26-Nov 2022 : LAB: 50% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 4%

[neilj]

Savanta poll, unlike Yougov polldrums

[lens]

Mar 23, 2023 8:27:41 GMT alec said:

steve - "Overall it's had marginal impact on average life expectancy which indicates that not many more people than normal were dying each year after the average age of death."

Sorry Steve, but that's complete bunkum.

Life expectancy generally changes slowly from year to year. Covid has had a huge impact. You've got this wrong.

I really was trying not to ever comment again on Covid - but this has more to do with pure statistics. And sorry alec but in relation to your comments about the graph, you are overlooking something very important.

You are applying an average to something with is very non random, which is therefore giving you a very wrong conclusion.

As illustration, imagine a home with 10 eighty year old ladies, and yes, between them an expected years left of 50. (If we assume average at age 80 is 5 years.) OK so far? Now, lets imagine further that 5 of them are extremely fit and healthy, the other 5 all have Alzheimers, are without exception obese and have Type 2 diabetes, plus a variety of other ailments. We now imagine Covid enters the home and infects them all, and sadly 4 of the original 10 die. So do you now expect us to have 6 ladies, each with an average of 5 years life left, so now a total of 30 years between them?

A bit of thought shows that very unlikely to be the case. In all likelihood the 4 deaths will all be among the latter group, those with pre-existing conditions. If we'd broken the broad "average" figure of 5 years down, we may have found that the no of years for the healthy group was on average 9 - for those with medical conditions only (say) 1. You can't simply apply "average" figures to anything like a Covid situation, which does not affect randomly - it's been known from the beginning that it's far more likely to lead to death in those with pre-existing conditions.

To move away from the hypothetical, such statistics were very real for me a few years ago when facing a major heart operation. I remember when signing the consent forms being told that the "chance of fatal complications is only about 1 in 100". Given what was at stake, wasn't maybe as good odds as I may have hoped for.....! But I later heard that the problem with such figures is exactly down to the mistake alec is making. Individual survival from such an operation is not simple global statistics. For someone in otherwise good health, not obese or suffering from other conditions, and who has never smoked or drunk excessively, the odds are far better than 1 in 100. And of course, the opposite applies.......

It has also been hinted since that apart from sheer difficulty of giving everyone an accurate odds for their particular circumstance, then whilst it may have been comforting to myself, it may be a  different matter for those in very poor basic health. Much easier for a doctor to give everyone the same average figure - even if they may know full well it under/overestimates the risk for that particular individual.

And please, I hope this post is seen as fundamentally one about statistics, not Covid. It really is time to drop the latter subject.

[pjw1961]

I was listening to BBC Radio 4 news at 6 p.m. last night and they described Nicola Sturgeon as a "head of state", which might be news to King Charles. Could be a while before we get President Sturgeon.

[alec]

lens - "A bit of thought shows that very unlikely to be the case. In all likelihood the 4 deaths will all be among the latter group, those with pre-existing conditions."

Yes - completely agree, and thanks for the excellent illustration.

The reason why actuaries are now viewing these reductions in life expectancy as likely to be permanent however, is for the reason you've omitted to account for; covid sickens healthy people.

We now have abundant evidence that, inter alia, covid leads to substantial increases in new onset dementia, cardiovascular illness (highest % increase in previously healthy young people <30 years old), doubles risk of diabetes, damages to immune system making other infections more likely, etc etc. So in your example, the bit you missed out is that a couple of the survivors will likely have nascent dementia or weak hearts or impaired liver function because of their infection, and next time round, they'll be in the culling zone. This is why excess deaths have been elevated for such a long period of time in pretty much every country that has followed the 'let it rip' approach.

Covid is a dynamic situation, with repeat infections now the norm. You can't slice this down statistically into a single event, because each event potentially impairs your ability to withstand the next event.

We will eventually all come to agree that covid is shortening life span significantly, that it's economically damaging to have constant high levels of viral infection, and that elevated absences from school are to be expected when lots of children are exposed to a novel pathogen and we can't blame poor attendance figure on gypsies. We'll get there, but I think a lot of people are going to experience a lot of pain before the penny drops.

[steve]

lens

I had a similar situation about five years ago.

I was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy.
Around 50% of those diagnosed die within a year most of the rest if they respond to medication within 10 to 15 years without a heart transplant.

I wasn't exceptionally chuffed as I was still in my fifties and from a long lived family both my mother and father being in their late 80's at the time.


So on a statistical basis I should probably be dead by now.
Clearly I'm not.

