Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Dr John Lee Writing In The Spectator On Coronavirus.
Interesting article providing an alternative view.
https:/
I found the points he was making pretty compelling.
Thoughts?
https:/
I found the points he was making pretty compelling.
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// It may become less scary if you assume the figures aren't telling the whole story, as Dr Lee is.//
BUT we have been trained by Trump and his cohorts on this:
here are some facts - no like? here are some alternative facts which are better ( Sean Spicey Spicer)
ABers generally in unison - "yes yes - how true how true - epidemic what epidemic -how clear, how true. They are just dying before their time - in some cases 20 0r 30 y before their time - but hell, in any case lets be optimistic about it - it isnt meeeee!" - us then
BUT we have been trained by Trump and his cohorts on this:
here are some facts - no like? here are some alternative facts which are better ( Sean Spicey Spicer)
ABers generally in unison - "yes yes - how true how true - epidemic what epidemic -how clear, how true. They are just dying before their time - in some cases 20 0r 30 y before their time - but hell, in any case lets be optimistic about it - it isnt meeeee!" - us then
Thanks :)
But, again, the simple point is that disease control requires people to take the threat seriously and to respond accordingly. As it happens, you're exaggerating the levels of pessimism at my end, but that's not too surprising. My simple point remains that, for the moment at least, there's no reason to assume we are even remotely close to halfway through this, let along any other more optimistic projection. And to say so is not even remotely doom-mongering. It's realism. Even when the number of UK cases was as low as 115 it was clear that they were going to reach 10,000+ at some point, and the only question in my head was whether that threshold would be hit in late March or early April.
But, again, the simple point is that disease control requires people to take the threat seriously and to respond accordingly. As it happens, you're exaggerating the levels of pessimism at my end, but that's not too surprising. My simple point remains that, for the moment at least, there's no reason to assume we are even remotely close to halfway through this, let along any other more optimistic projection. And to say so is not even remotely doom-mongering. It's realism. Even when the number of UK cases was as low as 115 it was clear that they were going to reach 10,000+ at some point, and the only question in my head was whether that threshold would be hit in late March or early April.
the post of 10 43 is the usual non mathematical mess
we arent a country of 7.8 bn we are one of 60 m
it seems fair therefore to look at the local population in which you dwell ( England that is!) and see what the stats are
In lundy if you are over 60 and admitted with cough a temp and blueness to hospital which are the criteria for admission
you have a 15 % chance of not coming out
that was last week ( amalgamated from all hospitals in the capital)
there are various things you CANNOT validly conclude from this - 1) the figures are obviously false (*)
2) if you are taken to hospital you will die
3) if you refuse to go to Hospital, and go upstairs, you will survive
(*) this comes from Tarskis theorem on the definabllity of Truth)
can one be optimistic - well yeah - that the mortality isnt higher
we arent a country of 7.8 bn we are one of 60 m
it seems fair therefore to look at the local population in which you dwell ( England that is!) and see what the stats are
In lundy if you are over 60 and admitted with cough a temp and blueness to hospital which are the criteria for admission
you have a 15 % chance of not coming out
that was last week ( amalgamated from all hospitals in the capital)
there are various things you CANNOT validly conclude from this - 1) the figures are obviously false (*)
2) if you are taken to hospital you will die
3) if you refuse to go to Hospital, and go upstairs, you will survive
(*) this comes from Tarskis theorem on the definabllity of Truth)
can one be optimistic - well yeah - that the mortality isnt higher
jim360, I think you are simplifying this too much. Telling the whole truth may be, as you say realism but telling the truth at all times can be demoralising to the nation. People keep saying this is the equivalent of being at war, during the war not everything was being told to the public because the Government knew it would affect moral and keeping up the moral of a country is just as important as keeping the people safe. All the truth all the time isn't necessarily a good thing.
