I read something similar a few months back.
Anyway I’ve stopped kissing that cats with tongues now.
1 Like
If Alok Sharma say’s ‘under review’ again he should be repetitively kicked in the bollocks until he learns not to be such a fucking repetitive twat.
Yep, it’s not the first case. Nothing remotely surprising about it - after all, look where we first caught it… They predictably assert that there is no transmission from felids to us apes, but that will mainly be so yanks don’t shoot all their cats; (sing-along, children!) “Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence”.
I think he has your request under review.
TBF at least he delivers his non answers in quick time. Grant Schnapps is anything but short and talks until they run out of time for a follow up.
General advice masquerading as COVID19 stuff…
Why do none of the excess death charts look like the ones from FT that my friend sent me a week or so ago that appear to show an increase starting a few weeks after restrictions were eased- was this just an artefact?
Because that doesn’t fit the story?
The FT charts use data that are estimated so there is no lag. The ONS data is a week old but contains no estimation error (although it may be subject to revision). So there are, at least*, three potential sources of differences:
- Estimation error
- Timing differences
- Revision noise
The ONS and the FT are above that kind of thing. The FT results can be replicated easily. The ONS are, subject to understanding their definitions and methodology properly, beyond reproach.
EDIT: You are wrong too @HughJanus although ‘the message’ is full of shit, it is not being delivered by the FT or the ONS.
EDIT #2: I added ‘at least’ because there may be correlations between the three factors or indeed other factors that would cause differences. The disparities should diminish unless there is some systematic bias or methodological difference which we’ve not noticed because we only have a short sample of data available and this is relatively complex time series modelling.
You’re far more trusting than us then.
Tell me, how is
Don’t push me cause I’m close to the edge
I’m trying not to lose my head
It’s like a jungle sometimes
It makes me wonder how I keep from goin’ under
full of shit?
Eh? Eh?
THOUGHT SO.
5 Likes
It would be fair to say that I have fuck all faith in anything I’m hearing and/or reading at the moment.
EDIT: I got waaaayyyyyy too deep into squabbles elsewhere. I’ll be stepping away from the keyboard for a short while.
1 Like
The ONS are apolitical and work to established international definitions with their Macroeconomic Data. It is subject to scrutiny from the OECD and World Bank and is verified and audited so I do trust the ONS. Similarly, I’ve looked at the FT stuff, know where the data comes from, and know it can be replicated because we did so for the Royal Society.
You’re verging on tin foil hat territory accusing those lads of fiddling the books. The Govt won’t fiddle the books on deaths either, not because they don’t want to, but because there is a huge Public inquiry coming and they would be caught out immediately. That doesn’t stop them cherry picking the figures (e.g. chose Mondays to comment on low death rates when there is a weekend reporting lag, or only report confirmed by test CV-19 deaths) and massaging the interpretations though. Have a pop at the Govt but leave the proper professionals out of it.
5 Likes
Open the windows and allow the fumes to clear Guy. Consider changing the bong water and giving the bong a quick clean while you at up.
2 Likes
Fair enough
So what’s the answer to the original question?
My son came down with a bad cough Sunday morning. He and his wife are both NHS workers. Tested Monday pm. Results back just now. Both negative.
Phew.
9 Likes
There is a possibility of other issues such as correlations between 1.,2. and 3. in the list and/or any other factors or methodological issues that are hard to detect with a limited sample of data. In the long run the FT data and the ONS should converge as estimation errors are mean zero and revision noise goes to zero by definition with the final vintage of data.
The Govt data is not excess deaths and is graphed on the day the death is announced not recorded, with later revisions for omitted deaths due to recording lags. The ONS and FT is excess deaths on date of death but differ in that the FT estimate the current weeks excess deaths while the ONS report with a lag because of the certification process.
1 Like
That was going to be my next question 
See here: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/
Appears to show the same
5 Likes