6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Some more mathematical modelling "we estimate that" x number of cases were prevented.

 

Not really convincing.

I'm with you, I detest mathematical models as there are so many caveats that could change the predictions but unfortunately until this is all over then mathematical models based on the evidence at hand to make predictions are all that any government has. This one shows the benefits of Lockdowns and other measures, would be usefull to also see a peer reviewed study on the benefits of herd immunity as a comparison.

1 hour ago, utalkin2me said:

Flu global annual estimated deaths (high end quoted from a study): 650,000

Up to 650,000. You’re taking the very highest number (why not say 290,000 or the mid point between them?) it can be over a whole year and most importantly those flu deaths are worked out in a completely different way.
 

What will happen when the same researchers use the same methodology and make calculations on the numbers of Covid deaths that are triple (or more) the day to day count? Because that will occur.

 

it’s not a flu.

 

you made up figures from Sweden and now you’re twisting this because your anger/annoyance at the economic issues makes you blind to rational arguments about the severity of the virus.
 

 

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm with you, I detest mathematical models as there are so many caveats that could change the predictions but unfortunately until this is all over then mathematical models based on the evidence at hand to make predictions are all that any government has. This one shows the benefits of Lockdowns and other measures, would be usefull to also see a peer reviewed study on the benefits of herd immunity as a comparison.

But they're not making predictions, they're looking at the past. Rather than actually identify and test they claim that they can estimate based on this and that that x number of infections were prevented.

 

It's a bit of a reach. It's interesting. But they're just estimating. Reminds me of Neil Ferguson.

1 hour ago, utalkin2me said:

Once again, go listen to the only guy who has been right with his numbers, Michael Levitt.

I’ve watched 2 long videos with Michael Levitt and find him very convincing. But has he published something where he actually shows his predictions in detail? The videos I have seen, he spends time talking about how he is correct but doesn’t go into particular detail.

18 minutes ago, Logosone said:

But they're not making predictions, they're looking at the past. Rather than actually identify and test they claim that they can estimate based on this and that that x number of infections were prevented.

 

It's a bit of a reach. It's interesting. But they're just estimating. Reminds me of Neil Ferguson.

I didn't actually say the study was making predictions, the governments or decision makers would make predictions based on the study as to what measures to put in place in the future, the full peer review files are there which contain a long list of experts who provide feedback. However as mentioned any study for or against lockdowns or for or against Herd immunity will always have if's and estimations simply because its not over yet. 

 

Rather than the Michael Levitt approach which has no study to examine just his own opinions

49 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I'm now just wondering what's going to go on the longest; Covid or this thread?

An anonymous Italian doctor has firmly stated that "This thread will long outlast the Covid XYZ virus" whilst a spokesperson for the Imperial College disagrees and has riposted that "the thread should sputter out as soon as herd immunity spreads throughout the social media community causing their keypads to lock down"

 

Goodness only knows..????

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

...

Rather than the Michael Levitt approach which has no study to examine just his own opinions

Are you saying that Nobel-prize winner Michael Levitt just spouted his opinions without any data analysis studies done to underpin his predictions?

If so he must have a formidable Crystal Ball.

Just now, ravip said:

On 5/16/2020 at 2:58 PM, Bob A Kneale said:

What did Sweden do?

Sweden is famously one of the few countries to have opted against a lockdown to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20200517-sweden-s-covid-19-strategy-has-caused-an-amplification-of-the-epidemic

Ok, I see, they kept their deaths down to 4,600-odd.  Pretty good compared to a lot of Europe.

1 minute ago, Peter Denis said:

Are you saying that Nobel-prize winner Michael Levitt just spouted his opinions without any data analysis studies done to underpin his predictions?

If so he must have a formidable Crystal Ball.

I have no doubt he did some data analysis, at least I hope so, but therein lies the problem, its not published anywhere so that critical analysis can be made by other experts.

 

30 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Are you saying that Nobel-prize winner Michael Levitt just spouted his opinions without any data analysis studies done to underpin his predictions?

If so he must have a formidable Crystal Ball.

So rumour has it.

26 minutes ago, Bob A Kneale said:

Ok, I see, they kept their deaths down to 4,600-odd.  Pretty good compared to a lot of Europe.

Not on a per capita basis, which sees Sweden higher than these for example(s): 

 

France, Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Romania, Finland, Hungary and Norway. 

Just now, nauseus said:

Just now, Bob A Kneale said:

Ok, I see, they kept their deaths down to 4,600-odd.  Pretty good compared to a lot of Europe.

Not on a per capita basis, which sees Sweden higher than these for example(s): 

 

France, Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Romania, Finland, Hungary and Norway. 

On an actual number of deaths basis, they did comparatively well, and the actual number of deaths is what counts.

3 minutes ago, Bob A Kneale said:

On an actual number of deaths basis, they did comparatively well, and the actual number of deaths is what counts.

Maybe that's because Sweden has a relatively low number of actual Swedes with a low actual population density?

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Rather than the Michael Levitt approach which has no study to examine just his own opinions

That's not true actually. Levitt is a specialist in statistical analysis and ran the data on his own software.

 

It wasn't just opinion, he examined the data as well.

Michael Levitt, a Nobel laureate and Stanford biophysicist, began analyzing the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide in January and correctly calculated that China would get through the worst of its coronavirus outbreak long before many health experts had predicted.

 

Levitt, who received the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry for developing complex models of chemical systems analyzed data from 78 countries that reported more than 50 new cases of COVID-19 every day and sees “signs of recovery” in many of them. He’s not focusing on the total number ofcases in a country, but on the number of new cases identified every day — and, especially, on the change in that number from one day to the next.

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate

4 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

That is convenient, as usual. I am talking about deaths, and you put a figure up about cases. 

 

Doctors have been noting case loads are not as they were initially. Meaning even infected have much less of the virus now. You cannot compare a case today to a case two months ago, there is a big difference. There is a natural tapering of this virus, lockdowns have little effect. Once again, go listen to the only guy who has been right with his numbers, Michael Levitt. And Go ahead and learn this for yourself in "2-4 weeks". I am glad I could have been of some service to your knowledge base and understanding of such a complex system. 

 

Deaths is the only figure to look at. I wonder why you would pull up cases? Oh, because it gives you a hope and a prayer of your argument having a chance? 

That's good news. So my guess is there are more younger people contracting the disease, and yes most (nearly all) recover.  It's a sensible strategy to protect the old. Among young people covid19 is certainly little worse than flu.  But, with elderly people it has the power to turn in to a lethal disease.

Now it is being reported by studies and by the WHO that the risk of asymptomatic carriers infecting others is very rare. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931984

 

What more is it going to take to wake everyone up a bit faster? Asymptomatic transmission is the entire reason for lockdowns. 

3 hours ago, chessman said:

Up to 650,000. You’re taking the very highest number (why not say 290,000 or the mid point between them?) it can be over a whole year and most importantly those flu deaths are worked out in a completely different way.
 

What will happen when the same researchers use the same methodology and make calculations on the numbers of Covid deaths that are triple (or more) the day to day count? Because that will occur.

 

it’s not a flu.

 

you made up figures from Sweden and now you’re twisting this because your anger/annoyance at the economic issues makes you blind to rational arguments about the severity of the virus.
 

 

No, it's not the flu.  In fact in its worst form it's a killer.  It's just that for nearly all younger people it's probably not much different from a summer cold, or mild flu if they get it bad.

1 minute ago, utalkin2me said:

Now it is being reported by studies and by the WHO that the risk of asymptomatic carriers infecting others is very rare. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931984

 

What more is it going to take to wake everyone up a bit faster? Asymptomatic transmission is the entire reason for lockdowns. 

It's a major new twist. Asymptomatic carriers were also the, it now turns out false, justification for requiring everyone to wear a mask.

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

That's not true actually. Levitt is a specialist in statistical analysis and ran the data on his own software.

 

It wasn't just opinion, he examined the data as well.

Good to know would be nice to also see it so it could be tested by other experts in the field.

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It's a major new twist. Asymptomatic carriers were also the, it now turns out false, justification for requiring everyone to wear a mask.

