting the effects of control strategies was therefore imprudent.”
Another academic critic, Dr Paul Kitching, told The Telegraph: “In view of the low numbers of Covid-19 tests being reported as carried out in affected countries, it is difficult to understand what informs the current models. In particular the transmission rate. How many mild and subclinical infections are occurring?”
Ferguson has responded to the FMD criticism, saying: “We were doing modelling in real time as the other groups were in 2001 — certainly the models weren’t 100% right, certainly with limited data and limited time to do the work. But I think the broad conclusions reached were still valid.”
The real problem is the way that models are latched on to at a time when information is very limited. They take on a life of their own, rather than being treated as preliminary estimates, feeding into a sense that we should always prepare for the worst-case scenario rather than the most realistic one. Interestingly, the government has delayed introducing tests for the disease until they are proven to be accurate. So why is it apparently relying on models that haven't been tested?
But while criticism of Ferguson may be valid, he is right to point out that his work is just one line of expertise and argument feeding into policy. There are plenty of others, too, from behavioral scientists to economists and, of course, political voices. It wasn't Ferguson who made the decision to focus on short-term deaths rather than long-term harms to society from suppression measures. On what basis was that decision made? Has the government made any attempt to model the harm that could be caused — to the economy, to health, to education, to the general social fabric — of an extended lockdown? If so, where is this research?
Governments are also faced with a moral dilemma: how to balance different kinds of harm. For example, it is clear that Covid-19 is particularly lethal to the elderly and those with serious health problems already. Even Ferguson has admitted that two-thirds of those who would die without suppression policies could be dead by the end of the year anyway. Are we hobbling society for years to come in order to buy some of its members a few more weeks and months?
From the outside, it looks like the government had a plausible mitigation strategy, but then panicked under pressure from the media and members of its own party to adopt a more draconian policy. If Ferguson is right, senior politicians will congratulate themselves on listening to the experts. If Ferguson is wrong, he may end up being the fall guy.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/484622-expert-behind-covid-19-shutdown/
they were doing well up to this
From the outside, it looks like the government had a plausible mitigation strategy, but then panicked under pressure from the media and members of its own party to adopt a more draconian policy
they changed course because of the updated projections using the italian data, mitigation would mean 250,000 dead.
From the outside, it looks like the government had a plausible mitigation strategy, but then panicked under pressure from the media and members of its own party to adopt a more draconian policy
they changed course because of the updated projections using the italian data, mitigation would mean 250,000 dead.
Ferguson has responded to the FMD criticism, saying: “We were doing modelling in real time as the other groups were in 2001 — certainly the models weren’t 100% right, certainly with limited data and limited time to do the work. But I think the broad conclusions reached were still valid.”
He predicted 100k and the total was under 200!
He cost the country £10bn!
He predicted 100k and the total was under 200!
He cost the country £10bn!
That's just one of the conclusions, you need to review the others as well
maybe we should put mystic meg in charge of modelling 
if he is the best, what do the records of the others look like 
i think at one stage it was just his model being used but one form the london school of hygiene and tropical medicine is now in place as well.
My betting systems usually have an ensemble of 100-200 models to pick a value selection.
Maybe instead of using him they should have put the data on Kaggle and got a wide range of views rather than just this one guy.
Maybe instead of using him they should have put the data on Kaggle and got a wide range of views rather than just this one guy.
Whilst there are a huge number of variables at play, the case and death progression between Italy and the UK is very similar.
A bit worried about tomorrow’s numbers though, suspect we’ll get a delayed weekend lag.
The info regarding Scottish care homes could also be very grim.
Meanwhile, US are having their deadliest day to date.
A bit worried about tomorrow’s numbers though, suspect we’ll get a delayed weekend lag.
The info regarding Scottish care homes could also be very grim.
Meanwhile, US are having their deadliest day to date.
Our fogures don't make sense average cases in care homes between 45 -54% of deaths,if you applied that to our figures we should have 5400 extra at least yet we are sitting on 2200 which obviously can't all be from corona..We have have been sending them back to homes with the virus and infecting others,yet this isn't showing up in the figures,totally out of line with all other countries.
The next set of figures would need to show a 4,000 rise at least very very strange.
The next set of figures would need to show a 4,000 rise at least very very strange.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539