Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

[Oldjohnw]

ONS is not an arm of government. By statute it is independent.

[roubaixtuesday]

I'm yet to be convinced that the number of deaths with the current lockdown is not exactly equal to the number of deaths without it.

That's because you made your mind up in advance and ignore all the evidence, whilst propounding outlandish "theories" outside all of scientific knowledge.

[Postboxer]

I suppose if infection and death rate rises as lock down is relaxed, then it was doing something.

[wjhall]

. . . I think exact references aren't given because they'd contradict the claim. Instead, handwaving seeks to waste other people's time.

The more fundamental point is that to make the assertions you made, without references, which now seem to turn on whether risk and risks have different meanings in idiomatic English, you should already be familiar with the material I indicated, and recognise immediately the papers I was referring to.

Have you read either the Guardian article or the ONS age profile statistics to which it refers? If you have then you should be easily able to support your unreferenced assertions with a quick summary of the errors in the article, the data, or the interpretation, supported by either different data or different interpretations, from a different respectable institution.

I would have asked if you had read any of Professor David 'we’re all going to die sometime' Spiegelhalter's work on this subject, which has been part of public debate for nearly two months, but you may find him a little coldly scientific, probably comes from spending winters on the edge of the freezing fens. There is said to be growing body of PHE/Cambridge work on the subject, so reading it may be come necessary at some time.

[wjhall]

The Guardian report from two days ago (1) suggests that, among other factors, there could be some development of herd immunity in London, but only claims that serology tests show that 10 % of people might have had it, which is vastly below the 70 % figure for herd immunity that has been kicking around for some time.
This is a quote from the journalist:
'There are likely to be a wide range of factors behind this. London may now have a higher level of population immunity, which could be playing a role in bringing down transmission, since a higher proportion of people have been infected.'

Herd immunity still remains the only obvious long term solution, but claiming that it is more than a possible contributing factor at this stage does seem optimistic. There does not seem to be any real reason to think that confinement has not had a major effect, after all reducing R by reducing contact was what it was aimed at, despite the puzzling fact that of the major European nations the hard confiners seem to have more deaths than those claiming to have followed softer policies.

Confinement, as the famous Imperial report and others point out, does have the side effect of slowing the development of herd immunity.


(1) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... in-england

[horizon]

I suppose if infection and death rate rises as lock down is relaxed, then it was doing something.

Or:

1. It wasn't doing anything at all but deaths and infections rise for their own reasons - though we don't yet know as it hasn't yet ended (except in other countries where AFAIK, there hasn't been an increase). That's my belief.

or

2. It was just putting off deaths and infections but these will carry on now that the curve is safely flattened. That's the government's belief.

or

3. That it really has reduced some deaths and infections for all time. That is the belief (or at least hope) of 90% of the population.

I'm not worried about the disparity between 1 and 3 but I might be worried about the disparity between 2 and 3 if I counted myself amongst 3.

[mjr]

Similar crititism of Ireland following WHO counting advice covered at https://www.thejournal.ie/how-are-covid ... 0-may2020/

[reohn2]

A simple question asked already but so far remained unanswered.
Why would a society based and run by a system(capitalism) that relies on consumerism and growth(however flawed that system may be),falsely increase reported death rate figures that undermine the consumerism it relies on to survive,travel and tourism being one particular huge and obvious aspect of it ?

[roubaixtuesday]

I suppose if infection and death rate rises as lock down is relaxed, then it was doing something.

Or:

1. It wasn't doing anything at all but deaths and infections rise for their own reasons - though we don't yet know as it hasn't yet ended (except in other countries where AFAIK, there hasn't been an increase). That's my belief.

or

2. It was just putting off deaths and infections but these will carry on now that the curve is safely flattened. That's the government's belief.

or

3. That it really has reduced some deaths and infections for all time. That is the belief (or at least hope) of 90% of the population.

I'm not worried about the disparity between 1 and 3 but I might be worried about the disparity between 2 and 3 if I counted myself amongst 3.

1) is outside all known science, so we can safely ignore that.

2) is entirely false and has never been postulated.

3) is true, but depends on exactly what we do next.

[roubaixtuesday]

the puzzling fact that of the major European nations the hard confiners seem to have more deaths than those claiming to have followed softer policies.

Data to support this "puzzling fact" would be most welcome, particularly if showing that it were true for nations applying measures at thr same time in their outbreak.

[horizon]

A simple question asked already but so far remained unanswered.
Why would a society based and run by a system(capitalism) that relies on consumerism and growth(however flawed that system may be),falsely increase reported death rate figures that undermine the consumerism it relies on to survive,travel and tourism being one particular huge and obvious aspect of it ?

They don't. We have a reasonably honest and open scientific, medical and (less so) political community that is anxious not to hide the true figures and be accused of a cover up.

However we also have a press and media equally anxious for alarming and dramatic news. But I reckon the main problem is that there is genuine disagreement as to what is the true cause of death. As I've already posted (somewhere!), the WHO was already unhappy long before this pandemic that underlying conditions are not properly represented in the figures.

Like you, I don't believe the figures are being falsely reported but we do need IMV to be very careful how we interpret them.

[PH]

But I reckon the main problem is that there is genuine disagreement as to what is the true cause of death.

There is disagreement, about 99% believe one thing and the others are divided among a dozen theories from G5 to pollution.

[Oldjohnw]

There does appear to be some truth that the same people who deny that CV-19 kills also deny climate change and support both Trump and Brexit. Not absolute but there nevertheless

Of course the stats are confus d and it will be a long time before they can properly be analysed and broken down.

[reohn2]

Horizon
It seems to me as a layperson and skeptical view of mordern capitalism's control of practically every part of life that it wishes to continue to profit from everything and anything,anything that impedes that profit is to be reduced or eliminated at whatever cost.
With that in mind it sems to me that capitalism would seek to downplay the effects of C19,the despicable US Trump is a prime example of such a stance which in the long run will kill many more people than it would've otherwise,which would seems are expendable 'units' fromthe extreme neoliberal capitalist perspective.
https://youtu.be/5lC6u_eUL6c

China's perpective was to the other extreme,physically lock people in their own homes and lie about the numbers in the hope no one would ever know and hope it would have limited effect as per SARS.

Deaths from C19 aren't the whole story,it attacks the the respatory system leading to pneumonia as we all know,but those with a weakened respiratory or immune system die of C19 related problems,because the body can't recover after fighting the related issues,therefore it is IMO correct to say these people have died of C19 because they may never have been ill in the first place without contracting C19.
The nonsense of this virus being similar to flu is just that a nonense as we(humanity)are dealing with something we've never experienced before.

Trying to contain or slow infection rates by confinement and or social distancing AIUI is a method of slowing infection rates so as not to overwhelme the NHS until either science has an answer in the form of a vaccine or the virus itself dies out or we humans change the way we live.
The UK government have done a poor job of fighting this virus practically ignoring it initially and being ill prepared medically since recognising it's true potential and threat,our own PM shaking hands with sufferers in a hospital visit and contracting it himself proving his idiocy when scientists already knwpew the threat it posed.
The UK was far too late and way under resourced,that's a fact.

It's government are simply incompetent and have been throughout.
That's been this nation's problem in relation to this virus.

Rant over.

[horizon]

There does appear to be some truth that the same people who deny that CV-19 kills . . .

That doesn't include me. The disagreement I mentioned above refers to doctors who choose to put covid19 as the cause of death and those who prefer to put the underlying, long term cause. That's a medical practice issue. It only becomes a problem if (as the WHO complain), the "final straw" hides the true extent of say, lung disease.

. . . also deny climate change and support both Trump and Brexit. Not absolute but there nevertheless

Just in passing:

I recognise man-made climate change and passionately support moves to deal with it
I support Bernie Sanders not Trump
I oppose Brexit
If I were American I would ban all guns.
And I don't believe that 5G causes covid19!

However, I do have issues with the over-medicalisation of health.