Free UK Face Mask Exemption Cards Download Yours Now

a reply to: Grenade

The death toll is still the highest in Europe, ahead of Italy by about 35,000 souls so there is that to consider.

Hopefully the new methodology that is being implemented and agreed upon by our respective nations will remedy the statistics, because they are not helping matters.

If they are reporting deaths down to COVID 19, and its not the case, im apt to ponder the logic behind such?

I agree with you thats just wrong.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: andy06shake

They’re still counting every death in the figures regardless of the cause up to 28 days. Suicides, murders, car crashes, heart attacks etc etc.

uk.mobile.reuters.com...

www.theguardian.com...

From your link

The official PHE figures are still likely to be a significant undercount of the true death toll. Coronavirus deaths registered by the ONS are almost a third higher than the government figure.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not true, the excess deaths comparatively to last year could be down to many other factors unrelated to the virus and more to do with the lockdown and fear. As someone suggested earlier A+E admissions plummeted because people were afraid to attend hospital, then there’s the reduction in operations and limited access to healthcare. Try and get a face to face with your GP tomorrow and see how that goes.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not true, the excess deaths comparatively to last year could be down to many other factors unrelated to the virus and more to do with the lockdown and fear. As someone suggested earlier A+E admissions plummeted because people were afraid to attend hospital, then there’s the reduction in operations and limited access to healthcare. Try and get a face to face with your GP tomorrow and see how that goes.

From the other link you posted

Epidemiologists say excess mortality - deaths from all causes that exceed the five-year average for the time of year - is the best way of gauging deaths from a disease outbreak because it is internationally.

Please explain what makes you better qualified than epidemiologists to judge the death count?

And I had a face to face with a GP last week.

a reply to: Grenade

I don't think GPs are doing many face-to-face appointments, not round these here parts anyhow.

The reason being COVID 19.

You can still get a video call with your GP all the same which is similar to a face-to-face appointment.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Grenade

I don't think GPs are doing many face-to-face appointments, not round these here parts anyhow.

The reason being COVID 19.

You can still get a video call with your GP all the same which is similar to a face-to-face appointment.

They are still doing home visits where required, just trying to avoid people going to the surgery.

Almost like having lots off vulnerable ill people grouping together in the middle of a pandemic would be a bad idea.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not get any arguments from me, as if the GPs are not prudent, nevermind selective as to who they have to see, its only apt to add to the pandemic.

And at the end of the day fewer doctors equate to fewer people being treated, and for more than just COVID 19.

Bad idea indeed hence the reason our GPs are acting as they do.

a reply to: ScepticScot

And that’s based on previous data when we had worldwide lockdowns to this extent with such disruption to healthcare?

Oh yeah, there hasn’t been any precedent.

Amazing how the data always fits your narrative even when the figures are shown to be manipulated in the opposite direction.

These expected deaths are the by any chance based on models or comparative to yearly averages? Not just last year, take say the last 10.

You can base your opinion on estimations and conjecture, I’ll stick with the hard data.

a reply to: Grenade

Well there is the Spanish Flu i suppose but im not sure as to the veracity of statistics back then nevermind availability of healthcare to the masses.

It killed between 50-200 million people all the same, and that was when we did not have the infostructure and transportation hubs around the globe in the manner that we have today that enables the propagation of the COVID 19 pathogen across the planet.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

And that’s based on previous data when we had worldwide lockdowns to this extent with such disruption to healthcare?

Oh yeah, there hasn’t been any precedent.

Amazing how the data always fits your narrative even when the figures are shown to be manipulated in the opposite direction.

These expected deaths are the by any chance based on models or comparative to yearly averages? Not just last year, take say the last 10.

You can base your opinion on estimations and conjecture, I’ll stick with the hard data.

You are selectively using data to fit your preconceived ideas.

From memory the excessive deeths are based on a 5 year average.

If the excessive deaths were mainly from interruption to health care then we would have expected them to rise as the lockdown & disruption carried on.

If they were mainly from covid19 then they would have increase at the start then declined as infection rates dropped.

Guess what shape there was?

a reply to: ScepticScot

You mean like this guy?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.heritage.org...

analyticsindiamag.com...

Throwing bones in a plate and having a shaman interpret the results would be a more accurate modelling technique.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

You mean like this guy?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Like this guy what?

a reply to: Grenade

You need to subscribe/logon to read the Neil Ferguson's article Grenade.

a reply to: andy06shake

Updated with additional links to the epidemiologists we should trust when making policy.

a reply to: Grenade

What about these Muppets, do these fools not somewhat twist your nipplets given our current predicament?

www.mirror.co.uk... fbclid=IwAR0m-d5vfsC0niARpIhN56fPnuTa0MjQFebnnp1KBCMdxlEkKu50yodifOw

I simply canny fathom the logic of some people, nether i can. LoL

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: andy06shake

Updated with additional links to the epidemiologists we should trust when making policy.

Your links are anonymous criticismof the code while it was still being reviewed.

Results of the review

www.nature.com...#:~:text=The%20successful%20code%20testing%20isn,by%20mathematical%20epidemiologist%20Neil%20Ferguso n.&text=When%20a%20cleaned%2Dup%20version,to%20be%20repeated%20by%20others.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Download python and run the model on your PC then switch over to your laptop and run it again with the exact same data and tell me it’s not flawed.

If you want a critique of the coding you’re entering into my domain.

The original code was a complete shambles and has now been tidied up to fit his models. Conveniently.

a reply to: andy06shake

Sure they do, if they want to put themselves in the firing line tho that’s their prerogative.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Download python and run the model on your PC then switch over to your laptop and run it again with the exact same data and tell me it’s not flawed.

If you want a critique of the coding you’re entering into my domain.

Or I could trust the professional code review other than the anonymous guy online claiming to have a bsc in computer science yet posted out of date opinion pieces rather than the actual review of the code...

a reply to: ScepticScot

How’s our favourite epidemiologists track record at predicting viral outbreaks? You know comparing his models which influence policy in relation to reality?