Page 287 of 344 FirstFirst ... 187237277285286287288289297337 ... LastLast
Results 2,861 to 2,870 of 3439

Thread: Coronavirus

  1. #2861
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post

    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%.
    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 statistics

  2. #2862
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
    Valance just told us at the current rate we will have around 50k cases per day and 200 deaths per day by Mid October.
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post
    Also, I don't think it is helpful when our chief science and medical officers go on national television and wilfully misrepresent the facts. [...] No wonder they didn't take any questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
    Sir Patrick - let's look what is happening in Europe.
    He then only considered France and Spain, the two worst cases. No mention of Italy, Germany, Sweden...
    He then went on to present the graph of doom.

    It was apolitcal advisors dripping in politics in my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post
    So by mid October we should be able to judge whether their warnings were justified or simply scaremongering.
    The rolling 7-day average of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the UK is today given as 199.71:

    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).

  3. #2863
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    The rolling 7-day average of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the UK is today given as 199.71:

    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??

  4. #2864
    Master Dave_Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    the Moon
    Posts
    1,275
    don't you just hate it when the facts get in the way of a so-called argument?
    Thanks both.
    ....it's all downhill from here.

  5. #2865
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    The rolling 7-day average of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the UK is today given as 199.71:

    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).
    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.

    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.

  6. #2866
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Mole View Post
    don't you just hate it when the facts get in the way of a so-called argument?
    Thanks both.
    Ok, show me where my facts are wrong.

  7. #2867
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post
    Ok, show me where my facts are wrong.
    Well assuming that the daily positive test results actually equals the actual number of people likely to be catching the disease for a start...

  8. #2868
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Fellbeast View Post
    Well assuming that the daily positive test results actually equals the actual number of people likely to be catching the disease for a start...
    Well clearly I haven't assumed that. I said:

    "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%."

  9. #2869
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,244
    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?
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  10. #2870
    Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
    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.

    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
    Last edited by Fellbeast; 28-10-2020 at 04:50 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •