Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay the England hospital data for 3 days is in.

Not a disaster but a little concerning for the NW.

The pretty good news is that total England admissions over the days were just 74 - 72 - 70 versus 88 - 77 - 80 in the equivalent days a week before.

Patients over the days went down from 818 - 810 - 801 - 798 - so there were small falls every day.

Ventilators though went 115 - 115 - 116 - 117 - so up 2.

And the North West is mainly why.

After tiny falls in patients last week the NW region went 151 - 152 - 149 - 152, So flatlined.

And ventilators went 14 - 15 - 18 - 18. So up 4 across the weekend.


London was not that good either in patients across the days 251 - 258 - 261 - 259.

And ventilators 51 - 48 - 47 - 50.

NE & Yorkshire though had a quite good weekend matching its much better case numbers in the past week - falling in patients from 129 to 110 and ventilators staying at 19.

As I say small signs but nothing to get really worried over imo.
 
Mate says he's jab brought forward 4 weeks..50 and overs..anyone else
 
grunge said:
How could Sage over the last year or so modelled for a variant that didn't exist?
Click to expand...
They didn't but from what I'm reading, the new variant may fit the middle of the road case modelling scenarios they produced for case numbers (thought not hospitalisation and deaths) if the variant escapes from the hot spots.
As I stared at the time a actually.
 
Last edited:
roubaixtuesday said:
How many hospitalizations and deaths will result is highly uncertain still.

All of this continues to highlight the chasm between expectations of modelling and reality.

There seems to be an (entirely erroneous) that models give a single point prediction of the future, and if that is out, then the model was "wrong".

Actually what is attempted is to give scenarios which cover possible futures to inform what might happen, and how different policy options might affect it.

Eg Indian variant - given the data we have modeling shows it's possible that this could cause a huge spike, do almost nothing or all points in between. So policy makers have to make a choice: do they take the risk, and how much mitigation (surge testing, local vaccination, caution to public etc) do they put in place.

With the original first wave it was much more black and white: either lock down or face 100s of thousands of deaths in short order.

None of this is "right" or "wrong".
Click to expand...
Agree to some degree but the model priduced really over cooked the goose for middle of the road predictions.
Admittedly they didn't use real world UK or Israeli data but why produce such brazenly wrong models in the first place?
The only reason is to scare the public as highlighted in other news stories this week. A highly unethical practice in health statistics circles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.