I never bought in to that one about asymptomatic carriers- it just stands to reason that they are not coughing, sneezing, and spluttering, and its doubtful that they have a high viral load. The only symptom is the mass anxiety that seems to pervade modern life these days.

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I never bought in to that one about asymptomatic carriers- it just stands to reason that they are not coughing, sneezing, and spluttering, and its doubtful that they have a high viral load. The only symptom is the mass anxiety that seems to pervade modern life these days.

Well, it's nice of the WHO to clarify now that the risk of contracting the virus from asymptomatic carriers is nil to extremely unlikely.

 

It's looking better and better.

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Good to know would be nice to also see it so it could be tested by other experts in the field.

As he is careful to point out, Professor Michael Levitt is not an epidemiologist. He’s Professor of Structural Biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, and winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for “the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems.” He’s a numbers guy — as he told us in our interview, his wife says he loves numbers more than her — but then, much of modern science is really about statistics (as his detractors never tire of pointing out, Professor Neil Ferguson is a theoretical physicist by training).

 

https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-19-epidemic-was-never-exponential/

 

I agree though, he should show his data, he probably has somewhere, who knows.

4 hours ago, chessman said:

I’ve watched 2 long videos with Michael Levitt and find him very convincing. But has he published something where he actually shows his predictions in detail? The videos I have seen, he spends time talking about how he is correct but doesn’t go into particular detail.

I watched his interview by John Anderson(AU) and I believe he said he based it on the Diamond Princess primarily. He based the numbers of the total population and the numbers of death since he believed that it would really be impossible for there to be an effective lockdown on the cruise ship. From that, he said that the number of deaths predicted by Neil Ferguson was around to 10 times off. He used this as his basis to come up with his model for how many deaths per country. He believes covid deaths will be the rough equivalent of normal one month's deaths per year per country.  I think he is predicting around 500-1000 deaths per million as the natural death toll of the disease although he thinks it will be more around 500. Lots of interesting stuff in his interviews.

this also is interesting in addition to the new thoughts on asymptomatic spreaders, the WHO are also increasingly ruling out a second wave.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/gqe18u/world_health_organization_considers_a_second_wave/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

20 minutes ago, vermin on arrival said:

I watched his interview by John Anderson(AU) and I believe he said he based it on the Diamond Princess primarily. He based the numbers of the total population and the numbers of death since he believed that it would really be impossible for there to be an effective lockdown on the cruise ship. From that, he said that the number of deaths predicted by Neil Ferguson was around to 10 times off. He used this as his basis to come up with his model for how many deaths per country. He believes covid deaths will be the rough equivalent of normal one month's deaths per year per country.  I think he is predicting around 500-1000 deaths per million as the natural death toll of the disease although he thinks it will be more around 500. Lots of interesting stuff in his interviews.

He took particular issue with Ferguson based on one assumption in his paper:

 

He takes specific issue with the Neil Ferguson paper. “In a footnote to a table it said, assuming exponential growth of 15% for six days. Now I had looked at China and had never seen exponential growth that wasn’t decaying rapidly.”

 

https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-19-epidemic-was-never-exponential/

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

He took particular issue with Ferguson based on one assumption in his paper:

 

He takes specific issue with the Neil Ferguson paper. “In a footnote to a table it said, assuming exponential growth of 15% for six days. Now I had looked at China and had never seen exponential growth that wasn’t decaying rapidly.”

 

https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-19-epidemic-was-never-exponential/

Yes that was also in this interview I mentioned. Also he mentioned that Ferguson's number was about the equivalent of one years deaths for UK so maybe even 12 times off.

Yes.

4 minutes ago, vermin on arrival said:

this also is interesting in addition to the new thoughts on asymptomatic spreaders, the WHO are also increasingly ruling out a second wave.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/gqe18u/world_health_organization_considers_a_second_wave/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

Very interesting.

 

Of course all the models assume SARS Cov 2 is like the flu virus, so 2nd and 3rd wave.

 

That too could be wrong. Unlike the WHO which is always right of course.

1 hour ago, utalkin2me said:

Now it is being reported by studies and by the WHO that the risk of asymptomatic carriers infecting others is very rare. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931984

WHO are already walking this back.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/world/coronavirus-updates.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage#link-452d2061