The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.tailwindhome said:
It's 20000 because of the lockdown.shortfall said:Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.
0 -
Neither thing has happened yet, they are both still predictions. So what's your point?shortfall said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.tailwindhome said:
It's 20000 because of the lockdown.shortfall said:Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.
0 -
Every one is person
“I told the doctor whatever you are doing you are doing your best. Then he said the next call will be the one to tell me she was gone. ‘You can be expecting it’ he said,”
https://www.impartialreporter.com/news/18342498.i-loved-her-pain-husband-fermanaghs-first-covid-19-victim-misses-wifes-funeral/?ref=twtrec&fbclid=IwAR2Nrj0DZ1T_x102Sq1GSLxVkV0mvztTWmDCAWitOOXtj4wCAGTcA31-mts“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
My point is that if the virus proves far less deadly than predicted due to incorrect modelling then the government will claim that it's lockdown policy worked. We won't really know until a long time after this has died down and the differing approaches around the world can be compared for effectiveness.kingstongraham said:
Neither thing has happened yet, they are both still predictions. So what's your point?shortfall said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.tailwindhome said:
It's 20000 because of the lockdown.shortfall said:Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.
0 -
It's not incorrect modelling, how many more times? The model was reflecting various actions or inactions. The 500k was do nothing (which was never the case), the 250k was based on the strategy at the time the study was initially reported and led to the lockdown and the lockdown coming in has substantially reduced the predicted outcome. Why are you having difficulty understanding this? It also flies in the face of 'all these people were already I'll and would have died anyway'.shortfall said:
My point is that if the virus proves far less deadly than predicted due to incorrect modelling then the government will claim that it's lockdown policy worked. We won't really know until a long time after this has died down and the differing approaches around the world can be compared for effectiveness.kingstongraham said:
Neither thing has happened yet, they are both still predictions. So what's your point?shortfall said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.tailwindhome said:
It's 20000 because of the lockdown.shortfall said:Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.
0 -
Sounds very similar to the calls we had at 6.15am and 7.20am on Thursday.tailwindhome said:Every one is person
“I told the doctor whatever you are doing you are doing your best. Then he said the next call will be the one to tell me she was gone. ‘You can be expecting it’ he said,”
https://www.impartialreporter.com/news/18342498.i-loved-her-pain-husband-fermanaghs-first-covid-19-victim-misses-wifes-funeral/?ref=twtrec&fbclid=IwAR2Nrj0DZ1T_x102Sq1GSLxVkV0mvztTWmDCAWitOOXtj4wCAGTcA31-mts0 -
If he says something in Latin he sounds clever?kingstongraham said:
Neither thing has happened yet, they are both still predictions. So what's your point?shortfall said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.tailwindhome said:
It's 20000 because of the lockdown.shortfall said:Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.
0 -
It's disingenuous to claim "the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 ".shortfall said:
My point is that if the virus proves far less deadly than predicted due to incorrect modelling then the government will claim that it's lockdown policy worked. We won't really know until a long time after this has died down and the differing approaches around the world can be compared for effectiveness.kingstongraham said:
Neither thing has happened yet, they are both still predictions. So what's your point?shortfall said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.tailwindhome said:
It's 20000 because of the lockdown.shortfall said:Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.
The 500,000 wasn't "incorrect" modelling, it was the forecast outcome based on a set of assumptions. It in itself an update to previous assumptions based on the data out of Italy.
500,000 being the 'do nothing' outcome
250,000 was based on the govt strategy of isolating over 70s, and home quarantine with symptoms
It has been reduced to 20,0000 based on updated assumptions (which involve, it must be said, trashing the economy) of the current lockdown
Important to note (and as RC posted before) this is 20,000 on the current wave.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It should also be noted that the report summary itself states that it doesn't take account of the economic effects of a lengthy lockdown.
If anything is incorrect or misleading it was the reporting at the time and, it seems, now by lazy journalists taking the sensationalist approach.0 -
The entire premise that there is a trade off between deaths during a pandemic and the economy really fundamentally misses the point.
You reduce the economic cost of a pandemic by going harder sooner and for longer in terms of public health intervention.0 -
I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.0
-
It didn’t bother him when he was relaxed about both the previous 10 years of austerity or the economic cost of Brexit so I presume he is just trolling.0
-
Possibly because it is very likely that a large number of deaths would prompt a deep and damaging recession anyway. It's presented as a choice between letting the weak die or crashing the economy, when in reality it isn't a real choice.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
Did you used to go by another name on here?Jeremy.89 said:
If he says something in Latin he sounds clever?kingstongraham said:
Neither thing has happened yet, they are both still predictions. So what's your point?shortfall said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.tailwindhome said:
It's 20000 because of the lockdown.shortfall said:Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.
