Covid restrictions - are you adhering or not?

[Yorick]

I've always thought he was a twat...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57934379

[Count Steer]

Yup, him and Van Morrison. Can't say too much, Eric's a neighbour.
Mussels...extrapolation is what?! If you take a representative sample of 5000 and 10% can wiggle their ears then, as the sample is representative, it's reasonable to extrapolate that 10% of the sampled population can. Extrapolation IS part of statistics.

*wiggle*

Can't stop, Eric is having a tinfoil hat sale.

[Mussels]

Yup, him and Van Morrison. Can't say too much, Eric's a neighbour.
Mussels...extrapolation is what?! If you take a representative sample of 5000 and 10% can wiggle their ears then, as the sample is representative, it's reasonable to extrapolate that 10% of the sampled population can. Extrapolation IS part of statistics.

*wiggle*

Can't stop, Eric is having a tinfoil hat sale.

If the sample is representative then fine, if it's a random sample walking past a stall set up outside the ear wiggling club then it's misleading.

[wheelnut]

LA is now claiming to be back in the purple category because the rate of infections is about 1000/day

Something a bit off here as last time they said that it took 4000 cases/day to qualify for the purple category.

Probably because they know the figures are a lot higher due to a lack of testing.

They're coming up with some bizarre math... They're claiming that 5.2% *of the population* are testing positive during this surge.. but they've only tested 0.0049% of the population, so in reality it's 5.2% of 0.0049%..., I think that works out to about 0.00024%?

The figures will extrapolate out - even if it’s not exactly accurate it will give you a good indication.

I think the positive rate in the US is a hell of a lot more than the current positive rate suggests.

The uk are currently testing approx 5% of the population every day.

[ZRX61]

The figures will extrapolate out - even if it’s not exactly accurate it will give you a good indication.

I think the positive rate in the US is a hell of a lot more than the current positive rate suggests.

The uk are currently testing approx 5% of the population every day.

The population of LA County is 10,400,000. They've tested 49,000 people, 5.2% of the 49,000 tested positive. The media is claiming 5.2% of the people in the county tested positive, which is a flat out lie.

[DefTrap]

If it's an unbiased sample, that's a reasonable assumption.
You're going to have a very stressed life if you object to stats being gathered in this way. Testing 100% of the pop. isn't practical, cost effective or even possible.

[Mussels]

If it's an unbiased sample, that's a reasonable assumption.
You're going to have a very stressed life if you object to stats being gathered in this way. Testing 100% of the pop. isn't practical, cost effective or even possible.

Yes, if it was designed to be random sample testing by people who know what they are doing and with the right budget then it should be pretty accurate.
Sometimes it can be way off like the EU immigration rate to UK, the test wasn't specifically designed for that but politicians decided it would do and quoted numbers without understanding it.
I have faith in the UK infection estimates but that's because they are open about the methods used.

[Count Steer]

The figures will extrapolate out - even if it’s not exactly accurate it will give you a good indication.

I think the positive rate in the US is a hell of a lot more than the current positive rate suggests.

The uk are currently testing approx 5% of the population every day.

The population of LA County is 10,400,000. They've tested 49,000 people, 5.2% of the 49,000 tested positive. The media is claiming 5.2% of the people in the county tested positive, which is a flat out lie.

I suspect it isn't a lie. Given the lack of understanding of statistics demonstrated by the UK media I'd guess it's simply ignorance. It's one of those things that has me growling at the radio - (with one fantastic exception 'More or Less' on R4 with Tim Harford)*
The sheer bloody inability to get across that a 96% effective vaccine doesn't mean 4 in a 100 vaccinated people get infected has been mind-boggling.
I know that you can be a pretty dim bulb and still get a long way in the media but you'd hope that the editorial people behind the talking heads could chew gum and walk at the same time**

So, no need to look for conspiracies when media stupidity/ignorance is so rampant.

* As it's a programme about use and abuse of stats by the media, presented by a statistician, it should be credible.
** Main requirement for being accepted on a 'Media Studies' course.

[gremlin]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.....

[Noggin]

This is quite interesting to read (hoping the FT hasn't turned into a rag!!)

https://www.ft.com/content/a8c0f5f2-d27 ... 2d2b49915a

It’s striking how much Covid confusion still reigns. Some of the informational miasma is deliberate — there’s profit for some in the bewilderment of others — but much of it stems from the fact that epidemics defy our intuition. So, here are five counterintuitive Covid truths that easily slip beyond our understanding:

1. If a large share of hospitalised people are vaccinated, that’s a sign of success. It has been common to see headlines noting that a substantial minority of people who have been hospitalised or even killed by Covid have been fully vaccinated. These numbers suggest vaccine failure is alarmingly common.

