Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
30-03-2020, 09:32 AM
Of course one can query the data but the opinion given by this person is wrong. It is unscientific - it starts with a goal and works back to justify it.
Originally Posted by Wibs
That the data is unreliable is not in doubt, nor that the outcomes suggest discrepancies in the data collection in different countries. However the article fails to examine the known empiric data for Vo' which is the only actual reliable base that has no outside variance. The mortality rate is clear from that empiric data. No where else is it known what the empiric infection rate is or was. The article makes the wholly irresponsible statement that (in his opinion) the mortality rate is 1 percent or less. This is demonstrably wrong and fits the narrative that it is "just the flu".
Unfortunately given that the Spectator is a sack of shit right wing nonsense this doesn't help the genuine need to look at and examine the data sets that are available. The article cannot be considered as serious nor can the author as a retired medical professional not a data professional. I think I (and everyone else) can safely ignore it. When something is published in a respected scientific magazine or website and is peer reviewed then it might carry some validity. This is - I'm sorry to say - part of the huge Internet crank network of misinformation and bullshit with an agenda.
I am as desperate for accurate data as the next person. You will not find it in the Spectator (or the Guardian, the Sun, the Mail, Time magazine or Newsweek etc. for that matter)
30-03-2020, 09:40 AM
Maybe try https://www.newscientist.com/
30-03-2020, 09:50 AM
The problem is reliability. So very much of the world's political class are liars and cheats, corrupt people that manipulate the system for personal gain. This outbreak shows that in every respect. The Chinese administration lied about the outbreak in the first instance even though they have been very good in more recent times. Iran lied about it and Brazil are still lying. Trump is lying and is irresponsible beyond any level of comprehension, he is truly a worthless sack of shit that has no place in public office.
Originally Posted by Kermit
Here the current shower are made up of people who lied to get a disruptive break in our international status through Brexit for the gain of a miniscule number of tax dodgers. We were told to ignore "experts" by filth like Gove who now demand the opposite - that we do the bidding of experts and rely upon them for the right advice. Which is it you lying scumbag? As a result of the desperation of a section of society to make their prejudice real and leave the EU we have Johnson as PM, a man sacked twice for lying and about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
In India, where this is about to become a major disaster we have Modi - another liar and corrupt person who is totally unreliable. It is hard to imagine a worse situation. The triumph of "populism" could not have come at a worse time.
For years we have had a global political class that ignores climate change and has consistently lied about it's inevitable outcome and now the same scum are handling something that will have a more immediate effect but requires the same precautionary principle. Stopping international travel in January would have held the infection in China and they now have pretty much beaten it. China is now getting infected by people coming back into that country from somewhere else. It is not unreasonable to assume that this pattern will be repeated and that the "crisis" as such will last very much longer than is required.
Like the "boy that cried wolf" it is very hard to believed when you have made a career out of lying. Perhaps we will choose our politicians with more care in future?
30-03-2020, 10:03 AM
There are lots of articles about Vo' and in some cases a bit of the data. As best I know the data set is not publicly available or a detailed analysis of it.
Originally Posted by Wibs
This article appears to look at the experience in a sensible way and is hopefully far enough to the right of the political spectrum that it will not be dismissed as usual by the right as left wing nonsense. https://promarket.org/why-mass-testi...ight-covid-19/
If we accept the analysis as accurate (it matches other sources I have seen) two points come out of the learning. Firstly that some 50 percent of people are asymptomatic and secondly that the mortality rate if these people are included is 1-2 percent of total infections. (Ergo 2-4 percent of those presenting symptoms). We know about 5-10 percent of symptomatic patients require hospitalisation and about 30-50 percent of them will not make it depending on age and underlying health status.
That - as best I can see - is about correct for where we are from what is available in the public domain.
The concerning part is the large volume of people that are asymptomatic - hence the need for stopping people moving about the world here there and everywhere.
30-03-2020, 10:04 AM
However, we all depend upon the economy to provide wealth to do the things we both need and want. Such as paying for our social needs and funding our retirement.
Until this month -- Black March -- it was unthinkable that the world's economy would be put on hold and we'd all be prisoners without recourse, just a bucket for our shattered dreams. Don't think this is too bleak as even a freezing dive in Wraysbury is out of the question, let alone warm blue waters.
30-03-2020, 10:35 AM
I agree, but we are all dependent upon our good health to do the things we need and want and we are dependent upon the good health of the planet to do the things we need and want.
Originally Posted by Wibs
Now is a good time to reflect upon the priorities of good health, environment and economy. A time to remember that the richest 23 (IIRC) people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 50 percent of humanity. What use is that if you cannot spend it because you are dead?
30-03-2020, 10:46 AM
"Like the "boy that cried wolf" it is very hard to believed when you have made a career out of lying. Perhaps we will choose our politicians with more care in future? "
I wouldn't hold yopur breathe on that one (even if you're not diving
30-03-2020, 01:01 PM
Listen to Lord Sumption - former justice of the Supreme court - on the World At One today (Radio 4, 30th March) - around 17m in.
"The real problem is that when human societies loose their freedoms, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away, it's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat usually exaggerated and that's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public; they want action and they don't pause to ask whether the action will work; they don't ask whether the cost will be worth paying; they want action anyway.
Anyone who's studied history will recognise the classic symptoms of mass hysteria. Hysteria is infectious, we are working ourselves up into a lather, in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease."
Very interesting interview with a pillar of the establishment.
30-03-2020, 02:00 PM
The problem is simple enough. Will the current restriction of movement work or is it too late? If it is too late then one might argue that it is inappropriate and the world should follow the lead of the idiot Trump and simply accept that millions of people are going to die and there is nothing we can (or are willing) to do about it. The mathematics are easy enough and the decision simple enough. Approximately one to two percent of people infected will die. About the same will require ICU treatment and recover. Unless the data is wrong, in which case it is a higher percentage, but let's go with that - the Vo' and cruise ship data suggest it is good enough for a fag packet guess.
All that remains is the infection rate of the population. Currently it's quite low. Even in Italy and Spain it is not apocalyptic. Let's use Spain. Latest numbers are 85ish thousand, lets double it for asymptomatic and go 160k out of 46-48 million. Two percentish. Less than 8k dead. So bulk it up and infect nearly everyone and total deaths maybe what, 30-50 times current? So quarter of a million ish assuming current data stays on trend and virus doesn't mutate etc. Ergo from where they are now to that point is another 240,000 people.
Now imagine you are a Spanish politician. Stand up and tell people that it's all bollocks, only another 240,000 people are going to die so let's all party.
Somehow I don't see the mass hysteria and I don't see the relief at having a cold San Miguel with all your mates. But that's just me and my fag packet.
30-03-2020, 02:34 PM
The challenge is that we don’t know the numbers, the classic statistics problem. We need far more widespread testing, literally millions per week, so then we'd know who has it and who had it. Then we can target the isolation and *really* know who’s at risk.
For example Prince Charles has now had it. Boris has it. Etc.