Coronavirus

[jaybee]

5 hours ago, antrin said:

5 hours ago, jaybee said:

still an obscene debate in my opinion#

 

 

Why so, Jaycee?  

 

We are human.   We live and die.   Debate naturally arises.

The impact of this virus IS a scary reality around the world, people are unsure, they are asking questions, seeking reassurance...

Which is certainly why I believe clarity on the numbers is a necessity, while others seem accepting of whatever inaccurate mush they’re being spoon-fed.

 

WHAT  is it that you find obscene?

 

Understand .................but don't agree, that a football forum should be debating issues that they know very little about and (apart from Oaky, apparently) have no experience nor expertise in.  The general debate I can relate to, it's the specifics of mortality numbers. I find it obscene

[jaybee]

5 hours ago, faraway saint said:

6 hours ago, jaybee said:

still an obscene debate in my opinion#

This thread has had 19,500 views, quite extraordinary, matching the effect this is having on all our lives.

It's only natural people debate.

Plenty of opinions from each end of the spectrum, and as always plenty are extreme.

As I replied to Antrim; it is the mortality rate debate which I find wrong, we aren't talking just numbers here we are talking people, friends relatives. and I find it obscene.

[faraway saint]

26 minutes ago, jaybee said:

As I replied to Antrim; it is the mortality rate debate which I find wrong, we aren't talking just numbers here we are talking people, friends relatives. and I find it obscene.

Well, butt out, sorted. 

[proudtobeabuddy]

Maybe someone should contact the government so they can read this thread...

[GMan]

22 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

Maybe someone should contact the government so they can read this thread...

Maybe a senior government adviser is already reading this thread!  

[W6er]

21 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

Maybe someone should contact the government so they can read this thread...

To be fair, I doubt there'd be much of a difference to be honest. How difficult is it to tell people to stay in their homes? That'ss basically all that's happened besides a promise to pay workers 80% of their wage, which would have been the advice of government advisors and will be delivered by civil servants. I'm waiting for the chaos relating to that in a couple of days' time, btw.

[faraway saint]

35 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

Maybe someone should contact the government so they can read this thread...

Why? 

Oh wait, another who thinks no one is allowed an opinion? 

Edited March 29, 2020 by faraway saint

[faraway saint]

8 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

See you just jumped to a conclusion.

Whilst I took my time and read it properly.

Pwowdbuddy, was suggesting the Gov looked at what all the experts were writing.

Anyways, bed time for me. Some of us have a Nation to defend in the morning.
 

Wow, we have a mind reader in our midst.

I asked a question, it seems you are some sort of magician. 

Night night. 

Edited March 29, 2020 by faraway saint

[Hiram Abiff]

Uk now down to two thirds of where Italy was 2 weeks ago based on deaths

It’s been roughly around that level for a week now.

Assuming we follow the same path, we’re likely to see around 500-600 deaths a day declared the week after next.

According to Neil Ferguson, two thirds would have died anyway.

So we’re talking about 180 excess deaths a day due to coronavirus

This compares with around 500 excess deaths a day due to the flu in 14/15 and 99/00.

[faraway saint]

Where's @oaksoft, hope he's stockpiled plenty paracetamol. 

His graphs have gone to feck today. 

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

I don't think the fatality statistic are meaningless.

In fact I would say they are the most meaningful. 

I'm not convinced the testing stats are anywhere close to as important. 

 

The fatality numbers are meaningful. It's never good to hear about people dying. That's not the same as the statistics as they are comparing a definite to an unknown. The tests are absolutely relevant because this would assist in knowing the real numbers of people who had the virus. There's also the fact that they're are doubts about whether the fact some had the virus died due to it or due to it alone. Too many unknowns. 

[Hiram Abiff]

Deaths in Sweden, where there is no lockdown, now sitting at just under 11 per million of population.

It’s 18 per million of population in the UK

[GMan]

8 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Where's @oaksoft, hope he's stockpiled plenty paracetamol. 

His graphs have gone to feck today. 

The forum sperg might be taking a wee hiatus, as well as a lot of paracetamol. 

Oaksoft, just own it pal. A real man admits his mistakes. Not everyone can be like me, and not make any. 

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, GMan said:

The forum sperg might be taking a wee hiatus, as well as a lot of paracetamol. 

