Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts



No idea what you are talking about. It didn't take me a week to figure out how to correct it. I just couldn't be arsed re-publishing it straight away.
I think slarti or cockles spotted it straight away and I fixed it on Excel a few hours later when I had some free time.
The laughter was mainly from the likes of FS and the biology teacher who took exception to the exponential extrapolation from the worldometer data. Then there was slarti and antrin who thought the data was of no value because it didn't take into account every single possible variable.
If you were laughing at a graph because it didn't have labelled axes then you might need to get out a bit more bud. [emoji1]


I think you'll find that that was that Slartibartfast chappie, not me - honest. :)

I think you'll also find that I, oops I mean he, pointed out that you had caveated your graph with "excluding any mitigating actions" or some such phrase.

The point I, oops I mean he, was making was that the graph was useless because virtually none of the variables were known, not even by Baz. [emoji38]
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like lockdown has been really efficacious in stopping the spread of cv19.
That mythical single person whose life it saved must be breathing easier.
 
 
:whistle
 
 
That first post you quoted just shows that he still doesn't get it.

Nobody, apart from Andy, has claimed that lockdown hasn't saved any lives.

Nobody has even said that they believe that.

All that's been said is that it can't be known with any certainty, i.e. can't be claimed as a fact, at this time as 1. it isn't over and 2. no meaningful analysis has been done.

His "are you saying lockdown hasn't saved a single life" patter also shows that he doesn't get it. When he does that, he's arguing against a strawman position that he's created, either deliberately or through a lack of understanding, as nobody has said that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Slarti said:

That first post you quoted just shows that he still doesn't get it.

Nobody, apart from Andy, has claimed that lockdown hasn't saved any lives.

Nobody has even said that they believe that.

All that's been said is that it can't be known with any certainty, i.e. can't be claimed as a fact, at this time as 1. it isn't over and 2. no meaningful analysis has been done.

His "are you saying lockdown hasn't saved a single life" patter also shows that he doesn't get it. When he does that, he's arguing against a strawman position that he's created, either deliberately or through a lack of understanding, as nobody has said that.

No I still get it like I have from your very first post. I can't make this any clearer, you're being pedantic with this point, you're being trivial and I won't fall down to your level and pander to a tactic you use often that's in no way effective. 

You refuse to let it go, that's fine, it obviously consumes you but the "pRoVe It'S a FaCt" semantics argument when something is absolutely beyond any reasonable doubt won't work on me on any subject you attempt to use it on. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Interesting and THIS kinda backs up ONE of the reasons we're in a fecking mess.

 and a compliant community that has embraced distancing protocols.

Indeed.

Contrast that approach, with this.<_<

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/police-called-to-break-up-more-than-3000-house-parties

Also interesting to note the hard line approach to those ignoring the restrictions. 

 

Quote

 

What if I break the rules?

Victoria police are monitoring traffic seeking to leave metropolitan Melbourne and residents face $5,000 fines if they leave the city without a valid reason (providing or receiving care, medical needs, visiting an intimate partner or for work with a valid work permit).

Police can issue on-the-spot fines of up to $1,652 for individuals and up to $9,913 to businesses for general breaches of the stay-at-home orders.

The on-the-spot fine for not wearing a face covering is $200 and the fine for breaching isolation orders multiple times after testing positive for coronavirus is $4,957. This can be increased through the courts to a maximum of $20,000.

On 27 September Andrews announced a new fine of “almost $5,000” for unlawful outdoor or indoor gatherings.

 

 

 

Edited by FTOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Slarti said:


 

 


I think you'll find that that was that Slartibartfast chappie, not me - honest. :)

I think you'll also find that I, oops I mean he, pointed out that you had caveated your graph with "excluding any mitigating actions" or some such phrase.

The point I, oops I mean he, was making was that the graph was useless because virtually none of the variables were known, not even by Baz. emoji38.png

 

I put many caveats on that graph but most people just ignored that and assumed I was saying "this will definitely happen".

No variables were needed. It was a simple emprical extrapolation from known data which was designed to show what might hve happened had that data continued to grow at the same rate.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FTOF said:

I mentioned this just the other day, yet, while it's too straightforward to say ther's one reason I believe this is a major reason the UK is going in the wrong direction.

If people played the game, I have been finding it hard for the last while and I disagree on many of the restrictions I, and our family, have followed them to the letter.

Selfish cnuts who will be whining about pubs shutting, not being able to to this and that,etc are the reason we're in this mess.

As Australia, and many other countries have proved it can be kept to a manageable level.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I put many caveats on that graph but most people just ignored that and assumed I was saying "this will definitely happen".
No variables were needed. It was a simple emprical extrapolation from known data which was designed to show what might hve happened had that data continued to grow at the same rate.


Aye, that's what I, oops I mean he, said, useless. [emoji38]

Well, I think he actually said pointless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I put many caveats on that graph but most people just ignored that and assumed I was saying "this will definitely happen".

No variables were needed. It was a simple emprical extrapolation from known data which was designed to show what might hve happened had that data continued to grow at the same rate.

It was one of the highlights of this thread, along with you selling the 500,000 deaths by the end of the year with you're usual squirming caveat "It wasn't me that said it, it was some fcukwit scientist". (slightly changed the last bit but it was something similar)

Oh you also said children were in the vulnerable category.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Slarti said:


 

 


Aye, that's what I, oops I mean he, said, useless. emoji38.png

Well, I think he actually said pointless.

