Coronavirus: Delaying launch? New precautions?

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Hi - Do you have a link? Anything specific, I'd just be interested to know. Thx

It was a message copied into an email from HRSC.

'On the River, essential activity continues (fishing food provision), safety related pile replacement (nearly complete), visiting pilot launches, the Police, Border Force, Hamble Lifeboat and my Patrol activity. I would not expect to see anyone else out.

My advice mirrors that of the Government. Stay at home. If people need to exercise, find another way than on water'

 

[matt1]

Thanks! At least they are still doing their river patrols since I can't check on my boat now

 

[[163233]]

Rankings based on number of cases mean nothing, because testing regimes vary so widely. Plausible estimates for the UK are currently from 12,000 (confirmed by testing in people who have needed medical help ) to 30m (Oxford epidemiological model). Basically the more you test the more you find.

The Oxford model looks like an epic level of wishful thinking, the data just isn't adequate.

I honestly don't think they should have put that out.

 

[sailaboutvic]

Message for tho who wont do as they are asked and stay at home .

 

[JumbleDuck]

The Oxford model looks like an epic level of wishful thinking, the data just isn't adequate.

I honestly don't think they should have put that out.

The acknowledge that the data isn't adequate, which is why they are testing. Science doesn't work by hushing ideas up - they had to put it out there to be tested and if necessary torn down, just like the IC model which is locking us up as we speak.

I find the lack of solid information about infection rates quite astounding, and I hope someone can explain to me why nobody here seems particularly bothered about getting better data as a matter of urgency.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

The acknowledge that the data isn't adequate, which is why they are testing. Science doesn't work by hushing ideas up - they had to put it out there to be tested and if necessary torn down, just like the IC model which is locking us up as we speak.

I find the lack of solid information about infection rates quite astounding, and I hope someone can explain to me why nobody here seems particularly bothered about getting better data as a matter of urgency.

I'd like to see them too, but I don't think they'll mean much because the rate of testing is completely variable. That's just here, let alone compared with other countries.

 

[duncan99210]

It’s down to the ability of a nation to provide testing kits. From what I’ve read so far, UK is using swabs which are sent to a remote lab for analysis: these labs are at maximum capacity so testing is at present restricted to confirming diagnosis in hospitalised patients to ensure their correct treatment (plus Prince Charles, the PM and Health Secretary...).
It seems likely that a simple on site testing kit will shortly be available. That will enable wider testing to take place and capture better data on infection mechanisms and spread. It‘ll also allow people to be placed into self isolation before becoming symptomatic which will also have an effect on transmission rates.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'd like to see them too, but I don't think they'll mean much because the rate of testing is completely variable. That's just here, let alone compared with other countries.

I agree - that's why I'd have thought that proper randomised testing of the population as a whole would be a priority.

 

[Blue_mischief]

Some good stuff on YouTube about the statistics. I like this visual presentation:

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Brilliant. Nothing new in terms of modelling as people have be using such techniques to model imaginary beings or population since we has simple PCs. however does demonstrate why distancing, isolation etc have such dramatic effect

 

[dom]

For those following the coronavirus modelling issues, there have in the past been serious criticisms of the Imperial College Research team upon which UK Governments policy is based. After initially claiming that UK deaths could exceed 500,000, yesterday it revised those numbers down to 5,600 at best.

These vast swings are partly a function of new social distancing rules, but they also reflect the vast error terms, data blind-spots, and inherent statistical risks which the researchers really should have made clearer. Here is a quote from a Professor who co-authored a paper criticising Neil Ferguson's recommendations following the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak:

“The mathematical models were, at best, crude estimations that could not differentiate risk between farms and, at worst, inaccurate representations of the epidemiology of FMD.”​

​

It also described a febrile atmosphere – reminiscent of recent weeks – and claimed that this allowed mathematical modellers to shape government policy.​

​

“The general impatience that met the wait for the full extent of infections to become apparent, accompanied by an ever increasing number of outbreaks and piles of carcasses awaiting disposal, was perceived as a lack of success of the traditional control measures and provided the opportunity for self-styled ‘experts’, including some veterinarians, biologists and mathematicians, to publicise unproven novel options,”​

Deja vu?

Here's the link (behind a paywall but opening a temporary account enables 10 free articles):
Neil Ferguson, the scientist who convinced Boris Johnson of UK coronavirus lockdown, criticised in past for flawed research

​

 

[JumbleDuck]

Here is a quote from a Professor who co-authored a paper criticising Neil Ferguson's recommendations following the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak ...

The current situation actually reminds me very strongly of the F&M outbreak - I live right in the middle of the worst affected area and still remember the fear-crazed bellowing as the oldest Belted Galloway herd in the world - bred by the same family since the 1780s - was slaughtered on the farm next door. Every farm had biosecurity restrictions, there were disinfectant splashes on every road into Galloway and there was a palpable nervousness in the air.

I'm wondering what has happened to Hugh Pennington from Aberdeen University who at one time could be relied on to predict 100,000 deaths per year from almost anything. Listeria? 100,000 deaths per year. E Coli? 100,00 deaths per year. Kreutzfeld-Jacob Disease? 100,000 deaths per year.