Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobKowalski said:
Covid is an unknown risk and therefore an unquantifiable risk to the system, therefore you shut down parts of the system to ensure the system can function.

Every new variant is the same. No one really knows, therefore we potentially over compensate as this is considered less of a risk than under-compensating.

What we need to do is reinforce the system so that in future we can cope with the existence of Covid and not shutter the system and the harm this does.
Click to expand...
I agree but closures and lockdown is surely now a known risk? When the only lens people are looking though has covid written on it, balance is the first casualty, is all I’m saying.
 
inbetween said:
I don't but it seems the most likely scenario given he's had COVID twice and to my knowledge he has never previously had a heart condition.

Obviously certain people will say the vaccines caused it but well vaccine induced heart problems are exceptionally rare but COVID induced problems are not.
Click to expand...
Aguero was hospitalised relating to his heart condition back in 2017.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
And undiagnosed cancer, or diagnosed at stage 3 or 4 instead of 1 or 2 isn’t just nasty it’s actually dead.
Click to expand...
Cancer diagnosis has nothing to do with COVID. If cancer diagnosis is failing then the government needs to put more resources into the system to account for it. Resources have been a problem for decades and COVID is just exposing that.

This is a resource problem and not a priority problem. That's why we've spent a considerable chunk of the last couple of years locked in our houses.

Lockdowns were necessary so that people could also get cancer treatment too, it wasn't just so that COVID patients were treated above all else.
 
everythingchangesbutblue said:
So to summarise you have absolutely no qualifications in virology or epidemiology and have no expertise to say scientist have got it wrong. Thanks for clarifying that.
Click to expand...
Give over.
So your saying a virologist or epidemiologist knows more about statistics and operational research than a statistician/solution architect?
Perhaps you should take your car to be fixed at the bakery next time it goes wrong.
 
Healdplace said:
A lot seem to forget that protecting the NHS DOES impact you even if your odds of catching Covid are tiny because you are young and fit.

Young and fit does not mean invulnerable.

As you may not be fit after getting hit by a bus or falling down the steps at the Etihad.

But your prognosis may very well change drastically if hospitals are overrun by Covid patients who are catching it when you are not.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is the crux of it, Oxygen runs out then all surgery's stop, pretty much all ICU patients die etc, no matter what there age, Baby incubators stop working. and that's just oxygen. adding medication into the mix and things really spiral.
 
everythingchangesbutblue said:
imagine changing your username because you got something so badly wrong and then come back on to pretend you have a scientific background in a topic you don't have any expertise on whatsoever. I'm sure he could compile some stats on custard usage in Bedford and then tell us he's an expert on Cows.
Click to expand...
Under my previous username I was an astronaut but fucked myself on the holiday thread when I said I was scared of flying.
 
everythingchangesbutblue said:
They may get somethings wrong, but many hang them on their worst case scenarios which form only a part of their levelled theories . Again i don't tell them they are wrong because i have no qualifications or expertise to do so.
Click to expand...
In fairness, all three of the scenarios modelled and produced in the Sage report of the 8th September were very wrong. Here's a link to the report.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...1017129/S1376_SPI-M-O_Consensus_Statement.pdf

Below is the conclusion aspect of the report that SAGE led with in their briefings to the media.

The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector.

For completeness R = 1.5 predicted 7000 hospital admissions a day.

You don't need to be an expert in virology to see that the actual autumn wave, which was less than 1000 hospital admissions a day throughout the 8week prediction period of the report was significantly less than SAGES best case scenario.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Give over.
So your saying a virologist or epidemiologist knows more about statistics and operational research than a statistician/solution architect?
Perhaps you should take your car to be fixed at the bakery next time it goes wrong.
Click to expand...
Even if they did, there’s precious few on SAGE…
 
I tend to look at the global picture and just think that we should be emphasizing getting more vaccinations into the Global South and striving harder to educate them about uptake so as to prevent a more virulent virus arising from there, as it probably will. So far, however, we in the Global North are simply repeating the same steps: slam down the shutters and look after ourselves. Israel is already talking about a fourth booster shot in the New Year for the immunocompromised, and that will then likely lead to a fourth booster for the general population. As Tony Hancock said, ‘arms like pin cushions.’ :-)
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
In fairness, all three of the scenarios modelled and produced in the Sage report of the 8th September were very wrong. Here's a link to the report.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...1017129/S1376_SPI-M-O_Consensus_Statement.pdf

Below is the conclusion aspect of the report that SAGE led with in their briefings to the media.

The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector.

For completeness R = 1.5 predicted 7000 hospital admissions a day.

You don't need to be an expert in virology to see that the actual autumn wave, which was less than 1000 hospital admissions a day throughout the 8week prediction period of the report was significantly less than SAGES best case scenario.
Click to expand...

Boring.

The report clearly states there is too much uncertainty to make a prediction.

You don't like that, so you ignore it.

The projections are given as covering the "likely" range.

That means there's value 30% likelihood of being outside of that range:

Screenshot_20211210-190456_Chrome.jpg

Get another bone to chew on.
 
Gabriel said:
I tend to look at the global picture and just think that we should be emphasizing getting more vaccinations into the Global South and striving harder to educate them about uptake so as to prevent a more virulent virus arising from there, as it probably will. So far, however, we in the Global North are simply repeating the same steps: slam down the shutters and look after ourselves. Israel is already talking about a fourth booster shot in the New Year for the immunocompromised, and that will then likely lead to a fourth booster for the general population. As Tony Hancock said, ‘arms like pin cushions.’ :-)
Click to expand...

the UK Gov said 4th shot for immunocompromised the other week too.
 
everythingchangesbutblue said:
They may get somethings wrong, but many hang them on their worst case scenarios which form only a part of their levelled theories . Again i don't tell them they are wrong because i have no qualifications or expertise to do so.
Click to expand...
Neil Ferguson is a hobbiest when it comes to putting statistical models together as a coherent software solution.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Neil Ferguson is a hobbiest when it comes to putting statistical models together as a coherent software solution.
Click to expand...
That guy lost all credibility 18 months ago and personally I find it really off that he's always the first person to get his name and face in the paper.

Maybe I'm being cynical but I suspect he retains a PR agency/publicist and is looking forward to a covid book deal and lucrative speaking tour.
 
After 20 ish months of the pandemic I've just tested positive. Have felt rough for a couple of days...and got a test earlier.

Anyone got any tips, I am double jabbed...
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Boring.

The report clearly states there is too much uncertainty to make a prediction.

You don't like that, so you ignore it.

The projections are given as covering the "likely" range.

That means there's value 30% likelihood of being outside of that range:

View attachment 31702

Get another bone to chew on.
Click to expand...
Kind of makes it pointless to even project when the uncertainties are that high.

Maybe it's better than nothing.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Boring.

The report clearly states there is too much uncertainty to make a prediction.

You don't like that, so you ignore it.

The projections are given as covering the "likely" range.

That means there's value 30% likelihood of being outside of that range:

View attachment 31702

Get another bone to chew on.
Click to expand...
But these projections are used to inform policy. That's why people have a problem with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top