https://sites.google.com/site/florin...wisseconomists
The third paragraph says it all.
Printable View
https://sites.google.com/site/florin...wisseconomists
The third paragraph says it all.
that's been said for a while now. Here's an article from June:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...alse-trade-off
there are plenty of others pointing to the false dichotomy between the economy or people.
I've realised I was actually being too kind to PHE/Cambridge University. I said that the seven day average on 1st November was 260 but of course their projection related only to England so the actual seven day average on that date was 217. So the 1,000 forecast was nearer five times as much as the actual figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Vallance and Witty have been criticised (rightly) for using figures in their presentation that were already massively wrong. But I started wondering how PHE/Cambridge could have got to their forecast of 1,000 deaths by 1st November in the first place. I've read that the forecast was drawn up on 9th October. So given the average time lag between confirmed infection and death is thought to be around three weeks give or take a day or two, you could probably take infections that had already occurred at around 9th October to predict death figures for the end of the month.
Average case figures for the seven days to 9th October in England were around 13,000. Of course that is an understatement. The ONS survey for the week to 8th October suggested 27,900 infections a day. So 1,000 deaths equates to an IFR of 3.5%!!
The time lag might not be quite accurate and there may have been more infections than 27,900 but even so. Who is crunching their numbers? Perhaps it was a joint effort between Neil Ferguson and Diane Abbott. I wondered where she'd got to.
Nigel Farage was very much in favour of lockdown and closing off flights from many deeply affected countries far before our government reacted. The virus was new then. His position has changed based upon his experience and understanding of Covid and lockdowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Mike-T would say let them go bust, not needed. Same bracket as coffee shops and leisure centres.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem
Come on Mike-T why all of a sudden developing an economic conscience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
For: Lockdown,Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
Magic money tree,
NHS investment
Vaccinations
Queues at stiles
Against: Businesses going bust,
Excess deaths
Brexit
GPS used to navigate in races
I've had a quick read through the new restrictions ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...0201200_en.pdf ) and can't find any reference to travel to and from exercise. Such as distance allowed etc., what might be considered reasonable, and such. Anyone any info. on this?
Just Wales out of bounds by the looks of it. Bugger.
From the BBC: Nine ways England's lockdown is different from March:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
The new lockdown guidance says "you can and should still travel to... spend time or exercise outdoors. This should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel to do so if necessary".
Only essential travel was permitted in the spring, but this was open to interpretation, with one police force criticised for sharing drone footage of ramblers online.
Following on from my first knowledge of a non-Covid death that was on the covid list, I've now got my second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Sadly in the last week, on my wife's side a long term family friend passed away.
Went in to hospital with breathing difficulties. Turned out to be a tumour and he only lasted a few days.
One of his two daughters was in the US and flew in immediatelt to see her Dad before he passed away. She wasn't allowed in to see him.
Only the other sister and Mum.
Covid was put on the death certificate and the family demanded it was removed.
Since then the test has come back negative - as of last night they still can't get it removed.
My next anecdote (so it will probably receive criticism) is from a relative who's a nurse. Woman fell off her horse, broke her leg, admitted to hospital as a Covid admission. My relative was on the ward where she was.
Tested after admission but negative.
Very interesting WP. I wonder how reflective it is of the broader picture.
What I can't understand is why there was a desire in these cases for COVID to be linked, in the lack of apparent evidence. What's your take on it?
I'm not sure I have a take on it Noel. There's a lot going on that seems illogical to me and not just on the Covid front.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
If you have a look at the issues, they are what you might call driven by the left.
Brexit - despite the old lefties being anti-EU it become an alt-right against the left debate.
Immigration - linked in to that - any discussion that involves any limitations and the racist accusations come forward and the BLM issue that reared it's head.
The Electoral Commission again linked in to this, investigated and try to pursue Brexit groups and individuals but paid no attention to those on the Remain side.
Climate Change - well I believe it's happening, I'm not convinced it's happening at the pace we are being told by the ER lobby and I don't believe it's Armageddon ahead and I'd like to see it driven by desire for a better, cleaner environment rather than fear and hate.
That makes me a climate denier.
Covid - well as with many of the above issues, the left is strong in the public sector, driving much of the data and management of the policy.
When I look at each part of the above separately I think there's some merit in what I say and then when I look at the whole range of them put together and try to link them, I feel like I'm heading down the David Icke route :D
and people will say we have a Tory Govt - but they really would have to go out on a limb to depart from their advisors, and this is wider than just the UK.
It's the key parts of the Western World.
Something isn't adding up though.
That's a lot of things. I don't know where to start. But you do realise there are counter arguments to all of them - but equally that wouldn't support anyone's assertion that this is driven by the right. It just shows things become politicised - perhaps too much.
Yes I understand Noel.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
You asked me to put out there what I thought, and it's difficult to do that as the situation is complex and confusing for most of us. I just gave you a sense of how I'm feeling about it.
We had similar with a "Covid related" death in the family. Elderly relative with dementia went in to hospital, we were told with Covid. Also told they were never going to regain consciousness, so nobody was to visit them in hospital (they actually came round twice, alone in hospital, with no family to see them).
