Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[XFool]

Some random comments by Neil Ferguson, interviewed on Newsnight this evening:

"Inevitable something like this would get political." "Some cherry picking of data by people on the sceptical side." "Some people like to have bogeymen to blame."

Gosh! Now who'd have thought it?

[johnhemming]

It remains, however, that
a) in England infections peaked in october
b) it appears that in the Northern Hemisphere regardless of restrictions infections are peaking in October/November

That is data. I do not agree with the suggestion that the data is "cherry picked"

[servodude]

It remains, however, that
a) in England infections peaked in october
b) it appears that in the Northern Hemisphere regardless of restrictions infections are peaking in October/November

That is data. I do not agree with the suggestion that the data is "cherry picked"

What was that about "the dangers of certainly"?

Anyone quoting "data" as you are is probably misled, misleading or both

-sd

[johnhemming]

There is a danger of false certainty, but

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353440 ... ind---what

[Itsallaguess]

It remains, however, that

a) in England infections peaked in october
b) it appears that in the Northern Hemisphere regardless of restrictions infections are peaking in October/November

That is data. I do not agree with the suggestion that the data is "cherry picked"

It's 'cherry picked' in the sense that it's not taking account of the very strict Tier-3 protocols that were introduced into the worst areas even before the second lock-down came into effect...

Given that those areas would have been 'producing' the highest replication numbers at that stage before the lockdown, then it should not come as a surprise that it might 'look like' infections began slowing down before the actual second-lockdown date...

The problem with extrapolating that 'slowing down' into then trying to say 'we didn't need the second lockdown' is that other non-Tier-3 areas were catching up their rate of infections at that stage, and it's likely that they would then have taken over the role of generating the highest replication numbers if further action were not taken.

It was then a simple choice as to whether they did a rapid roll-out of further Tier 3 protocols where those rates were continuing to rise rapidly, trying to play the 'whack-a-mole' game, or they just bit the bullet and got the whole of England into lockdown when it was obvious which way the wind was blowing..

The higher Tier-3 protocols that were put in place before the second lockdown are being ignored by those that are trying to suggest that we didn't need the second lockdown itself, so in that sense John, the data is being 'cherry picked'....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

It's 'cherry picked' in the sense that it's not taking account of the very strict Tier-3 protocols that were introduced into the worst areas even before the second lock-down came into effect...

The point, however, is that there is data not just from the UK, but also from places like Switzerland

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-stat ... -/45674308

Which did not go as far as tier 3.

I accept that restrictions have some effect, but when you look around the world this Autumn/Winter it does not seem that they make that much difference to the trajectory of the virus.

The only thing that can really have an impact is protecting the vulnerable people from the disease, but we decided not to concentrate on that (although some families are doing so).

[Itsallaguess]

I accept that restrictions have some effect, but when you look around the world this Autumn/Winter it does not seem that they make that much different to the trajectory of the virus.

I'm not talking about the world - I'm talking about England..

It's fairly clear to me that different areas of the world have been getting different infection-responses to similar levels of 'protocols', so some countries have had improved results from a particular level of protocol, because they've been broadly sensible enough for long enough, for those lower-level protocols to have had a good effect. I think one of the big issues is that such broadly-sensible social responses haven't been respected in the same way in some other countries, so comparing countries and particular protocols is going to be very difficult to do purely because of that social-adherence issue...

I think that's been one of the major issues with the UK, in that we seem to have 'needed' a higher general set of driven-protocols to achieve the rate-reduction models that scientists thought we should have been able to achieve with lower-level protocols, were we broadly mature enough to have followed them for long enough...

That's not been the case, and as such we've had to see the introduction of stricter protocols than might otherwise have been necessary, just to achieve the same effect...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[XFool]

There is a danger of false certainty, but

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353440 ... ind---what

Good point.

Have those who, earlier in the year, told us: "The pandemic is over, there will be no second wave." changed their minds?

[Mike4]

There is a danger of false certainty, but

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353440 ... ind---what

Good point.

Have those who, earlier in the year, told us: "The pandemic is over, there will be no second wave." changed their minds?

Broadly, no.

What 'people' generally do, I notice, is arrive at a position then cast around for evidence to defend it, and continue to defend it regardless when the evidence diminishes or completely disappears. We see this happening on TLF in general and in this thread in particular.

No doubt others observe this behaviour in me too, even though I can't see it myself.

[XFool]

The only thing that can really have an impact is protecting the vulnerable people from the disease, but we decided not to concentrate on that (although some families are doing so).

All along I have been waiting to hear of a realistic way that could be done nationally. I'm still waiting.

It appears to have been tried in Sweden until they abandoned the attempt: The Telegraph

But now, I believe I have at last found a possibly realistic solution! Vaccination.

[Mike4]

But now, I believe I have at last found a possibly realistic solution! Vaccination.

And yet, I think I heard the BBC say on the wireless yesterday that in a survey, 39% of people responding said they would not accept the vaccine. That leave 61% who (presumably) will. Herd immunity threshold just about, I suspect! Or is it?

[johnhemming]

What 'people' generally do, I notice, is arrive at a position then cast around for evidence to defend it, and continue to defend it regardless when the evidence diminishes or completely disappears. We see this happening on TLF in general and in this thread in particular.

I would agree that this is something that is part of human nature that people need to resist. It is particularly important in investment decisions as it is the processing of information (and rejection of that which conflicts with assumptions) which that can cause people to make erroneous decisions.

My view about the virus has changed during the year and back in February I thought it was more of an issue than I do now.

What I advise people to do is to identify the reliable factual information (case numbers are generally not that as they are mainly prevalence testing) that gives evidence as to what is going on and test that against their model of the situation.

I personally said earlier this year that I thought as with other Coronaviruses this one would be seasonal. Hence an increase in infections a seasonal (and in the UK second) wave (even though it is more of a Gopertz curve than a sine wave) is something I predicted. What I did not predict was when it would peak. We now know that in the UK was over a month ago.

[88V8]

..... were we broadly mature enough to have followed them for long enough...

Verily, the stupid shall infect the earth.
As the bible almost said.

A shortcoming recognised in the new blanket tierings, to prevent the stupidos from rushing into the lower tiers to get drunk.
Are MPs really so dim that they don't realise this? Or is the 'rebellion' merely a case of pandering to the lowest common denominator of their electorate?

V8

[vrdiver]

Just a comment on comparing the UK with other countries, or looking at other countries to provide "evidence" that the pandemic is over / not over:

Generally, virologists think the spread of this virus is dependent on a number of variables:

#1 Social interaction
Consider the way people hug, kiss, shake hands, wash hands, manage about their own personal space (i.e. at what distance apart do different cultures consider it "normal" to be when talking face to face etc.) Also, population density, e.g. how many people from that country live in comparable population densities with any other comparator country?

#2 Temperature / humidity
These impact on the half life of any virus deposited on surfaces, being transmitted as aerosols or droplets etc.

#3 Air circulation
Where people typically meet in enclosed, recirculated air situations, the virus has more time to spread than if they are in an area where the air is constantly refreshed. This will change with time of day, activity and season, as well as sharp changes based on a particular day's weather.

#4 Population age
We're told that the virus becomes progressively more (and more) dangerous with increasing age (and poorer health). Obviously a population with a higher average age would be considered more vulnerable, as would a population that had managed to keep in-poor-health individuals alive, including those with diabetes, obesity etc.

Possibly (definitely) some other variables, but the above will serve to make my point.

Based on the above, I see very little value in just pointing at another country and saying "well, they did "x" and that got a better result, so it proves that we should do "x" as well. As any scientist would expect, having a range of variables and not adjusting for their differences will make direct comparison of data a nonsense.

So, if my fellow posters are going to refer to other countries / populations and cite them as examples of what the UK should do / have done, it would be really helpful to recognise and point out any variables that might need to be considered along with the difference in the raw data. Otherwise, it seems to me, that such comparisons are just making unfounded assertions, rather than actually being interested in the problem of what might be the best response to this pandemic.

VRD

[XFool]

But now, I believe I have at last found a possibly realistic solution! Vaccination.

And yet, I think I heard the BBC say on the wireless yesterday that in a survey, 39% of people responding said they would not accept the vaccine. That leave 61% who (presumably) will. Herd immunity threshold just about, I suspect! Or is it?

It would be interesting to know how that 39% breaks down demographically.

[XFool]

Just a comment on comparing the UK with other countries, or looking at other countries to provide "evidence" that the pandemic is over / not over:
...
Based on the above, I see very little value in just pointing at another country and saying "well, they did "x" and that got a better result, so it proves that we should do "x" as well. As any scientist would expect, having a range of variables and not adjusting for their differences will make direct comparison of data a nonsense.

So, if my fellow posters are going to refer to other countries / populations and cite them as examples of what the UK should do / have done, it would be really helpful to recognise and point out any variables that might need to be considered along with the difference in the raw data. Otherwise, it seems to me, that such comparisons are just making unfounded assertions, rather than actually being interested in the problem of what might be the best response to this pandemic.

I agree with this.

My reference to other countries (usually Sweden!) is less to say: "We should be doing what they are doing" or "We should not be doing what they are doing", than to point out how some of these alternative explanations or recommendations for UK policy don't always seem to stand too much scrutiny - even before we attempt to allow for differences between nations and societies.

[dealtn]

Just a comment on comparing the UK with other countries, or looking at other countries to provide "evidence" that the pandemic is over / not over:
...
Based on the above, I see very little value in just pointing at another country and saying "well, they did "x" and that got a better result, so it proves that we should do "x" as well. As any scientist would expect, having a range of variables and not adjusting for their differences will make direct comparison of data a nonsense.

So, if my fellow posters are going to refer to other countries / populations and cite them as examples of what the UK should do / have done, it would be really helpful to recognise and point out any variables that might need to be considered along with the difference in the raw data. Otherwise, it seems to me, that such comparisons are just making unfounded assertions, rather than actually being interested in the problem of what might be the best response to this pandemic.

I agree with this.

My reference to other countries (usually Sweden!) is less to say: "We should be doing what they are doing" or "We should not be doing what they are doing", than to point out how some of these alternative explanations or recommendations for UK policy don't always seem to stand too much scrutiny - even before we attempt to allow for differences between nations and societies.

That's precisely why you need to do it AFTER allowing for the differences!

You might still come to the same conclusion, but you won't have done so through a false analysis.

[redsturgeon]

Just a comment on comparing the UK with other countries, or looking at other countries to provide "evidence" that the pandemic is over / not over:
...
Based on the above, I see very little value in just pointing at another country and saying "well, they did "x" and that got a better result, so it proves that we should do "x" as well. As any scientist would expect, having a range of variables and not adjusting for their differences will make direct comparison of data a nonsense.

So, if my fellow posters are going to refer to other countries / populations and cite them as examples of what the UK should do / have done, it would be really helpful to recognise and point out any variables that might need to be considered along with the difference in the raw data. Otherwise, it seems to me, that such comparisons are just making unfounded assertions, rather than actually being interested in the problem of what might be the best response to this pandemic.

I agree with this.

My reference to other countries (usually Sweden!) is less to say: "We should be doing what they are doing" or "We should not be doing what they are doing", than to point out how some of these alternative explanations or recommendations for UK policy don't always seem to stand too much scrutiny - even before we attempt to allow for differences between nations and societies.

That's precisely why you need to do it AFTER allowing for the differences!

You might still come to the same conclusion, but you won't have done so through a false analysis.

Does anyone here not believe that there are experts, many more than there are people on this forum, with many times the resources, experience, intelligence and, dare I say it, expertise who are looking at all of this...or have we all given up listening to "experts"?

I suppose we can still have our little bit of fun here thinking we know best though. Keeps us off the streets.

John

[tjh290633]

I understand that Wales, despite its 2 week lockdown, found that cases continued to rise.

This leads to a number of conclusions.

1. Lockdown does not work, something else does.

2. 2 weeks is not long enough, compare the effect of England's 4 weeks.

3. Localised restrictions may be more effective than widespread restrictions.

TJH

[Itsallaguess]

I understand that Wales, despite its 2 week lockdown, found that cases continued to rise.

This leads to a number of conclusions.

1. Lockdown does not work, something else does.

2. 2 weeks is not long enough, compare the effect of England's 4 weeks.

3. Localised restrictions may be more effective than widespread restrictions.

You missed one -

4. Lockdowns do work - but only if enough people abide by the rules for long enough for the restrictions to be effective...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess