This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak discussion

Will the "Corona Virus" turn into a worldwide epidemic or fizzle out?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 49.3%

  • No

    Votes: 9 12.0%

  • Bigger than SARS, but not worldwide epidemic (Black Death/bubonic plague)

    Votes: 25 33.3%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Total voters
    75
Jump to new
Is it any wonder a whole bunch of people will not take notice of the health advice given out.
The actual statements behind the advice are rarely made public, the Governments or their spokespersons merely say the they have "best health advice".
But when they do, its just as often junk.
From Todays OZ
Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton says modelling undertaken by the Burnet Institute shows the state's lockdown had avoided 6000 cases, including 1700 on Wednesday alone.
Click to expand...
What absolute crap. He has no way of knowing this. They don't put out what assumptions were made, what inputs were used, nor their statistical level of confidence in the output. And the really crappy part is there is absolutely no way of verifying or testing the models output. Its in the past, cannot be replicated, cannot be verified. they could have pulled the figures out of a hat and it would have just as much validity.
At least in the case of the Doherty models, it may be possible to assess their levels of accuracy if the feds decide to follow the path. that was modelled.
Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
What absolute crap. He has no way of knowing this.
Click to expand...
His comments are based off the Burnett Institutes COVASIM model, so Sutton has a sound basis for his comments.
mullokintyre said:
They don't put out what assumptions were made, what inputs were used, nor their statistical level of confidence in the output. And the really crappy part is there is absolutely no way of verifying or testing the models output.
Click to expand...
They do, actually.

mullokintyre said:
Its in the past, cannot be replicated, cannot be verified.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the purpose of a model?
 
Last edited:
So now Victoria and no doubt NSW are just fighting to keep COVID from getting completely out of control before widespread vaccination happens.

Victoria's tough sixth lockdown has been extended again after recording its highest daily case increase in more than a year.

In a major shift in the approach to restrictions, Premier Daniel Andrews conceded the spread of the Delta coronavirus variant was moving too quickly to realistically eliminate it in the state.
There will be some small changes from Friday in Melbourne and a slight easing of restrictions in regional Victoria from next week.

But freedoms beyond that will no longer just be hinged on the number of infections, with vaccination now the only way out of lockdown.

How the next few months of lockdown are likely to play out in Victoria

There will be some small changes from Friday in Melbourne and a slight easing of restrictions in regional Victoria from next week. But further freedoms all depend on vaccination.
www.abc.net.au
 
Vic did everything right. So obviously I was wrong about relaxed lockdowns and hard lockdowns. Noticed the media has been quiet regarding length of lockdowns now.

My sons workplace had a covid positive truck driver turn up so now that's become a thing.

Biggest worry is hospitalisations. There's a lot of infections right now taking up beds. But it's pretty positive feel around the place as we seem to be on track to open after 70% vax.
 
rederob said:
His comments are based off the Burnett Institutes COVASIM model, so Sutton has a sound basis for his comments.

They do, actually.
Click to expand...
It does not matter who or what model he based it on, its a crap conclusion.
The pretence is that the model has any validity in predicting what would have happened if something was not done.
From the burnet website you quoted
So then they go onto say
So they picked out one run of the model. No mention of the values of those parameters, just that they used them.
If you recon thats telling what inputs created the output, you are being disingenuous to say the least.
rederob said:
Do you understand the purpose of a model?
Click to expand...
You have a supercilious attitude to anyone who you may disagree with.
The arrogant put down question that suggests you have a greater level of intelligence and understanding than the other mere mortals that inhabit this space.
I doubt you have any idea of the breadth and meaning of models.
There are models and there are models.
I can model the behaviour of a circuit design with great accuracy.
But that is because I know beforehand the relationships between all the inputs that go into the design and operation.
And whats more, I can then have that design prinnted onto a CB and can hen test and verify that what I modelled was indeed correct.

The models that have a multiple unknown variables, and multiple values on the affect that changes in the variables have on the output become more and more guesswork. And like so many models, there is no way of verifying the validity of its assumptions. Hence their value is nothing more as scare tactic for the masses, and I suspect that at unlike you, some of the masses will see the models for what they are.

Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
You have a supercilious attitude to anyone who you may disagree with.
Click to expand...
You made claims which are contradicted by evidence, and I pointed this out.
mullokintyre said:
The arrogant put down question that suggests you have a greater level of intelligence and understanding than the other mere mortals that inhabit this space.
Click to expand...
I was writing basic modelling programs on my HP 41CV in the early 1980s so I have some relevant background in this area.
mullokintyre said:
And whats more, I can then have that design prinnted onto a CB and can hen test and verify that what I modelled was indeed correct.
Click to expand...
Burnett Institute's modelling is indicative rather than prescriptive. The inviolable principles of current and voltage necessary for IC simulations are replaced by the rangebound parameters of variables that are essentially uncertain.
Your claims about the underlying assumptions of Burnett modelling are unsound.
 
rederob said:
You made claims which are contradicted by evidence, and I pointed this out.
Click to expand...
Yeah right. You just make a statement that says I am wrong and you are right.
rederob said:
I was writing basic modelling programs on my HP 41CV in the early 1980s so I have some relevant background in this area.
Click to expand...
Big deal. So was I, but I had a large mainframe to play with.
And I started back in the early 70's .
But neither of your modelling experience nor mine makes any difference.
It does not change the fact that not all models are equal.

