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 - Modelling Aspects Only

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
scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#414717

Postby scotia » May 24th, 2021, 6:38 pm

And back on the 13th May a SAGE Committe member reported that any infection by the India variant on a vaccinated person was likely to be mild
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=98&p=411754#p411695

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#417156

Postby scotia » June 3rd, 2021, 8:16 pm

Another fortnight of data - and another "fit" - with the same parameters. With the much reduced numbers, the statistical accuracy is poor.
Two weeks ago I suggested that an optimist may believe that the death curve gradient is once again slipping below the the time slipped admissions.
Well I fear that it has wobbled back. The admissions numbers appear to have levelled off, and possibly a pessimist may suggest that they are on the increase - but again I must emphasise that the statistical accuracy is poor

Image

And - a word on the numbers of deaths. These are the deaths by publish date - not by death date. Not surprisingly it is more difficult to register a death at weekends and public holidays, and it may be the day after you have registered the death before it is included in the published data. Hence the widely reported Zero Deaths at the Bank holiday weekend was simply a demonstration of this effect. And of course, the numbers jumped up again mid-week. The numbers for this latest week Friday to Thursday were 8,6,6,0,0,11,13.
So in my graphs each number is summed over seven days.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422038

Postby scotia » June 24th, 2021, 8:38 pm

Another three weeks of data - and another "fit" - with the same parameters. Even allowing for the poor statistical accuracy, Its now clear that there have been significant upward moves in moves in the admissions and deaths - and the "fit" is poor

Image

By decreasing the time between admissions to death from 23 to 15 days, and increasing the fraction of deaths to admissions from 0.075 to 0.09 we get

Image

This looks like the effect of the newly introduced delta variant. So should we be looking at the beginning of a further significant wave? Possibly in the number of infections, but probably not in hospital admissions and deaths. Looking at the admissions curve, it is not climbing exponentially - rather an optimist would suggest it is reaching a peak - although possibly we should wait for more data.

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422088

Postby 1nvest » June 25th, 2021, 2:35 am

UK number of deaths last year ranked 7th out of the last 50 years (since 1971).
Comparable average to the average % of deaths during the 1970's and 1980's
Deaths during the 1970's/1980's averaged 1.03% of the population each year, 2021 averaged 1.04%. Which of course was a period of where mostly there was no vaccine.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422089

Postby servodude » June 25th, 2021, 3:04 am

1nvest wrote:UK number of deaths last year ranked 7th out of the last 50 years (since 1971).
Comparable average to the average % of deaths during the 1970's and 1980's
Deaths during the 1970's/1980's averaged 1.03% of the population each year, 2021 averaged 1.04%. Which of course was a period of where mostly there was no vaccine.


wow
that's crazy
- can you imagine what would have happened if you'd not had the most extreme social restrictions outside of war time
- it would have been a bloody catastrophe
thanks for putting it all in to perspective; it should really silence the nutters that think nothing should have been done
- well the ones that can do sums anyway ;)

- sd

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422095

Postby Itsallaguess » June 25th, 2021, 6:19 am

Whilst it's clear that England case-numbers are still rising, it looks like the rate of rise in most areas of England is now largely slowing, which of course is something that would need to happen before we could see case-numbers actually start to drop back down a little later on in that process -

Image

Coronavirus outbreaks appear to be slowing in every English regions except the South East, according to official data published today.

MailOnline's analysis of Public Health England statistics show the biggest slowdowns were in London and the South West, where Covid's speed of growth halved in the past week.

The figures have bolstered hopes that the Indian variant can be stopped without drastic lockdown measures and that Freedom Day will go ahead as planned.


