I will always remember getting my exam results as it was a very unique date when I did. At the time I lived in the Southern Hemisphere and did the International Baccalaureate as I knew I was coming home the next year. The IB results for the Southern Hemisphere are normally released in January but they were brought forward uniquely for our year due to not wanting to risk issues with high profile concerns over technical computer issues.
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
I feel instinctively that this is suspiciously low, unless the virus really has become a lot less dangerous (in which case very different policy responses are appropriate). If we are currently running at about 10-20 deaths a day with 1000 positive results (which in itself is probably missing cases of an order of magnitude unless they are just the same people being tested repeatedly) then 3 million isn't remotely statistically consistent with the relative case numbers/deaths back in April.
And that also ignores the possible issue (re: herd immunity) that 1) antibodies might not be the only indicator of previous infection and or immunity 2) if there is a natural level of immunity in the population already (some have suggested even as high as 80%, possibly caused by connection between COVID19 and something like the Common cold) then 6% might be more than enough anyway. And explains why in places like Sweden the death rates have tailed off at such an early stage in the apparent progression through the population.
Yeah, was trying to work out how to say "it is clearly a bit more complicated than that"
Well done BBC, managing to find a photo of no less than 10 6th form girls celebrating their results. Sadly, none of them are airborne, but a good effort nonetheless.
I feel instinctively that this is suspiciously low, unless the virus really has become a lot less dangerous (in which case very different policy responses are appropriate). If we are currently running at about 10-20 deaths a day with 1000 positive results (which in itself is probably missing cases of an order of magnitude unless they are just the same people being tested repeatedly) then 3 million isn't remotely statistically consistent with the relative case numbers/deaths back in April.
And that also ignores the possible issue (re: herd immunity) that 1) antibodies might not be the only indicator of previous infection and or immunity 2) if there is a natural level of immunity in the population already (some have suggested even as high as 80%, possibly caused by connection between COVID19 and something like the Common cold) then 6% might be more than enough anyway. And explains why in places like Sweden the death rates have tailed off at such an early stage in the apparent progression through the population.
Regarding 1) there is considerable evidence demonstrating that most of those infected display an antibody response (irrespective of the presence of cross reactive antibodies from previous different coronavirus infection), and although the amount of antibody declines over time, not enough time has passed to render the amounts undetectable by the test. Obviously there are uncertainties at the margin (and one must also allow for some sampling bias, as although the test subjects were selected randomly, only about a third of the 300k initially contacted responded to take the tests). The size of the survey is impressive, though, and the results are likely a reasonable representation of actual infection rates. Regarding 2) the prevalence of cross-reactive antibodies resulting from other previous coronavirus infection is nowhere near 80%. The highest amounts has been found in children under 10 (around 30% prevalence); for adults it's around 10%.
As for current death rates, you're not allowing for the considerable time lag for infection progression, and also not allowing for improvements in medical treatments, or the fact that hospitals are currently under-utilised so that care is likely far less constrained than at the height of the pandemic, or that it's quite likely that a larger proportion of young people are currently getting infected compared to the early pandemic, as they're the most likely to have relaxed precautions.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Yes, I remember it well.
We all piled down the pub at lunchtime after O level results, to celebrate and commiserate. Plenty of pubs weren't too fussy on underage drinking, back in the day, provided you behaved.
O-levels? That dates you. I did them as well and have the same memories of pubs that were not that fussy about ages. We even had a bar at school.
We made alcohol in Chemistry in the VIth form, and were told that we could bring in some orange juice if we wanted to drink the surplus. Surplus, because as part of the actual exam we had to submit a set of samples of products we had made, in little glass sample tubes which we had to blow 'bulbs' onto and then seal. Mid-fifties.
I will always remember getting my exam results as it was a very unique date when I did. At the time I lived in the Southern Hemisphere and did the International Baccalaureate as I knew I was coming home the next year. The IB results for the Southern Hemisphere are normally released in January but they were brought forward uniquely for our year due to not wanting to risk issues with high profile concerns over technical computer issues.
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
A pretty unique, unforgettable and special day.
Pedant mode on: “Very unique”? I had thought you better than that.
I am seriously impressed if you partied from 1999 all the way to the new millennium though; even for Australia that is going it some!
Revised death series for UK now active on Worldometer site
Awww - I thought we might bring people back to life!
On the revised data it is however now likely that we will be overtaken by the US at some point.
Does anyone know what's the before and after deaths per 100,000 ratio? Also what the US's is?
The US really should have a much lower rate than the UK, it is a much more socially distanced nation. Their population density is nothing like ours.
We've just gone down about 10% so were about 680 (per million) before. Although your corollary doesn't necessarily follow. You need to consider medians (or even modes) rather than means.
Where the US is densely populated, it is (much) more densely populated than the UK.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Yes, I remember it well.
We all piled down the pub at lunchtime after O level results, to celebrate and commiserate. Plenty of pubs weren't too fussy on underage drinking, back in the day, provided you behaved.
O-levels? That dates you. I did them as well and have the same memories of pubs that were not that fussy about ages. We even had a bar at school.
When I was doing A levels, sixth formers would often lunch in the pub a couple of times per week, depending what was on in the afternoon. Some pubs were for students and some for staff, though occasionally there would be accidental meetings, dealth with Nelsons eye approach.
I cannot comment on the exam results as I have no knowledge of the subject
However watching Sky this morning they had three students open their results live and each of the students was delighted and each had achieved their grades
They then went to a FE college and exactly the same with the two students opening their envelopes and one achieved her results for a teaching assistant and another received his results to gain access to the RAF as an aircraft engineer
It was good tv seeing young people so happy
I would just add Williamson is useless and needs to be sent to the backbenches
Schools had the results yesterday, if you want to rig a story it wasn't exactly difficult.
We have our results and in a focus group of2 children and 5 results there are 3 appeals and that's from a good school.
Another child got is appealing 2 out of 3 where the final grade is lower than both the mock and the school grade.
Are you suggesting Sky rigged their report
Watching it 'live' there was no doubt none of the students knew their results before opening their envelope
Their school would have done and told them who to focus on.
Are we really now into conspiracy theories by the media to make HMG look good !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On words like "Gammon" we've simply moved from one set of acceptable prejudices in the past to another set today.
Those are the rules for today; the rules of tomorrow might be quite different again.
What hasn't ended is prejudice itself.
I don't really like the use of such prejudicial caricatures. But I think those comparing to the n-word are off the mark; I think it's rather closer to something like 'chav'.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Forty years ago. We were always on holiday when the O and A level results came out. So we had to have them posted to us.
I don't remember any worries about O level, but do remember being very worried and fretful for days running up to the A level results. The first half of that holiday was not brilliant!
I did my French A level when I was 16 and couldn't fight my way through the scrum of 18 year olds at the notice board at the school when the results were posted. My dad did buy me an FS1-E (which I soon crashed) when I eventually did get the result.
I will always remember getting my exam results as it was a very unique date when I did. At the time I lived in the Southern Hemisphere and did the International Baccalaureate as I knew I was coming home the next year. The IB results for the Southern Hemisphere are normally released in January but they were brought forward uniquely for our year due to not wanting to risk issues with high profile concerns over technical computer issues.
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
A pretty unique, unforgettable and special day.
Aren't all dates unique ? That's rather their point. Nice story, though.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Yes, I remember it well.
We all piled down the pub at lunchtime after O level results, to celebrate and commiserate. Plenty of pubs weren't too fussy on underage drinking, back in the day, provided you behaved.
O-levels? That dates you. I did them as well and have the same memories of pubs that were not that fussy about ages. We even had a bar at school.
When I was doing A levels, sixth formers would often lunch in the pub a couple of times per week, depending what was on in the afternoon. Some pubs were for students and some for staff, though occasionally there would be accidental meetings, dealth with Nelsons eye approach.
I remember going on a theatre trip up North (Bristol). We got there an hour early as traffic was better than anticipated and were told by the staff to come back to the theatre at 7:15 and to not go to the same bar they were going to. Which the group I was with failed on...
I will always remember getting my exam results as it was a very unique date when I did. At the time I lived in the Southern Hemisphere and did the International Baccalaureate as I knew I was coming home the next year. The IB results for the Southern Hemisphere are normally released in January but they were brought forward uniquely for our year due to not wanting to risk issues with high profile concerns over technical computer issues.
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
A pretty unique, unforgettable and special day.
Pedant mode on: “Very unique”? I had thought you better than that.
I am seriously impressed if you partied from 1999 all the way to the new millennium though; even for Australia that is going it some!
Pedant mode off
I don't think there's anything pedantically wrong with saying "very unique" in that circumstance. There are times that it is acceptable to use the adjective very with the word unique and I think that is one of them. Getting your exam results is unique for everyone as it is a one off event that happens once in a lifetime. Technically every date is unique since every date occurs only once. 13/08/20 is a unique date but besides for those getting their results today it is for most people just a normal day. So yes I stand with getting results on 31/12/1999 as very unique.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Forty years ago. We were always on holiday when the O and A level results came out. So we had to have them posted to us.
I don't remember any worries about O level, but do remember being very worried and fretful for days running up to the A level results. The first half of that holiday was not brilliant!
I did my French A level when I was 16 and couldn't fight my way through the scrum of 18 year olds at the notice board at the school when the results were posted. My dad did buy me an FS1-E (which I soon crashed) when I eventually did get the result.
Off Topic
Have you seen the value of "fizzies" these days?
On topic
Williamson might well be saved by what happens in Wales today.
My mother-in-law participated in that study. It's a very useful exercise, but could have been better done - the in-laws came over to do it and I walked them through it, not entirely sure they would have ever got around to it themselves. The process was fairly simple, but the instructions made it look more complicated than it was (perhaps through trying to cover every detail, but a multiple page booklet where a one-page set of instructions could have sufficed).
The related survey questions were a bit ambiguous and not that well thought through for retired people - some questions really weren't applicable if not working (e.g. have you reduced going in to your place of work) but there was no option to reply N/A. Consenting for future studies was also quite opaque, made it sound like you were authorising them to access all your medical records, when in fact all you were doing was authorising them to link your test result and survey responses to medical records they'd be able to obtain anyway, which would likely reduce consenting for the future studies.
As for response bias, my guess is that this would if anything over-estimate of prevalence as those who think they may possibly have had coronavirus early on would perhaps be more likely to want to do the test and find out.
I will always remember getting my exam results as it was a very unique date when I did. At the time I lived in the Southern Hemisphere and did the International Baccalaureate as I knew I was coming home the next year. The IB results for the Southern Hemisphere are normally released in January but they were brought forward uniquely for our year due to not wanting to risk issues with high profile concerns over technical computer issues.
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
A pretty unique, unforgettable and special day.
Pedant mode on: “Very unique”? I had thought you better than that.
I am seriously impressed if you partied from 1999 all the way to the new millennium though; even for Australia that is going it some!
Pedant mode off
I don't think there's anything pedantically wrong with saying "very unique" in that circumstance. There are times that it is acceptable to use the adjective very with the word unique and I think that is one of them. Getting your exam results is unique for everyone as it is a one off event that happens once in a lifetime. Technically every date is unique since every date occurs only once. 13/08/20 is a unique date but besides for those getting their results today it is for most people just a normal day. So yes I stand with getting results on 31/12/1999 as very unique.
Pedantry on the Millenium holds more water.
I’d have gone with “very special” myself. Unique is a binary choice as it is or it isn’t. “It was very only happened once” doesn’t make much sense.
But English evolves and in the same way that “literally” now means metaphorically (or the exact opposite of its previous meaning) I suppose the battle for unique will also be lost.
I think it's better than Scotland's system where the overall inflation makes the Highers results literally incredible.
The problem in both Scotland and England is that the systems in place have produced a series of wildly different outcomes, precisely none of which are credible.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Forty years ago. We were always on holiday when the O and A level results came out. So we had to have them posted to us.
I don't remember any worries about O level, but do remember being very worried and fretful for days running up to the A level results. The first half of that holiday was not brilliant!
I did my French A level when I was 16 and couldn't fight my way through the scrum of 18 year olds at the notice board at the school when the results were posted. My dad did buy me an FS1-E (which I soon crashed) when I eventually did get the result.
Off Topic
Have you seen the value of "fizzies" these days?
On topic
Williamson might well be saved by what happens in Wales today.
Why would he be saved by Wales ?
They've got actual relevant exam results there to use.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Forty years ago. We were always on holiday when the O and A level results came out. So we had to have them posted to us.
I don't remember any worries about O level, but do remember being very worried and fretful for days running up to the A level results. The first half of that holiday was not brilliant!
I did my French A level when I was 16 and couldn't fight my way through the scrum of 18 year olds at the notice board at the school when the results were posted. My dad did buy me an FS1-E (which I soon crashed) when I eventually did get the result.
Off Topic
Have you seen the value of "fizzies" these days?
On topic
Williamson might well be saved by what happens in Wales today.
Why would he be saved by Wales ?
They've got actual relevant exam results there to use.
Quite. Fouling that up ought to be impossible.
On the other hand, if they do they have nowhere to hide.
I think it's better than Scotland's system where the overall inflation makes the Highers results literally incredible.
The problem in both Scotland and England is that the systems in place have produced a series of wildly different outcomes, precisely none of which are credible.
I will always remember getting my exam results as it was a very unique date when I did. At the time I lived in the Southern Hemisphere and did the International Baccalaureate as I knew I was coming home the next year. The IB results for the Southern Hemisphere are normally released in January but they were brought forward uniquely for our year due to not wanting to risk issues with high profile concerns over technical computer issues.
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
A pretty unique, unforgettable and special day.
Pedant mode on: “Very unique”? I had thought you better than that.
I am seriously impressed if you partied from 1999 all the way to the new millennium though; even for Australia that is going it some!
Pedant mode off
I don't think there's anything pedantically wrong with saying "very unique" in that circumstance...
Pedantically... 'very unique' is not a synonym for memorable or remarkable.
I think it's better than Scotland's system where the overall inflation makes the Highers results literally incredible.
The problem in both Scotland and England is that the systems in place have produced a series of wildly different outcomes, precisely none of which are credible.
Are England's inflated 10% or so overall ?
They will be by the time appeals and mock regrades have gone through, yes.
Slowly and expensively, dragging it out for months.
Thinking about these 5,000 non-death deaths. Has anyone done any sort of analysis to see if the death rate is comparable to that in an equivalent cohort who did not catch COVID? If it is higher, then that would suggest that a fraction of these deaths are still a result of the COVID infection >28 days earlier.
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Yes, I remember it well.
We all piled down the pub at lunchtime after O level results, to celebrate and commiserate. Plenty of pubs weren't too fussy on underage drinking, back in the day, provided you behaved.
O-levels? That dates you. I did them as well and have the same memories of pubs that were not that fussy about ages. We even had a bar at school.
We made alcohol in Chemistry in the VIth form, and were told that we could bring in some orange juice if we wanted to drink the surplus. Surplus, because as part of the actual exam we had to submit a set of samples of products we had made, in little glass sample tubes which we had to blow 'bulbs' onto and then seal. Mid-fifties.
Were the dunces subject to Darwinian selection by methanol poisoning ?
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Forty years ago. We were always on holiday when the O and A level results came out. So we had to have them posted to us.
I don't remember any worries about O level, but do remember being very worried and fretful for days running up to the A level results. The first half of that holiday was not brilliant!
I did my French A level when I was 16 and couldn't fight my way through the scrum of 18 year olds at the notice board at the school when the results were posted. My dad did buy me an FS1-E (which I soon crashed) when I eventually did get the result.
Off Topic
Have you seen the value of "fizzies" these days?
On topic
Williamson might well be saved by what happens in Wales today.
Why would he be saved by Wales ?
They've got actual relevant exam results there to use.
Believe me, Drakeford's administration will get skewered by BBC Wales and ITV Wales today for basing results around 12 month old exams.
I will always remember getting my exam results as it was a very unique date when I did. At the time I lived in the Southern Hemisphere and did the International Baccalaureate as I knew I was coming home the next year. The IB results for the Southern Hemisphere are normally released in January but they were brought forward uniquely for our year due to not wanting to risk issues with high profile concerns over technical computer issues.
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
A pretty unique, unforgettable and special day.
Pedant mode on: “Very unique”? I had thought you better than that.
I am seriously impressed if you partied from 1999 all the way to the new millennium though; even for Australia that is going it some!
Pedant mode off
I don't think there's anything pedantically wrong with saying "very unique" in that circumstance. There are times that it is acceptable to use the adjective very with the word unique and I think that is one of them. Getting your exam results is unique for everyone as it is a one off event that happens once in a lifetime. Technically every date is unique since every date occurs only once. 13/08/20 is a unique date but besides for those getting their results today it is for most people just a normal day. So yes I stand with getting results on 31/12/1999 as very unique.
Pedantry on the Millenium holds more water.
I’d have gone with “very special” myself. Unique is a binary choice as it is or it isn’t. “It was very only happened once” doesn’t make much sense.
But English evolves and in the same way that “literally” now means metaphorically (or the exact opposite of its previous meaning) I suppose the battle for unique will also be lost.
It is very unique because it is more than just unique. Every date is unique, however while most people may remember what they did on the day they got their results, they are less likely to remember the date they got their results. Because of the date I got my results not only do I recall what I did on the day I got my results but I suspect practically everyone on this site (unless there's some not old enough) can remember what they did on the day I got my results too. Do you recall what you did on 31/12/1999? That's surely even pedantically very unique?
Also have fond memories of my A-level results day.
A teacher told my friends on the morning I had missed my offer and so asked them to be extra supportive to me on the day. Which they were.
As it happened, I hadn't missed my offer. So I was pretty confused as to why everyone kept telling me I was putting a brave face on it and how they knew I'd be okay.
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
Thinking about these 5,000 non-death deaths. Has anyone done any sort of analysis to see if the death rate is comparable to that in an equivalent cohort who did not catch COVID? If it is higher, then that would suggest that a fraction of these deaths are still a result of the COVID infection >28 days earlier.
I’m sure the true number is somewhere between “ever had C19? Then that’s what you died of even if it looks like the impact with the bus did it” and “managed to linger on for 29 days before finally succumbing? Then it can’t have been C19”. I assume that’s why death certificates are the gold standard here, but they take too long for monitoring trends. A consistent measure is more important here I expect, but if that measure is counting lots of people it shouldn’t then it becomes worse than useless in that it disguises the actual trends leading to wrong policy decisions.
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
Is there any mode of transport you haven't at one time wrecked ?
Thinking about these 5,000 non-death deaths. Has anyone done any sort of analysis to see if the death rate is comparable to that in an equivalent cohort who did not catch COVID? If it is higher, then that would suggest that a fraction of these deaths are still a result of the COVID infection >28 days earlier.
I’m sure the true number is somewhere between “ever had C19? Then that’s what you died of even if it looks like the impact with the bus did it” and “managed to linger on for 29 days before finally succumbing? Then it can’t have been C19”. I assume that’s why death certificates are the gold standard here, but they take too long for monitoring trends. A consistent measure is more important here I expect, but if that measure is counting lots of people it shouldn’t then it becomes worse than useless in that it disguises the actual trends leading to wrong policy decisions.
The number probably isn't between those. There will be some who linger on for 29 days before succumbing, there will also though be some who get the virus, test positive and die of other causes within 28 days. I doubt the former exceed the latter.
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
Is there any mode of transport you haven't at one time wrecked ?
I've done thousands of hours in fixed and rotary wing military aircraft without ever crashing one though I suspect providence had a greater hand in that than ability. I've been very fucking close though...
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Yes, I remember it well.
We all piled down the pub at lunchtime after O level results, to celebrate and commiserate. Plenty of pubs weren't too fussy on underage drinking, back in the day, provided you behaved.
O-levels? That dates you. I did them as well and have the same memories of pubs that were not that fussy about ages. We even had a bar at school.
The last year to do O-Levels are 50 now (margin of error +/- 1 year).
As for the pubs, the irony was to go to your regular pub for your 18th birthday. Most bar staff were fine with youngsters drinking from about 16 years, as long as no one was causing trouble. Unfortunately I remember a couple of unpleasant landlords who considered a well behaved group of teenagers taking up a corner of a pub as "causing trouble", over or under 18 was irrelevant.
My mother-in-law participated in that study. It's a very useful exercise, but could have been better done - the in-laws came over to do it and I walked them through it, not entirely sure they would have ever got around to it themselves. The process was fairly simple, but the instructions made it look more complicated than it was (perhaps through trying to cover every detail, but a multiple page booklet where a one-page set of instructions could have sufficed).
The related survey questions were a bit ambiguous and not that well thought through for retired people - some questions really weren't applicable if not working (e.g. have you reduced going in to your place of work) but there was no option to reply N/A. Consenting for future studies was also quite opaque, made it sound like you were authorising them to access all your medical records, when in fact all you were doing was authorising them to link your test result and survey responses to medical records they'd be able to obtain anyway, which would likely reduce consenting for the future studies.
As for response bias, my guess is that this would if anything over-estimate of prevalence as those who think they may possibly have had coronavirus early on would perhaps be more likely to want to do the test and find out.
That's fairly likely, I'd agree - but against that is lower response from groups known to be more likely to be infected. ...Our study has a number of limitatons. As in almost all population surveys, our study showed unequal participation, with lower response from ethnic minority groups and people in more deprived areas. We re-weighted the sample to account for differential response, although this may not have overcome unknown participation biases. An important limitation was the exclusion of children for regulatory reasons as the tests were approved for research use in adults only...
Interesting comments about the instruction and questionnaire (though it's fair to point out that a lot of studies haven't even bothered with questionnaires).
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
I have been acquiring late model Rover Minis (3 at present) in the expectation they will go the way of the "Essy." Working ok so far, values going through the roof.
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
Is there any mode of transport you haven't at one time wrecked ?
I've done thousands of hours in fixed and rotary wing military aircraft without ever crashing one though I suspect providence had a greater hand in that than ability. I've been very fucking close though...
A deliberate policy to get your accidents in while on terra firma ?
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
Is there any mode of transport you haven't at one time wrecked ?
I've done thousands of hours in fixed and rotary wing military aircraft without ever crashing one though I suspect providence had a greater hand in that than ability. I've been very fucking close though...
A deliberate policy to get your accidents in while on terra firma ?
I have been acquiring late model Rover Minis (3 at present) in the expectation they will go the way of the "Essy." Working ok so far, values going through the roof. .
Very shrewd. Australia and South Africa have now been cleaned out of non-rusty RHD ones so the only way is up.
Also have fond memories of my A-level results day.
A teacher told my friends on the morning I had missed my offer and so asked them to be extra supportive to me on the day. Which they were.
As it happened, I hadn't missed my offer. So I was pretty confused as to why everyone kept telling me I was putting a brave face on it and how they knew I'd be okay.
I remember the day I got my A-level and degree results, but not my O-Level results.
One of the worst things that celebs can say in my opinion.
EDIT: Looks as though he's playing to the crowd as he seems to say the same thing every year.
If said before the exams, then yes, but as something to let students know that not getting the grades they hoped for is not the end of the world that it seems at the time seems fine to me.
Also have fond memories of my A-level results day.
A teacher told my friends on the morning I had missed my offer and so asked them to be extra supportive to me on the day. Which they were.
As it happened, I hadn't missed my offer. So I was pretty confused as to why everyone kept telling me I was putting a brave face on it and how they knew I'd be okay.
I remember the day I got my A-level and degree results, but not my O-Level results.
Were you less hardened to alcohol at the time you got O-levels?
I don't understand why universities who interview people would rescind offers based on an algorithm. I hope that isn't happening.
Surely you have confidence in your own ability to assess a student's potential (+ the opinion of their teachers) vs. the govt's statistical adjustments.
I don't especially remember the opening of my O levels - enough to go to college wasn't in much doubt, but I do remember my couple of early entry exams happened on the day of the Manchester air crash and it was one of a few disasters that unfolded over the car radio.
At 'A' level I improved from CCD predicted to get 4 A's (dear, useless, General Studies, and the unknotting of string ""science"" question!). I'd had an inkling and only needed C's for uni, so the main effect was to pee off one or two who hadn't made Oxbridge. I'd have been royally stuffed this year.
Uni grades came out in the afternoon after I'd viva'd and missed out on a First - again pulling myself up an amount at exam time, but not embedding my knowledge quite enough for the externals.
I cannot comment on the exam results as I have no knowledge of the subject
However watching Sky this morning they had three students open their results live and each of the students was delighted and each had achieved their grades
They then went to a FE college and exactly the same with the two students opening their envelopes and one achieved her results for a teaching assistant and another received his results to gain access to the RAF as an aircraft engineer
It was good tv seeing young people so happy
I would just add Williamson is useless and needs to be sent to the backbenches
Schools had the results yesterday, if you want to rig a story it wasn't exactly difficult.
We have our results and in a focus group of2 children and 5 results there are 3 appeals and that's from a good school.
Another child got is appealing 2 out of 3 where the final grade is lower than both the mock and the school grade.
Are you suggesting Sky rigged their report
Watching it 'live' there was no doubt none of the students knew their results before opening their envelope
Their school would have done and told them who to focus on.
Are we really now into conspiracy theories by the media to make HMG look good !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's what happens *every* year, Big G!
And if you think about it, quite right too.
The alternative is risking putting someone on live TV/radio when they discover that their plans have just gone up in smoke. Nobody would want that.
Thinking about these 5,000 non-death deaths. Has anyone done any sort of analysis to see if the death rate is comparable to that in an equivalent cohort who did not catch COVID? If it is higher, then that would suggest that a fraction of these deaths are still a result of the COVID infection >28 days earlier.
I’m sure the true number is somewhere between “ever had C19? Then that’s what you died of even if it looks like the impact with the bus did it” and “managed to linger on for 29 days before finally succumbing? Then it can’t have been C19”. I assume that’s why death certificates are the gold standard here, but they take too long for monitoring trends. A consistent measure is more important here I expect, but if that measure is counting lots of people it shouldn’t then it becomes worse than useless in that it disguises the actual trends leading to wrong policy decisions.
The number probably isn't between those. There will be some who linger on for 29 days before succumbing, there will also though be some who get the virus, test positive and die of other causes within 28 days. I doubt the former exceed the latter.
There’s a fair bit of anecdotal disagreement with the “death certificate” method. Which is why they moved on to the “excess deaths” one. Which is also helpful to some because it apparently shows us doing worse, and the potential flaws in the methodology are far more complicated to delve into.
My mother-in-law participated in that study. It's a very useful exercise, but could have been better done - the in-laws came over to do it and I walked them through it, not entirely sure they would have ever got around to it themselves. The process was fairly simple, but the instructions made it look more complicated than it was (perhaps through trying to cover every detail, but a multiple page booklet where a one-page set of instructions could have sufficed).
The related survey questions were a bit ambiguous and not that well thought through for retired people - some questions really weren't applicable if not working (e.g. have you reduced going in to your place of work) but there was no option to reply N/A. Consenting for future studies was also quite opaque, made it sound like you were authorising them to access all your medical records, when in fact all you were doing was authorising them to link your test result and survey responses to medical records they'd be able to obtain anyway, which would likely reduce consenting for the future studies.
As for response bias, my guess is that this would if anything over-estimate of prevalence as those who think they may possibly have had coronavirus early on would perhaps be more likely to want to do the test and find out.
That's fairly likely, I'd agree - but against that is lower response from groups known to be more likely to be infected. ...Our study has a number of limitatons. As in almost all population surveys, our study showed unequal participation, with lower response from ethnic minority groups and people in more deprived areas. We re-weighted the sample to account for differential response, although this may not have overcome unknown participation biases. An important limitation was the exclusion of children for regulatory reasons as the tests were approved for research use in adults only...
Interesting comments about the instruction and questionnaire (though it's fair to point out that a lot of studies haven't even bothered with questionnaires).
Yep, you can control for known response bias, e.g. ethnic groups, but not for possible bias that's based on the outcome you're actually measuring.
The survey was very detailed, took much longer than the actual test. There will be a wealth of data from that, only some of which seems to be in the pre-print, to be expected. Potential for future papers looking much more at risk factors for having been infected and for e.g. asymptomatic infection, should be very interesting. You also had to upload a picture of the test kit post-test, presumably so that the results (or a sub-set) could be verified to make sure people were reading it right.
I have been acquiring late model Rover Minis (3 at present) in the expectation they will go the way of the "Essy." Working ok so far, values going through the roof. .
Very shrewd. Australia and South Africa have now been cleaned out of non-rusty RHD ones so the only way is up.
A lot of cheap rust free locally made Clubmans still in South Africa, that might be my next project, possibly. £2000 will get a rust free runner into Southampton, before HMRC demand their cut.
One has to sit on imports for a while to recoup what HMRC take, 30 plus percent of cost, insurance and freight value before it can leave the dock unless one can bag an absolute bargain.
One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else. Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone. Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
Results even post-algorithm are higher than last year?
If 37/39% of grades are downgraded, and that has been done correctly to fit with previous years, then does that mean teachers predictions in aggregate were much, much higher than last year?
If that's right... then it doesn't really seem credible.
If most teachers have been honest and put what they really thought, then some others must have gone a grade higher for everyone.
One of the wrinkles which I suspect most people haven't followed through is that small cohorts have had their school assessed grades waved through, so the load of keeping the overall statistics down is being shouldered by certain subjects at certain institutions.
It's turned out to be a really good year to have taken Music or Classics...
96.5% were either on (58.7%), or within one grade of (up, 2.2%, down 35.6%) of the teacher's estimate.
So while no doubt we're going to see lots of (quite possibly justified) complaints about "two (or more) grade changes - it only affects 3.5% of the total awards.
One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else. Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone. Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
96.5% were either on (58.7%), or within one grade of (up, 2.2%, down 35.6%) of the teacher's estimate.
So while no doubt we're going to see lots of (quite possibly justified) complaints about "two (or more) grade changes - it only affects 3.5% of the total awards.
Yeah but one grade down is enough to miss your offer.
So the figure that matters is how many pupils missed one of their grades (and ideally compared to last year).
If it's 36% of grades downgraded, then it could be ~25% of students missing a grade, and so missing out on an offer. Which is HUGE.
96.5% were either on (58.7%), or within one grade of (up, 2.2%, down 35.6%) of the teacher's estimate.
So while no doubt we're going to see lots of (quite possibly justified) complaints about "two (or more) grade changes - it only affects 3.5% of the total awards.
It would be interesting to hear about some of those who went up 2 grades.
Results even post-algorithm are higher than last year?
If 37/39% of grades are downgraded, and that has been done correctly to fit with previous years, then does that mean teachers predictions in aggregate were much, much higher than last year?
If that's right... then it doesn't really seem credible.
If most teachers have been honest and put what they really thought, then some others must have gone a grade higher for everyone.
You predict what you think someone ought to get.
In a normal year some will foul up: I remember an A* student coming out of an exam in tears because he realised with two minutes to go that he had not turned over the page and so missed out the last two questions. That is far more likely than someone will pull a stunning performance out of nowhere (though that does happen). So in a normal year a certain number will under perform on the day almost at random. How do you predict that?
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
like I said, something I have never heard in flesh world, at least not from a black person.
Happened daily all the time in my boxing gym. It says as much as much about your social circles as anything.
Yes, I have never been in a boxing gym, maybe its the norm there.
I did live in South London in the Eighties, for one year in a shared house with a couple of West Indians, and since then in the Midlands in cities with significant Black populations. I work with Black people from a wide variety of social backgrounds, and have never heard any of them use the N word, nor whilst out and about in the cities. Maybe it is context specific to certain social environments, but if so, I have never encountered it.
I think the other distinction is work and play. As I said, your social circles, not your professional ones.
96.5% were either on (58.7%), or within one grade of (up, 2.2%, down 35.6%) of the teacher's estimate.
So while no doubt we're going to see lots of (quite possibly justified) complaints about "two (or more) grade changes - it only affects 3.5% of the total awards.
It would be interesting to hear about some of those who went up 2 grades.
Results even post-algorithm are higher than last year?
