ChatterBank2 mins ago
Have We Been Misled All Along By The R Number ?
Good article by ZEYNEP TUFEKCI in The Atlantic
It argues that we have been fooled by the R contagion rate, and that we should instead have been tracking the dispersal rate. Clusters, and whole ares are the result of one highly contagious individual than hundreds of carriers.
// Multiple studies from the beginning have suggested that as few as 10 to 20 percent of infected people may be responsible for as much as 80 to 90 percent of transmission, and that many people barely transmit it. //
https:/
// This highly skewed, imbalanced distribution means that an early run of bad luck with a few super-spreading events, or clusters, can produce dramatically different outcomes even for otherwise similar countries.
Samuel Scarpino, an assistant professor of epidemiology and complex systems at Northeastern, told me that this has been a huge challenge, especially for health authorities in Western societies, where the pandemic playbook was geared toward the flu—and not without reason, because pandemic flu is a genuine threat. However, influenza does not have the same level of clustering behavior. //
It argues that we have been fooled by the R contagion rate, and that we should instead have been tracking the dispersal rate. Clusters, and whole ares are the result of one highly contagious individual than hundreds of carriers.
// Multiple studies from the beginning have suggested that as few as 10 to 20 percent of infected people may be responsible for as much as 80 to 90 percent of transmission, and that many people barely transmit it. //
https:/
// This highly skewed, imbalanced distribution means that an early run of bad luck with a few super-spreading events, or clusters, can produce dramatically different outcomes even for otherwise similar countries.
Samuel Scarpino, an assistant professor of epidemiology and complex systems at Northeastern, told me that this has been a huge challenge, especially for health authorities in Western societies, where the pandemic playbook was geared toward the flu—and not without reason, because pandemic flu is a genuine threat. However, influenza does not have the same level of clustering behavior. //
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sunk. 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.
yes looks like there may be something it that sunk. We have been calculatinf the R number as average across all the people. In statistical terms a few people could be doing a lot of spreading where as most do none, thus an average the figure for R is misleading. What k seems to do is offer a kind of standard deviation that we are not utilising.
I've being saying the R number is a load of rowlocks from the beginning. Unless you have a good set of data then it is pointless, and we dont have, nor will have good enough data (The PHE excel spreadsheet coulnt hold it!).
Witless and GSK- Valance have been using what ever number seems to be the most horrific to scare us. Now deaths are clearly not rising they are pushing the R number. It's all about control with these two freaks (and Hancockup) and they need to be removed.
Witless and GSK- Valance have been using what ever number seems to be the most horrific to scare us. Now deaths are clearly not rising they are pushing the R number. It's all about control with these two freaks (and Hancockup) and they need to be removed.
Once you have absorbed that, the same journalist had another good article in the New York Times explaining how the advice about mask wearing has been both contradictory and deliberately used to control shortages and demand in mask supply.
https:/
https:/
I don't know if I can find the article, but back in March,SAGE was outlining the tactics necessary to get the population to fall into line. This included using media to increase a sense of PERSONAL THREAT, and the use of SOCIAL DISAPPROVAL.
This was the report...it's available as a download. I saw it on another site
Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures
This was the report...it's available as a download. I saw it on another site
Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures
I think ( somewhat cautiously after a vaccine error) this was done for HIV innit
a few are high spreaders and the majority just sit and wobble - should be easy to rejig for covid
BUT you need to estimate two numbers now - the proportion of high activity and the R number for them
and it is quite possible that the uncertainty in two numbers will mean that the first model is as good
(actually it strikes me you could rejig the old model with an extra pool - infected but inactive - - so they are taken out of the uninfected pool ( still ) but dont take part in infection ( Ro set to zero for them)
a few are high spreaders and the majority just sit and wobble - should be easy to rejig for covid
BUT you need to estimate two numbers now - the proportion of high activity and the R number for them
and it is quite possible that the uncertainty in two numbers will mean that the first model is as good
(actually it strikes me you could rejig the old model with an extra pool - infected but inactive - - so they are taken out of the uninfected pool ( still ) but dont take part in infection ( Ro set to zero for them)
Something like this, pasta?:
https:/
"Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures"
(SAGE, 22nd March 2020)"
Para 2:
"The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat."
