Coronavirus - Part Two.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

You should already know as the reasons have been posted on here several times already.

 

But to summarise, he has always been way, way off the mark with his past predictions. 

Fine. 

 

In other news, Hancock is lying again. Stated in the commons they are doing tens of thousands of vaccinations in Bolton every day. In actual fact the most they've done is 4k and mostly about 3k a day.

 

The speaker reminded Mps they can't call another MP a liar. He failed to remind them not to lie.

[Carbuncle 0]

21 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

1 hour ago, Carbuncle said:

This was not the point I was making.

 

What I was saying is that the study could not pick up most untested-hospital-discharge-seeds-care-home-outbreak events early in the UK's epidemic.  Many, maybe almost all of the dischargees were never tested, neither on discharge nor within two weeks of being at the care home.

Someone requires a positive test result in order to be logged as passing away or from or having Covid; so no, the study won't include people who never had a positive test result after being discharged. I'm not sure how you would reliably come to any figures of 'people who left hospital with Covid' if they never had a test or died from it on their death certificate. That's just plucking figures from the air.

Good so we agree ... the 1.6% and 800 death figures are unreliable. Discharges from hospitals to care homes without a negative test result put care home residents at risk but we do not have a good indication of just how many deaths it caused.

[butlers 261]

It's funny the " Fergusson skeptics" can never account for why if he's been so off in every estimate since the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic  that he still advises the UK ,US governments ,the EU and the World Health Organization.

 

Classic case of shooting the messenger

 

 

[RollingJ 2,042]

Just now, butlers said:

It's funny the " Fergusson skeptics" can never account for why if he's been so off in every estimate since the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic  that he still advises the UK ,US governments ,the EU and the World Health Organization.

 

Classic case of shooting the messenger

 

 

Dunno why he's still an adviser tbh - his predictions/estimates are carp - maybe he's just good at pulling the wool over their eyes.

[Mister M 1,625]

22 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Fine. 

 

In other news, Hancock is lying again. Stated in the commons they are doing tens of thousands of vaccinations in Bolton every day. In actual fact the most they've done is 4k and mostly about 3k a day.

 

The speaker reminded Mps they can't call another MP a liar. He failed to remind them not to lie.

I don't know what the present Speaker is up to, but he seems completely powerless in the face of Government lies. You would've thought that he has the power to remind Johnson and his cronies that they should answer questions asked and not lie.

Possibly why John Bercow was hated, because he did challenge Government Ministers, whereas Hoyle, by comparison, seems just a Government patsy

[Carbuncle 0]

2 minutes ago, butlers said:

It's funny the " Fergusson skeptics" can never account for why if he's been so off in every estimate since the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic  that he still advises the UK ,US governments ,the EU and the World Health Organization.

 

Classic case of shooting the messenger

I spent quite a lot of time early in the pandemic reading epidemic modelling research papers. The impression I formed in respect of the pandemic was that although a lot of predictions of case numbers, deaths, etc. were being made one could have very little confidence in their accuracy because none of the models being used had a track record in human pandemics. Indeed they were often wildly off. I suspect this is well understood by the epidemic modellers themselves. It does NOT mean that epidemic modelling is not useful, it is just that it does not provide good predictions in a pandemic. I think the epidemiologists have real insight and presume they know not to take each others' numerical predictions as anything more than plausibility arguments.

 

For example, Report 9 from Imperial published March 16th, 2020 'shows' UK hospital ventilator capacity being overrun by a factor of 30 at peak under one scenario. The correct response is not to take the '30' seriously rather it is to say 'oh f**k, we need a radical change of course because probably are hospitals are going to be overrun.

 

The media does not understand the epidemiologists and constantly tries to de-nuance their statements. The epidemiologists do not understand the media and its preference for sensational statements and unwarranted confidence. Ferguson has sometimes been incautious although I think the thousands of deaths lost because of the late first lockdown is actually easy to justify and could actually be done on the back of an envelope by many of the doubters on here if they choose to try.

[the_bloke 17]

25 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

Good so we agree ... the 1.6% and 800 death figures are unreliable. Discharges from hospitals to care homes without a negative test result put care home residents at risk but we do not have a good indication of just how many deaths it caused.

They are reliable; they are the numbers of people who had been in hospital then discharged into a care home who had a positive test. The other %age part of the figures is also reliable, as it's the numbers of people who hadn't been in hospital but died with a positive test.

 

The unreliability is how many people were infected or died of Covid without having a positive test result.

[Fudbeer 12]

4 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Are you arguing that we offset the tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths against the success of the vaccines and say 'ah, ok looks like it comes out about even' ?

No.

[Mister M 1,625]

This article from the BMJ offers an interesting perspective on COVID -19 death numbers

David Oliver: Mistruths and misunderstandings about covid-19 death numbers | The BMJ

 

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, butlers said:

It's funny the " Fergusson skeptics" can never account for why if he's been so off in every estimate since the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic  that he still advises the UK ,US governments ,the EU and the World Health Organization.

 

Classic case of shooting the messenger

Not really shooting the messenger though is it. It was him that wrote the code that he uses in his modelling and that was written to model any future flu pandemic. Not sure if he still advised the UK government either since he had to resign for breaching covid rules so he could see his lover. It may also be the case that because none of his past pandemic prediction were anywhere near accurate government then decided to be cautious in how they handled the covid one.

[Carbuncle 0]

3 hours ago, the_bloke said:

4 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Good so we agree ... the 1.6% and 800 death figures are unreliable. Discharges from hospitals to care homes without a negative test result put care home residents at risk but we do not have a good indication of just how many deaths it caused.

They are reliable; they are the numbers of people who had been in hospital then discharged into a care home who had a positive test. The other %age part of the figures is also reliable, as it's the numbers of people who hadn't been in hospital but died with a positive test.

 

The unreliability is how many people were infected or died of Covid without having a positive test result.

If somebody infected with SARS-CoV-2 was discharged from hospital to a care home where they infected others leading to deaths but the dischargee was never themselves never tested then the deaths will not appear as part of the 1.6% .  Hence massive undercounting because most of the dischargees were never tested when they got back to the care home at least not in the early part of the pandemic.

[butlers 261]

My understanding was he offered to resign ,I can find no reference to it being accepted.

Also are there not 4 sets of modellers within the SAGE group?