iamnumerate Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 Don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the media really are milking this Covid thing. They are constantly suggesting new worse case scenarios i.e. mutations, this seems to feed through to the politicians, who then feel compelled to carry out yet another ridiculous action. With warm weather and vaccines, we should really be pulling out of this thing once and for all in March or April, yet I imagine the media will still refuse to let go. It is not so much a conspiracy as easy work to talk about this than something like "The manchester bomber parents' lives were saved by the UK and they were given free housing - but he still blew up little kids here, why? How can we stop scum like this doing it again?" That is far too controversial and dangerous for ones future career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddog Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 The 70% increase in infection for the new variant is based on "modelled" data. Feels like are scientist are keen to talk us into more and more extreme measures based on no direct evidence. Also I find it laughable that johnson/Hancock have created a situation where countries that have more infections per 100,000 than the UK feel the need to protect themselves by banning flights!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 The 70% increase in infection for the new variant is based on "modelled" data. Feels like are scientist are keen to talk us into more and more extreme measures based on no direct evidence. No, they use a statistical model to infer the infection rate from the sample data. There is nothing wrong or underhanded about this, it is legitimate and open science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This time Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 The 70% increase in infection for the new variant is based on "modelled" data. Feels like are scientist are keen to talk us into more and more extreme measures based on no direct evidence. Also I find it laughable that johnson/Hancock have created a situation where countries that have more infections per 100,000 than the UK feel the need to protect themselves by banning flights!! You can see when the variant became common in the tier 4 areas by looking at the ONS regional charts - the lockdown had been working well and then cases started rising again towards the end of September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 The 70% increase in infection for the new variant is based on "modelled" data. Feels like are scientist are keen to talk us into more and more extreme measures based on no direct evidence. Also I find it laughable that johnson/Hancock have created a situation where countries that have more infections per 100,000 than the UK feel the need to protect themselves by banning flights!! Explain the doubled infections and deaths. Oh wait you cant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HovelinHove Posted December 20, 2020 Author Share Posted December 20, 2020 You can see when the variant became common in the tier 4 areas by looking at the ONS regional charts - the lockdown had been working well and then cases started rising again towards the end of September. Which makes the current reaction even more bizarre, It all feels like a stage managed thing to distract is from the Brexit end game or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 (edited) Edited December 20, 2020 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 No, they use a statistical model to infer the infection rate from the sample data. There is nothing wrong or underhanded about this, it is legitimate and open science. True but why not ask more than one expert? I am not an epidemologist nor a builder. However if I want work done on my house I get different quotes - but some epidemologists like Sunetra Gupta are being ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 (edited) True but why not ask more than one expert? I am not an epidemologist nor a builder. However if I want work done on my house I get different quotes - but some epidemologists like Sunetra Gupta are being ignored. What do you mean? The way they're measuring the rate of infection isn't controversial, and she's made no contradictory comment on that particular aspect? And besides, they do, that's the whole point of SAGE. Edited December 21, 2020 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 No, they use a statistical model to infer the infection rate from the sample data. There is nothing wrong or underhanded about this, it is legitimate and open science. What are the error bars on these numbers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewwk Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 The 70% increase in infection for the new variant is based on "modelled" data. Feels like are scientist are keen to talk us into more and more extreme measures based on no direct evidence. Also I find it laughable that johnson/Hancock have created a situation where countries that have more infections per 100,000 than the UK feel the need to protect themselves by banning flights!! the massive increase in covid infection rates in the UK (especially London) is a fact, not modelled data. that alone should be enough for a lockdown / quarantine whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 What are the error bars on these numbers? I actually don't know dude. Of course there can also be methodological errors that don't show up in the bars. A statistical type 2 error if you will. I would think they are pretty sensible, as they've been working on the data for this strain since September, and been transparent with the info to the international community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 the massive increase in covid infection rates in the UK (especially London) is a fact, not modelled data. that alone should be enough for a lockdown / quarantine whatever Well yes. The data and the models just help to tell you what's going on under the hood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 I actually don't know dude. Of course there can also be methodological errors that don't show up in the bars. A statistical type 2 error if you will. I would think they are pretty sensible, as they've been working on the data for this strain since September, and been transparent with the info to the international community. I hope they have but far too much gets filtered through to the outside world presented as a certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 I hope they have but far too much gets filtered through to the outside world presented as a certainty. That's a fair point. You need friends who work in science or medicine to read between the lines and reassure you. Don't forget it was scientists and engineers who ended up being among the earliest and biggest critics of the old USSR system, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 What do you mean? The way they're measuring the rate of infection isn't controversial, and she's made no contradictory comment on that particular aspect? And besides, they do, that's the whole point of SAGE. I was thinking of things like the Great Barrington Declaration which the press and Government ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmatic Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 True but why not ask more than one expert? I am not an epidemologist nor a builder. However if I want work done on my house I get different quotes - but some epidemologists like Sunetra Gupta are being ignored. The one who thought that we had reached herd immunity in March? That expert? This is what she was saying at the beginning of September: “It’s not really a resurgence. It’s just where it didn’t increase in the first place. Now all the barriers have been removed, it is increasing. I don’t see any surprises in that pattern. What I do think is interesting is that it’s not resurgent in many areas that did suffer the full brunt of the pandemic, so in London, New York, northern Italy, Sweden.” For Gupta, this implies that in these areas levels of herd immunity may have been reached, meaning the spread of the virus is now being contained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 which the press and Government ignored. Untrue, they simply didn't agree with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 The one who thought that we had reached herd immunity in March? That expert? This is what she was saying at the beginning of September: “It’s not really a resurgence. It’s just where it didn’t increase in the first place. Now all the barriers have been removed, it is increasing. I don’t see any surprises in that pattern. What I do think is interesting is that it’s not resurgent in many areas that did suffer the full brunt of the pandemic, so in London, New York, northern Italy, Sweden.” For Gupta, this implies that in these areas levels of herd immunity may have been reached, meaning the spread of the virus is now being contained. Yeah. I think they certainly deserved to be considered, but I also think that London and Sweden have showed them up badly. Having said that no scientists are always right so I wouldn't hold that against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 Untrue, they simply didn't agree with it Didn't the Government disagree with it without looking at it? Isn't that the same as ignoring it. Yeah. I think they certainly deserved to be considered, but I also think that London and Sweden have showed them up badly. Having said that no scientists are always right so I wouldn't hold that against them. Sweden had both more deaths than those who thought lockdowns were not necessary predicted and less than lockdown approvers thought would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 With love from Yorkshire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 Didn't the Government disagree with it without looking at it? Isn't that the same as ignoring it. No because the members of the sage committee are on first name terms with the authors, go to the same conferences, referee and edit each others papers etc. They are fully aware of the arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 . Sweden had both more deaths than those who thought lockdowns were not necessary predicted and less than lockdown approvers thought would happen. Quite. I think the precautionary principle has been upheld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed1987 Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 Which makes the current reaction even more bizarre, It all feels like a stage managed thing to distract is from the Brexit end game or something. I agree, it feels like a distraction, everyone is concentrating on staying alive, rather the Brexit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 Quite. I think the precautionary principle has been upheld. The "precautionary principle" seems to have been twisted in to "act as if the worst imaginable is a certainty" and is consequently used as an excuse for over-reacting to anything and everything. I shouldn't have to spell it out, but since so many people think in such over-simplfied terms (this isn't directed at you personally), I will point out that that doesn't imply the opposite extreme is the right approach either. 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.