|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 23, 2021 17:33:49 GMT
Omicron up to 70% less likely to need hospital care
Would be interesting to see that broken down by age group (though they may not have a statistically large enough population). I was literally just listening to car radio report saying that the predominant group testing +ve are 20-30. So we may have a sample population which is currently biased to those at the 'low risk of severe disease' end of the spectrum. Interesting days and weeks ahead.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,635 
Likes: 1,742
|
Post by benaj on Dec 23, 2021 17:47:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 23, 2021 17:48:50 GMT
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,052
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 18:36:03 GMT
Meanwhile, everyones favourite covid expert (Prof Neil Ferguson), who last week was predicting 5,000 covid deaths a day has reigned in his prediction, and is now just suggesting that "there's the potential of still getting hospitalisations in numbers that could put the NHS in a difficult position"
What a kn*bh*ad.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Dec 23, 2021 18:51:44 GMT
Meanwhile, everyones favourite covid expert (Prof Neil Ferguson), who last week was predicting 5,000 covid deaths a day has reigned in his prediction, and is now just suggesting that "there's the potential of still getting hospitalisations in numbers that could put the NHS in a difficult position"
What a kn*bh*ad.
eh, the only way he can't be taken to task by somebody is if the modelling is bang on from the off. Which it never will be. Would you prefer he didn't refine his models as the input data changed?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,052
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 19:10:28 GMT
Meanwhile, everyones favourite covid expert (Prof Neil Ferguson), who last week was predicting 5,000 covid deaths a day has reigned in his prediction, and is now just suggesting that "there's the potential of still getting hospitalisations in numbers that could put the NHS in a difficult position"
What a kn*bh*ad.
eh, the only way he can't be taken to task by somebody is if the modelling is bang on from the off. Which it never will be. Would you prefer he didn't refine his models as the input data changed? Let's be realistic here. Going from 5,000 deaths a day to saying hospitals may be a bit busy could hardly be described as refining the model. The original model was a cr*ck of sh*t, and should never have seen the light of day.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 23, 2021 19:24:04 GMT
eh, the only way he can't be taken to task by somebody is if the modelling is bang on from the off. Which it never will be. Would you prefer he didn't refine his models as the input data changed? Let's be realistic here. Going from 5,000 deaths a day to saying hospitals may be a bit busy could hardly be described as refining the model. The original model was a cr*ck of sh*t, and should never have seen the light of day. well except that presumably at that point there was no confidence or solid basis to assume 'O' would be less severe (just anecdotal stuff from a country with wildly different demographics). So it would have been negligent to assume something just to get better numbers. Plus of course I'm sure that original prediction was based on 'no change on restrictions/current behaviours', as that would have been the basis they were expected to be modelling. After all, the whole point was in order to inform whether there should/needed to be changes). I think its pretty evident that people's behaviours have changed substantially, and what might have been expected in the run up to and over Xmas is not what is being seen. This is in effect a RESULT of the outcomes of the original models. If hospitalisations rates really are down by 70% relative to Delta, and people's behavioural changes have significantly impacted the growth rate (having been told that if they don't it's likely to get pretty bad), then the two combined will clearly result in a much reduced level than the original baseline.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 2,627
|
Post by keitha on Dec 23, 2021 19:58:15 GMT
The Numbers are still not fitting the predicted R of 2-5
There was a modeller on the Radio the other day and he was asked why there were no predictions on omicron being much lower severity, and he said we weren't asked to model that,
I feel that the models are being done to fit the outcomes Ferguson and Whitty want.
