Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Aye, but not proportionally to the same numbers of vases back in the early days.

The graph goes to 1500, the numbers don't. :lol:

This is the key issue for me, governments are reacting to cases with nothing to suggest these rises will see the rises in the requirements for ICU or the numbers of deaths. 

I understand your "err on the side of caution" view but we should be looking at further relaxing the current guidelines, not worrying about anything close to a full lockdown, Christmas or anytime. 

 

The scale of the y-axis affects how the figures are viewed - it's a well know presentational trick when it comes to statistics.

https://www.callingbullshit.org/tools/tools_misleading_axes.html

**********************

Quote

Conclusion

In summary, data visualizations tell stories. Relatively subtle choices, such as the range of the axes in a bar chart or line graph, can have a big impact on the story that a figure tells. When you look at data graphics, you want to ask yourself whether the graph has been designed to tell a story that accurately reflects the underlying data, or whether it has been designed to tell a story more closely aligned with what the designer would like you to believe.

 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites


31 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

The scale of the y-axis affects how the figures are viewed - it's a well know presentational trick when it comes to statistics.

https://www.callingbullshit.org/tools/tools_misleading_axes.html

**********************

 

The range of the axis is due to the previous numbers. FS was using it to compare so the axis could only be reduced to somewhere in the region of  1200. IF you want to show the rise over the last 2 weeks or so that's a totally different argument but it still wouldn't convince me the route taken should be another lockdown. 

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

The days are short and folk generally can’t be arsed leaving the hoose 🍺🍷🍔

 

 

The previous lockdown lasted 4 months I think.

Those advocating a 2 week shutdown in 3 months time need to explain the logic behind that.

I'd say "explain the science" but there is no credible science now behind any of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stlucifer said:

The range of the axis is due to the previous numbers. FS was using it to compare so the axis could only be reduced to somewhere in the region of  1200. IF you want to show the rise over the last 2 weeks or so that's a totally different argument but it still wouldn't convince ne the route taken should be another lockdown. 

FS has got this wrong. The overall point is still valid but the graph makes it look better than it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

FS has got this wrong. The overall point is still valid but the graph makes it look better than it is.

Tell me how he could have made the HIS comparison without the large number then. I think you're missing the point.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stlucifer said:

Tell me how he could have made the comparison without the large number then. I think you're missing the point.

Sigh!

I'm sure you are all decent folk and you are all welcome to your opinions but I'm not wasting any more of my time explaining how graphs work and how data can be skewed to favour a particular view.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Of course it's important.

Bud the Baker is right. Your graph is misleading.

You should stick to sarky comments. Your lack of ability to understand even the most basic of graphs is embarassing.

The only thing that's important is the numbers, not trying to deflect by squabbling about axis on a graph.:lol:

You should stick to doing what you do best.........................:byebye

See response below.

Oh, the highlighted bit, you do understand irony, or maybe not. 

9 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

The range of the axis is due to the previous numbers. FS was using it to compare so the axis could only be reduced to somewhere in the region of  1200. IF you want to show the rise over the last 2 weeks or so that's a totally different argument but it still wouldn't convince me the route taken should be another lockdown. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

The range of the axis is due to the previous numbers. FS was using it to compare so the axis could only be reduced to somewhere in the region of  1200. IF you want to show the rise over the last 2 weeks or so that's a totally different argument but it still wouldn't convince me the route taken should be another lockdown. 

....and my argument is that it is misleading when it comes to the current resurgence.

I'd have started a graph analysing current trends from August 1st and therefore have gone with a y-axis of 200 at the most.

*******************************

I understand why a full lockdown over Xmas will be a minority view, but BJ said that pandemic would be controlled within 3 months back in March, said the worst was over in June but is now saying that we are in for a bumpy ride to Xmas and beyond. Until we have a vaccine I'd always argue on the side of caution and remain of the opinion that a two week lockdown over Xmas is worth considering.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

....and my argument is that it is misleading when it comes to the current resurgence.

I'd have started a graph analysing current trends from August 1st and therefore have gone with a y-axis of 200 at the most.

*******************************

I understand why a full lockdown over Xmas will be a minority view, but BJ said that pandemic would be controlled within 3 months back in March, said the worst was over in June but is now saying that we are in for a bumpy ride to Xmas and beyond. Until we have a vaccine I'd always argue on the side of caution and remain of the opinion that a two week lockdown over Xmas is worth considering.

But that's NOT what was being discussed. It was specifically about the difference in number of deaths at the start of the pandemic when the number of cases was high and the current number of deaths now the numbers are rising. It's like arguing that Saint Mirren were sh!te while discussing St. Johnstone v Celtic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

But that's NOT what was being discussed. It was specifically about the difference in number of deaths at the start of the pandemic when the number of cases was high and the current number of deaths now the numbers are rising. It's like arguing that Saint Mirren were sh!te while discussing St. Johnstone v Celtic.

That's why I argued that the graph was irrelevant to the current situation. I'm not trying to deny that I have a different narrative but as I've said my opinion is that revising the analysis to start on Aug 1st would be more relevant to the current situation and the immediate future.

************************

Going off at a tangent the government has just announced a massive increase in the daily number of cases recorded due to a "technical glitch" - adding figures from Sep 24-Oct 1 to yesterday's total! :wacko: Given that we can't really trust the government's figures for key aspects of the pandemic and is it really unreasonable to err on the side of caution?

It also brings into question the "optimism" that the resurgence in confirmed cases had maxed out...

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

That's why I argued that the graph was irrelevant to the current situation. I'm not trying to deny that I have a different narrative but as I've said my opinion is that revising the analysis to start on Aug 1st would be more relevant to the current situation and the immediate future.

************************

Going off at a tangent the government has just announced a massive increase in the daily number of cases recorded due to a "technical glitch" - adding figures from Sep 24-Oct 1 to yesterday's total! :wacko: Given that we can't really trust the government's figures for key aspects of the pandemic and is it really unreasonable to err on the side of caution?

It also brings into question the "optimism" that the resurgence in confirmed cases had maxed out...

OK. Around 700 cases announced today. No deaths. How current do you want to be? Or does that not suit your narrative.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

OK. Around 700 cases announced today. No deaths. How current do you want to be? Or does that not suit your narrative.

Well I wouldn't be changing my opinion based on one days figures, which are for Scotland only as the UK figures have been published yet - FSs graph was for the UK so you're changing horses mid-stream :whistle apples & oranges and all that! Plus we all know that the stattos like to take the weekend off so the figure is going to be artificially low anyway. 

A more relevant figure would be the rolling total for the week or does that not suit YOUR narrative? 

*****************

Not that I want to bang on about the lack of competency in the governments figures but the delay in the governments track&testing procedure led to them changing policy earlier in the week saying that tests could now be taken after 8 days and not 5 - you can't top changing your policy to suit the science incompetence.

******************

For the record, here is the provisional UK total for today - it's called comparing apples with apples! 

Quote

 

UK records another 28 coronavirus deaths in hospitals in preliminary toll - up by ten on last week - with majority of fatalities in North East and Midlands

 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Around 700 cases announced today. No deaths. How current do you want to be? Or does that not suit your narrative.


To me the only figures that count are the number cases v the number of deaths. If the cases are going up, but only a few have died in the past week........ surely that’s a good thing?
If the number of cases are rising and only a few deaths, does the threat of further lockdowns make sense?
I’m all for protecting the vulnerable (I haven’t been able to see my mother since March due to only two nominated family members being permitted) but the rest of us should be looking at getting back to some kinda normalcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

That's why I argued that the graph was irrelevant to the current situation. I'm not trying to deny that I have a different narrative but as I've said my opinion is that revising the analysis to start on Aug 1st would be more relevant to the current situation and the immediate future.

************************

Going off at a tangent the government has just announced a massive increase in the daily number of cases recorded due to a "technical glitch" - adding figures from Sep 24-Oct 1 to yesterday's total! :wacko: Given that we can't really trust the government's figures for key aspects of the pandemic and is it really unreasonable to err on the side of caution?

It also brings into question the "optimism" that the resurgence in confirmed cases had maxed out...

Yes it's unreasonable to err on the side of caution when the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations don't even begin to justify shutting down the economy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, branniganm said:

Are you saying we'll just a have short duration (2 week) lockdown in 3 months' time because people will be less inconvenienced re work, travel, schools, child care etc.

That's a nonsense.

Not just me, the idea has been on the public agenda for a fortnight, there was also arguments for one over the mid-October breaks at schools/universities but the timescale made it impractical. What I'm saying is that if you're gonna have one at Xmas the case needs to be made well in advance.

Quote

 

PUBLISHED: 11:01, Mon, Sep 21, 2020 | UPDATED: 11:01, Mon, Sep 21, 2020

Professor Carl Heneghan has said the best time for a lockdown period would be over the Christmas break.

The Oxford University professor told Sky News now is time for a "calm and cool" approach to the spike in coronavirus cases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Russian Saint said:

To me the only figures that count are the number cases v the number of deaths. If the cases are going up, but only a few have died in the past week........ surely that’s a good thing?
If the number of cases are rising and only a few deaths, does the threat of further lockdowns make sense?
I’m all for protecting the vulnerable (I haven’t been able to see my mother since March due to only two nominated family members being permitted) but the rest of us should be looking at getting back to some kinda normalcy.
 

 

There's a time lag between the number of cases, next hospitalizations and then deaths.

Edited by Bud the Baker
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...