The Lemon Fool

johnhemming wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:With that said, there really wasn't many people predicting a seasonal winter wave and then declaring it was over in October, which is what you did here -

That is how it appeared at the time.

In the end we in this forum have limited information to go on.

As I have said I make many predictions, not all of them are right. I think it is reasonable for me to explain my analysis and then people can decide if they agree with that analysis or not.

Except this was not a prediction, you presented it as a statement of fact.

I also think you draw criticism by incorrect use of words. For example you are fond (IIRC) of describing a rising trend as "peaking". I won't quote Humpty Dumpty yet again but some of the disagreement you provoke revolves around semantics. "Peaking" to most people means a rise in numbers which has reversed and started to fall. You seem to use the word "peaking" to mean numbers higher than before when no reversal has happened, and confusion is created.

A subtle difference, but one which leads me to wonder if some of your more bemusing deductions are down to this effect, and that I don't understand what you are saying at all.

Itsallaguess wrote:Given this thread title, I suppose the question to now ask is if that was a 'False and misleading claim about Covid'?

I have just run my software which analyses the trust admission data, looks at which are the trusts with the bigger problems and does a Gompertz curve fit to predict when there will be peak demands for each trust.

Now I know there are some errors relating to when people are transferred between trust areas.
There also may be software bugs, but I am not aware of any.

I have posted it on the internet.

I think
a) It would be wrong to call it "false"
b) It would be wrong to call it "misleading"

It is, however, a forecast. The reasoning is clear. I know it won't be entirely accurate as things will turn out at least slightly different.

I would happily put links into the forum, but previously moderators have amended my posts to delete links as they are against the rules. Hence I am not posting a link.

I think it is useful to do forecasts because it gives some guide as to what is happening.

Should I not produce any forecasts?

johnhemming wrote:It is, however, a forecast. The reasoning is clear. I know it won't be entirely accurate as things will turn out at least slightly different.

Is that the best we're going to get? Even Toby Young said "Well – hands up, I got that wrong"!

It's not just the forecasts though. It's that you make statements about the current or past situation that are speculation at best and plain wrong at worst, like asking us to "remember" that herd immunity has already occurred.

Prefacing some of your statements with "I think", or "It may be the case that" would come across less abrasively.

Scott.

a) in England infections peaked in October

b) it appears that in the Northern Hemisphere regardless of restrictions infections are peaking in October/November

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=361658%20#p361658

It's never made a great deal of sense to me how anyone might sensibly and quite rightly argue that colder seasonal weather was highly likely to help compound many of the issues that seriously affect a highly contagious respiratory disease, but then try to also declare that such a seasonal wave might have actually ended before things even got into the much colder winter months, and given the recent catastrophic issues affecting UK hospitals in recent months, I think it was clearly right to be highly sceptical about those additional claims, and it's since hopefully shown that such scepticism was completely the right approach...

Given this thread title, I suppose the question to now ask is if that was a 'False and misleading claim about Covid'?

Perhaps it might be best, following some posts that I've read elsewhere in recent days, to allow the readers to decide that, rather than make any accusations on that front myself....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I notice that the quote above about peaking in October was posted on December the 1st. The government chart of positive tests at that time showed a peak in mid-November, a following drop then a flat area. An optimist might have said the peak could have been past, but one couldn't have maintained that for more than a week or so into December. However, the statement was for "England" and that could have made a difference, so I looked at the "all nations" chart and that does not alter materially the picture. That second mini-wave peaked in November, but then continued upwards.

I can see how soneone might have thought it was "over" but the call was premature at least. There may have been later statements to calling the peak - if so some might have thought such a view questionable by the third week in December. Most of us will have noted the infections rising in our own particular regions and were under no doubt that another wave was already on the doorstep spreading westward from Kent.

One can only admire the optimism of anyone who believed the peak had past in November if checking the charts at Christmas time.

Arb.

tjh290633 wrote:

XFool wrote:Final word?

How many waves will it take for Britain's lockdown sceptics to finally call it a day?
Marina Hyde

The Guardian

You’d have thought the crisis would give them pause. But then, like the government, they have a hard time learning from their mistakes

I wonder how many lockdowns it will take, before they realise that lockdown is not the answer?

