Cable Forum - Coronavirus

Well they've had enough of experts.

Interesting about the SNP too. Perhaps indicative of the value of good public messaging daily from the First Minister or the extent that other voters in Scotland would boycott it just to spite her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36071808)

What a stupid survey. It's right up Andrew's street and that pains me even more.

It's important that the government targets its messaging on vaccinations to ensure as many people as possible are vaccinated. Research like this from a credible insitution like Oxford University is beneficial here.

Hugh	24-02-2021 13:33

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36071808)

What a stupid survey. It's right up Andrew's street and that pains me even more.

Why is it a "stupid survey"?

The findings will help them focus appropriate efforts on those not keen on the vaccinations, rather than a "one size fits all" approach.

Here’s the actual Oxford press release - interesting reading.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-24...e-oxford-study

The full report - https://rpubs.com/benwansell/729135

pip08456

24-02-2021 13:43

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071809)

Interesting to see Liberal Democrat voters keen to be vaccinated too. As an endangered species, they should be up there on the priority list. :D

I take this report as a message for all of us to encourage anyone wavering about having a vaccination to go ahead and do it. I don't think anyone on this forum needs encouraging but some of us may know someone who does.

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

It's important that the government targets its messaging on vaccinations to ensure as many people as possible are vaccinated. Research like this from a credible insitution like Oxford University is beneficial here.

There's at least 11.

Pierre

24-02-2021 14:17

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071800)

Survey from the university behind one of the vaccines, Oxford University.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/covid-vac...rd-university/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36071811)

Ok thanks for that.

So the conclusions on how a Brexit party voter and SNP voter will view the vaccine is based on a sample size of 25 people and 48 people respectively........

1,855,175 people voted SNP at the last election and 951,372 voted Brexit Party

So it's a representative sample of 0.0025% for both, I wouldn't use it for my lottery numbers.

downquark1

24-02-2021 14:25

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36071813)

study of only 1200 people and no link to the study in the article, I would suggest bollocks, especially when using % on such small sample sizes. 1no. SNP supporter asked = 100% either way etc.

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

Ok thanks for that.

So the conclusions on how a Brexit party voter and SNP voter will view the vaccine is based on a sample size of 25 people and 48 people respectively........

1,855,175 people voted SNP at the last election and 951,372 voted Brexit Party

So it's a representative sample of 0.0025% for both, I wouldn't use it for my lottery numbers.

I would believe it is true, but I would say it proves little beyond the people who the establishment is hostile to are, in turn, hostile to the establishment.*

*a grammar expert is welcome to improve that sentence.

Hugh	24-02-2021 15:57

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36071813)

https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethod...cting-surveys/

Quote:

Sample Size and Population Size
Why is a sample of 1,000 considered to be adequate for most survey research—even when the population is much larger than that? Consider, for example, that a sample of only 1,000 registered voters is generally considered a good sample of the roughly 25 million registered voters in the Canadian population—even though it includes only about 0.00004% of the population! The answer is a bit surprising.

One part of the answer is that a statistic based on a larger sample will tend to be closer to the population value and that this can be characterized mathematically. Imagine, for example, that in a sample of registered voters, exactly 50% say they intend to vote for the incumbent. If there are 100 voters in this sample, then there is a 95% chance that the true percentage in the population is between 40 and 60. But if there are 1,000 voters in the sample, then there is a 95% chance that the true percentage in the population is between 47 and 53. Although this “95% confidence interval” continues to shrink as the sample size increases, it does so at a slower rate. For example, if there are 2,000 voters in the sample, then this reduction only reduces the 95% confidence interval to 48 to 52. In many situations, the small increase in confidence beyond a sample size of 1,000 is not considered to be worth the additional time, effort, and money.

Another part of the answer—and perhaps the more surprising part—is that confidence intervals depend only on the size of the sample and not on the size of the population. So a sample of 1,000 would produce a 95% confidence interval of 47 to 53 regardless of whether the population size was a hundred thousand, a million, or a hundred million.

Sephiroth

24-02-2021 15:59

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071809)

Interesting to see Liberal Democrat voters keen to be vaccinated too. As an endangered species, they should be up there on the priority list. :D

I take this report as a message for all of us to encourage anyone wavering about having a vaccination to go ahead and do it. I don't think anyone on this forum needs encouraging but some of us may know someone who does.

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

It's important that the government targets its messaging on vaccinations to ensure as many people as possible are vaccinated. Research like this from a credible insitution like Oxford University is beneficial here.

What? "Leavers" vs "Remainers"? How would they target that? Ridiculous.

Hugh	24-02-2021 16:00

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36071819)

What? "Leavers" vs "Remainers"? How would they target that? Ridiculous.

Easily - micro-targetting is how things like Facebook work.

Sephiroth

24-02-2021 16:05

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36071820)

Easily - micro-targetting is how things like Facebook work.

Seems like a GDPR violation to me at first glance.

spiderplant

24-02-2021 16:34

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36071818)

https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethod...cting-surveys/

Indeed.

Think of it this way.... If you tossed a coin 48 times and got 48 heads, would you say "well yeah, that's just chance", or would you suspect the coin was biased? That's basically the SNP result.

Damien

24-02-2021 16:40

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36071822)

Seems like a GDPR violation to me at first glance.

It wouldn't be because it's not specific.

If you had data suggesting that 35-45-year-old men who like Tennis, dislike Ant and Dec and live in Swindon are the prime problem group for getting vaccinated then you would target that demographic with ads that seek to alleviate their concerns.

It's not a case of finding out Jack from No 49 hasn't been vaccinated and getting up a billboard outside his house.

1andrew1

24-02-2021 16:44

Re: Coronavirus

More good news globally on the vaccine front with a third vaccine approved in the US. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has still to be approved by the FDA.

Quote:

Johnson & Johnson is safe, FDA says, as third US Covid vaccine passes major hurdle

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has endorsed the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine to receive emergency use authorisation, a critical step to bring a third Covid-19 jab to the United States.

In a staff report released on Wednesday, the federal agency found the vaccine to be safe, effective, and able to completely prevent hospitalisations and deaths when reviewing data from a large clinical trial.

A FDA independent advisory committee would now hold an all-day meeting on Friday to review the clinical data and make a determination on if the vaccine should receive emergency authorisation or not. This means the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could receive authorisation as early as Friday evening or Saturday depending on the panel’s response to the data.

Two vaccines have already received emergency use authorisation from the FDA: Pfizer and Moderna. But both of those vaccines require two doses to achieve an efficacy of about 94 per cent against the novel virus.
The Johnson & Johnson differed as it was a single-dose vaccine.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...le/ar-BB1dYqmE

jonbxx

24-02-2021 16:47

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36071819)

What? "Leavers" vs "Remainers"? How would they target that? Ridiculous.

Surprisingly easily to be honest! If you go to somewhere like Google News - https://news.google.com/ and click on 'For you', you get news tailored to your interests and search history. I get a worrying large number of Daily Mail and Express links there to be honest but that's because I like to look 'below the line' at those sites.

These types of surveys are really helpful for groups like SPI-B in developing a rationally targetted health campaign. No point in putting effort is selling to someone who is already buying...

jfman

24-02-2021 16:56

Re: Coronavirus

If there's one thing the Government doesn't lack it's behavioural scientists.

Epidemiologists on the other (clean) hand...

1andrew1

24-02-2021 17:10

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36071812)

There's at least 11.

Thanks, that's disappointing.

Let's hope Paul's new thread acts as encouragement.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21.