Govt planning Oct lockdown if hospitalisations continue to rise

Locke's SAFC said:
Your usual.

You posted a chart comparing 4 models. I doubt you post charts that often so you must remember it. It's only a week or so back.
Click to expand...

I could, but not going to bother since as usual you responded in a snotty condescending manner. Only got yourself to blame

For the record, I post several charts.
 


42 said:
I could, but not going to bother since as usual you responded in a snotty condescending manner. Only got yourself to blame

For the record, I post several charts.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that two of those models you posted had predicted hospital levels lower than what actual hospital admissions are today.

You used those models to support your argument on that thread. Your argument being: take note of 'the modellers', we're in the clear.

So, you were wrong there, and you're also wrong now by claiming 'the modellers' had (predicted) hospital admissions higher than they actually are.

I'm guessing you now accept that you were wrong to place your faith in 'the modellers' and wrong again to suggest on this thread that hospital admissions were widely being predicted as higher than they actually are today.

If ever there was a case of cherry-picking the data.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
I'm pretty sure that two of those models you posted had predicted hospital levels lower than what actual hospital admissions are today.

You used those models to support your argument on that thread. Your argument being: take note of 'the modellers', we're in the clear.

So, you were wrong there, and you're also wrong now by claiming 'the modellers' had (predicted) hospital admissions higher than they actually are.

I'm guessing you now accept that you were wrong to place your faith in 'the modellers' and wrong again to suggest on this thread that hospital admissions were widely being predicted as higher than they actually are today.

If ever there was a case of cherry-picking the data.
Click to expand...


Warwick & imperial numbers were through the roof. Were well under those

LSHTM was pretty close

The chart was for England ònly
Today's England numbers are 647

I guess you'll now accept you were wrong?
 
42 said:
Warwick & imperial numbers were through the roof. Were well under those

LSHTM was pretty close

The chart was for England ònly
Today's England numbers are 647

I guess you'll now accept you were wrong?
Click to expand...

Except you are conveniently forgetting that I mentioned 'two of those models'. All four of those models had hospital admissions on a downward trajectory at this point, two of them did not have "the modelling for hospital admissions a lot higher than we're currently getting" which is what you claimed on the previous page on this thread. You were entirely wrong as per usual. It was your own chart that you posted and that chart contradicts what you posted in the previous page on this thread.

As I said, if ever there was a case of cherry picking the data. You'd post anything without any analysis to support your claims at one point, and then forget you posted them at another point when they don't support your point, i.e. on this thread.

The situation is what it always was. 'The modellers' don't claim to know, they have never claimed to know. They always suggest their models should be viewed with caution due to the myriad of underlying assumptions that can quite easily be wide of the mark. Only you and a few more who know absolutely nothing about these models have claimed 'the modellers' know.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
Except you are conveniently forgetting that I mentioned 'two of those models'. All four of those models had hospital admissions on a downward trajectory at this point, two of them did not have "the modelling for hospital admissions a lot higher than we're currently getting" which is what you claimed on the previous page on this thread. You were entirely wrong as per usual. It was your own chart that you posted and that chart contradicts what you posted in the previous page on this thread.

As I said, if ever there was a case of cherry picking the data. You'd post anything without any analysis to support your claims at one point, and then forget you posted them at another point when they don't support your point, i.e. on this thread.

The situation is what it always was. 'The modellers' don't claim to know, they have never claimed to know. They always suggest their models should be viewed with caution due to the myriad of underlying assumptions that can quite easily be wide of the mark. Only you and a few more who know absolutely nothing about these models have claimed 'the modellers' know.
Click to expand...

Current England hospital numbers are now on a downward trajectory.

There's 3 University lead models. 2 of them are wildly out. 1 is pretty close.
My comment was in reference to the worse case examples (ie Warwick & imperial) but you knew that anyway.

The 4th one btw, wasn't an official one. Its was an independent one done by some statistician on twitter.
Locke's SAFC said:
Except you are conveniently forgetting that I mentioned 'two of those models'. All four of those models had hospital admissions on a downward trajectory at this point, two of them did not have "the modelling for hospital admissions a lot higher than we're currently getting" which is what you claimed on the previous page on this thread. You were entirely wrong as per usual. It was your own chart that you posted and that chart contradicts what you posted in the previous page on this thread.

As I said, if ever there was a case of cherry picking the data. You'd post anything without any analysis to support your claims at one point, and then forget you posted them at another point when they don't support your point, i.e. on this thread.

The situation is what it always was. 'The modellers' don't claim to know, they have never claimed to know. They always suggest their models should be viewed with caution due to the myriad of underlying assumptions that can quite easily be wide of the mark. Only you and a few more who know absolutely nothing about these models have claimed 'the modellers' know.
Click to expand...

Also I never forgot I posted them at all.
I asked about what the argument was you were trying to make not if I had posted them. As I've posted the updates several times, I know I've posted them
Wrong again.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top