• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Frustrated at how so many are misinterpreting or misrepresenting simple arithmetic that shows what doubling a number every 7 days looks like after 4 iterations. It’s not a prediction; it’s not forecasting - there is no uncertainty, it’s simple arithmetic based upon actual data being used to demonstrate a simple fact. How government chooses to interpret and act upon that is up to the government.

How these numbers can be mitigated by the measures recently put in place can be explained; how new measures might also impact upon the growth can also be explained. But all Vallance did yesterday was show a little bit of simple arithmetic that can we used as a baseline for considering and explaining the impact of various restrictions and assumptions applied.

i suspect that if nothing additional was done then the rule of six would decrease the rate of increase from that used in the illustration presented. Bit i also suspect that it will not stop the numbers of daily infections increasing - and so whilst in another four weeks time and doing nothing more from today will not see the 50,000 figure - the doubling will still occur albeit it will take more than 7 days to do so. It’ll therefore just take a bit longer to reach the 50,000 a day figure.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Frustrated at how so many are misinterpreting or misrepresenting simple arithmetic that shows what doubling a number every 7 days looks like after 4 iterations. It’s not a prediction; it’s not forecasting - there is no uncertainty, it’s simple arithmetic based upon actual data being used to demonstrate a simple fact. How government chooses to interpret and act upon that is up to the government.

How these numbers can be mitigated by the measures recently put in place can be explained; how new measures might also impact upon the growth can also be explained. But all Vallance did yesterday was show a little bit of simple arithmetic that can we used as a baseline for considering and explaining the impact of various restrictions and assumptions applied.

i suspect that if nothing additional was done then the rule of six would decrease the rate of increase from that used in the illustration presented. Bit i also suspect that it will not stop the numbers of daily infections increasing - and so whilst in another four weeks time and doing nothing more from today will not see the 50,000 figure - the doubling will still occur albeit it will take more than 7 days to do so. It’ll therefore just take a bit longer to reach the 50,000 a day figure.
Click to expand...

They did choose to go with the scaremonger tactics, there are all sorts of scenarios and they've chosen the worst of the worst cases. We're being put on the same path as France and Spain yet they're figures aren't anywhere close to the extreme prediction put forward yesterday.

Plus, and this might be naïve, why do they keep going on about the NHS being overwhelmed when they weren't last time and we now have the Nightingale hospitals that were left unused? Surely we have considerably more capacity than we did in March plus we also have the social distancing, masks etc that the majority are still keeping to so for me, the chances of the NHS being overwhelmed are slight yet it's being put forward as (in my mind) another scare tactic.
 
Last edited:
road2ruin said:
They did choose to go with the scaremonger tactics, there are all sorts of scenarios and they've chosen the worst of the worst cases. We're being put on the same path as France and Spain yet they're figures aren't anywhere close to the extreme prediction put forward yesterday.

Plus, and this might be naïve, why do they keep going on about the NHS being overwhelmed when they weren't last time and we now have the Nightingale hospitals that were left unused? Surely we have considerably more capacity than we did in March plus we also have the social distancing, masks etc that the majority are still keeping to so for me, the chances of the NHS being overwhelmed are slight yet it's being put forward as (in my mind) another scare tactic.
Click to expand...

They didn't go with scaremonger tactics, they went with facts and some forecasts of what modelling would look like if it followed the same course as current data suggests. The message is simple. If we don't get it together fast, it will get very ugly. You can debate exactly how ugly, fine, just accept that it will be ugly. Likewise if you think that is a price worth paying for economic stability, OK, that is a valid point of view.

The whole point of forecasts is to say this is how bad it can get of we don't do the following. It usually doesn't get that bad because we usually do at least some of the following.

We might have capacity right now, but that reserve can be eaten up fast, the Nightingale hospitals add more beds but not more staff, drugs, oxygen, PPE etc which have to be diverted from elsewhere. The NHS could easily be overwhelmed.
 
