|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 24, 2021 6:26:50 GMT
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
EDIT: But I was being sensible and still managed to catch the  thing  . Yep. People not going to events they were going to go to. People taking and insisting that others also take LFTs before meeting up at events. Xmas get togethers that haven't been cancelled being switched to 'private' rooms, held with windows open, and warm clothes on. People choosing to take their leave when passage of time and alcohol means social distancing is starting to get wonky. Or not turning up at even outdoor events because the group will be too large. That's just experiences from this household. We all know from our own experience that mask wearing in shops and other spaces is back with a vengeance: I'd say with less protestation and far fewer recalcitrants than in previous waves. Even if mask wearing itself has little effect (which I don't currently subscribe to) it's a marker for people's attitude and therefore likely general behavioural changes. Businesses cancelling work parties they were going to have*. Hospitality venues reporting 30% cancellations very soon after the first briefing. People turning up for booster jabs in huge numbers. I'd humbly suggest that the pronouncements of the last 3-4 weeks have had a significant impact on behaviours at individual and population levels. Which was precisely what was wanted and intended. Cause and effect. *I mean, bejesus, Even No. 10 has cancelled its Xmas party this year. Allegedly.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,031 
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 24, 2021 8:13:47 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. One thing this whole saga's been good for is highlighting just how little people understand the basics of how science works. You model the information you have. When the information changes, you change the model to reflect it. Iterate, iterate, iterate. You do not change the model to fit the preferred information.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Dec 24, 2021 9:37:24 GMT
Caught a cold from a visit by a two year old Snot Monster.
Did lateral flow test.... mmmm what fun.
Not Covid,just a cold.
Happy Christmas.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Dec 24, 2021 11:02:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 24, 2021 16:10:22 GMT
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. One thing this whole saga's been good for is highlighting just how little people understand the basics of how science works. You model the information you have.When the information changes, you change the model to reflect it. Iterate, iterate, iterate. You do not change the model to fit the preferred information. Yes, but then you add in your variables. If there were no unknown variables, there would be no need to model. They were modelling for (or should have been modelling for) a range of scenarios. You plug in the known constants, then add a few variables and assign a probability to each outcome the model delivers. That's all Fraser Nelson was asking for, a range of scenarios to be published, together with their probabilities. I don't believe anyone was asking to fiddle the outcome as you suggest. All Nelson asked for was to take account of the prevailing conditions and at least model the more likely of them as well as the "equally severe as Delta" scenario. registerme, I would say the point of modelling something where nothing bad happens is even that situation is still a valid outcome which can feed into government's decision making. The "do nothing" option is still a decision on their part.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 24, 2021 16:17:45 GMT
One thing this whole saga's been good for is highlighting just how little people understand the basics of how science works. You model the information you have.When the information changes, you change the model to reflect it. Iterate, iterate, iterate. You do not change the model to fit the preferred information. Yes, but then you add in your variables. If there were no unknown variables, there would be no need to model. They were modelling for (or should have been modelling for) a range of scenarios. You plug in the known constants, then add a few variables and assign a probability to each outcome the model delivers. That's all Fraser Nelson was asking for, a range of scenarios to be published, together with their probabilities. Which is what was delivered. A model taking into account the varying degrees of increased infectivity of Omigawd. That's EXACTLY what Nelson was sulking because he didn't get. The model was looking at infectivity. He wanted it to factor in decreased severity, too, despite there being precisely zero evidence of that, because he wanted it to show that there was no need for any more restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 24, 2021 16:28:42 GMT
Yes, but then you add in your variables. If there were no unknown variables, there would be no need to model. They were modelling for (or should have been modelling for) a range of scenarios. You plug in the known constants, then add a few variables and assign a probability to each outcome the model delivers. That's all Fraser Nelson was asking for, a range of scenarios to be published, together with their probabilities. Which is what was delivered. A model taking into account the varying degrees of increased infectivity of Omigawd. That's EXACTLY what Nelson was sulking because he didn't get. The model was looking at infectivity. He wanted it to factor in decreased severity, too, despite there being precisely zero evidence of that, because he wanted it to show that there was no need for any more restrictions. I have to disagree. It would have been entirely reasonable and sensible to factor in decreased severity, given that that's exactly what we are now seeing. The option certainly shouldn't have been ignored. Look, even an untrained muppet like me could foresee the direction this thing was taking in South Africa as early as 6th December. Modelling for that as at least a possible outcome would have been sensible and more than reasonable... p2pindependentforum.com/post/441177
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 24, 2021 16:32:38 GMT
Look, even an untrained muppet like me could foresee the direction this thing was taking in South Africa You "saw" it precisely BECAUSE you're an untrained muppet, so focussed on what you wanted to see, despite the mahoosive differences in the populations. This time, it seems you got lucky. And, now that there is relevant evidence, they're factoring that into the models...
