Scrutable

KAJ wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:29 pm

raven wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:10 pm

So. They're about to change the UK data dashboard again.

The new version, which is here, doesn't seem much different. But the new interactive map is. You can still drill down to the same small areas (well, in England anyway), the colour coding is much better, and clicking on an area opens up a nice clear pop-up box of stats with a comparison to the national average. Might be slightly confusing to have straight daily cases numbers and a rolling 7-day average per 100,000, but otherwise the new map might actually be an improvement on the previous one.

I'm almost pleasantly surprised.

Something funny about today's update of the Cases by Specimen date UK Total link.
By nation looks OK.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:12 pm

KAJ wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:29 pm

Something funny about today's update of the Cases by Specimen date UK Total link.
By nation looks OK.

You mean that the new version of the dashboard doesn't show the totals since ever but only the past week?

ETA ah no you mean the graph

KAJ wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:07 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:12 pm

KAJ wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:29 pm

Something funny about today's update of the Cases by Specimen date UK Total link.
By nation looks OK.

You mean that the new version of the dashboard doesn't show the totals since ever but only the past week?

ETA ah no you mean the graph

And the underlying data; in "Cases by specimen date" click "By nation" or "UK total" then "Data". It looks as if "UK total" is zero if any nation is zero.

I can understand that they don't want to report a UK total if not all four nations have values. But they can't have used zero as a missing value indicator, for input and for output. Can they? Surely not.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:03 am

Good bit of reportage from Byline Times

An Italian's view of the UK in COVID.


https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/19/coro ... s-italian/

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am

- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am

- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)

Yet. It will, though, and sooner than you think.

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 pm

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am

- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)

Yet. It will, though, and sooner than you think.

Not the balance of my savings account!

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm

Meanwhile, I've just been listening to a bunch of tw.ts on the radio bickering about whether or not it's legal to have a business lunch with 10 people in a restaurant. What the f.ck is in these people's heads? Why the f.ck does anyone think having a face-to-face verbal meeting with any number of people is anything other than fuckwittedly dangerous?

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm

Meanwhile, I've just been listening to a bunch of tw.ts on the radio bickering about whether or not it's legal to have a business lunch with 10 people in a restaurant. What the f.ck is in these people's heads? Why the f.ck does anyone think having a face-to-face verbal meeting with any number of people is anything other than fuckwittedly dangerous?

Oh god, this, and the people on Facebook asking if they can have 10 or 15 people round for a party this weekend. How about zero? Zero people coming to your party sounds good to me.

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:45 am

The negotiations with the coronavirus in Manchester are going to the wire. Johnson has set the virus a midday deadline to agree terms, otherwise it's No Deal.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm

Meanwhile, I've just been listening to a bunch of tw.ts on the radio bickering about whether or not it's legal to have a business lunch with 10 people in a restaurant. What the f.ck is in these people's heads? Why the f.ck does anyone think having a face-to-face verbal meeting with any number of people is anything other than fuckwittedly dangerous?

Oh god, this, and the people on Facebook asking if they can have 10 or 15 people round for a party this weekend. How about zero? Zero people coming to your party sounds good to me.

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").

discovolante wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:54 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:45 am

The negotiations with the coronavirus in Manchester are going to the wire. Johnson has set the virus a midday deadline to agree terms, otherwise it's No Deal.

Are we about to see the unification of Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, who will seek to secede from the rest of England on the basis that they've won more Olympic gold medals than anyone else in the country put together - shortly followed by the North East asking to join an independent Scotland? What then for the unified North?

Opti wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:40 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").

Round your new manor, 50mg is the limit. Better just have the one, then.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am

Got into a stupid argument with some colleagues on Yammer about whether the rise in cases/hospitalisations/deaths is exponential or linear.

On my side, I have the following evidence:
- It's obviously f.cking exponential
- It looks exponential
- An exponential fit has an almost perfect R²
- An exponential rise also matches the general way pandemic numbers work
- Plus it's what happened last time
- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)

On their side, they have the following:
- A linear fit isn't bad
- It has to be linear, because we couldn't possibly need to lock down more.

I'll leave it up to you to decide.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:58 pm

Eek

https://twitter.com/TomSwarbrick1/statu ... 51822?s=20

I'm torn about this tbh. I mean, obviously Andy Burnham really should have consulted me before going on about resisting lockdown restrictions after I'd spent all that time defending him on here. And the virus-related (as opposed to economic) reasons for resisting tier 3 lockdown didn't seem particularly strong. I mean I am pretty pro lockdown and I think if it had been a Tory banging on about it not being necessary I would have been raging. I would also probably be more pissed off with Andy Burnham if I really felt like the restrictions the government is putting in place are going to make a huge difference. They might though, I suppose, and we'll see in time.

On the other hand, I also think the government needs to cough up now and worry about the cost later. I admit I'm not the most economically literate person in the world, or even in my house, or even in this room where I am currently alone apart from a few spiders and a rubber plant, but there seem to be a lot of reasons for helping to stop people falling into destitution during a pandemic, and I don't know what other leverage Andy Burnham had, even though it wasn't much to begin with and he lost anyway.

And at the end of it all if the government hadn't basically spaffed all our money up the wall at the beginning of the year there might be more to go around now. I know that's not really how it works, but it's hard for me not to feel a bit resentful about that on top of this.

And of course being a northerner by blood and birth tends to skew things a bit for me as well.

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:48 pm

discovolante wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:58 pm

Eek

https://twitter.com/TomSwarbrick1/statu ... 51822?s=20

I'm torn about this tbh. I mean, obviously Andy Burnham really should have consulted me before going on about resisting lockdown restrictions after I'd spent all that time defending him on here. And the virus-related (as opposed to economic) reasons for resisting tier 3 lockdown didn't seem particularly strong. I mean I am pretty pro lockdown and I think if it had been a Tory banging on about it not being necessary I would have been raging. I would also probably be more pissed off with Andy Burnham if I really felt like the restrictions the government is putting in place are going to make a huge difference. They might though, I suppose, and we'll see in time.

On the other hand, I also think the government needs to cough up now and worry about the cost later. I admit I'm not the most economically literate person in the world, or even in my house, or even in this room where I am currently alone apart from a few spiders and a rubber plant, but there seem to be a lot of reasons for helping to stop people falling into destitution during a pandemic, and I don't know what other leverage Andy Burnham had, even though it wasn't much to begin with and he lost anyway.

And at the end of it all if the government hadn't basically spaffed all our money up the wall at the beginning of the year there might be more to go around now. I know that's not really how it works, but it's hard for me not to feel a bit resentful about that on top of this.

And of course being a northerner by blood and birth tends to skew things a bit for me as well.

There is a real issue with support for the low-paid. Clearly the original furlough scheme can't continue, but 67% of minimum wage is just wasting everyone's time. There is a good correlation between low paid jobs and jobs that involve mixing with a lot of people and potentially spreading the virus around, as opposed to the relatively well off working fro home, so it's a false economy not to take that into account. Whether money is better spent supporting businesses or individuals I don't know, but I don't have a particular problem letting small businesses close that will reopen again when the time comes, as long as individuals are supported properly. That may mean increasing dole rates.