Confusion of VIs Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 You know full what was on those graphs. You are upset we've not hit 4,000 deaths per a day. Yes but it seems you still don't. I didn't expect us to hit 4,000 a day as that would only have happened if we were dumb enough to ignore the warnings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Those figures were just Tokyo, not all of Japan. So really it is 5.4m versus 13m. Greater Tokyo is more like 40m, even the old centre has about the same population as Greater London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Yes but it seems you still don't. I didn't expect us to hit 4,000 a day as that would only have happened if we were dumb enough to ignore the warnings. Right. Like all the places in the world that didn't lockdown and are all graveyards. Oh I forgot you can't possibly use actual observations as witnessed in the real world and adjust for factors like demographics and how likely family are to live in multigenerational households. You just need to have faith. Note the abject horror of people at having their pay freezed for a year in the public sector. When Mrs Miggins realises that's the tip of the iceberg for these lockdowns and wonders why public services are declining despite higher taxation with all the health impacts.. The crowing for lockdown after lockdown will not be looked on kindly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Right. Like all the places in the world that didn't lockdown and are all graveyards. Oh I forgot you can't possibly use actual observations as witnessed in the real world and adjust for factors like demographics and how likely family are to live in multigenerational households. You just need to have faith. Note the abject horror of people at having their pay freezed for a year in the public sector. When Mrs Miggins realises that's the tip of the iceberg for these lockdowns and wonders why public services are declining despite higher taxation with all the health impacts.. The crowing for lockdown after lockdown will not be looked on kindly. What's this response got to do with Preacherman continually posting things he doesn't understand and drawing half baked conclusions from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 No the complete opposite. You set course (set up your model) and then as new information comes in or new measures (the wind!) you adjust. You evidently appear to be about ignoring the complex interactions that evolve with time, the science on the other hand is about taking them into account. In the last briefing they gave us an explicit glimpse of this process. They showed several projections by different modelling groups. The discrepancies between the models showed how difficult the task is. I strongly suspect that small differences in input can yield relatively large outputs. But then when you think about 'reality' thats no surprise - Mrs Jones the super-spreader accidentally drops butter on the floor and so misses the crowded bus stop.... This slide, presented as being out of date at the time, was the one everybody leapt on even hilariously persisting on using them weeks after. But next slide showed the latest modelling and a consensus between all the different models with a provisional 'range' getting wider and, as explained, less reliable as time progresses. By now way out of date too: the models will be jumping around depending on how frequently they are updated and they will be periodically asked to freeze and summarise to inform policy. Okay so now the presention was flawed as they showed old models that didn't take into account the restrictions in place at the time... But the decision making process to introduce more restrictions wasn't falwed as they ignored those models...? And used as yet unpublished ones to make that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Greater Tokyo is more like 40m, even the old centre has about the same population as Greater London. But assume this is central Tokyo, it will be one medical district. Like including Poughkeepsie in New York to go for the full 40m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Suspect COVID deaths still being recorded: The Daily Mail reporting on yet another shocking COVID death: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8958309/amp/Builder-51-died-falling-10ft-ladder-killed-coronavirus.html Medics at great pains to explain how the ladder and gravity had no responsibility! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Okay so now the presention was flawed as they showed old models that didn't take into account the restrictions in place at the time... But the decision making process to introduce more restrictions wasn't falwed as they ignored those models...? And used as yet unpublished ones to make that decision. Hopefully so, don't you think they should be using the latest information to inform decision making. By the time models have been tidied up for wider circulation with contextual notes appendixes added and published they are out of date. I sign off on the models produced by my company, it is not unusual for them to have +50 pages of explanatory notes and reasoning behind the assumptions being made. The sign off process takes at best several weeks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 But assume this is central Tokyo, it will be one medical district. Like including Poughkeepsie in New York to go for the full 40m I just checked the report it covers the Tokyo Metropolitan area, which is 37m people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 (edited) Okay so now the presention was flawed as they showed old models that didn't take into account the restrictions in place at the time... But the decision making process to introduce more restrictions wasn't falwed as they ignored those models...? And used as yet unpublished ones to make that decision. You sound a little confused, but I think you are agreeing they use up to date information to make decisions, follow this up by summing up and presenting it to the public and also review previous (now out-of-date) model outputs. Except that you're saying that means its all flawed and they ignore everything ? Edited November 21, 2020 by pig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swankyman Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 (edited) No the complete opposite. You set course (set up your model) and then as new information comes in or new measures (the wind!) you adjust. You