The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Leaves you hoping that they discover that they are amongst the weak!kingstongraham said:Someone wrote it on a sign!
0 -
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.0 -
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.
0 -
Why do we think Hancock is sticking to his guns that we will test 100,000 a day in 8 days time?
- he knows something we don’t
- He has mental health issues
- This way he keeps his job for 8 days
- All he and his boss know is to tell bigger and bigger lies0 -
Look up the difference between precision and accuracy. The FT numbers are extremely imprecise and so worse than useless. The official figures may or may not be less accurate, but are precise.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.0 -
It would certainly require a real step change which surely they must have a plan for in order to be confident. But then why not share what the plan is a bit more?surrey_commuter said:Why do we think Hancock is sticking to his guns that we will test 100,000 a day in 8 days time?
- he knows something we don’t
- He has mental health issues
- This way he keeps his job for 8 days
- All he and his boss know is to tell bigger and bigger lies
All academic though if the "capacity" is all in places actual patients can't / don't want to go to like Milton Keynes.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Many on here are suggesting we need to up our testing game. Morality data is too far removed to base any quick decisions on. If you're still reliant on mortality data when coming out of lockdown you're going to in severe danger of missing any potential second wave.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.0 -
But 16 days out of dateFirst.Aspect said:
Look up the difference between precision and accuracy. The FT numbers are extremely imprecise and so worse than useless. The official figures may or may not be less accurate, but are precise.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
The admissions numbers are the most important for gauging when or to the extent that the lockdown can be eased. They are up to date.tailwindhome said:
But 16 days out of dateFirst.Aspect said:
Look up the difference between precision and accuracy. The FT numbers are extremely imprecise and so worse than useless. The official figures may or may not be less accurate, but are precise.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.0 -
I think you and Bean just have unrealistic/unreasonable expectations.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
They are, but they don't answer the perfectly reasonable question of how many have died so far. The FT article doesn't remotely suggest it's total should be used as the basis for easing the lockdown or not.First.Aspect said:
The admissions numbers are the most important for gauging when or to the extent that the lockdown can be eased. They are up to date.tailwindhome said:
But 16 days out of dateFirst.Aspect said:
Look up the difference between precision and accuracy. The FT numbers are extremely imprecise and so worse than useless. The official figures may or may not be less accurate, but are precise.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It would. My only disagreement was on what data. There's a strong tendency to measure the thing that is easy to measure rather than the thing that needs to be measured.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I would have preferred if the indirect deaths were counted separately. I understand the reason for their inclusion much like it can said that x million died as a result of the attacks on September 11th, I just don't think it is how most people would interpret dying from corona virus.kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
0 -
I can dream of better journalists.rjsterry said:
I think you and Bean just have unrealistic/unreasonable expectations.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.0 -
Surely they are only a reflection of the number of people who are referred to hospital. That does not tell you how many people have C19 or even how many people need hospital treatment for C19.First.Aspect said:
The admissions numbers are the most important for gauging when or to the extent that the lockdown can be eased. They are up to date.tailwindhome said:
But 16 days out of dateFirst.Aspect said:
Look up the difference between precision and accuracy. The FT numbers are extremely imprecise and so worse than useless. The official figures may or may not be less accurate, but are precise.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.0 -
Journalists are always going to be less expert/accurate than the people/things they are writing about. The trade off is that (most) can write readable prose so that there is half a chance of people actually reading through to the end.TheBigBean said:
I can dream of better journalists.rjsterry said:
I think you and Bean just have unrealistic/unreasonable expectations.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
It would. My only disagreement was on what data. There's a strong tendency to measure the thing that is easy to measure rather than the thing that needs to be measured.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.
There are so many lives and money at stake I just don’t see measurement as an insurmountable problem.
I would measure infections and deaths, accurately and quickly.0 -
Most of them probably are direct though.TheBigBean said:
I would have preferred if the indirect deaths were counted separately. I understand the reason for their inclusion much like it can said that x million died as a result of the attacks on September 11th, I just don't think it is how most people would interpret dying from corona virus.kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.0 -
No it doesn't, but it does by its mere existence infer quite a lot else. I don't think we disagree that much, other than not seeing the value of a second number that also isn't right.rjsterry said:
They are, but they don't answer the perfectly reasonable question of how many have died so far. The FT article doesn't remotely suggest it's total should be used as the basis for easing the lockdown or not.First.Aspect said:
The admissions numbers are the most important for gauging when or to the extent that the lockdown can be eased. They are up to date.tailwindhome said:
But 16 days out of dateFirst.Aspect said:
Look up the difference between precision and accuracy. The FT numbers are extremely imprecise and so worse than useless. The official figures may or may not be less accurate, but are precise.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.
Anyhow the rest of the news is relentlessly shit enough so I should probably stop fixating and move on to something else undeniably awful.0 -
It's passed the time of day if nothing else.First.Aspect said:
No it doesn't, but it does by its mere existence infer quite a lot else. I don't think we disagree that much, other than not seeing the value of a second number that also isn't right.rjsterry said:
They are, but they don't answer the perfectly reasonable question of how many have died so far. The FT article doesn't remotely suggest it's total should be used as the basis for easing the lockdown or not.First.Aspect said:
The admissions numbers are the most important for gauging when or to the extent that the lockdown can be eased. They are up to date.tailwindhome said:
But 16 days out of dateFirst.Aspect said:
Look up the difference between precision and accuracy. The FT numbers are extremely imprecise and so worse than useless. The official figures may or may not be less accurate, but are precise.surrey_commuter said:
It is almost as if “data” has become the new “experts”kingstongraham said:
I think it does matter if there are 17,000 deaths or 41,000. Decisions will be taken based on these numbers so a reasonable estimate is important.First.Aspect said:
I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.kingstongraham said:
It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.First.Aspect said:
I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.rick_chasey said:
You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.First.Aspect said:
Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.rick_chasey said:
Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.First.Aspect said:
You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.rjsterry said:
It's not. I've posted a summary.TheBigBean said:
I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.rick_chasey said:
if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.TheBigBean said:
I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.rick_chasey said:
It's free to read to check it out for yourself.TheBigBean said:
Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?rjsterry said:Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.
https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true
So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?
Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.
If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.
It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.
God I hate the British media.
If you think that people generally know that the daily figure is a huge undercount, then you can't be surprised by the fact that it is a huge undercount. It hasn't been a secret or a conspiracy. If you think that people generally don't know it, then maybe some more do now.
I really don’t get why the Govt and many on here don’t think that having timely and accurate data would help us return to something like normal as quickly as possible.
Anyhow the rest of the news is relentlessly censored enough so I should probably stop fixating and move on to something else undeniably awful.
By the way, Huw Edwards just made a point of saying that the latest 18,000-odd total does not include deaths in care homes and the community, so some progress.
More positively, I'm starting to get quite a few emails from businesses we deal with to tell us that they are 're-opening' on a variety of limited bases such that they can maintain social distancing. Necessity being the mother of invention.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Govt reveals it’s new shiny thing to distract us from missing their testing target by a laughable distance.
They are going to recruit and train an army of unicorns to do contact tracing.
Presumably the people they fail to recruit and train will follow up on the tests that have not been done.0 -
Thought I would get the good news of the day in before Rick beats me to it
https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8246387/Trump-Organization-seeks-aid-UK-Ireland-pay-workers-golf-courses.html
Although it may also anger some?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
0
-
Wise advice for some regulars on this threadcoopster_the_1st said:Dogbert makes a good point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-04-22 "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Hand on heart, I am less stressed and healthier than I have been in absolutely ages.Stevo_666 said:
Wise advice for some regulars on this threadcoopster_the_1st said:Dogbert makes a good point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-04-22
Cycling every day (in the garden), lost a stone, work is going really well, lot of time with the family.0 -
0
-
coopster_the_1st said:
Dogbert makes a good point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-04-22
Just so I understand
Your position is that the virus will inevitably kill a couple of hundred thousand give or take, we're all too stupid to understand that, but there's nothing to fear from Coronavirus except fear itself.
OK
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I believe you. Same goes for some of us, including me - apart from losing a stone, that is.rick_chasey said:
Hand on heart, I am less stressed and healthier than I have been in absolutely ages.Stevo_666 said:
Wise advice for some regulars on this threadcoopster_the_1st said:Dogbert makes a good point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-04-22
Cycling every day (in the garden), lost a stone, work is going really well, lot of time with the family."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I suppose that's one way of putting it.kingstongraham said:Meanwhile, Dogbert's creator:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