What my GP neglected to mention is that around 5% of cases are viral cardiomyopathy which if it responds to medication can see a full recovery with no impact on life expectancy.
Fortunately that was me.

[Danny]

Mar 23, 2023 12:51:55 GMT alec said:

Yes - completely agree, and thanks for the excellent illustration. The reason why actuaries are now viewing these reductions in life expectancy as likely to be permanent however, is for the reason you've omitted to account for; covid sickens healthy people.

No, you persist in the same mistake. Failing to take into account pre existing health. The best screening test we have for determining how well or badly someone will react to covid-is if they catch covid. You keep basing your argument upon reports which looked at groups who had the worst outcomes to covid and extrapolating them to the rest of the population. Rather the inverse of what you did with life expectancy figures, where you extrapolated the average to those suffering covid. You used the argument oppositely in the two cases which biased the result to the outcome you wanted.

and that elevated absences from school are to be expected when lots of children are exposed to a novel pathogen

The experts seem to believe that because we have conditioned kids and their parents to not going to school, and indeed government said dont worry thats fine, they believed it so now dont bother going. Its another lockdown own goal.

[alec]

Danny - "You keep basing your argument upon reports which looked at groups who had the worst outcomes to covid and extrapolating them to the rest of the population."

That's a straightforward lie Danny - as I have previously explained on the covid thread. You are ignoring all the studies I posted about impacts of mild and asymptomatic covid, as I have already explained to you. It's as if you are deliberately trying to smear me, for some strange reason.

Please desist from lying about and misrepresenting other posters.

Any other comments you have, on the covid thread please.

[alec]

steve - "So on a statistical basis I should probably be dead by now."

No. On a statistical basis, you should be half dead by now.

[mandolinist]

Anent school absence.

Can I recommend that all those commenting on school absences listen to women's hour from this morning? The discussion on this very subject was very informative, the reasons given being various and wide ranging, some of them have not been mentionsed in our rather narrow discourse on the subject. The area that I found most interesting was school reluctance amongst some of the most vulnerable children. Children who would always have been vulnerable to missing school without a great deal of support and intervention. Those from disordered families, those with learning disabilities, those with mental health challenges. The phrase which stuck in my mind was the "breaking of the social contract" with those children and their families through lockdown and school closures.

Really, go and catch it on radio 4 listen again.

 Edit; It's Womans Hour isn't it?

[alec]

mandolinist - also perhaps worth pointing out that teacher absences for sick leave are at record levels, with hundreds of millions of £ spent in additional cover. I would tend to exclude teachers from the idea of some pandemic inspired culture shift to absence, and instead posit that there whatever else is going on, there is a real and significant level of ill health behind these figures. Also true to say that some parents, especially among the substantial CEV community, are keeping their children at home because they can't afford to catch covid. Some of these are being hounded by social services, rather than helped.

Moving on: for those interested, have just posted a very balanced and fair article on the covid thread looking at the links between covid and cancer development. Oncologists are getting increasingly concerned, as the information on inflammatory responses and immune dysregulation from covid infection mounts, but there are many other factors also in play, and teasing out the impact of each is complex.

[oldnat]

As if we didn't already know that electricity producing companies are adept at manipulating the dysfunctional GB energy market to boost their profits at our expense -

"Traders at firms including Vitol’s VPI, Uniper SE and SSE Plc have frequently announced they would cut off electricity capacity — sometimes with just a few hours’ notice — ahead of the busiest evening periods. At the same time, they offered power from their plants in a special side market where they charged higher prices to meet the shortfalls they helped create. Traders dramatically increased their use of this practice — and the prices they charged — as the lifting of Covid restrictions and then Russia’s war in Ukraine brought turmoil to the UK electricity market, a Bloomberg News investigation has found. Current rules do not prohibit such off-on maneuvers."

www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-uk-power-electricity-market-manipulating/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTY3OTU1NDYwMiwiZXhwIjoxNjgwMTU5NDAyLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJSUlk1RU9UMEcxS1cwMSIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJCRDc1Q0QzMDA4QkE0N0M1QkIxMjQzNTFBNDE0OTJBNSJ9.JyaMS4O5Y4JqEmA_yWrKJ26xmZOcDMmEe-2F6KXMJ7Y

[oldnat]

Thread on new Ipsos Scotland poll

Summary -
Party net favourability:
SNP: -1 (-1)
Labour: -4 (-4)
Greens: -14 (-6)
Lib Dems: -22 (-4)
Conservatives: -42 (+2)

Leader net favourability:
Sturgeon: +8 (+8)
Sarwar: -4 (nc)
Starmer: -9 (-8)
Sunak: -37 (+5)
Ross: -39 (+2)

SNP leadership candidate favourability:
All respondents:
Forbes: -8
Yousaf: -20
Regan: -24
SNP voters:
Yousaf: +11
Forbes: +6
Regan: -7

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 23, 2023 12:29:11 GMT lens said:

And please, I hope this post is seen as fundamentally one about statistics, not Covid. It really is time to drop the latter subject.

