Coronavirus (OLD) - Page 218

**Maggy** · 12-05-2020, 16:05

I'll take downquark's opinion over anyone else on this site on matters scientific.

Sephiroth · 12-05-2020, 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy

I'll take downquark's opinion over anyone else on this site on matters scientific.

Sure - but what we have from Downquark is an estimated startpoint and a consequential current point. The points in between are as true as all the other points. But what is the method for correction? The unknown cases, the asymptomatic cases and so on.

What factor are they using to include these unknowns and what is the basis for that factor? For example can you project the curve backward because you presumably have the function/equation from current statistics.

downquark1 · 12-05-2020, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Sure - but what we have from Downquark is an estimated startpoint and a consequential current point. The points in between are as true as all the other points. But what is the method for correction? The unknown cases, the asymptomatic cases and so on.

What factor are they using to include these unknowns and what is the basis for that factor? For example can you project the curve backward because you presumably have the function/equation from current statistics.

Excellent questions. You can correct the data with antibody tests and randomised testing. The antibody tests tell you if you have had the virus, because your body is keeping antibodies for it. Random testing then gives you a sample you can extrapolate to the entire population. This is currently being dogged by a lack of reliable tests (every country in the world now wants them and China is selling fakes) and issues about knowing how long you keep immunity to the virus. Some reports are saying you lose immunity fairly quickly.

If you have the R value you can project the curve anyway you want. However as mentioned as you enable or remove precautions that will alter the R value so you will get a kink in the curve as you start or stop a lockdown.

The horny gentleman from imperial college had a computer model for predicting how it changes. It has somewhat been pillared for containing bugs (of the nature I fix in my job), but they insist it is still accurate. But this will be judged by history.

What I would be worrying about is the difference between the lock down R value and the semi-lock down social distancing R value. If there is no difference we need not keep the lock down. If it shoots back up then we may have to lock down again in a few months.

I realise this is all frustrating but viruses are not easy things to understand.

Sephiroth · 12-05-2020, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Excellent questions. You can correct the data with antibody tests and randomised testing. The antibody tests tell you if you have had the virus, because your body is keeping antibodies for it. Random testing then gives you a sample you can extrapolate to the entire population. This is currently being dogged by a lack of reliable tests (every country in the world now wants them and China is selling fakes) and issues about knowing how long you keep immunity to the virus. Some reports are saying you lose immunity fairly quickly.

If you have the R value you can project the curve anyway you want. However as mentioned as you enable or remove precautions that will alter the R value so you will get a kink in the curve as you start or stop a lockdown.

The horny gentleman from imperial college had a computer model for predicting how it changes. It has somewhat been pillared for containing bugs (of the nature I fix in my job), but they insist it is still accurate. But this will be judged by history.

What I would be worrying about is the difference between the lock down R value and the semi-lock down social distancing R value. If there is no difference we need not keep the lock down. If it shoots back up then we may have to lock down again in a few months.

I realise this is all frustrating but viruses are not easy things to understand.

I do a lot of statistical analysis of a different sort (and have reliable software to assist with modelling - nothing to do with viruses, though).

Random sampling: If it were totally random testing, I would imagine that there would need to be various extrapolations to allow for bias as the environment for the samples will not be the same.

Assuming that 'they' can alight on what would be a statistically significant sample, this could be done by having regional overlays that effectively show the variance applicable to the national figure.

Really difficult stuff - unless I've missed something.

downquark1 · 12-05-2020, 16:46

Yep you are right, I should have said representative random sampling. Supposedly the epidemiologists know how to do this, but this will be a source of dispute if the results are controversial.

(They are already disputing some results from America where they put requests up on facebook and then claimed that as random)

**Paul** · 12-05-2020, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth

Going by the news up this end of the country, Cleethorpes is about as safe as you'll get too

I noticed that the other week, East and West Lindsey are about the lowest death rates in the UK.

Time to visit Skeggy for a walk

jfman · 12-05-2020, 17:26

Seph just posted in red and I’m more worried about what that means than Coronavirus.

Sephiroth · 12-05-2020, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

Seph just posted in red and I’m more worried about what that means than Coronavirus.

You'll be wanting my babies next!

Have you compared your maths with mine yet?

jfman · 12-05-2020, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You'll be wanting my babies next!

Have you compared your maths with mine yet?

I have. That was my “aha!” response. I used Excel as suggested.

papa smurf · 12-05-2020, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth

Just guesswork again then, using incomplete and possibly flawed data

Also, using the formula shown by Hugh, my neighborhood has an R value of 0 so I should be free to party & BBQ to my hearts content . . . in fact other neighborhoods with a zero rating could join in

of course, none of us have been tested so we really aren't sure if we've had it, got it, or are naturally immune to it

Going by the news up this end of the country, Cleethorpes is about as safe as you'll get too

locals go up past the leisure centre no amusements and better beach, remember to book now for your summer hols

Sephiroth · 12-05-2020, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

I have. That was my “aha!” response. I used Excel as suggested.

"Aha" is satisfactory!

Pierre · 12-05-2020, 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

Money can be found, it always is

I agree, it can. It also has to be paid back.

OLD BOY · 12-05-2020, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I agree, it can. It also has to be paid back.

RichardCoulter · 12-05-2020, 19:32

It was on TV last night that the money that we borrowed from America to fund WWII didn't get repaid until 2006.

jfman · 12-05-2020, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I agree, it can. It also has to be paid back.

That's not how quantitative easing works. It may be the case that the money does need removed at a later date however there's no guarantee it would. You are another one confusing macroeconomics with your household budget.

Even if the money did have to removed from money supply - there's strong support for the lockdown. Would people be willing to may minimal amounts of increased tax or VAT over the next 5-10 years to literally support themselves now for a mere few months? A move that would protect employees, protect small businesses and leave the economy better placed to bounce back?

Of course they would. However nobody wants to raise the question of tax reforms when the human price of underfunded public services is so prevalent on their TV.