Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#404955

Postby Mike4 » April 17th, 2021, 2:51 pm

Julian wrote:In fairness for some of its criteria such as variants of concern it must be tricky or impossible to define numerical criteria to be met. Would one create some sort of threat score for each variant based on a weighted total of growth, prevalence, antibody neutralisation ratios etc? Almost certainly not, I throw out that example to illustrate how impractical it probably is to assign objective numerical thresholds for that aspect of the data rather than as a serious suggestion. For other criteria such as hospital admissions however I can see how numerical criteria can be defined, they might still be complicated maybe involving first or even second order derivatives, but since one is dealing with hard data it should be possible. If there aren't specific go/no-go numerical tests for some of the more quantifiable data sets then that makes me very suspicious of the "data not dates" mantra and if such numerical thresholds are defined then are they published anywhere?

If any threshold guidance is available even if for only some of the data categories then I really wish that the mainstream media could find a way to present it so that we could see these daily numbers in the context of the government targets for the various unlock stages because that's what matters most to me right now, that and not blowing it all in a rush of impatience and carelessness over this coming summer.

- Julian


I share your concern.

I think the government have gone to considerable effort to draft tests which are matters of opinion rather than fact, on actually reading them, despite the "data not dates" mantra. So I very much doubt you'll ever find any thresholds defined.

"This assessment will be based on four tests:

The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully.
Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated.
Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS.
Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prim ... strictions


(Edit to add my third sentence.)

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 984
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 226 times
Been thanked: 295 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#404967

Postby 9873210 » April 17th, 2021, 5:14 pm

Any sound scientific or engineering decision takes account of ALL information available at the time. You never know what facts will be available in the future. You will not only learn things you did not know, but you may learn things you did not know you did not know.

Setting a strict frame work on how future decisions will be made rules out taking into account some of the things you may learn. However you set up the criteria for future decisions you are saying "This is the best model I have, and it is the best model I will ever have."

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405048

Postby dealtn » April 18th, 2021, 9:29 am

Julian wrote:... we have been told that HMG will "follow the data" to determine (confirm, delay or I think least likely accelerate) the unlock dates, ...


I don't disagree that accelerate is the least likely, but as we have seen this week in Scotland, that isn't impossible (which I think is a good thing).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56759957

Indeed when things are brought forward it actually reiterates the "data not date" message I would think.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405074

Postby Mike4 » April 18th, 2021, 11:08 am

9873210 wrote:Any sound scientific or engineering decision takes account of ALL information available at the time.


And there lies the nub of the problem.

The government is not making "sound scientific or engineering decision(s)". Its decisions appear to me political and economic rather than scientific. The question it seems to ask of itself is not "what needs to be done to reduce deaths?", but "will this course of action lead to us being less popular?", and that is so very wrong.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10364
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3598 times
Been thanked: 5226 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405077

Postby Arborbridge » April 18th, 2021, 11:17 am

Mike4 wrote:
9873210 wrote:Any sound scientific or engineering decision takes account of ALL information available at the time.


And there lies the nub of the problem.

The government is not making "sound scientific or engineering decision(s)". Its decisions appear to me political and economic rather than scientific. The question it seems to ask of itself is not "what needs to be done to reduce deaths?", but "will this course of action lead to us being less popular?", and that is so very wrong.


To be fair, any government has to live with the necessity of being able to put policy into action. Science will "inform" the action, but it will always be the servant of "real politik", whichever government is in power - unless it is a dictatorship.

Arb.

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405099

Postby Julian » April 18th, 2021, 12:42 pm

9873210 wrote:Any sound scientific or engineering decision takes account of ALL information available at the time. You never know what facts will be available in the future. You will not only learn things you did not know, but you may learn things you did not know you did not know.

Setting a strict frame work on how future decisions will be made rules out taking into account some of the things you may learn. However you set up the criteria for future decisions you are saying "This is the best model I have, and it is the best model I will ever have."

On reflection I suspect HMG might well effectively have numerical thresholds but they are much too complex to ever express in words. What I suspect might be happening is that various preferred computer models are being re-run quite regularly with the most up to date data and assumptions and the results looked at in terms of predictions for the presence/severity of any subsequent waves particularly over the next 12 months or so. There I concede that due to the complexity of some of these models the results could change week on week due not only to updates for the most recent case, death, ICU etc numbers but also due to any changes in assumptions such as red list countries, percentage of contacts successfully contacted by contact tracing, estimated self isolation compliance rates, specific behaviours of various local clusters and properties of their locations, etc, etc, etc.

If it is models that are being used to make these according-to-the-government data-driven decisions then I do now agree with you and will retreat from my statement regarding wanting to see any numerical targets on input data since that would be deep within computer models and so intricately intertwined with so many other factors as to render it meaningless, in fact probably actively misleading, in isolation. I'd still be interested to know if there are any government targets for what level of third wave peak in late 2021 might still be deemed acceptable in terms of "we can handle that" vs "that's in danger of being too high, we need to delay/adjust the next lockdown stages".

