Yep, the deaths peaked shortly after lockdown, so shortly, that the virus seems to have been on the backfoot for 1-2 weeks before lockdown.Originally Posted by Mike T
Yep, the deaths peaked shortly after lockdown, so shortly, that the virus seems to have been on the backfoot for 1-2 weeks before lockdown.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
For some reason, I can't "reply with quote" to Phlegm's post #1293 but suffice it to say I stand by my point. I posted the link, I was inviting people to comment and I was hoping people with skills in the area would look and comment. I wasn't looking for or expecting people with greater linguistic skills, of which there are many, to critique my use of the English language.
Many complain about the way the forum is going, but do we really need another anonymous prick who appears to be an alter ego of an existing forumite?
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Mmmh. For my part I am amused and intrigued by Flem's contributions - and anyone who likes Astral Weeks can't be all bad - but maybe that is merely a manifestation of pompous pedantry from one still small voice.
Last edited by Graham Breeze; 02-07-2020 at 07:55 AM.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
Deaths peaked on 8th April, which supports the conclusion that infections peaked about a week before lockdown.
https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/...04040588951554
I posted about the Bristol University study on 24th June, which indicated this. That makes sense, since by a week before lockdown, people were changing their behaviour. Many office workers were already working from home, football matches and other mass gatherings had stopped, shops had signs encouraging social distancing and less people were going to pubs and restaurants - they were finally ordered to shut the Friday before lockdown.
My running club has cautiously started up club nights again (I went down on Tuesday). I was looking at the website the other day and noticed a statement from 17th March, which had said club nights were stopping with immediate effect. So I think that illustrates the general mindset at the time. Lockdown merely took things a few notches further.
Looking at the graph you posted, we don't see any of that. Apparently infections rose at their sharpest in the days before lockdown before miraculously shrinking the moment lockdown is announced. So at the point of lockdown, the number of new infections infections is seemingly running at 550,000 but two or three days later this has fallen to 150,000. This is not remotely supported by the death statistics since deaths have only fallen gradually in the last few months.
If I was being cynical I might conclude that the "well known statistical methods" you think they have used might be termed "making it up". But I'm happy for you to show me a more rational scientific methodology for the graph.
I am very happy to accept that the official lockdown was preceded by a significant and beneficial change in behaviour by many. I cannot point to the statistical methods used to come up with relevant graph - but it cannot be that far out with respect to timing or magnitude, because if it was many an expert would have jumped on it.
But that is the problem.
Most of these conclusions are based on models that have scant connection to real world. Computer models always have been garbage in, garbage out
There was nowhere to report symptoms during the critical period so all the numbers are a guess.
Last edited by Oracle; 02-07-2020 at 11:33 AM.
Haha use of the word pr*ck alert! I used tw*t the other day and had that post altered by admin so I do hope pr*ck gets the same treatment!
As for you Witton Park, taking offence at Flem forensically dissecting some of the assumptions you jump to, grow up. It’s hard and sometimes almost impossible to read some of your viewpoints without having to make a point back.
Or do you want this part of the forum to become a talking shop for just people who agree with you 🤔
Last edited by Fellbeast; 02-07-2020 at 12:10 PM.
The opposite is true. The forum was a breeding ground for liberal woke, pro remain, pro corbynite anti tory insults. It was part of forum Credo to denigrate Boris with Guardian fiction, despite the mandate, without ever having researched him. Witton was one of the few to react to attempt to "level the playing field" pointing out a few remainer fallacies repeated so often they had wrongly gained the status of fact. The woke of the forum collected around him like antibodies, to reject such an alien view.
The problem is of course, Flems expressions and extracts from the unused parts of the oxford dictionay, are so similar to Graham and unlike anyone else, it is hard to reach any other conclusion! "Flem" could have added a few more "yorkshire" expressions and a little less high brow, to at least maintain an illusion of difference! Hyde sounds far too like Jeckyll.
Last edited by Oracle; 02-07-2020 at 12:21 PM.
I invited people to forensically dissect the information I had heard discussed. It's hardly the way to encourage a talking shop for like-minded people. I am aware there are people with backgrounds far better suited than I to take on board what the paper says.
But some want to dissect a choice of wording, I think it speaks volumes about them.
and it's interesting that on this forum many complain about users who over-post. "Taking over the forum" we often hear.
We don't tend to hear about those who take up multiple forum IDs. One person, several personas. Something quite freaky about those that feel the need to do that and this topic has certainly flushed out a new breed of forumite that bears a strong resemblance to some longer in the tooth members, and some not seen for a while members.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
But so what?
