The big Coronavirus thread

1…12471248125012521253…1347

Comments

  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,666
    edited December 2021
    Ben6899 said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Mad_Malx said:

    Anyways, my commitment to obeying the rules is being tested with MM minor getting his positive this morning. He’s now facing isolation alone and his housemates & local friends have already dispersed. Since Mrs MM and I have just recovered am considering driving across the country to fetch him and sitting it out together.

    I think this is a situation where I'd bend the rules.
    Well, precedents have been set.
    Need to go to an optician? Work related?....

    Take some stilton and a 2009 Châteauneuf-du-Pape. Have it in an emergency refuge on a smart motorway.
    Just make sure you wear a suit
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,925
    pangolin said:

    Ben6899 said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Mad_Malx said:

    Anyways, my commitment to obeying the rules is being tested with MM minor getting his positive this morning. He’s now facing isolation alone and his housemates & local friends have already dispersed. Since Mrs MM and I have just recovered am considering driving across the country to fetch him and sitting it out together.

    I think this is a situation where I'd bend the rules.
    Well, precedents have been set.
    Need to go to an optician? Work related?....

    Take some stilton and a 2009 Châteauneuf-du-Pape. Have it in an emergency refuge on a smart motorway.
    Just make sure you wear a suit

    Don't forget the baby!!
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,632
    kingstonian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    So the technique of saying "even if their lie was true, here is why it was wrong" is a terrible technique and one that those in power rely on regularly so that they can lie through their teeth.

    It shifts the debate away from the issue and builds in a false assumption which is the entire lie.

    It wasn't a meeting. Don't pretend it was. We even had someone responsible for handling the press explain to us on camera how they would pass off socialising if they were caught - by claiming it is a business meeting.

    I don't think the most effective response, in challenging a lie, is to lie e.g. stating that any meeting would result in minutes.

    I'm really bored with saying it, but if they needed to talk to each other, for work, why did they need to do it in person? That is the question that needs answering.
    BB, you seem to be struggling because you are working on the premise they were there for work.

    They were not there for work. The point of it all was socialising. They were socialising. That is it. The work thing is a lie and a red herring.

    I believe they were initially at No 10 for work, it then got to the end of the day and they cracked open the wine.

    Should they have needed to be in person for the meeting - I don’t know what was being discussed, whether it was so top-secret it necessitated being only in person or not, but I suspect it could most likely have been possible to be done remotely. Should they have cracked open the wine afterwards - no, it was incredibly naive to do so, especially at the time when the rest of us were hunkered down.

    Also, as there would always be someone that couldn’t resist taking a pic of this sort of event, I can’t fathom why they’d even take the risk. Very, very naive.
    Johnson is an idiot with 3 main urges - money, women, booze.

    Wouldn't have been hard for Cummings to suggest the team 'deserved' to let off steam with a bit of W&C in the garden, and for BJ to thoroughly endorse the opportunity to have a long evening session.
    Meanwhile Cummings drops a message to Gove to make sure he gets the snap for future use.....
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,947
    yorkshireraw said:



    Johnson is an idiot with 3 main urges - money, women, booze.

    Hardly unique then.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,672
    Stevo_666 said:

    yorkshireraw said:



    Johnson is an idiot with 3 main urges - money, women, booze.

    Hardly unique then.
    Point being?

    He is the prime minister... We should probably aim for someone above average...
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,471
    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,947
    Jezyboy said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    yorkshireraw said:



    Johnson is an idiot with 3 main urges - money, women, booze.

    Hardly unique then.
    Point being?

    He is the prime minister... We should probably aim for someone above average...
    Erm, point being that it's not unique...

    I never mentioned average.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,471
    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
    It would be easier to say you didn't read the graph than dig in
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
    It would be easier to say you didn't read the graph than dig in
    It's a 30 day rolling average. Omicron hasn't been around that long. Does that sum it up okay?
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,471
    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
    It would be easier to say you didn't read the graph than dig in
    It's a 30 day rolling average. Omicron hasn't been around that long. Does that sum it up okay?
    Keep digging
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
    It would be easier to say you didn't read the graph than dig in
    It's a 30 day rolling average. Omicron hasn't been around that long. Does that sum it up okay?
    Keep digging
    You don't have an answer?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,287
    The 30 day average of cases is going up because of the last few days going insane. That's different to when the 30 day average has gone up earlier in the timeline because of a more gradual increase.

    Wouldn't an offset 7 day average make more sense?
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    kingstongraham said:

    The 30 day average of cases is going up because of the last few days going insane. That's different to when the 30 day average has gone up earlier in the timeline because of a more gradual increase.

    Wouldn't an offset 7 day average make more sense?

    Heretic. Non believer.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    There's also as much noise in the data as the trend he's trying to analyse. But hey. I'm an idiot who can't read a graph.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,471
    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
    It would be easier to say you didn't read the graph than dig in
    It's a 30 day rolling average. Omicron hasn't been around that long. Does that sum it up okay?
    Keep digging
    You don't have an answer?
    You didn't read the graph

    Then tried to cover by overlaying claims which hadn't been made about figuring things out 'before the rest of the world'

    A simple check of the labelling would have told you what you were looking at

    There'll be more data coming in daily which may or may not give a different picture

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,287
    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
    It would be easier to say you didn't read the graph than dig in
    It's a 30 day rolling average. Omicron hasn't been around that long. Does that sum it up okay?
    Keep digging
    You don't have an answer?
    You didn't read the graph

    Then tried to cover by overlaying claims which hadn't been made about figuring things out 'before the rest of the world'

    A simple check of the labelling would have told you what you were looking at

    There'll be more data coming in daily which may or may not give a different picture

    It looks like it's started to go up, doesn't it?

    Nobody is expecting the post booster vaccine percentage to be the same as pre vaccine percentage, but the idea that graph shows there's no linkage after the omicron wave started is very much reading things that aren't there yet.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    edited December 2021
    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    First.Aspect said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?
    Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.
    I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
    Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

    Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

    Can't argue with that

    Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
    Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

    And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
    That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations
    How much is it offset by and how do you know?

    Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.

    There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.

    So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
    In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospital

    The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data

    So no time offset then? And the Omicron wave isn't old enough to be fully reflected in the red line yet?

    I know what is asserted, but it simply isn't borne out by any evidence.

    Nothing wrong with being hopeful, but that's not the same as making confident declarations that you think you have it all figured out before the rest of the world.
    It would be easier to say you didn't read the graph than dig in
    It's a 30 day rolling average. Omicron hasn't been around that long. Does that sum it up okay?
    Keep digging
    You don't have an answer?
    You didn't read the graph

    Then tried to cover by overlaying claims which hadn't been made about figuring things out 'before the rest of the world'

    A simple check of the labelling would have told you what you were looking at

    There'll be more data coming in daily which may or may not give a different picture

    In what way didn't I read it, and in what way are my conclusions (or a reluctance to draw any) incorrect? If you think the averaging achieves does anything other than make the line less wiggly, I'm afraid it is you who haven't understood. It just means the preliminary Omicron data from, say the last week is diluted, by 3 weeks worth of delta data.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,287
    edited December 2021
    London cases
    Spot the omicron
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,287
    I'm not convinced, I have to say.

    The LSHTM model based on high booster efficacy modelled 24,000 deaths between Jan and Apr which could be reduced to 17,000 by putting in step 2 measures. Is that worth taking the risk? Or down to 10,000 with a full lockdown.

    I assume those reduced numbers are based on those things already having happened, so probably not achievable any more.

    Currently think any measures after Xmas aren't worth having with the speed it spreads.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,734
    edited December 2021
    Despite Wales having just announced the lowest number of Weekly Covid deaths since September, more restrictions have been promised by this evening.
    Odds on I reckon, that it’s going to be pubs and restaurants having to close on the 26th.

    Christmas 2021, despite vaccinations, looking very much like Christmas 2020.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Seems SA infections have already peaked and are trending downwards quite substantially which is great.
    _
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,471
    First.Aspect said:

    There's also as much noise in the data as the trend he's trying to analyse. But hey. I'm an idiot who can't read a graph.

    Didn't, not couldn't
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    rick_chasey said:

    Seems SA infections have already peaked and are trending downwards quite substantially which is great.


    That is good news. Perhaps this is the hairpin in case numbers that Whitty talked about.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,672
    blazing_saddles said:

    Despite Wales having just announced the lowest number of Weekly Covid deaths since September, more restrictions have been promised by this evening.
    Odds on I reckon, that it’s going to be pubs and restaurants having to close on the 26th.

    Christmas 2021, despite vaccinations, looking very much like Christmas 2020.

    That feels a bit overly dramatic to be honest.

    Pubs were shut up here for most of December last year, and family parties were all over zoom.

    This December I've been out for a work social, seen live music in a cramped basement and had a real life family party. (all while doing regular lfts).

    But sure, it's exactly the same as 2020.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,591
    According to The BBC News webpage front stories Scotland currently has an R "well above 3" and is cancelling all mass events after Boxing Day. I'd be surprised to read much different results.
    More horse and stable door to come. Only hope is a quick peak and sudden decrease.

    Update - She just announced further restrictions from the 27th. Sound familiar?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,672
    Haha.

    Three weeks of restrictions, with the day before those restrictions being one of the biggest socialising days of the year.

    Talk about trying to make sure there's as much spread on one day as possible.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,734
    Jezyboy said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    Despite Wales having just announced the lowest number of Weekly Covid deaths since September, more restrictions have been promised by this evening.
    Odds on I reckon, that it’s going to be pubs and restaurants having to close on the 26th.

    Christmas 2021, despite vaccinations, looking very much like Christmas 2020.

    That feels a bit overly dramatic to be honest.

    Pubs were shut up here for most of December last year, and family parties were all over zoom.

    This December I've been out for a work social, seen live music in a cramped basement and had a real life family party. (all while doing regular lfts).

    But sure, it's exactly the same as 2020.
    Depends how you define Christmas and the holiday period.
    December 25th is as the carol goes, the first day of Christmas.



    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,734
    pblakeney said:

    According to The BBC News webpage front stories Scotland currently has an R "well above 3" and is cancelling all mass events after Boxing Day. I'd be surprised to read much different results.
    More horse and stable door to come. Only hope is a quick peak and sudden decrease.

    Update - She just announced further restrictions from the 27th. Sound familiar?

    Very.
    I see she has followed Drakeford’s lead by making sports a spectator free zone.

    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.

Categories