Basically, scare those who we have not already succeeded into scaring so that they comply with ever more ridiculous restrictions.
The fabled "R" number is absolute nonsense. To calculate it you need to know how many people have the virus. Nobody has a clue, least of all PHE, as the fiasco over the weekend demonstrated clearly.
https:/
"Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures"
(SAGE, 22nd March 2020)"
Para 2:
"The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat."
Basically, scare those who we have not already succeeded into scaring so that they comply with ever more ridiculous restrictions.
The fabled "R" number is absolute nonsense. To calculate it you need to know how many people have the virus. Nobody has a clue, least of all PHE, as the fiasco over the weekend demonstrated clearly.
// Nobody has a clue, least of all PHE, //
no we do have a clue
6% = prevalence
of 60 m
and if you do a series of curves or runs you will get upper and lower boundaries.
we are lapsing back to - 1all computer models are crap because one is crap - 2we are all doomed - and 3covid is mislabelled flu and if not flu then something else
no we do have a clue
6% = prevalence
of 60 m
and if you do a series of curves or runs you will get upper and lower boundaries.
we are lapsing back to - 1all computer models are crap because one is crap - 2we are all doomed - and 3covid is mislabelled flu and if not flu then something else
//The PHE has been abolished,...//
Only the name has been changed to protect the guilty. I cannot imagine Baroness Harding has had time to replace the spreadsheet wallah who is responsible for this weekend's fiasco.
//we are lapsing back to - 1all computer models are crap because one is crap - 2we are all doomed - and 3covid is mislabelled flu and if not flu then something else//
If you say so, Peter.
Only the name has been changed to protect the guilty. I cannot imagine Baroness Harding has had time to replace the spreadsheet wallah who is responsible for this weekend's fiasco.
//we are lapsing back to - 1all computer models are crap because one is crap - 2we are all doomed - and 3covid is mislabelled flu and if not flu then something else//
If you say so, Peter.
That's it new judge. Scroll down to appendix B where it's all outlined.
Today I also read about "The Great Reset"...good for anyone into conspiracy theories. Google if you want.
It looks good...getting all nations, business etc together to tackle the problems of economies, pandemics, global warming, feeding the world. Then I found a discussion on a food/farming site that suggests a part of this reset is the influencing of the population towards a massive global move to a plant based diet/economy to 'save' us.
TBH...nothing surprises me now, and I'm not one to think in terms of our choices being determined by the joining of various political and business leaders. But it's all a bit unsettling.
Today I also read about "The Great Reset"...good for anyone into conspiracy theories. Google if you want.
It looks good...getting all nations, business etc together to tackle the problems of economies, pandemics, global warming, feeding the world. Then I found a discussion on a food/farming site that suggests a part of this reset is the influencing of the population towards a massive global move to a plant based diet/economy to 'save' us.
TBH...nothing surprises me now, and I'm not one to think in terms of our choices being determined by the joining of various political and business leaders. But it's all a bit unsettling.
Anything I have ever read about the R number in relation to this does make the point that it is potentially meaningless nationally, and it's not hard to see why that might be.
Conceptually, it's easy to grasp the idea that a virus doesn't spread uniformly, and we have had known "super spreaders".
One of the things that makes it so hard to contain is the fact that so many people are asymptomatic, are therefore never or rarely tested, but of course still spread it. This is apparently unusual.
Conceptually, it's easy to grasp the idea that a virus doesn't spread uniformly, and we have had known "super spreaders".
One of the things that makes it so hard to contain is the fact that so many people are asymptomatic, are therefore never or rarely tested, but of course still spread it. This is apparently unusual.
R is about infection rates not about the number of infectors. Like any other measure it tells you what it tells you, and you have to decide what to do with the information and how to interpret it.
I still think infection rates are not the important bit, holding them down merely slows things and one gets infected later; and there's a lot of economic cost and lowering of life quality associated with that effect.
I doubt that emphasis on dispersal would show a better outcome. The situation is what it is. What can be done is very limited.
