Landlord in Distress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by royw View Post
    These are same experts who thought we'd all be dead from BSE ...
    Almost certainly not, given that they were in post 30+ years ago.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by MdeB View Post

      Almost certainly not, given that they were in post 30+ years ago.
      Actually BSE was 1996. How long ago is irrelevant, the point is they didn't learn. Mathematical models based on incorrect assumptions are always going to come up with incorrect results (bar the odd fluke).

      Comment


        #63
        Why was a proven failure allowed to drive UK policy back into containment?   Sorry....I don't usually post this often in a 24-hour period, but Covid-Crash things are moving at such a pace now - fuelled by a heady mix of incompetence, subplot distraction and treasonous cunning - that without updating every feint and red…

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by royw View Post

          Actually BSE was 1996.
          It was not.
          See Wikipedia or https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/26/bse3 for example.

          1996 was the ban on British beef exports. BSE was recognised 1986.

          Originally posted by royw View Post
          How long ago is irrelevant, the point is they didn't learn.
          How long ago is absolutely relevant to making your argument credible or not.

          You wrote disparagingly about people who have spent most of their adult life (far longer than you, no doubt) learning, investigating, publishing under peer review, about spread of disease under different conditions so that when a threat arises we have some idea of how it might behave and how different actions might affect that behaviour, and decisions can be taken with some insight, not an uninformed "wet finger in the air":
          Originally posted by royw View Post
          With 'experts' like ours you don't need enemies.
          You then went on to say (my emphasis)
          Originally posted by royw View Post
          These are same experts who thought we'd all be dead from BSE
          "Same experts" means those who are advising now are those who were advising then.
          THAT makes "how long ago" relevant.



          Originally posted by royw View Post
          Mathematical models based on incorrect assumptions are always going to come up with incorrect results (bar the odd fluke).
          That is true, but you cannot know the correct values to put in until after the event.
          2022 to get "the correct result" does not inform the current decisions.

          That is why there is peer review and the assumptions (consciously) made are stated.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by MdeB View Post
            That is true, but you cannot know the correct values to put in until after the event.
            2022 to get "the correct result" does not inform the current decisions.

            That is why there is peer review and the assumptions (consciously) made are stated.
            Agree with all your post MdeB except this last bit. We do know pretty clearly that the assumptions made so far (at the start, by the Imperial group) are definitely way off beam, at least for western democracies.

            Obviously we will know more in 2022, but we do not need to wait that long. The numbers sound high to those not used to looking at death statistics. The average mortality (across all ages and groups) after accounting for expected mortality is likely to be around 0.1% or perhaps a little less than that, and we are all likely to get it eventually regardless of any curve flattening. The modelling should have been done predominantly by economists and actuaries with a global view beyond disease, not epidemic modellers who got it badly wrong before (the teams involved did get it badly wrong before, but royw chose the wrong disease).

            I'll put my head on a block for the 2022 hind-view you want to predict (see below on guessing):

            a) Excess UK deaths as a direct result of the virus : 50,000
            b) Excess UK deaths as a result of suicide estimated over 5 years: 15,000
            c) Excess UK deaths as a result of economic deprivation est. over 15 years: 300,000
            d) Excess UK deaths as a result of failure of medical care due to illnesses other than the virus: 10,000

            My guess is that around 3 million people in the UK have been infected so far, with perhaps 95% of the population still to follow.

            The problem is that the age distribution of deaths in the last three categories will be much lower than those in the first category.
            Since mechanical ventilation only slightly reduces the death rate (perhaps by a third?) (a) will not change much by slowing the rate of spread unless an effective and proven-safe vaccine is developed in a short timescale.

            So we can get back here in 2022 and see how it worked out. I am guessing, but my guess is that the overall health outcome above will be far closer to the truth than the Imperial model guess (there are other models and academics who firmly disagree -- peer review is a mechanism of filtering, not a proof of correctness). We shall see....

            The "developing" world will be a different ballgame altogether.

            In terms of your last comment, so far as I am aware the Imperial group have not made all of their computer code and assumptions available in a form that allows their work to be replicated or tweaked, but I stand to be corrected.

            Comment


              #66
              When you say a mortality rate of 0.1, do you mean of total population or people who get it?
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                When you say a mortality rate of 0.1, do you mean of total population or people who get it?
                Both. They will converge to meaning the same thing approximately.

                Comment


                  #68
                  That does seem remarkably low - that's the mortality rate for Flu.
                  And this does seem much worse than Flu, or are you factoring a vaccine into your thinking?
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #69
                    That's probably the rate of death from (as opposed to with) the virus in the UK right now. The big missing element in the whole thing is the denominator. You will notice that I said that this is probably (a guess) currently at around 3 million. The 0.1% (perhaps a little less) are dramatic, sad and horrible though.

                    Folk at Oxford have speculated that perhaps 25 million have already been infected, but that is almost certainly way too high (as yet).

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Focus on finding the guarantor. There are companies online who specialize in this.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X