The Coronavirus Thread

[Scot Dutchy]

Look on the Dutch RIVM site.

[Brian Peacock]

Or you could do the honest thing and just support your claim.

[Scot Dutchy]

Or you could do the honest thing and just support your claim.

Really that is the kettle...

[Brian Peacock]

You claimed:

There is a delay of 10 days to two weeks before all figures start dropping flapoor.

Is this based on the RIVM figures that you've previously rejected?

Nope. Just based on the virus analysis.

Then when asked for clarrification:

What analysis? Got a link?

You ignored it until prompted, at which point you said:

Look on the Dutch RIVM site.

Do you see the problem here?

[Scot Dutchy]

Just the same as many respond here or dont you see that.

[JimC]

It's now the 7th straight day in a row that Victoria has recorded no new cases or deaths...

Is that damned virus lulling us into a false sense of security?

[rainbow]

Meanwhile the World has hit a record number of new cases, and new deaths.

...but we've been distracted by the so-called elections in some Banana Republic in one of the Americas.

[Brian Peacock]

Nigel Farage has applied to change the name of the Brexit Party to Reform UK. It's self-declared mandate: to be the voice of the anti-lockdown, anti-mask, pro-herd-immunity movement and to protect the economy.

[pErvinalia]

Is it over yet?

[JimC]

I see that the US has reached another record one day infection count of 132,540 and 1,248 deaths...

[Hermit]

I see that the US has reached another record one day infection count of 132,540 and 1,248 deaths...

The price of the fight for freedom and against tyranny.

I noticed the US has reclaimed the #9 spot in the deaths per million inhabitants stakes. It's ahead of Mexico (#11). Mexicans are clamouring for a wall now, and they are prepared to pay for it.

As for Canada (#41), it's panic stations.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep the data is trustworthy.

How UK government misrepresented Covid projections – explained

No 10 has admitted an ‘error’ in the way data was presented to make case for second lockdown

The UK Statistics Authority has rebuked the government over its lack of transparency around projected Covid-19 deaths and hospital admissions, saying it could cast doubt over official figures.

A range of estimates were used to make the case for a second English lockdown in a press conference on 31 October. However, the UKSA said “the data and assumptions for this model had not been shared transparently”, potentially undermining confidence in official figures.

On Friday, Downing Street acknowledged there had been an “error” in the way the data was presented but said the underlying analysis was unchanged.

A No 10 spokesman said: “We want to make the data as clear and transparent as we can. There was no error in the underlying analysis. The consensus is that without action we will breach the first wave [peak] in terms of hospital admissions.

“We have acknowledged the mistake which we have corrected and we will continue to try and provide data in the clearest possible way.”

The upper limit of these projections has now been revised down. How much does this change our understanding of the second wave?

What was misrepresented in the data and how much have the projections changed?

At the press conference, the government showed a chart that projected daily coronavirus deaths could surpass the first wave peak and hit 1,500 deaths a day by December. The figures were based on data available up to 28 October and produced by academic modelling teams.

The upper limit of this projection has since been revised down to 1,000 deaths a day, which would be in line with the first wave peak. However, the central projection remains the same in the new version, which predicts that there could be about 800 deaths a day by December.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

[Hermit]

Yep the data is trustworthy.

How UK government misrepresented Covid projections – explained

No 10 has admitted an ‘error’ in the way data was presented to make case for second lockdown

The UK Statistics Authority has rebuked the government over its lack of transparency around projected Covid-19 deaths and hospital admissions, saying it could cast doubt over official figures.

A range of estimates were used to make the case for a second English lockdown in a press conference on 31 October. However, the UKSA said “the data and assumptions for this model had not been shared transparently”, potentially undermining confidence in official figures.

On Friday, Downing Street acknowledged there had been an “error” in the way the data was presented but said the underlying analysis was unchanged.

A No 10 spokesman said: “We want to make the data as clear and transparent as we can. There was no error in the underlying analysis. The consensus is that without action we will breach the first wave [peak] in terms of hospital admissions.

“We have acknowledged the mistake which we have corrected and we will continue to try and provide data in the clearest possible way.”

The upper limit of these projections has now been revised down. How much does this change our understanding of the second wave?

What was misrepresented in the data and how much have the projections changed?

At the press conference, the government showed a chart that projected daily coronavirus deaths could surpass the first wave peak and hit 1,500 deaths a day by December. The figures were based on data available up to 28 October and produced by academic modelling teams.

The upper limit of this projection has since been revised down to 1,000 deaths a day, which would be in line with the first wave peak. However, the central projection remains the same in the new version, which predicts that there could be about 800 deaths a day by December.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

The article you linked to continues:

The upper limit of this projection has since been revised down to 1,000 deaths a day, which would be in line with the first wave peak. However, the central projection remains the same in the new version, which predicts that there could be about 800 deaths a day by December.

The upper limit for projected hospital admissions has also been revised down, from about 9,000 to 6,000 a day. Again, the central projection has not changed, and remains at more than 4,000 admissions a day by December.

[Joe]

If there ever was a testimonial to the ineffectiveness of the Trump Administration's COVID approach.

At least 5 people in Trump's orbit, including his chief of staff, have tested positive for Covid-19

At least five people within President Donald Trump's orbit have tested positive for coronavirus, including his chief of staff and a top campaign aide, becoming the latest administration officials to be infected with the virus after a string of outbreaks in the West Wing.

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, top campaign aide Nick Trainer, who has been crunching the numbers when it comes to election data, and at least three other people in the White House, including a deputy for Meadows, have tested positive, multiple sources told CNN.
Trump campaign staffers told CNN they are furious because the leadership in the campaign never sent out an email informing staff of the positive cases or cautioning them to stay home for the time being. Meadows was in the office multiple times this week without a mask.

Several staffers have said they are upset with how it's been handled, given most people in the office do not wear a mask or social distance.

[Brian Peacock]

Yep the data is trustworthy.

How UK government misrepresented Covid projections – explained

No 10 has admitted an ‘error’ in the way data was presented to make case for second lockdown

The UK Statistics Authority has rebuked the government over its lack of transparency around projected Covid-19 deaths and hospital admissions, saying it could cast doubt over official figures.

A range of estimates were used to make the case for a second English lockdown in a press conference on 31 October. However, the UKSA said “the data and assumptions for this model had not been shared transparently”, potentially undermining confidence in official figures.

On Friday, Downing Street acknowledged there had been an “error” in the way the data was presented but said the underlying analysis was unchanged.

A No 10 spokesman said: “We want to make the data as clear and transparent as we can. There was no error in the underlying analysis. The consensus is that without action we will breach the first wave [peak] in terms of hospital admissions.

“We have acknowledged the mistake which we have corrected and we will continue to try and provide data in the clearest possible way.”

The upper limit of these projections has now been revised down. How much does this change our understanding of the second wave?

What was misrepresented in the data and how much have the projections changed?

At the press conference, the government showed a chart that projected daily coronavirus deaths could surpass the first wave peak and hit 1,500 deaths a day by December. The figures were based on data available up to 28 October and produced by academic modelling teams.

The upper limit of this projection has since been revised down to 1,000 deaths a day, which would be in line with the first wave peak. However, the central projection remains the same in the new version, which predicts that there could be about 800 deaths a day by December.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is why I don't rely on the UK gov for info about the virus. They've been shoddy from the off, mostly to protect their interests and those of their sponsors.