Generic Virus Thread

[VILLAMARV]

@blandy .

Where is the statistical evidence? 

Numbers are great and everything, but also limited in what they can do. They certainly can't predict how a virus will act in individuals. 

You're being drawn into a discussion based on figures when there are no figures on earth that can be used to support or test the hypothesis. (...would have died anyway). It's not scientific.

Numbers don't get sick, people do. 

Here are two statements

'Covid has been present in x people that have died.'

'Y people would have died in 2020 if covid had not been thrust upon us.'

Ok. I don't disagree.

Here's another statement

'Half of x would also be y.'

I disagree statistically. You cannot use the available statistics to make that point. 

Well, you can if you want, but one perhaps shouldn't because it's not evidence-based.

That there may well be some overlap is an assumption you are entitled to make, but it cannot be quantified in the raw data.

That's before we get to the use of language.

Quote

"My interest is not data, it's the world. And part of world development you can see in numbers. Others, like human rights, empowerment of women, it's very difficult to measure in numbers." - Hans Rosling

This is probably a good example of why the articles are written. They encourage a back and forth over rather meaningless topics. 

And why scientific papers state a hypothesis and go on to evidence it.

Unless I'm missing the point of course. (Always a possibility with me )

So back to my first sentence. Where is the statistical evidence?

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Actuaries disagree with you:

 

This is bloody complicated stuff. And its exactly what the whole on going discussion is missing. I can only see the graph due to the paywall, but I'm already impressed. Note the use of language. Could, May etc.

The cynic in me says wow, look at the economist go, doing meaningful analysis at last, all it took was shutting down the economy for a few months  

(This last paragraph was just a pathetic, sly dig at @Enda and all the economists out there fawning over their perfect model and game theory, don't get your knickers in a twist vt) 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

there are no figures on earth that can be used to support or test the hypothesis. (...would have died anyway). It's not scientific.

FFS! How many times - "at risk of" is not the same as "would have".

And there are figures and stats which help provide information and understanding.

Particular sections of society have been identified as being at risk of the virus being  deadly - the elderly, those with underlying conditions and so on. The percentage of the population made up of these people is known (not to the exact number, but as a percentage of the population).

The number of people in nursing homes is known. Further, there are multiple graphs on this thread and more widely showing "normal" death rates in any period for each year. This is the baseline stat, for how many people die each year. Comparing that rate with this period, which obviously includes Covi, shows the delta effect Covi is having - both directly on people it infects, and indirectly on people who can't get treatment for other things, or who sadly commit suicide etc. and clearly, the current overall death rate is higher than normal. Stats have shown, for Flu, in some years, "harvesting" (bringing forward) death in the vulnerable can result in lower overall death rates, for a while, once the Flu has gone. That's indisputable, isn't it? So the only issue is (wrt Covi) whether this happens this year, and if so, how significant it is. I suspect it will happen (assuming it's got under control and there's not a second outbreak), but I don't know how significant the impact will be. I'm pretty certain it will be discernible, though.

Further to that, there's potentially an impact on next year and beyond - if Covi is leaving quite a number of people permanently, or long term impacted, with respiratory or heart conditions or this awful thing where kids are getting a secondary illness, then unfortunately death rates from secondary Covi effects will rise above normal next year, or beyond.

No one (sane) has said "Most of the victims would have died anyway" (other than everyone eventually dies). Everyone (sane) accepts some of the people who were/are at risk of dying this year will have been taken by Covid. The discussion is around what proportion that makes up, how significant it will be.  Some bod on the BBC website considers it will be significant (i.e. meaningful, an amount that matters in terms of the overall picture). Others have said they don't think it will be significant. Some have argued "most people wouldn't't have died anyway", which is completely failing to engage with what was actually written.

[blandy]

On 26/04/2020 at 13:04, snowychap said:

What point is there for me to consider your musings on the motives or requirements of others?

 

On 26/04/2020 at 13:28, snowychap said:

that's my final bit on the matter with you, Peter, as I'm afraid I'm not that interested in how you seek to further speak on their behalf.

 

45 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I have no interest in discussing whatever you might think you're on about

It's a long way down. Don't fall.

[snowychap]

37 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's a long way down. Don't fall.

Yawn.

What tiresome bollocks.

Edited May 1, 2020 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

In normal times I’d call everyone in for a group hug around about now.

But, we’ll just have to zoom it.

[VILLAMARV]

Apologies, I thought I was adding value. 

Sorry if my intentions have been misunderstood.

[chrisp65]

So, I wouldn’t ordinarily bother passing on anything Neil M has to say, he’s a bit of a self publicist to say the least.

But his tweet here (he’s a Member of the Welsh Parliament), chimes with what I know some friends have said. There’s a significant number that weren’t being recorded. Even now, we aren’t testing in Care Homes (there’s no value in it, apparently) or the community. We aren’t doing coroner reports. So it’s still pretty much unless you die in hospital in Wales, there’s limited chance you’ll be recorded for the grand total.

 

 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Apologies, I thought I was adding value. 

Sorry if my intentions have been misunderstood.

Yeah, sorry also - I took the bit of your post that was addressed to me specifically and which I felt missed/skewed what I'd repeatedly written, and I didn't add that the rest of the post was fine and constructive.

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So it’s still pretty much unless you die in hospital in Wales, there’s limited chance you’ll be recorded for the grand total.

I dunno whether to blame cock-up or conspiracy.  I mean on the one hand it (the lower numbers) sort of makes the Gov't / situation look less bad, so conspiracy?, but on the other no doubt the increased workload on the medics and coroners, plus their own sickness and absences, means that the poor sods are probably just trying to alleviate a burden that's beyond their capacity to deal with - sort of more systemic (austerity related) cock-up than deliberate conspiracy

[chrisp65]

Just now, blandy said:

I dunno whether to blame cock-up or conspiracy.  I mean on the one hand it (the lower numbers) sort of makes the Gov't / situation look less bad, so conspiracy?, but on the other no doubt the increased workload on the medics and coroners, plus their own sickness and absences, means that the poor sods are probably just trying to alleviate a burden that's beyond their capacity to deal with - sort of more systemic (austerity related) cock-up than deliberate conspiracy

Yes, All of the above, and there’s an angle to it here. The people nominally ‘in charge’ are Labour. Though their hands are tied somewhat by 10 years of reduced crumbs from Westminster.

They (labour, The Minister for Health) had a target of a very unambitious 5,000 tests per day. I think the best they managed was still under 3,000. They fixed this a week ago by basically announcing tests and targets were for losers and saddos. They actually used the words ‘testing in care homes is of no value’.

Strangely, they are now suggesting less reported cases in Wales means we could theoretically open back up earlier than England. I’d humbly suggest that less positive tests might be something to do with not testing in care homes and not admitting the sick from care homes in to hospitals.

They could have acted quite dynamically, they could have used their powers to send second home owners home, they could have commissioned their own PPE. There’s been a whole bunch of reasons that hasn’t happened. Partly because Westminster and Public Health England have deliberately stitched them up a few times. Partly because they’re just not that good, regional politicians promoted above their ability. 

The First Minister has had to be told more than once what his powers are when he’s wrongly presumed he wasn’t allowed to decide things ahead of Westminster.

There’s little credit for anyone once you get above the grade of front line key worker.

 

[NurembergVillan]

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I went to the supermarket for the first time on Wednesday and took a mask with me, but was surprised that literally nobody in the entire shop was wearing one. Customers or staff.

I went on Monday or Tuesday and was the only person in there with my face covered.

[wedge]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

The govt website. I posted the other day that someone I was talking to (hairdresser) had been advised 11 May planned date to reopen by the gov. website. They’re clearly going for a staged easing of lockdown, and targeting certain sectors for relaxation.

Do you have a link for this at all?

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, wedge said:

Do you have a link for this at all?

Like I said, it was word of mouth, taking to someone who said that. Bits of the media seem to be saying similar, from just doing a mooney for it. Plus I know (first hand) that our work is, er, working on similar plans for getting people back more widely on site (though we're in a different category as we count, by and large, as key workers).

[VILLAMARV]

34 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yeah, sorry also - I took the bit of your post that was addressed to me specifically and which I felt missed/skewed what I'd repeatedly written, and I didn't add that the rest of the post was fine and constructive.

Wouldn't catch me firing off at people on the interweb

Spoiler

(This is the funniest post you'll read all day vters because blandly blatantly hands out the warning points on my record to disprove my hypothesis)

Except when limpid does it of course  

Probably get points for talking about fight club too now  

As my hero lapalfan would say... worth it. 

 

[StefanAVFC]

 

Of course

[HanoiVillan]

Cant's wait to find out everything that should have happened but didn't yesterday, because the entirety of DHSS was dedicated to meeting a completely arbitrary target on one day.

'What gets measured gets managed'.

[snowychap]

 

[snowychap]

 

[Davkaus]

The petty, contrary part of me is a little disappointed that my local police actually seem to be handling this fairly sensibly. If I lived in South Yorkshire I'd make a point of going out in a tuxedo for my morning walk, just so I could have some fun contesting it in court.