Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[anonguest]

Just now, Peter Hun said:

More civilian dead than the six years of World War 2,  that was spending 65% of GDP.

What a waste of money WW2 was.

Except that cost was to preserve freedom, something which some would argue we are today instead spending to lose?

Edited January 9, 2021 by anonguest

[msi]

3 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/55536762

 

FFS read the full article before posting the parts that fit your batsh*t crazy world view. 

 

..NHS England warns against using direct comparisons because - as mentioned - you wouldn't exactly be comparing like for like in the way the hospitals are being run.

Effectively, bed occupancy shows how many beds are available should patients need them, but what it doesn't paint a picture of is how much work is needed to tend to these beds.

And this year, with increased infection control and the movement of staff to intensive areas, that workload has increased.

 

[NobodyInParticular]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Well that's what they released. 

The CFR figures will be biased upwards by the infection getting into care homes, one reported losing half their residents to Covid over the Christmas period but still hard to believe that the overall rate will be anything like the 0.25% some people still claim.

The last time I checked, which was about three months ago, IFR was still within the initial 0.4 to 0.7% estimates. Has it changed? 

[NobodyInParticular]

2 hours ago, Will! said:

Police arrest 12 at Clapham Common anti-lockdown protest

“One anti-lockdown protestor, who was detained at Clapham Common park, said "I stand under common law, not maritime law and this is assault" as he was put into handcuffs by police officers.”

I’m not legally qualified, but there’s no cure for stupid.

They'll quote the Magna Carta, just not that any relevant part is still in force. Sometimes they quote the parts that were repealed the year after. Not that there is 'a' Magna Carta as such. 

2 hours ago, anonguest said:

No.  It's not just good - it's important!  It is just a part of the equation  BUT it is important.

Yes. 

Quote

The same data can be presented in diifferent ways by different people (emphasis here and not there, little nuances in suggestion of priorities, etc). 

Indeed, hence me banging on about misunderstanding of projection and prediction. 

Quote

I will bet you all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that all the people in Fergusons reserach group do not think or feel identically to Fergsuon on evrry single thing.

Of course not. They are humans. 

2 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html

About 19% above typical expectation, it is not that much.

It's 100 times the number of people murdered each year.

Edited January 9, 2021 by NobodyInParticular

[Bob8]

34 minutes ago, msi said:

FFS read the full article before posting the parts that fit your batsh*t crazy world view. 

 

..NHS England warns against using direct comparisons because - as mentioned - you wouldn't exactly be comparing like for like in the way the hospitals are being run.

Effectively, bed occupancy shows how many beds are available should patients need them, but what it doesn't paint a picture of is how much work is needed to tend to these beds.

And this year, with increased infection control and the movement of staff to intensive areas, that workload has increased.

 

Bravo

[anonguest]

Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

Indeed, hence me banging on about misunderstanding of projection and prediction. 

 

OK. I'll graciously stand corrected on this small, but I admit, important grammatical distinction - that a projection is, in effect, a conditional prediction.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/

projection: "an estimate or a statement of what figures, amounts, or events will be in the future, or what they were in the past, based on what is happening now"

prediction: "a statement that says what you think will happen"

[nightowl]

36 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

It's 100 times the number of people murdered each year.

Be mindful of that PHE mortality report because it uses late March as the start of the year not Jan 1st which if it had would have brought the ratios down, and would have making comparison to other years easier.  Thats a 1/4 of the years baseline data missed out.*

Also the expected base line drawn in Fig2 is described as "modelled" and is drawn as a straight line which we know it isnt (although would no doubt end up at the same point by end of year).

Also again notice the big change in excess mortality happens in April/May and remains in parallel with baseline from then on...re-enforcing the fact April was the real freak month.  Nov & Dec barely deviate from baseline trend.

*CORRECTION: Jan-Mar 2020 would have been winter and would have a baseline death rate higher 1/4 of the year so the 1.19 times quoted is very misleading.

Edited January 9, 2021 by nightowl

[Brave New World]

47 minutes ago, msi said:

FFS read the full article before posting the parts that fit your batsh*t crazy world view. 

