blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 11:20:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272483 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  COVID19
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 ... 305 Go Down Print
Author Topic: COVID19  (Read 354089 times)
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1860 on: April 29, 2020, 08:04:13 PM »

Anyway, Kuku it's not about judgement, we were talking about bias. There are so many known unknowns in this whole thing that our biases (and other aspects of our characters) inform the view we take on Government performance during this crisis.

So, we could both make a judgement that if we'd locked down sooner it is probable that fewer people would have died to date. Our judgement would be the same but our perspectives on whether locking down sooner could reasonably have been expected or would have been desirable would probably be different.

Good shout šŸ‘
Logged
Woodsey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15846



View Profile
« Reply #1861 on: April 29, 2020, 08:09:15 PM »

Anyway, Kuku it's not about judgement, we were talking about bias. There are so many known unknowns in this whole thing that our biases (and other aspects of our characters) inform the view we take on Government performance during this crisis.

So, we could both make a judgement that if we'd locked down sooner it is probable that fewer people would have died to date. Our judgement would be the same but our perspectives on whether locking down sooner could reasonably have been expected or would have been desirable would probably be different.

Trust me....if we locked down sooner it would just be a different whine about fking the economy or something else......either way there would be a whine about the govt making a mess of things you can be 100% sure of that.
Logged
DungBeetle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4925


View Profile
« Reply #1862 on: April 29, 2020, 08:21:58 PM »

...
Kush, Just out of interest and itā€™s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I think Iā€™ve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.

In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.

Kush - you know a bias is a prejudice right?

So if you're saying your bias is based on "I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government" you're saying that you don't think that's an objective opinion(?)

"I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany. "

Is closer - a more realistic description might be you're biased against anything you think doesn't lead to a more equitable society - primarily anything the Tories do          :p

I guess I was simplifying the language for the purpose of responding to PP. Youā€™re quite right to correct me. I donā€™t believe there is any bias in my belief that the governance of this country has been getting progressively worse since around 2012. Same for my view that having a populist government, led a by a clown who believes in English exceptionalism, was unfortunate timing for this crisis.

Iā€™m not the biggest fan of Boris but calling him ā€œa clownā€ demonstrates your bias even though you donā€™t believe itā€™s a biased view.

Youā€™ve bought the act, hook line and sinker. He plays up to that image and ensures he is underestimated by opponents.

My view is a bit more complicated than that, I havenā€™t bought his act at all. I usually call him ā€˜the clown showā€™, this was just the abbreviated version. Calling him a clown is just being a bit charitable, he should be and usually is, called a lot worse.

My feelings about Boris are objective, my choice of words sometimes leave room for improvement. An incompetent liar who believes in little Englander exceptionalism would be a more accurate and therefore better way to describe him. Letā€™s not make it about what I think of Boris though. As I say, whatever you think of biases I might have, my judgement on this issue has been sound, the last 6 weeks of the thread are an interesting reread.

Lol
Logged
Marky147
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22796



View Profile
« Reply #1863 on: April 29, 2020, 08:33:51 PM »

I always think my judgement is good... Then I crash my mobility scooter driving back to the Cosmo, end up breaking my glasses, and need help picking the scooter up off the deck Cheesy

Smiley

Anyone seen lolrron? It's been a while.

Probably trying to get his week in the 'rife upgraded to a fortnight in Vegas, for free.
Logged

Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1864 on: April 29, 2020, 09:08:24 PM »

...
 The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext



Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?

which is in that study published 27th April 2020

As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.

I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)

When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on ā€œscientific evidenceā€, they didnā€™t have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.

But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.

That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?

Just to check youā€™re saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youā€™re also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?

They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.

You said, "The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."

The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.

Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.

So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?

Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2020, 09:11:25 PM by Jon MW » Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1865 on: April 29, 2020, 09:27:16 PM »

...
 The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext



Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?

which is in that study published 27th April 2020

As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.

I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)

When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on ā€œscientific evidenceā€, they didnā€™t have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.

But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.

That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?

Just to check youā€™re saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youā€™re also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?

They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.

You said, "The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."

The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.

Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.

So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?

Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.

It was a peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence, the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itā€™s a huge stretch to call that evidence. There was no way they could have had relevant evidence at that point. They did specifically say ā€œscientific evidenceā€, which is a clumsy term but what they had is really struggling to pass any test to be called that.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1866 on: April 29, 2020, 09:37:18 PM »

...
 The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext



Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?

which is in that study published 27th April 2020

As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.

I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)

When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on ā€œscientific evidenceā€, they didnā€™t have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.

But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.

That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?

Just to check youā€™re saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youā€™re also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?

They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.

You said, "The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."

The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.

Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.

So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?

Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.

