Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damocles said:
This is the report that Feigl-Ding and the FT were talking about btw because none of the media think linking to primary sources is important any more.


Here it what is actually says.



Let's just say that I do not believe he has really put the data into its proper context and certainty there by saying "could". And again, I must stress this, these reports are not peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

Seen someone whom I view as credible actually look into the numbers on that report and is suggestive that the numbers *DO* indicate potential less severity with Omecron.

Tweet regarding hospital admissions

S-gene negative (i.e. Omicron) - 24/15087*100 = 0.16%

S-gene positive - 1392/208947*100 = 0.67%

Followed up by a further tweet

"Am I losing my mind here? The Imperial report actually saw a four-times lower admissions rate for Omicron cases yet focuses on "no significant difference", and the headlines that will obviously generate, because the p-value is 0.82?"



It's a locked, private account so can't link to the tweets, but he's just asking the question based on the data that's actually in the report which he sees as contrary to these *no evidence* headlines.

If anyone scientifically minded on here would provide their thoughts on his assessment?

Edit - been answered here.

 
Last edited:
ayrshire_blue said:
Seen someone whom I view as credible actually look into the numbers on that report and is suggestive that the numbers *DO* indicate potential less severity with Omecron.

Tweet regarding hospital admissions

S-gene negative (i.e. Omicron) - 24/15087*100 = 0.16%

S-gene positive - 1392/208947*100 = 0.67%

Followed up by a further tweet

"Am I losing my mind here? The Imperial report actually saw a four-times lower admissions rate for Omicron cases yet focuses on "no significant difference", and the headlines that will obviously generate, because the p-value is 0.82?"



It's a locked, private account so can't link to the tweets, but he's just asking the question based on the data that's actually in the report which he sees as contrary to these *no evidence* headlines.

If anyone scientifically minded on here would provide their thoughts on his assessment?

Edit - been answered here.

Click to expand...


Great find. Exactly why every time an article is not peer reviewed it should be considered "not yet scientific" for lack of a better term. Of course this guy could be wrong too and the original idea may be correct. We don't know because it's not peer reviewed.
 
Damocles said:
This is the report that Feigl-Ding and the FT were talking about btw because none of the media think linking to primary sources is important any more.


Here it what is actually says.



Let's just say that I do not believe he has really put the data into its proper context and certainty there by saying "could". And again, I must stress this, these reports are not peer reviewed.
Click to expand...
So not enough UK data so let's go overboard and just ignore all the evidence coming out of SA.
Imperial modus operandi.
Take with a pinch of salt.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Great find. Exactly why every time an article is not peer reviewed it should be considered "not yet scientific" for lack of a better term. Of course this guy could be wrong too and the original idea may be correct. We don't know because it's not peer reviewed.
Click to expand...
Proof positive of Imperial crying wolf (again).
Four time less severe will still trigger more hospitalisaions though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top