Bit of a child aren’t you?
Maybe if you weren’t so welded to graph etiquette you might be able to interpret data and put it to use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (99 Viewers)
- Thread starter BackRoomRummermill
- Start date
Bit of a child aren’t you?
Maybe if you weren’t so welded to graph etiquette you might be able to interpret data and put it to use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
It would be a disaster for the club and we would end up losing our best players and having to start from scratch again next season. Considering how many games have been played it’d be fairer to leave it as it is or award a point to every team for each remaining game.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Twitter? Loved what Klopp said and hes correct of course. I think we should have played today and potentially next week depending on how decimated squads were. The season won’t finish now but to think about what we are going to do is too early
Tommo1993
Well-Known Member
Nah, twatbook. I don’t have it but my mrs showed me. We’re top on merit. It wouldn’t be undeserved. Us fans have been through the mill enough. What’s a little more disappointment? I can’t see it being written off but at the same time I wouldn’t put it past them either.
BackRoomRummermill
Well-Known Member
The World Health Organisation has announced that dogs cannot catch Covid-19 . Dogs held previously in quarantine can now be released .
to be clear WHO let the dogs out !
to be clear WHO let the dogs out !
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
I genuinely cannot see the season being made void, it would be against current medical advice leaving efl open to damaging legal action. Leeds, The Baggies and maybe Fulhum would sue the arse of them.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Most West Ham supporters want Karen Brady null and void.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
She's a twat with a history of running not very good teams
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I'm of the same mind. Get this season finished even if it takes until Christmas. Any adjustments, (E.G. shortened season), to kick in next season.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He has hasn’t got anything wrong
it’s not him it’s a team of experts and obviously now sport is ignoring the advice and going it’s own way there will be little choice to replicate across other areas of society anyway - even then what’s actually being proposed isn’t clear and is likely to be large gatherings
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Hahahahaha. Keep spinning buddy.
Sport, and the WHO and the rest of the world.
Terrible leadership in a crisis. Either he was wrong and been shown up by a bunch of ex footballers or he was right and so weak he’s doing what he thinks is wrong because of public opinion. Neither are a great look.
Everyone saying the season won’t be declared void because of legal action. Whatever the outcome there will be clubs who want to take legal action so you can’t use it as justification for an outcome that is in our favour.
The leagues will ensure they are safe from legal action whatever decision they make. Hopefully we see the season out but if that’s not for a few months then the complications start to stack up and there will be more clubs saying write the seasons off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The leagues will ensure they are safe from legal action whatever decision they make. Hopefully we see the season out but if that’s not for a few months then the complications start to stack up and there will be more clubs saying write the seasons off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
The thing is people had of actually listened to what they said it was when and not if they brought in social distancing g measures
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
I'd consider another season in league 1 if liverpool didn't win the league
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
With this and the Brexit negotiations, De Pfeffel Johnson is going to be a disaster.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Most of them aren’t proper fans anyway.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No I haven’t but hey ho
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
It would be a disaster for the club and we’d lose our best players and be relying on St Andrew’s income.
You said Italy has a 22% growth rate when I said ours is ~25%
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Of course this is not influenced by your political opinions - even opposition parties are not exactly saying much are they
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
I wasn't 100 percent serious
Grendel
Well-Known Member
In one day - and that was to look at the effect of their measures ..also the issue with the fact the “graph” is its objective was to make it look like us and Italy are on course for an identical number of cases - and the fact no one is addressing issues with the tracking of death rates. Official cases are an irrelevance anyway. 80% of people getting it won’t even report it
hill83
Well-Known Member
Just read the below on twitter which I found interesting.
1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirusis more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.
2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .
3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.
There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.
4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection
5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.
6. That balance is the big risk.
All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.
7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.
8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.
9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable
10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.
11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will
12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.
13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable
14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.
15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.
1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirusis more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.
2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .
3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.
There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.
4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection
5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.
6. That balance is the big risk.
All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.
7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.
8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.
9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable
10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.
11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will
12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.
13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable
14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.
15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.
Of course the data is full of variables but all you can do is estimate from the official data. As I said the other day this period from dozens of confirmed cases to a thousand is instructive because you’ve gone from a chance to contain it to it being out in the community and growing exponentially.
The point of the graph was to show the start of an exponential curve which is now becoming reality in the U.K. pedantry about the axes is irrelevant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah that’s great except we aren’t the only country on Earth, we have no idea if herd immunity can be built up or if it’ll reinfect or mutate, and it’s based on modelling that assumes no vaccine or better treatments are coming and other countries won’t repeat social exclusion measures.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It wasnt the point of the graph at all it the same way it wasn’t the point of the clown on 5 live last night saying 1 million will die in the uk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No it hasn’t and it is very informative
hill83
Well-Known Member
The problem Italy has is the concentrated area of infection overwhelmed the health service so they were forced to take drastic measures to be fair to them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
That is pretty much spot on what they are trying to achieve