Coronavirus - A pale horse,4 men and ....beer

[Dallas]

Its going to be like watching and England football match,
Off to a good start, high hopes, only to be beaten by countries like Croatia and Iceland!

.....Jules Rimet still gleaming....

[Derek27]

I see The Moron Express was full last night!

I saw that coming. I was staying with family when London was put into tier 2 and thought no way am I going down there for Christmas.

[alexmr2]

Almost at the end of the year so an interesting time for those who base their opinion on solid numbers as opposed to emotional and sentimental influences.

So in a market it doesn't make much sense to base your trade on what the pundits are saying, or that you think a horse is good because it won it's previous race without estimating the value, right? I mean there cannot possibly be any sort of mathematical answer derived from this approach without looking at what matters the most IMO (historical data and money). When analysing a market surely you don't just look at a small segment of the traded volume, a single retracement and ignore the other 90%, you look at the whole picture, right?

So in pandemic where do you look to for answers? Do you listen to the pundits rambling on (the BBC), are you influenced because you heard that your aunt's, friend's, pet hamster's goldfish caught coronavirus and wasn't feeling very well or even died (afterall there are 600,000 UK deaths per year so there's every chance)? Do you only look at a single upcurve of deaths going up? Personally I want to base my opinion on the bigger picture, the total deaths compared to previous years to get a true understanding of the actual impact.

Since these lockdowns and masks are "so important for saving lives", maybe an interesting country to analyse would be one which imposed minimal restrictions on the population, Sweden. Surely since this virus is so deadly and these people didn't "follow the rules" the deaths have to be out of control, 200% normal?

Wrong, it would seem

sweden.png

I wonder why the bigger picture is never discussed? How about no mention of the 1600+ UK deaths per day under normal circumstance as a solid comparison? I mean, I'm even having trouble locating a similar chart for the UK although I have found some data indicating that the UK deaths this year are only around 1-2% higher than last year despite the trillions of social interactions taking place in homes, supermarkets, schools, crowds, protests and other indoor spaces. I believe that some of these charts shown by the mainstream media standalone are just noise/regression to the mean if we zoomed out.


Some UK/Europe bigger picture graphs:

uk.png

europe.png

[TraderFred]

Almost at the end of the year so an interesting time for those who base their opinion on solid numbers as opposed to emotional and sentimental influences.

So in a market it doesn't make much sense to base your trade on what the pundits are saying, or that you think a horse is good because it won it's previous race without estimating the value, right? I mean there cannot possibly be any sort of mathematical answer derived from this approach without looking at what matters the most IMO (historical data and money). When analysing a market surely you don't just look at a small segment of the traded volume, a single retracement and ignore the other 90%, you look at the whole picture, right?

So in pandemic where do you look to for answers? Do you listen to the pundits rambling on (the BBC), are you influenced because you heard that your aunt's, friend's, pet hamster's goldfish caught coronavirus and wasn't feeling very well or even died (afterall there are 600,000 UK deaths per year so there's every chance)? Do you only look at a single upcurve of deaths going up? Personally I want to base my opinion on the bigger picture, the total deaths compared to previous years to get a true understanding of the actual impact.

Since these lockdowns and masks are "so important for saving lives", maybe an interesting country to analyse would be one which imposed minimal restrictions on the population, Sweden. Surely since this virus is so deadly and these people didn't "follow the rules" the deaths have to be out of control, 200% normal?

Wrong, it would seem

sweden.png

I wonder why the bigger picture is never discussed? How about no mention of the 1600+ UK deaths per day under normal circumstance as a solid comparison? I mean, I'm even having trouble locating a similar chart for the UK although I have found some data indicating that the UK deaths this year are only around 1-2% higher than last year despite the trillions of social interactions taking place in homes, supermarkets, schools, crowds, protests and other indoor spaces. I believe that some of these charts shown by the mainstream media standalone are just noise/regression to the mean if we zoomed out.