It was a peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence, the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itā€™s a huge stretch to call that evidence. There was no way they could have had relevant evidence at that point. They did specifically say ā€œscientific evidenceā€, which is a clumsy term but what they had is really struggling to pass any test to be called that.

I'm still confused.

The Imperial team used the data available at the time, comparison with previous epidemics and their skills and experience to assess the most likely options.

A peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence suggests that the option they thought most likely in terms of children was indeed likely to be the case.


I guess in science if you have a hypothesis, test it and get a positive result the positive result at the end is technically progress from having the initial hypothesis but still don't see how much confirming the hypothesis really helps in any practical sense.


"... the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itā€™s a huge stretch to call that evidence..."
Apart from they had the data about the disease from China when they did the modelling in February, and the data they had about the disease from China and Italy when they revised the model half way through March.

The disease started at the end of 2019 - The end of 2019 up to the middle of March is a pretty substantial amount of data.

It didn't have extensive analysis like that paper - but that's a lot of raw data.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1867 on: April 29, 2020, 09:43:22 PM »

To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.

Epidemiologists make extensive studies of  (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.

Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1868 on: April 29, 2020, 09:53:15 PM »

...
 The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext



Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?

which is in that study published 27th April 2020

As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.

I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)

When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on ā€œscientific evidenceā€, they didnā€™t have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.

But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.

That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?

Just to check youā€™re saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youā€™re also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?

They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.

You said, "The issue that was discussed over ā€˜evidenceā€™ for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."

The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.

Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.

So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?

Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.

It was a peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence, the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itā€™s a huge stretch to call that evidence. There was no way they could have had relevant evidence at that point. They did specifically say ā€œscientific evidenceā€, which is a clumsy term but what they had is really struggling to pass any test to be called that.

I think Iā€™ve thought of a better way to explain, the worldwide scientific community is currently trying to work out the R0 impact of opening/closing schools. Itā€™s a vitally important piece of information and we are still nowhere near having a definitive answer. We didnā€™t have this evidence or anything similar when we were deciding to keep schools open, which was a decision that was in contrast to all our European equivalents.

Looks like more progress:
https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-patient-age.pdf

Hubei and Lombardy closed their schools really early in their outbreaks, so itā€™s not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model, to say we were leaving schools opened based on scientific evidence. Iā€™ll revisit what we know of their model tomorrow and fully recant if Iā€™m misremembering something important.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1869 on: April 29, 2020, 10:01:10 PM »

To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.

Epidemiologists make extensive studies of  (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.

Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.

I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our ā€˜scienceā€™ as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iā€™ll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iā€™ve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day šŸ˜Š.
Logged
Woodsey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15846



View Profile
« Reply #1870 on: April 29, 2020, 10:05:15 PM »

To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.

Epidemiologists make extensive studies of  (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.

Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.

I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our ā€˜scienceā€™ as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iā€™ll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iā€™ve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day šŸ˜Š.

Ohhhhh be quiet.....what are your medical credentials to have any valued opinion on this? Right now you are just a random person with an opinion on the Internet with no credibility......
Logged
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 46912



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1871 on: April 29, 2020, 10:13:23 PM »

To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.

Epidemiologists make extensive studies of  (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.

Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.

I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our ā€˜scienceā€™ as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iā€™ll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iā€™ve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day šŸ˜Š.

Ohhhhh be quiet.....what are your medical credentials to have any valued opinion on this? Right now you are just a random person with an opinion on the Internet with no credibility......


It's OK. This is a poker forum, not The Lancet.
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
Woodsey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15846



View Profile
« Reply #1872 on: April 29, 2020, 10:14:45 PM »

To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.

Epidemiologists make extensive studies of  (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.

Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.

I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our ā€˜scienceā€™ as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iā€™ll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iā€™ve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day šŸ˜Š.

Ohhhhh be quiet.....what are your medical credentials to have any valued opinion on this? Right now you are just a random person with an opinion on the Internet with no credibility......


It's OK. This is a poker forum, not The Lancet.

For Sure.....until people start quoting the lancet and talking like they have some authority on the subject ffs! 
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1873 on: April 29, 2020, 10:15:02 PM »

... so itā€™s not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...


Evidently.

That would be the raw data mentioned.

The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc

It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1874 on: April 29, 2020, 10:26:27 PM »

... so itā€™s not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...


Evidently.

That would be the raw data mentioned.

The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc

It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.

They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic, they said this decision was supported by scientific evidence. The scientific community, even now, is in agreement that we donā€™t have the necessary evidence to make this assessment. I think thatā€™s the closest Iā€™ve come to a decent explanation, Iā€™ve made a dogs dinner of explaining it for sure, itā€™s been a long day by lockdown standards. As I say, Iā€™ll look again at the model and put my hands up if I think Iā€™m wrong.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 ... 305 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.4 seconds with 21 queries.