News Forum - Friday Covid Update: 271 deaths and 14,653 new cases

[Stonker]

37 minutes ago, semrand753 said:

The red line is based on an extrapolation and shows the expected future trend for the coming weeks.

You mean you made it up?

37 minutes ago, semrand753 said:

4 days of a downward trend doesn't make it a sure-fire bet ...

No, but since there has been NO "downward trend" for the last four days but there's been a very clear UPWARD trend it makes it a sure-fire bet that you're not as well informed as you think you are:

31 August:      190

1 September: 252

2 September: 262

3 September: 271

37 minutes ago, semrand753 said:

I wrote the software behind this .....

Given that you're evidently unable to tell the difference between a downward trend and an upward trend that doesn't surprise me at all.

[semrand753]

6 minutes ago, Stonker said:

You mean you made it up?

No, but since there has been NO "downward trend" for the last four days but there's been a very clear UPWARD trend it makes it a sure-fire bet that you're not as well informed as you think you are:

31 August:      190

1 September: 252

2 September: 262

3 September: 271

Given that you're evidently unable to tell the difference between a downward trend and an upward trend that doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm not cut out to be a teacher (I lack the patience to deal with students falling into the pitfalls you've fallen into). Tell you what: I'll keep it simple: just wait a week or so and then re-evaluate. I'll do the same. If I'm wrong, I'll add an erratum to my post. All I ask is that you do the same otherwise.

[Stonker]

6 minutes ago, semrand753 said:

I'm not cut out to be a teacher (I lack the patience to deal with students falling into the pitfalls you've fallen into). Tell you what: I'll keep it simple: just wait a week or so and then re-evaluate. I'll do the same. If I'm wrong, I'll add an erratum to my post. All I ask is that you do the same otherwise.

I'll keep it even simpler.

If you think that 190 - 252 -262 - 271 is a downward trend and not an upward one, as you very clearly do, then your would-be students have had a fortunate escape.

[semrand753]

On 9/4/2021 at 9:33 PM, Stonker said:

I'll keep it even simpler.

If you think that 190 - 252 -262 - 271 is a downward trend and not an upward one, as you very clearly do, then your would-be students have had a fortunate escape.

 

Just read your reply, which just shows you didn't think things through , which in turn triggered a slightly premature reply from me.

Even though worldometers' visualizations (your source) aren't great, it's has now become hard to not recognize to a downward trend:

 

Since I'm feeling slightly more patient than last time: don't determine trends based solely on a couple of days (that's almost as unrealistic as winning the lottery one day after years of losing and then declaring having discovered an upward trend). Instead, look at averages (e.g. weekly or running averages) if you want to identify patterns.

Note that worldometers offers an option to compare the last 7 days with the 7 days prior to that (tip: there's a button "Weekly trends"). The reduction (the downward trend) been varying between 5 and 10% since the recent peak. There are also buttons for considering 3- and 7-day averages.

On an abstract note: these trends are usable for short-term predictions only, since trends change policies and policies subsequently change trends. I wouldn't be surprised at all if directions change in a couple of weeks, but that's beside the point of this follow-up.

On a personal note: I'm not easily offended, but in case you manage to double your efforts it might get tricky. Take it easy. We're just talking about numbers and statistics.

 

 

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, semrand753 said:

Just read your reply, which just shows you didn't think things through , which in turn triggered a slightly premature reply from me.

Even though worldometers' visualizations (your source) aren't great, it's has now become hard to not recognize to a downward trend:

Since I'm feeling slightly more patient than last time: don't determine trends based solely on a couple of days (that's almost as unrealistic as winning the lottery one day after years of losing and then declaring having discovered an upward trend). Instead, look at averages (e.g. weekly or running averages) if you want to identify patterns.

Note that worldometers offers an option to compare the last 7 days with the 7 days prior to that (tip: there's a button "Weekly trends"). The reduction (the downward trend) been varying between 5 and 10% since the recent peak. There are also buttons for considering 3- and 7-day averages.

On an abstract note: these trends are usable for short-term predictions only, since trends change policies and policies subsequently change trends. I wouldn't be surprised at all if directions change in a couple of weeks, but that's beside the point of this follow-up.

On a personal note: I'm not easily offended, but in case you manage to double your efforts it might get tricky. Take it easy. We're just talking about numbers and statistics.

Maybe, being generous, you need to refresh your memory.

You quoted me saying "But the death toll is steadily going up ..." and asked me to "double check (because it's wrong":

 

On 9/4/2021 at 7:47 PM, semrand753 said:

Could you double-check (because it's wrong) and fill in the ellipses (because it makes no sense)?

If you do, just remember there's a lag of a couple of weeks (people don't die within seconds of being infected). Cases peaked around the 17th last month. Right now (it started 4 days ago), the  number of deaths of the latest wave has also peaked and there's a downward trend (as to be expected).

