Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

In the betting it’s about evens that BoJo will re-introduce restrictions by the end of the year – po

13567

Comments

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited July 2021



    They are antivaxxers on the whole.

    Err, no they are not. Or if they are, many of them must be a very funny kind of anti-vaxxer, who has the first dose but not the second dose.
    There is an element of people who took the first but refused the second.

    But do you have some figures on what percentage of them have the first dose but not the second, as opposed to what percentage have refused the vaccine altogether?
    From memory it was around 35% who'd had one jab. Over half of those now being admitted to hospital are under 45, most of whom are not yet fully protected:

    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1415334389643452421
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    It's stopped going down.

    Incidentally, what that is showing is that, on average, we have in hospital a number of people equal to 10% of the cases 7 days previously.....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Just seen a clip of Pagel on Sky news. Some of what she says is just untrue. Apparently no country in the world has just let the virus go as she claims we are doing from Monday.

    Er, hello, various US states like Florida? Open, no masks etc etc.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    You're desperately pretending that hospitalisations are going up with cases.

    But the numbers in hospital are not going up with cases, unlike in January or before, because we progressively have better protection. So as time goes on fewer people are being admitted and those who are, are being discharged quicker, so no the in hospital scenario is nothing like January and is not going to be.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Something that I don't think I have seen being pointed out. If we go all covid vaccine passport for clubs, pubs, cinemas and still the young refuse to be jabbed. Then what? I suspect the young will just take their drinking to house parties and on the streets.

    In the short term yes; medium term they'll get vaccinated.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    This gap (34%) is remarkable.

    Democratic, Republican Confidence in Science Diverges
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx
    ...When Gallup asked Americans how much confidence they had in science in 1975, the party groups varied little in their responses. At that time, Republicans (72%) were slightly more likely than Democrats (67%) to say they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in science. Meanwhile, 73% of political independents expressed confidence.

    Compared with that earlier survey, Republican confidence in science has fallen 27 percentage points, and independents have dropped eight points, while Democrats' confidence has increased by 12 points.
    ...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826



    They are antivaxxers on the whole.

    Err, no they are not. Or if they are, many of them must be a very funny kind of anti-vaxxer, who has the first dose but not the second dose.
    There is an element of people who took the first but refused the second.

    But do you have some figures on what percentage of them have the first dose but not the second, as opposed to what percentage have refused the vaccine altogether?
    From memory it was around 35% who'd had one jab. Over half of those now being admitted to hospital are under 45, most of whom are not yet fully protected:

    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1415334389643452421
    So if 35% have had one jab, and about 10% both jabs, then most are unvaccinated then are they not?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Alistair said:

    I'm opening a pool on the first member to make a "cases look to have stabalised around the 46-52k figure" post on Monday.

    Can't nominate yourself.

    As schools break up next week, that doesn't seem like an unlikely outcome.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    Whatever we do there are going to be a lot of hospitalisations, because it's clear that - good though they are - the vaccines aren't going to get us there on their own.

    It would be a really big mistake to think that even half of it is going to be among the unvaccinated, though. And while we may get some more benefit from completing the vaccination programme, given the age profiles, it is going to be relatively small.

    Probably the main focus should be on the question of whether we have a "Big Bang" exit from all restrictions at once, or whether we do it gradually. A question that is hardly being asked at the moment, let alone answered.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place

    I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.

    But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
    Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.

    Its not over but its as over as its going to be.

    Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
    My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
    No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.

    Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
    I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.

    Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
    No that is not what it means.

    95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.

    You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.

    Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.

    Does that make more sense?
    It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
    Collectively we're - understandably - using that advantage to mix more, which is why so many areas are seeing their highest number of cases for the whole pandemic.
    Indeed. The virus needs to burn itself out in the unvaccinated community before cases will drop, even if there's significant herd immunity within the vaccinated adults.

    Countries like Australia, New Zealand etc that are used to no virus spread and are struggling to get people vaccinated are really going to struggle to get out of this because eventually if they don't vaccinate they'll end up with an exit wave like we're having when they lift restrictions. Or they're going to have to keep restrictions for a very, very long time.
    Australia is also suffering from a lot of anti-vax social media bollocks, to add to their vaccines procurement woes. It’s going to be a very long road out for them, if they can’t get a reasonable number of their population vaccinated.
    One of my best mates has the misfortune to be represented by Craig Kelly MP.
    His FB page has more engagement than the PM or LOTO.
    He is an absolute crackpot of the kind that would be extreme fringe in the far reaches of Trumpland.
    Despite this he remained an MP of the governing Party till February. When he resigned to sit as an Indy.
    Morrison can hardly complain about anti-vaxxers, when he put up with this bloke when his misinformation was winning votes.
    Fortunately, we have avoided such nutters in UK politics.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,153

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    You're desperately pretending that hospitalisations are going up with cases.

    But the numbers in hospital are not going up with cases, unlike in January or before, because we progressively have better protection. So as time goes on fewer people are being admitted and those who are, are being discharged quicker, so no the in hospital scenario is nothing like January and is not going to be.
    Eh? The graph 2-3 posts below yours shows that h/c ratio has stabilised and is now constant. Ergo when cases go up, hospitalization does too in proportion.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    It isn't giving up because you can't be bothered any more.

    Its giving up because you can't afford it any more.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820



    They are antivaxxers on the whole.

    Err, no they are not. Or if they are, many of them must be a very funny kind of anti-vaxxer, who has the first dose but not the second dose.
    There is an element of people who took the first but refused the second.

