Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

Looks ominous.

  • Agree

    Votes: 7 87.5%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Total voters
    8
61 - 80 of 136 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
... evidence-based guesswork.
Well...you've taken 2 selective data points from a very small sample size, ignored all the caveats that came with those data points, extrapolated to the global population and then compared that virtual finger-in-the-air with another number out of all context. You could have taken other equally arbitrary data points from small samples which are in the public domain, ignored all their caveats, and come to an entirely different conclusion.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,474 Posts
Well...you've taken 2 selective data points from a very small sample size, ignored all the caveats that came with those data points, extrapolated to the global population and then compared that virtual finger-in-the-air with another number out of all context. You could have taken other equally arbitrary data points from small samples which are in the public domain, ignored all their caveats, and come to an entirely different conclusion.
The alternative being?....

pure guesswork?
prayer?
dice?
listening to an 'authoritative' talking head who used exactly the same process to draw a newsworthy conclusion?

Really, not sure where you are going with that.

It is perfectly ordinary that one takes a range of interpretations (you have mentioned two there), derive a range of hypothetical outcomes, then set yourself the task of worrying about the worst one taking steps to mitigate and applying the maxim "as low as reasonably practical" to the mitigation steps you choose.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,474 Posts
We have a repeatable upper-bound formula, excluding unknown and pending cases, and it comes out at: Fatality = Deaths/(Deaths+Recovered) = 1115/(1115+4601) = 20%
If that's what the arithmetic says, then, wow. Whether that is in the 3rd sigma of confidence, that is still a massive number of folks are going to lose their lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
The alternative being?....

pure guesswork?
prayer?
dice?
listening to an 'authoritative' talking head who used exactly the same process to draw a newsworthy conclusion?

Really, not sure where you are going with that.

It is perfectly ordinary that one takes a range of interpretations (you have mentioned two there), derive a range of hypothetical outcomes, then set yourself the task of worrying about the worst one taking steps to mitigate and applying the maxim "as low as reasonably practical" to the mitigation steps you choose.
I'm suggesting that people who understand neither the science nor the statistics should desist from scaring themselves by making up formulas on the back of fag packets.

Everyone is an expert in this social media age, and it's unhelpful because it buries the more considered analysis by people who DO know the science and statistics.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,474 Posts
I'm suggesting that people who understand neither the science nor the statistics should desist from scaring themselves by making up formulas on the back of fag packets.

Everyone is an expert in this social media age, and it's unhelpful because it buries the more considered analysis by people who DO know the science and statistics.
I think I will take my lead from the country seeking to contain this, which they have done by locking down a city of 10 million.

I think what you are saying is exactly what the Chinese police told that doctor who tried to warn people and died from it.

A scare story? It bloody well should be. This could be "the Big One". Don't miss it by not seeing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
I think I will take my lead from the country seeking to contain this, which they have done by locking down a city of 10 million.

I think what you are saying is exactly what the Chinese police told that doctor who tried to warn people and died from it.

A scare story? It bloody well should be. This could be "the Big One". Don't miss it by not seeing it.
I have very carefully not said anything except leave it to the epidemiologists to analyse rather than follow wild stuff on social media from people who don't have a scooby.

Obviously I have no idea how serious this will turn out to be, and neither do you. Stressing about it won't affect the outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
Discussion Starter #67 (Edited)
I'm suggesting that people who understand neither the science nor the statistics should desist from scaring themselves by making up formulas on the back of fag packets.

Everyone is an expert in this social media age, and it's unhelpful because it buries the more considered analysis by people who DO know the science and statistics.
Ouch! 👻

You do not know who I am. If you won't listen to argument, will you listen to HM Gov legislation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
Discussion Starter #68 (Edited)
If that's what the arithmetic says, then, wow. Whether that is in the 3rd sigma of confidence, that is still a massive number of folks are going to lose their lives.
Environmental factors could be contributing to the high mortality rate in Chinese cities. The combination of respiratory disease and suspended respirable particles could be deadlier than the virus alone. A similar hypothesis posited in Live Science highlights children are less likely to be hospitalised by Covid-19, and children have healthier respiratory tracts.

All hypotheses at this stage are highly speculative, and as few European cities are volunteering to run a controlled experiment, hopefully the threat remains speculative.

Personally, I am concerned about when to start working from home for self-preservation. The remaining challenge is food, which needs to be either delivered by someone who has been round the houses, or requires me to enter a germ infested supermarket (no evidence of viruses specifically).

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
There could be environmental factors contributing the high mortality rate in Chinese cities. The combination of respiratory disease and suspended respirable particles could be deadlier than the virus alone. A similar hypothesis posited in Live Science highlights children are less likely to be hospitalised by Covid-19, and children have healthier respiratory tracts.

All hypotheses at this stage are highly speculative, and as few European cities are volunteering to run a controlled experiment, hopefully the threat remains speculative.
I can agree with this post. There are a number of reasons which could explain why the death rate in Hubei appears to be much higher than in the rest of China (about 10x I think), which is why you shouldn't extrapolate from the Hubei numbers to global level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
I have very carefully not said anything except leave it to the epidemiologists to analyse rather than follow wild stuff on social media from people who don't have a scooby.

Obviously I have no idea how serious this will turn out to be, and neither do you. Stressing about it won't affect the outcome.
Dr John Campbell has been doing videos every day which are very informative.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
Discussion Starter #71 (Edited)
Covid-19 is more threatening than Ebola or SARS:
  • Figures suggest each spreader typically infects 3 others, which means the virus is self-sustaining.
  • Chinese scientists assert people can be infectious without symptoms in the 2 week incubation period.
@Bertie, arguments for higher figures include China's quarantines preventing migrating people from accessing proper tests and treatment. Some spreaders display no symptoms, and refusing contagious people access to tests means they go unreported.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
Discussion Starter #72 (Edited)

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,474 Posts
There you go plucking numbers out of the sky again, even when you acknowledge later in the same post that the "figures" we've seen so far are probably incorrect.
Errr ... no ... Feng Luzhao, a researcher in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Chinese Center for Disease Control, said it.

Does he fall into your 'unqualified' group of people, just talking out of his hat?

If not what he says, then what? You still haven't propose the alternative form of analysis that I asked you to propose.

"Currently, one patient can spread the virus to two or three people in general, that's what we called the R0 – Basic Reproduction Number. We're taking medical measures including quarantining, following-up with close contacts, and non-medical measures like reducing gatherings and mobility, delaying school openings, as well as individual protection measures like mask-wearing. These all aim to reduce and slow down the spread, like reducing the R0 to below 1, in the end, to eradicate the virus"

 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,474 Posts
200 died in the last day in Hubei, largest increase in death rate since December, so Sky news just said.

218 people are now infected on that cruise liner floating of Japan in quarantine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
Errr ... no ... Feng Luzhao, a researcher in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Chinese Center for Disease Control, said it.

Does he fall into your 'unqualified' group of people, just talking out of his hat?

If not what he says, then what? You still haven't propose the alternative form of analysis that I asked you to propose.

"Currently, one patient can spread the virus to two or three people in general, that's what we called the R0 – Basic Reproduction Number. We're taking medical measures including quarantining, following-up with close contacts, and non-medical measures like reducing gatherings and mobility, delaying school openings, as well as individual protection measures like mask-wearing. These all aim to reduce and slow down the spread, like reducing the R0 to below 1, in the end, to eradicate the virus"

Your source is a news outlet of the Chinese Communist Party.

But there is surely no doubt that the virus is naturally self-sustaining, we wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't. Quoting a guesstimated transmission rate adds no value - we know it is transmitting sustainably. The question is whether this can be controlled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
200 died in the last day in Hubei, largest increase in death rate since December, so Sky news just said.
They've changed the way they measure the numbers, and no doubt they'll change the methodology again. As had been said, it's doubtful that we can take the numbers coming out of China seriously at all (likely to be understated).
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,474 Posts
Your source is a news outlet of the Chinese Communist Party.

But there is surely no doubt that the virus is naturally self-sustaining, we wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't. Quoting a guesstimated transmission rate adds no value - we know it is transmitting sustainably. The question is whether this can be controlled.
They've changed the way they measure the numbers, and no doubt they'll change the methodology again. As had been said, it's doubtful that we can take the numbers coming out of China seriously at all (likely to be understated).
OK, so you've moved from criticising the conclusion because you thought they were drawn by someone with no qualifications. Then when you are corrected on that and told where it comes from, you question veracity based on their nationality?

... you have seen all this 'xenophobia' being reported in the press, haven't you?

So, if it turns out this guy is Korean, working on a commercial contract as a scientist, and not Chinese nor part of the party, what would you throw in then, because you're really shifting your goal posts here on what does or does not amount to 'credible'.

Shortly, we may discover that the only authoritative comments that @Bertie finds acceptable are hand-signed documents from God Himself, along with His telephone number and a place where you can go and meet Him to undertake an audit.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is THIS the alternative you would like us to follow? I keep asking that question, and you keep ignoring it.

If provisional conclusions are NOT to based on provisional data, then based on what? Please answer the question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
OK, so you've moved from criticising the conclusion because you thought they were drawn by someone with no qualifications. Then when you are corrected on that and told where it comes from, you question veracity based on their nationality?

... you have seen all this 'xenophobia' being reported in the press, haven't you?

So, if it turns out this guy is Korean, working on a commercial contract as a scientist, and not Chinese nor part of the party, what would you throw in then, because you're really shifting your goal posts here on what does or does not amount to 'credible'.

Shortly, we may discover that the only authoritative comments that @Bertie finds acceptable are hand-signed documents from God Himself, along with His telephone number and a place where you can go and meet Him to undertake an audit.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is THIS the alternative you would like us to follow? I keep asking that question, and you keep ignoring it.

If provisional conclusions are NOT to based on provisional data, then based on what? Please answer the question.
The article you are so keen on says in about the 2nd paragraph that the number of cases in China outside of Hubei is falling. Do you believe that?

I wondered how long it would be before the name-calling started. Your habit of deliberately confusing criticism of a totalitarian government for criticism of a population always seems to occur every time you need a distraction from the argument.

In actual fact, if you read the whole post, I was actually agreeing with your underlying point, I just disagree with the implication of BurnungNaturalGas that because this virus is naturally sustainable, we're therefore doomed. All infectious diseases are naturally sustainable otherwise they would die out before they started. It's whether they can be controlled that is critical, and the jury is still out on that one.

Throwing any number of stats around at this early stage based on unreliable data is meaningless and won't change the outcome.

And neither will stressing about it. As someone quoted earlier, the one thing that spreads quicker than a virus is panicking about it
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,474 Posts
I wondered how long it would be before the name-calling started.
Oh, I thought you'd already started that.

"You're no expert"
"They are Chinese"

etc...

For about the 10th time now I will ask the question again; If you say provisional conclusions are NOT to be based on provisional data, then based on what? Please answer the question.

(I will keep asking that every time you post. Just answer it!)
 
61 - 80 of 136 Posts
Top