Some UK/Europe bigger picture graphs:

uk.png

europe.png

You can’t even win on betfair, you’re not going to solve COVID.

[Derek27]

Almost at the end of the year so an interesting time for those who base their opinion on solid numbers as opposed to emotional and sentimental influences.

So in a market it doesn't make much sense to base your trade on what the pundits are saying, or that you think a horse is good because it won it's previous race without estimating the value, right? I mean there cannot possibly be any sort of mathematical answer derived from this approach without looking at what matters the most IMO (historical data and money). When analysing a market surely you don't just look at a small segment of the traded volume, a single retracement and ignore the other 90%, you look at the whole picture, right?

So in pandemic where do you look to for answers? Do you listen to the pundits rambling on (the BBC), are you influenced because you heard that your aunt's, friend's, pet hamster's goldfish caught coronavirus and wasn't feeling very well or even died (afterall there are 600,000 UK deaths per year so there's every chance)? Do you only look at a single upcurve of deaths going up? Personally I want to base my opinion on the bigger picture, the total deaths compared to previous years to get a true understanding of the actual impact.

Since these lockdowns and masks are "so important for saving lives", maybe an interesting country to analyse would be one which imposed minimal restrictions on the population, Sweden. Surely since this virus is so deadly and these people didn't "follow the rules" the deaths have to be out of control, 200% normal?

Wrong, it would seem

sweden.png

I wonder why the bigger picture is never discussed? How about no mention of the 1600+ UK deaths per day under normal circumstance as a solid comparison? I mean, I'm even having trouble locating a similar chart for the UK although I have found some data indicating that the UK deaths this year are only around 1-2% higher than last year despite the trillions of social interactions taking place in homes, supermarkets, schools, crowds, protests and other indoor spaces. I believe that some of these charts shown by the mainstream media standalone are just noise/regression to the mean if we zoomed out.


Some UK/Europe bigger picture graphs:

uk.png

europe.png

I trust you've recovered from your covid symptoms of two months ago?

I can except trading data from people not qualified in stats because I know enough about trading and stats to make sense of it, but certainly not death rates and effects of viruses. Common sense would suggest that if you don't social distance and place restrictions the virus will spread. My suspicion is that you found the data you want to represent your argument and haven't dug deep enough to correlate it.

[Derek27]

I just did a quick Google search and this is the first thing it came up with. How long did you spend digging for your chart alexmr2?

Capture.PNG

[alexmr2]

Almost at the end of the year so an interesting time for those who base their opinion on solid numbers as opposed to emotional and sentimental influences.

So in a market it doesn't make much sense to base your trade on what the pundits are saying, or that you think a horse is good because it won it's previous race without estimating the value, right? I mean there cannot possibly be any sort of mathematical answer derived from this approach without looking at what matters the most IMO (historical data and money). When analysing a market surely you don't just look at a small segment of the traded volume, a single retracement and ignore the other 90%, you look at the whole picture, right?

So in pandemic where do you look to for answers? Do you listen to the pundits rambling on (the BBC), are you influenced because you heard that your aunt's, friend's, pet hamster's goldfish caught coronavirus and wasn't feeling very well or even died (afterall there are 600,000 UK deaths per year so there's every chance)? Do you only look at a single upcurve of deaths going up? Personally I want to base my opinion on the bigger picture, the total deaths compared to previous years to get a true understanding of the actual impact.

Since these lockdowns and masks are "so important for saving lives", maybe an interesting country to analyse would be one which imposed minimal restrictions on the population, Sweden. Surely since this virus is so deadly and these people didn't "follow the rules" the deaths have to be out of control, 200% normal?

Wrong, it would seem

sweden.png

I wonder why the bigger picture is never discussed? How about no mention of the 1600+ UK deaths per day under normal circumstance as a solid comparison? I mean, I'm even having trouble locating a similar chart for the UK although I have found some data indicating that the UK deaths this year are only around 1-2% higher than last year despite the trillions of social interactions taking place in homes, supermarkets, schools, crowds, protests and other indoor spaces. I believe that some of these charts shown by the mainstream media standalone are just noise/regression to the mean if we zoomed out.


Some UK/Europe bigger picture graphs:

uk.png

europe.png

I trust you've recovered from your covid symptoms of two months ago?

I can except trading data from people not qualified in stats because I know enough about trading and stats to make sense of it, but certainly not death rates and effects of viruses. Common sense would suggest that if you don't social distance and place restrictions the virus will spread. My suspicion is that you found the data you want to represent your argument and haven't dug deep enough to correlate it.

So 12 months in Sweden and many other countries didn't use "common sense" to socially distance yet the total deaths at the end of 2020 are identical to the previous 10 years?

By the current logic the UK should have socially distanced for 10 years out of the last 30 with 2020 coming in at 10th place vs previous annual flu deaths

Screenshot_20201228-174135_Gallery.jpg

[Trader Pat]

I really thought we'd at least get to the end of 2020 before another conspiracy theory appeared

[Jukebox]

Almost at the end of the year so an interesting time for those who base their opinion on solid numbers as opposed to emotional and sentimental influences.

So in a market it doesn't make much sense to base your trade on what the pundits are saying, or that you think a horse is good because it won it's previous race without estimating the value, right? I mean there cannot possibly be any sort of mathematical answer derived from this approach without looking at what matters the most IMO (historical data and money). When analysing a market surely you don't just look at a small segment of the traded volume, a single retracement and ignore the other 90%, you look at the whole picture, right?

So in pandemic where do you look to for answers? Do you listen to the pundits rambling on (the BBC), are you influenced because you heard that your aunt's, friend's, pet hamster's goldfish caught coronavirus and wasn't feeling very well or even died (afterall there are 600,000 UK deaths per year so there's every chance)? Do you only look at a single upcurve of deaths going up? Personally I want to base my opinion on the bigger picture, the total deaths compared to previous years to get a true understanding of the actual impact.

Since these lockdowns and masks are "so important for saving lives", maybe an interesting country to analyse would be one which imposed minimal restrictions on the population, Sweden. Surely since this virus is so deadly and these people didn't "follow the rules" the deaths have to be out of control, 200% normal?

Wrong, it would seem

sweden.png

I wonder why the bigger picture is never discussed? How about no mention of the 1600+ UK deaths per day under normal circumstance as a solid comparison? I mean, I'm even having trouble locating a similar chart for the UK although I have found some data indicating that the UK deaths this year are only around 1-2% higher than last year despite the trillions of social interactions taking place in homes, supermarkets, schools, crowds, protests and other indoor spaces. I believe that some of these charts shown by the mainstream media standalone are just noise/regression to the mean if we zoomed out.


Some UK/Europe bigger picture graphs:

uk.png

europe.png

I trust you've recovered from your covid symptoms of two months ago?

I can except trading data from people not qualified in stats because I know enough about trading and stats to make sense of it, but certainly not death rates and effects of viruses. Common sense would suggest that if you don't social distance and place restrictions the virus will spread. My suspicion is that you found the data you want to represent your argument and haven't dug deep enough to correlate it.

So 12 months in Sweden and many other countries didn't use "common sense" to socially distance yet the total deaths at the end of 2020 are identical to the previous 10 years?

By the current logic the UK should have socially distanced for 10 years out of the last 30 with 2020 coming in at 10th place vs previous annual flu deaths

Screenshot_20201228-174135_Gallery.jpg

What trade are you recommending to this forum?

[jamesg46]

What % is survival of Covid at over different age groups? Also anyone know what the % chance of not getting Covid is?

[alexmr2]

What % is survival of Covid at over different age groups? Also anyone know what the % chance of not getting Covid is?

byage.png

I think this graph should be taken with a pinch of salt however, because there's no comparison to the flu from previous years so it doesn't mean much. Also any figures which rely on the Covid test are likely to be skewed/overinflated as there is evidence showing that the tests aren't very accurate or consistent.

Lots of people who had it and survive whether showing symptoms or not, don't get a test which skews the % of dying after testing positive to look higher.
Any death within 28 days of a positive test is counted, so Covid may not have been the actual cause of death (you do have to bear in mind that around 600,000 people die in the UK per year under normal circumstances, so there's every chance that a lot of these deaths are labelled as Covid rather than old age or the flu as per previous years).

I believe the % chance of getting Covid-19 is pretty high, like the flu you probably will get it at some point.

So in my opinion you can't be a trader and expect 0 losses, you can't become a champion boxer and expect to take 0 punches in the same way that you can't go through life expecting not to contract any viruses by shielding forever. We may be wired for loss aversion but if managed properly every losing trade puts you one step closer to a long-term profit, every punch puts you one step closer to becoming a champion and every virus puts your immune system one step forward to living a long and healthy life

[jamesg46]

What % is survival of Covid at over different age groups? Also anyone know what the % chance of not getting Covid is?

byage.png

I think this graph should be taken with a pinch of salt however, because there's no comparison to the flu from previous years so it doesn't mean much. Also any figures which rely on the Covid test are likely to be skewed/overinflated as there is evidence showing that the tests aren't very accurate or consistent.

Lots of people who had it and survive whether showing symptoms or not, don't get a test which skews the % of dying after testing positive to look higher.
Any death within 28 days of a positive test is counted, so Covid may not have been the actual cause of death (you do have to bear in mind that around 600,000 people die in the UK per year under normal circumstances, so there's every chance that a lot of these deaths are labelled as Covid rather than old age or the flu as per previous years).

I believe the % chance of getting Covid-19 is pretty high, like the flu you probably will get it at some point.

So in my opinion you can't be a trader and expect 0 losses, you can't become a champion boxer and expect to take 0 punches in the same way that you can't go through life expecting not to contract any viruses by shielding forever. We may be wired for loss aversion but if managed properly every losing trade puts you one step closer to a long-term profit, every punch puts you one step closer to becoming a champion and every virus puts your immune system one step forward to living a long and healthy life

I know my chances of surving Covid are greater than 99% and I also know that catching Covid is probably inevitable, so I'm one of few that isn't concerned in the slightest.

No matter what you do, say or think about Covid you'll find yourself in an impossible place, because people are scared of taking off the inflatable armbands (the false sense of security/comfort of believing that their life is under control & in the hands of other people, like Boris Johnson.)

I'm actually at the stage where i believe people are more scared of being judged than they are of catching the virus.

Maybe we should have a forum poll to see how many people have broken the Covid guidelines, I'd put my money on it being heavily skewed towards people have broken the guidelines if they're honest.

[sionascaig]

I know my chances of surving Covid are greater than 99% and I also know that catching Covid is probably inevitable, so I'm one of few that isn't concerned in the slightest.

You might be in a group that has a 99% chance of surviving covid but that doesn't mean "you" have a 99% chance of surviving it.

Hope you do - survive it - obviously )

[jamesg46]

I know my chances of surving Covid are greater than 99% and I also know that catching Covid is probably inevitable, so I'm one of few that isn't concerned in the slightest.

You might be in a group that has a 99% chance of surviving covid but that doesn't mean "you" have a 99% chance of surviving it.

Hope you do - survive it - obviously )

Good point! I'll discount myself a few % for my unhealthy lifestyle and maybe factor in a few more to allow for Karma but ultimately I'll still sit on the side of being optimistic about my chances. I'd much rather that than a doom & gloom outlook

[Jamie]

It seems there are a lot of health professionals voicing criticism and mistrust at the way the whole situation has been handled.

A More Honest Perspective of the COVID-19 Pandemic
https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-hone ... ic/5733198

Apparently some at the BMJ are suspicious of corruption within the ranks of the decision makers:-

BMJ’s executive editor Kamran Abbasi wrote:

“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.”