I'd bet on Knighthoods for both
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,052
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 20:17:34 GMT
Let's be realistic here. Going from 5,000 deaths a day to saying hospitals may be a bit busy could hardly be described as refining the model. The original model was a cr*ck of sh*t, and should never have seen the light of day. well except that presumably at that point there was no confidence or solid basis to assume 'O' would be less severe (just anecdotal stuff from a country with wildly different demographics). So it would have been negligent to assume something just to get better numbers. Plus of course I'm sure that original prediction was based on 'no change on restrictions/current behaviours', as that would have been the basis they were expected to be modelling. After all, the whole point was in order to inform whether there should/needed to be changes). I think its pretty evident that people's behaviours have changed substantially, and what might have been expected in the run up to and over Xmas is not what is being seen. This is in effect a RESULT of the outcomes of the original models. If hospitalisations rates really are down by 70% relative to Delta, and people's behavioural changes have significantly impacted the growth rate (having been told that if they don't it's likely to get pretty bad), then the two combined will clearly result in a much reduced level than the original baseline. I guess covid predictions are a bit like P2P valuations. The people who are putting the figures into the public domain need to be a lot clearer on what their figures are based on.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 23, 2021 20:27:36 GMT
well except that presumably at that point there was no confidence or solid basis to assume 'O' would be less severe (just anecdotal stuff from a country with wildly different demographics). So it would have been negligent to assume something just to get better numbers. Plus of course I'm sure that original prediction was based on 'no change on restrictions/current behaviours', as that would have been the basis they were expected to be modelling. After all, the whole point was in order to inform whether there should/needed to be changes). I think its pretty evident that people's behaviours have changed substantially, and what might have been expected in the run up to and over Xmas is not what is being seen. This is in effect a RESULT of the outcomes of the original models. If hospitalisations rates really are down by 70% relative to Delta, and people's behavioural changes have significantly impacted the growth rate (having been told that if they don't it's likely to get pretty bad), then the two combined will clearly result in a much reduced level than the original baseline. I guess covid predictions are a bit like P2P valuations. The people who are putting the figures into the public domain need to be a lot clearer on what their figures are based on. To be fair he's closer than alleged previous predictions ... for disease outbreaks
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,387
Likes: 2,787
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Dec 23, 2021 21:04:47 GMT
The only thing we know for sure is infection rates are going up fast, how many hospitalisations and deaths that will result in we don't know, let's be thankful if it may be less than might have been predicted. Where I live Covid cases are higher than ever and deaths do seem to be rising, not a lot and hopefully a blip. But let's not also underestimate the large number of expected Covid infections within the NHS (and the usual winter peak in hospital admissions) making it difficult for hospitals to cope.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,635
Likes: 1,742
|
Post by benaj on Dec 23, 2021 22:35:01 GMT
Or may be it’s better news for those who had Moderna booster.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Dec 23, 2021 22:46:08 GMT
The Numbers are still not fitting the predicted R of 2-5 There was a modeller on the Radio the other day and he was asked why there were no predictions on omicron being much lower severity, and he said we weren't asked to model that, I feel that the models are being done to fit the outcomes Ferguson and Whitty want. I'd bet on Knighthoods for both I think I listened to the same interview, and the same thought occurred to me. At least initially. But then... what's the point of modelling something where nothing bad happens? The output of that model might lead you to go "ok, herd immunity is where it's at, hurr hurr hurr", but even accepting that this is actually correct (let alone politically acceptable) what you really want to know is whether the NHS could be crushed. Because, ultimately, that's all that counts.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,052
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 23:17:03 GMT
The Numbers are still not fitting the predicted R of 2-5There was a modeller on the Radio the other day and he was asked why there were no predictions on omicron being much lower severity, and he said we weren't asked to model that, I feel that the models are being done to fit the outcomes Ferguson and Whitty want. I'd bet on Knighthoods for both I highlighted this a few days ago.
The infection rate started to take off 9 days ago and if you take any of those 9 days and compare with the number of cases 7 days earlier the increases are similar (increasing between 27k and 37k). The average increase over the 9 days is 33k, but over the last 3 days is less than 30k. If you look at the week on week increase expressed as a %, the peak rise was 4 days ago (70%) and for the last 2 days it's 35%.
If you just look at Omicron cases, there were 15k case Tuesday, 13k cases yesterday and 14k cases today.
Which ever way you look it doesn't appear to be increasing exponentially
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Dec 23, 2021 23:34:46 GMT
The Numbers are still not fitting the predicted R of 2-5There was a modeller on the Radio the other day and he was asked why there were no predictions on omicron being much lower severity, and he said we weren't asked to model that, I feel that the models are being done to fit the outcomes Ferguson and Whitty want. I'd bet on Knighthoods for both I highlighted this a few days ago.
The infection rate started to take off 9 days ago and if you take any of those 9 days and compare with the number of cases 7 days earlier the increases are similar (increasing between 27k and 37k). The average increase over the 9 days is 33k, but over the last 3 days is less than 30k. If you look at the week on week increase expressed as a %, the peak rise was 4 days ago (70%) and for the last 2 days it's 35%.
If you just look at Omicron cases, there were 15k case Tuesday, 13k cases yesterday and 14k cases today.
Which ever way you look it doesn't appear to be increasing exponentially
Who'd a thunk it, the population being sensible. EDIT: But I was being sensible and still managed to catch the  thing  .
|
|
thing 
.