Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, superbigal said:

Scotgov claiming the R rate in Scotland is currently 1.4 is just complete bullshit. This is the 1st real thing in 9 months coming out of her mouth that has really annoyed me.

Rates have clearly flattened and may actually be reducing.

I've noticed that any reference to R rates in those presentations seems to be 7 to 14 days out of date, yet they're always referred to as current. Even by the CMO. It's a bit like how the media say 'X people have died in the last 24 hours' when it's the number of deaths registered.

When rates were clearly rising a couple of weeks back, they said it was around 1, yet it was obviously higher. Now they say it's 1.4 when it's clearly lower.

Edited by bendan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by my rough calculations, with 17% of the 28% of adults which result in 88% of deaths having received a first dose of 70% effectiveness that means roughly 10% of future deaths have been prevented.

Not sure if I've got that correct, but even at a poor 16k/day rate it's still having a significant effect. Full Hampden for the Euros!
That's Numberwang!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Another day on and Scotgov misleading the public with this R Rate is 1.4 bullshit.   The lag on my data is 3 days and I estimate the R rate at around 0.98

Please remember all those commenting that these figures are a 7 day rolling period that are 3 days in arrears.   So I am NEVER talking about YESTERDAY as some posters keep referring.  There is no LAG in these figures only a fixed 7 day period.

R is not a massively useful number to be honest, it is an easy one to report and conceptualise, but it doesn't really give a good "here and now" estimate of what's going on, its more a model for spread, not an actual measure of absolute numbers. The government won't be using just restrospective data to calculate R, they will be using a combination of the known data and future projections. R estimates the potential infectivity rate for the whole population and doesn't take into account regional and local variations, effects of restrictions, contacts etc unless these are specifically included as estimates in the calculation; therefore pretty much everything in the calculation is an estimate, each with its own error, positive and negative. These multiply up as you use more assumptions in your calculations. It would useful for you to calculate the confidence intervals in your calculation as well as for the government to report theirs: I imagine there would be some overlap.

Edit to say: there's also different "types" of R, depending on what you're looking at data-wise. I don't know for sure which ones you and the government are calculating, but they may not be directly comparable. I'm not defending the government here, just saying that the old adage of "lies, damned lies and statistics" holds here.

Edited by Cyclizine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Elixir said:

The Scottish Government have shown themselves to be near every bit as incompetent during this shit show as the clowns in London.

But we practically eliminated the virus in summer, and those bad international travelers are the problem! 🥴

Actually no we didn't. The virus didn't go away. We did. 

I used this analogy previously, when someone was trying to persuade us here that the virus wasn't as dangerous as it once was because death and infection rates were falling (a false premise if ever there was), it's like standing in the middle of the road and getting hit  by a bus. If you stop standing in the middle of the road that doesn't suddenly make buses less dangerous. It just means you are better at avoiding them. 

For the benefit of clarity in this analogy the bus is Covid-19 and the middle of the road is basically anywhere in the outside world. 

The more we stayed in the lower the rates of transmission of the virus was. The more we went out, the more we ate out to help out and the more we interacted so the rate of this highly infectious virus rose again. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by my rough calculations, with 17% of the 28% of adults which result in 88% of deaths having received a first dose of 70% effectiveness that means roughly 10% of future deaths have been prevented.

Not sure if I've got that correct, but even at a poor 16k/day rate it's still having a significant effect. Full Hampden for the Euros!
Scott Steiner PhD27f.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Seems a bit silly not to give you yours at the same time.

I've sent an email to the head of practice who's quite a big honcho in medical circles, so it will be interesting to find out if he has anything to say. I'm not that bothered but it would be nice to get my second jag out of the way before I probably cancel yet another holiday at the end of April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My scheduled vaccine appointment for yesterday got cancelled, not by medical people but by the high heid yin's at my work. Turns out our boss had jumped the gun on when our team were due to be allowed to book it. Now have to phone up on 19th of this month to request an appointment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

R is not a massively useful number to be honest, it is an easy one to report and conceptualise, but it doesn't really give a good "here and now" estimate of what's going on, its more a model for spread, not an actual measure of absolute numbers.

I'd agree with that, but it's put front and centre when there's going to be a change in restrictions, and when the data is released, it turns out the number quoted was the estimate from 7 to 14 days earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, John MacLean said:

Actually no we didn't. The virus didn't go away. We did. 

I used this analogy previously, when someone was trying to persuade us here that the virus wasn't as dangerous as it once was because death and infection rates were falling (a false premise if ever there was), it's like standing in the middle of the road and getting hit  by a bus. If you stop standing in the middle of the road that doesn't suddenly make buses less dangerous. It just means you are better at avoiding them. 

For the benefit of clarity in this analogy the bus is Covid-19 and the middle of the road is basically anywhere in the outside world. 

The more we stayed in the lower the rates of transmission of the virus was. The more we went out, the more we ate out to help out and the more we interacted so the rate of this highly infectious virus rose again. 

I was being sarcastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I've sent an email to the head of practice who's quite a big honcho in medical circles, so it will be interesting to find out if he has anything to say. I'm not that bothered but it would be nice to get my second jag out of the way before I probably cancel yet another holiday at the end of April.

Im enjoying the booking and rebooking of holidays stuff, should be on a cruise in the Bahamas just now, but id much rather be home.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I've sent an email to the head of practice who's quite a big honcho in medical circles, so it will be interesting to find out if he has anything to say.

I'm going for Iain Kennedy...

Centres have protocols in place for if there's extra doses left over for whatever reason e.g. people not turning up, extra doses in bottles etc, so you might get lucky. The local centres phone round people to see if they can get down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

I'm going for Iain Kennedy...

Centres have protocols in place for if there's extra doses left over for whatever reason e.g. people not turning up, extra doses in bottles etc, so you might get lucky. The local centres phone round people to see if they can get down.

Got a reply which was a blunt GTF and wait your turn, don't think my email got past reception. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Left Back said:

Yes they could.

if I remember correctly Boris locked the country down before furlough or the various business support schemes were in place.  When he did that a raft of people were made redundant between him shutting pubs etc and Sunak announcing his economic support package.  Some employers rescinded the redundancy and furloughed the staff instead.  Happened to a member of my family.

This isn't true, but even if it were the case - are you suggesting the Scottish Government could/should have locked down earlier and caused a raft of redundancies without a support system in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...