blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 02:50:27 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 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 4 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 177 178 179 180 [181] 182 183 184 185 ... 305 Go Down Print
Author Topic: COVID19  (Read 353769 times)
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #2700 on: June 02, 2020, 10:08:14 AM »

It's the fact that they're trying to sell us "look! all the figures are going down! so easing the lockdown is ok!" whilst footnoting these 400 extra deaths.

I thought it telling the government went through the slides and the figures rather than getting the scientist to do it. Suggests to me there's a conflict there in the scientists would not have span it the way the government want.

Note also the R level was not presented. Nor was the threat level.

I agree, there could be an issue with presentation - it just wasn't that issue

If they added the extra historical deaths to when they happend on the daily bar charts and 7 day rolling average it would increase the previous figures while keeping the current figure the same.

The current figure might be 'upgraded' in a future revision - so adding those revised figures to anything other than just the total might be more misrepresentative than leaving them out it would look like the rate is going down faster than it is.

imo - that is; the way they did it seems liked perfectly good statistics to show an accurate trend. At some point if they are doing it all wrong they won't be able to hide the figures that show it's going wrong
« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 10:10:41 AM 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 #2701 on: June 02, 2020, 10:12:56 AM »


How did they think they’d get this one through? A big number on the day we moved from Alert level 4 to Alert Level 3, with a bit of 1.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1267498210609844224?s=21


If you were going to change the convention for how daily deaths are announced (grossly understated as they are). What would be the motivation for not mentioning that you were doing it?

556 for the U.K, on a day that Spain has had zero.

I’m not happy with the way the revised number was slipped out like a dodgy celeb in dark glasses and a baseball cap. But there weren’t 556 deaths in the day. You can’t run with the post-truth accusations if you are anything other than 100% accurate and truthful yourself.

FWIW I am getting tired of the manipulation of figures and reporting.


Good morning

The daily reported deaths have never been deaths from the previous 24 hours. They established the convention for how they report, they broke that convention and they need to explain why.

I'm a bit confused - he reported the deaths from the previous 24 hours, as they know them on the day.

The 'extra' deaths were the ones that were retrospectively added to a previous weeks total.

Wouldn't they have to change the convention to report those? Because this isn't the first time that they've revised past figures, I don't read all the footnotes all the time but I this is at least the third time previous weeks figures have been revised.

And it's an extra 400ish deaths covering a whole week - so about 60 a day. Why do you think it matters so much?

From a national point of view it doesn't matter if we had 110 or 70 or 200 deaths; what matters is if the trend is up or down or flat.

As I've suggested before, there are dozens of tables, dozens of charts and each one of them could be explained in the daily press conference and every footnote for every chart could be explained - but is that really a constructive use of time? Particularly as this data is all publically available for the journalists to analyse at their leisure anyway.

They have always added historic revisions in to the daily deaths, we have known this for weeks, (I’m a bit surprised if you didn’t know this) this time they didn’t. They could argue that 445 additional deaths yesterday would have been of no interest to anyone and so weren’t worth mentioning, it would be a bold argument to put forward.

The deaths weren't yesterday.

Weren't they a week's worth of deaths?

Do you mean add it to the bar chart/7 day rolling average? Or the actual figure he said? Because adding it to the figure he said would be wrong - as it was a week's worth not the days figures; I don't think they've added a weeks worth of extra deaths onto a daily figure before (have they?)

They have always added the total number of deaths that they have become newly aware of in the previous 24 hrs to their daily deaths announcement. They then additionally publish the actual dates those deaths took place. Yesterday, for the first time, they didn’t say a word about them in the briefing. I wasn’t expecting you to be behind Rick & PP (no offence intended to them, in fact credit to them for calling it how they see it), in tiring of the dishonesty.

There is a (very) different way still available to them. Be completely honest around the key figures, so honest that there’s no room for a suggestion that you’re lying (even if it’s lying by omission). Start with an explanation for yesterday’s deaths announcement and then the number of people tested daily, a figure they claim they haven’t known for 9 days.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #2702 on: June 02, 2020, 10:22:47 AM »


How did they think they’d get this one through? A big number on the day we moved from Alert level 4 to Alert Level 3, with a bit of 1.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1267498210609844224?s=21


If you were going to change the convention for how daily deaths are announced (grossly understated as they are). What would be the motivation for not mentioning that you were doing it?

556 for the U.K, on a day that Spain has had zero.

I’m not happy with the way the revised number was slipped out like a dodgy celeb in dark glasses and a baseball cap. But there weren’t 556 deaths in the day. You can’t run with the post-truth accusations if you are anything other than 100% accurate and truthful yourself.

FWIW I am getting tired of the manipulation of figures and reporting.


Good morning

The daily reported deaths have never been deaths from the previous 24 hours. They established the convention for how they report, they broke that convention and they need to explain why.

I'm a bit confused - he reported the deaths from the previous 24 hours, as they know them on the day.

The 'extra' deaths were the ones that were retrospectively added to a previous weeks total.

Wouldn't they have to change the convention to report those? Because this isn't the first time that they've revised past figures, I don't read all the footnotes all the time but I this is at least the third time previous weeks figures have been revised.

And it's an extra 400ish deaths covering a whole week - so about 60 a day. Why do you think it matters so much?

From a national point of view it doesn't matter if we had 110 or 70 or 200 deaths; what matters is if the trend is up or down or flat.

As I've suggested before, there are dozens of tables, dozens of charts and each one of them could be explained in the daily press conference and every footnote for every chart could be explained - but is that really a constructive use of time? Particularly as this data is all publically available for the journalists to analyse at their leisure anyway.

They have always added historic revisions in to the daily deaths, we have known this for weeks, (I’m a bit surprised if you didn’t know this) this time they didn’t. They could argue that 445 additional deaths yesterday would have been of no interest to anyone and so weren’t worth mentioning, it would be a bold argument to put forward.

The deaths weren't yesterday.

Weren't they a week's worth of deaths?

Do you mean add it to the bar chart/7 day rolling average? Or the actual figure he said? Because adding it to the figure he said would be wrong - as it was a week's worth not the days figures; I don't think they've added a weeks worth of extra deaths onto a daily figure before (have they?)

They have always added the total number of deaths that they have become newly aware of in the previous 24 hrs to their daily deaths announcement. They then additionally publish the actual dates those deaths took place. Yesterday, for the first time, they didn’t say a word about them in the briefing. I wasn’t expecting you to be behind Rick & PP (no offence intended to them, in fact credit to them for calling it how they see it), in tiring of the dishonesty.

There is a (very) different way still available to them. Be completely honest around the key figures, so honest that there’s no room for a suggestion that you’re lying (even if it’s lying by omission). Start with an explanation for yesterday’s deaths announcement and then the number of people tested daily, a figure they claim they haven’t known for 9 days.

Okay, I think I get what you mean now, it relates a lot to CF's point about the presentation. It was a bit confusing the way you said it, because it seemed a lot like you were saying they should say that over 500 people died in one day, when even allowing for future upward revisions it's going to be in the 100-200 range.

If you mean they didn't overtly point out the total figure had been revised then fair enough. But they have done before, and the figure is right there. You'd hope at some point the journalists wouldn't need every detail explained to them and could just understand it without  - but it's possible they were relying on the media just not bothering to look at one day's figure to the next (?)
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
Cf
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8089



View Profile
« Reply #2703 on: June 02, 2020, 10:46:15 AM »

For me it's about trust. At the beginning of this the majority of people were willing to support the government through this. It was and is in everyone's interest for it to get this right.

Johnson weeks ago gave a televised address to the nation. He showed this new threat level. And how as it goes down we can start easing the lockdown. That they would only take these steps if the conditions were right.

And that just seems to have gone out of the window. What the PM said to us himself only a few weeks ago was seemingly meaningless. They mean to ease the lockdown no matter what and are going back on the things they themselves said to do so. But rather than be straight with us that this is what they're doing they're being underhanded and slimy about it. Tell us that the threat level is still 4 - but that these steps are still appropriate following updated advice. Tell us that R is still very close to 1 but these steps won't push it above. Tell us proper number of deaths. Tell us how many people are being tested. Tell us that despite these things these actions are still the correct way forward. Then maybe people will get behind them.

Instead they are clearly attempting to mislead. Withhold information (lol @ track and trace is going really well but we can't share data just take it from us it's going really well). Going back on what they themselves said without explanation.

It's shambolic.
Logged

Blue text
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #2704 on: June 02, 2020, 10:57:32 AM »

Some people have been negative about everybody connected to the government but to me it seems like the current 'communication problems' they have all seem to have coincided with Boris Johnson coming back.

Even though he hasn't publically done that much himself it seemed like the government were doing so much better when he was off sick.
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
jakally
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2009



View Profile
« Reply #2705 on: June 02, 2020, 10:59:27 AM »


How did they think they’d get this one through? A big number on the day we moved from Alert level 4 to Alert Level 3, with a bit of 1.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1267498210609844224?s=21


If you were going to change the convention for how daily deaths are announced (grossly understated as they are). What would be the motivation for not mentioning that you were doing it?

556 for the U.K, on a day that Spain has had zero.

I’m not happy with the way the revised number was slipped out like a dodgy celeb in dark glasses and a baseball cap. But there weren’t 556 deaths in the day. You can’t run with the post-truth accusations if you are anything other than 100% accurate and truthful yourself.

FWIW I am getting tired of the manipulation of figures and reporting.


Good morning

The daily reported deaths have never been deaths from the previous 24 hours. They established the convention for how they report, they broke that convention and they need to explain why.

I'm a bit confused - he reported the deaths from the previous 24 hours, as they know them on the day.

The 'extra' deaths were the ones that were retrospectively added to a previous weeks total.

Wouldn't they have to change the convention to report those? Because this isn't the first time that they've revised past figures, I don't read all the footnotes all the time but I this is at least the third time previous weeks figures have been revised.

And it's an extra 400ish deaths covering a whole week - so about 60 a day. Why do you think it matters so much?

From a national point of view it doesn't matter if we had 110 or 70 or 200 deaths; what matters is if the trend is up or down or flat.

As I've suggested before, there are dozens of tables, dozens of charts and each one of them could be explained in the daily press conference and every footnote for every chart could be explained - but is that really a constructive use of time? Particularly as this data is all publically available for the journalists to analyse at their leisure anyway.

They have always added historic revisions in to the daily deaths, we have known this for weeks, (I’m a bit surprised if you didn’t know this) this time they didn’t. They could argue that 445 additional deaths yesterday would have been of no interest to anyone and so weren’t worth mentioning, it would be a bold argument to put forward.

The deaths weren't yesterday.

Weren't they a week's worth of deaths?

Do you mean add it to the bar chart/7 day rolling average? Or the actual figure he said? Because adding it to the figure he said would be wrong - as it was a week's worth not the days figures; I don't think they've added a weeks worth of extra deaths onto a daily figure before (have they?)

They have always added the total number of deaths that they have become newly aware of in the previous 24 hrs to their daily deaths announcement. They then additionally publish the actual dates those deaths took place. Yesterday, for the first time, they didn’t say a word about them in the briefing. I wasn’t expecting you to be behind Rick & PP (no offence intended to them, in fact credit to them for calling it how they see it), in tiring of the dishonesty.

There is a (very) different way still available to them. Be completely honest around the key figures, so honest that there’s no room for a suggestion that you’re lying (even if it’s lying by omission). Start with an explanation for yesterday’s deaths announcement and then the number of people tested daily, a figure they claim they haven’t known for 9 days.

Okay, I think I get what you mean now, it relates a lot to CF's point about the presentation. It was a bit confusing the way you said it, because it seemed a lot like you were saying they should say that over 500 people died in one day, when even allowing for future upward revisions it's going to be in the 100-200 range.

If you mean they didn't overtly point out the total figure had been revised then fair enough. But they have done before, and the figure is right there. You'd hope at some point the journalists wouldn't need every detail explained to them and could just understand it without  - but it's possible they were relying on the media just not bothering to look at one day's figure to the next (?)

Kush is right, they have changed the convention somewhere along the line if the didn't report a larger number of deaths for yesterday.
The people presenting the statistics early on were always at pains to point out that these weren't necessarily deaths from the previous day, but just those confirmed / reported within the previous 24 hours.
Logged
jakally
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2009



View Profile
« Reply #2706 on: June 02, 2020, 11:02:12 AM »

Some people have been negative about everybody connected to the government but to me it seems like the current 'communication problems' they have all seem to have coincided with Boris Johnson coming back.

Even though he hasn't publically done that much himself it seemed like the government were doing so much better when he was off sick.

I have no idea whether Boris being around has had a negative effect, but it is without question been a more complicated scenario since then.
'Stay at home, have lots of free money' was easy. Trying to get us out of it is much more difficult & open to interpretation & criticism.
Logged
nirvana
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7804



View Profile
« Reply #2707 on: June 02, 2020, 11:24:49 AM »

Good trend in the death numbers, testing scaled up massively, track and trace being put in place:

Government has been poor at keeping it simple, stupid to over-claim at times, and indulged people too much with detail that is readily available elsewhere.

Should just publish this and their estimate of the R0 number - once a week should be fine

 Click to see full-size image.
Logged

sola virtus nobilitat
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #2708 on: June 02, 2020, 11:32:51 AM »

Some people have been negative about everybody connected to the government but to me it seems like the current 'communication problems' they have all seem to have coincided with Boris Johnson coming back.

Even though he hasn't publically done that much himself it seemed like the government were doing so much better when he was off sick.

I’m not sure the first paragraph is right. I’d like to think I am more anti right wing, populist, nationalistic, dishonest, ineffective governments than most but even have I praised the furlough scheme twice and Rishi, Raab and at least once each in the thread.

It would be wrong imo, to heap too much of the blame on Boris here. They have the fundamentals nearly all wrong, Cummings is likely to be at least equally responsible for that, I don’t think Boris is a sufficiently capable man to be making that many operational calls. The evidence is more that he set the tone of the approach, which was all wrong, something like this:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-britain-must-become-the-superman-of-global-free-trade
The paragraph that begins ‘trade used to double’ and the one after it are Coronavirus specific.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 11:34:23 AM by kukushkin88 » Logged
Archer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1053


View Profile
« Reply #2709 on: June 02, 2020, 11:36:30 AM »

UK Statistics Authority and a letter to Hancock with  issues regarding the reporting of data.

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/sir-david-norgrove-response-to-matt-hancock-regarding-the-governments-covid-19-testing-data/
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #2710 on: June 02, 2020, 11:38:14 AM »


Thanks for this 👍
Logged
nirvana
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7804



View Profile
« Reply #2711 on: June 02, 2020, 11:42:34 AM »


Agree wholeheartedly with this - the way tests have been presented to just make numbers look big has been a pathetic response to pressure and this letter points out the shortcomings very well.

Test capacity increases have been quite an achievement given the limited way they set out on this but it's a bit like having all the gear and no idea
Logged

sola virtus nobilitat
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #2712 on: June 02, 2020, 11:43:05 AM »

It doesn’t matter obviously but for accuracy, in my last reply to JMW, it looks like it was actually Hancock I praised once, not Raab. Feeling a bit silly now for being naive enough to have done that.
Logged
Cf
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8089



View Profile
« Reply #2713 on: June 02, 2020, 11:57:05 AM »

It doesn’t matter obviously but for accuracy, in my last reply to JMW, it looks like it was actually Hancock I praised once, not Raab. Feeling a bit silly now for being naive enough to have done that.

I'd be shocked if Raab can tie his own shoe laces.
Logged

Blue text
RickBFA
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001


View Profile
« Reply #2714 on: June 02, 2020, 12:02:42 PM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52890515

ONS numbers reported this morning, includes excess death numbers
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 177 178 179 180 [181] 182 183 184 185 ... 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 0.248 seconds with 21 queries.