Day of Chaos 2: a.Covid-19 thread.

[JayzusB.Christ]

My elderly parents' next-door neighbour is an ambulance worker, and has had the virus twice in the space of eight months.

Sorry to quote myself, but I suppose there are four possibilities here:  1) I'm lying. 2) My parents are lying.  3) My parents' neighbour is lying. 4)  Natural immunity isn't enough to keep you safe.

[The Legendary Shark]

Well, yes, viruses mutate all the time, swapping genetic material between themselves and other viruses and themselves and their hosts in a process of horizontal gene transfer. They are a marvel of adaptation, a malleable organism. They can mutate into more deadly forms or into more benign ones, as did syphilis and scarlet fever, whose historical forms were far more destructive than modern versions.

And if viruses are impressive, then our immune systems are even more so. They deal with these ever-shifting invaders as a matter of course. Do they need a helping hand sometimes? Sure. Do I think mine needs one right now? Well, that's my decision to make.

[The Legendary Shark]

Sorry, JBC - I didn't mean to ignore your point.

One study can't cover everybody and some people will get the virus twice, or two viruses once (and a medic must consider this possibility, being exposed to more viruses than most).

I don't think you or anybody you mention is lying. Even the article I linked to did not find a 100% adherence to this pattern, so exceptions are logically, statistically, and practically very probable.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Sorry, JBC - I didn't mean to ignore your point.

One study can't cover everybody and some people will get the virus twice, or two viruses once (and a medic must consider this possibility, being exposed to more viruses than most).

I don't think you or anybody you mention is lying. Even the article I linked to did not find a 100% adherence to this pattern, so exceptions are logically, statistically, and practically very probable.

Fair enough.  We're agreed on that point at least.

[Funt Solo]

My elderly parents' next-door neighbour is an ambulance worker, and has had the virus twice in the space of eight months.

Sorry to quote myself, but I suppose there are four possibilities here:  1) I'm lying. 2) My parents are lying.  3) My parents' neighbour is lying. 4)  Natural immunity isn't enough to keep you safe.

It's in all probability (4) - natural antibodies (through virus contraction) keep us safer (especially after the body has some time to get it's shit together - something like three months after getting it), but they naturally don't provide a 100% shield. Plus, just catching it on purpose (the "herd immunity" approach) runs the double-risk of allowing it to mutate further, and of killing you. Ha!

The vaccine also doesn't offer a 100% shield, but (as those clever pandemic experts keep pointing out) does offer a method of controlling the spread of the virus, lowering the chance of mutations as we lower the spread. Plus - it doesn't kill you. Ha!

Choosing not to get vaccinated because "God built us sturdy" is noodly-cabbage thinking from the mad hatter brigade, I'm sorry to say.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Coincidentally, I've just been listening to Michael Palin reading his audiobook version of Erebus, where it was mentioned that the smallpox vaccine was developed in 1798!  I had no idea we'd been using vaccines for so long.   (Also, a quick look at Wikipedia tells me that smallpox was eliminated completely in the 20th century. Nice work, conventional medicine!)

[Funt Solo]

C4 News did a report today where they pointed out the difference (in new cases) between the UK (with its relatively good vaccine roll-out figures) and EU countries (which are struggling to match those vaccination numbers).

This chart rather neatly demonstrates what's happening:



Of course, if there were no vaccine - and we simply had to rely on our natural immune system, these figures would be far worse. Obviously.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Where did you find that chart? The scaling on the x-axis looks a bit screwy.

[Funt Solo]

It's a freeze frame off the C4 News report I linked to. The x-axis is not uniformly scaled, no. Even if it were, though, the general theme remains the same, no?

[Jim_Campbell]

Of course, if there were no vaccine - and we simply had to rely on our natural immune system, these figures would be far worse. Obviously.

This is one of the many things I struggle to process in the largely free pass this government has received over its handling of this pandemic: the many months where "herd immunity" was its explicit, and then clearly its implicit, entire strategy for handling covid.

In the absence of a vaccine, "herd immunity" means: "everyone gets it, and everyone who is likely to die from it, dies. Once they're all dead, the remaining herd is immune."

That was it. For months. The government's strategy, for want of a better word, was to let ~0.5-1M people just die. That's not incompetence, that's actual evil.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

It's a freeze frame off the C4 News report I linked to. The x-axis is not uniformly scaled, no. Even if it were, though, the general theme remains the same, no?

Well my point is, it's difficult to say. The scale on the x-axis is just a load of random dates, unevenly spaced, and that would be ok if they were dates that marked some significant change in trends, but that's not the case. On top of that, it doesn't look like the scale is consistent. Maybe it is? It's difficult to tell because it's just a load of random dates, unevenly spaced. On top of that, the plots are way more granular than the scale of the x-axis. And if they got one axis wrong, then that casts its perpendicular partner in a dubious light too.

If this was a graph on Fox, attempting to discredit ***reviews Fox agenda*** reality, would you just accept its general theme?

It looks like it was slapped together by a graphic designer, rather than plotted out by someone who had looked at the data and understood how a graph works. For me the information there has no value. It's a piss poor graph, a worthless data-visualisation and I don't think you should just ignore that, and accept what it's (poorly) trying to tell you just because it confirms your bias.

The general theme here is, if I was a maths teacher, my pupils would fuckin' hate me.

[Tjm86]

For me the information there has no value. It's a piss poor graph, a worthless data-visualisation and I don't think you should just ignore that, and accept what it's (poorly) trying to tell you just because it confirms your bias.

The general theme here is, if I was a maths teacher, my pupils would fuckin' hate me.

Well, speaking as a Maths teacher,  I f***ing hate it!  Media graph presentation and interpretation is generally poorer than the weakest year 7 student's efforts by a mile. 

One thing about the last year has been the increasing prominence of the likes of Spiegelhalter with efforts to educate journalists.  Unfortunately it is a massive job!

[Tiplodocus]

 Looks ok to me. It's mostly 20 day intervals which seem consistent but last interval is correspondingly larger for the larger date range. I think.

[IndigoPrime]

Even looking at the raw numbers, I suspect many journalists are missing the point about the severity of lockdowns being out of step. Expect EU numbers to drop now they're locking down again and ours to continue to rise now we're moving beyond just schools being open.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Looks ok to me. It's mostly 20 day intervals which seem consistent but last interval is correspondingly larger for the larger date range. I think.

Well this is my point, it looks OK. The intervals are 17 days, 20, 20 then 31. 88 days in total, why not have regular 22 day intervals? Is there significance to those specific dates? Again, they don't seem to pinpoint any significant change in trends in the UK or any of the other 5 countries. Why were just those five countries chosen to represent the rest of Europe?

So we have poor formatting and perhaps cherry picking?

I actually went and watched the report Funt took this from and the graph is only on screen for about four seconds. It was definitely not intended to be scrutinized to this extent. I'm not even disputing the basic thrust of the report, but if the headline on the graph was

"england do gooder then other europ country's"

I doubt many would let that slide. We expect a certain amount of competence in English communication from our media, but allow poor standards for Maths and Science communication. The last year has shown how important this is.

There, I think I dragged that back on topic.