Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alan Harper's Tash said:
True. I’ll adapt to whatever is decided. Zero point in cynically dissecting each bit of data analysis. We aren’t in charge.

I‘m awaiting the daily mention of Ferguson. It’ll add 20 pages to the thread with people calling him a **** etc.

Guess if it makes people feel better, it’s not totally pointless.
Click to expand...

Like all subjects on here, for every Ferguson we will have a equal bogeyman, someone to lambast.

Venting in here is what we all do at times. It would be boring without it.
 
Gabriel said:
Thanks but it doesn’t use the word prevent at all; protection and resistance don’t equate to prevention.
Click to expand...
"Immunization is a global health and development success story, saving millions of lives every year. Vaccines reduce risks of getting a disease by working with your body’s natural defences to build protection. When you get a vaccine, your immune system responds.

We now have vaccines to prevent more than 20 life-threatening diseases, helping people of all ages live longer, healthier lives. Immunization currently prevents 2-3 million deaths every year from diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, influenza and measles.

Immunization is a key component of primary health care and an indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can buy. Vaccines are also critical to the prevention and control of infectious-disease outbreaks. They underpin global health security and will be a vital tool in the battle against antimicrobial resistance.

Yet despite tremendous progress, far too many people around the world – including nearly 20 million infants each year – have insufficient access to vaccines. In some countries, progress has stalled or even reversed, and there is a real risk that complacency will undermine past achievements.

Global vaccination coverage – the proportion of the world’s children who receive recommended vaccines – has remained the same over the past few years."

Uses it 3 times. You have to click through from Google for the full blurb for some reason.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
well follow your own advice and put him on ignore then , in fact put everyone who has a contrary view to you ignore.

that way when you come on you have a greater chance of only reading posts which you agree with. That will be fun
Click to expand...
I’ve got no problem in responding to different points of view.

I‘m not going to accuse you of stalking me because you’ve replied to me either.

If your reaction to any news that doesn’t suit your viewpoint ends up in the same cyclical discussion that goes nowhere, it does seem futile, doesn’t it?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I’ve got no problem in responding to different points of view.

I‘m not going to accuse you of stalking me because you’ve replied to me either.

If your reaction to any news that doesn’t suit your viewpoint ends up in the same cyclical discussion that goes nowhere, it does seem futile, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...

don’t go in the politics thread or the sterling thread mate
 
The blue phantom said:
It's an head scratcher isn't it, also Boris is at his all time lowest and him doing a Lockdown could literally finish him off with his Party. So I guess you do have to ask why?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it has anything to do with politics. It’s literally to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed and so that not too many people are dying.

At present, the number of people in ICU (has actually gone down this week to last) and number of deaths (weekly average down at 112) means that a lockdown is likely not necessary. But having a precautionary circuit-breaker since the cases have sky-rocketed to an all-time high, wouldn’t be a bad idea.

If ICU and deaths numbers start to increase at a rapid rate, we should tighten restrictions.

The govt’s popularity is at an all-time low so they won’t be doing this for popularity reasons.
 
The other things that the conspiracy theorists have to bear in mind is that if the government waits for hospitals to be overwhelmed, it’ll be too late. They can only act when guessing suggests that it might happen.

This is what it all comes back to. No democratic government in the world wants to be the first to be seen to have been sitting on their hands and watching Rome burn. If they believe there is the slightest chance the NHS may fail in the next two weeks, they have no choice but to act.
 
blueinsa said:
One is on the news right now saying there “could be” 300,000 hospitalisations a day.

Utter fucking bollocks I’m afraid.
Click to expand...

That’s not right, are you sure you didn’t mishear and it was 300000 infections a day, not hospitalisations?
 
BobKowalski said:
How can you model ‘truth’ based on an unknown virus with unknown effects? Modelling by definition is based on assumptions. You can do several models based on varying assumptions and then track how each model matches the virus in real time.
Click to expand...
You apply your model to previous epidemics.
If your modelling is any good your actual caseshospitalisations/deaths get closer to the median prediction for each successive wave.
Your upper quartile represents the outcome under which are 75% of your model's predicted outcomes occur and the lower quartile represents the outcome under which 25% of your model's predicted outcomes fall.
I can see the need for a worst case outcome (say 95%) but all of these outcomes should be in your model.
Only modelling the worst case is a grand folly as it indicates the model is an exercise in crying wolf - so it is ignored by many. But as the story goes the boy who cried wolf can be right very occasionally.
 
Last edited:
inbetween said:
It isn't at all, modelling is done to predict outcomes because you cannot predict the future, this isn't the weather forecast. There is no model in existence that accurately predicts the next month, it's impossible. We all know the models we'd like to see but the consequences of that being wrong are far more severe.

Let's put it another way, would you rather get your models wrong and everyone ends up fine or would you rather get it wrong but this time lot's of people die because the government took no action?

These models do not exist to make you and I feel better, they're there to model capacity and actions, mild models do not require action but we know that without it existing on a graph.
Click to expand...
It is mate its totally wrong. You can predict the future it's called a forecast and its what they should be doing. You say there's no accurate model that predicts the next month. Why noylt there should be by now. Have any testing on past empirical data vs model occurred anywhere? It's got nothing to do with forcing models to achieve the outcome you want it's to do with getting accurate forecasts.

You comment about models being wrong and everyone is fine vs (overpreditions for the more mathematical people out there) is a naive one. Lockdown causes a huge cost to society not only in terms of money, £30bn plus each month which we can't afford, but also a cost in mental health and no doubt increased suicides and medication. So I'd rather have my models be balanced so the government can optimise the outcomes and weigh up the costs.

These model exists to tell the government what's probably going to happen nothing more nothing less
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top