Coronavirus outbreak

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Clearly, you don't under sampling

Attack me if you want (with your biased samples), but I politely made the point that you have not provided solid evidence to substantiate your claims about large numbers of people dying.

You trash the work of Oxford University because it doesn't fit your beliefs, but you quote Imperial College to support you. Was that the same Neil Fergusson whose previous work on CJD has been discredited?

I'll just chip in that back in late Feb/early March when testing was more in the community/contact tracing etc. only a few % of tests were coming back positive

In fact in the early days when my team were testing a few 1000 a week, almost none were positive

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Please don't take that as me defending Snowball and his mental stats !

[John Madejski's Wallet]

And for the love of all that is good in the world, can you please start fukking quoting properly!

[John Madejski's Wallet]

TB HT

[Hound]

Did the Oxford study actually say that half the people had the thing, or just that it was in the range of their modelling?

Basically until widespread testing took place, they also had no idea

[Snowball]

BTW


According to you, and the Oxford clowns "Over half of the UK have had Coronavirus"

So over half of the population of Reading has had Coronavirus!!

So over half of the population of HobNob has had Coronavirus. Shout out folks!

So over half of the 650 MPs in Westminster have had Coronavirus. (I think about a dozen are self-isolating but just a handful have been diagnosed with actual Covid)... remember "over half" That means, if Oxford are right 326+ MPs have had Coronavirus.


And to go back to logic, we have had over a quarter of a million of Coronavirus tests = 252,958. Half of that is 126,479

OVER half is 126,480 or higher. But we have TESTED and only 51,608 have had it. Less than 20%

If ever we needed proof that you don’t understand statistics and sampling it’s this.
Over half the population of the country COULD be true even if there were NO cases in Reading
Is that enough bold and large ?

Of course it COULD be as you say. A UK statistic COULD BE that the whole of London has it and nobody else. But I know and you know that is NOT the case.

The Oxford model SPECIFICALLY was based on a totally uniform spread throughout the UK, also predicated that every individual in the current had an equal chance of meeting any other individual. Those are two major faults picked up by about a dozen eminent scientists when criticising.

But the more important point is that they modelled, beginning with a death rate of 0.1% and 0.01% (equal to seasonal flu or ten times LESS nasty than seasonal flu. Answer me this: "Is Coronavirus 10 times less deadly than seasonal flu?"

It is quite ridiculous to say so, is it not? So you have to start from a premise that it's equally deadly (silly) to "it's clearly a lot more deadly"

BTW the Oxford model predicted it could be the case that 68% of the population had had it unseen. 68%

Why then would the Government scientists have been considering going for herd immunity of 60%, when according to the Oxford study TWO WEEKS AGO we could already have been at 68%?

The Oxford Research is NOT properly published (You can read it via Drop-Box)

The Oxford Research has NOT been peer-reviewed (a standard before it gains legitimacy)

The Oxford Research has been panned by virtually every serious scientist in the field. It's easy to Google and see that.

Remember also that since the paper was first posted around March 22nd. The 36-68% would have markedly increased since then.

Here is a reasonably readable review of the research

https://reason.com/2020/03/25/half-of-u ... ord-model/

So yeah, IF you say only 1 in a 1,000 who contract Covid will need hospital care, then you get a 68% number.

And IF Covid was floating round FOR A MONTH prior to the first case being noted

[PieEater]

As with all things on Hobnob I think we need a poll to settle it.

How many people do you know that have had it and how many do you know that got hospitalised?

(6-0 for me)

[Snowball]

I reckon when amateurs start calling experts ‘clowns’ because they think being able to put numbers on a spreadsheet means they ‘understand’ it might just be time to take a timeout.

Read what the experts are saying about the assumptions made when building the model.

Some have heavily criticised the modelling (in polite-speak of course) saying such things as "The epidemiological studies of complete populations (Italy, China) do not project numbers REMOTELY like this paper."

There have been "complete population" studies, studies of whole towns/villages in Italy for example. These are REAL cases and non-cases, not mathematical models, and they all come up with a much, much lower "unseen infection rate"

[Old Man Andrews]

STOP typing random word in CAPITAL letters and try to stop being a complete DOUCHE.

[Snowball]

BTW


According to you, and the Oxford clowns "Over half of the UK have had Coronavirus"

So over half of the population of Reading has had Coronavirus!!

So over half of the population of HobNob has had Coronavirus. Shout out folks!

So over half of the 650 MPs in Westminster have had Coronavirus. (I think about a dozen are self-isolating but just a handful have been diagnosed with actual Covid)... remember "over half" That means, if Oxford are right 326+ MPs have had Coronavirus.


And to go back to logic, we have had over a quarter of a million of Coronavirus tests = 252,958. Half of that is 126,479

OVER half is 126,480 or higher. But we have TESTED and only 51,608 have had it. Less than 20%

MY BRAIN!!!!! MY oxf*rd BRAIN!!!!!
IT HURTS JUST READING THIS!!!!

OXFORD CLOWNS?!?!?!?!?!1!?
Half the population DOES NOT mean half of Reading and certainly DOES NOT MEAN HALF OF HOBNOB!!!!

AGHGHGGHGHGHGHGGHGHGASHGHHGHGGHGHGGHGHGHGGHGHGHGHGH

Just to explain (again). Yes, half the population could mean all males or all females or all people living North of Watford, and you could have, say Reading, for some whacky reason having zero cases but the odds against that are phenomenal.

But the Oxford model is predicated on PERFECT SPREAD (try reading it). It is modelled on even spread, (not the case) even density, (not the case) and an even chance of every individual meeting every other individual (not the case)

In a perfectly smooth, evenly spread etc case where upwards of 68% of the population (allegedly) has the virus, of COURSE, all Reading-ers, or Newportonians would be close to the national average. If the Oxford numbers were even remotely accurate we should expect a heck of a lot of ANY UL subset to be near 68% (maybe excluding the crews of nuclear subs who have been underwater for three or four months.

The Reading, Westminster, HobNob 50% were not specific, but examples of expectation. 50% national (or 68%) doesn't mean that exactly 50/68% of Nobbers have it.

[Snowball]

Did the Oxford study actually say that half the people had the thing, or just that it was in the range of their modelling?

Basically until widespread testing took place, they also had no idea

Hi Hound

It used two scenarios. The LOW was 36% and the high (based on a lethality ten times weaker than seasonal flu) was 68%

And this hit the news March 23rd so was modelled 22 March or earlier, meaning by now those figures would be signifcantly higher

0, 332,577 World Confirmed Cases March 22nd
1,342,372 World Confirmed Cases Yesterday

So worldwide we have had a four-fold increase in known infections. Obviously we should expect a four-fold increase in un-counted infections. Yes? That means 36% has increased to 144% (neat trick) and 68% has increased to 272% !!!

Using only UK Figures

We had 5,683 Confirmed Cases on March 22nd and yesterday we had reached 47,806 confirmed cases. That is an EIGHT-fold increase in cases since March 22nd... (actually 8.41)

[Snowball]

STOP typing random word in CAPITAL letters and try to stop being a complete DOUCHE.

"I categorically tell you, THERE WILL BE NO LOCKDOWN"

[Old Man Andrews]

STOP typing random word in CAPITAL letters and try to stop being a complete DOUCHE.

"I categorically tell you, THERE WILL BE NO LOCKDOWN"

You're a lunatic. Seek help.

[Snowball]

STOP typing random word in CAPITAL letters and try to stop being a complete DOUCHE.

"I categorically tell you, THERE WILL BE NO LOCKDOWN"

You're a lunatic. Seek help.

Just pointing out how on AE you ranted about "There will be no lockdown" repeating and repeating your incorrect forecast without the slightest bit of evidence to support you other than the case that you are a genius.

I clearly should take note of your opinions.

I promise to give them all the respect they deserve

[Old Man Andrews]

You're a lunatic. Seek help.

Just pointing out how on AE you ranted about "There will be no lockdown" repeating and repeating your incorrect forecast without the slightest bit of evidence to support you other than the case that you are a genius.

I clearly should take note of your opinions.

I promise to give them all the respect they deserve

If posting stat after stat and typing in caps gets you through this then by all means carry on.

[BR0B0T]

STOP typing random word in CAPITAL letters and try to stop being a complete DOUCHE.

could be the NEW trend to set on AE?!?!?!

[BR0B0T]

And for the love of all that is good in the world, can you please start fukking quoting properly!

fur q

[BR0B0T]

TB HT

OR

you've cost me 3 posts

[Snowball]

The ONS is now indicating the difference between
ALL Covid Deaths v the lower" Hospital Covid Deaths"

In the week ending March 27th Hospital Covid-19 deaths were 92.7% of all Covid deaths (where Covid was given as a cause on the death certificate and ratified by a doctor)

So that is 92.7% increases by 7.3% to get to 100%.

To get to the true figure for that week you multiply the hospital figure by 100 over 92.7 (7.87% = 8% for a rule of thumb. Whether this ratio is static who knows but I would expect more out-of-hospital deaths over time)

This is not a massive hike, so for now, I've applied it to each day (7.8%) as you can see for column three below.

In the week mentioned, Hospitals reported a total of 571 Covid Deaths. Adding 8% to that (46) gives 621 Deaths. I mention this because the death rate from all causes is going up. For that week it was 1,011 deaths per week higher than the five year average for the same week. Other death figures (work accidents, RTAs) should be falling so it seems we have about 490++ extra deaths appearing for some reason. Is that other hospital wards are now badly under-staffed? Are people dying of other diseases at home while waiting for an ambulance? It is also possible that some of those 490++ deaths were Covid influenced but not the main factor and not marked as Covid. eg someone seriously ill, dying with a lung infection, gets "helped on his way" by Covid. Just a thought.


Date - - - - Hospital - - - ALL
16-Mar - - - 0,055 - - - 0,059
17-Mar - - - 0,071 - - - 0,076
18-Mar - - - 0,104 - - - 0,112
19-Mar - - - 0,144 - - - 0,155
20-Mar - - - 0,177 - - - 0,191
21-Mar - - - 0,233 - - - 0,251
22-Mar - - - 0,281 - - - 0,302
23-Mar - - - 0,335 - - - 0,361
24-Mar - - - 0,422 - - - 0,454
25-Mar - - - 0,463 - - - 0,498
26-Mar - - - 0,578 - - - 0,622
27-Mar - - - 0,759 - - - 0,817
28-Mar - - - 1,028 - - - 1,107
29-Mar - - - 1,228 - - - 1,322
30-Mar - - - 1,408 - - - 1,516
31-Mar - - - 1,808 - - - 1,946

01-Apr - - - 2,352 - - - 2,532
02-Apr - - - 2,921 - - - 3,144
03-Apr - - - 3,605 - - - 3,881
04-Apr - - - 4,313 - - - 4,643
05-Apr - - - 4,934 - - - 5,311
06-Apr - - - 5,373 - - - 5,784

The ONS writes: "Of the deaths registered in Week 13, 539 mentioned "novel coronavirus (COVID-19)", which is 4.8% of all deaths; this compared with 103 (1.0% of all deaths) in Week 12."

[genome]