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Dec 24, 2021 16:55:34 GMT
I'm not a fan but Putin said weeks ago that this Omicron variant could be a "live Covid vaccine", it's beginning to look like he might be proved right.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 24, 2021 16:57:07 GMT
Look, even an untrained muppet like me could foresee the direction this thing was taking in South Africa You "saw" it precisely BECAUSE you're an untrained muppet, so focussed on what you wanted to see, despite the mahoosive differences in the populations. This time, it seems you got lucky. And, now that there is relevant evidence, they're factoring that into the models... Well, it was slightly more than pure guesswork on my part. We already had, by then, Dr Angelique Coetzee, chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, telling the world that Omicron was highly transmissible but less dangerous. That ought to have fed into the modelling as at least a possibility, with a probability assigned to that possibility. You don't only feed into a model "relevant evidence". You also ascribe probabilistic weights to the obvious variables like transmissibility and virulence/infectivity. Then any good model should present a whole range of outcomes, with a probability attached to each. SAGE obviously would have done all this, but just didn't present the message well. You don't present the very worst case scenario, irrespective of its probability, unless you tell the media clearly that it is the worst case scenario (as SAGE used to at one time) and here is the probability we've attached to it. They clearly messed up, and as a consequence they have lost a terrific amount of credibility in the eyes of the public. I have a lot of respect for SAGE and its experts, but I think they shot themselves in the foot this time by managing the messaging poorly.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 24, 2021 17:02:57 GMT
You don't present the very worst case scenario, irrespective of its probability They didn't. They modelled the change in infectivity, and stated they had assumed the severity remained the same, since there was no credible evidence of anything else... Yep, they did that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2021 17:13:29 GMT
I'm not a fan but Putin said weeks ago that this Omicron variant could be a "live Covid vaccine", it's beginning to look like he might be proved right. Tell that to the 7 people in the UK who died this week of Omicron.
Putin, lips moving, lying.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonraker on Dec 24, 2021 17:26:49 GMT
The rising numbers of COVID cases is worrying enough, but I've been wondering how much higher they would be if there wasn't a shortage of test kits. I've been trying to get some for several days but there were none at my local pharmacy and the NextDoor neighbourhood forum reported the same at others in my locality. And several attempts to order them on-line from the NHS resulted in messages that none were available.
I've just tried the NHS website again and sighed when I was asked to complete again my details form because I hadn't visited for some time (actually it was 48 hours ago). Suddenly a message popped up saying a kit would be posted to me. OK, it will obviously take a few days to reach me, but I won't be having any indoor visitors until the New Year.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 24, 2021 17:29:17 GMT
You don't present the very worst case scenario, irrespective of its probability They didn't. They modelled the change in infectivity, and stated they had assumed the severity remained the same, since there was no credible evidence of anything else... Yep, they did that. Whatever you might offer in their defence, you have to admit they got it spectacularly wrong. SAGE 7th Dec: "without any changes to measures in place, the number of hospitalisations from Omicron may reach 1,000 per day or higher in England by the end of the year (and still be increasing at that point)"
"The peak is highly likely to be higher than 1,000 to 2,000 Omicron hospital admissions per day without intervention to slow the speed of increasing infections"www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-98-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-7-december-2021/sage-98-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-7-december-2021Actual daily Omicron hospitalisations 20 Dec: 129 (for whole UK). assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1042543/20211220_OS_Daily_Omicron_Overview.pdfSAGE have earned sufficient demerits over this to prompt Sir Patrick Vallance to come out in their defence today... www.gov.uk/government/speeches/its-not-true-covid-19-modellers-look-only-at-worst-outcomesLuckily, the government tempered its SAGE advice sensibly.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 24, 2021 17:45:04 GMT
Look, even an untrained muppet like me could foresee the direction this thing was taking in South Africa You "saw" it precisely BECAUSE you're an untrained muppet, so focussed on what you wanted to see, despite the mahoosive differences in the populations. This time, it seems you got lucky. And, now that there is relevant evidence, they're factoring that into the models... Is that a good example of what happens when you lose the debate ? I look forward to the apology.
|
|
thing 
.