But I was just getting into it!!...

[steve]

Glad to see roland rat impersonator Rishi Sunak has a firm grip on his own cost of living crisis

Rishi Sunak saved £300,000 in tax thanks to cut he voted for in 2016.
So in other words multi millionaire Sunak managed to pay a lower marginal tax rate than his pool attendant , while pocketing extra wonga than the entire pre tax salary of a junior doctor over the same period.

Nice ones Rishi.
You greedy twat.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 23, 2023 14:12:45 GMT oldnat said:

As if we didn't already know that electricity producing companies are adept at manipulating the dysfunctional GB energy market to boost their profits at our expense -

But some will be very unhappy about going back to state-owned energy companies, as it gives the alliance between the locally-based ruling class and the working class more power, in challenging the alliance between the middle class and the more globalist ruling class, who would prefer energy to be in the private sector and preferably foreign-owned as it helps cement the power of their alliance.

[leftieliberal]

Mar 23, 2023 12:22:22 GMT neilj said:

Savanta poll, unlike Yougov polldrums

Savanta, like Opinium and Deltapoll, consistently show much lower Labour leads than other pollsters. I don't see a change in lead of 1% as anything other than polldrums. The danger is that people seize on the smallest changes and blow them up out of all recognition.

[steve]

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 23, 2023 12:51:55 GMT alec said:

The reason why actuaries are now viewing these reductions in life expectancy as likely to be permanent however, is for the reason you've omitted to account for; covid sickens healthy people.

I just thought I might highlight that bit!

[mercian]

Mar 23, 2023 9:48:13 GMT steve said:

Today's news

Sunak is super rich and pays a lower rate of tax than very many people who actually work for a living, Spaffer is a habitual liar who seems to believe his own falsehoods, inflation is ballooning up to 14 per cent, interest rates are going to go up again, strange old men on the fascist wing of the Conservative Party are still voting for the impossible- a Brexit that works, the infrastructure is collapsing around us, Putin threatens to destroy the planet, the last U.S. President faces forty years in prison for organising a coup, but remains the GOP favourite candidate to stand again and the leader of HM Opposition continues in what often appears to be a deep coma.I


Everything is fine in our septic island kingdom.

"Always look on the bright si-ide of life.."

Quibble. (Philosophical?) If the person telling an untruth believes it to be true, is it still a lie?

[pjw1961]

Mar 23, 2023 14:55:36 GMT mercian said:

Mar 23, 2023 9:48:13 GMT steve said:

Today's news

Sunak is super rich and pays a lower rate of tax than very many people who actually work for a living, Spaffer is a habitual liar who seems to believe his own falsehoods, inflation is ballooning up to 14 per cent, interest rates are going to go up again, strange old men on the fascist wing of the Conservative Party are still voting for the impossible- a Brexit that works, the infrastructure is collapsing around us, Putin threatens to destroy the planet, the last U.S. President faces forty years in prison for organising a coup, but remains the GOP favourite candidate to stand again and the leader of HM Opposition continues in what often appears to be a deep coma.I


Everything is fine in our septic island kingdom.

"Always look on the bright si-ide of life.."

Quibble. (Philosophoical?) If the person telling an untruth believes it to be true, is it still a lie?

As a non-philosopher I would say lie implies knowledge and intention. If person says something that they believe to be true but isn't that would be either an (honest) error or perhaps a delusion if it were obvious to most others not to be true. Of course, people also lie to themselves and Johnson seems like one such. He knows what he says is wrong but somehow still believes it. 

[neilj]

In fairness to Penny Mordaunt this is a great putdown of Andrew Bridgen

[domjg]

Mar 23, 2023 14:22:44 GMT oldnat said:

Thread on new Ipsos Scotland poll

Summary -
Party net favourability:
SNP: -1 (-1)
Labour: -4 (-4)
Greens: -14 (-6)
Lib Dems: -22 (-4)
Conservatives: -42 (+2)

Leader net favourability:
Sturgeon: +8 (+8)
Sarwar: -4 (nc)
Starmer: -9 (-8)
Sunak: -37 (+5)
Ross: -39 (+2)

SNP leadership candidate favourability:
All respondents:
Forbes: -8
Yousaf: -20
Regan: -24
SNP voters:
Yousaf: +11
Forbes: +6
Regan: -7

I've always wondered why the Scottish Parliament building is decorated with that strange hair-dryer or power drill motif. Now's my chance to ask!

