Current Affairs

[oldbluefox]

I once worked with somebody called Zoe. She seemed to think she knew everything so maybe it's her. I wouldn't trust anything she said.

[Gill W]

I think the short answer is that if the actual figures don't support someone's back of an envelope predictions they'll search for any reason to explain why it's not good news.

Whereas others, including me, take ALL available information into account. I'm not sure if you have taken the time to read the weekly report that I do for Towny, but there was no ''explaining why it's not good news'. I said it was too early to draw conclusions.

What conclusion do you draw from the available information as follows

UK Gov - Positive Tests down

R Rate - over 1
ONS - 1 in 75 have Covid, increased from 1 in 95 the previous week
Zoe figures increased (nationally)

Incidentally - the calculations I did last weekend were illustrations of how numbers become big quickly, if the virus doubles - I did make this clear
llast week - they are not predictions

Also since I had never heard about Zoe until Merv mentioned it who decided it was so trusted?

Merv has mentioned it several times, it seems it's his go to app, so it's trusted by him. No body has ever queried it before so there was no reason to belief that the app wasn't trusted on this forum.

[Quizzical Bob]

If the positive tests have decreased then the R rate should be less than 1.0

Anyway, I’m not sure that a reduction in infections is a good thing. The sooner it burns through the unvaccinated young the better.

[oldbluefox]

Merv has mentioned it several times, it seems it's his go to app, so it's trusted by him. No body has ever queried it before so there was no reason to belief that the app wasn't trusted on this forum.

I see. So if Merv trusts Zoe your 'everybody' must also trust it if they don't query it even if nobody has heard of it before. That's cockeyed logic for you.

[david63]

I for one have never fully trusted the data from Zoe - it has a tendancy to be a bit erratic at times. But I do use it in conjunction with other data to gain an overall understanding of the situation.

[Mervyn and Trish]

If we use a conservative estimate of 14 days for doubling time, we will be at 100000 cases a day by the end of the month. Therefore 500 deaths a day by the end of August. Or 3500 a week. Or 15000 a month.

That's what you said last week. In fact cases have gone down. They've now got to almost treble in 7 days to hit your "conservative" estimate.

Do you never admit you got it wrong? Your back of an envelope sums aren't even that. They're guess work.

Of course you're entitled to do that, as are the rest of us.

But I'd rather put my faith in the doctors, scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, professors who know more about it than any of us and are advising the government.

Carry on guessing. But when you get it wrong don't try to explain it away. Just hold your hand up and be happy for the moment it's not as bad as you feared. Who knows it could get worse again. Much worse. But you don't know that any more than I know it won't.

[Gill W]

Mervyn, I said in the very post that you are quoting from that it was where we COULD be in a few weeks. it was an illustration. Not a prediction.

I also said in a later post that I hoped it didn't anywhere near the massive figures.

If you check my post on Friday afternoon with the updated weekly figures (which I doubt if you've read yet) you'll notice I said it was a relief that the figures had stopped rising so fast.

I really don't know what you want. You don't like it when I talk about the future, yet you also don't like it if I speak about something that has happened if I haven't referenced it in the past, because it's hindsight.

I think you'll find fault with anything I say. Therefore, I'm not discussing this with you any more.

If you respond, you'll just be howling into the ether.

Good evening.

I won't be bothering to post the figures each Friday afternoon either. I don't think anybody is really that interested in reading it, to be honest.

[barney]

I’m not but thanks anyway

[oldbluefox]

Bad news for towny

[towny44]

Mervyn, I said in the very post that you are quoting from that it was where we COULD be in a few weeks. it was an illustration. Not a prediction.

I also said in a later post that I hoped it didn't anywhere near the massive figures.

If you check my post on Friday afternoon with the updated weekly figures (which I doubt if you've read yet) you'll notice I said it was a relief that the figures had stopped rising so fast.

I really don't know what you want. You don't like it when I talk about the future, yet you also don't like it if I speak about something that has happened if I haven't referenced it in the past, because it's hindsight.

I think you'll find fault with anything I say. Therefore, I'm not discussing this with you any more.

If you respond, you'll just be howling into the ether.

Good evening.

I won't be bothering to post the figures each Friday afternoon either. I don't think anybody is really that interested in reading it, to be honest.

Gill, you take trying to wriggle off the hook to whole new dimension, my understanding of your post was identical to Merv's and I suspect many others on here thought exactly the same but even if they all post similar messages I feel sure you will find further devious ways to try and prove we misunderstood.

[Kendhni]

I have always said some people on this board seem to struggle with comprehension or are deliberately acting stupid.

I thought Gills post 11154 was quite clear that it was "back of the envelope maths" based on "If we" assumptions that highlighted "where we could be" and the numbers should not be taken literally. In fact barring one slight 'typo' I really don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

As I replied to Gill at the time (post 11189), I thought it was worst possible case based on the spread of the virus during lockdowns 1 and 2 and, as both QB and I said, the vaccines should reduce those numbers significantly. I would have loved to have done a different "back of envelope maths" for comparison but didn't have time to. Typically those sniping at the post today also failed to produce any other numbers of their own.

[oldbluefox]

I have always said some people on this board seem to struggle with comprehension or are deliberately acting stupid.

You're right. I think the debate has moved on from post 11154.

[Gill W]

Thank you Ken, you totally got what I was saying.


I’ll be taking a break from the forum for a little while as the level of anger and the accusation of deviousness that was levelled at me last night was too much

Before I go, just in case I subsequently get accused of hindsight, I just want to mention that I am wondering what’s going on with figures for positive cases on the Government website.

About 10 -14 days ago the daily increase was huge, yet it suddenly seems to have dropped back, with no new interventions. I think that the football was fuelling the increase, but it seems slightly unfeasible that it’s dropped so quickly. In view of the record number of pings, it might be expected that testing would surge too, but this doesn’t seem to be happening. This leads me to wonder whether people are not bothering to get test anymore, or doing lateral flow tests and not registering the positive result. This change of behaviour might be because the think it’s over, or because they don’t want to miss out on their holidays.

Before anybody starts again, these are just musings, and not me saying this is definitely happening. It’s got to a point where I feel the need to put a disclaimer on everything I say.

Anyway, see you in a couple of weeks

[Mervyn and Trish]

I have always said some people on this board seem to struggle with comprehension or are deliberately acting stupid.

I thought Gills post 11154 was quite clear that it was "back of the envelope maths" based on "If we" assumptions that highlighted "where we could be" and the numbers should not be taken literally. In fact barring one slight 'typo' I really don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

As I replied to Gill at the time (post 11189), I thought it was worst possible case based on the spread of the virus during lockdowns 1 and 2 and, as both QB and I said, the vaccines should reduce those numbers significantly. I would have loved to have done a different "back of envelope maths" for comparison but didn't have time to. Typically those sniping at the post today also failed to produce any other numbers of their own.

I have no problem with comprehension Ken. That is just like the argument that people who voted for Brexit didn't understand. It's rather more thant some of us are glass half full while others are glass half empty and prefer to cling to the negatives. Personally I also prefer tthe experts to do the numbers.

[Manoverboard]

Personally I also prefer the experts to do the numbers.

Me too.

I just switch off when I think I'm being lectured at by a know it all, especially one who will accept no other opinion than their own.

I can also live without the weekly pronouncement

[david63]

Breaking news - UK will be paying for Covid for decades, say MPs (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57958178)

Well who would have thought that would happen?

[Mervyn and Trish]

That's a real shock. I assumed we would plant a forest of money trees to cover the cost.

In fact I reckon you could substitute the World for the UK in the headline and it would still be true.

[Kendhni]

Breaking news - UK will be paying for Covid for decades, say MPs (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57958178)

Well who would have thought that would happen?

We always read stories that the Conservatives manage the economy better and then I read a story that the conservatives actually borrow a lot more than Labour ... I was surprised it was true. The UK government used £200bn of QE to get it through the 2008 financial crisis and since then under Conservative leadership there has been at least £700bn more QE helping to take UK debt from about £1trillion to £2.2trillion (of which less than £0.4trillion is down to Covid).

In 2010 one paper ran a story that a baby born would automatically inherit approx £15K debt ... after 10 years of skillful Tory handling of the economy, including several years of make believe 'austerity', a baby born today will inherit about £33K debt (with COVID accounting for less than 20% of that).

the older generations need to wake up and stop being so selfish. Putting their children and grand children in that amount of debt - COVID is an exception, the other 80% is purely greed.

[Frank Manning]

Breaking news - UK will be paying for Covid for decades, say MPs (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57958178)

Well who would have thought that would happen?

the older generations need to wake up and stop being so selfish. Putting their children and grand children in that amount of debt - COVID is an exception, the other 80% is purely greed.

I'm not sure what your point is Ken?

[Frank Manning]

Thank you Ken, you totally got what I was saying.


I’ll be taking a break from the forum for a little while as the level of anger and the accusation of deviousness that was levelled at me last night was too much

Before I go, just in case I subsequently get accused of hindsight, I just want to mention that I am wondering what’s going on with figures for positive cases on the Government website.


Anyway, see you in a couple of weeks

Enjoy your break Gill. I know how you feel. I only look occasionally these days, because I seem to be living in a different universe to most of my fellow members of this forum. Hey ho, and on we go.

[Kendhni]

I'm not sure what your point is Ken?

I am not sure how to answer this. The point is quite simply we are living way beyond our means in a make believe world of plenty and magic money trees while simply pushing OUR debt onto the next generation - and then some have the audacity to call the next generation the snowflakes and try to push the blame for many things onto them.

Since 2008 we have been manufacturing pretend money and even had a period of pretend 'austerity' while running up more and more debt. At what point do we say 'no more' and start living in our means.

[Quizzical Bob]

@Kendhni

This borrowing is for the benefit of society as a whole. Blaming the old for it is a strange way of looking at things.

[Mervyn and Trish]

The debt continued to mount because the last Labour government left the revenue account heavily in the red so the capital continued to be eroded. Had the austerity you consider pretend been sufficiently harsh to balance the revenue account overnight it would have made your eyes water. Think the nautical analogy of a supertanker. If the previous incompetent captain has been racing at full speed many miles will have been covered before the replacement cautious captain brings it to a halt.

[Manoverboard]

Many of those selfish old bu**rs, it should be remembered, contribute handsomely to the coffers of the Inland Revenue

[Mervyn and Trish]

That's true. Even with my latest health adventures I'm confident I've paid in a lot more than I've had out.