When they died, shortly after, we were told it was actually possibly pneumonia and not Covid. This happened in the summer and there's been no further explanation since.
To be honest, there's enough other stuff been going on in the family, (again reflecting terribly on the NHS amongst other parties), that nobody has really got the stomach to try and force an investigation into what has actually happened, what was the actual cause of death, and what it has been earmarked as for statistical purposes... it just seems better to let it lie and accept we have lost a relative and move on.
One might think that the NHS has lots to gain by presenting itself as perpetually in crisis. Oh wait...
I have no doubt that everybody admitted to hospital now for whatever reason will have their Covid status checked. If the test is positive, then they have got it, though it is not necessarily the cause of their illness. False positive tests are very uncommon. If the test is negative, they still might have it, as unfortunately false negatives are common, up to one third or so. If someone tests negative but there are other things that suggest Covid - loss of taste/smell, hypoxia, consolidation on their CXR/CT scan, then they would still be treated as if they have Covid, though a repeat Covid test or tests would be done.
Covid is a cause of pneumonia - that is the commonest way it causes severe illness and death.
Somebody with a tumour on their CXR could have Covid like consolidation as well.
Even somebody admitted to hospital with a broken leg would be regarded as having Covid until this had been excluded - and one test, as discussed above, does not exclude it.
Here's my expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Patient admitted and given a test.
That patient shouldn't be a covid admission without a confirmed test, so 48 hours in or whenever. Fine to treat them as with covid at first, but not to record them as such because once they are in as Covid, they will not be removed and it will distort the figures.
Then that patient should be retested again to confirm the first test.
That double test along with a doctor's diagnosis would give confidence to the "covid admission" label.
If they are admitted with symptoms, then there is perhaps a very good chance. But you want all admissions testing (and I agree) but if you test someone admitted with a kidney infection....
"if the test is positive, then they have got it"
is bogus. I'm sorry Mike, but that is just not right.
As far as what's "common" and "very uncommon" I can't see what you have to go off in order to make that assertion.
If False negatives are 20% and False Positives are 1% then they could be equally as common in a hospital setting and the False Positive will be far more common in a non-hospital setting such as the Pillar 2 testing and more common in non-respiratory admissions.
I'd also like to see "Covid Discharge" recorded.
Covid admissions = Covid discharges + covid deaths.
The stats constantly tell us the rate of admissions are on the increase, but an analysis the other day, I think of Liverpools hospitals, showed that discharges were actually higher than admissions and the pressure that has built up is now reducing.
You are so blowing this out of all proportion witton. We are smack in the middle of a huge, easily transmitted and, for some, deadly disease that has been recently spreading really fast and you are seemingly coming up with arguments, at best on the fringe of things, that you think somehow justify the whole country taking a more relaxed view to it all. Its all been discussed before - false positives are more than offset by false negatives. So you making what I'm sure are reliable anecdotal references to false positive tests doesn't actually change things diddly squat
try arguing with that supposed logic.Quote:
"if the test is positive, then they have got it"
is bogus. I'm sorry Mike, but that is just not right.
As for the arrogance of suggesting how the NHS should run its admissions system :(
Every admission should be regarded as having Covid until that has been excluded. It does not mean they will be counted as a Covid case forever more. It depends on their symptoms/signs/test results, just like all diagnoses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
The Covid test, if positive, is one of the most accurate tests in Medicine. Far more accurate than almost any other test we do.
Deaths per fortnight within 28 days of a positive test have gone from 113 (28th August - 10th September) to 2,996 in the last fortnight. This is serious. This is real. There are the equivalent of 22 District General Hospitals full of nothing but Covid in the NHS as a whole.
Nice stat Mike - plagiarising a stat described by many as unhelpful. That leaves maybe 400+ without any Covid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Like who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I have been expressing the numbers this way to my partner for weeks - she said it should be expressed like this more often - then yesterday it was used by the experts for the first time, or at least that was the first time I heard it used by others. I did not plagiarise it. But if I did repeat facts expressed in particular way, would that be wrong? Surely it is the facts that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Only if they suit.Quote:
Surely it is the facts that matter.
Like cases falling in Liverpool. Which they are, which might indicate that local lockdown is working to some degree. But the nuance is that they're not falling among the most vulnerable. So falling numbers do not necessarily equate to everything being OK and returning to normal:
"Compared to the previous week, we have seen a slight decrease in rates of new infections in the city, however the current 7-day rate remains very high. The rate of new infections in older people is particularly worrying at the current very high level, resulting in increased pressure on hospitals and deaths from Covid-19 for weeks to come"
https://liverpool.gov.uk/covidcases
Maybe they plagiarised you Mike - apologies.
But they are presenting figures that are exaggerated, misleading and without or out of context.
Such as this one they put out there, which cropped down created an impression that wasn't representative.
Attachment 8851
Cases in over 60's in Liverpool are falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
https://twitter.com/carlheneghan/sta...40799712694273
Witty had implied they weren't falling in the over 60's in Liverpool then later had to admit they were.
https://twitter.com/sarahknapton/sta...89821220704256
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ss-first-wave/Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
and they've just revised their forecasts; sorry scenarios :rolleyes: on which they presented the lockdown at the weekend.
