Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s more like (imho) if you wander across a busy A-road with your eyes tight shut, you’d probably get run over,

It’s "possibility" versus "probability" - it’s possible you won’t get hit, but it’s probable you will...

They’re saying if we don’t take the appropriate measures, it’s probable the infection figures will escalate rapidly, based on the information we have at this time - it’s possible they won’t (but unlikely).

Basic Risk Assessment, Management, and Mitigation.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

You’re confusing Risk Assessment and Management with "complete guesswork" - they’re completely different...

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're confusing bullshit management with horse shit -they're completely different.

---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

yea but if if and maybe are quadrupled then we may see possibly emerging according to the scientists.

Re: Coronavirus
 

but what IF the testing process and the tests are causing the issue.

https://youtu.be/Ch7wze46md0

Re: Coronavirus
 

Its really not that hard to police & restrict.
You are only allowed 1 sack, or 1 pack (of 48), shops know what is normal.

They applied resrictions last time, just far too late in the day.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is there space for Old Boy on the end of that straw?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not my view, the view of an exChieF science advisor. I’m not qualified to argue with him, I doubt you are either.

He simply requests to see the evidence the current Chief advisor is basing his decisions on, not unreasonable

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the false positive rate is that high I’m amazed that other countries have managed to record zero and single digit rises in a single day. It’d surely be almost impossible?

If we are relying on qualifications to debate on the current affairs section of Cable Forum we may as well shut up shop then. However in the absence of such a requirement I’ll post my scepticism under being “fair comment”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had a quick look at the SAGE website to see how they generate their predictions and it looks like they use a number of datasets and two models (linky)

Any modelling is dependent on the likelihood that the incoming data is right and the accuracy of the model. Of course, it only with the benefit of knowledge over time that you will know if the data is correct and only by running your model with previous data that you know your model is correct. The models are constantly being refined but there's always a chance that the model and reality don't match. The big question is by how much.

Using the word 'If' in the statements is scientifically correct as you can never be certain. However, if you run enough different models and datasets and they all point in the same direction, then the qualitative prediction that things are going a certain direction becomes more likely to be correct, the only difference between models is by how much.

See climate change, economic predictions for Brexit, etc. *runs*

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here, is another straw, that appears to correlate with the view of the exChief Science advisor note: not a quack/conspiracy site.

https://www.hdruk.ac.uk/projects/false-positives/

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s a nice theory. But nowhere does it suggest that a hypothetical poorly performing test would by itself create exponential, or near exponential, growth in a society that isn’t experiencing more positive cases of Covid-19.

Surely the same trends would be seen in Italy, Sweden, China, New Zealand or other cases with supposedly “low” prevalence of the virus. Yet they are not. Unless of course we are back at Britain being a special case for (insert reason unknown).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, if the false positive rate is constant which you would assume it was unless the assay methodology changed, then the infection rate, not absolute numbers, would remain constant if the true positives were constant. This is why absolute numbers are not always useful (though easier to understand)

The infection rate is definitely going up according to the ONS data (link) What is less clear is how this equates to illness and death as there was no real community testing back in April/May time so we have nothing to compare it with really in the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Newsflash from the chief medical officers from the four nations of the UK. The level should be upgraded from 3 to 4.

Re: Coronavirus
 

well that'll make them look better.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps, not being politicians, they are more interested in saving lives than looking good?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good grief l never knew you were that cynical papa.