• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

Yes Jan was busy for us, can be a difficult month to judge because of the festive period.

The chart shows exactly what I've been saying all along, looc at the huge variation from low to high, especially around the year end/beginning.
 
glasgowspur said:
https://fullfact.org/health/covid-deaths/

Interesting take on it.
Click to expand...

A very nice analysis.

The following bit summed up to me the uncertainty. It could even be that lockdown life is less stressful (not being too serious).

Analysis by the ONS found that 14% of the death certificates mentioning “Covid-19” in March did not list the disease itself as the “underlying cause of death”. It also found that deaths from ischaemic heart disease—commonly one of the biggest killers in the UK—were 26% below the average for the month. That could mean that Covid-19 killed some people who were already close to death, but it could also mean that some heart disease deaths were being attributed to Covid-19 incorrectly.
Click to expand...
 
Legohamster said:
Can someone with for knowledge in the field tell me why Fergurson was still in this job and why we listened to him?
Click to expand...

With a full two month lockdown we’re most probably now knocking on the door of 60,000 dead, and the numbers don’t seem to be dropping too quickly; you have to think that his figures wouldn’t end up being too far off the mark if we’d all continued on with life as normal.

Indeed, we could still get there.

And let’s face it; if Johnson and Hanrooster are still in a job (remember when staying under 20,000 deaths was seen as achievable?) then there can’t be too much emphasis in this country on providing reliable figures when in public office.
 
Last edited:
Mikey10 said:
With a full two month lockdown we’re most probably now knocking on the door of 60,000 dead, and the numbers don’t seem to be dropping too quickly; you have to think that his figures wouldn’t end up being too far off the mark if we’d all continued on with life as normal.

Indeed, we could still get there.

And let’s face it; if Johnson and Hanrooster are still in a job (remember when staying under 20,000 deaths was seen as achievable?) then there can’t be too much emphasis in this country on providing reliable figures when in public office.
Click to expand...

500,000 deaths was his prediction before

We peaked on the 8th going by the data

He’s very very wrong.
 
Mikey10 said:
With a full two month lockdown we’re most probably now knocking on the door of 60,000 dead, and the numbers don’t seem to be dropping too quickly; you have to think that his figures wouldn’t end up being too far off the mark if we’d all continued on with life as normal.

Indeed, we could still get there.

And let’s face it; if Johnson and Hanrooster are still in a job (remember when staying under 20,000 deaths was seen as achievable?) then there can’t be too much emphasis in this country on providing reliable figures when in public office.
Click to expand...


Or instead of 20k being a success, I will counter that with if the govt don't change policy 500k will die.

Let's be totally Frank and honest here, no one knows what the fudge they are talking about.
It's best guess aand who to say what's right or wrong. And yes I include myself in that.
 
glasgowspur said:
Or instead of 20k being a success, I will counter that with if the govt don't change policy 500k will die.

Let's be totally Frank and honest here, no one knows what the fudge they are talking about.
It's best guess aand who to say what's right or wrong. And yes I include myself in that.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree

But by basing it on someone that has been so so wrong in the past, we set ourselves up.
 
Mikey10 said:
With a full two month lockdown we’re most probably now knocking on the door of 60,000 dead, and the numbers don’t seem to be dropping too quickly; you have to think that his figures wouldn’t end up being too far off the mark if we’d all continued on with life as normal.

Indeed, we could still get there.

And let’s face it; if Johnson and Hanrooster are still in a job (remember when staying under 20,000 deaths was seen as achievable?) then there can’t be too much emphasis in this country on providing reliable figures when in public office.
Click to expand...
Yet when that same (adjusted) calculation was placed over the Swedish numbers you could barely see the "actual" line, so swamped was it by the predicted one.

So those assumptions have been applied to a real world case and they were shown to be orders of magnitude out.
 
Mikey10 said:
And let’s face it; if Johnson and Hanrooster are still in a job (remember when staying under 20,000 deaths was seen as achievable?) then there can’t be too much emphasis in this country on providing reliable figures when in public office.
Click to expand...

It was Whitty (or Vallance) who was asked about the possible deaths. The question was something like would 20,000 be considered a good result. After a pause he answered that would be a good result. It was clearly not a prediction of what he thought would happen and he was reluctant to give a number at all. We haven't got that good result, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. It would have been a good result compared to what we have now.

Legohamster said:
500,000 deaths was his prediction before

We peaked on the 8th going by the data

He’s very very wrong.
Click to expand...

His prediction was 500,000 deaths if we did nothing. We didn't do nothing.

This prediction was the reason for introducing the lockdown, to reduce the number of deaths well below 500,000 deaths. What we can't know is how many would have died without the lockdown, but we do know it would be considerably more than now.
 
jts1882 said:
It was Whitty (or Vallance) who was asked about the possible deaths. The question was something like would 20,000 be considered a good result. After a pause he answer that would be a good result. It was clearly not a prediction of what he thought would happen and he was reluctant to give a number at all. We haven't got that good result, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. It would have been a good result compared to what we have now.



His prediction was 500,000 deaths if we did nothing. This was the reason for introducing the lockdown. He was right in this as we haven't reached anywhere near 500,000 deaths. What we can't know is how many would have died without the lockdown, but we do know it would be considerably more than now.
Click to expand...


The peak was before the lockdown using the data.

Look at the data in Sweden. So far off the target it reminds me of a Sissoko shot
 
glasgowspur said:
Or instead of 20k being a success, I will counter that with if the govt don't change policy 500k will die.

Let's be totally Frank and honest here, no one knows what the fudge they are talking about.
It's best guess aand who to say what's right or wrong. And yes I include myself in that.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, however it will not stop some from thinking they do. ;)
 
IMG-20200517-132514.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back