Source - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9721895/Covid-outbreaks-appear-slowing-region-except-South-East.html

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

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

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422125

Postby XFool » June 25th, 2021, 8:36 am

servodude wrote:
1nvest wrote:UK number of deaths last year ranked 7th out of the last 50 years (since 1971).
Comparable average to the average % of deaths during the 1970's and 1980's
Deaths during the 1970's/1980's averaged 1.03% of the population each year, 2021 averaged 1.04%. Which of course was a period of where mostly there was no vaccine.

wow
that's crazy
- can you imagine what would have happened if you'd not had the most extreme social restrictions outside of war time
- it would have been a bloody catastrophe
thanks for putting it all in to perspective; it should really silence the nutters that think nothing should have been done
- well the ones that can do sums anyway ;)

Sounds like an example of 'Is My Car Safe?' all over again. :lol:

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3793 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422162

Postby Mike4 » June 25th, 2021, 9:51 am

servodude wrote:
thanks for putting it all in to perspective; it should really silence the nutters that think nothing should have been done
- well the ones that can do sums anyway ;)

- sd


I doubt it. Surely the nutters' case is that there is no pandemic, nothing to see here, the figures are made up, it's all a government construct as an excuse to apply social controls and inject us with stuff that messes with our DNA. (This is what perhaps 10% of the gas bods in "The Combustion Chamber" forum believe anyway.)

So the nuttercase holds that doing nothing would have been far preferable and all the economic damage would have been avoided.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422165

Postby tjh290633 » June 25th, 2021, 9:55 am

Mike4 wrote:So the nuttercase holds that doing nothing would have been far preferable and all the economic damage would have been avoided.

The problem is that we do not know what the result would have been had nothing been done. We have the wild forecasts from the academics which have been shown to be highly exagerrated. On the other hand, vaccination can clearly be seen to have had an effect.

Without vaccination, the Delta variant looks likely to have had a very serious effect, but we had vaccination.

TJH

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

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422169

Postby XFool » June 25th, 2021, 10:06 am

tjh290633 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:So the nuttercase holds that doing nothing would have been far preferable and all the economic damage would have been avoided.

The problem is that we do not know what the result would have been had nothing been done. We have the wild forecasts from the academics which have been shown to be highly exagerrated.

Have they? I know it is an article of faith by some, but that proves nothing.

I do hope you are not going to offer that 'forecast' of 500,000 dead in the UK by "Professor Lockdown" as 'evidence'! That one has been dragged out so many times now, by the hard of understanding. :)

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3793 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422174

Postby Mike4 » June 25th, 2021, 10:14 am

XFool wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:So the nuttercase holds that doing nothing would have been far preferable and all the economic damage would have been avoided.

The problem is that we do not know what the result would have been had nothing been done. We have the wild forecasts from the academics which have been shown to be highly exagerrated.

Have they? I know it is an article of faith by some, but that proves nothing.

I do hope you are not going to offer that 'forecast' of 500,000 dead in the UK by "Professor Lockdown" as 'evidence'! That one has been dragged out so many times now, by the hard of understanding. :)


Quite. The difference between a "worst case scenario" and an actual forecast of the probable outcome is subtle enough for those at the 'nutter' end of the spectrum to willfully confuse.

So I would be interested to see if TJH can cite one of these "wild forecasts", then we can have a closer look at whether it really was a forecast, or something else.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422175

Postby tjh290633 » June 25th, 2021, 10:15 am

XFool wrote:I do hope you are not going to offer that 'forecast' of 500,000 dead in the UK by "Professor Lockdown" as 'evidence'! That one has been dragged out so many times now, by the hard of understanding. :)

That is not the only one. They are still churning out Project Fear forecasts as if the end of the world is nigh.

TJH

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3793 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422183

Postby Mike4 » June 25th, 2021, 10:34 am

tjh290633 wrote:
XFool wrote:I do hope you are not going to offer that 'forecast' of 500,000 dead in the UK by "Professor Lockdown" as 'evidence'! That one has been dragged out so many times now, by the hard of understanding. :)

That is not the only one. They are still churning out Project Fear forecasts as if the end of the world is nigh.