 

..NHS England warns against using direct comparisons because - as mentioned - you wouldn't exactly be comparing like for like in the way the hospitals are being run.

Effectively, bed occupancy shows how many beds are available should patients need them, but what it doesn't paint a picture of is how much work is needed to tend to these beds.

And this year, with increased infection control and the movement of staff to intensive areas, that workload has increased.

 

And this is at the heart of these conspiracy nut jobs.

Folk who have feck all clue about health care and the way hospitals are having to respond to this. Jumping on any bit of misinterpreted information and dressing it as proof of conspiracy and lies. 

Away from the base fact that the whole world is in on it....if we are living through their much fabled 'scamdemic'. 

It's like the daft bint who showed videos of an outpatients ward on a Bank holiday....no context of where and when it was but that was all these odd jobs needed to confirm their conspiracy mindset.

Same with this misinterpreted drivel. My wife's ward is having to shut to stop the spread (as the hospital generally is seeing a big spread of it internally), therefore the numbers of standard treatment staying in hospitals is down and increasingly so. ICU capacity is totally different to standard wards. A fact totally ignored by these nut jobs.

As you say the care levels of patients, thankfully due to a better grasp of how to treat it, means more survival (plus many younger cases), but means longer bed occupancy in specialist ICU wards where bed numbers are low.

Sadly dulltards like this, those supping from the alt right, teumpaide do not care to contextualise their shrill bleatings of supposed truth.

They are fast becoming cultist in their approach frankly. Where eve. Those treating and caring for people are 'in on it' and seen with scorn and, in some cases, hatred. 

 

Over 600 NHS and care workers have died fro Covid in under a year.

 

Over 600 UK armed forces have died in the middle East since 2003. 

 

If people were going round putting the lives of troops at risk they would be strung up. These denialists should be tested in the same way. Their names remembered and at the very least publicly shamed in the future. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Brave New World

[Confusion of VIs]

37 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

The last time I checked, which was about three months ago, IFR was still within the initial 0.4 to 0.7% estimates. Has it changed? 

I don't know, I just saw a bbc report on the latest (and allegedly most accurate) figures that had just been released by the Dept of Health.  

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, msi said:

FFS read the full article before posting the parts that fit your batsh*t crazy world view. 

 

..NHS England warns against using direct comparisons because - as mentioned - you wouldn't exactly be comparing like for like in the way the hospitals are being run.

Effectively, bed occupancy shows how many beds are available should patients need them, but what it doesn't paint a picture of is how much work is needed to tend to these beds.

And this year, with increased infection control and the movement of staff to intensive areas, that workload has increased.

 

So you think I would find issue with cutting only beds and nothing else?

Batshit crazy real world:

 

As spending on the NHS increases

......it loses nurses

and as you might know staff are charged for parking which is f*cking ridiculous.

A friend of mine used to work for the NHS, they left in 2009 as did colleagues who said they got out just at the right time as it was going to sh8t.

Once Lockdowns go on for long enough and tax revenues are near dead how will they pay for it?

I'll tell you how, they will create money from the same magic money tree you will be getting your Universal Basic Income.

The whole thing is orchestrated you're just too stupid to realize it.

29 minutes ago, Brave New World said:

If people were going round putting the lives of troops at risk they would be strung up. These denialists should be tested in the same way. Their names remembered and at the very least publicly shamed in the future. 

So you want me publicly shamed (at the very least) in the future for merely linking to a BBC article then replying as I just have above with research from the National Audit Office, another chart from the BBC and others and relaying experiences of people I know who have actually worked for the NHS?.....and people think I am a "conspiracy theorist" for saying this is leading us to China lifestyle with people like you pushing for it?

Edited January 9, 2021 by Arpeggio

[NobodyInParticular]

14 minutes ago, anonguest said:

OK. I'll graciously stand corrected on this small, but I admit, important grammatical distinction - that a projection is, in effect, a conditional prediction.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/

projection: "an estimate or a statement of what figures, amounts, or events will be in the future, or what they were in the past, based on what is happening now"

prediction: "a statement that says what you think will happen"

It's not a small, grammatical distinction. For understanding modelling it's critical. Without it people claim that Fergusson PREDICTED 250,000 deaths then claim he his incompetent when the prediction he never made doesn't occur. 

[NobodyInParticular]

9 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't know, I just saw a bbc report on the latest (and allegedly most accurate) figures that had just been released by the Dept of Health.  

Ah... 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/amp/

Maybe it's an age-adjusted one (0.23%)? Unfortunately, for the UK, it seems its more like 1% due to demographics. 

Or maybe there's a newer figure? 

https://fullfact.org/health/toby-young-ifr-tweet/

I'm not sure I can be bothered to go beyond the ICL figure, though. 

[nightowl]

7 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

It's not a small, grammatical distinction. For understanding modelling it's critical. Without it people claim that Fergusson PREDICTED 250,000 deaths then claim he his incompetent when the prediction he never made doesn't occur. 

I seem to remember the "prediction" was 500K if the gov took no action as a caveat.  Crucially, this ignored that people had already started in Febuary/March taking increasing precautions before the gov lockdown came in. 

Furthermore ICL are always safe in the sense their "prediction" wont ever be put to the test.

[Confusion of VIs]

2 minutes ago, nightowl said:

I seem to remember the "prediction" was 500K if the gov took no action as a caveat.  Crucially, this ignored that people had already started in Febuary/March taking increasing precautions before the gov lockdown came in. 

Furthermore ICL are always safe in the sense their "prediction" wont ever be put to the test.

Except by most of the press and the large majority of the population who confuse scenario based forecasts with predictions. 

[zugzwang]

20 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

 

So you want me publicly shamed (at the very least) in the future for merely linking to a BBC article then replying as I just have above with research from the National Audit Office, another chart from the BBC and others and relaying experiences of people I know who have actually worked for the NHS?.....and people think I am a "conspiracy theorist" for saying this is leading us to China lifestyle with people like you pushing for it?

 

 

[Bob8]

33 minutes ago, Brave New World said:

And this is at the heart of these conspiracy nut jobs.

Folk who have feck all clue about health care and the way hospitals are having to respond to this. Jumping on any bit of misinterpreted information and dressing it as proof of conspiracy and lies. 

Away from the base fact that the whole world is in on it....if we are living through their much fabled 'scamdemic'. 

It's like the daft bint who showed videos of an outpatients ward on a Bank holiday....no context of where and when it was but that was all these odd jobs needed to confirm their conspiracy mindset.

Same with this misinterpreted drivel. My wife's ward is having to shut to stop the spread (as the hospital generally is seeing a big spread of it internally), therefore the numbers of standard treatment staying in hospitals is down and increasingly so. ICU capacity is totally different to standard wards. A fact totally ignored by these nut jobs.

As you say the care levels of patients, thankfully due to a better grasp of how to treat it, means more survival (plus many younger cases), but means longer bed occupancy in specialist ICU wards where bed numbers are low.

Sadly dulltards like this, those supping from the alt right, teumpaide do not care to contextualise their shrill bleatings of supposed truth.

They are fast becoming cultist in their approach frankly. Where eve. Those treating and caring for people are 'in on it' and seen with scorn and, in some cases, hatred.

Over 600 NHS and care workers have died fro Covid in under a year.

Over 600 UK armed forces have died in the middle East since 2003.

If people were going round putting the lives of troops at risk they would be strung up. These denialists should be tested in the same way. Their names remembered and at the very least publicly shamed in the future. 

They are children having tantrums. There is a perversity of the liberal tradition that seeks to give them credit. We see it from the BBC, who the denialists still condemn as you would expect from poorly brought up children.

We also have the issue that in politics and journalism, prizing freedom of speech means lying is really allowed. In everyday social conversatin, it leads to social exclusion and loss of respect, in science it can lead to gaol. When there three cultures mix on-line we have the odious likes of Dellingpole telling lies, that a scientist would be gaoled for writing in a journal.

 

[NobodyInParticular]

15 minutes ago, nightowl said:

I seem to remember the "prediction" was 500K if the gov took no action as a caveat.  Crucially, this ignored that people had already started in Febuary/March taking increasing precautions before the gov lockdown came in. 

Furthermore ICL are always safe in the sense their "prediction" wont ever be put to the test.

No, it didn't ignore it. It specifically indicated it was a worst case on the assumption people would not, whilst it was indicated that people almost certainly would take precautions. It was a projection based on the worst possible case scenario to give an absolute upper bound, which is part of decision support. 

[NobodyInParticular]

13 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Except by most of the press and the large majority of the population who confuse scenario based forecasts with predictions. 

Thank you for that. 

[NobodyInParticular]

31 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Ah... 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/amp/

Maybe it's an age-adjusted one (0.23%)? Unfortunately, for the UK, it seems its more like 1% due to demographics. 

Or maybe there's a newer figure? 

https://fullfact.org/health/toby-young-ifr-tweet/

I'm not sure I can be bothered to go beyond the ICL figure, though. 

Not tonight, anyway. Not this week. I have DIY and work to do ahead of COVID research and trying to explain things here. 

[zugzwang]

Remind us again.

Just who's pushing the Global Britain/China First agenda?

 

[anonguest]

Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

It's not a small, grammatical distinction. For understanding modelling it's critical. Without it people claim that Fergusson PREDICTED 250,000 deaths then claim he his incompetent when the prediction he never made doesn't occur. 

BUT, as said per the definition, a projection is still a prediction - a conditional prediction

The aforementioned 250K deaths projection was, as has been said, based on what specific assumptions? 

Which leads to the question...... how many of those were, arguably, implemented/came to pass (e.g. government actions/change in public behaviour/etc) - and thus how well is his projection panning out thus far?

 

[Bob8]

36 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

So you want me publicly shamed (at the very least)

We would be very happy if you ******ed off while the grown ups are talking.

or stopped having your tantrum.

[nightowl]

21 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Except by most of the press and the large majority of the population who confuse scenario based forecasts with predictions. 

But ultimately what purpose does this "prediction" serve if it not a forecast of a sort?  Did ICL do any other "scenarios" for the UK taking some sort of measures?

If I have a "scenario" warning you of a risk of sunburn tommorow with the caveat "if its not cloudy" while a bank of cloud can be seen blowing in....Does this help you decide on Factor15 or an umbrella? What purpose does my "scenario" with caveat really have?

In October we were presented with a "scenario" specifically not called a "prediction" of 4K/day etc but again no others. I dont know who made that one (dare I guess?) which suffers from the same problem.

Edited January 9, 2021 by nightowl

[Confusion of VIs]

 

1 hour ago, msi said:

FFS read the full article before posting the parts that fit your batsh*t crazy world view. 

That's not going to happen, the guy genuinely seems to be of too limited intelligence to even begin to understand the articles he is quoting from.

His last post is a case in point. It would take an uninformed but averagely intelligent person a few seconds to think of several reasons why there are less NHS beds occupied than normal but it's obviously beyond him. 

[NobodyInParticular]

2 minutes ago, anonguest said:

BUT, as said per the definition, a projection is still a prediction - a conditional prediction

If you must. It's a MASSIVELY important distinction, not a grammatical quibble, though. 

2 minutes ago, anonguest said:

The aforementioned 250K deaths projection was, as has been said, based on what specific assumptions? 

The same ones I've mentioned three times already. 

2 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Which leads to the question...... how many of those were, arguably, implemented/came to pass (e.g. government actions/change in public behaviour/etc) - and thus how well is his projection panning out thus far?

Ah, sorry, I thought you were getting it, but obviously not. 

All of the above did not match the assumptions. This is because it was about a worst case scenario in which no one had the sense to change anything. Several and continued projections are made based on multiple scenarios in decision support to understand the decision surface. As reactions to an event occur then parameters are adjusted. This is just normal practice. I'd suggest going and reading about the subject. I had to do so when I was supporting modelling for epidemiologists several years ago (but I am not an epidemiologist).