Feeling down, is the 21st unlikely?

[WaitroseAldi]

I keep reading on here and on the news that it’s unlikely to happen on the 21st. I feel so down about it. We had so many plans that will have to be cancelled. It feels like some normality then back 10 steps :(

My family are abroad too. I’ve missed things too. I understand. That’s why I don’t want another lockdown.

@Drawcilla

Hopefully the boosters keep ahead of the variants.

It history tells us anything... the variants won’t keep getting stronger forever.

Pandemics tend to last around two years.

Where does this little factoid come from?

The black death lasted several years, as did the AIDS pandemic. In fact the latter is still around. What's magic about 2 years?

Iced purple.

Ok substitute as many as possible for everyone. You know that’s what I meant.

@Drawcilla

Hopefully the boosters keep ahead of the variants.

It history tells us anything... the variants won’t keep getting stronger forever.

Pandemics tend to last around two years.

Yep, no pandemic has lasted that long. If anything, we are prolonging this one with lockdowns.

Spanish flu

And SARS which is the closest to this.

You’re very confrontational and rude by thr way.

Most experts expected this to pan out for two years from the beginning like SARS.

I’m going now so please don’t bother me with any more confrontational rude pedantry.

I’m referring to the 2002-2004 SARS-cov1 outbreak

@Drawcilla

Spanish flu

And SARS which is the closest to this.

You’re very confrontational and rude by thr way.

Most experts expected this to pan out for two years from the beginning like SARS.

I’m going now so please don’t bother me with any more confrontational rude pedantry.

SARS wasn't really a pandemic though, and it didn't last two years. It was successfully contained shortly after it broke out in 2003.

And the Spanish Flu really isn't comparable. They didn't even know it was a virus for some time as powerful enough microscopes didn't exist until the 1940s. Now, we've developed not one but several safe and highly effective vaccines within a year.

Sorry if that is "confrontational rude pedantry".

Newsflash. Viruses don’t vanish because we wish them away or because we got snarky on the internet.

I do hope we have more normality on the 21 though. Or soon after.

The biggest problem is data modelling! It is one of the most complex things to understand! As you all probably have seen different scientists use a different computer program to analyse statistics, these programs only run on the pattern sequence inputted into them, they then run anaylists based on figures. They don't take into consideration human reaction and they can also be interpreted differently by whichever person is collecting or reading the data. So basically the simulation sees an increase on a certain percentage (regardless of the actual figures) and puts out a scenario, what has to be taken into consideration is (in this case, age risk factor, vaccine, incurred immunity, risk assessment) these models take none of these and therefore should be taken as an interpretation rather than a fact.

I also think the modelling is iffy @Wishfulthinking1977.

It seems to assume that everyone that could be infected becomes infected all at once, which is just not going to happen. Plus, not everyone exposed gets it, even without a vaccine. I didn't get it after being exposed. Family members who tested positive didn't infect their spouses.

Also, the presumption that the virus would somehow be programmed to 'seek out' those unvaccinated people to infect them. This is just rubbish as of course you need to be actively exposed to it through some route, and the more people vaccinated, the less likely you are of encountering it in general.

@Wishfulthinking1977

The biggest problem is data modelling! It is one of the most complex things to understand! As you all probably have seen different scientists use a different computer program to analyse statistics, these programs only run on the pattern sequence inputted into them, they then run anaylists based on figures. They don't take into consideration human reaction and they can also be interpreted differently by whichever person is collecting or reading the data. So basically the simulation sees an increase on a certain percentage (regardless of the actual figures) and puts out a scenario, what has to be taken into consideration is (in this case, age risk factor, vaccine, incurred immunity, risk assessment) these models take none of these and therefore should be taken as an interpretation rather than a fact.

They're models not fact.

But they do take account of things like vaccines.

And usually explain if they haven't factored in something that might be considered relevant, or any variables that are unknown.

For example, this one models different levels of hospital admissions depending on how high R goes after May 17th Step 3.

Our behaviour is part of that.

So it doesn't say "this is going to happen"

It gives a range of potential outcomes depending on how high R is pushed.

@ILookAtTheFloor

I also think the modelling is iffy *@Wishfulthinking1977*.

It seems to assume that everyone that could be infected becomes infected all at once, which is just not going to happen. Plus, not everyone exposed gets it, even without a vaccine. I didn't get it after being exposed. Family members who tested positive didn't infect their spouses.

Also, the presumption that the virus would somehow be programmed to 'seek out' those unvaccinated people to infect them. This is just rubbish as of course you need to be actively exposed to it through some route, and the more people vaccinated, the less likely you are of encountering it in general.

Which model are we referring to here? I don't recognise any in your description.

@ILookAtTheFloor

I also think the modelling is iffy *@Wishfulthinking1977*.

It seems to assume that everyone that could be infected becomes infected all at once, which is just not going to happen. Plus, not everyone exposed gets it, even without a vaccine. I didn't get it after being exposed. Family members who tested positive didn't infect their spouses.

Also, the presumption that the virus would somehow be programmed to 'seek out' those unvaccinated people to infect them. This is just rubbish as of course you need to be actively exposed to it through some route, and the more people vaccinated, the less likely you are of encountering it in general.

You seriously think the models make utterly stupid errors like assume that everyone that could be infected becomes infected all at once and the virus would somehow be programmed to 'seek out' those unvaccinated people to infect them ...?

Do be sensible!

Also the Indian Variant is transmitting more easily via vaccinated people, that is one of thereasons it is more transmissible despite vaccines.

Think this article with some info on the maths helps explain why stage 4 is looking a bit dodge, and why some were worried about stage 3 as well: www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/may/30/why-is-new-covid-variant-spreading

@PrincessNutNuts I really do understand what you are saying, all I was trying to explain was that data modelling is very complex and as you obviously do understand its not just cut and dried. It works on a computer simulation based on scenarios, these scenarios are programmed in by a person, they are then evaluated by a person, its a very complex procedure and unfortunately giving the general public many different computer based outcomes without full explanation or adjustments in fields does allow alot of confusion. I was only trying to break it down as its a bit of a mine field!

[quote Wishfulthinking1977]@PrincessNutNuts I really do understand what you are saying, all I was trying to explain was that data modelling is very complex and as you obviously do understand its not just cut and dried. It works on a computer simulation based on scenarios, these scenarios are programmed in by a person, they are then evaluated by a person, its a very complex procedure and unfortunately giving the general public many different computer based outcomes without full explanation or adjustments in fields does allow alot of confusion. I was only trying to break it down as its a bit of a mine field![/quote]
Fair enough.