TJH


I think you're confusing coronavirus with Brexit!

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422201

Postby tjh290633 » June 25th, 2021, 11:14 am

Mike4 wrote:I think you're confusing coronavirus with Brexit!

Just refer back to some of the slides from recent Downing Street press conferences.

TJH

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422204

Postby servodude » June 25th, 2021, 11:15 am

tjh290633 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:So the nuttercase holds that doing nothing would have been far preferable and all the economic damage would have been avoided.

The problem is that we do not know what the result would have been had nothing been done. We have the wild forecasts from the academics which have been shown to be highly exagerrated. On the other hand, vaccination can clearly be seen to have had an effect.

Without vaccination, the Delta variant looks likely to have had a very serious effect, but we had vaccination.

TJH


Hey
Given the thread
And given the UK hospitals were overrun with what did happen (or the buses as ICU units were for sh*tz n giggles?)
- try and give us your understanding of where it might have ended up
(I think I've posted a few going back and there was no point...
without intervention .. where the incidence of infection didn't have a doubling period)
- the crux of the issue being that with the "we don't know what would have happened" model you've got the political issue if "yeah 3000 deaths a day then, 4000 a day now... What do you want us to do? Something? Anything? Who's to say stopping people meeting will have any bearing on a respiratory infection? "

-sd

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422212

Postby tjh290633 » June 25th, 2021, 11:29 am

servodude wrote:Hey
Given the thread
And given the UK hospitals were overrun with what did happen (or the buses as ICU units were for sh*tz n giggles?)
- try and give us your understanding of where it might have ended up
(I think I've posted a few going back and there was no point...
without intervention .. where the incidence of infection didn't have a doubling period)
- the crux of the issue being that with the "we don't know what would have happened" model you've got the political issue if "yeah 3000 deaths a day then, 4000 a day now... What do you want us to do? Something? Anything? Who's to say stopping people meeting will have any bearing on a respiratory infection? "

-sd

As I understand it, the rate of infection had already peaked when the first lockdown was introduced. In the second wave the rate of infection again peaked in the initially affected areas before we were all put into full lockdown on Boxing Day.

Other than possibly Brazil, there is no Control experiment to establish the value or otherwise and whether of any of the measures, like social distancing, wearing masks, prohibition of singing in church, etc., had any effect. We do not know if the rate of infection would have gone higher or followed the trajectory it did, had those measures not been taken.

Total isolation is an obvious measure which was not enforced, although the Chinese did so in Wuhan. I am not saying that social distancing has no effect, just that we do not know what that effect is. Likewise wearing masks, hand sanitising, avoiding public transport, etc. It looks like having the G7 was not a good idea, since cases spiked where that was held. However the "Something must be done" approach is not necessarily the correct one. I have been there in industry where the cry from management was that, when leaving things alone was the correct response. The furnace corrected itself without intervention, whereas changing something would have made matters worse.

TJH

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

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422218

Postby murraypaul » June 25th, 2021, 11:39 am

tjh290633 wrote:As I understand it, the rate of infection had already peaked when the first lockdown was introduced.


Cases per day on March 23th, when first lockdown was announced, were 2323.
Cases per day hit 4000 on March 30th, and did not drop back to below 3000 per day until 3rd May.
So, no.

In the second wave the rate of infection again peaked in the initially affected areas before we were all put into full lockdown on Boxing Day.


Cases per day on 26th December were 40371.
For the next 19 days, cases were above that number 16 times, and below it 3 times (which includes New Years Day, which was almost certainly underreported), and above 50000 10 times.
So, for the country as a whole, no.

Other than possibly Brazil, there is no Control experiment to establish the value or otherwise and whether of any of the measures, like social distancing, wearing masks, prohibition of singing in church, etc., had any effect. We do not know if the rate of infection would have gone higher or followed the trajectory it did, had those measures not been taken.