    But do you have some figures on what percentage of them have the first dose but not the second, as opposed to what percentage have refused the vaccine altogether?
    From memory it was around 35% who'd had one jab. Over half of those now being admitted to hospital are under 45, most of whom are not yet fully protected:

    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1415334389643452421
    So if 35% have had one jab, and about 10% both jabs, then most are unvaccinated then are they not?
    Yes, exactly. You've got there! Those being hospitalised are (for the most part) not fully protected yet. That is precisely why it's too early to just let rip and leave the vaccines to do all the work.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    We are blessed by your transcendental omniscient wisdom Chris. Please don’t go, what would we do without you?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    You're desperately pretending that hospitalisations are going up with cases.

    But the numbers in hospital are not going up with cases, unlike in January or before, because we progressively have better protection. So as time goes on fewer people are being admitted and those who are, are being discharged quicker, so no the in hospital scenario is nothing like January and is not going to be.
    Are you really too stupid to understand that - whatever effect the vaccines have, whatever effect medical care has, and all the rest of it - OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, IF CASE NUMBERS DOUBLE, THEN SO WILL HOSPITALISATIONS?

    Are you really too stupid to read and understand what I say when I write "though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination"? I wrote that specifically to help the terminally thick, and still you can't grasp it! (Would it help if I put it into a different colour for you?)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093
    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    But that takes the expected exit wave to October which isn't credible given what we expect the NHS winter crisis to look like this year. My resolution would be to cut the gap, vaccinate anyone who wants a second dose within the next two to three weeks and keep our fingers crossed. The JCVI clearly have different ideas and have decided that an potential winter wave will be kept under control better by holding the 8 weeks gap for young people too.
    Sure, there's a horrific trade-off of a bigger exit wave in summer vs. a smaller (and it would surely be smaller, because more vaccinations) at a less opportune time. And I'm glad making that choice isn't my problem.

    But if we have to do Step 4 now (and I get the logic), surely the aim should be to be as prepared as possible for what we are about to receive?

    And we're not, are we?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    On Bojo and changing his stance, there's a blistering cover piece in Spectator this weekend on how liberal Boris has morphed into nanny state Boris.

    The man who would once have been first to denounce a national covid id system is now introducing one without even a debate in Parliament.

    One pissed off tory MP describes the current general response of the government with huge spending as solution to every problem and projects all over the place that are run by the State as "a Corbyn theme park".

    Borisism is a confusing mess of personal responsibility and nannyism, big state and cuts.
    A wonky shopping trolley even, to coin a phrase. :smiley:
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    We are blessed by your transcendental omniscient wisdom Chris. Please don’t go, what would we do without you?
    An ounce of just reading and trying to understand really would be better than a ton of sarcasm, friend.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I appreciate you all trying to get your Monday post in early but my pool is strictly for Monday only.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826



    They are antivaxxers on the whole.

    Err, no they are not. Or if they are, many of them must be a very funny kind of anti-vaxxer, who has the first dose but not the second dose.
    There is an element of people who took the first but refused the second.

    But do you have some figures on what percentage of them have the first dose but not the second, as opposed to what percentage have refused the vaccine altogether?
    From memory it was around 35% who'd had one jab. Over half of those now being admitted to hospital are under 45, most of whom are not yet fully protected:

    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1415334389643452421
    So if 35% have had one jab, and about 10% both jabs, then most are unvaccinated then are they not?
    Yes, exactly. You've got there! Those being hospitalised are (for the most part) not fully protected yet. That is precisely why it's too early to just let rip and leave the vaccines to do all the work.
    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    Those who have had both jabs are as protected as they're going to get.

    So only about a third by your data are not fully protected because they're waiting for a second dose (and even that's assuming they've not just rejected the second dose as some have chosen to do).
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    A wonky shopping trolley even, to coin a phrase. :smiley:

    Boris Johnson as shopping trolley: a history.

    The comparison has recently been used by @Dominic2306
    and earlier by Craig Oliver, in his book.

    But the first reference to the metaphor was actually made by... Boris Johnson.


    First appeared in this Feb 2016 @ShippersUnbound piece: https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/1415997137867837447/photo/1
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm opening a pool on the first member to make a "cases look to have stabalised around the 46-52k figure" post on Monday.

    Can't nominate yourself.

    As schools break up next week, that doesn't seem like an unlikely outcome.
    Some have finished today, other areas have a week to go.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited July 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm opening a pool on the first member to make a "cases look to have stabalised around the 46-52k figure" post on Monday.

    Can't nominate yourself.

    As schools break up next week, that doesn't seem like an unlikely outcome.
    A great number of them did today. Ours did.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Chris said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    We are blessed by your transcendental omniscient wisdom Chris. Please don’t go, what would we do without you?
    An ounce of just reading and trying to understand really would be better than a ton of sarcasm, friend.
    Oh I’ve read your posts, believe me I’ve read them, and observed your claimed monopoly on both scientific understanding and reality. It appears to be your world, we just live in it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2021
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    You're desperately pretending that hospitalisations are going up with cases.

    But the numbers in hospital are not going up with cases, unlike in January or before, because we progressively have better protection. So as time goes on fewer people are being admitted and those who are, are being discharged quicker, so no the in hospital scenario is nothing like January and is not going to be.
    Are you really too stupid to understand that - whatever effect the vaccines have, whatever effect medical care has, and all the rest of it - OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, IF CASE NUMBERS DOUBLE, THEN SO WILL HOSPITALISATIONS?

    Are you really too stupid to read and understand what I say when I write "though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination"? I wrote that specifically to help the terminally thick, and still you can't grasp it! (Would it help if I put it into a different colour for you?)
    But other things are not equal because for every week that passes we have more people vaccinated.

    So your shouting fails on the other things being equal. Vaccines mean other things are not equal. We have millions more jabs in arms and active than we did this time last month.

    The proportionality is not constant because the unvaccinated portion of the population is dropping all the time. Though it's going to hit a floor now.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766
    Great pic of Our Great Leader aka The Clown on the header. He looks like he has been on the lash for a week.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    While we're talking about modelling, the climate scientists want a (much) bigger computer.

    Climate change: Science failed to predict flood and heat intensity
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57863205
    ...former Met Office chief scientist Prof Dame Julia Slingo told BBC News: "We should be alarmed because the IPCC (climate computer) models are just not good enough.
    "(We need) an international centre to deliver the quantum leap to climate models that capture the fundamental physics that drive extremes.
    "Unless we do that we will continue to underestimate the intensity/frequency of extremes and the increasingly unprecedented nature of them."
    She said the costs of the computer, which would be in the hundreds of millions of pounds, would "pale into insignificance" compared with the costs of extreme events for which society is unprepared.
    Dame Julia is striving to promote this initiative at the COP26 climate summit in November.
    She, and other scientists, agree climate change is an emergency. But Oxford Prof Tim Palmer told me: "It’s is impossible to say how much of an emergency we are in because we don’t have the tools to answer the question.
    "We need a commitment and vision with the magnitude of CERN (Europe's major physics research centre) if we are to build climate models that can accurately simulate the extremes of climate like the Canadian heatwave."...


    Shit is getting serious, and right now we're navigating through the rear view mirror.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    But that takes the expected exit wave to October which isn't credible given what we expect the NHS winter crisis to look like this year. My resolution would be to cut the gap, vaccinate anyone who wants a second dose within the next two to three weeks and keep our fingers crossed. The JCVI clearly have different ideas and have decided that an potential winter wave will be kept under control better by holding the 8 weeks gap for young people too.
    Sure, there's a horrific trade-off of a bigger exit wave in summer vs. a smaller (and it would surely be smaller, because more vaccinations) at a less opportune time. And I'm glad making that choice isn't my problem.

    But if we have to do Step 4 now (and I get the logic), surely the aim should be to be as prepared as possible for what we are about to receive?

    And we're not, are we?
    Would an autumn exit wave be smaller thanks to > vaccination? We just don't know. This is a respiratory virus and so R is affected by season.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Andy_JS said:

    "Giles Coren
    @gilescoren

    The tracking company know where it is - it’s still pinging a signal - but won’t tell me “in case I put myself in danger”. And the police won’t go and look for it because they consider the case closed!!! What do I do???? Does it just sit by the side of the road and ROT???"

    https://twitter.com/gilescoren/status/1415741710802558980

    So the police can’t be arsed to go after a stolen car, because they gave a reference number to the insurance company?

    I think the insurance company might have something to say about that.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    It isn't giving up because you can't be bothered any more.

    Its giving up because you can't afford it any more.
    Let's put that to one side.

    Even if this is the end of the road, there are simple cheap things the government could have planned to cushion the shock.

    They could have gone all out to get jabs into arms for the last month.

    They could have planned what the emergency healthcare would be like, which might have helped with getting jabs into arms.

    None of that seems to have happened.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MaxPB said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    But that takes the expected exit wave to October which isn't credible given what we expect the NHS winter crisis to look like this year. My resolution would be to cut the gap, vaccinate anyone who wants a second dose within the next two to three weeks and keep our fingers crossed. The JCVI clearly have different ideas and have decided that an potential winter wave will be kept under control better by holding the 8 weeks gap for young people too.
    Sure, there's a horrific trade-off of a bigger exit wave in summer vs. a smaller (and it would surely be smaller, because more vaccinations) at a less opportune time. And I'm glad making that choice isn't my problem.

    But if we have to do Step 4 now (and I get the logic), surely the aim should be to be as prepared as possible for what we are about to receive?

    And we're not, are we?
    Sure we are. As much as is possible within reason.

    Unvaccinated 55 year olds whether now or October that will get hit in the exit wave are much more of an issue than getting single jabbed 22 year olds being double jabbed.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820



    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    I give up. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that this is false, you persist in repeating it because you are desperate for it to be true.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    By reported date or sample date?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Is GB News some kind of elaborate satire?

    I’m old enough to remember when Big G would post a breathless daily countdown to its launch.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    We could do a sweep although TBF I don’t think you’re far out.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    You're desperately pretending that hospitalisations are going up with cases.

    But the numbers in hospital are not going up with cases, unlike in January or before, because we progressively have better protection. So as time goes on fewer people are being admitted and those who are, are being discharged quicker, so no the in hospital scenario is nothing like January and is not going to be.
    Are you really too stupid to understand that - whatever effect the vaccines have, whatever effect medical care has, and all the rest of it - OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, IF CASE NUMBERS DOUBLE, THEN SO WILL HOSPITALISATIONS?

    Are you really too stupid to read and understand what I say when I write "though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination"? I wrote that specifically to help the terminally thick, and still you can't grasp it! (Would it help if I put it into a different colour for you?)
    But other things are not equal because for every week that passes we have more people vaccinated.

    So your shouting fails on the other things being equal. Vaccines mean other things are not equal. We have millions more jabs in arms and active than we did this time last month.

    The proportionality is not constant because the unvaccinated portion of the population is dropping all the time. Though it's going to hit a floor now.
    Just like the aforementioned aside for the terminally thick, I've already mentioned precisely those points.

    Probably the moral is don't bother about the terminally thick, because they need things expressed in words of less than one syllable, which can't be done. And even then, they need to hear exactly what they want to hear, otherwise they'll ignore it anyway.

    Still, sadly the fact is that if things still aren't obvious enough now, they will be in the near future. But no doubt you'll still be able to think of a reason why you were right all along ...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I'm also taking a book on the first time someone posts "there was no way the effect of the Euro 2020 games could have been predicted"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    By reported date or sample date?
    Er, just the daily number given out on the dashboard (dunno what that is)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,153

    Is GB News some kind of elaborate satire?