The fallacy only becomes clear at the logical extremes: before vaccines existed, everyone in hospital was unvaccinated; if vaccines were universal, then everybody in hospital would be vaccinated. Neither scenario tells us whether the vaccines work.

Recommended
Undercover EconomistTim Harford
Covid-19: how close is the light at the end of the tunnel?

So try this. Imagine that 1 per cent of the unvaccinated population will end up in hospital with Covid over a given time period. In a city of a million people, that would be 10,000 hospital stays. Now let’s say that 950,000 people get fully vaccinated, that the vaccine is 95 per cent effective against hospitalisation, and that the vaccine doesn’t reduce transmission (although it does).

Here’s the arithmetic: 500 of the 50,000 unvaccinated people end up in hospital. A total of 9,500 of the vaccinated people would be at risk of a hospital visit, but the vaccine saves all but 5 per cent of them. These unlucky 475 still go to hospital.

The hospital contains 500 unvaccinated and 475 vaccinated people — almost half and half — which makes it seem as though the vaccine barely works. Yet when 95 per cent of people take a 95 per cent effective vaccine, hospital visits fall from 10,000 to fewer than 1,000.

2. Herd immunity isn’t the end of a pandemic. In the simplest epidemiological models, herd immunity is the moment when so many people are immune — either because of vaccines or prior infection — that the epidemic begins to die away of its own accord.

The keyword here is “begins”. An epidemic has momentum, like a train. Herd immunity is the beginning of an uphill gradient, initially very gentle. If the train is moving at top speed as it begins to climb the hill, it will keep travelling for a long way before it stops.

The difference between hitting herd immunity during a raging epidemic — yes, I am thinking of the UK — and hitting it through vaccination during a lull could be millions of unnecessary cases.

3. Masks matter, but not for the reason you think. Microbiologist Ravi Gupta has called the end of mask mandates in England “criminal”, while radio presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer has said she will boycott the bookshop Waterstones if they politely suggest wearing masks. What is it about masks that ignites such rhetoric?

This is all about the social stakes involved. While you can’t see who’s been vaccinated or who has ignored a ping from the contact tracers, you can see who’s wearing a mask.

I think it is considerate to wear a mask, an act that evidence suggests may protect me, probably protects others and certainly reassures them. For most people, wearing a mask is only a minor annoyance, so why not do it?

Only our innate tribalism can turn mask-wearing from a simple, promising precaution into the dividing line between the saintly and the damned. Cabinet ministers have boasted about removing their masks as soon as possible, which feels like boasting about farting in a lift: it might be a relief but it’s a strange thing to advertise. Once one realises this is about signalling tribal loyalty, it makes more sense.

4. Lockdowns also matter less than you think. It is understandable that we have focused so much on lockdowns. The radical social distancing ministers have imposed has been an unprecedented shift in the way we live, but it has saved millions of lives.

What we overlook is that much of this social distancing would have happened anyway. Many people “locked down” before lockdowns themselves, out of fear or out of consideration for others, or both. The most famous study of this by economists Austan Goolsbee and Chad Syverson estimated that around 90 per cent of the reduction in consumer traffic was voluntary.

Latest coronavirus news

Follow FT's live coverage and analysis of the global pandemic and the rapidly evolving economic crisis here.

One need not believe the precise number to accept that people have often acted by choice, through fear or altruism. The flip side is also true: a lockdown that isn’t widely supported is neither effective nor tenable.

All this matters because it is easy to think that everything revolves around the rules. More important is social solidarity, clear information and prominent people setting a good example. Alas, we’ve had to settle for social solidarity alone.

5. Covid was a near miss. After the disruption to life, love, education and commerce, and after more than four million confirmed deaths around the world — with many more unconfirmed and many still to come — it may seem strange to say so. But this could have been far worse. It could have been as contagious (or more) as the Delta variant from day one. It could have been as deadly as Mers, which has killed a third of the people confirmed to have contracted it. It could have attacked children rather than the very elderly. And it could — like HIV — have defeated efforts to create a vaccine.

So while we count the cost, we should also count our blessings — and dramatically strengthen our preparedness for the next pandemic.

Tim Harford’s new book is ‘How to Make the World Add Up’

[Jody]

Well it's all a bit odd here.....