evidently appear to be about ignoring the complex interactions that evolve with time, the science on the other hand is about taking them into account. In the last briefing they gave us an explicit glimpse of this process. They showed several projections by different modelling groups. The discrepancies between the models showed how difficult the task is. I strongly suspect that small differences in input can yield relatively large outputs. But then when you think about 'reality' thats no surprise - Mrs Jones the super-spreader accidentally drops butter on the floor and so misses the crowded bus stop.... This slide, presented as being out of date at the time, was the one everybody leapt on even hilariously persisting on using them weeks after. But next slide showed the latest modelling and a consensus between all the different models with a provisional 'range' getting wider and, as explained, less reliable as time progresses. By now way out of date too: the models will be jumping around depending on how frequently they are updated and they will be periodically asked to freeze and summarise to inform policy. Nice, Change your model to fit the data as it comes in. The point is, the Lockdown policy was justified using the initial predictions. Again look at the graph below. Here on HPC we used to laugh at the inflation predictions by the BofE. Absolutely no where near. But they kept adjusting them every month, and almost immediately they were wrong. You can't decide policy on this stuff. Also notice from the graph below the prediction would always after 12 months hit their inflation target. ! The model was used and abused to justify policy. Edited November 21, 2020 by swankyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swankyman Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 You sound a little confused, but I think you are agreeing they use up to date information to make decisions, follow this up by summing up and presenting it to the public and also review previous (now out-of-date) model outputs. Except that you're saying that means its all flawed and they ignore everything ?t The predictions were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 (edited) You sound a little confused, but I think you are agreeing they use up to date information to make decisions, follow this up by summing up and presenting it to the public and also review previous (now out-of-date) model outputs. Except that you're saying that means its all flawed and they ignore everything ? No... as has already been brought up in parliament the models utilised to justify the lockdown wrong even before they were showed. Framed to justify a policy rather than used to decide a policy. Another example was the nonsense of "30% of cases from hospitality" as presented to MP's, full disclosure was it was 30% of cases excluding schools, work and transport. A minor difference... again data selected to justify a policy not form it. They could have utilised or shown models with inputs derived from known restrictions - not from before. Either they are incompetent enough to not re-run models with known changes weeks later or they chose not to publish the latest ones the decision was made on -why? Astonishing it hasnt been published in full. They publish everything to do with a bloomin bypass in the public interest and yet.. decisions were based on these models that impact millions of people in the very long term and serious ways.. and nothing. No data. No full release. Nothing. Edited November 21, 2020 by captainb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightowl Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 No... as has already been brought up in parliament the models utilised to justify the lockdown wrong even before they were showed. Framed to justify a policy rather than used to decide a policy. Another example was the nonsense of "30% of cases from hospitality" as presented to MP's, full disclosure was it was 30% of cases excluding schools, work and transport. A minor difference... again data selected to justify a policy not form it. They could have utilised or shown models with inputs derived from known restrictions - not from before. Either they are incompetent enough to not re-run models with known changes weeks later or they chose not to publish the latest ones the decision was made on -why? Astonishing it hasnt been published in full. They publish everything to do with a bloomin bypass in the public interest and yet.. decisions were based on these models that impact millions of people in the very long term and serious ways.. and nothing. No data. No full release. Nothing. There are massive issues with the way the data has been handled and presented. I assume the (proper) inquiries into what went wrong will one day happen...but remember how long it took to work out what happened at Hillsborough. Either way I wouldn't be surprised if sage is reformed first - no real change will happen but just rename it like the FSA rebranded the FCA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megadebt Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Your heartlessness is unbelievable. The alzheimers society are immensely concerned about the damage caused by isolation to the cognitive ability and mental health of people with dementia. Feeble attempt to misprepresent what I said, and undermine my reply. Actually I was pointing out your mutually exclusive recent statements: you want it both ways, isolation of vulnerables being both the problem and solution here. Many EMI care home residents are already under legal 'deprivation of libery', with differring restrictions. This loneliness and isolation with elderly people actually giving up on life, is not a new covid 2020 problem either. Isolation of the vunerables was your solution -remember? Your "NHS GP Dr wife" will of course be dealing with elderly patients on a daily basis and is fully aware of this Deprivation of Liberty process, MHA, MCA acts and liasing with social services and visiting care homes -do you two only ever talk about mask bugs and waiting lists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will! Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 I'm just catching up with the BBC's More or Less. How deadly is Covid 19? This episode includes a good description of how incidence of infection can rise exponentially but deaths don't. Students (with generally a low IFR) go to university and mingle with each other, but they don't mingle with old people (with a higher IFR) much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 I'm just catching up with the BBC's More or Less. How deadly is Covid 19? This episode includes a good description of how incidence of infection can rise exponentially but deaths don't. Students (with generally a low IFR) go to university and mingle with each other, but they don't mingle with old people (with a higher IFR) much. Until Christmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 So the Dow Jones at an all time high is also due to Trumps fantastic CV19 handling or are there other factors at play...? 5% growth in Q3. Rising household consumption. A pick up in net trade. Zero unemployment. Fewer than 2,000 deaths out of a population of 125m. Clearly, they deserve a place in the Winners Circle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Don't most pro lockdown shout 'exponential' when they see data like this? Of course. But from a very low baseline. The Japanese govt has suspended its national travel campaign as a result. That suspension might be made permanent if the new case numbers fail to roll over in the next two weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave New World Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Of course SAGE, the Cabinet, MPs, the CSO and CMO and their deputies are of course still all on full pay! No personal cost to them from their decisions - except the judgement of history! Look at the reaction yesterday to the mere idea of public sector pay freezes for one year - and that is just the start of what is needed given the £280bn we have added to the national debt in six months (way more than from 2008 to 2011). We will be paying for this for decades - first the private sector but soon the public sector. You might look at that in a wholly different way, from this bs Daily Mail speak, if you were working longer for less than you were on TEN years ago. Oh btw think you are a little muddled again if you think that £280bn was less than the banking bonanza bail outs so the city mob could carry on Ponzi. God this site has gone down hill in ten years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 No... as has already been brought up in parliament the models utilised to justify the lockdown wrong even before they were showed. Framed to justify a policy rather than used to decide a policy. Another example was the nonsense of "30% of cases from hospitality" as presented to MP's, full disclosure was it was 30% of cases excluding schools, work and transport. A minor difference... again data selected to justify a policy not form it. They could have utilised or shown models with inputs derived from known restrictions - not from before. Either they are incompetent enough to not re-run models with known changes weeks later or they chose not to publish the latest ones the decision was made on -why? Astonishing it hasnt been published in full. They publish everything to do with a bloomin bypass in the public interest and yet.. decisions were based on these models that impact millions of people in the very long term and serious ways.. and nothing. No data. No full release. Nothing. Well yes Theresa May no less criticised the first slide showing the old models (prior to the consensus latest anticipated trajectory) and within that slide the modelling group that came up with the 4000 a day deaths. I can see why people could get confused - essentially you grab onto that scary number and ignore everything else - but all I can say is I wasn't confused and didn't fixate on it, in fact the opposite, for the reasons outlined above I found it informative. They of course have modelled for restrictions, but there will always be a gap between stuff happening and verified data ending up in a model. I mean obviously ? The most pessimistic prediction on November 4th, based on an R of 1.1 (I don't know if they updated it!) with the November 5th restrictions for 4 weeks had deaths plateauing at circa below 500 deaths a day. You can find the graph on page 5: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/935132/spi-m-o-consensus-statement-covid-19-sage-66-051120-s0864.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 You might look at that in a wholly different way, from this bs Daily Mail speak, if you were working longer for less than you were on TEN years ago. Oh btw think you are a little muddled again if you think that £280bn was less than the banking bonanza bail outs so the city mob could carry on Ponzi. God this site has gone down hill in ten years. Brexshit thread was the start of the rot IMHO. Infected with russian and far-right trolls, the outright lies and misinformation posters just got away with spouting complete and utter BS as they jumped through mental gymnastics to justify voting leave whilst trying to pretend they are not simply racist bigots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 At least criminals locked up in jail - who probably have as much freedom as these elderly people - don't have to pay £1,000 plus per week for the privilege! Its just totally cruel - and in the New Year we are going to fully trial the vaccines on care home residents even though many like the rest of us already have t cell immunity. Vaccines won't be the end of it according to the "experts" so the last year or so of these people's lives may be behind glass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Brexshit thread was the start of the rot IMHO. Infected with russian and far-right trolls, the outright lies and misinformation posters just got away with spouting complete and utter BS as they jumped through mental gymnastics to justify voting leave whilst trying to pretend they are not simply racist bigots. Are you telling me our favourite sailor is Russian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Brexshit thread was the start of the rot IMHO. Infected with russian and far-right trolls, the outright lies and misinformation posters just got away with spouting complete and utter BS as they jumped through mental gymnastics to justify voting leave whilst trying to pretend they are not simply racist bigots. Adults who like to have secs with children are more likely to vote left / globalist / liberal. https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/gov-newsom-signs-bill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-have-homosexual-sex-with-minors/ The thing is we haven't made the name "pedo" a go-to standard name for Remainers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.