    I’m old enough to remember when Big G would post a breathless daily countdown to its launch.

    Oh no, it's all performative virtue signalling.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    By reported date or sample date?
    Er, just the daily number given out on the dashboard (dunno what that is)
    That's reported date. Tricky thing there is it can be affected by lab delays, so a tricker number to get right.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    By reported date or sample date?
    Er, just the daily number given out on the dashboard (dunno what that is)
    The headline number on the dashboard is reported date.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    Is GB News some kind of elaborate satire?

    I’m old enough to remember when Big G would post a breathless daily countdown to its launch.

    If I were involved it’s what I would be pretending at this point
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    By reported date or sample date?
    Er, just the daily number given out on the dashboard (dunno what that is)
    That's reported date. Tricky thing there is it can be affected by lab delays, so a tricker number to get right.
    We could say “Peak by Reported Date”
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    We are blessed by your transcendental omniscient wisdom Chris. Please don’t go, what would we do without you?
    An ounce of just reading and trying to understand really would be better than a ton of sarcasm, friend.
    Oh I’ve read your posts, believe me I’ve read them, and observed your claimed monopoly on both scientific understanding and reality. It appears to be your world, we just live in it.
    As for any "claimed monopoly", not at all.

    It's very simple to see how fast the ratio of daily hospitalisations to positive tests is changing. There's a gov.uk website with all the data. If you really want to know the truth of the matter rather than just tossing out sarcastic comments at people who've gone to the trouble of doing the calculations, you can work it out for yourself. Line up the two curves to allow for the time lag, and just use the calculator function of your device.

    Unless you actually prefer your comments to be based on pure ignorance, I suppose.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    It isn't giving up because you can't be bothered any more.

    Its giving up because you can't afford it any more.
    Let's put that to one side.

    Even if this is the end of the road, there are simple cheap things the government could have planned to cushion the shock.

    They could have gone all out to get jabs into arms for the last month.

    They could have planned what the emergency healthcare would be like, which might have helped with getting jabs into arms.

    None of that seems to have happened.
    In the department of stopped clocks and all that, Andrew Lilico of all people made this point a few weeks ago, asking whether people were psychologically prepared for opening up at the peak.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826



    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    I give up. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that this is false, you persist in repeating it because you are desperate for it to be true.
    The jab has been offered to everyone.

    You claimed 35% are single jabbed.

    That means 2/3rds have refused the vaccine or are already double jabbed.

    Approximately. Based on your own numbers.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Chris said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    We are blessed by your transcendental omniscient wisdom Chris. Please don’t go, what would we do without you?
    An ounce of just reading and trying to understand really would be better than a ton of sarcasm, friend.
    Oh I’ve read your posts, believe me I’ve read them, and observed your claimed monopoly on both scientific understanding and reality. It appears to be your world, we just live in it.
    As for any "claimed monopoly", not at all.

    It's very simple to see how fast the ratio of daily hospitalisations to positive tests is changing. There's a gov.uk website with all the data. If you really want to know the truth of the matter rather than just tossing out sarcastic comments at people who've gone to the trouble of doing the calculations, you can work it out for yourself. Line up the two curves to allow for the time lag, and just use the calculator function of your device.

    Unless you actually prefer your comments to be based on pure ignorance, I suppose.
    On the contrary. You are the fount of all knowledge that we are privileged to be drinking from. May you never dry up.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    Peak date and case numbers, by reported date: 8 days after last Sunday's final, plus one round of onward infections (say 5 days), so I make the date next Saturday (24th July), peaking at 69,230 cases.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    Alistair said:

    I'm also taking a book on the first time someone posts "there was no way the effect of the Euro 2020 games could have been predicted"

    Any chance Dishy will reintroduce the "eat out to help out" (not eat out to spread the virus) scheme in August?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    By reported date or sample date?
    Er, just the daily number given out on the dashboard (dunno what that is)
    The headline number on the dashboard is reported date.
    Cool. I'll stick with my predix. Looks a reasonable guess, to me
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Peak infections was today.

    There you go. That's my forecast.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Working back from the modelled peak in the below scenarios (not a prediction I know) I think peak in England should be sometime middle next week. Maybe.


  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    rcs1000 said:

    Peak infections was today.

    There you go. That's my forecast.

    Peak reported infections? That's brave, looking at our new curve, unless you are relying on a collapse in testing, as the schools break up in England
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:


    So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?

    Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.

    Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.

    They are NOT anti-vaxxers (on the whole). Don't be daft. They are mostly under 50s for whom the jabs haven't yet reached the 2+2 protection (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).

    And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.

    You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
    They are antivaxxers on the whole.

    Under 50s should have all been jabbed now, anyone who isn't yet its by choice, and you're again acting as if one jab does not provide protection. One jab + 3 weeks provides about 60% to 70% protection - and the people who haven't had their second jab yet are the youngest adults who were always at the least risk anyway.

    There are millions of antivaxxers in society, the virus needs to burn through them. We should stop trying to prevent it from happening and let nature take its course.
    AIUI one jab of Astra only gives about 30-40% protection against Delta? Which is not great. You need both
    Under 40s aren't getting AZ, anyone who got AZ will be past their 8th week by now.
    I was eight weeks past first AZ dose yesterday. Second dose appointment next week, tried to bring it forward but couldn't be done. (40, very much pro-vaccine, will be relieved to be in PT's group of the chosen people).
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766



    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    I give up. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that this is false, you persist in repeating it because you are desperate for it to be true.
    lol. It wasn't that long ago that Philip kept insisting we had reached "herd immunity", which we all wish were true, but anyone with the slightest modicum of scientific understanding knew to be nonsense.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    I'm also taking a book on the first time someone posts "there was no way the effect of the Euro 2020 games could have been predicted"

    The primary effect of Euro 2020 is some much needed enjoyment across the nation and a lot of much needed trade for the hospitality sector.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826



    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    I give up. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that this is false, you persist in repeating it because you are desperate for it to be true.
    lol. It wasn't that long ago that Philip kept insisting we had reached "herd immunity", which we all wish were true, but anyone with the slightest modicum of scientific understanding knew to be nonsense.
    We have, in over 90% of adults there are antibodies.