- Julian

kiloran
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4092
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:24 am
Has thanked: 3233 times
Been thanked: 2827 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405108

Postby kiloran » April 18th, 2021, 1:23 pm

dealtn wrote:I don't disagree that accelerate is the least likely, but as we have seen this week in Scotland, that isn't impossible (which I think is a good thing).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56759957

Indeed when things are brought forward it actually reiterates the "data not date" message I would think.

Of course, this popular move has absolutely nothing to do with the impending Scottish Parliament election. And when the SNP is back in power, it is inconceivable that the decision might be reversed.

--kiloran

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405176

Postby swill453 » April 18th, 2021, 7:25 pm

kiloran wrote:
dealtn wrote:I don't disagree that accelerate is the least likely, but as we have seen this week in Scotland, that isn't impossible (which I think is a good thing).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56759957

Indeed when things are brought forward it actually reiterates the "data not date" message I would think.

Of course, this popular move has absolutely nothing to do with the impending Scottish Parliament election. And when the SNP is back in power, it is inconceivable that the decision might be reversed.

It's reported that the next Scottish government briefing on Tuesday will announce yet another acceleration of the plan, possibly regarding pubs/hospitality.

Boris Johnson has really tied his own hands by stating his milestones in terms of "no earlier than ...".

Scott.

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 984
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 226 times
Been thanked: 295 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405209

Postby 9873210 » April 19th, 2021, 4:42 am

Julian wrote:
9873210 wrote:Any sound scientific or engineering decision takes account of ALL information available at the time. You never know what facts will be available in the future. You will not only learn things you did not know, but you may learn things you did not know you did not know.

Setting a strict frame work on how future decisions will be made rules out taking into account some of the things you may learn. However you set up the criteria for future decisions you are saying "This is the best model I have, and it is the best model I will ever have."

On reflection I suspect HMG might well effectively have numerical thresholds but they are much too complex to ever express in words. What I suspect might be happening is that various preferred computer models are being re-run quite regularly with the most up to date data and assumptions and the results looked at in terms of predictions for the presence/severity of any subsequent waves particularly over the next 12 months or so. There I concede that due to the complexity of some of these models the results could change week on week due not only to updates for the most recent case, death, ICU etc numbers but also due to any changes in assumptions such as red list countries, percentage of contacts successfully contacted by contact tracing, estimated self isolation compliance rates, specific behaviours of various local clusters and properties of their locations, etc, etc, etc.

If it is models that are being used to make these according-to-the-government data-driven decisions then I do now agree with you and will retreat from my statement regarding wanting to see any numerical targets on input data since that would be deep within computer models and so intricately intertwined with so many other factors as to render it meaningless, in fact probably actively misleading, in isolation. I'd still be interested to know if there are any government targets for what level of third wave peak in late 2021 might still be deemed acceptable in terms of "we can handle that" vs "that's in danger of being too high, we need to delay/adjust the next lockdown stages".

- Julian


I agree with you and rather wish I'd said it, but that was not the point I was trying to make. I was talking about learning something new, important, and unexpected.

For example earlier in the pandemic there was concern about the availability of ventilators. There was much ado about the production of ventilators, and discussion of how many would be needed and how soon they would be available. Then it was learned that it was in many cases best to avoid ventilators. Plans or thresholds based on production and availability of ventilators became not just irrelevant, but actively harmful unless radically changed.

We've only known about the virus for a bit over a year. There is plenty of room for a discovery as paradigm breaking as General Relativity, or treating stomach ulcers with antibiotics.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405217

Postby dealtn » April 19th, 2021, 8:10 am

Mike4 wrote:
9873210 wrote:Any sound scientific or engineering decision takes account of ALL information available at the time.


And there lies the nub of the problem.

The government is not making "sound scientific or engineering decision(s)". Its decisions appear to me political and economic rather than scientific. The question it seems to ask of itself is not "what needs to be done to reduce deaths?", but "will this course of action lead to us being less popular?", and that is so very wrong.


And there lies the nub of how people will see things differently.

The government isn't (and shouldn't) ask it itself solely "what needs to be done to reduce deaths (to the lowest possible number)". It's a very important aim, but not the only one.

As a society we have multiple qualitative and quantitative measures of what is desirable, and always have. There will be an acceptance that there is a trade off between some deaths, and better other outcomes. This was the case with "accepting" a few thousand flu deaths each winter, a few thousand traffic deaths each year, a few thousand suicides, plus multiple other, strictly speaking, preventable deaths. These "hidden" but accepted deaths are accepted by society, tragic though they are for individuals and their families, as part of the "price worth paying" for the society we want to live in. It is only rarely, in times of war etc., that these society sacrifices, if that's an appropriate description, become more visible.

