COVID cases on the brink of breaking 100k a day (Zoe Covid Study)

The government figures are in my opinion less accurate than either the ONS or the Zoe figures.

MayBee70

I’m at breaking point because of my missing, possibly stolen passport and not being able to speak to anyone at the passport office having been on the phone three times for an hour and then being cut off! Two days running. Which is all down to the inefficiency of this pathetic government. And having to watch that scruffy scarecrow buffoon of a PM representing me on the world stage.Dr John is a beacon of sanity in my world at the moment. I feel that I have more control over covid ( thanks to said Dr) than my missing possibly stolen passport. And that’s saying something!

Maybee
The photo on my driving licence is not the same one as my passport one. I look like a thug in my passport but look quite pleasant on my driving licence.
I hope yours arrives soon - contact the Passport Office asap.

Sorry, you have already - but I hope you can speak to a real person. Send in a complaint online.

The government figures are in my opinion less accurate than either the ONS or the Zoe figures.

Or, to paraphrase,

the government figures are less accurate than the government figures.

I know that recourse to authority is not a valid way of proving anything. Alegrias1 [Sun 31-Oct-21 18:50:42]

There's nothing wrong with referring to appropriate experts to support your reasoning. It's how society builds knowledge. What about the poor little devils taking their first degrees. Very few will be carrying out new work to prove their thesis. They will rely on what they have learned from other sources - hopefully putting both sides of the argument and then drawing a conclusion. It's how you learn to learn. The only time reference to authority is not valid is when that authority is not relevant. I'm afraid the statement quoted has long since been proved to be falacious.

Whitewavemark2

The government figures are in my opinion less accurate than either the ONS or the Zoe figures.

They certainly beg questions don't they Whitewave. Comparison and work on why they differ is the only way. I do wonder if the government is doing that.

So let’s look at the explanation as to why the government figures may be inaccurate.

An example 29/10 the government figures show the number of new daily infections as going down, whereas the tracker data shows them continuing on an upward trajectory.

So which is correct?

Zoe figures are based on data from around 750000 people weekly reporting and tends to be consistently about a week ahead of other reports. The data is based on “symptomatic users who have tested positive” regardless of the type of test producing the positive result.

The figure of 100000 is they argue going to be reached sooner than expected. But no plan B or C is being introduced.

The government figures are based on two different tests - the LFT and PCR.

The PCR is given to those who show symptoms based on the government guidelines. The guidelines are to get a PCR test if you have the classic symptoms of fever, continuous cough and loss of smell and taste.

However we know that the symptoms have changed and the top 5 are now
Headache
Runny nose
Sneezing
Sore throat
Cough
The other three symptoms are further down the list.

For whatever reason the government guidelines have never been updated, which of course would suggest that many people are failing to take PCR test because they do not show the symptoms on the government guidelines.

Many people will take the LFT to confirm covid, but there is no incentive to feed this information into the government figures.

Therefore because of the way the government figures are being compiled I think that there is an argument that they are inaccurate, and certainly less accurate than the Zoe figures.

The only time reference to authority is not valid is when that authority is not relevant.

Nope.

If the authority has got something wrong, you tell them.

Nullius in verba.

It does sound as if the reporting may well be an issue, Whitewave. Hopefully, if it gets talked about enough, someone will ask the government what they are going to do about it.

Alegrias1

^The only time reference to authority is not valid is when that authority is not relevant.^

Nope.

If the authority has got something wrong, you tell them.

^Nullius in verba.^

I don’t think that is what pippa meant, or at least it is not how I interpret it.

Whitewavemark2

Alegrias1

The only time reference to authority is not valid is when that authority is not relevant.

Nope.

If the authority has got something wrong, you tell them.

^Nullius in verba.^

I don’t think that is what pippa meant, or at least it is not how I interpret it.

No, but it's what I meant.

If you see something questionable, question it. Doesn't matter who you're talking to. Doesn't matter if someone is a very good communicator and has been right in the past, if what they are saying now is questionable, question it. Nobody's infallible.