    That's not to say there can't be any cases and as I said at the time the virus needs to fill in the gaps with antivaxxers naturally now. It is doing that exactly as I said.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Chris said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    We are blessed by your transcendental omniscient wisdom Chris. Please don’t go, what would we do without you?
    An ounce of just reading and trying to understand really would be better than a ton of sarcasm, friend.
    Well I have carefully read what you wrote and have also seen that graph and frankly they cannot both be correct. In fact what you wrote is utterly meaningless.

    Your statement: "I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination"

    Since you go for the patronising comment I will copy you. Anyone with an ounce of basic maths knowledge knows that if the proportionality is changing due to an external influence - in this case the vaccine - then you can no longer claim it is proportional. To say that something is proportional except it is changing is gibberish.

    Now given I can vaguely see the point you might be trying to make I could be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt on this. But since you chose to be as insulting as possible to PT when he made a perfectly valid counter to your comments, I don't think you deserve that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    FPT:
    alex_ said:

    The graphic we should all be looking has nothing to do with Covid. It's Fraser Nelson's cheat sheet of the UK's gilt maturity profile

    Holy f8ck. Its far more weighted to the front end than I realised and has a stack of maturity rollovers in coming few years.

    If the DMO is refinancing those in a rising interest rate environment, URGH.

    Only because Fraser Nelson has sort of misrepresented the maturity profile and you have misunderstood it.

    The QE gilts are theoretically needing to be rolled over but the QE gilts are owned by the Bank of England. So it's a case of rolling over debts that are already owed to the UK. The Treasury doesn't pay any interest on these debts so realistically the BoE can just roll them over indefinitely with the Treasury never paying interest on these.

    If you look at the gilts that matter, the ones we actually pay interest on, they have a mean fifteen year, median eleven year, maturity.
    The Bank may want or need to use the open market to refinance at some juncture, as you well know.
    Yes - selling the bonds on the open market (and then reducing the BoE balance sheet by, in effect, “destroying” the cash received) is the way the BoE reverses Quantitative Easing. My understanding is that the Treasury does pay interest, it has just been using accounting trickery to bank them once paid. The ongoing interest is still outstanding.

    If the bonds were actually owned by the Treasury then the SNP argument in 2014 that they were an asset to be divided post independence would actually have merit...
    The Bank of England returns to the Government any interest it recieves on QE debt, so it has no impact on the deficit.

    As I posed in a think piece (back in the old days when I was a fund manager): if you don't pay interst on it, and you will never be asked to repay the principle, is it really debt?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TimS said:

    Peak date and case numbers, by reported date: 8 days after last Sunday's final, plus one round of onward infections (say 5 days), so I make the date next Saturday (24th July), peaking at 69,230 cases.

    That seems sound, I was thinking around 68 thousand, but weekend is a bad day to pick I think.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Just seen a clip of Pagel on Sky news. Some of what she says is just untrue. Apparently no country in the world has just let the virus go as she claims we are doing from Monday.

    Er, hello, various US states like Florida? Open, no masks etc etc.

    It's complete nonsense. On Monday we will still be vaccinating, still testing, still tracing, still quarantining, still isolating, still applying many covid secure measures, and more. We will be broadly able to go where we want, when we want, and with who we want, but it won't be as though we are back to where we were in late 2019, not by a long shot.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    You're desperately pretending that hospitalisations are going up with cases.

    But the numbers in hospital are not going up with cases, unlike in January or before, because we progressively have better protection. So as time goes on fewer people are being admitted and those who are, are being discharged quicker, so no the in hospital scenario is nothing like January and is not going to be.
    Are you really too stupid to understand that - whatever effect the vaccines have, whatever effect medical care has, and all the rest of it - OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, IF CASE NUMBERS DOUBLE, THEN SO WILL HOSPITALISATIONS?

    Are you really too stupid to read and understand what I say when I write "though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination"? I wrote that specifically to help the terminally thick, and still you can't grasp it! (Would it help if I put it into a different colour for you?)
    But what you seem to be unable to get through your thick skull is that all things are not equal. Because we have the vaccines. So again your comment is stupid and meaningless.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Shall we have a PB quiz on "Guess the Peak Daily Case Number and When"?


    I'm going for 87,324, on Wednesday July 28

    By reported date or sample date?
    Er, just the daily number given out on the dashboard (dunno what that is)
    The headline number on the dashboard is reported date.
    Cool. I'll stick with my predix. Looks a reasonable guess, to me
    With schools breaking up it will be too high by some distance I think.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    TimS said:

    Peak date and case numbers, by reported date: 8 days after last Sunday's final, plus one round of onward infections (say 5 days), so I make the date next Saturday (24th July), peaking at 69,230 cases.

    Like it, shown your working and everything. I can buy that.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766



    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    I give up. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that this is false, you persist in repeating it because you are desperate for it to be true.
    lol. It wasn't that long ago that Philip kept insisting we had reached "herd immunity", which we all wish were true, but anyone with the slightest modicum of scientific understanding knew to be nonsense.
    We have, in over 90% of adults there are antibodies.

