Can't wait -

[Observer II]

12 minutes ago, asperity said:

I'm not saying that what you posted isn't plausible, but it's a guess not evidence and all my original question was does anyone have any evidence. However for some reason you all seem to take the view that by merely asking a question I'm some kind of Covid denier or conspiracy theorist. Maybe I should invent a conspiracy or two to give you something to get your teeth into 🤣🤣😉.

Fact -  the virus spreads like a fire, and we are the fuel.    😷

[asperity]

6 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Fact -  the virus spreads like a fire, and we are the fuel.    😷

Fact - the number of cases in the UK amount to 6.5% of the population. Seems that the fuel is a wee bit damp, or in some cases soaking wet.

[asperity]

17 minutes ago, Bill said:

I don’t think you have to invent any conspiracy theories Asp, you’ve done a pretty good job of it already. 😊

If I told you your house was on fire you’d probably ask me to prove it or tell me that's just my opinion. 😊

 

Bill 😊

What have I said that's even a theory, never mind a conspiracy? To be fair your theory that the reason why there hasn't been a statistically significant spike in London is because not enough people have reported in sick could be construed as a conspiracy.

Your "house on fire analogy" is pretty poor though you must admit 😉.

As for me being bonkers, well you don't have to be bonkers to post on here but it helps 😊.

[Bill]

That’s actually a good analogy Asp. All those that have had their jabs have been dampened down but that’s not to say a really good dose of sparks won’t cause a fire, it just lessons the chances of it happening. The problem is now, we don’t know how long we stay damp for before we need another good damping down and only time will tell us that.

As for you being bonkers it’s just a challenge that kills some time during this bloody lockdown, But hey, I’d still like to sit and drink a beer with you sometime because whatever our thought are everyone on here is ok enough for that in my book.

 

Bill 😊

[asperity]

The thinking is that the first dose of the vaccine is good for at least 6 months, and as we haven't had 6 months yet in the experiment this will probably increase until proved otherwise. I prefer to be optimistic rather than go round with a dark cloud hanging over my head predicting death and ruination like some I could mention 🤯.

[Bill]

Well you know me, I’m the eternal optimist who believes everything will turn out good in the end whether it’s the virus, our power situation or anything else that people moan about. It’s just the getting there bit we seem to constantly make a mess of due mainly to those who look for problems rather than solutions.

Just had a call earlier from the hospital to confirm that the biopsy on the tumour they removed showed that it hadn't turned cancerous, but it would have done if it had been left a few more months. That probably explains why they gave her some priority treatment.

Just sent to my brother on Messenger I thought I’d share here because we’ve all had enough wrangling for a while so a little good news hopefully helps.

 

Bill 😊

[Confused52]

57 minutes ago, asperity said:

I'm not saying that what you posted isn't plausible, but it's a guess not evidence and all my original question was does anyone have any evidence. However for some reason you all seem to take the view that by merely asking a question I'm some kind of Covid denier or conspiracy theorist. Maybe I should invent a conspiracy or two to give you something to get your teeth into 🤣🤣😉.

Why use the derogatory word "guess" about a reasoned explanation then?

[asperity]

11 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Why use the derogatory word "guess" about a reasoned explanation then?

Derogatory? Okay if you say so. But while what you posted is plausible, without any evidence at all to back it up it's still only a guess on your part. You might well be 100% correct in your analysis, but without any concrete facts to back it up it's still a guess isn't it?

[Bill]

The question you asked can never be answered to your complete satisfaction Asp quite simply because nobody needed to take any measurements. If you were asking this at the beginning of the outbreak before we understood just how things worked then it’d be understandable but a year on and the science has developed such that statistical analysis allows us to predict outcomes with a high degree of certainty.

I think we’ve established many times in the past your views on statistics and as so much of the data on the subject relies heavily on these methods, you’re never going to accept anything as being concrete proof even if it slapped you in the face.

At the end of the day the protest would in all probability have caused more spread, we know this for a fact because it’s the way the virus works but with such small numbers, the effect nationally would be negligible.

 

Bill 😊

[asperity]

Thanks Bill, it seems that you are confirming that Nobody Knows for certain, but if demonstrations and marches cause spikes these are, in any case, negligible on a national scale.

I don't think I've made my views on statistics known "many times in the past" if at all so you're barking up the wrong tree there. If you mean I don't accept the numbers the MSM throw out as being accurate or even true then you have a point, but who does accept them without a pinch of salt?

[Bill]

Blimey Asp, you’d argue the toss about everything. Try the search engine and see how many times you’ve said stuff like “it's a case of statistics can be made to say whatever you want if they are manipulated properly”

Probability theory and statistical analysis is a science offering far greater levels of accuracy than simply counting numbers and that’s a concrete fact.

Once you have the info on how many attended, how many were likely infected, and knowing the current R number simple maths gives a number, in this case of about 10. It’s not a guaranteed number, it could be zero or it could be 1000 but the figure of 10 would have the highest degree of certainty which only proves what we already know.

Consider this> You might like a bit of a flutter on the horses where there’s no way of knowing which horse will win but you can bet there’s a whole bucket of statistical stuff going on to accurately determine the probability of making a profit. It’s the same with covid analysis where it’s not precise but it’s accurate.

 

Bill 😊

[asperity]

Well Bill I did just that and, going back just the last 10 years, the number of times that statistics are mentioned by other posters in topics I've posted on (including you) far outweigh the number of times I've mentioned them. The number of times I've said things like "statistics and damn lies", which is a common criticism made by many people, is perhaps half a dozen. To try to make out that this means I don't believe in statistics is far wide of the mark. What is true though is that I believe statistics can be used to muddy the waters or build a case that doesn't exist. I'm not saying that you're doing that, just saying that I treat statistics with caution.

Moving on with your statistical analysis of a 10000 person demonstration/march, you get your statistical number of probable cases (probably none of whom are sick, if they were why would they be out marching and not tucked up in bed?) But from this, using an R number produced:

The R is calculated through a combination of data and modelling. In the UK, data includes hospital and intensive care unit admissions, patients testing positive, deaths and surveys of people’s contacts. The data is fed through multiple models, which make different assumptions, before a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) reaches a consensus number. SAGE then reviews and endorses that number. (an educated guesstimate?)

you come up with a probable number of people who may become infected and cause a spike in cases (i.e. people who would produce a positive test if they took one). Unfortunately if not all the people you suspect have become infected are tested and found positive you will never know for certain if your maths is right.

The maths I've used through my working life has enabled me to navigate ships around the world without getting lost or running aground, and enabled me to load and discharge those ships without them sinking, capsizing, breaking in half or breaking the Loadline regulations. Maths with proveable outcomes in other words.

 

 

[Bill]

With ten thousand people on the street there’s bound to be some that are infected, but that’s an assumption. Here’s another assumption, I say the protestors wouldn’t have been a load of old foggies like us but predominantly from an age group where the virus shows little effect, so no they wouldn’t all be tucked up in bed.

The true number of infected people can only be drawn from the ONS figures from random testing rather than positive test results. I didn’t guess it I used a figure of one in a thousand to make the sums easier however I believe at the time their figure was around 1 in every 350 for London but no matter.

The R number is a complex number that indicates the current spreadability of the virus under current rules and normal behaviour. At one, it suggests that each infected person is likely to pass it on to at least one other person however, a crowded protest is as far as you can get from  normal behaviour so the amount of spreading in this case would likely be much higher but again no matter.

So if your still following this, you’ll agree that my numbers have all been conservative but it doesn’t matter because if there were only originally ten infected people to start with and by the end of the day there were twenty, then that’s a spike in most people’s book.

So the answer to your question of did it cause a spike? Yes, amongst the protesters it certainly would have done but probably not if you don’t accept the science.

And they let you drive the boat. Uncle Albert springs to mind there 😊

 

Bill 😊

[asperity]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

And they let you drive the boat. Uncle Albert springs to mind there

If that is the best you can come up with Bill, I'll leave you to your guesswork complex calculations 🙄

[Confused52]

7 hours ago, asperity said:

Well Bill I did just that and, going back just the last 10 years, the number of times that statistics are mentioned by other posters in topics I've posted on (including you) far outweigh the number of times I've mentioned them. The number of times I've said things like "statistics and damn lies", which is a common criticism made by many people, is perhaps half a dozen. To try to make out that this means I don't believe in statistics is far wide of the mark. What is true though is that I believe statistics can be used to muddy the waters or build a case that doesn't exist. I'm not saying that you're doing that, just saying that I treat statistics with caution.

Moving on with your statistical analysis of a 10000 person demonstration/march, you get your statistical number of probable cases (probably none of whom are sick, if they were why would they be out marching and not tucked up in bed?) But from this, using an R number produced:

The R is calculated through a combination of data and modelling. In the UK, data includes hospital and intensive care unit admissions, patients testing positive, deaths and surveys of people’s contacts. The data is fed through multiple models, which make different assumptions, before a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) reaches a consensus number. SAGE then reviews and endorses that number. (an educated guesstimate?)

you come up with a probable number of people who may become infected and cause a spike in cases (i.e. people who would produce a positive test if they took one). Unfortunately if not all the people you suspect have become infected are tested and found positive you will never know for certain if your maths is right.

The maths I've used through my working life has enabled me to navigate ships around the world without getting lost or running aground, and enabled me to load and discharge those ships without them sinking, capsizing, breaking in half or breaking the Loadline regulations. Maths with proveable outcomes in other words.

 

 

So the maths you will accept is only that which deals with inanimate objects and matter. The provable point thing is a therefore red herring. Human beings with free will do not follow the classical mechanics rules which you will accept. Therefore there is no point you telling Bill that what he says is a guess because the tools that you will accept are inadequate for the problem to be analysed using those models. You have no yardstick without using statistical inference so your judgement of Bill's numbers is not useful. I

It is an interesting consequence that your claimed belief system means that you will accept locations found using Loran but not GPS because the latter depends on the use of quantum mechanics to correct its locations, that being non-classical physics you will of course eschew  its use.

An estimate of R can be made without those models you quote and the link to the formula to do it is given in the Sage documents on the value of R. The generation time used in the models is 6.5 days but it is determined heuristically, it i feeds into models. You will need it for the noddy formula. 

 

[asperity]

GPS didn't exist for most of my 49 years as a navigator, I still have my sextant.

[Evil Sid]

From what i understand a person who has covid can be infectious up to two days prior to any symptoms showing.

In that time they can pass the virus on unknowingly to anybody they come into contact with.

Those people can then pass it on to others once the virus has established itself in their systems and prior to symptoms showing. This incubation period can be anything from five to fourteen days depending on healthiness of the person and which "expert" you believe.

So working out when the infection chances are at their optimum is rather tricky. Best guesses are 2 days prior to showing any symptoms.

Not a lot of help if you have just been in a crowd of people especially when they are strangers. you could infect say thirty or forty of them unknowingly and they could then go on to do the same.and thus the virus spreads far and wide.

If the strangers are from different parts of the country then the local infected count will go up slightly or at least stay the same but the actual number of infections would increase nationally by a small amount which may be swallowed up by the same amount of people recovering thus keeping the numbers about equal.

Not sure if any of that makes sense or not.

I am not and expert.

[Bill]

It makes perfect sense to me Sid. I think the announcement today about vaccinated people being up to 50% less able to spread the virus is good news but bearing in mind that a lot of the younger generation hasn’t been done yet and that these are types more likely to be at mass events, then the risk is still there.

Overall though I think we’re on a winning track with the virus and the fears about another similar peak are probably overstated as we have no data on the long-term protection the vaccine provides. But after all we’ve gone through, I think many people will still keep an extra bit of distance or even continue to wear a mask.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

The herd mentality is already kicking in,  as up to 50% of the Grumpies who've had both vaccine shots are estimated to have abandoned any pretence of shielding.   A similar proportion of youngsters have ignored lock down throughout and many are vaccine avoiders in any case; and will be flocking to the kind of events that will ensure mutual contagion, like indoor crowds.   Whether, with the protection of the vaccine, that leads to increased mortality or hospitalisation rates remains to be seen.   The story from India is apparently much worse than we're being told, with mortality rising to half a million.   However, from a totally distanced perspective, it could be argued that nature is exacting a cull on our overpopulated species; and the war against infectious diseases will continue; just bad luck if your one of it's casualties.   😷   💀

[asperity]

I'm not even going to try to dissect your rant Obs, I'll just be labelled a conspiracy theorist or covid denier or compared to a character off a TV show.

[Observer II]

good.  

[Bill]

I’ll do it for you then Asp. 😊

I don’t think it’s a case of people giving up any pretence about shielding Obs as the advice now is that unless you’ve been specifically classed as being at extreme risk, then it’s safe enough now to stop shielding and just take the same precautions as everyone else.

As for the kids flocking to large scale indoor events, they’re still banned at the moment as far as I know although there are some trials going on to test just what the effects would be. If these tests don’t work out right, then the places will stay shut for longer so no worries there either.

All the indications at the moment seem to indicate no significant change despite schools going back, shop reopening and even partially opened pubs. There’s still more time needed though to evaluate this but so far so good. Other countries have spikes, but they’ve all opened up too quickly and before getting the vaccine rollout underway. We haven’t done this and that’s why I’m fairly confident that we won’t see another major spike here.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

wanna bet ?   😉

[Bill]

Yep How much?

 

Bill