Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Coronavirus


Bjornebye

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Do you agree with Prof Pike? Yes or no will suffice, don't do your usual dodge the question shite. 

 

I've never dodged a question in my life. Now it's only a model, which necessarily carries its own limitations, but put it this way - I think his predictions are far nearer the mark than yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Okay. Well I call shenanigans and think he's talking bollocks. Do you agree with the central stat of his hypothesis that there will be a total of 5,700 deaths?

That isn't his hypothesis. His hypothesis is that, if the trend in other countries follows the reported trends from elsewhere (primarily China) - on the assumption of observed social distancing, that would be the total. 

 

He is not claiming that to be the only possible scenario, or necessarily what will happen in reality. Based on the information I've read, I have seen nothing to suggest the maths is wrong. But I haven't dug through it in detail, nor will I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pidge said:

That isn't his hypothesis. His hypothesis is that, if the trend in other countries follows the reported trends from elsewhere (primarily China) - on the assumption of observed social distancing, that would be the total. 

 

He is not claiming that to be the only possible scenario, or necessarily what will happen in reality.

5,700 is still bollocks.  I'll eat my mask live on TLW if it's anywhere near that.  Italy has already exceeded that number, what makes us so special?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I haven't made a prediction.

 

I'll take your answer as a yes, though. 

 

Right, well for someone who hasn't made a prediction, you seem to be predicting that his figures are well below the mark, to the extent that you're prepared to consume your precious medical gear if he's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TK421 said:

5,700 is still bollocks.  I'll eat my mask live on TLW if it's anywhere near that.  Italy has already exceeded that number, what makes us so special?


Italy was hit first. It had a longer period of virus spreading undetected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Right, well for someone who hasn't made a prediction, you seem to be predicting that his figures are well below the mark, to the extent that you're prepared to consume your precious medical gear if he's right.

Absolutely. He's way off the mark, I've no problem saying that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

5,700 is still bollocks.  I'll eat my mask live on TLW if it's anywhere near that.  Italy has already exceeded that number, what makes us so special?

As more people are tested that number will rise and the modelling will reflect that, probably with a higher total.  At some point the rate of testing will catch up with the rate of new cases and the model will level out with a final answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TK421 said:

Very wishful thinking. Do you agree with Prof Pike's prediction?

 

I don't know. It depends on the reaction at a particular stage of the epidemic. There are far too many unknowns in these models, they assume reporting is correct or representative, which it almost ceartainly isn't. If the UK can limit the spread to under 2% of total population, it can be achieved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pidge said:

As more people are tested that number will rise and the modelling will reflect that, probably with a higher total.  At some point the rate of testing will catch up with the rate of new cases and the model will level out with a final answer.

Right, and it won't be anywhere near 5,700.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of ironic seeing Johnson coming out and clapping plus loads of Tory MP’s on Twitter praising the NHS staff when it wasn’t that long ago...

 

Watch the moment Tory MPs cheered blocking a pay rise for nurses and firefighters

 

Every Conservative except one voted against the bid, accusing Jeremy Corbyn's party of playing politics and "milking the NHS for votes"

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/watch-moment-tories-cheered-blocking-10707293.amp?__twitter_impression=true

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

It doesn't matter what the government says are the final deaths from.this virus, they're cooking the books and plenty will die from it that aren't officially diagnosed. The fact they've altered how they're recording the numbers part way through already tells you they hold zero value. 

Drs write the death certificates, don’t they? Are they in on it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...