Garbage. You are trying to make a pig out of a sows ear.
The fact that the rangebound parameters of variables are uncertain says that the output is uncertain.
You have stated exactly why I distrust so many models.
The document you quoted does not even mention what the variables were, what were the rangebound values, nor what level of weighting was put on each one.
I am sure when you were programming your Hewlett Packard 41CV you would have been made aware of the abbreviation GIGO.
Garbage in, garbage out.

Sutton never mentioned prescriptive versus indicative.
He stated it as if it was gospel, which was my original premise.
Namely he used questionable outputs to pretend that it would have really happened, when it was not a conclusion to be drawn.
Using the politics of fear to keep people under the thumb.
Whether people should be locked down is for another discussion.
To pretend that "the Science" suggests they should is tantamount to fraud.

Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
It does not change the fact that not all models are equal.
Click to expand...
This only confirms you do not understand modelling.
mullokintyre said:
The fact that the rangebound parameters of variables are uncertain says that the output is uncertain.
Click to expand...
That's right.
We are not dealing with inviolable variables; uncertainty bars are charted in my earlier post
mullokintyre said:
You have stated exactly why I distrust so many models.
Click to expand...
The most complex models in the world (earth system models) deal with uncertainties and their simulations continue to prove they are on track.
mullokintyre said:
The document you quoted does not even mention what the variables were, what were the rangebound values, nor what level of weighting was put on each one.
Click to expand...
This only shows how unsound your posts have been.
mullokintyre said:
Sutton never mentioned prescriptive versus indicative.
He stated it as if it was gospel, which was my original premise.
Click to expand...
If the unemployment rate is 6.1% it's indicative. Nobody went out and counted everyone. Yet the relevant Minister will quote it as gospel! Sutton clearly said his numbers were based on a model.
mullokintyre said:
Namely he used questionable outputs to pretend that it would have really happened, when it was not a conclusion to be drawn.
Click to expand...
If you examined the modelling and understood it then you would have found Sutton was drawing a reasonable conclusion.
 
rederob said:
This only confirms you do not understand modelling.
Click to expand...
Says you. I think it highlights that you have no understanding of modelling.
My premise is just as valid as yours.
rederob said:
That's right.
We are not dealing with inviolable variables; uncertainty bars are charted in my earlier post
Click to expand...
You edited the post and stuck those two graphs in after my post.
Very sneaky.
And did you look at the uncertainty bars?
For some of them there is a 50% uncertainty level.
Any conclusions drawn from them a fraught with danger.
To take your own supercilious attitude, Do you even know how to read the uncertainty bars in the graph?

rederob said:
The most complex models in the world (earth system models) deal with uncertainties and their simulations continue to prove they are on track.
Click to expand...
Another irrelevant comment.
rederob said:
This only shows how unsound your posts have been.
Click to expand...
And once again it shows your complete arrogance
rederob said:
If the unemployment rate is 6.1% it's indicative. Nobody went out and counted everyone. Yet the relevant Minister will quote it as gospel! Sutton clearly said his numbers were based on a model.
Click to expand...
Another straw man argument.
I never said Sutton did not say it was not based on a model..
If you bothered to read my original comment, I stated it was BECAUSE he said it was based on modelling that I took umbrage.
rederob said:
If you examined the modelling and understood it then you would have found Sutton was drawing a reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...
If you were not such an arrogant know it all, you might possibly understand that people can have valid opinions that do not concur with yours.
And I have my doubts that despite your arrogant attitude, I don't think you really understand modelling at all.
Mick
 
You have to love how the media throws up information, yet don't take the time to make it easily sorted for the plebs.
The ABC making it easy for the plebs to understand.

We put your questions about coronavirus vaccines to health experts — here's what they said

We put your questions to ABC medical reporter Sophie Scott and epidemiologist Hassan Vally from Latrobe University. Here are five of the best.
www.abc.net.au
From the article:
You are more likely to get a blood clot from the combined contraceptive pill.

Blood clots caused by the pill have been estimated to affect around 1 in 1,000 women.

Whereas your risk of getting the clotting disorder from the AZ vaccine is around 4 in 1 million.

But it's the fatality rate that really differs.

With the combined oral contraceptive pill, your risk of dying from a blood clot has been estimated to be around 3 per cent.

But the fatality rate from people who develop the rare clotting disorder after getting the AZ vaccine is estimated to be around 25 per cent.

The reasons the death rates differ so much is that the clots formed by the vaccine are believed to be an immune response to the vaccine, and is not the same process in the body that can cause other more common clots like deep vein thrombosis.


Why don't they just say 30 : 1,000,000 die from pill related clots and 1 : 1,000,000 die from AZ related clots. Obviously 3% of people dying sounds a lot less of a problem than 25% of people dying, why can't they compare apples with apples.
Obviously there is a reason, it just escapes me, maybe someone can help.
 
Plebs like you waiting for the fizzer?
 
Humid said:
Plebs like you waiting for the fizzer?
Click to expand...
We've already been through all that, you must have been away. ?
My vax will probably get me into the middle of next year, you will be on you're 3rd pfizer by then, they will probably have some good data by then so all good.
 
moXJO said:
If you mean 'mentally' then yes I'm concerned for you. You need me to send Gladdy Bjiggles round to cheer your state up?
Click to expand...
No I mean you could of moved here like Wayno and continued your rant from a non rampant state
 
sptrawler said:
Sounds as though you FIFO's, have more of a problem with that issue. ?

The Libs have a problem retracting, whereas Labor have a problem getting in. ? ?
Click to expand...
I only have a tax problem from full employment.....can you remember that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...