If 37/39% of grades are downgraded, and that has been done correctly to fit with previous years, then does that mean teachers predictions in aggregate were much, much higher than last year?
If that's right... then it doesn't really seem credible.
If most teachers have been honest and put what they really thought, then some others must have gone a grade higher for everyone.
You predict what you think someone ought to get.
In a normal year some will foul up: I remember an A* student coming out of an exam in tears because he realised with two minutes to go that he had not turned over the page and so missed out the last two questions. That is far more likely than someone will pull a stunning performance out of nowhere (though that does happen). So in a normal year a certain number will under perform on the day almost at random. How do you predict that?
That makes sense to me thanks. Clearly you cannot predict that.
But it doesn't account for ~40% of grades being higher. That's an enormous difference.
I do worry there is a non-trivial chance that whichever analyst at the DfE built the model, they might have made a formula error.
Results even post-algorithm are higher than last year?
If 37/39% of grades are downgraded, and that has been done correctly to fit with previous years, then does that mean teachers predictions in aggregate were much, much higher than last year?
If that's right... then it doesn't really seem credible.
If most teachers have been honest and put what they really thought, then some others must have gone a grade higher for everyone.
You predict what you think someone ought to get.
In a normal year some will foul up: I remember an A* student coming out of an exam in tears because he realised with two minutes to go that he had not turned over the page and so missed out the last two questions. That is far more likely than someone will pull a stunning performance out of nowhere (though that does happen). So in a normal year a certain number will under perform on the day almost at random. How do you predict that?
I once had a candidate - grade 9 - who didn't realise there were two parts to the question paper. So she only did 50% of the questions and still ended up with a grade 5.
96.5% were either on (58.7%), or within one grade of (up, 2.2%, down 35.6%) of the teacher's estimate.
So while no doubt we're going to see lots of (quite possibly justified) complaints about "two (or more) grade changes - it only affects 3.5% of the total awards.
It would be interesting to hear about some of those who went up 2 grades.
And some went up three!
What does this tell me?
It tells me this algorithm is bollocks.
Grading down where teachers appear to have overgraded I can understand.
But how to select the ones who would have surprised on the upside, of which I have had many and I am sure you have too? Drawing straws?
I assume that most people here have vivid memories of getting their results?
Yes, I remember it well.
We all piled down the pub at lunchtime after O level results, to celebrate and commiserate. Plenty of pubs weren't too fussy on underage drinking, back in the day, provided you behaved.
O-levels? That dates you. I did them as well and have the same memories of pubs that were not that fussy about ages. We even had a bar at school.
We made alcohol in Chemistry in the VIth form, and were told that we could bring in some orange juice if we wanted to drink the surplus. Surplus, because as part of the actual exam we had to submit a set of samples of products we had made, in little glass sample tubes which we had to blow 'bulbs' onto and then seal. Mid-fifties.
Were the dunces subject to Darwinian selection by methanol poisoning ?
One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else. Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone. Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
BiB - Seriously? That's beyond terrible.
Yes. The exam boards are capable of far worse than anything Ofqual can do.
It’s one of the reasons why I am so pleased to see the back of “coursework” which is another ay of saying “let’s get the teachers to do our job without paying them for it” as we had to mark it. We then had to send off a sample to be moderated and if we were deemed to be over generous the whole group (including those with stone cold certain 100%, a very gettable mark in a science) would be marked down. What they should have done is said “you can’t mark these properly so we will have to take it in and do it properly”. What actually happened was that candidates suffered because of the mistake if someone who was not their teacher marking someone else’s work.
Comments
So we got our results on the 31 December 1999. Went into school to collect our results, then went out with my friends to celebrate ending up by the waterfront of Melbourne for a fireworks display and party to bring in the New Year/Millenium.
A pretty unique, unforgettable and special day.
So most of the people were coming were legal.
Obviously there are uncertainties at the margin (and one must also allow for some sampling bias, as although the test subjects were selected randomly, only about a third of the 300k initially contacted responded to take the tests). The size of the survey is impressive, though, and the results are likely a reasonable representation of actual infection rates.
Regarding 2) the prevalence of cross-reactive antibodies resulting from other previous coronavirus infection is nowhere near 80%. The highest amounts has been found in children under 10 (around 30% prevalence); for adults it's around 10%.
As for current death rates, you're not allowing for the considerable time lag for infection progression, and also not allowing for improvements in medical treatments, or the fact that hospitals are currently under-utilised so that care is likely far less constrained than at the height of the pandemic, or that it's quite likely that a larger proportion of young people are currently getting infected compared to the early pandemic, as they're the most likely to have relaxed precautions.
Surplus, because as part of the actual exam we had to submit a set of samples of products we had made, in little glass sample tubes which we had to blow 'bulbs' onto and then seal.
Mid-fifties.
“Very unique”? I had thought you better than that.
I am seriously impressed if you partied from 1999 all the way to the new millennium though; even for Australia that is going it some!
Pedant mode off
Antibody prevalence for SARS-CoV-2 following the peak of the pandemic in England: REACT2 study in 100,000 adults
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/institute-of-global-health-innovation/Ward-et-al-120820.pdf
An absolute carcrash
But I think those comparing to the n-word are off the mark; I think it's rather closer to something like 'chav'.
Nice story, though.
Which the group I was with failed on...
Pedantry on the Millenium holds more water.
https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1293708117558136832?s=20
Have you seen the value of "fizzies" these days?
On topic
Williamson might well be saved by what happens in Wales today.