Err yes, self evident I would have thought. And your point?

My point? That it is quite acceptable - necessary in fact - to point out when academics and popularisers of scientific studies may be mistaken in their thinking. Even if they have always been right in the past, and even if you don't think I'm qualified. And its pretty off when people say you can't criticise them. They're not the Pope.

Are any of the figures taking asymptomatic cases into account? Might they be showing up more on the Spector one if people on it are testing themselves more often?

Alegrias1

My point? That it is quite acceptable - necessary in fact - to point out when academics and popularisers of scientific studies may be mistaken in their thinking. Even if they have always been right in the past, and even if you don't think I'm qualified. And its pretty off when people say you can't criticise them. They're not the Pope.

But unless you can prove their argument, theory etc is wrong with evidence, then criticism is based on nothing but hot air.

MayBee70

Are any of the figures taking asymptomatic cases into account? Might they be showing up more on the Spector one if people on it are testing themselves more often?

Yes that’s true.

But unless you can prove their argument, theory etc is wrong with evidence, then criticism is based on nothing but hot air.

My posts today, 11:26 and 16:54.

If you want a discussion about why I could be wrong, I'm happy to have that discussion.

"We don't know who you are" and "I really like Dr John" aren't valid arguments.

Your posts do not constitute critique they only constitute an opinion!

Of course you are, as we all are entitled to an opinion, but that all it is and no more or less valid than every other poster.

But I’m off to read now.

I started a thread once about the difference between fact and opinion.

Not many got it, really....

No wonder they didn't get it Alegrias. I really like DrJohn did not appear to me to be offered as an argument. It is a simple statement of fact that comforts another human being.

We don't know who you are is certainly a valid argument when you presumed greater knowledge in this field while offering no evidence. Not that anyone expects anyone on here to do that. Of course there is a difference between fact and opinion but I am not sure that in every or even any case, you could be that alternative authority to prove or disprove a fact. We all need credible alternative authority to do that - or be able to show similar knowledge. We would also need it to be a trusted and verified source.

You say If the authority has got something wrong, you tell them., but you are not telling the "authority" they are wrong as you say you feel you must. GN is a forum they will never read. The GN member/s sees as a person they find an acceptable, knowledgeable source who cites a recognised authority. A source which does not propose themselves as an authority only a facilitator.

What you are doing is telling those who chose to use that person as one of their sources of information is that they - the GN member - are wrong. Not because you cite any contrary authority but simply because you say so.

We don't know who you are is certainly a valid argument when you presumed greater knowledge in this field while offering no evidence.

I have never claimed greater knowledge in this field, you have completely made that up, sorry. I've never said anything like it. I present my analysis of what public individuals say, same as anybody else can.

GN is an online forum for sharing our thoughts. My thoughts are that people on here are misunderstanding the comments made by public academics and extrapolating that to blame the government for things they've never done. I don't support this government at all, but there are many things to complain about without inventing more.

I don't cite authority because I present facts to show why the things said by these public people aren't always true. You can make of that what you will.

Just saying Dr Johns latest blog about breakthrough infection is very interesting especially as I, like a lot of people are worrying about the chances of catching covid after we’ve been vaccinated. I’d quite like Algerias to watch that part of the blog (obviously not the bit about aspirating the needle ) to tell me what is wrong with what Dr. John has just said. I suppose I’ve just been coerced into watching a blog about something sensible so I can be brainwashed with his needle aspiration theory though . He’s a sneaky blighter that nurse that pretends he’s a doctor. Anyways, I really am going to sleep now.

You can be right about some things and wrong about others.

The trick for the viewer is to know the difference.

And remember, I always refer to him as Dr Campbell, because that is his name and title. I have never, ever questioned his right to be addressed as Dr. Campbell. He's still a nurse educator though.

But don’t you understand why I found the first half of the blog interesting and reassuring?

Alegrias1

I started a thread once about the difference between fact and opinion.

Not many got it, really....

What an arrogant post!