Re: Coronavirus
 

The base line of new infections was what I was referring to, the base line being 0. As you must know, I was referring to the graphs I posted earlier.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Zero new infections? :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think anyone on this thread that has made predictions has faired well, myself definitely included.

I don't think anyone in the whole wider national debate, that has made a prediction, has faired well either....including politicians, CMO's, both flavours of Sage and the media.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I said ‘close to the base line’. It’s the base line that indicates 0 infections.

Do you deliberately misread my posts or are you speed reading? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s a massive difference however between wishful thinking (it’ll go away by itself), ideologically driven analysis against state intervention (the Spectator having us reaching herd immunity every month or so) at all costs, and some who are making best effort analysis without ulterior motives.

All predictions are based on underlying assumptions that are rarely communicated by the media. Nobody goes back to ascertain what went well (or what didn’t) in any given model - it just gets dismissed within the binary of being right or wrong.

One model being held up recently as a positive outcome of where we are headed has the important caveat of people voluntarily restricting their own behaviour and contacts for a further year. Again this isn’t binary “hiding under the stairs” or acting like it’s 2019 - if the vast majority of people plant themselves somewhere on the spectrum between the two that has wider economic implications for where and how much consumers spend.

One model of doom uses 2019 behaviour. Something that simply isn’t credible against a backdrop of tens of thousands of infections per day.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

So it’s entirely subjective. It could be 1,000 cases, it could be 30,000 cases. As long it’s relatively flat.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some good news
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/med...cid=entnewsntp

Re: Coronavirus
 

Brilliant, although you would be disappointed if an antiviral designed to fight covid didn’t perform better than one designed to fight a different respiratory illness that isn’t even caused by the same class of virus. It’s remarkable that Molnupiravir works at all really, but just as well because this one is still going to be a good few months away from widespread availability.

Biomedical science is where it’s all happening right now though isn’t it. So many remarkable achievements in such a short time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just to confirm (as I don’t want to misinterpret/misunderstand what you’re saying) - are you predicting that by December, or January at the latest, the number of new COVID infections daily will be just above zero?

(And to avoid further confusion/misinterpretation, what is "just above zero" - 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 per day?)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wonderful seeing all these great treatments and vaccines developed or in the pipeline.

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 ----------

I suspect you might find it easier going on this forum if you were a bit more specific with your predictions. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Look at the graphs, why don’t you? :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

It’s not my prediction. It’s the scientists’ own modelling. I have already provided the graphs.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Another one - it’s not my prediction!

Re: Coronavirus
 

So are you aligning with the prediction or aren’t you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

For God’s sake, jfman! This has nothing to do with whether I am ‘aligning with the prediction’. It was you who accused those of us who were saying no more restrictions were necessary of ‘hoping for the best’. Once again, you are twisting this into a completely different argument.

It is not a case of hoping for the best at all. The justification for taking no further action is that the modelling suggests a sharp decline in the infection rate during November/December, and the current number of infections is also well within that modelling. So yes, the modelling is a good basis to work on.

So, I say again, where is your justification for imposing more measures now, unless of course you are ‘hoping for the worst’?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy you are going around in circles all by yourself. You responded to me with a meaningless post that didn’t actually address the point I was making, now you seem to be attempting to make a half baked prediction that you don’t wish to be pinned down to in the long run.

If you have nothing further to add - like what that figure will be, what level of hospitalisations it gives, deaths etc. or offer your own opinion on what level would warrant concern then I can only presume you’re at your own baseline of ideologically supporting no restrictions regardless of outcomes. Which is fine - just don’t try to tart it up as anything insightful or giving due consideration to reality.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately, once again you are not listening. This is the scientists’ own model, and of course it is sensible to be guided by that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you can’t commit to backing your own position Old Boy I don’t know how you expect to persuade anyone else of your wishful thinking.