Covid is no different, nor will future events be. Obviously Covid being new, little understood, exponential if left unaddressed, etc. makes it a much more difficult problem to deal with, and therefore likely to mean bigger societal sacrifice, and likely mistakes made in tackling it. It doesn't make reducing deaths to the absolute minimum possible the only consideration. It is balanced against other objectives too.

The science, or engineering, approach to a solution is difficult because that science, or engineering is often framed around a too narrow set of objectives. The "social science" of maximising the utility of a society is far too complex compared to other types of science I think.

Gersemi
Lemon Slice
Posts: 492
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:57 pm
Has thanked: 535 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405259

Postby Gersemi » April 19th, 2021, 10:29 am

There is an interesting survey on the ONS website regarding compliance with restrictions:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... /april2021

I find it encouraging. Whilst it's clear some people aren't complying fully (as you would expect), it seems nearly everybody complies to some extent (in that they are reducing contacts) and when they do break the rules they do so in a considered way, still looking to reduce the risk, eg by meeting outside etc. This survey covers up to 12 April, so before the recent easing of rules in England to permit the opening of non-essential shops and outside hospitality.

I particularly enjoyed this comment in the 'High-income worker complaince' section:

"The most unique attitude of this group was that many seemed clear about what they should be doing but were confident in arguing that they had good reasons for ignoring the guidance or that they had assessed and minimised the risk."

Just about sums up the attitude of some people in the very highest positions of our society.

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405551

Postby JamesMuenchen » April 20th, 2021, 10:13 am

Some new stats from the ONS:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 9april2021
In Week 14, the number of deaths registered in England and Wales was 11.7% below the five-year average (1,207 fewer deaths); this is the fifth consecutive week that deaths have been below the five-year average

Perhaps the lockdown should be extended indefinitely to 'save lives'?

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405565

Postby Bouleversee » April 20th, 2021, 10:50 am

Or perhaps Covid had already killed off the elderly and those who might have died of flu and other causes.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405593

Postby Lootman » April 20th, 2021, 1:47 pm

Gersemi wrote:Whilst it's clear some people aren't complying fully (as you would expect), it seems nearly everybody complies to some extent (in that they are reducing contacts) and when they do break the rules they do so in a considered way, still looking to reduce the risk, eg by meeting outside etc. This survey covers up to 12 April, so before the recent easing of rules in England to permit the opening of non-essential shops and outside hospitality.

I particularly enjoyed this comment in the 'High-income worker compliance' section:

"The most unique attitude of this group was that many seemed clear about what they should be doing but were confident in arguing that they had good reasons for ignoring the guidance or that they had assessed and minimised the risk."

That is pretty much my attitude towards the restrictions. I understand and follow the spirit and principle of lockdowns without worrying too much about every last detail and technicality.

Some of the rules were just plain stupid, like only being able to leave your house once a day. Others, like keeping your distance from others when indoors, make a lot of sense and there have only been a couple of occasions in the last 13 months when I felt uncomfortable with the proximity of strangers. And even then I was wearing a N99 mask.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405599

Postby XFool » April 20th, 2021, 2:08 pm

Gersemi wrote:There is an interesting survey on the ONS website regarding compliance with restrictions:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... /april2021

I particularly enjoyed this comment in the 'High-income worker complaince' section:

"The most unique attitude of this group...

Ugh! "The most unique attitude"? Just that puts me right orf! Perhaps this should be in Pedant's Corner, or whatever it's called. But really! In an official document?

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405731

Postby XFool » April 21st, 2021, 12:14 am

Covid: India's 'unbelievable' situation as rates rise

BBC News

A man who recently arrived back in the UK from India said the situation in the country is "unbelievable".

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405734

Postby Mike4 » April 21st, 2021, 12:16 am

XFool wrote:Covid: India's 'unbelievable' situation as rates rise

BBC News

A man who recently arrived back in the UK from India said the situation in the country is "unbelievable".


I'm not sure I believe that....

:lol:

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405862

Postby XFool » April 21st, 2021, 3:36 pm

Covid: Government scientist warns of summer surge in cases

BBC News

The UK is likely to see a "summer surge" in Covid cases as lockdown is relaxed, a government scientist says.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405897

Postby XFool » April 21st, 2021, 6:10 pm

‘The system has collapsed’: India’s descent into Covid hell

The Guardian

Many falsely believed that the country had defeated Covid. Now hospitals are running out of oxygen and bodies are stacking up in morgues

murraypaul
Lemon Slice
Posts: 785
Joined: April 9th, 2021, 5:54 pm
Has thanked: 225 times
Been thanked: 265 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#405901

Postby murraypaul » April 21st, 2021, 6:22 pm

XFool wrote:The UK is likely to see a "summer surge" in Covid cases as lockdown is relaxed, a government scientist says.


It seems very likely that we will see cases go up.
Hopefully vaccination levels will make it a manageable increase.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests