Skip to main content
Topic: CV and mad panic behaviour (Read 427889 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4170
I'm sure people will readily note your inability (yes, failure) to actually even attempt to refute the data or the primary school maths that I have used accurately.

But feel free to keep taking pot shots - good for a laugh.

A drive by attack? Spurious? Cherry picking?

By posting a link to a (complete, unadulterated) UK Government report that contains some very clear data that very clearly refutes your fragile narrative?

Are you suggesting the Report is fraudulent LP?

Or just that it should be ignored as you know better (again)?

As you correctly highlight, for once, people aren't dumb.

They can - and will - draw their own conclusions.


Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4171
The summary page from Fly's post probably covers the issues.

The risk assessment linked in the summary (attached) - is to be read in conjunction.  The information isn't static and will change as more information is known.

There is high confidence in two measures and low confidence in another two.

 




Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4172
There is nothing in the data tables linked in the original document that supports Flyboy's conclusions, readers can investigate this on their own if they really want to take it further.

Flyboy has confused lethality with virulence.

Some of the figures Flyboy wants to misuse are percentages of percentages, and have to be judged relative to the duration/appearance of both the original and Delta strains. In effect Flyboy has published conclusions without regard to the underlying meaning of the figures.

The 2nd Burnet document is a simulation/model of what Long Term COVID might be like under high vaccination rates and various other mitigation schemes. The proportion of cases has to be measured relative to the percentage of the population, in this case if as many as 75% of people were vaccinated and 25% of people were not! When that consideration is made the simulation/model figures suggest the exact opposite of Flyboy's conclusions. Flyboy's conclusions of course contradict the documents own conclusions which are summarised on the very first page.

Severe COVID-19 is severe COVID-19, vaccination reduces your chance of getting severe COVID-19, but if you get severe COVID-19 it may not matter whether you have been vaccinated or not, you could just be misfortunate enough to be in the group the vaccines do not really work for. The true measure of this simulation/model is relative to the expected populations of people in each selected category.

As an aside;
Death and infection rates are a consequence of many factors, simple surveys and head counts that do not offer age or social demographics do not paint the full picture. It looks like with the spread of Delta reinfection rates are rising, the original strain is not providing strong immunity to the Delta strain, but you can't kill the vulnerable twice!

However, Delta is proving lethal in younger demographics.

Many vulnerable, even some who are double vaccinated and vulnerable, or perhaps those who become complacent will continue succumb to both the original strain and Delta. Why? Because vaccination does provide 100% immunity, nobody claimed vaccination had 100% efficacy, nobody has ever claimed that it's only a criticism levelled by those wishing to create certain uncertainty.

Just because I didn't highlight the hospitalisation numbers doesn't mean I don't get the difference between mortality and virulence.

But thanks.

Re the Burnet model, more garbage out of the Gates' stable....



Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4173
The summary page from Fly's post probably covers the issues.

The risk assessment linked in the summary (attached) - is to be read in conjunction.  The information isn't static and will change as more information is known.

There is high confidence in two measures and low confidence in another two.




It's a facile risk assessment to be fair.

The risk assessment is entirely qualitative, not quantitative!

Funny how they have a low confidence in a comment "Delta has at least an equivalent case fatality rate to Alpha" when their own data suggests quite the opposite ie Delta 5x LESS deadly.

The numbers are the numbers - and yes, they will change over time BUT Delta is pretty much 100% now in UK (has been for some time). Alpha numbers are now all but set in stone (as that strain has disappeared).

 



Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4174
The summary page from Fly's post probably covers the issues.

The risk assessment linked in the summary (attached) - is to be read in conjunction.  The information isn't static and will change as more information is known.

There is high confidence in two measures and low confidence in another two.
Thanks @dodge‍ , a measured response.

It's interesting to see how the public react to the science when it is communicated fairly conservatively.

We know scientific claims won't be made when they can't be strongly supported, so formal commentary based on early trends will always be conservative, the scientists want more data. Scientists won't make the early crow mistake that the HCQ boosters did. To some degree that leaves scientific and technical reports open to misuse and abuse as we know, however nobody having a rational look at this stuff will disagree with the conservative perspective taken by the scientists.

If the scientists go early they don't have enough data to be confident to the levels they would like, so the naysayers and critics take a cheap shot claiming there isn't enough data to support the conclusions or predictions. If the scientists don't go early they can see people might suffer, the critics will claim they should have been warned.

It's a no win for the scientists, but they persist because they know it is the right thing to do!
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4175
Just because I didn't highlight the hospitalisation numbers doesn't mean I don't get the difference between mortality and virulence.
What you did or didn't post is irrelevant, it's your original conclusion you post that exposes your confusion.

The falling mortality of the original strains, and the rising case numbers of the Delta strain, would eventually expose the myth of what you persist with if it wasn't for the mitigation steps being taken. The delayed cross over is a consequence of mitigation not in difference to it.

Mitigation steps that included improved understanding of Sars-CoV-2, better treatment regimes, snap lockdowns, wide spread vaccinations, faster contact tracing and better quarantine.
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4176
Here is my reaction.

After a long time stewing about whats right and wrong, irrespective of where you sit on covid (lets face it, no one has any real idea of the long term impact of contracting covid) the idea that we can prevent people from getting sick rather than cure them after they have gotten sick, is at worst, logical.

Practically speaking it becomes a bit grey.  Do we unlock and lockdown incessently?  No, thats not really that practical, but the alternative isnt really any more practical, and the result might be that people simply choose themselves to stay home anyway (social data is backing this up).

I think we are all a bit fatigued.  I dont worry about the ranting and raving.  For the most part, no one is listening overly to what goes on in a football forum anyway.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4177
I think we are all a bit fatigued.  I dont worry about the ranting and raving.  For the most part, no one is listening overly to what goes on in a football forum anyway.
I understand @Thryleon

But I will always respond, simply because forums like this one, Facebook, Instagram or Twitter can through there influence kill or maim people with disinformation or misrepresented data.

It is not and never will be an innocent or trivial debate free of consequences.
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4178
I understand @Thryleon

But I will always respond, simply because forums like this one, Facebook, Instagram or Twitter can through there influence kill or maim people with disinformation or misrepresented data.

It is not and never will be an innocent or trivial debate free of consequences.
Fair enough LP.

Thing is, people are going to have their platforms.  I recognised something about social media a while ago.  Ever noticed, that its almost a giant propaganda machine anyway?

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4179
If Flyboy is correct, the mystery is why Gladys & Slomo have battened down the hatches as Delta started gathering strength.

After all, Gladys’ position was “We don’t do lockdowns!” She loved to smirk when asked why she wasn’t following Victoria’s example. She had every reason to respond to Dan Andrews and the media like the Norman soldiers in Monty Python & the Holy Grail:
Quote
“I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal-food-trough wiper. I fart in your general direction.“

Slomo would have happily joined her, given that he has taken a beating over the slow rollout leaving us vulnerable to Delta. But despite having every political reason to hold her line, she has instead capitulated and ordered increasingly severe lockdowns and Slomo has tried to convince everyone that he’s going to kick the strollout into top gear.

Perhaps if Gladys had retained Flyboy as her data analyst she wouldn’t have been bum-rushed into a rookie mistake.

Or maybe the real data analysts warned her that laughing at Tim the rabbit would end up with blood on her hands.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4180
Thing is, people are going to have their platforms.  I recognised something about social media a while ago.  Ever noticed, that its almost a giant propaganda machine anyway?
Yes that is one of it's potential features, but it doesn't mean everything is propaganda, and a lot of the really nasty stuff is pretty easy to disprove.

The experts haven't lost their voice entirely, they are just much much harder to hear over the throng of nutbags and lunatics.

btw., I'm not opposed to someone like Flyboy posing questions, in fact we need sceptics and healthy scepticism is how science really works. But science never works by deliberately cherry-picking or misrepresenting the data, in science if you fake it you're f#$%!d!

The crooks who do misrepresent data, even if they have a PhD after their name, aren't scientists!
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4181
It's a facile risk assessment to be fair.

The risk assessment is entirely qualitative, not quantitative!

Funny how they have a low confidence in a comment "Delta has at least an equivalent case fatality rate to Alpha" when their own data suggests quite the opposite ie Delta 5x LESS deadly.

The numbers are the numbers - and yes, they will change over time BUT Delta is pretty much 100% now in UK (has been for some time). Alpha numbers are now all but set in stone (as that strain has disappeared).

Low confidence in fatality rate, as the numbers are low (they state this).  They also have had essentially 6 weeks of high Delta cases against ~14 mnths Alpha data.  I would hope that they would be looking at the data impassively and making informed conclusions as they are working in depth with this everyday.  Personally, I am pretty OK with taking British Health at their word.

 

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4182
Low confidence in fatality rate, as the numbers are low (they state this).  They also have had essentially 6 weeks of high Delta cases against ~14 mnths Alpha data.  I would hope that they would be looking at the data impassively and making informed conclusions as they are working in depth with this everyday.  Personally, I am pretty OK with taking British Health at their word.
@dodge‍  That's it you're speaking too much sense, it has no place here, get out of the pool! ;D
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4183
What you did or didn't post is irrelevant, it's your original conclusion you post that exposes your confusion.

The falling mortality of the original strains, and the rising case numbers of the Delta strain, would eventually expose the myth of what you persist with if it wasn't for the mitigation steps being taken. The delayed cross over is a consequence of mitigation not in difference to it.

Mitigation steps that included improved understanding of Sars-CoV-2, better treatment regimes, snap lockdowns, wide spread vaccinations, faster contact tracing and better quarantine.

Who the f... are you to tell me what I am thinking?

Any idiot knows that lockdowns have never previously been recommended in history, prior to 2020, as EVERYONE with half a clue knows the cost of  lockdown is simply far, far too great.

And here you are advocating them. There's my assessment of your confusion.

You might be 'good' in your world, I've only seen lightweight obfuscation from you thus far.

Any conclusions I have drawn are irrefutable on the evidence presented.

No one doubts the numbers might slide, one way or the other, that is to fudge the issue though.

Dodge saying there is only 6 weeks data on Delta?

Delta has been the dominant strain in the UK since the end of March.....

The maths isn't hard.





Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4184
If Flyboy is correct, the mystery is why Gladys & Slomo have battened down the hatches as Delta started gathering strength.

After all, Gladys’ position was “We don’t do lockdowns!” She loved to smirk when asked why she wasn’t following Victoria’s example. She had every reason to respond to Dan Andrews and the media like the Norman soldiers in Monty Python & the Holy Grail:
Slomo would have happily joined her, given that he has taken a beating over the slow rollout leaving us vulnerable to Delta. But despite having every political reason to hold her line, she has instead capitulated and ordered increasingly severe lockdowns and Slomo has tried to convince everyone that he’s going to kick the strollout into top gear.

Perhaps if Gladys had retained Flyboy as her data analyst she wouldn’t have been bum-rushed into a rookie mistake.

Or maybe the real data analysts warned her that laughing at Tim the rabbit would end up with blood on her hands.

You can see the numbers as readily as I Mav.

If you want to disagree with my maths (which is Grade 4 maths) feel free....

It's nothing to do with me being 'right or wrong'.

It is the data. Hard empirical data. Not dodgy, wishy washy, easily manipulated black box models.

If I've made a computational error, I'll gladly put my hand up. I haven't.
Finals, then 4 in a row!