I did, wasting my time since what I had said was 100% correct while what you had claimed was 100% wrong.  The death toll WAS very clearly going up,  cases had very clearly NOT peaked around the 17th of last month, NOR had there been a downward trend for the previous 4 days but a very clear upward one as I showed:

 

On 9/4/2021 at 8:45 PM, Stonker said:

The daily deaths for the last two weeks, from 21 August to 3 September are (in that order): 261, 233, 242, 226, 297, 229, 273, 292, 264, 256, 190, 252, 262, 271.

4 days ago, on 31 August, there were 190 deaths; on 1  September, 252; on 2nd, 262; on 3rd, 271.

My maths is getting rusty, but as far as I can recall 190 - 252 - 262 - 271 is NOT a "downward trend".

 

You were simply completely wrong.

As for your "patience" and advice to "don't determine trends, etc", you've overlooked that "4 days ago" was the time frame YOU chose, so please don't presume to lecture me or anyone else on how to "determine trends" when you're the one who chose a time frame that wasn't suitable, nobody else.

On a personal note: please don't waste my time trying to justify your mistakes and to appear to know what you're talking about. Neither works.

1 hour ago, semrand753 said:

We're just talking about numbers and statistics.

We are. Yours, however you interpret them, were wrong. End of story.

[semrand753]

I don't get your style of discussion. Is there something you're hoping to achieve by that rant? Whichever way, I probably agree with your closing statement "End of story". Me paraphrasing: "Good bye".

[Stonker]

6 minutes ago, semrand753 said:

I don't get your style of discussion.

Call it understanding the difference between "up" and "down".

Evidently a concept you're unable to grasp.

Byeee

[semrand753]

On 9/9/2021 at 8:13 PM, Stonker said:

Call it understanding the difference between "up" and "down".

Evidently a concept you're unable to grasp.

Byeee

 

There are 2 sides to your latest reply (in which you continued the story you ended):

On the positive side, it confirmed my suspicion that your stupidity is not just an act.

On the negative side, you've tricked me into doing the homework that you should have done. 
Even worse: it has compelled me to state something obvious:

Based on to the published statistics:

2 weeks ago, the number of deaths was 1823 (in total for that week)
1 week ago, that number decreased to 1712.
For this week, the number is 1498.

1823 > 1712 >1498, so the current trend is downwards.

I can't make my point it simpler than this. 

If you decide to argue that 1498 is a bigger number than 1823, I'll probably not respond. Instead, I'll just hope that you don't have offspring and/or that your deficiency isn't hereditary.
 

 

[Stonker]

49 minutes ago, semrand753 said:

There are 2 sides to your latest reply (in which you continued the story you ended):

On the positive side, it confirmed my suspicion that your stupidity is not just an act.

On the negative side, you've tricked me into doing the homework that you should have done. 
Even worse: it has compelled me to state something obvious:

Based on to the published statistics:

2 weeks ago, the number of deaths was 1823 (in total for that week)
1 week ago, that number decreased to 1712.
For this week, the number is 1498.

1823 > 1712 >1498, so the current trend is downwards.

I can't make my point it simpler than this. 

If you decide to argue that 1498 is a bigger number than 1823, I'll probably not respond. Instead, I'll just hope that you don't have offspring and/or that your deficiency isn't hereditary.
 

Unfortunately the posts under discussion weren't about "2 weeks ago", "1 week ago" and "this week", which is of absolutely no relevance here as that wasn't the time frame you chose, so you've been wasting your time looking at the wrong time frame.

They were specifically about "4 days ago" from 4 September, so 31 August to 3 September, when you claimed there had been "a downward trend" in deaths.

On 31 August, there were 190 deaths; on 1  September, 252; on 2nd, 262; on 3rd, 271.

So over the time frame you chose, 31 August to 3 September, that's 190 - 252 - 262 - 271.

That isn't "downward".

If you can't see that over the period you chose (31 August to 3 September) up isn't down there's no point in continuing this, and certainly no point in encouraging you to flaunt forum rules by being deliberately abusive and argumentative.

 

[Poolie]

He went on ignore too, for exactly the same reason.

[semrand753]

You're basically stating that I'm right but that I had no way of knowing that when I posted by original reply, which therefor makes me wrong.  Come on, that's just a prime example of convoluted reasoning induced by a state of denial.

Anybody could have seen that at the time of my 1st post that the (average) numbers had been decreasing for 4 days already (for the first time since a long time).

Here are 2 indisputable facts:
1) what I predicted turned out to be correct (if I had made the same claim 7 days prior, I'd have been wrong. However, I don't make random claims and I was spot on, for good reasons, see next point).
2) I explained my rationale and it can be verified independently even now (just do the sums!)

If we engage in a discussion next time, at least entertain the possibility that whatever I'm saying has been well thought out (spoiler alert: it always is) and is likely correct. I have no problems about thinking deeper or giving details if your rebukes or questions are stated decently (and who knows: every now and then, you might even convince me  that your viewpoint has merits or considerations I hadn't realized).