June 21st

You've both misunderstood me, which clearly is my own fault. Let me try and explain what I mean.

Obviously hospitalisations matter, I'm not saying they don't for a second. My point is that hospitalisations are directly tied to the number of cases. So the SAGE hospitalisation prediction on its own doesn't really mean anything. For example, if the cases 2 weeks ago were far below the SAGE predictions for 2 weeks ago, then clearly hospitalisations will also be. It doesn't prove anything with regards to the effectiveness of the vaccine or the deadliness of new variants etc. The hospitalisations might be lower purely because the cases are also lower.

The data that matters is the number of hospitalisations in comparison to the number of cases, as opposed to the number of hospitalisations alone. The further lifting of restrictions will lead to more cases, almost certainly, so if the % of cases that require hospitalisation is still not low enough to where the NHS can cope when all those extra cases happen, that's going to cause issues down the line (and the government in all their wisdom have said that this is a final return to normality and there are no more restrictions after this lifting, so they're having to be extra cautious). This is what the continues vaccination effort is obviously trying to assist with.

I hope I make more sense now. TLDR: Hospitalisations in relation to cases is what matters more than the pure hospitalisation numbers, when it comes to the relaxing of restrictions.

 

Yep, I wasn't suggesting this lot aren't corrupt beyond redemption, just that they already had the information available should they want to access it by legal or nefarious means.

 

That's not what it said on my screen

When you hover the cursor over it, it says it's the figure for 10 June, the day before The Spectator's figure.

 

The 884 is England only data, which people tend to use when they are trying to be misleading. The UK figures are always the headline ones used for comparisons and that is 1,089. Most people will just glance at the tweet, not see the small print and assume it's the UK position. Same with DB3K's post and yours. My screenshot doesn't chop off the filter.

 

there are 1257 hospitals in the U K ,so is that less than 1 person in each hospital, or are only a few hospitals for covid patients?

 

just looked on line at some figures online for 1st week of June said NHS had 60,000 people on the sick, 6000 due to covid or covid isolation, sounds a lot on sick until you see there are 1.4 million people work for NHS, also said in England 120,000 beds were full of which 800 were for covid, that is 1st week of June, the numbers are staggering really , the NHS is a mammoth beast no wonder they are scared of loads of covid if 119000 folk are in hospital with other things

 

Slight decrease in the past seven days too.

 

But why would you use the UK figures to prove that the spectators, and sage's England figures are wrong?

The spectator graph is England figures, the scenarios shown in the graph are all England figures. The 15 page document from imperial college london with the modelling were all based on England figures.
The graph is current REAL figures compared with modelled figures for England, the document is called "Unlocking Roadmap Scenarios for England v2" so how exactly can you come to the conclusion that "The 'real red line' that isn't actually real. I lost interest in the graph when I realised the figures didn't add up. Their 884 (11 June) is supposed to be 22 lower than the previous day, but the dashboard shows 1,089 for 10 June."?

What you are saying here is that you think that the spectator should use UK figures for the red line overlayed over the England modelled figures for the grey line. In what world does that make sense?

 

People should feel safer now than at any point during the pandemic.

 

Isn't it obvious from my two replies close together this afternoon, that I've suddenly realised why the figure is different and that the Spectator thing is only based on England data. The text in the tweet doesn't make that obvious, that's why I was challenging the figure at first. I thought they had got the UK figure wrong. Like 99.9% of people, I haven't clicked the link and looked at the actual report, I've just read the tweet and glanced at the graph. Most people won't see the small print at the bottom of the graph. The natural assumption is that figures like that are for the whole of the UK, which those attempting to mislead take advantage of. DB3K for example has a BA Hons in it.

 

The natural assumption wasn't UK for me. It was England. Each country has its own lockdown rules and restrictions so a thing about easing restrictions and timeframes for that would naturally be about this country not the others.

There's nothing misleading about talking about England figures when comparing them to an English report into relaxing restrictions in England. It's about as clear and accurate as you can get.

 

It doesn't. How many people are in hospital in Inverness with it's totally seperate restrictions has absolutely no bearing on the relaxation of restrictions in London. You have to have an agenda to think it does and should

 

The obvious difference is that England data is lower than UK data, which isn't a problem if it has been correctly labelled as such. Some people don't make it clear though...and others actually hope it will be misconstrued, as it enhances their argument. I think the Spectator tweet could be clearer on the packaging that it refers to England data only, as the vast majority won't bother to unwrap it. It probably isn't an important difference in this case, it just annoys me how some things are presented.

 

My objection was the wording of their tweet "Covid hospital cases have fallen back below 900, according to today’s data". I barely looked at the modelling and didn't click on the link. It should have read "Covid hospital cases in England have fallen back below 900, according to today’s data". I then wouldn't have thought it was UK data they had got wrong.

 

If you didn't click on the link how did you know that the figure was 884 for June 11? That isn't stated in the tweet and is only visible once you click the link.

For you it needed the words in England. For me it was obvious. It's posted in a thread about unlocking England. We all know that the modelling is for England, that restrictions are for England etc so it was obvious it was about England.


Anyway regardless of the misunderstanding, once you realise the figures are real you have to accept that the figures really do show that hospitalisations are massively under the modelled scenarios surely? And at that point you have to agree that that the restrictions should end according to the data

 

It says 884 on the graph, which is visible underneath the tweet without having to click on anything. As for the rest...I...didn't...know...the...modelling...was...just...for...England.

 

I dont see where this ends

 

Do you mean my argument with SuperTyke, with cameos from Loko? I don't either!