Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Boostin' Kev]

I remember making a joke about some wee bowling club near your ground, you were furious. 

[renton]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

BJ had no intention of shutting the economy down though, until Ferguson showed up with his bingo machine estimate.

His most fatal mistake in the whole episode was putting faith in an epidemioligist with a track record of wildly over estimating the impact of viruses.

Every decision and consequence since can be linked back to that single model.

Imperial wasn’t the only one showing those kinds of numbers under a No intervention timeline. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine came up with similar figures from their modelling: https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/uk-scenario-modelling.html

Be interested to see the models that showed far fewer deaths under various intervention strategies and why those model assumptions might have been more valid. 

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, renton said:

Be interested to see the models that showed far fewer deaths under various intervention strategies and why those model assumptions might have been more valid. 

I'd be interested to know how epidemioligists, who devote their careers to this kind of thing, can get probably the most important model of their lives so catastrophically wrong.

[The Moonster]

16 minutes ago, Boostin' Kev said:

I remember making a joke about some wee bowling club near your ground, you were furious. 

Can't say I remember being furious about a bowling club. Not sure how being annoyed at a joke makes me the biggest moaner on here but wire in.

[renton]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'd be interested to know how epidemioligists, who devote their careers to this kind of thing, can get probably the most important model of their lives so catastrophically wrong.

Did they though? 

I mean, in the paper I linked above it states:

Quote

. The combined intervention was more effective at reducing R₀, but only lockdown periods were sufficient to bring R₀ near or below 1; the most stringent lockdown scenario resulted in a projected 120 000 cases (46 000–700 000) and 50 000 deaths (9300–160 000)

in a non intervention timeline they were predicting 350,000 deaths. Using the most stringent lockdown procedures, using known dates for when the virus got into the UK and timing lockdown for March their model came out at 50,000 deaths, which is not that inaccurate to where we are now.

Obviously we can't know that without intervention the model accuracy would've held up, but they seemed pretty good on where the death rate ended up with intervention so the model passes that test.

Worth also noting that ICU capacity peaked at 60% in England. Another week or two before locking down and it would certainly have exceeded capacity and the UK would have failed even on the metric of preventing over extension of the NHS.

As I say, if there are models for the UK that contradict the findings of Imperial and London school of Hygiene I'd love to see them and try and understand the substantive methodology differences and why one may be more right than the other.

[renton]

This is pretty interesting as well:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-53233974

Edinburgh Uni modelling of a Sweden approach in Scotland. Suggests that a Swedish model could've worked, and Scotland may have had a slightly higher death toll while avoiding lockdown and the associate economic damage, but that those measures would've reduced R effective to around 1, and the precision of the model means it was a 50:50 (i.e. R just above 1 or just below 1) as to whether the Swedish approach would work or wouldve left Scotland with a 40,000 death toll.

Quote

Prof Kao said the team's modelling pointed to two potential outcomes.

"With no lockdown and some restrictions, Scotland could have experienced a slightly larger outbreak, possibly with 7,280 deaths, or a far larger outbreak which could have killed nearly 39,613."

Scotland would have avoided the collateral damage caused by lockdown, "but many more people would have died".

You have two very different possible outcomes and they hinge on this idea that it depends on the R number being above one or below one," said Prof Kao.

"If the R number remains above one, you could have had 40,000 deaths, and if it's below one, 7,000.

"It's fair to say that the chance of there being substantially more deaths is very high. There's a 50:50 chance we would have had a much worse epidemic. Is 50:50 worth gambling on? I would suspect not."

 

[Detournement]

15 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Have you actual evidence that properly structured assessment systems that don't use exams, have the effect of closing the poverty gap?

Anything that negates the use of private tutors will reduce the attainment gap. 

[Todd_is_God]

12 minutes ago, renton said:

Did they though? 

I mean, in the paper I linked above it states:

in a non intervention timeline they were predicting 350,000 deaths. Using the most stringent lockdown procedures, using known dates for when the virus got into the UK and timing lockdown for March their model came out at 50,000 deaths, which is not that inaccurate to where we are now.

Obviously we can't know that without intervention the model accuracy would've held up, but they seemed pretty good on where the death rate ended up with intervention so the model passes that test.

Worth also noting that ICU capacity peaked at 60% in England. Another week or two before locking down and it would certainly have exceeded capacity and the UK would have failed even on the metric of preventing over extension of the NHS.

As I say, if there are models for the UK that contradict the findings of Imperial and London school of Hygiene I'd love to see them and try and understand the substantive methodology differences and why one may be more right than the other.

The R number was recently said to have been decreasing by the time the lockdown came in.

That doesn't support your theory that the numbers in ICU would have doubled had we simply introduced shielding and distancing on the 23rd of March.

They did get it wrong. If they act like they didn't they'll learn nothing about what went so wrong, and they will make the same errors next time round.

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Anything that negates the use of private tutors will reduce the attainment gap. 

Massacring all private tutors would do this but wouldn't improve the position of the most disadvantaged one bit. 

[renton]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

The R number was recently said to have been decreasing by the time the lockdown came in.

That doesn't support your theory that the numbers in ICU would have doubled had we simply introduced shielding and distancing on the 23rd of March.

They did get it wrong. If they act like they didn't they'll learn nothing about what went so wrong, and they will make the same errors next time round.

If you look at the Scot Gov  publications you can see a range of measures that reduce R effective from its original value, but its eventually only lockdown that pushes it down below 1.

The issue is that measures which could have prevented the need for lockdown - for example quaranting traffic  coming from Italy and Spain - was never seriously considered. Also, the length of lockdown and its associated damage could have been lessened had they instigated it earlier. 

Lockdown was inevitable given the lack of measures and preparation, it was however too late to be optimal.

You say they got it wrong, but where are the alternative models suggesting that?

[Todd_is_God]

12 minutes ago, renton said:

This is pretty interesting as well:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-53233974

Edinburgh Uni modelling of a Sweden approach in Scotland. Suggests that a Swedish model could've worked, and Scotland may have had a slightly higher death toll while avoiding lockdown and the associate economic damage, but that those measures would've reduced R effective to around 1, and the precision of the model means it was a 50:50 (i.e. R just above 1 or just below 1) as to whether the Swedish approach would work or wouldve left Scotland with a 40,000 death toll.

40,000 is 0.88% of Scotland's population.

For that to have any chance of being possible, it would need to mean that 100% of the population are susceptible (now pretty much accepted they are not), and that almost 100% of the population became infected (extremely unlikely).

[Steve_Wilkos]

1 hour ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Schools back today here. Wonder how long it will take for one kid to get a sniffle and for mums to be crying out “sHuT tHe ScHoOLs”, I give it 3 weeks 

As long as that?

[resk]

Current restrictions in Aberdeen in place for another week.

[Wee Bully]

40,000 is 0.88% of Scotland's population.
For that to have any chance of being possible, it would need to mean that 100% of the population are susceptible (now pretty much accepted they are not), and that almost 100% of the population became infected (extremely unlikely).

Thank God you’re here to debunk all these crazy scientists.

I honestly think you are missing your vocation. You should at least be on SAGE, if not Head of the WHO!

Why as a society are we spending time and money training these people when it is all so obvious? Money down the drain I say!

[ICTChris]

Anything that negates the use of private tutors will reduce the attainment gap. 

Do we think private tutoring is a major factor in the attainment gap?

[Cosmic Joe]

29 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Thank God you’re here to debunk all these crazy scientists.

I honestly think you are missing your vocation. You should at least be on SAGE, if not Head of the WHO!

Why as a society are we spending time and money training these people when it is all so obvious? Money down the drain I say!

He quite clearly gets a kick out of flying in the face of scientific advice, as his views on climate change demonstrate. 

Personally I think he's a bit of an attention seeker

[Melanius Mullarkey]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

The R number was recently said to have been decreasing by the time the lockdown came in.

WHo said this?

[VladimirMooc]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

40,000 is 0.88% of Scotland's population.

For that to have any chance of being possible, it would need to mean that 100% of the population are susceptible (now pretty much accepted they are not), and that almost 100% of the population became infected (extremely unlikely).

What’s your job? What do you know that academics at Edinburgh Uni don’t? 

[Gallant Pioneer]

25 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

WHo said this?

Before lockdown people were already staying at home, so it’s probably correct but only because people were in a self imposed lockdown fed up waiting for Westminster to get it’s act together

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

 

Do we think private tutoring is a major factor in the attainment gap?

 

It has to be a factor. 

I'd wager that the attainment gap is smaller March than it is on exam day. Affluent pupils will on the whole have far more advantages studying at home in the months leading up to exams which is the most important period. 

Poorer University students have similar disadvantages competing against students who don't have part time jobs.