As previously mentioned, all people coming to campsites in France need to either be double jabbed, recently PCR tested negative of have proof of having covid in the last 6 months. It has been said that we don't have to be too strict yet !???!!!

The campsite are telling me I have to do the checks
The tour operator I work for tell me that I mustn't, for 2 reasons
1 If I make a mistake, I'm the one that's liable. Current punishment is €45,000 fine and a year in prison.
2 When I scan the QR code with my phone, my phone will store some of that info and apparently that's against privacy laws !

Also I got a call from campsite reception this morning. Apparently I have a guest arriving at 16:00 on Monday and their PCR test passes its date at 12:00. The campsite have told me to admit them!

[Mussels]

This is quite interesting to read (hoping the FT hasn't turned into a rag!!)

https://www.ft.com/content/a8c0f5f2-d27 ... 2d2b49915a

1. If a large share of hospitalised people are vaccinated, that’s a sign of success.

He's jumped to conclusions based on partial data and been vague enough in his explanation that he can't be called out on it when he's proven wrong.
His first example is only true for vaccine uptake, lots of vaccinated people in hospital means lots have had the vaccine. It says very little about how good the vaccine is, it could turn out to be useless and he'd still be right.
He's an economist, his whole career is based on that method.

Well it's all a bit odd here.....

As previously mentioned, all people coming to campsites in France need to either be double jabbed, recently PCR tested negative of have proof of having covid in the last 6 months. It has been said that we don't have to be too strict yet !???!!!

The campsite are telling me I have to do the checks
The tour operator I work for tell me that I mustn't, for 2 reasons
1 If I make a mistake, I'm the one that's liable. Current punishment is €45,000 fine and a year in prison.
2 When I scan the QR code with my phone, my phone will store some of that info and apparently that's against privacy laws !

Also I got a call from campsite reception this morning. Apparently I have a guest arriving at 16:00 on Monday and their PCR test passes its date at 12:00. The campsite have told me to admit them!

Who is liable for mistakes? I'm guessing it's the campsite and not the tour operator.
I do a lot of work with GDPR and people interpret it lots of ways, I suspect the tour operator is making stuff up to stop you turning people away and losing them money. Similar to the way people use health and safety as an excuse not to do something.

[Count Steer]

What conclusion do you think he's drawn? He isn't assessing the actual efficacy of the vaccines only pointing out the fact that some vaccinated people in hospital doesn't mean they don't work and his modelling is perfectly valid.
He is an economist and an Honorary Fellow and award winner of the Royal Statistical Society.
What conclusion do you think he should have drawn? Vaccinated people being in hospital means the vaccines don't work? (Against the variant they're designed for).

[Mussels]

What conclusion do you think he's drawn? He isn't assessing the actual efficacy of the vaccines only pointing out the fact that some vaccinated people in hospital doesn't mean they don't work and his modelling is perfectly valid.
He is an economist and an Honorary Fellow and award winner of the Royal Statistical Society.
What conclusion do you think he should have drawn? Vaccinated people being in hospital means the vaccines don't work? (Against the variant they're designed for).

That was kind of my point, he's not wrong but in reality he's implied a lot more than he's stated.
He's decided herd immunity is at the start of a pandemic so not a good thing to aim for, I suspect most people consider it to be the point infections start to drop rapidly.

[Docca]

Kate Sherimani is a cunt

[irie]

Kate Sherimani is a cunt

That's putting it politely.

[ZRX61]

Went about going to various stores this morning, Lowes (think B&Q) WallyWorld & O'Reilly's (like Halfrauds). Didn't bother with a mask at any of them & no one said a peep. I'd estimate around 30% weren't wearing masks.
So much for the latest *mandate*

[weeksy]

Went about going to various stores this morning, Lowes (think B&Q) WallyWorld & O'Reilly's (like Halfrauds). Didn't bother with a mask at any of them & no one said a peep. I'd estimate around 30% weren't wearing masks.
So much for the latest *mandate*

And somehow you seem proud of this

[Horse]

Went about going to various stores this morning, Lowes (think B&Q) WallyWorld & O'Reilly's (like Halfrauds). Didn't bother with a mask at any of them & no one said a peep. I'd estimate around 30% weren't wearing masks.
So much for the latest *mandate*

And somehow you seem proud of this

Herd impunity.

[ZRX61]

And somehow you seem proud of this

Does the vaccine work for the majority of people or not? I'm not responsible for people choosing not to get it (Altho VP Harris may be..)