CV and mad panic behaviour

[flyboy77]

I've made no commentary about stats or numbers, I'm debating ideas, innocent but potentially dangerous ideas.

Duh, I put up an objective assessment of empirical data.

You extrapolate that into some philosophical position. More fool you.

I say BS to that sort of behaviour..

You're the type who talks over everyone else at a dinner party - because you think you know better - and therein lies your flaw.

[LP]

Duh, I put up an objective assessment of empirical data.

You extrapolate that into some philosophical position. More fool you.

I say BS to that sort of behaviour..

You're the type who talks over everyone else at a dinner party - because you think you know better - and therein lies your flaw.

Something that uses a basic computer algorithm to present a count off like the ticking of a clock is not empirical data.

Again, I've published no conclusion about the stats, all I've done is question your certainty and thoughts which came about from contradictory position you published in your words. You can't believe the peak has passed then call for healthy people gathering in public to be fined, it exposes the underlying beliefs you have on the situation. You having a bob each way!

[flyboy77]

"You can't believe the peak has passed then call for healthy people gathering in public to be fined, it exposes the underlying beliefs you have on the situation. You having a bob each way!"

I'm saying the data SUGGESTS new cases may have peaked - don't tweak the pitch to suit your agenda.

And, by definition, it is empirical data - whether you like it or not. Even if you think the numbers are derived by algorithm. Which is odd in itself.

ps And not once did I suggest that restrictions could or should be relaxed, nor that such steps wouldn't see numbers jump again.

My word you're boorish.

[capcom]

And hey presto, here it comes:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/202...oronavirus

And here was I hoping he was no longer with us.

[LP]

"You can't believe the peak has passed then call for healthy people gathering in public to be fined, it exposes the underlying beliefs you have on the situation. You having a bob each way!"

I'm saying the data SUGGESTS new cases may have peaked - don't tweak the pitch to suit your agenda.

And, by definition, it is empirical data - whether you like it or not. Even if you think the numbers are derived by algorithm. Which is odd in itself.

ps And not once did I suggest that restrictions could or should be relaxed, nor that such steps wouldn't see numbers jump again.

My word you're boorish.

It's true, you were only guessing, placing a bet.

You took offence at me pointing out some logical inconsistency in your published opinion and dragged this into a massive circular debate. Then when I refused to give your opinion any more significance than it deserves you made it personal and trotted out the usual the old adages.

No matter which way you go, it won't make your points logically consistent.

And no, a clock counting cases based on a time algorithm is not empirical, if the algorithm could make some accurate prediction like the case surge in Spain it might be useful, but it didn't and I doubt epidemiologists are going to pay much attention to something that gets manually reset or corrected by a javascript web programmer after the fact.

[PaulP]

Being able to interpret data correctly is a skill, and not only a skill, but something that requires an understanding of the subject matter at hand. Professionals who have studied this virus, SARS, MERS etc., know full well that any prediction of peak is folly, and almost all of those types are saying we have a long way to go, and things will get worse before they get better. The number of variables that go into figures like : number of cases, deaths etc., are significant, and this complexity makes it madness to draw simplistic or rash conclusions.

[LP]

The website https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ quoted earlier doesn't even support the idea cases have peaked, even if you look at the graphed data using a logarithmic Y-axis the cases are on the rise! https://www.worldometers.info/coronaviru...australia/

Epidemiologists are warning that the risk is this current outbreak could be the first of a series going through several oscillatory cycles. The outcome depends on how well we restrict the rate of growth this time and if herd immunity builds. They do not even know if infection will result in immunity, because as yet there hasn't been any wide-scale testing for antibodies, the possibility still exists that you can get it more than once!

Anyway PaulP, I'm giving this a break for now as I appreciate people might want to come to this site to escape the news not read more debate about it!

Stay Safe!

[Jack Burton]

We're doomed
https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-new...ocal-beach

[Gointocarlton]

I agree Flyboy, and that's about as good as we could expect I reckon. The other thing to consider in community spread is the numbers of people going to supermarkets, bunnings etc. I think it's inevitable that asymptomatic people will spread viruses around these places and other people will pick them up. I really hope the education about washing hands etc will limit this

My Woolies was "dead" today by comparison to other days and normal Saturdays.

[Jack Burton]

My Woolies was "dead" today by comparison to other days and normal Saturdays.

Interesting, my son went to our local Woolies today and said it was packed, no one showing any respect for social distancing