Whitty and Vallance "Blah, Blah, Blah......"
Some "That's wrong because......."
Others "Who are you to question......."
Whitty and Vallance "Oh yes it was wrong, never mind here is the updated version, too late now, decision has been taken, blah, blah, blah...."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54...sTDqOKI_tFq1hM
Seems the UK Statistics Authority agrees.
Using out of date data - not a good look. It would be interesting to hear their explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
If you read that letter, or listen to what was said, he was talking about the north of England generally, not specifically about Liverpool. The latter does not admit that cases were falling in n Liverpool, but clarifies a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
More about this Government data shenanigans here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
https://unherd.com/2020/11/the-gover...nd=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
extract...
"This, at heart, is the justification for the second lockdown: shut down society to save our ailing health service from being overwhelmed, as it was in winter 2017/18. Tens of thousands of people had their treatments postponed or cancelled that year, as a bad flu season pushed demand above capacity. Those pre-emptive cancellations may have been designed to prevent a crisis like the one preceding it, in winter 2016/17, when overflowing hospitals had patients dying in corridors.
What has changed since 2018? There was no question of reorganising society around the needs of the NHS, even though 55,720 people in the UK fell victim to Excess Winter Deaths in that season. There were not even calls for people to avoid social interaction with the elderly, to wash hands more often, or to stay home if they had a fever. Those at risk were exhorted to get a flu jab, and the rest of us were left to get on with it."
Irish GP who simply questioned the Covid response... "a storm of retribution against me..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WbKl2gPo4Y
This is an extract of an exchange between Chris Whitty and Greg Clark, when he and Patrick Vallance appeared before the science and technology select committee the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...falling-older/
During the hearing, Greg Clark, the committee chairman, pointed out that positive cases in Liverpool had fallen since the imposition of Tier 3 restrictions and asked why a national lockdown was necessary if the tier system was working.
Prof Whitty told the panel that cases were continuing to rise in older people, saying: "What we are seeing is the rates, particularly in younger people, have fallen.
"But you're not seeing that reliably in the older age bands, and that's important because the rates falling in people in their 20s will actually have remarkably little effect on the NHS. The rates are still steadily tracking up in all the data that I have seen in the older age groups, who are the ones who are likely to translate into hospitalisations, ICU cases and attempts."
Mr Clark said: "So we think that the fall in positive tests in places like Liverpool over the last few weeks is not reflected in the prevalence in older groups?”
Prof Whitty replied: "Correct. This is a differential effect for different ages."
This is the relevant extract from Chris Whitty's letter.
"I did not say there was no reduction in Liverpool specifically (nor does my relistening imply that - "I said that looking at the data particularly in the north of England") but since that has been the interpretation put on my comments can I say on the record that in Liverpool specifically, rates have been dropping both in younger people and older people.
But he was specifically asked about Liverpool by Greg Clark and answered that question.
You say the letter does not admit that cases are falling in Liverpool but it clearly does.
Not all excess winter deaths are due to flu. Flu deaths in the first 9 weeks of 2018 were just over 22,000 - a big enough figure of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
Imagine how many Covid deaths we would have had if we had not changed our behaviour.
True, but I guess you'd not had time to read the link, as the next paragraph explainedQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
"Covid-19 is not seasonal flu. Left unchecked, it would spread faster, and kill more people. But we are not leaving it to spread unchecked. The Tier system of regional restrictions appears to be having effects already, with cases falling in the Northeast, and the R number shrinking back towards one since early October. Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty admitted to the Commons Science and Technology Committee that he thought Tier 2 and 3 regulations were having an effect, but that those effects were not included in the models used to justify a second lockdown."
Adding, with the government's own figures now unraveling "there's a need to have a rational debate about balancing social measures to suppress Covid-19 against social harms.
The evidence presented in support of the new lockdown is weak. Evidence that the resulting damage has been researched alongside the hoped-for benefits is almost non-existent. “There Is No Alternative” is not an argument, when not only livelihoods, but the fabric of society, is being devastated in the name of controlling the virus and protecting the NHS, which should be protecting us."
Stifling debate and casting those who are calling for a thorough consideration of the data as 'covid deniers' isn't helpful, especially when it seems the Government and much of the media seem to resort to blaming people for, well, behaving like people!
Without wanting to be accused of, or derided as, some whacky conspiracy theorist, there does seem to be an overarching ploy (or a whiff of one) going on here, beyond just a response to covid, which should surely call for us to take a step back and ask a few more questions.
the only place we have excess deaths at the moment are at home.
That's one of the least likely place someone will die of Covid.
I did read it all - just making the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
As to the tiers having a significantly useful effect: average deaths in the last week 320; week before about 240, week before that 160. So doubling in 2 weeks. In my opinion even tier 3 was too lax.
Since when does "in places like Liverpool" mean "in Liverpool"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Whitty said he assumed he was asked a general question illustrated by Liverpool, and he replied generally. And nowhere in that letter was he "forced to admit that he was wrong" as per the Tweet.