The related survey questions were a bit ambiguous and not that well thought through for retired people - some questions really weren't applicable if not working (e.g. have you reduced going in to your place of work) but there was no option to reply N/A. Consenting for future studies was also quite opaque, made it sound like you were authorising them to access all your medical records, when in fact all you were doing was authorising them to link your test result and survey responses to medical records they'd be able to obtain anyway, which would likely reduce consenting for the future studies.
As for response bias, my guess is that this would if anything over-estimate of prevalence as those who think they may possibly have had coronavirus early on would perhaps be more likely to want to do the test and find out.
But English evolves and in the same way that “literally” now means metaphorically (or the exact opposite of its previous meaning) I suppose the battle for unique will also be lost.
They've got actual relevant exam results there to use.
On the other hand, if they do they have nowhere to hide.
Slowly and expensively, dragging it out for months.
A teacher told my friends on the morning I had missed my offer and so asked them to be extra supportive to me on the day. Which they were.
As it happened, I hadn't missed my offer. So I was pretty confused as to why everyone kept telling me I was putting a brave face on it and how they knew I'd be okay.
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/19297/scorecard/1187672/new-zealand-vs-england-2nd-test-england-in-new-zealand-2019-20
EDIT: Looks as though he's playing to the crowd as he seems to say the same thing every year.
As for the pubs, the irony was to go to your regular pub for your 18th birthday. Most bar staff were fine with youngsters drinking from about 16 years, as long as no one was causing trouble. Unfortunately I remember a couple of unpleasant landlords who considered a well behaved group of teenagers taking up a corner of a pub as "causing trouble", over or under 18 was irrelevant.
...Our study has a number of limitatons. As in almost all population surveys, our study showed unequal participation, with lower response from ethnic minority groups and people in more deprived areas. We re-weighted the sample to account for differential response, although this may not have overcome unknown participation biases. An important limitation was the exclusion of children for regulatory reasons as the tests were approved for research use in adults only...
Interesting comments about the instruction and questionnaire (though it's fair to point out that a lot of studies haven't even bothered with questionnaires).
https://twitter.com/ImperialSPH/status/1293835078561337346?s=20
I note that the school sixth form has gone from "Outstanding" (2009) to "Good" (2017), while the school overall "Requires Improvement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Martyrs_School_and_Sixth_Form_College#Ofsted_ratings
Surely you have confidence in your own ability to assess a student's potential (+ the opinion of their teachers) vs. the govt's statistical adjustments.
At 'A' level I improved from CCD predicted to get 4 A's (dear, useless, General Studies, and the unknotting of string ""science"" question!). I'd had an inkling and only needed C's for uni, so the main effect was to pee off one or two who hadn't made Oxbridge. I'd have been royally stuffed this year.
Uni grades came out in the afternoon after I'd viva'd and missed out on a First - again pulling myself up an amount at exam time, but not embedding my knowledge quite enough for the externals.
The alternative is risking putting someone on live TV/radio when they discover that their plans have just gone up in smoke. Nobody would want that.
The survey was very detailed, took much longer than the actual test. There will be a wealth of data from that, only some of which seems to be in the pre-print, to be expected. Potential for future papers looking much more at risk factors for having been infected and for e.g. asymptomatic infection, should be very interesting. You also had to upload a picture of the test kit post-test, presumably so that the results (or a sub-set) could be verified to make sure people were reading it right.
One has to sit on imports for a while to recoup what HMRC take, 30 plus percent of cost, insurance and freight value before it can leave the dock unless one can bag an absolute bargain.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
Results even post-algorithm are higher than last year?
If 37/39% of grades are downgraded, and that has been done correctly to fit with previous years, then does that mean teachers predictions in aggregate were much, much higher than last year?
If that's right... then it doesn't really seem credible.
If most teachers have been honest and put what they really thought, then some others must have gone a grade higher for everyone.
It's turned out to be a really good year to have taken Music or Classics...
https://twitter.com/philipnye/status/1293833269004443650/photo/1
So while no doubt we're going to see lots of (quite possibly justified) complaints about "two (or more) grade changes - it only affects 3.5% of the total awards.
So the figure that matters is how many pupils missed one of their grades (and ideally compared to last year).
If it's 36% of grades downgraded, then it could be ~25% of students missing a grade, and so missing out on an offer. Which is HUGE.
In a normal year some will foul up: I remember an A* student coming out of an exam in tears because he realised with two minutes to go that he had not turned over the page and so missed out the last two questions. That is far more likely than someone will pull a stunning performance out of nowhere (though that does happen). So in a normal year a certain number will under perform on the day almost at random. How do you predict that?
But it doesn't account for ~40% of grades being higher.
That's an enormous difference.
I do worry there is a non-trivial chance that whichever analyst at the DfE built the model, they might have made a formula error.
It tells me this algorithm is bollocks.
Grading down where teachers appear to have overgraded I can understand.
But how to select the ones who would have surprised on the upside, of which I have had many and I am sure you have too? Drawing straws?
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
It’s one of the reasons why I am so pleased to see the back of “coursework” which is another ay of saying “let’s get the teachers to do our job without paying them for it” as we had to mark it. We then had to send off a sample to be moderated and if we were deemed to be over generous the whole group (including those with stone cold certain 100%, a very gettable mark in a science) would be marked down. What they should have done is said “you can’t mark these properly so we will have to take it in and do it properly”. What actually happened was that candidates suffered because of the mistake if someone who was not their teacher marking someone else’s work.