Coronavirus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

These statistics are pretty good - the weekly death rate in England and Wales for most of the year (based on the average for the years 2014 through to 2019) seems to be about 10,000 with this rising to a high of c 15,000 over a normal winter. In March, April and May though the normal 10,000 average went through the roof reaching a peak of about 23,000 pw. That can be attributed to Covid and was squashed by the total lockdown. Deaths though now are starting to rise again and, if there was any lesson to be gained from the first lockdown, surely its not to dilly dally about.

I personally really hope what is being done at the minute proves to be just about good enough, with no further lockdowns or firebreak lockdowns, but its a really tough call to get right and, based on the existing government's record, its hard to have any confidence in them getting it right this time

---

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/132...565504/photo/1

This guy must have time on his hands :D

This Wales one will be interesting. He's taken the Welsh Govt forecasts without their firebreak, with a 2 week and also a 3 week break and he plots it daily and updates.

If you look at the way the Welsh believe their current lockdown will take effect, it is moving the peak back, squashing it a little from end December in to end January.

But even with the 3 week break, deaths are forecast to be higher from end Jan onwards and this only accounts for "with Covid".
So the economic hit (that will be carried by the English) will be for a short term effect that will be clawed back somewhat next year.

But consider they are forecasting more deaths than Spring 2020, which I think is nigh on impossible, but what it does mean is they'll be able to claim it worked if they avoid their over-forecast doomsday scenario.

Interesting. I notice in all three scenarios (no break, 2-week break and 3-week break) the number of cases and deaths are pretty high around Christmas. This assertion that people should take the hit now so we can ease restrictions by Christmas seems to be a false promise. And I suspect people know that - they're just pulling all the levers they can in a hope that some of them will work for some of the population.

Quote:

---

Is there anyone on this forum suggesting an Autumn shutdown is in order every time admissions for respiratory conditions increase to levels over 1,000 a week?

---

310 more deaths today: with no increase (and they're down from 367 yesterday), that will be over 2000 deaths a week from C19.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

310 more deaths today: with no increase (and they're down from 367 yesterday), that's over 2000 deaths a week from C19.

---

I can't work out whether that's a yes or a no Mr Stalker. Perhaps you can clarify?

by the way, it's "with" and not "from"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

This assertion that people should take the hit now so we can ease restrictions by Christmas seems to be a false promise.

---

That's if the forecast holds water. But then again, is it a forecast, or a target?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I can't work out whether that's a yes or a no Mr Stalker. Perhaps you can clarify?

by the way, it's "with" and not "from"

---

Good luck with getting an answer to that one.

And it isn’t 2,000 weekly deaths yet (although it probably won’t be long). About 1,500 in the last seven days.

Quote:

---

by the way, it's "with" and not "from"

---

you might be down with 2000 deaths a week, but I'm not.

Quote:

---

And it isn’t 2,000 weekly deaths yet

---

I know, that's why I said "with no increase".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

So the fact that average deaths are now 200 doesn't prove Vallance right. He grossly overestimated case numbers and gross underestimated fatality rates. Its hardly a ringing endorsement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

200 deaths a day isn't anything to be pleased about, but that is par for an Autumn flu season. We had 28k over 2014/15 season not sure if they were of flu, or with flu.

---

Whether or not the current number of deaths per day for Covid-19 is on a par with that for flu (and, note, the Covid-19 death rate is still increasing) is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not Vallance and Whitty were scaremongering or were deliberately distorting the facts as they knew them or were indulging themselves with politics. Vallance said “If – and that’s quite a big if – but if that continues unabated and this grows, doubling every seven days, [...] by mid-October, if that continued, you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October, per day.” He also went on to say that the “50,000 cases per day would be expected to lead a month later, so the middle of November, say, to 200-plus deaths per day." On the number of deaths issue, he has, clearly, been seen to be justified in what he said. He used the example of 200 deaths per days by mid-November and we have actually seen 200 deaths per day 2 to 3 weeks before the middle of November. Whether or not that number should be considered as being a large number is not the point. Vallance was justified in his use of that number.

Was he right about the number of cases? Well, the first point to note that he absolutely did not 'predict' that there would be 50000 cases by the middle of November. He was very clear that it was not a prediction. He was using the number 50000 as an example of what could happen. Was he justified in using the number 50000? Well, the next point to note is that, since we're not testing the whole population, the number of cases will include people who had symptoms but didn't get tested, as well as people who were asymptomatic. So, how many cases were there in mid-October? I don't know, but it seems to me that the best estimate is unlikely to be a million miles from 50000. However, the number of positive test results was significantly below 50000. But the third point to note is that additional measures aimed at limiting the growth of cases were introduced after he spoke. He was referring to the scenario in which further action was not taken. So the question, then, is whether or not his use of the words "something like 50,000 cases" if the growth continued 'unabated' warranted his being accused of scaremongering, and deliberately exaggerating the need for urgent action, and wilfully - I like that 'wilfully', it's so hyperbolic - misrepresenting the facts, and grossly over-estimating case numbers, and using numbers that were 'implausible', and indulging in 'project fear', and committing a "sackable offence"? Clearly, those accusations were not warranted. And, of course, the exact number of cases is far less important than the number of deaths. Vallance used the example of 200 deaths per days by mid-November and we have actually seen 200 deaths per day 2 to 3 weeks before the middle of November, and the number of deaths per day is still increasing. So, not only were those accusations not warranted, they were actually just plain silly.

On 23rd September Muddy Retriever made the point that "by mid October we should be able to judge whether their warnings were justified or simply scaremongering." He was right - we now know that their warnings were not scaremongering but were, in fact, justified.

The question here isn't whether or not the measures the Government have introduced are justified or sensible. The question is whether or not Vallance and Whitty acted with a lack of integrity, scientific or otherwise. The answer is that they didn't.

Quote:

---

On 23rd September Muddy Retriever made the point that "by mid October we should be able to judge whether their warnings were justified or simply scaremongering." He was right - we now know that their warnings were not scaremongering but were, in fact, justified.

---

Don't expect MR to admit to that.
You might get good tips on grammar, though! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flem

The question here isn't whether or not the measures the Government have introduced are justified or sensible. The question is whether or not Vallance and Whitty acted with a lack of integrity, scientific or otherwise. The answer is that they didn't.

---

But there's no question over their lack of advisory effectiveness, as judged by their own figures/predictions.

Under their advice we've gone from a national lockdown in March, to 'you can all go out to play again', to 'ooophs we need another national lockdown'. Did they not see that coming?

Yo-yo advice does undermine confidence in their ability somewhat.

No one is saying CV-19 management isn't anything but hugely complex, but they've appeared to eschew any responsibility for offering conflicting messages/advice, or simply making the wrong 'call', but have placed the blame for the course of events, as they describe them, squarely on the general public - us!