    That's not to say there can't be any cases and as I said at the time the virus needs to fill in the gaps with antivaxxers naturally now. It is doing that exactly as I said.
    Ok Prof Thompson. I am very reassured by your knowledge and analysis.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846



    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    I give up. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that this is false, you persist in repeating it because you are desperate for it to be true.
    lol. It wasn't that long ago that Philip kept insisting we had reached "herd immunity", which we all wish were true, but anyone with the slightest modicum of scientific understanding knew to be nonsense.
    We have, in over 90% of adults there are antibodies.

    That's not to say there can't be any cases and as I said at the time the virus needs to fill in the gaps with antivaxxers naturally now. It is doing that exactly as I said.
    Whilst defending you on the other argument I have to agree with Nigel on this. There is no evidence we have yet reached herd immunity. I wish it were the case but once has to be realistic.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Peak infections was today.

    There you go. That's my forecast.

    Peak reported infections? That's brave, looking at our new curve, unless you are relying on a collapse in testing, as the schools break up in England
    Yep.

    That's correct. But it isn't just testing, of course, it's also the fact that schools are a massive transmission vector. Lots of unvaccinated people in poorly ventilated spaces not doing anything that looks remotely like social distancing. Add in usual end of year parties, and the like, and you have a recipe for viral spread.

    Next week there will be dramatically fewer children in schools, and there therefore be both less testing and less opportunity for the virus to spread.

    Today was the peak. Revel in it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    O/T

    "Wednesday July 7, 10.36pm. England 2 Denmark 1.

    The referee’s full-time whistle brings the semi-final to a close and confirms England’s place in their first big tournament final for 55 years. For thousands of England fans only one thing matters now: making sure they are inside Wembley stadium for Sunday’s match — with or without a ticket.

    Some of the stewards at Wembley are allegedly already plotting their own money-making venture, according to fans at the Denmark game. One fan, Chris Tucker, says that “at the Denmark game, stewards were telling us they’d let us in for the final for £1,500 each”.

    On social media, fans begin exchanging tips on circumventing security to get into the ground. They know that if they can make it in illicitly — known as jibbing — there will be thousands of empty seats because Covid restrictions mean capacity has been capped at 75 per cent. Several hundred join a group on the confidential messaging app Telegram called “The Wembley Jib”, where plans are made for groups to rush barriers and checkpoints manned by stewards."

    (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/979970aa-e568-11eb-a821-58982b1c936d
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    7-day moving average peak for cases was 36848 yesterday, Thu the 15th.
    I predict a peak of 45000 on Thu the 22nd.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Russia reports 799 new coronavirus deaths, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 25,704 new cases
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093
    DougSeal said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.

    The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".

    But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
    It isn't giving up because you can't be bothered any more.

    Its giving up because you can't afford it any more.
    Let's put that to one side.

    Even if this is the end of the road, there are simple cheap things the government could have planned to cushion the shock.

    They could have gone all out to get jabs into arms for the last month.

    They could have planned what the emergency healthcare would be like, which might have helped with getting jabs into arms.

    None of that seems to have happened.
    In the department of stopped clocks and all that, Andrew Lilico of all people made this point a few weeks ago, asking whether people were psychologically prepared for opening up at the peak.
    There's an honourable path that goes via "grim necessity, care for one another, this is too will pass."

    I'm not convinced I agree with it, but it exists. But there's no way BoJo is the man to communicate it. Gove, at a pinch, maybe?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited July 2021
    Christ alive, when Sky News don't have non-independent SAGE on, i turn it on and it is Dr Philip Lee, introduced as simply a GP having a rant about the government needing to grow up....yes it the same Dr Philip Lee ex-mp who of course had a meltdown over Brexit.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766



    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    I give up. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that this is false, you persist in repeating it because you are desperate for it to be true.
    lol. It wasn't that long ago that Philip kept insisting we had reached "herd immunity", which we all wish were true, but anyone with the slightest modicum of scientific understanding knew to be nonsense.
    We have, in over 90% of adults there are antibodies.

    That's not to say there can't be any cases and as I said at the time the virus needs to fill in the gaps with antivaxxers naturally now. It is doing that exactly as I said.
    Whilst defending you on the other argument I have to agree with Nigel on this. There is no evidence we have yet reached herd immunity. I wish it were the case but once has to be realistic.
    I do sometimes feel a little mean taking the piss out of Philip, but I do wish he wouldn't attempt to sound an authority on things that he clearly isn't. He would have more cred if he started the odd sentence with "I wonder if...", or "I am not an expert on this area, but it seems to me that....". The interesting thing is that "Chris" seems to be from the same type of stable.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited July 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    "Wednesday July 7, 10.36pm. England 2 Denmark 1.

    The referee’s full-time whistle brings the semi-final to a close and confirms England’s place in their first big tournament final for 55 years. For thousands of England fans only one thing matters now: making sure they are inside Wembley stadium for Sunday’s match — with or without a ticket.

    Some of the stewards at Wembley are allegedly already plotting their own money-making venture, according to fans at the Denmark game. One fan, Chris Tucker, says that “at the Denmark game, stewards were telling us they’d let us in for the final for £1,500 each”.

    On social media, fans begin exchanging tips on circumventing security to get into the ground. They know that if they can make it in illicitly — known as jibbing — there will be thousands of empty seats because Covid restrictions mean capacity has been capped at 75 per cent. Several hundred join a group on the confidential messaging app Telegram called “The Wembley Jib”, where plans are made for groups to rush barriers and checkpoints manned by stewards."

    (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/979970aa-e568-11eb-a821-58982b1c936d

    There needs to be a serious investigation into this. There was clearly failure by the police and alleged corruption by staff.

    It could have easily turned into an even bigger disaster.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Nigelb said:

    While we're talking about modelling, the climate scientists want a (much) bigger computer.