// but that you can make them seem better assuming that there are many more unreported cases.//
yeah but no but
better assuming - no "concluding"
which I think we agree there are
BUT
is there a way of estimating ( rather than saying 'lots') how many?
yes they have been testing - not everybody - but those with signs and this means the test pool ( because they are not well,) should overestimate the ratio
10 000 out of 100 000. that to my mind is so far from herd immunity ( 60%) ( 95% for measles) that it is no where near
the other thing I advocate is the dead body count - dead bodies are so hard to conceal - that there is very little hding the figures - -
and apply a multiplicator
1% mortaity - then multipy by 100
0.75% mortality - then x 130
I dont see that yhou can look at 8000 coffins in Thapin NOW and cluck suck in your breath and say - well - - in a year or two they would have died ....
yeah but no but
better assuming - no "concluding"
which I think we agree there are
BUT
is there a way of estimating ( rather than saying 'lots') how many?
yes they have been testing - not everybody - but those with signs and this means the test pool ( because they are not well,) should overestimate the ratio
10 000 out of 100 000. that to my mind is so far from herd immunity ( 60%) ( 95% for measles) that it is no where near
the other thing I advocate is the dead body count - dead bodies are so hard to conceal - that there is very little hding the figures - -
and apply a multiplicator
1% mortaity - then multipy by 100
0.75% mortality - then x 130
I dont see that yhou can look at 8000 coffins in Thapin NOW and cluck suck in your breath and say - well - - in a year or two they would have died ....
> I'll just carry on calmly following official advice.
That's good!
The problem as I see it with the article in the OP is that it is encouraging some people to take Covid-19 less seriously, which means that they may not carry on calmly following official advice. Jamming a year's worth of deaths into a much shorter space of time would cause chaos.
That's good!
The problem as I see it with the article in the OP is that it is encouraging some people to take Covid-19 less seriously, which means that they may not carry on calmly following official advice. Jamming a year's worth of deaths into a much shorter space of time would cause chaos.
// telling the truth at all times can be demoralising to the nation. People keep saying this is the equivalent of being at war, during the war not everything was being told to the public because the Government knew it would affect [morale]... //
I see your point, but firstly the comparison isn't perfect: another good reason not to tell the public everything in WWII is that then the enemy learns it too, which is clearly not an issue in this, case, and (b) as ellipsis has suggested, hiding the truth may encourage people to ignore the threat and so exacerbate the problem. In order to get people to change their behaviour in the way that will reduce the scale of the threat, they *need* to be scared; if they are not, then the disease spreads further and faster.
I see your point, but firstly the comparison isn't perfect: another good reason not to tell the public everything in WWII is that then the enemy learns it too, which is clearly not an issue in this, case, and (b) as ellipsis has suggested, hiding the truth may encourage people to ignore the threat and so exacerbate the problem. In order to get people to change their behaviour in the way that will reduce the scale of the threat, they *need* to be scared; if they are not, then the disease spreads further and faster.
I suspect that the other problem is that apocalyptic projections of what Covid-19 could do are *meant* to be wrong. In the US, Dr Fauci, who's leading the medical response, recently suggested that the disease could kill as many as 200,000 Americans, before quickly making clear that this prediction is obviously highly sensitive to how the US responds, and will therefore hopefully end up (far) lower. But it only goes lower if people realise that the risk is real and respond accordingly.
It's always the way, it seems. Computer experts warned that the Millennium Bug was a threat, most companies took action, nothing happened, which is precisely what was intended by the warning. Scientists warned that the Ozone Layer was becoming dangerously thin, people responded, and the threat has receded. Scientists warned that human activity is driving Climate Change, and if people respond to this then the threat should recede.
Every warning of an apocalypse is meant to avert the apocalypse, not turn out to be chillingly accurate. We should be celebrating the experts being wrong.
It's always the way, it seems. Computer experts warned that the Millennium Bug was a threat, most companies took action, nothing happened, which is precisely what was intended by the warning. Scientists warned that the Ozone Layer was becoming dangerously thin, people responded, and the threat has receded. Scientists warned that human activity is driving Climate Change, and if people respond to this then the threat should recede.
Every warning of an apocalypse is meant to avert the apocalypse, not turn out to be chillingly accurate. We should be celebrating the experts being wrong.
in any case.
Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
BY ARTHUR HUGH CLOUGH
Say not the struggle nought availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke concealed,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light,
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
But westward, look, the land is bright.
Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
BY ARTHUR HUGH CLOUGH
Say not the struggle nought availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke concealed,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light,
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
But westward, look, the land is bright.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.