decades of covid

[Enoch]

no. they are talking about an relative increase in it’s morbidity. it used to be 1, and is now 1.3, so has increased 30%.

imagine you had 1 cake, and your pal also had 1 cake. your pal cut his cake into ten pieces. he then gave you 3 of his 10 pieces.

you now have 1.3 cakes. that means your cake total has increased by 30%.

edited to add: no, it’s not a nonsense statistic. the mortality rate has indeed increased by 30%, if this 0.3 increase is correct.

or in other words, 30% more people die after being infected.

But that doesn't make sense when you use a total figure.

An increase from 10 - 13 as quoted is not a 30 percent increase per 1000. It's a .3 increase.

Otherwise what is the point in using the figure of 1000.

If you have 1000 pieces of cake and go from having 10 to 13 pieces , you are getting 30% more than before but you aren't getting 30% more of the total cake.

Which is where the nonsensical stat comes into play.

Because if it was every 10 people in that age group have died then the 30% would be applicable. But if you use a base number as In the 1000 in this case , you are only increasing to the ratio of that figure.

Otherwise it's two different things. If there is 10 pieces of cake and you have 1, but get another piece. You get an increase of 100% of cake but have only gained 10% of cake extra from the total amount of cake.

Ergo , if 10 in 1000 (1%) increase to 13 in a thousand , that's now become (1.3%).

 

[Mitz]

But that doesn't make sense when you use a total figure.

An increase from 10 - 13 as quoted is not a 30 percent increase per 1000. It's a .3 increase.

Otherwise what is the point in using the figure of 1000.

If you have 1000 pieces of cake and go from having 10 to 13 pieces , you are getting 30% more than before but you aren't getting 30% more of the total cake.

Which is where the nonsensical stat comes into play.

Because if it was every 10 people in that age group have died then the 30% would be applicable. But if you use a base number as In the 1000 in this case , you are only increasing to the ratio of that figure.

Otherwise it's two different things. If there is 10 pieces of cake and you have 1, but get another piece. You get an increase of 100% of cake but have only gained 10% of cake extra from the total amount of cake.

Ergo , if 10 in 1000 (1%) increase to 13 in a thousand , that's now become (1.3%).

1 x 1000

1.5 x 1500

2 x 2000

1.3 x 1300

The difference between 1 and 1.3 is 300. 300 out of 1000 is 30%. 1.3 is 30% more than 1.

 

[SirLugg]

i do agree it’s a farce. but i’m not sure with this they ca. have absolute facts. only statistics, from which they can extrapolate. and i think it’s better they tell us that it looks more fatal than not tell us. they’d get criticised for that just as much.

i’m the first to criticise these incompetent cretins, but i don’t think warning the public about the new strange potentially being more fatal, when it looks like it probably is, is really that worthy of criticism.

Fully agreed mate.


But yeah, they’re fucking abysmal at taking into account how all this shit will be received and Definitely need to work on the way they present things.

 

[zouzounaki]

But that doesn't make sense when you use a total figure.

An increase from 10 - 13 as quoted is not a 30 percent increase per 1000. It's a .3 increase.

Otherwise what is the point in using the figure of 1000.

If you have 1000 pieces of cake and go from having 10 to 13 pieces , you are getting 30% more than before but you aren't getting 30% more of the total cake.

Which is where the nonsensical stat comes into play.

Because if it was every 10 people in that age group have died then the 30% would be applicable. But if you use a base number as In the 1000 in this case , you are only increasing to the ratio of that figure.

Otherwise it's two different things. If there is 10 pieces of cake and you have 1, but get another piece. You get an increase of 100% of cake but have only gained 10% of cake extra from the total amount of cake.

Ergo , if 10 in 1000 (1%) increase to 13 in a thousand , that's now become (1.3%).

a percentage difference is per hundred. it’s can’t be anything else because that is what percent means.

you are trying to add two different things as though they are the same. nobody is saying the mortality rate may have risen TO 30% in this group; what they are saying is that may have risen BY 30%. from 10% to 13%. 3 is 30% of 10.

so that means 30% of the previous mortality rate, not 30% of cases.

 

[zouzounaki]

Fully agreed mate.


But yeah, they’re fucking abysmal at taking into account how all this shit will be received and Definitely need to work on the way they present things.

totally agree on that one. their communication is abysmal.

so @oldhippydude ’s link suggests that maybe it was premature to share this, as well.

 

[andipandi]

If anyone fancies a read;

SAGE meeting date: 21/01/2021

Paper title: NERVTAG note on B.1.1.7 severity

Author(s): Peter Horby, Catherine Huntley, Nick Davies, John Edmunds, Neil Ferguson, Graham Medley, Andrew Hayward, Muge Cevik, Calum Semple

https://assets.publishing.service.g...paper_on_variant_of_concern__VOC__B.1.1.7.pdf

 

[Enoch]

1 x 1000

1.5 x 1500

2 x 2000

1.3x 1300

The difference between 1 and 1.3 is 300. 300 out of 1000 is 30%. 1.3 is 30% more than 1.

But the bottom figure doesn't increase ?

Otherwise there is no end to the figures. You could end up saying it's 100% more deadly because it's 2 to 2000 by increasing that figure

 

[Badboybez]

It's all very well Dr Death, Dr Doom and Johnson coming out with might be's or could be's, they need to back it up quickly with the relevant scientific and medical data. Put my missus in a right tiz, and she is far from alone in that, many people are quite literally looking at the end of their rope, mental health wise.

Quite agree mate.

Slightly off topic, but there is another thing that annoys the fuck out of me about the government briefings is that you never know when they are going to be shown on television.
How on earth can you expect people to listen to, and abide by information, recommendations, and rules, if you do not tell them in advance when they will be broadcast !
For example, the only reason I know there was one yesterday was because there were a couple of clips from it on Sky news in the early hours of the morning. So I only saw maybe 10% of the broadcast.

It cracked me up last week, or the week before, when I was watching the lunchtime news on Sky, the presenter said "we have been told there is a government broadcast later today, but no one has told us at what time, who will be on it, or what it will be about"

Very informative.

 

[Mitz]

But the bottom figure doesn't increase ?

Otherwise there is no end to the figures. You could end up saying it's 100% more deadly because it's 2 to 2000 by increasing that figure

What do you mean the bottom figure doesn't increase? You're confusing me now.

1 is a whole of anything.

1 = 1 whole. 1.3 is adding on 1/3rd. One and a third. 1 and .3 = 1.3

If something is 100% more deadly than it goes from 1 to 2 with two being double of 1. 2 is 100% more than 1 as it's twice the amount of the figure used to represent 1 basically 100% more.

 

[zouzounaki]

But the bottom figure doesn't increase ?

Otherwise there is no end to the figures. You could end up saying it's 100% more deadly because it's 2 to 2000 by increasing that figure

that would be correct. if a death rate increased from one/anything to two/anything, it would be a 100% increase.