Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[The binman chronicles]

Where is the end to all of this? We cant just keep closing things down, and expect the country to be in a good place next year. We are ruining a generations future opportunities.

When the virus situation is brought under control the service jobs will come back, there may even be an opportunity for some of the brightest to fill holes in the market now some of the established brands have folded too.

It's far from ideal but it's temporary. I'm more worried about a no deal Brexit and the manufacturing jobs that could be lost.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Last time I checked we had 64 million in this country.

Like I've said before , science isn't guess work. There is a difference between facts and assumptions.

So you’re completely dismissing a test of 100,000 random people as it wasn’t the entire populous?

Did you read it? You know about error rate calculations no?

Jesus wept.

 

[Kenshin]

Councils aren't rebelling because decisions are being made without testing 100% of the UK population..

What are you on about.

So you’re completely dismissing a test of 100,000 random people as it wasn’t the entire populous?

Did you read it? You know about error rate calculations no?

Jesus wept.

Now now boys, here's the point you are missing .

That estimation of positive tests based on a sample is what they call a model. So scientists use that rough estimation to plan to a certain number of cases. As they have no idea what the number is, that's the model they have chosen to work from.

However

When the likes of you are repeating that same estimated model as fact as if that is how many were positive then you are quoting essentially made up numbers and using them as real.

So that x% of the population isn't scientists telling us how many , that's just a framework for their thought process. Just because newspapers decided to print that information for the likes of us to read it, it's kinda silly to then repeat that information as fact.

Because it is just guesswork.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Now now boys, here's the point you are missing .

That estimation of positive tests based on a sample is what they call a model. So scientists use that rough estimation to plan to a certain number of cases. As they have no idea what the number is, that's the model they have chosen to work from.

However

When the likes of you are repeating that same estimated model as fact as if that is how many were positive then you are quoting essentially made up numbers and using them as real.

So that x% of the population isn't scientists telling us how many , that's just a framework for their thought process. Just because newspapers decided to print that information for the likes of us to read it, it's kinda silly to then repeat that information as fact.

Because it is just guesswork.

Unless you managed to accidently pick the worst people to test (super humans that don't pick up viruses/people who haven't made contact with others for years), or the test itself was faulty, a sample of that size (hence even if you get a lot of the above, you will get more normal as that's how it works) will be fairly indicative. To say it isn't is just obtuse.

 

[Amw79]

Now now boys, here's the point you are missing .

That estimation of positive tests based on a sample is what they call a model. So scientists use that rough estimation to plan to a certain number of cases. As they have no idea what the number is, that's the model they have chosen to work from.

However

When the likes of you are repeating that same estimated model as fact as if that is how many were positive then you are quoting essentially made up numbers and using them as real.

So that x% of the population isn't scientists telling us how many , that's just a framework for their thought process. Just because newspapers decided to print that information for the likes of us to read it, it's kinda silly to then repeat that information as fact.

Because it is just guesswork.

So, by this rationale, we can dismiss all medicine, treatments and vaccines as guesswork, because the safety and efficacy of those treatments wasnt first tested on the entire population, but rather were tested on a sample of the population.

You’ve chosen a weird hill to die on here.

 

[Kenshin]

Unless you managed to accidently pick the worst people to test (super humans that don't pick up viruses/people who haven't made contact with others for years), or the test itself was faulty, a sample of that size (hence even if you get a lot of the above, you will get more normal as that's how it works) will be fairly indicative. To say it isn't is just obtuse.

But it's just that , a sample.

Would you accept a sample of covid deaths to estimate how many people have died with it? Using only a sample of deaths and then just guessing how many died with it?

Honestly?

It's something that probably shouldn't have been published yet people now repeat it as some sort of fact.

Even the logical element of just estimating is ridiculous if you apply it to literally anything else. One thing to have a rough idea, another for normal people to continue to repeat it as fact.

So, by this rationale, we can dismiss all medicine, treatments and vaccines as guesswork, because the safety and efficacy of those treatments wasnt first tested on the entire population, but rather were tested on a sample of the population.

You’ve chosen a weird hill to die on here.

That's a new quote being repeated, a hill to die on.

You tell me how it's not guess work. Explain to me how a 100000 sample is not estimating how many cases and in fact proves how many there are.

Break down to me how taking a sample after a time period proves how many of the 64 million had it.

It's your chance to change someone's mind here.

 

[toffee82]

If you applied that logic to anything else then you wouldn't take that at face value.

You don't just guess, you find out, maybe that's the issue right now. Guessing how many had it, how many will get it etc

And it's not just me resisting this notion , the Tories are rebelling, the council's are rebelling.

Science isn't guessing, it's proving. People forget that sometimes

Guessing is as much a part of the scientific process as proving.

 

[Amw79]

But it's just that , a sample.

Would you accept a sample of covid deaths to estimate how many people have died with it? Using only a sample of deaths and then just guessing how many died with it?

Honestly?

It's something that probably shouldn't have been published yet people now repeat it as some sort of fact.

Even the logical element of just estimating is ridiculous if you apply it to literally anything else. One thing to have a rough idea, another for normal people to continue to repeat it as fact.



That's a new quote being repeated, a hill to die on.

You tell me how it's not guess work. Explain to me how a 100000 sample is not estimating how many cases and in fact proves how many there are.

Break down to me how taking a sample after a time period proves how many of the 64 million had it.

It's your chance to change someone's mind here.

You can set whatever evidential standard you want for something to be counted as ‘proof’, and that‘s fine. But to commit to a position where anything less than full population testing is merely guesswork is bizzarre, as you’d have to dismiss every medical study, every successful vaccine ever produced, every drug or treatment ever developed as guesswork, as they were developed using a sample of the population.

It’s not guesswork, as it’s a tried and tested methodology, which collects data, assesses evidence, and makes certain assumptions to make predictions. Is it perfect? No. Does it sometimes get things wrong? Of course. That’s why science is subject to revision as more data is collected.

I don’t think anyone quoting the 6% figure would say it is an absolute certainty that that number is a fact, but it’s the best current prediction, given the available evidence. If a new, larger, more up to date sample study is done, which revises that figure, then we can update our predictions.

You’ve set an evidential bar for yourself that can never be met, as you’d need to test 67m people on the same day,

 

[Jebus_lives]

Now now boys, here's the point you are missing .

That estimation of positive tests based on a sample is what they call a model. So scientists use that rough estimation to plan to a certain number of cases. As they have no idea what the number is, that's the model they have chosen to work from.

However

When the likes of you are repeating that same estimated model as fact as if that is how many were positive then you are quoting essentially made up numbers and using them as real.

So that x% of the population isn't scientists telling us how many , that's just a framework for their thought process. Just because newspapers decided to print that information for the likes of us to read it, it's kinda silly to then repeat that information as fact.

Because it is just guesswork.

I'm not sure I have stated the modelling as fact - point me in the direction of where I have and I'll stand corrected.

However, the modelling has been shown to be fairly accurate given the cases and spread. It's based on data from previous pandemics, knowledge about the spread of similar type viruses and the likelihood of that type of virus applied to the UK population.

No scientific method relies on testing every single person to 'be sure'. It's not practical. However it's a very long way away from guesswork.

 

[The binman chronicles]

But it's just that , a sample.

Would you accept a sample of covid deaths to estimate how many people have died with it? Using only a sample of deaths and then just guessing how many died with it?

Honestly?

It's something that probably shouldn't have been published yet people now repeat it as some sort of fact.

Even the logical element of just estimating is ridiculous if you apply it to literally anything else. One thing to have a rough idea, another for normal people to continue to repeat it as fact.



That's a new quote being repeated, a hill to die on.

You tell me how it's not guess work. Explain to me how a 100000 sample is not estimating how many cases and in fact proves how many there are.

Break down to me how taking a sample after a time period proves how many of the 64 million had it.

It's your chance to change someone's mind here.

You are working too hard to try and discount it by thinking of applying the method to different things where it isn't applicable. It's not deaths, which can and do alter depending on wealth, NHS trust area, age, other health issues etc. etc. to cloud things.

It's how many people have had covid. It's simple binary stuff. The sample showed that London was worst, the South West had least, which funnily enough backed up hospitalisations and what we knew of the virus. It's ok to have a questioning mind, it's one thing when you throw logic completely out though. Would that sample be 100% accurate if you took everyone's blood? Of course not but it would be out by a few percent only and that was its job. To gauge how many have those antibodies as people were guessing that as many as 50% already had it. See that is a guess, the sample showed that guess for what it was with some factual evidence. This is how it works.

 

[Jebus_lives]

You can set whatever evidential standard you want for something to be counted as ‘proof’, and that‘s fine. But to commit to a position where anything less than full population testing is merely guesswork is bizzarre, as you’d have to dismiss every medical study, every successful vaccine ever produced, every drug or treatment ever developed as guesswork, as they were developed using a sample of the population.

It’s not guesswork, as it’s a tried and tested methodology, which collects data, assesses evidence, and makes certain assumptions to make predictions. Is it perfect? No. Does it sometimes get things wrong? Of course. That’s why science is subject to revision as more data is collected.

I don’t think anyone quoting the 6% figure would say it is an absolute certainty that that number is a fact, but it’s the best current prediction, given the available evidence. If a new, larger, more up to date sample study is done, which revises that figure, then we can update our predictions.

You’ve set an evidential bar for yourself that can never be met, as you’d need to test 67m people on the same day,

Simultaneously

 

[JLW]

@Foot Long Hot Dog Thanks for the neg rep and 7 year old childish insults

 

[Jebus_lives]

But it's just that , a sample.

Would you accept a sample of covid deaths to estimate how many people have died with it? Using only a sample of deaths and then just guessing how many died with it?

Honestly?

It's something that probably shouldn't have been published yet people now repeat it as some sort of fact.

Even the logical element of just estimating is ridiculous if you apply it to literally anything else. One thing to have a rough idea, another for normal people to continue to repeat it as fact.



That's a new quote being repeated, a hill to die on.

You tell me how it's not guess work. Explain to me how a 100000 sample is not estimating how many cases and in fact proves how many there are.

Break down to me how taking a sample after a time period proves how many of the 64 million had it.

It's your chance to change someone's mind here.

I'm sure you've said you manage people in the past, do you do performance monitoring with them?

 

[Amw79]

Simultaneously

Correct. and if absolute certainty was the aim, the only conclusion you could draw was that x people had immunity at a certain point in time. 10 minutes later, the result is not certain as some people’s antibodies could have diminished past the point of immunity.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Correct. and if absolute certainty was the aim, the only conclusion you could draw was that x people had immunity at a certain point in time. 10 minutes later, the result is not certain as some people’s antibodies could have diminished past the point of immunity.

Literally the moment you finished the test.