Oaksoft, just own it pal. A real man admits his mistakes. Not everyone can be like me, and not make any. 

Oh, that'll not happen.

He's thrown in enough "get out clauses" to give him that old chestnut "It was only the data and a possibility"  

Along with "I never said my graphs were exact"........................endless possibilities. 

[Hiram Abiff]

And China is less than 2.5 per million of population, what's your point? 

The point is that there is no clear evidence that a lockdown is required

[Hiram Abiff]

Oh, that'll not happen.
He's thrown in enough "get out clauses" to give him that old chestnut "It was only the data and a possibility"  
Along with "I never said my graphs were exact"........................endless possibilities. 

We’ve been pretty steady at around two thirds of where Italy was 2 weeks ago for about a week now

Following the same trend will see excess deaths due to coronavirus reach approaching 40% of the excess deaths caused by the flu in 14/15 and 99/00.

Yeh, coronavirus is nothing like the flu

It’s less deadly and it’s not killing children

[faraway saint]

The BBC news will be devastated, fatalities down today but will probably focus on cases rising, they like the bigger numbers. 

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

There's no clear evidence that it isn't.
There's no clear evidence that vitamin C is protection against the virus but saintnextlifetime was saying so.
There's no clear evidence that eating dog shit isn't a cure.
There's no clear evidence for anything, really.

So, again, what's your point ('cause if that was it then you have nothing)?

There is, I have been munching oranges for weeks and I don't have it.

Shove that up yer "facts".

[Hiram Abiff]

There's no clear evidence that it isn't.
There's no clear evidence that vitamin C is protection against the virus but saintnextlifetime was saying so.
There's no clear evidence that eating dog shit isn't a cure.
There's no clear evidence for anything, really.

So, again, what's your point ('cause if that was it then you have nothing)?

That we shouldn’t be imposing a fascist police state and wrecking the economy without any real evidence that it’s the right thing to do

[oaksoft]

37 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Where's @oaksoft, hope he's stockpiled plenty paracetamol. 

His graphs have gone to feck today. 

Largely offline enjoying the first day of spring. I'd recommend it to others.

I'm not Baz and I'm not getting drawn into dozens of pages of defensive arguments so I'll make this brief. I've had my say on this issue, posted my graphs and predictions, which I will continue to update when trends change and I've nothing much more to add other than the following.

There are 3 groups who've read my posts on this.

Group 1 consists of people who at least grasp what I am trying to do with my graphs and predictions. This groups includes cockles, w6er TPAK thing and maybe one or two others that I've forgotten. Not one of us is sitting hoping my numbers are accurate. Our parents and loved ones are as much at risk of this f**king thing as everyone else's and we like to have a feel for when things MIGHT get very risky for them. I'll update as the trend changes. Happy to answer questions from this group.

Group 2 consists of those who have no demonstrable understanding of computational modelling whatsoever and have no serious alternatives to provide but despite this they are strangely over-confident in their criticism. I think they are in denial but that's their right.  On this issue, I have no interest in wasting my time trying to change the minds of closed minded people. You are in this group with slarti, antrin and the f**kwit Biology teacher @FTOFwho, since he no longer has a job at the moment teaching kids to the test, has decided he wants to persuade us that overnight he has become an expert in all things to do with genetics.  He only has a partial foot in this group though.

Group 3 consists of people who are too stupid to engage with or deliberately lie and misrepresent things as fact when they are not and there really is no point engaging with them at all. shull, Dickson, hiram and a small number of others are in this group. @FTOF has the rest of his feet in this group as well.

 

[insaintee]

On 3/26/2020 at 6:36 PM, Slartibartfast said:

To be honest, you're wasting your time with the graphs. There are far too many unknown variables to get any real accuracy. All your graphs really showed was what would probably happen if the demographics of the whole population reflected the demographics of the group who had already tested positive and nothing happened to slow (or accelerate) the spread of the virus. Of course, neither of those things are likely.

 

This isn't a dig, just an observation.

 

That's absolutely correct, if this was modelling (as may well have been in other circumstances) a sexually transmitted disease, we would know perfectly well that the population does not have a "uniform pairing rate" which is a basic assumption of most of these models.  However, the model will be based on the average no of transmissions per person. It is difficult but not impossible to factor in non-uniform transmission rates and time dependent transmission rates, fairly easy, but the parameters you would use would be pure guess work. 

What the graphs do show is what is happening right now. And that is both important and useful for understanding what is going on and what steps we should be taking. It will also let us know when and if our measures are having an effect. 

[insaintee]

30 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 

The point is that there is no clear evidence that a lockdown is required

 

Not correct, the evidence is pretty clear. 

[Hiram Abiff]

There's no clear evidence that it isn't.
)?

Reminds of the scene in the Young Ones in the Nasty episode

Vyv and Mike are trying to get the video to work

Mike says to vyv “maybe you shouldn’t have poured all that washing up liquid into it”

Vyv says “ yeh but the instructions say ensure it clean and free from dust”

Mike says “but it doesn’t say ensure your machine is full of washing up liquid”

Vyv replies “ but it doesn’t say ensure your machine isn’t full of washing up liquid”

Mike says “ well it wouldn’t would it, it doesn’t say chop up your machine with an axe then flush all the parts down the lavatory”

Vyv: ‘ doesn’t it? Well maybe that’s where we’re going wrong”

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Largely offline enjoying the first day of spring. I'd recommend it to others.

I'm not Baz and I'm not getting drawn into dozens of pages of defensive arguments so I'll make this brief. I've had my say on this issue, posted my graphs and predictions, which I will continue to update when trends change and I've nothing much more to add other than the following.

There are 3 groups who've read my posts on this.

Group 1 consists of people who at least grasp what I am trying to do with my graphs and predictions. This groups includes cockles, w6er TPAK thing and maybe one or two others that I've forgotten. Not one of us is sitting hoping my numbers are accurate. Our parents and loved ones are as much at risk of this f**king thing as everyone else's and we like to have a feel for when things MIGHT get very risky for them. I'll update as the trend changes. Happy to answer questions from this group.

Group 2 consists of those who have no demonstrable understanding of computational modelling whatsoever and have no serious alternatives to provide but despite this they are strangely over-confident in their criticism. I think they are in denial but that's their right.  On this issue, I have no interest in wasting my time trying to change the minds of closed minded people. You are in this group with slarti, antrin and the f**kwit Biology teacher @FTOFwho, since he no longer has a job at the moment teaching kids to the test, has decided he wants to persuade us that overnight he has become an expert in all things to do with genetics.  He only has a partial foot in this group though.

Group 3 consists of people who are too stupid to engage with or deliberately lie and misrepresent things as fact when they are not and there really is no point engaging with them at all. shull, Dickson, hiram and a small number of others are in this group. @FTOF has the rest of his feet in this group as well.

 

You forgot group 4..................................Ricky. 

[W6er]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Largely offline enjoying the first day of spring. I'd recommend it to others.

I'm not Baz and I'm not getting drawn into dozens of pages of defensive arguments so I'll make this brief. I've had my say on this issue, posted my graphs and predictions, which I will continue to update when trends change and I've nothing much more to add other than the following.

There are 3 groups who've read my posts on this.

Group 1 consists of people who at least grasp what I am trying to do with my graphs and predictions. This groups includes cockles, w6er TPAK thing and maybe one or two others that I've forgotten. Not one of us is sitting hoping my numbers are accurate. Our parents and loved ones are as much at risk of this f**king thing as everyone else's and we like to have a feel for when things MIGHT get very risky for them. I'll update as the trend changes. Happy to answer questions from this group.

Group 2 consists of those who have no demonstrable understanding of computational modelling whatsoever and have no serious alternatives to provide but despite this they are strangely over-confident in their criticism. I think they are in denial but that's their right.  On this issue, I have no interest in wasting my time trying to change the minds of closed minded people. You are in this group with slarti, antrin and the f**kwit Biology teacher @FTOFwho, since he no longer has a job at the moment teaching kids to the test, has decided he wants to persuade us that overnight he has become an expert in all things to do with genetics.  He only has a partial foot in this group though.

Group 3 consists of people who are too stupid to engage with or deliberately lie and misrepresent things as fact when they are not and there really is no point engaging with them at all. shull, Dickson, hiram and a small number of others are in this group. @FTOF has the rest of his feet in this group as well.

 

Not to be pedantic, but the first day of spring was either the 1st March or 21st March (complete day).