    The Met Office only recently signed a billion quid deal with Microsoft for a very big supercomputer and two mid-life upgrades which will futher triple the performance. The new system (60 PFLOPS) starts at over 1,000 times as powerful as the Earth Simulator (40 TFLOPS) that Japan commisioned about two decades ago, at a cost of about $1 billion, to solve the same sort of climate model problems.

    If enormous speed-ups haven't produced significantly better results that surely points to problems with the models not the amount of compute available.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    Nigelb said:

    This gap (34%) is remarkable.

    Democratic, Republican Confidence in Science Diverges
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx
    ...When Gallup asked Americans how much confidence they had in science in 1975, the party groups varied little in their responses. At that time, Republicans (72%) were slightly more likely than Democrats (67%) to say they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in science. Meanwhile, 73% of political independents expressed confidence.

    Compared with that earlier survey, Republican confidence in science has fallen 27 percentage points, and independents have dropped eight points, while Democrats' confidence has increased by 12 points.
    ...

    It's frightening. I so wish the Republicans would get back to their old small government, low tax, nuclear family values nonsense.
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298



    They are antivaxxers on the whole.

    Err, no they are not. Or if they are, many of them must be a very funny kind of anti-vaxxer, who has the first dose but not the second dose.
    There is an element of people who took the first but refused the second.

    But do you have some figures on what percentage of them have the first dose but not the second, as opposed to what percentage have refused the vaccine altogether?
    From memory it was around 35% who'd had one jab. Over half of those now being admitted to hospital are under 45, most of whom are not yet fully protected:

    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1415334389643452421
    So if 35% have had one jab, and about 10% both jabs, then most are unvaccinated then are they not?
    Yes, exactly. You've got there! Those being hospitalised are (for the most part) not fully protected yet. That is precisely why it's too early to just let rip and leave the vaccines to do all the work.
    For the most part they're not fully protected before they've refused the vaccine.

    Those who have had both jabs are as protected as they're going to get.
    Not true in the long term if it goes seasonal. Many don't have a clue what's good for their immune systems apart from vaccination, and I'd like to think that some of them are capable of acquiring some clue.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Scotland peak reported day cases was 6 days after schools broke up.

    It was 20% higher than the 7 day average, shows how tricky this is.

    So I'll go with either 62k on the 22nd July
    Or
    65k on the 29th.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    I wonder who was editor of the Mirror who ran this?

    https://twitter.com/Colin00007/status/1416059583840362500?s=19

    The volley of abuse Beckham he got from all quarters, it is incredible he managed to come back and become the player he did.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)

    In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.

    With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.

    Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.

    The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.

    LOL! 😂😂😂

    image

    The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
    Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?

    The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.

    But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
    You're desperately pretending that hospitalisations are going up with cases.

    But the numbers in hospital are not going up with cases, unlike in January or before, because we progressively have better protection. So as time goes on fewer people are being admitted and those who are, are being discharged quicker, so no the in hospital scenario is nothing like January and is not going to be.
    Are you really too stupid to understand that - whatever effect the vaccines have, whatever effect medical care has, and all the rest of it - OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, IF CASE NUMBERS DOUBLE, THEN SO WILL HOSPITALISATIONS?

    Are you really too stupid to read and understand what I say when I write "though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination"? I wrote that specifically to help the terminally thick, and still you can't grasp it! (Would it help if I put it into a different colour for you?)
    But what you seem to be unable to get through your thick skull is that all things are not equal. Because we have the vaccines. So again your comment is stupid and meaningless.
    2nd jabs are being done in a cohort now that by and large avoids hospitalisation - the under 40s, so the cases to hospitalizations will level out as per Malmesbury graph.
    Once you hit this point, and it looks like we are there, then hospitalizations will rise (And eventually fall) with cases
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Russia reports 799 new coronavirus deaths, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 25,704 new cases

    The rule of thumb with Russia is that the real numbers are at least three times as large.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2021

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Would SCon renaming themselves the Unionist Party have any discernible impact?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081
    Alistair said:

    TimS said:

    Peak date and case numbers, by reported date: 8 days after last Sunday's final, plus one round of onward infections (say 5 days), so I make the date next Saturday (24th July), peaking at 69,230 cases.

    That seems sound, I was thinking around 68 thousand, but weekend is a bad day to pick I think.
    I would go for Wednesday 28th being the top, but a gentle declining slope afterwards, rather than a steep drop.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    I haven't studied the data at all.

    But when you have two people arguing you can easily get a sense of who is sounding most calm, reasonable and balanced when analysing the facts.

    And who is sounding more blinkered, wound up, certain of themselves and unwilling to consider alternatives.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Foxy said:

    Alistair said:

    TimS said:

    Peak date and case numbers, by reported date: 8 days after last Sunday's final, plus one round of onward infections (say 5 days), so I make the date next Saturday (24th July), peaking at 69,230 cases.

    That seems sound, I was thinking around 68 thousand, but weekend is a bad day to pick I think.
    I would go for Wednesday 28th being the top, but a gentle declining slope afterwards, rather than a steep drop.
    Tim Spector, who has historically been on the more optimistic side of things when it comes to case reduction, is of a similar opinion, long tail of cases dropping off.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    While we're talking about modelling, the climate scientists want a (much) bigger computer.

    The Met Office only recently signed a billion quid deal with Microsoft for a very big supercomputer and two mid-life upgrades which will futher triple the performance. The new system (60 PFLOPS) starts at over 1,000 times as powerful as the Earth Simulator (40 TFLOPS) that Japan commisioned about two decades ago, at a cost of about $1 billion, to solve the same sort of climate model problems.

    If enormous speed-ups haven't produced significantly better results that surely points to problems with the models not the amount of compute available.
    The problem is chaos. Literally. The famous butterfly effect. Forecasting becomes harder, the further into the future you look at exponential rates.