[Mr Poppy]

Whilst there are 'house effects' between different polling companies then most of them would come up with a similar finding to this Savanta post:

Being once again the focus of press attention this week then 'brand damage' from Boris is likely to continue to hold CON VI back.

[leftieliberal]

Mar 23, 2023 15:49:11 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Whilst there are 'house effects' between different polling companies then most of them would come up with a similar finding to this Savanta post:

Being once again the focus of press attention this week then 'brand damage' from Boris is likely to continue to hold CON VI back.

I suspect that most non-political people see Rishi Sunak in much the way they saw John Major. The only question is when the General Election finally comes will it be John Major (1992) or John Major (1997)? The upside for Labour I can see is that no-one can imagine Starmer doing a Neil Kinnock at the Sheffield Rally a week before the General Election. If it had not been for his triumphalism, we might have had a hung parliament or even a small Labour overall majority.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 23, 2023 15:39:23 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Mar 23, 2023 14:42:15 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

I just thought I might highlight that bit!

I think it has been well established that most of UKPR2 are sick to death of the Covid discussion. Once again for those that have forgotten (again). The Covid thread is

-->>>  ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/8/covid

I quoted one line and you decide to have a go at me about it. Some don’t seem too keen on your relentless New Model Shitewank so maybe you can put that in its own thread too.

[alec]

"New Model Shitewank".

Got a certain ring to it.

[pjw1961]

Mar 23, 2023 16:10:45 GMT leftieliberal said:

Mar 23, 2023 15:49:11 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Whilst there are 'house effects' between different polling companies then most of them would come up with a similar finding to this Savanta post:

Being once again the focus of press attention this week then 'brand damage' from Boris is likely to continue to hold CON VI back.

I suspect that most non-political people see Rishi Sunak in much the way they saw John Major. The only question is when the General Election finally comes will it be John Major (1992) or John Major (1997)? The upside for Labour I can see is that no-one can imagine Starmer doing a Neil Kinnock at the Sheffield Rally a week before the General Election. If it had not been for his triumphalism, we might have had a hung parliament or even a small Labour overall majority.

If Stamer is not Kinnock he isn't 1990s style Blair either. This is closer to Major v Major -(but one Major is saddled with 13 years of failure and the legacy of Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss).  

[pjw1961]

Mar 23, 2023 16:15:37 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mar 23, 2023 15:39:23 GMT Mr Poppy said:

I think it has been well established that most of UKPR2 are sick to death of the Covid discussion. Once again for those that have forgotten (again). The Covid thread is

-->>>  ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/8/covid

I quoted one line and you decide to have a go at me about it. Some don’t seem too keen on your relentless New Model Shitewank so maybe you can put that in its own thread too.

That's you branded as a 'troll' and blocked then. Welcome to the ever expanding club. 

[Deleted]

Mar 23, 2023 14:55:36 GMT mercian said:

Mar 23, 2023 9:48:13 GMT steve said:

"

Quibble. (Philosophical?) If the person telling an untruth believes it to be true, is it still a lie?

A very apposite question when it comes to Johnson. He clearly believes, and repeatedly stated that the seemingly never ending , alcohol fueled No 10  leaving parties were "work related". That his attendance at them was "necessary" to boost morale etc. And that the COVID Rules Guidelines ( neat avoidance of The Rules themselves ) permitted the assemblies in those photos.

Of course he may be lying in stating what he believed. 


According to the Institute for Government  Harman's Committee has  stated that it is investigating whether, if a statement made by Johnson to the Commons is found to have been misleading, it was “inadvertent, reckless, or intentional.”

Well misleading is beyond doubt. And even if we discount "intentional" on the basis you allude to-he believed the events were permitted under the Guidelines as necessary work related events-"reckless" must surely apply ?

What sickened me was his central defence -that he had a duty as a boss  to attend those leaving does because his staff were working so hard on Pandemic measures. 
That he could sit there and compare the cynical approach to work during covid which he and his staff indulged in , with the privations of millions of workers and their families condemns him utterly.

I hope they throw the book at him.

[alec]

colin - Collins Dictionary: "to speak untruthfully with intent to mislead or deceive"

Cambridge dictionary - "to say something that is not true in order to deceive"

Oxford similar.

So I think the definition does require intent to qualify as a lie.

But yes, he deserves nothing but contempt, for his defence, as much as his crime.