'Whenever you read a model, the most important thing to look at is not the actual maths behind the graphs - it’s the numbers that have been plugged into the model from the start.'https://medium.com/@gidmk/coronavirus-hasnt-infected-more-than-half-of-the-united-kingdom-50e4fba32552 …
-
-
Thanks Gideon. That's why I've tried to skip "confirmed/diagnosed cases" and instead focus on the relationship between actual infections - detected or not, and deaths. Actual infections critical for public comms re: lockdown complacency. "Confirmed cases" are iceberg tip?
-
Yes and no. Much better to stick to confirmed cases as this is the data you have. Extrapolating to 'actual' infections is extremely challenging and really relies on your assumptions more than it does the data
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's one of the reasons why extrapolating to the number of infections from deaths is not something that you see pandemic specialists doing - it's very dependent on your testing and may be wildly misleading
-
I see how "confirmed cases" is dependent on testing strategy. UK are only testing hospitalised cases so the tiny iceberg tip. Surely deaths, assuming you're catching all the CV ones!!!, is more solid? Particularly if you have decent look back using fuller pop tests elsewhere?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.