    So to make marginally better forecasts, requires massively more powerful computers.

    This is because of reality.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    MikeL said:

    I haven't studied the data at all.

    But when you have two people arguing you can easily get a sense of who is sounding most calm, reasonable and balanced when analysing the facts.

    And who is sounding more blinkered, wound up, certain of themselves and unwilling to consider alternatives.

    True.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Pulpstar said:


    2nd jabs are being done in a cohort now that by and large avoids hospitalisation - the under 40s, so the cases to hospitalizations will level out as per Malmesbury graph.
    Once you hit this point, and it looks like we are there, then hospitalizations will rise (And eventually fall) with cases

    It's not really true that the under 40s avoid hospitalisations:

    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1416069607698272256
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Christ alive, when Sky News don't have non-independent SAGE on, i turn it on and it is Dr Philip Lee, introduced as simply a GP having a rant about the government needing to grow up....yes it the same Dr Philip Lee ex-mp who of course had a meltdown over Brexit.

    Every time they talk of "Independent Sage" I hear the words of Lord Trenchard, when he was told of the formation of the "Independent Striking Force" at the end of WWI, to bomb Germany.

    "Independent of whom? God?"
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MikeL said:

    I haven't studied the data at all.

    But when you have two people arguing you can easily get a sense of who is sounding most calm, reasonable and balanced when analysing the facts.

    And who is sounding more blinkered, wound up, certain of themselves and unwilling to consider alternatives.

    It's also good to check what they were saying a month and a half ago and see if they had modified their statements at all as new facts have come in.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    The Economist has finally updated its excess deaths table after 2 months. The UK is now in 34th place.

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    While we're talking about modelling, the climate scientists want a (much) bigger computer.

    The Met Office only recently signed a billion quid deal with Microsoft for a very big supercomputer and two mid-life upgrades which will futher triple the performance. The new system (60 PFLOPS) starts at over 1,000 times as powerful as the Earth Simulator (40 TFLOPS) that Japan commisioned about two decades ago, at a cost of about $1 billion, to solve the same sort of climate model problems.

    If enormous speed-ups haven't produced significantly better results that surely points to problems with the models not the amount of compute available.
    The key problem is convection. You need a horizontal model resolution of a lot less than 1km to resolve convection and that means a lot more gridpoints and a lot more calculations.

    The Met Office were able to run a limited area forecast model with a resolution of 333m for the Olympics sailing competition in 2012. Running a model of the same resolution for the whole globe, for hundreds of years of model time will require the supercomputers of the 2040s, perhaps.

    Of course, if we'd cut emissions drastically a lot earlier then we'd have made climate modelling obsolete, but as it is we need to push the frontiers of what is possible forward as fast as we can.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,153
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cicero said:

    Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.

    Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.

    More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...

    Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.

    Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...

    And yet they lead the polls by a large amount.
    I know.
    My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.

    1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say

    2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.

    3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.

    The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.

    The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
    Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
    And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
    Would SCon renaming themselves the Unionist Party have any discernible impact?
    Er, no need. Cosnervative and Unionist Party already.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081

    Pulpstar said:


    2nd jabs are being done in a cohort now that by and large avoids hospitalisation - the under 40s, so the cases to hospitalizations will level out as per Malmesbury graph.
    Once you hit this point, and it looks like we are there, then hospitalizations will rise (And eventually fall) with cases

    It's not really true that the under 40s avoid hospitalisations:

    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1416069607698272256
    "The age profile of COVID-19 admissions is much younger than during the second wave. Half are now aged below 45, as discussed in our recent blog. This reduces in-hospital mortality by half, and reduces the average time spent in hospital. 5/5"

    That matches what my colleagues say in Leicester
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531
    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    While we're talking about modelling, the climate scientists want a (much) bigger computer.

    The Met Office only recently signed a billion quid deal with Microsoft for a very big supercomputer and two mid-life upgrades which will futher triple the performance. The new system (60 PFLOPS) starts at over 1,000 times as powerful as the Earth Simulator (40 TFLOPS) that Japan commisioned about two decades ago, at a cost of about $1 billion, to solve the same sort of climate model problems.

    If enormous speed-ups haven't produced significantly better results that surely points to problems with the models not the amount of compute available.
    When I first worked with chip designers 25 or so years ago, I was surprised to find that the computers they needed to design and simulate their chips were rather powerful. Us software guys had fast computers, but where we might have 8 MB of memory they might have a GB RAM on a shared Sun system (from memory).

    So you'd think that nowadays they could run their sims on a phone? No; for as chips have improved in power, so have the requirements to simulate them.

    As an example, Mrs J needs 16-32 cores to run a simulation; it produces few gig of output data for analysis, and requires many gigs of memory. Simulations can take 12-24 hours to run. And she is not working on cutting-edge process nodes.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336

    Christ alive, when Sky News don't have non-independent SAGE on, i turn it on and it is Dr Philip Lee, introduced as simply a GP having a rant about the government needing to grow up....yes it the same Dr Philip Lee ex-mp who of course had a meltdown over Brexit.

    and so?...
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    If we are using single-day figures, I'll go for 54000 on 20 July.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited July 2021

    Alistair said:

    I'm also taking a book on the first time someone posts "there was no way the effect of the Euro 2020 games could have been predicted"

    The primary effect of Euro 2020 is some much needed enjoyment across the nation and a lot of much needed trade for the hospitality sector.
    Absobloodylutely.

    What s night the Denmark game was. Ram-packed pub people singing, bouncers patrolling with big smiles on their faces beer being flung all over the place.

    Fantastic.

    Like my first dinner last summer with a friend out after months of lockdown.

    Absolutely vital for the nation.
This discussion has been closed.