I still think infection rates are not the important bit, holding them down merely slows things and one gets infected later; and there's a lot of economic cost and lowering of life quality associated with that effect.
I doubt that emphasis on dispersal would show a better outcome. The situation is what it is. What can be done is very limited.
No point in looking back now, we are not getting the deaths or mega hospital admissions, indeed the vast majority dont really suffer much at all so time to move on and accept it is just there.
What we should do though is question our reediness for such disasters. Without doubt there will be a real killer disease that comes along and kills many be it from Mother Nature or man made.
We should be better prepared next time.
What we should do though is question our reediness for such disasters. Without doubt there will be a real killer disease that comes along and kills many be it from Mother Nature or man made.
We should be better prepared next time.
//No point in looking back now, we are not getting the deaths or mega hospital admissions,//
Be afraid. The Good Professor Fergusson was on the wireless this morning. I thought they'd locked him away somewhere for the duration but, no, they'd let him loose on Radio 4. His apocalyptic prophesies have begun again:
"Infections are doubling every fortnight [despite one of his mates producing a "Domesday scenario" that relied on them doubling every week]";
"Hospital admissions are soaring;"
"Deaths are increasing at an alarming rate;"
"The NHS will be overwhelmed if this continues;"
"We must take steps to prevent the spread."
Be very afraid of anyone (in a position of authority) taking notice of him.
Be afraid. The Good Professor Fergusson was on the wireless this morning. I thought they'd locked him away somewhere for the duration but, no, they'd let him loose on Radio 4. His apocalyptic prophesies have begun again:
"Infections are doubling every fortnight [despite one of his mates producing a "Domesday scenario" that relied on them doubling every week]";
"Hospital admissions are soaring;"
"Deaths are increasing at an alarming rate;"
"The NHS will be overwhelmed if this continues;"
"We must take steps to prevent the spread."
Be very afraid of anyone (in a position of authority) taking notice of him.
First of all, the R number isn't a "nonsense" just because it cannot be determined exactly. Granted, the UK* has apparently made major administrative blunders, which adds uncertainty, but on its own I don't see that this undermines the overall effort to track the spread.
But, in any case, the entire discipline of statistics is meant to be about overcoming the handicaps of incomplete information, not least when you have to deduce something about the population from a mere sample of it.
Nor is there anything particularly surprising to me about the idea that 20% or whatever of the population is responsible for 80% of the spread; this sounds to me like just another example of the Pareto Principle. It's what we'd expect.
Nor is the fact that the R number is somewhat of a blunt instrument an argument against it. It's an argument against using *only* it to understand the disease, but I'd suggest there's a very good reason that R is reported more widely than other measures: it's not difficult to explain to the layperson. Bigger number = faster national spread. Clear and concise is useful when trying to shape messaging.
Other measures are clearly important in understanding the bigger picture, but it's a joke to suggest that somehow SAGE is unaware of these subtleties, and has been "fooling" either us or, indeed, itself.
As an aside, it's clearly embarrassing whenever there's another announcement that the data set was messed up, but I'd rather hear these announcements than not. The sign of a poor data set is when it's never corrected: that's a sure sign that nobody was bothering to check it.
But, in any case, the entire discipline of statistics is meant to be about overcoming the handicaps of incomplete information, not least when you have to deduce something about the population from a mere sample of it.
Nor is there anything particularly surprising to me about the idea that 20% or whatever of the population is responsible for 80% of the spread; this sounds to me like just another example of the Pareto Principle. It's what we'd expect.
Nor is the fact that the R number is somewhat of a blunt instrument an argument against it. It's an argument against using *only* it to understand the disease, but I'd suggest there's a very good reason that R is reported more widely than other measures: it's not difficult to explain to the layperson. Bigger number = faster national spread. Clear and concise is useful when trying to shape messaging.
Other measures are clearly important in understanding the bigger picture, but it's a joke to suggest that somehow SAGE is unaware of these subtleties, and has been "fooling" either us or, indeed, itself.
As an aside, it's clearly embarrassing whenever there's another announcement that the data set was messed up, but I'd rather hear these announcements than not. The sign of a poor data set is when it's never corrected: that's a sure sign that nobody was bothering to check it.
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.