TJH

What was the question? And who are they?

More seriously, I believe the government has acknowledged that the exit strategy depends on the vaccine and before that it is necessary to manage the problems caused by the virus. Lockdowns are part of that management - you can argue about the balance of forces at work and the compromises made, but I doubt anyone in a responsible post regarded lockdowns as the long term"solution".

Arb.

Mike4 wrote:
I also think you draw criticism by incorrect use of words. For example you are fond (IIRC) of describing a rising trend as "peaking". I won't quote Humpty Dumpty yet again but some of the disagreement you provoke revolves around semantics. "Peaking" to most people means a rise in numbers which has reversed and started to fall. You seem to use the word "peaking" to mean numbers higher than before when no reversal has happened, and confusion is created.

Peaking to me is clearly present tense. It describes a trend still (likely) rising, but yet to arrive at that peak. So a deceleration in the rate of rise, but still rising. Or in more practical terms, if I am climbing a hill but not yet at the (in this example known) peak, I might be peaking as I approach the top with the ground gradually flattening. Beyond that point, past the peak, I will have peaked, and the ground (but hopefully not myself) is falling.

dealtn wrote:Peaking to me is clearly present tense.

Obviously I agree with you. Something which is peaking has not peaked, but is creating a new peak.

Once it has peaked it will go down. (although it may not have actually peaked in retrospect)

If something is plateauing it looks to be coming to a peak, but of course it might not.

There is, however, a difference between rising and peaking in that rising can happen following a previous peak, but to be peaking it has to be creating a new peak.

Arborbridge wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:

JohnB wrote:Hanna Dean, who delights in posting videos of empty hospital corridors, has been fined £200. https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/1901 ... fined-200/

LOL, it's like taking pictures of your garden and neighbours' gardens and using the lack of lions in the pictures to claim lions are a hoax and do not exist.


In case anyone doubts lions exist, here is a picture of some relaxing in someone's garden:

https://twitter.com/SABreakingNews/stat ... 7436635136


GS

I have the same question as about Toby Young - why do people do this? What's in it for them? Are they just nutters who become obsessed or is the incentive financial? How does it benefit this woman or anyone to post pictures of empty wards, when with a moment's thought shows corridors are not wards or ICUs?

I had the same feeling on a totally different subject - the insurrection at Capitol Hill. It's a generic question: why do people become so obsessed, obsessed to the point a near lunacy and against any reasonable rationale?

Arb.

Temporary madness?

Elizabeth for example seemed surprised that her revolution was thwarted

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLXtE8ihcY

johnhemming wrote:

dealtn wrote:Peaking to me is clearly present tense.

Obviously I agree with you. Something which is peaking has not peaked, but is creating a new peak.

Once it has peaked it will go down. (although it may not have actually peaked in retrospect)

If something is plateauing it looks to be coming to a peak, but of course it might not.

There is, however, a difference between rising and peaking in that rising can happen following a previous peak, but to be peaking it has to be creating a new peak.

This is silly. Mike4 has the right idea.

GS

dealtn wrote:

Mike4 wrote:
I also think you draw criticism by incorrect use of words. For example you are fond (IIRC) of describing a rising trend as "peaking". I won't quote Humpty Dumpty yet again but some of the disagreement you provoke revolves around semantics. "Peaking" to most people means a rise in numbers which has reversed and started to fall. You seem to use the word "peaking" to mean numbers higher than before when no reversal has happened, and confusion is created.

Peaking to me is clearly present tense. It describes a trend still (likely) rising, but yet to arrive at that peak. So a deceleration in the rate of rise, but still rising. Or in more practical terms, if I am climbing a hill but not yet at the (in this example known) peak, I might be peaking as I approach the top with the ground gradually flattening. Beyond that point, past the peak, I will have peaked, and the ground (but hopefully not myself) is falling.

When I read "peaking", I wondered what it meant in that context and why it was used. A term I've never read anywhere previously, so perhaps part of some jargon.
Peaking seems to suggest one has reason to believe a peak might be forming, otherwise it still going up!
It seemed an unusual and obfuscatory term to use and frankly, I could not see the reason to use it.

Arb

Mike4 wrote: "Peaking" to most people means a rise in numbers which has reversed and started to fall. You seem to use the word "peaking" to mean numbers higher than before when no reversal has happened, and confusion is created.

A subtle difference, but one which leads me to wonder if some of your more bemusing deductions are down to this effect, and that I don't understand what you are saying at all.

This is spot on and explains why some of us were baffled. It's a most unusual expression and seems unecessary, since it seems to imply different meaning which it may or may not have. Is it used as an unecessary substitute for "rising" which is simpler and clearer? or are we meant to think it has some other meaning?

In navigation, we refer to tidal heights "rising" - i.e. going up. No one would use such a confusing term as "peaking" - if we did it might be taken to being at the top of the tide: one therefore had a prediction that the tide was at the peak and shortly about to fall.
So, is the term "peaking" intended to imply that the author is forecasting that the curve will shortly fall? That's the only way it makes sense to me. But then, I'm just a sailor.

Arb.

Mike4 wrote:

johnhemming wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:
With that said, there really wasn't many people predicting a seasonal winter wave and then declaring it was over in October, which is what you did here -

johnhemming wrote:
It remains, however, that

a) in England infections peaked in October

b) it appears that in the Northern Hemisphere regardless of restrictions infections are peaking in October/November

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=361658%20#p361658

That is how it appeared at the time.

In the end we in this forum have limited information to go on.

As I have said I make many predictions, not all of them are right. I think it is reasonable for me to explain my analysis and then people can decide if they agree with that analysis or not.

Except this was not a prediction, you presented it as a statement of fact.

And whilst that's clearly true, I think it's also very important to fully understand the context under which the statement was actually made....

The whole discussion on that thread at the time the 'England infections peaked in October' statement was made was around the requirement or otherwise of the November lockdown...

We can see from that thread that the previous post that John made before declaring that the 'England infections peaked in October' said this -

johnhemming wrote:
SAGE need to maintain restrictions to justify the previous restrictions.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=22218&start=5720#p361576

And it's at *that* point that a much wider and clearer picture can be drawn in terms of why someone might perhaps be in a rush to 'declare' something as fact that may help to justify a separate and controversial belief...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I think most are giving johhemming too hard a time for his November peak preditcion.
Italy and France did peak in November, The UK had a minor peak in November before infections took off again possibly because of the new B117 variant.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... truggling/
Sorry behind a paywall but someone mentioned the Esc key can be helpful.

servodude wrote:

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:There is a really good question in that! I'd go with one if you suppress the virus until the vaccine it's rolled out enough? say everyone over 70 jabbed

That would be 18 months by my reckoning. So your big idea is to shut the world down for 18 months while we see if you can save the lives of 1 person in 500, or less?

There are 8,769,122 over 70s in the UK, according to the most recent official data (2018 midpoint, published June 2019 and updated June 2020).

2 million already vaccinated in the UK or thereabouts?

Lockdown lovers do love their lockdowns. Do they secretly enjoy a situation where people cannot go anywhere or do anything? Deriving some kind of perverse pleasure from the discomfort and inconvenience of others? Surely there is more to it than spite?

Itsallaguess wrote:

johnhemming wrote:
SAGE need to maintain restrictions to justify the previous restrictions.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=22218&start=5720#p361576

And it's at *that* point that a much wider and clearer picture can be drawn in terms of why someone might perhaps be in a rush to 'declare' something as fact that may help to justify a separate and controversial belief...

There are still lots of uncertainties.

One big uncertainty is what effect lockdown has. What I would say is that if the Bank of England (cyber) Printing Presses were not working overtime the popular support for not working would not be as great.

All restrictions will have some effect. Clearly the tube was a very good way of rapidly spreading a virus.

Hence there are some changes which are entirely sensible. However, I think a lot of the restrictions globally come in as a result of public pressure for something to be done and I am as yet unclear as to exactly how they change the path of the virus.

We will in 2022 be able to compare the situation in different jurisdictions and perhaps come to some conclusion about the effect of different restrictions.

I did post a link to a research document I think from 2009, but definitely prior to covid which said that many controls on infection mean older people getting infected. I am not sure it entirely carries forward into this.

