Coronavirus

[teamsaint]

So there we have it. Vaccine passports/ digital ID. Coming to a venue/ service provider/ government building near you soon, or whenever the government deems fit.

The parliamentary committee decided that there was no benefit in them.
There has been no proper scrutiny, let alone a vote.
But they are being put in place with not a safeguard to be seen and who knows where it will end ?

And this is exactly how the govt digital ID framework envisages it, by getting stakeholders on board to do their dirty work.

Even if you still think they are a good idea in principle, the practical issues will be enormous, and lead to endless problems for individuals. We should resist this at every turn. It is a disaster , and it is here now.
A very bad Freedom Day it turned out to be.

[teamsaint]

What is the legal definition of a nightclub? Ah, I now hear the late September restrictions extend beyond nightclubs. So, how crowded is "crowded" when it comes to entertainment venues?

As crowded as an unaccountable minister wants it to be. And then it doesn’t have to be indoors, because the Premier League will be next. And then....and then.....and then.....and thats just entertainment.Looks as though business conferences are in line for it too.
Digital ID isn’t a fanciful conspiracy theory, it is a government framework....or plan. And happening in plain sight.

[Bryn]

As crowded as an unaccountable minister wants it to be. And then it doesn’t have to be indoors, because the Premier League will be next. And then....and then.....and then.....and thats just entertainment.Looks as though business conferences are in line for it too.
Digital ID isn’t a fanciful conspiracy theory, it is a government framework....or plan. And happening in plain sight.

Depends very much on how Starmer and co. approach the matter. There are many Tory MPs who will fight the introduction of any form of ID card with tooth and claw. It's an ideological commitment for them to oppose such a scheme. Starmer may well help Johnson to get the necessary legislation through, however. That, in turn, could lead to the fall of Johnson, if his back-bench anti-ID MPs take sufficient umbrage.

[teamsaint]

Depends very much on how Starmer and co. approach the matter. There are many Tory MPs who will fight the introduction of any form of ID card with tooth and claw. It's an ideological commitment for them to oppose such a scheme. Starmer may well help Johnson to get the necessary legislation through, however. That, in turn, could lead to the fall of Johnson, if his back-bench anti-ID MPs take sufficient umbrage.

I hope you are right, or that incompetence destroys this insane scheme. I think they are very determined though. The digital ID framework wasn’t put togther for a laugh.:(

Unfortunately I think Starmer will bottle it unless it becomes clear that his core vote are solidly opposed. Who knows?

[Bryn]

It's not that long ago that a UK citizen did not strictly legally require a passport to re-enter the UK, IIRC.

[teamsaint]

What is the legal definition of a nightclub? Ah, I now hear the late September restrictions extend beyond nightclubs. So, how crowded is "crowded" when it comes to entertainment venues?

So far, anywhere indoors that might be deemed crowded except parliament seems to be fair game, including offices, and outdoors it could apply to sports stadia over 16k capacity.
So not really just nightclubs .

Still waiting to hear an ethical or public health justification for this trampling of fundamental rights.

And still waiting to hear a few leading voices stand up to this dangerous absurdity. Rather too many top people keeping their head down, I fear.

Just to recap.......

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/news/155788/no-justification-for-covid-passports-say-committee/

[Andrew]

It's not that long ago that a UK citizen did not strictly legally require a passport to re-enter the UK, IIRC.

You still don't! if you board a dingy in France you'll even be offered a lift in a Border Force cutter, bringing you smoothly and safely into Dover harbour! S'funnuy old world.........

[oddoneout]

You still don't! if you board a dingy in France you'll even be offered a lift in a Border Force cutter, bringing you smoothly and safely into Dover harbour! S'funnuy old world.........

The Arrivals Lounge service let's the side down though...
Years ago I discovered the night before I was flying out to Holland that my passport had expired ( a previous check had misread the date digits) and it was tempting to see whether it would still work (EU and all that) and reckoned that the Dutch side would probably be OK, especially with Dutch family, but not too sure about getting back into the UK... Fortunately a combination of a temporary arrangement for the PO to do an extension (due to the Passport Office being unable to cope with demand at that time) and flying from a small local airport meant that it was all OK in the end.

[Simon B]

Hmmmm. Re the Zoe data and Prof Spector's remarks a week ago that there appeared to be a plateau:

The latest update confirms that they no longer believe this to be the case. Further, the methodology has also been updated and the graphs retrospectively altered so that the trend that was visible in the data from 1+ week ago no longer is.

The suspicious signs of breaking of the correlation between Zoe and other data were indeed suspicious it seems.