 

Whoever this fellow was, he was wrong on both counts. It's actually a well known and perfectly valid technique in science and engineering for getting a quick qualitative feel for where a trend might be taking you. Obviously the further away you want to predict, the bigger the error. McLaurin and Taylor series work in a similar way if you want some homework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

It was one of the highlights of this thread, along with you selling the 500,000 deaths by the end of the year with you're usual squirming caveat "It wasn't me that said it, it was some fcukwit scientist". (slightly changed the last bit but it was something similar)

Oh you also said children were in the vulnerable category.

 

It was a scientist who said that. Pretty sure I didn't make any such claim so no idea why you're criticising me for sonething someone else said.

I did say I thought we were heading for 3000 daily deaths within 2 - 3 weeks of the graph going up if the trend had continued to be exponential. We got to about 1500 and we know that was a low estimate. Luckily, the death rate went linear from exponential. We can argue the toss about what caused that flattening - lockdown or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It was a scientist who said that. Pretty sure I didn't make any such claim so no idea why you're criticising me for sonething someone else said.

I did say I thought we were heading for 3000 daily deaths within 2 - 3 weeks of the graph going up if the trend had continued to be exponential. We got to about 1500 and we know that was a low estimate. Luckily, the death rate went linear from exponential. We can argue the toss about what caused that flattening - lockdown or whatever.

You posted it, giving some strange thought it COULD have turned out to be correct.

I laughed, although you weren't the only one, LPM was also peddling these figures at that time. 

Again, most people understand your graph, it's really not that hard but, again, you never at any time said these figures were unlikely, I did straight away, irrespective of hiding behind additional measures. 

Oh, we NEVER got to ABOUT 1,500, 1,166 was the highest and we don't know it was a low estimate, stop making stuff up. 

I see you've done your usual avoidance on the children point. 

Anyhow, that was then, this is now.

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Whoever this fellow was, he was wrong on both counts. It's actually a well known and perfectly valid technique in science and engineering for getting a quick qualitative feel for where a trend might be taking you. Obviously the further away you want to predict, the bigger the error. McLaurin and Taylor series work in a similar way if you want some homework.


It's not a well known and perfectly valid technique on a football forum though, that's why it was pointless.

Are you really trying to educate a mathematician on those mathematical series (also referred to as polynomials)? All MacLaurin Series are Taylor Series but not all Taylor Series are MacLaurin Series (in the same way that all penguins are birds but not all birds are penguins) so there was no need to include both, Taylor would have done. You can go look it up if you want some homework. [emoji38]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slarti said:


Are you really trying to educate a mathematician on those mathematical series (also referred to as polynomials)? All MacLaurin Series are Taylor Series but not all Taylor Series are MacLaurin Series (in the same way that all penguins are birds but not all birds are penguins) so there was no need to include both, Taylor would have done. You can go look it up if you want some homework. emoji38.png

 

Actually, I had no idea you were a mathematician.

Touche. 😀

I can include both if I want to. One for specificity and the second for generality. There's no problem there. Take your pedantry away from me foul beast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yflab said:

Experimental drug in trial in England called Molnupiravir.
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712917

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04575597

check out how long before the report in the USA is completed. 😱

I am tempted to take a punt on Merck’s shares.

imageproxy.php?img=&key=107cbab98f0e87ec6FB0D06C-EEA4-4303-B535-E308F3BEC0C1.thumb.png.07850cab2256b0f0eae5d9b433570edf.png

A year for a trial of a new drug is definitely not a long time. Most drugs take several years to reach market. 

This is the way it was always going to go when we learned that a vaccine will be fasttracked. The initial vaccine will be rolled out and drugs that will combat the virus will periodically enter the market following this.

In 3 or 4 years time, there will be no longer be a need for a vaccine amongst the population other than the old and frail. Anyone outwith those parameters who catches covid will have effective drugs available to them that combat it and keep the symptoms minimal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

A year for a trial of a new drug is definitely not a long time. Most drugs take several years to reach market. 

This is the way it was always going to go when we learned that a vaccine will be fasttracked. The initial vaccine will be rolled out and drugs that will combat the virus will periodically enter the market following this.

In 3 or 4 years time, there will be no longer be a need for a vaccine amongst the population other than the old and frail. Anyone outwith those parameters who catches covid will have effective drugs available to them that combat it and keep the symptoms minimal. 

very similar to the flu jab we have right now. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After yesterdays announcement that Dundee is in some phase higher than Angus there's already plenty of Dundee nuggets planning driving along the road for a drink. 

An Angus councillor has made a public plea for people NOT to travel..................aye, that'll work.

The comments I've read back up my belief people are less and less willing to comply and feck everybody else.

Here's a few.................

You are not going to stop people doing what they want anymore. We are sick of these regulations. The Glaswegians landed in Pitlochry, Aviemore and Dunkeld last week so they could get a drink so Dundee people will probably do the same.

How about this then, Don't come to our hospital when you get sick!!  :lol:

Beat it you fanny, I work in forfar but stay in dundee, so if I want to travel to forfar on my days off for a pint then thats exactly what I'll do... prick!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

very similar to the flu jab we have right now. :wink:

Absolutely. I hear a lot of people saying that it's not a flu etc. and although they are correct, the long term treatment of Covid among the general poluation will be almost mirror image to the treatment of endemic flu. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...