0 -
You miss his point. It is not about number of deaths from different scenarios it is about the price of life. Is it worth crashing the economy by 10-15% to save 200,000 lives of predominantly unproductive members of society.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
I think a lot of organisations (except the jockey club) were some way ahead of Boris and the economy would have shut down anyway.kingstongraham said:
Possibly because it is very likely that a large number of deaths would prompt a deep and damaging recession anyway. It's presented as a choice between letting the weak die or crashing the economy, when in reality it isn't a real choice.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
Economically inactive is the current term.surrey_commuter said:
You miss his point. It is not about number of deaths from different scenarios it is about the price of life. Is it worth crashing the economy by 10-15% to save 200,000 lives of predominantly unproductive members of society.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
This. Flybe collapsed early because travel stopped voluntarily. My employer was very early in stopping travel ahead of any government recommendations.surrey_commuter said:
I think a lot of organisations (except the jockey club) were some way ahead of Boris and the economy would have shut down anyway.kingstongraham said:
Possibly because it is very likely that a large number of deaths would prompt a deep and damaging recession anyway. It's presented as a choice between letting the weak die or crashing the economy, when in reality it isn't a real choice.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
Pross is correct, you are again wrong!surrey_commuter said:
You miss his point. It is not about number of deaths from different scenarios it is about the price of life. Is it worth crashing the economy by 10-15% to save 200,000 lives of predominantly unproductive members of society.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
LOL - you don’t understand the theory you are claiming to believe in.coopster_the_1st said:
Pross is correct, you are again wrong!surrey_commuter said:
You miss his point. It is not about number of deaths from different scenarios it is about the price of life. Is it worth crashing the economy by 10-15% to save 200,000 lives of predominantly unproductive members of society.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
TFL trips were down 50% the week Boris called lockdown. My lot would have mutinyed if we had not shut the office Monday night.morstar said:
This. Flybe collapsed early because travel stopped voluntarily. My employer was very early in stopping travel ahead of any government recommendations.surrey_commuter said:
I think a lot of organisations (except the jockey club) were some way ahead of Boris and the economy would have shut down anyway.kingstongraham said:
Possibly because it is very likely that a large number of deaths would prompt a deep and damaging recession anyway. It's presented as a choice between letting the weak die or crashing the economy, when in reality it isn't a real choice.Pross said:I assume they mean they haven't considered the impacts of an economic downturn on the death rate i.e. the point Coopster makes about the amount who may die due to a deep recession.
0 -
See Stevo's link. To pick an example, Theresa May has an underlying health condition which puts her at increased risk. This is not just people who only have a few more months anyway. 6%of the UK population are diabetic. 1 in 4 adults have high blood pressure. 2.3million are living with CHD.shortfall said:
The point being that if they already have a serious illness that is likely to kill them in the near future, then recording them as dying OF covid19 purely because it's in their system is misleading and skews policy.rjsterry said:
Really? Given that it is interstitial pneumonia arising from the infection that actually kills most of the victims, splitting hairs over whether it was the infection or the underlying condition that inhibited their ability to fight it off seems somewhat academic.shortfall said:
Of it or with it? An important distinction.surrey_commuter said:tailwindhome said:
Today's figure is 1019tailwindhome said:UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.
Buckle up.
With a proviso that I read it on mailonline we are only counting people who die of it is hospital. Not sure what other countries are doing so not sure how comparable the numbers are.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So how long are you advocating a lock down remains in place? Until a vaccine is available?rick_chasey said:The entire premise that there is a trade off between deaths during a pandemic and the economy really fundamentally misses the point.
You reduce the economic cost of a pandemic by going harder sooner and for longer in terms of public health intervention."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
-
Cos it's not real here yet. Just meedja hyping things up.
No need cos it's Blighty.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.0 -
NY looking pretty desperate, and London not looking great. Keep an eye on Florida too... they're still crowding onto the beaches, and the curve is pointing up.
0 -
Who'd have thought Ile-de-France being a hotspot?
I guess Barcelona explains Catalonia.
PS - I see the Y-Axis figures are not a steady progression. This skews the graph, and really flattens out the top end. 😱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.0 -
Not so much going in hard but alternating hard and soft then.rick_chasey said:On and off like a nhs valve.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yep, each equal step in the Y axis is a doubling of deaths, but it means that a downturn in a line is really promising news, and an upturn is... "oh shït".pblakeney said:Who'd have thought Ile-de-France being a hotspot?
I guess Barcelona explains Catalonia.
PS - I see the Y-Axis figures are not a steady progression. This skews the graph, and really flattens out the top end. 😱0
