I think Tim Harford tucked away on radio 4 can get away with it and I have enjoyed the weekly takedown of Matt Hancock's 10,000 tests nonsense too!Hi NicoleC1971 - I'm not sure which stats you're referring to but I do remember being quite surprised each week when the More or Less presenter posed the question 'Are the Government figures on testing accurate?' and the answer clearly being No with a good explanation about the issues. Never really thought of any BBC presenter as being deviant but kind of like the idea!
I think the PM and those around him know that the pandemic is over judging by their own personal behaviour. Boris appears to be having a leadership crisis and needs to go off to that Greek villa of his dad's and leave Mr Gove in charge imo!What is the alternative strategy to trying to minimise virus affects on life and limit damage to the economy?
Perhaps you guys instead of continuingly naysaying should publish your narrative and send it to the pm.
Yes but that was 500 000 without lockdown. As it stands there have been in the region of 60 000 excess deaths with nowhere near the total population exposed. Estimates seem to coalesce around the 10%mark . If that was so then 500 000 looks plausible. Also if we look at 1% fatality which seems to be that most quoted than the SAGE figure again looks plausibleLike someone predicting 500,000 deaths in the UK maybe?
So far as I'm aware a 1% population fatality rate has not been seen in any country..?Also if we look at 1% fatality
Why dont your gurus ride out like the knights of old on chargers?A calm, rational, logical look at the data from Ivor Cummins once again
https://thefatemperor.com/viral-issue-critical-update-some-of-the-science-logic-and-data-explained/
Why dont your gurus ride out like the knights of old on chargers?
Not quibbling at details, but tackling the real enemy of the people in this pandemic!
Fighting for a good diet, tackling obesity and metabolic syndrome. That's a better way to fight the virus and improve survival rather than pretend it does not exist or to massage the facts.
Btw there are not many pubs provide healthy food.
D.
As I said we just don't know yet. 60 000 X 100 equals 6 million is that correct? So if 6 million infected so far that's 1%ish fatality rate but if we've all already been infected and are immune that's about 0.1% but I'm not betting my life and the rest of my family on this virus being finished yet.So far as I'm aware a 1% population fatality rate has not been seen in any country..?
As I said we just don't know yet. 60 000 X 100 equals 6 million is that correct? So if 6 million infected so far that's 1%ish fatality rate but if we've all already been infected and are immune that's about 0.1% but I'm not betting my life and the rest of my family on this virus being finished yet.
I have his book!I'm guessing that you aren't aware of Ivor's usual work then?
How can someone applying logic and looking at data rationally be a "guru"?
I read the article about 2/3 of the deaths being disabled people and by "disabled" there, they didn't mean people in wheelchairs but people with the usual co morbidities like heart /lung disease that they are always quoting. lncluding wheelchair users of course.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...t=144_9815420&CMP=TNLEmail_118918_9815420_144Tannith - You you have the paper/article defining disabled, please? I'm a little curious about something.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...t=144_9815420&CMP=TNLEmail_118918_9815420_144
"The figures come from an analysis by the Office for National Statistics, which compared death certificates from March 2 to May 15 with data from the 2011 census.
They found that 30.3 per cent of coronavirus deaths were among people who said their daily activities were “limited a lot” because of a health problem or disability, and 28.9 per cent among those whose activities were “limited a little”.
There were 22,447 deaths across the two categories, both considered disabled."
There's very little detail there, and no real definition.
Never mind.
My two cents worth:If the pandemic is as deadly as oft reported though then there surely should be more deaths than average every single week?
That seeing a lower than average week is moderately surprising was the point I and the article were trying to make.
In a thread about COVID the numbers I thought this was relevant.
Please delete if I was wrong to think that.