However, I would hope we share the objective of minimising deaths and harm. We don't know what the effect of the November lockdown was.

I cannot be sure at this stage what the effect of the current lockdown is. The infections in Cornwall have kicked off during this lockdown.

I don't personally mind the lockdowns that much because all of my gigs were cancelled anyway and otherwise my personal priorities at the moment mean I am not particularly impacted. I would rather than the schools were open, but such is life.

johnhemming wrote:
There are still lots of uncertainties.

I think if that single fact was more often expressed and appreciated in the 'conclusions' that are very often 'declared as fact', then much of the regular controversy being discussed on this particular topic could be eliminated overnight...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

joey wrote:

XFool wrote:Reality has already done that for us.

Should be easy to shoot the aforementioned fish then! Think of the pleasure you’ll get from sticking it to Tobe.

Like I said...

If that Guardian article is to be believed our "Tobe" has been busy deleting his past Tweets on the subject.
Doesn't that sort of remind you in a way (OK, self administered), of what used to happen in the Soviet Union after someone of significance fell out of favour and was subsequently "unpersonned"? How ironic!

Itsallaguess wrote:

johnhemming wrote:
There are still lots of uncertainties.

I think if that single fact was more often expressed and appreciated in the 'conclusions' that are very often 'declared as fact', then much of the regular controversy being discussed on this particular topic could be eliminated overnight...

I have often said that we won't really know until 2022, but in fact people have even criticised me for saying that. My perception is that I have been under attack as a heretic. I have taken the solution of flagging those people who could not resist being abusive so that I ignore them and hence don't now respond to their comments.

However, when talking about future events it is always a forecast. I do remember someone asking for some advice on some certainties and I suggested that the sun would come up tomorrow. That, of course, it not entirely certain, but I think we can assume it is certain on a practical basis.

It does take a certain amount of time to write responses to what people say. I thank you personally for continuing to be polite, but I do not think I have been either misleading, false or dishonest in anything I have written.

I am not omniscient and the forecasts I make vary in their accuracy. If I get too much grief when I post a forecast that turns out to be wrong I have a simple solution of not telling people what my forecasts are.

My recommendation to people is where you are interested in what might happen in the future that you consider a range of forecasts and the reasoning for those forecasts and then make your own decisions.

joey wrote:

XFool wrote:Like I said...

If that Guardian article is to be believed our "Tobe" has been busy deleting his past Tweets on the subject.
Doesn't that sort of remind you in a way (OK, self administered), of what used to happen in the Soviet Union after someone of significance fell out of favour and was subsequently "unpersonned"? How ironic!

It’s the total opposite, isn’t it? He’s doing it himself!

Sure thing. As I pointed out. Still, brings it to mind though, at least it did me! 'Auto-Unpersonning'?

joey wrote:If he gets summarily executed or sent to a gulag tho do let me know.

Too good for him?

johnhemming wrote:
I am not omniscient and the forecasts I make vary in their accuracy.

On that note then, a different controversial statement that I've seen you make a few time recently are in relation to some London boroughs having 'herd-immunity' already.

Here's a recent example of the type of really quite certain language that you're happy to be using on this topic -

johnhemming wrote:
We now know that some areas of London (based both on MSOA prevalence testing and on NHS trust hospital admissions) did have herd immunity, but other areas did not have herd immunity.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=377689#p377689

Again, it's the type of certainty being used in these types of statements ('We now know'...), especially when they're related to such an important subject as 'herd-immunity', that come across as perhaps being misaligned to the non-certain data that the statements are being based on.

There's clearly a number of reasons that a particular hospital might have that mean that they're not in a position to take COVID patients. One of those, of course, might be that the surrounding area might have met the 'herd-immunity' threshold, and the local community simply aren't getting poorly any more, but that's just *one* possible reason...

Can I please ask if you're at least open to the possibility that there may be simpler, operational reasons why a particular hospital may simply not be accepting COVID patients at this time, especially when it's clear that other London hospitals are shipping COVID patients hundreds of miles across the country to other hospitals?

On the face of it that simply doesn't make sense if there's an empty hospital that's able to take COVID patients in the next borough, surely?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess