They'll NEVER take our bara brith!!!!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
Printable View
They'll NEVER take our bara brith!!!!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
There was a pandemic in spring, new virus, no treatment, no question. But at the moment, as Dave Mole’s link helpfully shows, Covid simply seems to be displacing flu and pneumonia and it may do so all winter. The comparison with expected deaths over the five year average will tell. That is all.
John K, a very interesting viewpoint. It could also be said that the older one is, the fewer vaccines one has generally taken (no MMR when I was a kid, you simply went to a measles party). However, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. The older one gets the fewer bugs one is exposed to as one’s social circle gets smaller (compare a casual multi-shagger, drug-abusing student with an elderly couple going out for a meal once a month). I know, I have been both in my time. People incarcerated in care homes are sitting ducks. My worry is that by all this distancing, sanitising and mask wearing, we are weakening our immune systems. Time to lick a dog poo bin.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnK
"you're not a wolf, you're a pseudo-wolf created by false positives"
We will lock all the flock in a shed for months on end without any access to veterinary care or the ability to show natural behaviour. Never mind a big proportion of the flock will die of coccidial or cryptosporidial disease or even that some might start to show extremely abnormal behaviour leading to loss of condition and disease, so long as the 0.2% chance of an individual sheep dying from the wolf is eradicated.
meanwhile...
Battery hens and veal crates are the way forwardQuote:
Originally Posted by brummievet
Put me in mind of this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tj-QXey3gPk
"It's OK we're going to spend £12billion on a world beating system that tells you where the wolves are"
"Well, it will show you where less than 60% of the wolves are"
"Well, it will help a bit"
"OK, so it's of marginal effectiveness and is struggling to make any difference".
"Good job we gave that £12 billion to one of our mates, rather than hungry children, though".
You guys do realise that a reasonable estimate of daily new infections is over 41,500 don’t you, with maybe 500,000 people currently having the virus? So another c 5,000 deaths incoming growing now by say 415 each day?
Fake news! It's a pseudo-pandemic, brought on by testing too much!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
Any idea what it would have been in March at the peak of the first wave?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
250,000 a day perhaps?
Interesting thought.
or just speculation, counter opinion and misrepresentation - no point - pointless - sad really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
During the first peak, as there was no testing in place, I used the number of deaths to estimate infection rates, based on about 1% of people dying. The problem is, you're always looking at the rate from about 2 weeks ago, since that's how long it takes to die from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
So the peak rate was about 1000 deaths per day in the UK. I'd estimate the peak infection rate was about 100,000 per day.
Good point but 250,000 sounds too high. I know they reckoned by May/June c 3.5 million had caught it. Just dividing number of deaths by 0.01 is a rough rule of thumb using the 1% mortality rate. So using the within 28 day mortality figure that would mean 4.5 million of the population have had it but, given that the real death figure might be nearer 60,000 that might be 6 million. That means that there’s still 60 million of us waiting to catch it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
There’s some thought that the current mortality rate, clustered around northern and midlands cities in the main, might be a bit higher than before, despite better hospital treatments, because on average there are more poorer people in the north than the south, where the first wave mainly did its damage
Both Noel and Stolly - I agree the 250k sounds high and SAGE have talked about 100k.
My 250k is just speculation, taking the Valance 50,000 cases a day in October would lead to 200 deaths a day in November.
20% of the peak death rate, 20% of the peak case rate.
So it's not pie in the sky, as some might suggest.
You can then look at it from the other side, the start of the pandemic.
1 person, infecting 4 others every 5 days - the Imperial assessment pre measures, leads to 250k per day by around day 50 of the pandemic.
Day 50 would be before any measures came in to place.
I would be very surprised if the overall mortality rate is higher than in the spring. Back then a fair chunk of deaths were of people in care homes. One would hope that the mistakes that were made then such as releasing people from hospitals into care homes, lack of testing and inadequate PPE will not be repeated. At least not to the same extent. There are the better treatments as well, which you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
You are using an infection fatality rate of 1% but that is on the high side of the studies that have been done. Most now seem to put it at between 0.5% and 0.66% (some lower). Even Imperial College revised their initial 0.9% estimate to 0.66%.
Good to have you back Muddy ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Yeah to be fair you’d expect the mortality rate to be lower now as there’s such a high proportion of younger people getting it. The rumour, which for me emanated from a comment made by Robert flipping Peston, is probably bollocks. Probably caused by people comparing misleading figures to be honest. There’s a tendency to look at say the number of positive tests a month ago and compare it to today’s deaths and that‘s always going to be false for all sorts of reasons. They now reckon about 20% of all people who catch the virus have no symptoms at all at the time and I imagine a fair few people get some symptoms that they don’t correlate as being the virus either so just don’t get tested. Plenty of scope for crap statisticsQuote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
The rolling 7-day average of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the UK is today given as 199.71:Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/d...t&country=~GBR
So when, in the press conference on September 21st, Patrick Vallance said (while stressing that this wasn't a prediction) 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." maybe - just maybe - he wasn't scaremongering nor deliberately exaggerating the need for urgent action nor wilfully misrepresenting the facts (as some people suggested at the time) but maybe - just maybe - he was simply telling it as he saw it, based on detailed, systematic and thorough analyses of data from different sources and after listening to the opinions of other people with relevant experience, expertise and knowledge (albeit, admittedly, probably not those opinions of people who post on the FRA Forum). That is, maybe - just maybe - Vallance and Chris Whitty were simply being good scientists. Because now we know, with absolute certainty, that when they said that we 'could' see 200-plus deaths per day by the middle of November they were absolutely correct, since here we are, 2 to 3 weeks before the middle of November, with 200 (rolling 7-day average) deaths and with the trend still upwards and with yesterday's (single-day) number of deaths at 367 (currently).
Added to that, whilst the daily positive test count is "only" 22,000 odd the ZOE covid symptoms checker app is predicting currently double that. Not a million miles then from the 50,000 predicted by Vallance??Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem
don't you just hate it when the facts get in the way of a so-called argument?
Thanks both.
And it still hasn't got to 50,000 cases per day. The graph he produced showed case number of 3,105 as reported on 15th September and then doubling every seven days so that on 13th October case numbers would be over 49,000. When we got to 13th October, the number of cases reported were 17,234 and the seven day rolling average was 14,973. The seven day average as of yesterday was 22,148.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem
I took issue with the fact that he said case numbers were doubling every seven days when they weren't.
With regard to the death figures of 200, that was what Vallance said that 50,000 cases would lead to. That was clearly wrong, he obviously assumed that the death rate would not be as deadly as it is proving to be. His assumption was of a case fatality rate of 0.4%, which would imply an infection fatality rate much lower as true infections are significantly higher. Most estimates of IFR these days seem to be around 0.5% so CFR might be as high as 1.5%.
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.
Ok, show me where my facts are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
Well assuming that the daily positive test results actually equals the actual number of people likely to be catching the disease for a start...Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Well clearly I haven't assumed that. I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
"His assumption was of a case fatality rate of 0.4%, which would imply an infection fatality rate much lower as true infections are significantly higher. Most estimates of IFR these days seem to be around 0.5% so CFR might be as high as 1.5%."
What attracted most surprise was the way Valance presented his figures last month. Commentators sympathetic to the Government position seemed astonished. The exponential increase he alluded to just wasn't there as we can see from the figures.
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
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 either
https://twitter.com/RP131/status/132...565504/photo/1Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
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.
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:
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?
I can't work out whether that's a yes or a no Mr Stalker. Perhaps you can clarify?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
by the way, it's "with" and not "from"
Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
That's if the forecast holds water. But then again, is it a forecast, or a target?
Good luck with getting an answer to that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
And it isn’t 2,000 weekly deaths yet (although it probably won’t be long). About 1,500 in the last seven days.
you might be down with 2000 deaths a week, but I'm not.Quote:
by the way, it's "with" and not "from"
I know, that's why I said "with no increase".Quote:
And it isn’t 2,000 weekly deaths yet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
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.
Don't expect MR to admit to that.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.
You might get good tips on grammar, though! :rolleyes:
But there's no question over their lack of advisory effectiveness, as judged by their own figures/predictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem
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!