IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Absolutely Roger.  What many of us have been saying for a very long time is that the stats in this are not accurate nor are they compared to anything to give context or scale.  Similarly, with the number of cases -  of course they will be higher with increased testing and to count positive tests as cases is not consistent with the usual medical view of a case of anything being one that is symptomatic.  Nor is the methodology of gathering stats consistent between countries.

It depends which statistics you use.  The problems with the UK Department of Health ones are to a large extent due to 'political' interference - sometimes directly but more often caused by SpAds and similar trying to make their Ministers look good or civil servants altering things to make themselves feel important.  They are then subject to a lot of spinning in a compliant media which is more interested in telling the stories it wants to than in informing the public of facts[1]. 

There's also the inevitable problems that come with measuring any new phenomenon and with things being defined differently by the different UK nations or even between different hospitals or administrative areas.  As knowledge changes initial rules may be less helpful[2] though changing them then gives discontinuities over time.  But with the right attitude - one that is concerned with trying to get as near as possible to the reality and explain it in as clear and unbiased was as possible - such problems can be minimised.

As ever statistics are a way of trying to deal with the imperfect, so it's no good deciding to abandon things because you're not being 100% accurate - that's the point.  "Try again.  Fail again.  Fail better"  is pretty much how you have to operate.  Giving up and going with uninformed 'gut feelings' is what the spinners want and why they try to undermine the credibility of all the figures being produced.  But it just leads to people spouting off the prejudices they have been fed and what makes them feel good.

And it doesn't mean that there aren't better statistics out there, usually from the professionals who were already dealing with these areas before the Covid outbreak and have extended their coverage for aspects of that.  Obviously they do have some of the problems described above, but they will be open about how they cope with them and experienced in doing so in other situations.

There are several sources that I find reliable in this way.  For example for the official deaths the obvious place to look is the ONS weekly bulletins.  These are based on details from death registrations.  This means that they are not as up to date as the daily figures the DoH issues[3] but they will be based on the details filled in by the doctor who was involved (who won't have taken into account the 28 day rule either way):

Looking at the year-to-date (using the most up-to-date data we have available), the number of deaths up to 25 September 2020 was 453,771, which is 53,888 more than the five-year average. Of the deaths registered by 25 September, 52,856 mentioned COVID-19 on the death certificate, 11.6% of all deaths in England and Wales.

That 52,856 is a lot more than the 'official' government figure, even though it doesn't include Scotland and Northern Ireland and isn't quite up to date.

 

[1]  There are exceptions, notably at the FT whose (outside the paywall) coverage and trackers have been pretty good.  

[2]  I think this what happened with the 'Covid if previous test rule'.  It made sense in March and April and some countries - and I suspect a lot of hospitals or the false allocations would have been a lot higher - automatically altered the rule later.  But some didn't.

[3]  Sometimes a long way behind.  They note in the latest Bulletin: A death of a man aged 80 to 84 years was registered in the week ending 4 September 2020 (Week 36), which occurred in the week ending 31 January 2020 (Week 5). This is the earliest known death involving COVID-19 in the UK.  Also these are themselves a week behind registrations, so the figures issued yesterday are for week ending 25 September

[Declan]

40 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Received an e-mail from the VillaGaiety this morning that basically said Milton Jones is not a key worker.

Failed his locksmith exam.

[Nom de plume]

Gents (Ladies?)

Can we try & focus a little more on statistics, rather than the personal insults & jibes?

I appreciate everyone has their own opinion but even I, a Covid doubter, respect the thoughts of others if they can present a coherent view or data to justify their stance.

[P.K.]

29 minutes ago, Banker said:

The only one who takes themselves seriously is you and one other with equally blinkered opinions.

There has also been a fair amount of nastiness involved.

My opinions are blinkered?

Nice irony.

You've been told umpteen times by different people that the process of entry into the CI's is flawed.

Yet still you won't accept it. Presumably because it doesn't suit your agenda....

[P.K.]

10 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

Gents (Ladies?)

Can we try & focus a little more on statistics, rather than the personal insults & jibes?

I appreciate everyone has their own opinion but even I, a Covid doubter, respect the thoughts of others if they can present a coherent view or data to justify their stance.

What's a "covid doubter"?

Thanks.

[monasqueen]

Someone playing a trump card.

[Nom de plume]

8 minutes ago, P.K. said:

My opinions are blinkered?

Nice irony.

You've been told umpteen times by different people that the process of entry into the CI's is flawed.

Yet still you won't accept it. Presumably because it doesn't suit your agenda....

I think it's fair to say it's flawed in the context that cases could slip through the net but their numbers suggest that even with those slippages, hospital admissions and deaths remain at zero since they reopened their borders using a traffic light policy and continued restrictions.

It still remains the only compromise that can fit the middle ground.

You do accept the figures that the Jersey Government are issuing?

Edited October 7, 2020 by Nom de plume

[Nom de plume]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

What's a "covid doubter"?

Thanks.

Someone that is not entirely convinced by the fear being generated by the mainstream media.

[P.K.]

5 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

I think it's fair to say it's flawed in the context that cases could slip through the net but their numbers suggest that even with those slippages, hospital admissions and deaths remain at zero since they reopened their borders using a traffic light policy and continued restrictions.

It still remains the only compromise that can fit the middle ground.

Self-isolation followed by a test on day 7 is not exactly hardship.

Plus following John's suggesting of a self test two days before travel would avoid a possible three week incarceration.

[Nom de plume]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Self-isolation followed by a test on day 7 is not exactly hardship.

Plus following John's suggesting of a self test two days before travel would avoid a possible three week incarceration.

I'm asking do you accept that Jersey's policy is seemingly working in the context that nobody has died & nobody has been admitted to hospital?

125,000 tests since 1st July.

PS - 7 days + 1 is a hardship as a long term strategy. Not practical at all.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Nom de plume

[P.K.]

30 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

I'm asking do you accept that Jersey's policy is seemingly working in the context that nobody has died & nobody has been admitted to hospital?

125,000 tests since 1st July.

PS - 7 days + 1 is a hardship as a long term strategy. Not practical at all.

Of course.

As long as you accept that they have 30+ active cases.

[Nom de plume]

15 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Of course.

As long as you accept that they have 30+ active cases.

The numbers don’t lie, of course I accept them.

The important numbers are hospital admissions, those that are receiving oxygen via ventilator & sadly deaths recorded.

I’m not seeing that in the Channel Islands.

I will be writing to all our MHKs in the next few days asking for consideration of a Jersey styled model to be adopted early 2021. I urge others to do the same.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Nom de plume

[pongo]

1 hour ago, Nom de plume said:

the mainstream media.

As opposed to the fringe media - unattributed rumour, conspiracy bloggers,  Twitter etc.

[Nom de plume]

2 minutes ago, pongo said:

As opposed to the fringe media - unattributed rumour, conspiracy bloggers,  Twitter etc.

Lots of very incisive & thought provoking articles out there seemingly backed up by medical science that contradicts Project Fear the likes of Sky News purvey.

Open your mind.

[trmpton]

34 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Of course.

As long as you accept that they have 30+ active cases.

I accept that, and would be more than happy to accept 30 cases over here it it me at a move forward and the situation was carefully monitored.

A few cases really don’t scare me anymore than loads of other things.