|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Dec 12, 2020 14:15:38 GMT
Pretty easy you can criticise United for not trying subtlety and encouragement but that’s about interpretation rules are rules practice the night before make it a game efc you can’t tell the other 200 people who are abiding they are at risk because one won’t comply. Of course it’s not nice but we and the usa are examples of give no public an inch they take a mile and people die . Notice no one stood up and said no don’t bother because they agreed with it by not intervening
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 12, 2020 14:42:36 GMT
Pretty easy you can criticise United for not trying subtlety and encouragement but that’s about interpretation rules are rules practice the night before make it a game efc you can’t tell the other 200 people who are abiding they are at risk because one won’t comply. Of course it’s not nice but we and the usa are examples of give no public an inch they take a mile and people die . Notice no one stood up and said no don’t bother because they agreed with it by not intervening First in line, what a surprise. She's a two year old child and you are out of your tiny mind. Jesus wept.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 12, 2020 14:48:21 GMT
I assume the cases figures are based on actual tests - in which case the graph is pretty meaningless in absolute terms as the mount is far higher now than it was back in March - had there been the same level of testing (which the government abandoned because by then managing infections wasn't an option) then the number of cases would have been far higher than now. Setting aside the scale what the graph does show is a correlation between number of cases/infections and deaths - but to make sense of the figures you have to factor in the massive increase in the number of tests. It is naive to think that policy makers are assuming like for like over that time period. In modelling outcomes they will be far more nuanced than just projecting that graph. I agree the figures presented could well be causing confusion but to be fair the actual analysis going on behind the scenes is far too complex to present in a news briefing and would no doubt go over most people's heads (including mine). The JVT approach of using straightforward analogies might well be better. I fundamentally do not agree that inevitable inaccuracies in test data should be used as an excuse to abandon a public policy approach based on managing infections - that is putting the purity of numbers above the primary aim of saving lives. If the government were to revert back to managing hospital admissions and deaths (as they were back in March) there will be far more deaths. The only reason the government took this approach in the first place was because they had lost control of infections. It wasn't as if they they thought this was a better approach - they simply had no choice. In effect you are asking the government to allow a crisis to happen and then manage it rather than try to prevent the crisis from happening in the first place. Every successful country has based there approach on managing infections - and as well as testing the very best have had effective tracing in pace as well which is where we've failed abysmally. The only countries that are using an admissions approach are those that don't have the infrastructure, have gone for herd immunity or have lost control of the situation. Andy - to reverse your heating analogy in effect you are suggesting we stop measuring the outside temperature because it's difficult and prone to inaccuracies and use the far more accurate thermometers on cooling systems to keep people cool while the earth warms up rather than use the imperfect data and associated climate models to address global warming. The reason I think we are overly preoccupied with the Daily TV case rates is that they cause this misinterpretation. If I take the basic premise that Cases is related to infections and deaths can I just show you the variation in daily tests and hence daily cases if you go here all the raw data is available. coronavirus.data.gov.uk/Here is a plot of raw daily data for Cases and Tests on the same chart which I did with no treatment or smoothing with the specimen date aligned, The variation in Tests in a single week is nearly 200,000 at the moment. (Top Chart) If I now divide the number of Cases by the Number of Tests to even out the error into some sort of ratio then according to a simple model I should be finding a trend in number of cases per test on average each day. ( Don't get me going on the number of tests per individual false positive and negative. (Bottom Chart) You can see the enormous variation just on that simple idea. What I can also see is that UK policy lockdown did nothing tangible. My point is that posters saying " oooooh look the cases are up today (sad emoji), lets lockdown" is very naïve to say the least. If anything at the moment including yesterdays data shows a leveling or drop in the second wave across the UK View AttachmentBy way of a simple example the Gov quoted: 07/12/2020 21010 Cases from 218055 Tests 06/12/2020 13489 Cases from 273122 Tests that's 50 odd thousand tests more The daily even weekly variation in cases is pointless for you and I to discuss. Every time a new mass testing program is rolled out it gets worse. They either need to come off TV or carry a health warning, once a week at most. I'm so but you've lost me with your modelling - what exactly are you saying it shows? I agree about looking at daily figures and using this to make policy - but the government don't make decisions on daily figures, they base them on trends. You keep saying that lockdowns don't have an effect - yet you say yourself the numbers are coming down. Is it just a coincidence that most of the country is under tier 2 or 3 restrictions? If you look at individual areas it's easy to pull out exceptions but it's pretty clear from the original tier system tier 2 didn't achieve that much but tier three restrictions definitely had an impact on infection rates. The figures in Wales also give a very strong indication. They locked down earlier than England and sure enough the numbers went down. They cam out of restrictions earlier than England and surprise surprise the numbers are going up again. I will concede that basing policy on hospital admissions would result in less margin of error in public policy - the figures are far easier to get right. But basing policy on this WILL result in more deaths because in order for the hospitalisations to occur there is already a huge build up of infections in the community. Once the iceberg has broken the surface it is on an upward trajectory and you can't just deal with those that have just admitted because you're now facing a massive influx because the bit below the surface is now massive. Imperfect as it is basing policy on managing infections addresses the root cause - keep the iceberg small and it isn't going to sink the Titanic any time soon. Getting bogged down in accuracy is missing the point. The decision to base policy on infection rates rather than hospitalisations is a macro level decision - the fundamental criteria is which approach will save more lives. Once you've made that decision the relative accuracy of the modelling is irrelevant. Of course there is the question as to how many you are prepared to let die of covid. If you are ok with more people dying and you believe counting hospitalisations is a good enough approach to achieve the number of deaths you can live with then there is an internal logic to what you are saying. However claiming that an approach based on hospitalisations will result in the same or fewer deaths than one based on managing infections is at best just wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Dec 12, 2020 14:48:46 GMT
Pretty easy you can criticise United for not trying subtlety and encouragement but that’s about interpretation rules are rules practice the night before make it a game efc you can’t tell the other 200 people who are abiding they are at risk because one won’t comply. Of course it’s not nice but we and the usa are examples of give no public an inch they take a mile and people die . Notice no one stood up and said no don’t bother because they agreed with it by not intervening First in line, what a surprise. She's a two year old child and you are out of your tiny mind. Jesus wept. It’s simple it’s the rule of United you’ve a choice wear a mask or don’t get on There a plenty of things rules do not permit two year olds to do . I’ agree it’s a real shame but people on the plane didn’t Object for good reason I’ve four kids under 10 in the family and I’d get it . Where I do agree is that give the father was holding the mask it seems heavy handed but imagine the legal case in usa if people Got infected on that flight because United didn’t implement their rules 6 people got infected on one Singapore airline flight by one positive case it’s a real risk and traceable so their stance is understandable .
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 12, 2020 14:50:52 GMT
For every weepy mother I'll raise you a 1 million plus weepy relatives of dead covid victims. But of course they are mainly old and have other conditions so they don't really count.
|
|
|
Post by butlerstbob on Dec 12, 2020 14:51:58 GMT
Pretty easy you can criticise United for not trying subtlety and encouragement but that’s about interpretation rules are rules practice the night before make it a game efc you can’t tell the other 200 people who are abiding they are at risk because one won’t comply. Of course it’s not nice but we and the usa are examples of give no public an inch they take a mile and people die . Notice no one stood up and said no don’t bother because they agreed with it by not intervening "Give an inch and they'll take a mile" you say SHE is 2 years old you twisted lunatic!
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Dec 12, 2020 15:19:23 GMT
Pretty easy you can criticise United for not trying subtlety and encouragement but that’s about interpretation rules are rules practice the night before make it a game efc you can’t tell the other 200 people who are abiding they are at risk because one won’t comply. Of course it’s not nice but we and the usa are examples of give no public an inch they take a mile and people die . Notice no one stood up and said no don’t bother because they agreed with it by not intervening "Give an inch and they'll take a mile" you say SHE is 2 years old you twisted lunatic! Child and parents and red my other post of some sympathy for their plight but United had no choice
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 12, 2020 16:09:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 12, 2020 17:18:56 GMT
Cases down by 120 today 👍
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Dec 12, 2020 18:53:02 GMT
"Give an inch and they'll take a mile" you say SHE is 2 years old you twisted lunatic! Child and parents and red my other post of some sympathy for their plight but United had no choice It's obviously not occurred to you that the child is fucking 2 years old yet, has it? It's a toddler, it's not going to be 100% perfect all of the time. He did what he could with her given the situation and it still wasn't good enough for the wannabe Gestapo officer on the plane. United had no choice my fucking arse. It's a 2 year old for crying out loud, shall we start sedating toddlers on planes to get masks on them?
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Dec 12, 2020 19:01:47 GMT
Child and parents and red my other post of some sympathy for their plight but United had no choice It's obviously not occurred to you that the child is fucking 2 years old yet, has it? It's a toddler, it's not going to be 100% perfect all of the time. He did what he could with her given the situation and it still wasn't good enough for the wannabe Gestapo officer on the plane. United had no choice my fucking arse. It's a 2 year old for crying out loud, shall we start sedating toddlers on planes to get masks on them? 100 or 200 people with lawyers may well have felt differently if they contested the virus on that place not one stood up and said leave then on them on the plane 2 years or 92 she can Carry the virus it’s just the circumstances we are in if the rule was children under 5 don’t need a mask fine people make the decision to buy a ticket on that basis but it’s not . I agree it’s not nice to see but it’s the rule and while it is it’s to be enforced
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 12, 2020 19:02:17 GMT
I don't know what's more ridiculous, Soubry's tweet or her profile picture.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 12, 2020 19:06:16 GMT
I don't know what's more ridiculous, Soubry's tweet or her profile picture. If you're in tier 3 it is cancelled anyway and it's hardly a usual NYE in tier 2.
|
|
|
Post by StaffordPotter on Dec 12, 2020 19:37:06 GMT
I don't know what's more ridiculous, Soubry's tweet or her profile picture. The profile picture.
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Dec 12, 2020 19:37:13 GMT
Gaffa tape? Drug it? Put the child in the hold? Or Water cannon it easy
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 12, 2020 20:09:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mutters on Dec 12, 2020 21:32:20 GMT
Andy writes all that & is instantly followed by Mutters with that ?? What are you referring to please?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2020 23:21:30 GMT
I don't know what's more ridiculous, Soubry's tweet or her profile picture. If you're in tier 3 it is cancelled anyway and it's hardly a usual NYE in tier 2. The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it.
|
|
|
Post by Soro's Sorrows on Dec 12, 2020 23:34:11 GMT
If you're in tier 3 it is cancelled anyway and it's hardly a usual NYE in tier 2. The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. You want to ban New Year?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2020 23:37:10 GMT
The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. You want to ban New Year? I mean in all seriousness there’s definitely no chance people should be allowed to get together this year. The Christmas break is daft enough. But new year is a totally shit night in general yes and if it wasn’t a thing then I think life would be better.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 12, 2020 23:44:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 12, 2020 23:57:33 GMT
If you're in tier 3 it is cancelled anyway and it's hardly a usual NYE in tier 2. The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. You're all for banning things that piss people off then?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2020 23:58:36 GMT
The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. You're all for banning things that piss people off then? 😂😂😂 It doesn’t piss me off.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 13, 2020 9:40:32 GMT
Andy writes all that & is instantly followed by Mutters with that ?? What are you referring to please? Crouchpotato used to post on here under the name Sergeant Mutley years ago, hence some of us who've been on here for years calling him Mutters.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Dec 13, 2020 9:57:35 GMT
If you're in tier 3 it is cancelled anyway and it's hardly a usual NYE in tier 2. The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. Is there actually anything in life you enjoy ?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 13, 2020 10:07:16 GMT
The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. Is there actually anything in life you enjoy ? Going the pub and not paying a fiver for the privilege and it’s full of wankers for one night.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Dec 13, 2020 10:12:11 GMT
Is there actually anything in life you enjoy ? Going the pub and not paying a fiver for the privilege and it’s full of wankers for one night. You have the "choice" not to go the pub and stand with a load of wankers though. Out of interest, what makes people going the pub on NYE wankers ?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 13, 2020 10:19:19 GMT
Going the pub and not paying a fiver for the privilege and it’s full of wankers for one night. You have the "choice" not to go the pub and stand with a load of wankers though. Out of interest, what makes people going the pub on NYE wankers ? It brings out the worst. Always fights and nob heads.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Dec 13, 2020 10:28:49 GMT
If you're in tier 3 it is cancelled anyway and it's hardly a usual NYE in tier 2. The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. I can't be arsed with it. Don't think I've ever really had a decent NYE.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 13, 2020 10:30:54 GMT
The wankest night of the year anyway. They’d be doing everyone a favour to ban it. I can't be arsed with it. Don't think I've ever really had a decent NYE. I have but it didn’t involve going out or meeting many people 😂 I don’t get why so many people revel in it? You just pay for stuff that’s normally free.
|
|