According to the recalibrated Zoe data, the epidemic is only decelerating by the smallest of margins if at all.

https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time

Meanwhile, the latest official 7-day-mean data now does show a rather rapid deceleration but perhaps this is another mirage? In any case it may well be very short lived.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Not encouraging.

[french frank]

Hmmmm. Re the Zoe data and Prof Spector's remarks a week ago that there appeared to be a plateau:

I was scanning the internet in recent days to find out if there was a statistical definition of 'to plateau' but couldn't find one. I've seen things slowing down, speeding up again, standing still for a couple of days.

Being barely numerate and getting a bit mixed up when there are lots of noughts I was wrestling with what the percentage increase was (here) if there was an increase from the 7-day 41 new cases (a lowest ever) at the beginning of May to just over 4,000 cases in yesterday's figures (to 17 July) … And we're still some way before the result of the lifting of restrictions begins to show.

[Simon B]

I was scanning the internet in recent days to find out if there was a statistical definition of 'to plateau' but couldn't find one. I've seen things slowing down, speeding up again, standing still for a couple of days.

You probably wouldn't find one as it is "obvious". Just so there's no doubt the inverted commas are there to signal understanding that it's probably not obvious at all to normal people .

A technical definition might be something like: All derivatives tend to zero. In other words, the slope of the curve, the slope of the slope, the slope of the slope of the slope etc ad infinitum are all as near to 0 as makes no odds. If the daily infection figure is the same for n days, this inevitably becomes true.

"Standing still for a couple of days" is as good an everyday definition as you're going to get. A plateau essentially just tells you (after a while) that R = 1 a little while ago.

[Bryn]

I was scanning the internet in recent days to find out if there was a statistical definition of 'to plateau' but couldn't find one. I've seen things slowing down, speeding up again, standing still for a couple of days.

Being barely numerate and getting a bit mixed up when there are lots of noughts I was wrestling with what the percentage increase was (here) if there was an increase from the 7-day 41 new cases (a lowest ever) at the beginning of May to just over 4,000 cases in yesterday's figures (to 17 July) … And we're still some way before the result of the lifting of restrictions begins to show.

As I think I may have opined before, the self-selective nature of ZOE's data set, of those interested enough to sign up, might be problematic.

[Simon B]

To get from 41 to 4000 is 100-fold growth over 12 weeks and requires growth to 147% of the previous week's total, per week, every week. This won't be what happened, but it gives some insight.

1.47 * 1.47 * 1.47 (repeat 12 times) = 1.47^12 = 101.81, i.e. roughly 100-fold growth.

To work out the 1.47, you need logarithms so it's probably best not to go there .

On that basis, the figure is growing by about 50% a week.

[Simon B]

As I think I may have opined before, the self-selective nature of ZOE's data set, of those interested enough to sign up, might be problematic.

That is indeed a feature. They have to correct for bias in the sample, as indeed do the ONS and every other study. The issue is how well they do it.

The "official" PHE et al counts are also biased samples, particularly so as the only datum inclusion criterion is "got tested for some reason". Unlike the other studies, they accurately (hopefully) just count the thing they count, but as no attempt is made to correct for the heavily biased sample, what do the results mean? The effect of this is probably being seen right now. School term ends, lateral flow testing drops, cases drop. The demographics of the sample just underwent a step change, but nobody has tried to correct for this.

It appears that the recent adjustment in Zoe is to account for the small and diminishing proportion of unvaccinated participants. This is probably a feature of the self-selected participant group as you note, as unvaccinated people are going to be disproportionately unlikely to sign up to a symptom tracker. The study know and have been correcting for this, but the bias correction appears to have needed updating.

None of the datasets can be relied upon. It's most useful to look at them all together, rather like statistical weather forecast models. When they all agree, you can probably have confidence in the trends. When they diverge, believe nothing.

[Dave2002]

To get from 41 to 4000 is 100-fold growth over 12 weeks and requires growth to 147% of the previous week's total, per week, every week. This won't be what happened, but it gives some insight.

1.47 * 1.47 * 1.47 (repeat 12 times) = 1.47^12 = 101.81, i.e. roughly 100-fold growth.

To work out the 1.47, you need logarithms so it's probably best not to go there .

On that basis, the figure is growing by about 50% a week.

No - you don't need logs - just type 100^(1/12) = into the search bar in a browser - typically connected to Google search, and a result 1.46779926762 - that's a bit OTT - say 1.47 - appears. Works for any ratio - so Growth-Ratio ^(1/no-of-weeks)= will do.

Whether the computation is actually done using logs or not is unknown by this method - it might be - it might not be!