One thing I did pick up from the predictions yesterday were they suggested at the current doubling rate we would see 50k new daily infections in October, and that would lead to 200+ daily deaths. Back in April we were seeing 6000+ new cases and up to 1000 deaths. Something doesn't add up there.
 
SaintHacker said:
One thing I did pick up from the predictions yesterday were they suggested at the current doubling rate we would see 50k new daily infections in October, and that would lead to 200+ daily deaths. Back in April we were seeing 6000+ new cases and up to 1000 deaths. Something doesn't add up there.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it 1000 deaths a week and 6000 daily cases? Using that logic both figures wouldn't be a million miles apart.
 
SaintHacker said:
One thing I did pick up from the predictions yesterday were they suggested at the current doubling rate we would see 50k new daily infections in October, and that would lead to 200+ daily deaths. Back in April we were seeing 6000+ new cases and up to 1000 deaths. Something doesn't add up there.
Click to expand...

From what I got from yesterday, this is due to a better understanding of the virus and how to treat it and so cases that previously may have been fatal now stand a chance of being treated.
 
road2ruin said:
They did choose to go with the scaremonger tactics, there are all sorts of scenarios and they've chosen the worst of the worst cases. We're being put on the same path as France and Spain yet they're figures aren't anywhere close to the extreme prediction put forward yesterday.

Plus, and this might be naïve, why do they keep going on about the NHS being overwhelmed when they weren't last time and we now have the Nightingale hospitals that were left unused? Surely we have considerably more capacity than we did in March plus we also have the social distancing, masks etc that the majority are still keeping to so for me, the chances of the NHS being overwhelmed are slight yet it's being put forward as (in my mind) another scare tactic.
Click to expand...
As @Ethan explained. Not scaremongering just illustrating a simple fact based upon doubling every 7 days. And the figure you get from such a simple model has zero uncertainty as it is simple arithmetic. There are things that are in place and things that could be done that might give a slower growth - and around which there WILL be uncertainty in predictions - but what was shown was a fact based baseline for comparison. And if it keeps spreading we WILL reach 50000 a day eventually. But ONLY if it keeps spreading.
 
Last edited:
SaintHacker said:
One thing I did pick up from the predictions yesterday were they suggested at the current doubling rate we would see 50k new daily infections in October, and that would lead to 200+ daily deaths. Back in April we were seeing 6000+ new cases and up to 1000 deaths. Something doesn't add up there.
Click to expand...

The nature of the denominator has changed a bit. A lot of the sickest people (in care homes and hospital) have already died, so the population is on average a bit fitter and more likely to survive now (albeit possibly with downstream complications). That may be interpreted as the case fatality rate falling so people think Covid is less lethal. It isn't.

There is also a lag between cases and deaths, so some of those 50k cases at end October will not die until mid-November. .
 
Ethan said:
They didn't go with scaremonger tactics, they went with facts and some forecasts of what modelling would look like if it followed the same course as current data suggests. The message is simple. If we don't get it together fast, it will get very ugly. You can debate exactly how ugly, fine, just accept that it will be ugly. Likewise if you think that is a price worth paying for economic stability, OK, that is a valid point of view.

The whole point of forecasts is to say this is how bad it can get of we don't do the following. It usually doesn't get that bad because we usually do at least some of the following.

We might have capacity right now, but that reserve can be eaten up fast, the Nightingale hospitals add more beds but not more staff, drugs, oxygen, PPE etc which have to be diverted from elsewhere. The NHS could easily be overwhelmed.
Click to expand...

I actually thought that yesterdays briefing was very good. By taking the politics of both sides out of it to a certain extent, the serious nature of the message was able to be communicated. I think it did need to be said in the terms used and the biggest issue is that people have become lax and have not been seeing the virus and a continued thread. Yesterday was a solid attempt to get people's thinking back to where is was in the early days of the pandemic.
 
Not sure what is going to be announced today. The 10.00 curfew and 'work from home if possible' do not seem significant enough to warrant a national address (especially one that clashes with Bake Off). Would actually support the temporary halt of people meeting in each others' homes even though this would have the biggest impact on me. Just seems a logical way to lessen the spread without hitting any economic targets.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Frustrated at how so many are misinterpreting or misrepresenting simple arithmetic that shows what doubling a number every 7 days looks like after 4 iterations. It’s not a prediction; it’s not forecasting - there is no uncertainty, it’s simple arithmetic based upon actual data being used to demonstrate a simple fact. How government chooses to interpret and act upon that is up to the government.

How these numbers can be mitigated by the measures recently put in place can be explained; how new measures might also impact upon the growth can also be explained. But all Vallance did yesterday was show a little bit of simple arithmetic that can we used as a baseline for considering and explaining the impact of various restrictions and assumptions applied.

i suspect that if nothing additional was done then the rule of six would decrease the rate of increase from that used in the illustration presented. Bit i also suspect that it will not stop the numbers of daily infections increasing - and so whilst in another four weeks time and doing nothing more from today will not see the 50,000 figure - the doubling will still occur albeit it will take more than 7 days to do so. It’ll therefore just take a bit longer to reach the 50,000 a day figure.
Click to expand...


Of course its a prediction, the prediction being that it will continue to double every 7 days, there is no clear evidence that it will continue to do so (it could get faster or slower)
 
fundy said:
Of course its a prediction, the prediction being that it will continue to double every 7 days, there is no clear evidence that it will continue to do so (it could get faster or slower)
Click to expand...

I would call it a forecast of what things would look like if the current trajectory continues. People still don't quite get how fast exponential growth moves, so they need a big number placed before them to shake them out of their complacency. The very intention was not to say that this is what is going to happen, but almost the opposite, that this is what we must make sure does not happen. So in a few weeks, you will be able to say 'Yeah, they were wrong again'. Hopefully.
 
Ethan said:
I would call it a forecast of what things would look like if the current trajectory continues. People still don't quite get how fast exponential growth moves, so they need a big number placed before them to shake them out of their complacency. The very intention was not to say that this is what is going to happen, but almost the opposite, that this is what we must make sure does not happen. So in a few weeks, you will be able to say 'Yeah, they were wrong again'. Hopefully.
Click to expand...

love the pedantry, whats the difference between a prediction and a forecast?
 
fundy said:
love the pedantry, whats the difference between a prediction and a forecast?
Click to expand...

I would describe it more as a (hopefully) worst case scenario. To fill the screen with potential outcomes, both positive and negative would have been confusing. In this case, the message was pretty simple 'this is how bad it could be but we can do something to make it a lot more palatable'
 
fundy said:
love the pedantry, whats the difference between a prediction and a forecast?
Click to expand...

Call them what you will, but it isn't pedantry. The idea is that one is intended to foresee what will happen, whether you can alter it or not. I predict Bryson de Chambeau will drive a par-4 at Augusta. I predict that Liverpool will not have as smooth a run in the Premier League this year.

Economic forecasts are intended to paint a picture of what will happen under current assumptions and at present trends, but the outcome can be changed by action to alter those assumptions before then. The Bank of England, Institute for Fiscal Studies and others do this all the time, but the dread outcome often does not happen because Govt acts to prevent it. That is the intention here too.
 
Ethan said:
Call them what you will, but it isn't pedantry. The idea is that one is intended to foresee what will happen, whether you can alter it or not. I predict Bryson de Chambeau will drive a par-4 at Augusta. I predict that Liverpool will not have as smooth a run in the Premier League this year.

Economic forecasts are intended to paint a picture of what will happen under current assumptions and at present trends, but the outcome can be changed by action to alter those assumptions before then. The Bank of England, Institute for Fiscal Studies and others do this all the time, but the dread outcome often does not happen because Govt acts to prevent it. That is the intention here too.
Click to expand...


Definition of prediction according to my dictionary:

noun

a thing predicted; a forecast
eg "a prediction economic growth would resume"
 
????? LMFAO

In other news.. More restrictions announced

I thought they'd be stricter, but not really any massive changes.
The NI changes have put paid to my wife's visit to Belfast though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top