We do not know exactly what impact the measures had.
I don not understand how anyone could look at the numbers and believe that they had no impact at all.

Cases go up.
Restrictions are imposed, cases go down.
Restrictions are loosened, cases go up.
Restrictions are reimposed, cases go down.
Restrictions are loosened, cases go up.

However the "Something must be done" approach is not necessarily the correct one. I have been there in industry where the cry from management was that, when leaving things alone was the correct response. The furnace corrected itself without intervention, whereas changing something would have made matters worse.


Do you think that was the case here?

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422221

Postby servodude » June 25th, 2021, 11:49 am

tjh290633 wrote:
servodude wrote:Hey
Given the thread
And given the UK hospitals were overrun with what did happen (or the buses as ICU units were for sh*tz n giggles?)
- try and give us your understanding of where it might have ended up
(I think I've posted a few going back and there was no point...
without intervention .. where the incidence of infection didn't have a doubling period)
- the crux of the issue being that with the "we don't know what would have happened" model you've got the political issue if "yeah 3000 deaths a day then, 4000 a day now... What do you want us to do? Something? Anything? Who's to say stopping people meeting will have any bearing on a respiratory infection? "

-sd

As I understand it, the rate of infection had already peaked when the first lockdown was introduced. In the second wave the rate of infection again peaked in the initially affected areas before we were all put into full lockdown on Boxing Day.

Other than possibly Brazil, there is no Control experiment to establish the value or otherwise and whether of any of the measures, like social distancing, wearing masks, prohibition of singing in church, etc., had any effect. We do not know if the rate of infection would have gone higher or followed the trajectory it did, had those measures not been taken.

Total isolation is an obvious measure which was not enforced, although the Chinese did so in Wuhan. I am not saying that social distancing has no effect, just that we do not know what that effect is. Likewise wearing masks, hand sanitising, avoiding public transport, etc. It looks like having the G7 was not a good idea, since cases spiked where that was held. However the "Something must be done" approach is not necessarily the correct one. I have been there in industry where the cry from management was that, when leaving things alone was the correct response. The furnace corrected itself without intervention, whereas changing something would have made matters worse.

TJH


I'd suggest comparing excess deaths with other nations and considering their approaches over the waves we've seen this past 18 months
- and whether the precautionary principle might be worth bearing in mind going forward with such as the delta+

I'm fortunate in that covid really only affects me personally as a concern for my parents
- I'm a good ~10 years younger than Boris J and not a chubby hand shaking twit
- but I've had to spend time in wards that were quickly over stretched on the second wave in Australia (while putting new NIV machines in to use) and it certainly wasn't business as usual

I'd suggest that if you wait for this to become a "big enough" problem you'll have a much bigger problem to deal with

-sd

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422246

Postby 1nvest » June 25th, 2021, 12:46 pm

servodude wrote:I'm fortunate in that covid really only affects me personally as a concern for my parents

In January my 89 year old mother had a fall and fractured here hip. Taken to hospital and within 12 hours they operated and around 4 days later she tested positive for Covid whilst in hospital. Mass worry for two weeks for me, but she continued to show no signs. Worried that Covid tended to spike after two weeks that was the worst time, but again nothing. Snivels at most.

Nowadays I'm more inclined to just look at the death rates and in seeing relatively low numbers it seems more like that Covid is just another cold. 1% of the population will die on average each year, so 700,000 type number, near 2000/day. I suspect there are nowadays more suicides/day perhaps as a function of lockdowns/controls than Covid related deaths.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#422251

Postby Itsallaguess » June 25th, 2021, 12:54 pm

1nvest wrote:
Nowadays I'm more inclined to just look at the death rates and in seeing relatively low numbers it seems more like that Covid is just another cold.


It's 'just another cold' that needs massively intrusive and prolonged social-distancing protocols, or the rapid and widespread roll-out of vaccines for those most vulnerable to it, to make it look like 'just another cold' in the deaths figures, yes.....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests