Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#339437

Postby swill453 » September 10th, 2020, 12:37 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:GPS location and time information might be no bad thing: help you make a judgement of risk (e.g. outdoor vs indoor encounter). It would certainly help credibility if it identified somewhere I really had been at the time claimed.

And a framework for matching contacts where both parties exchange information, for the scenario "was it Tom, Dick or Harry"? The message to you contains a token that (if you ask) matches with any of their keys, but (respecting privacy) reveals the match to you if and only if your match opts to allow it.

I'm sure Dominic's wishlist started off like that, and where did that get them? :-)

Scott.

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#339443

Postby swill453 » September 10th, 2020, 12:50 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:GPS location and time information might be no bad thing: help you make a judgement of risk (e.g. outdoor vs indoor encounter). It would certainly help credibility if it identified somewhere I really had been at the time claimed.

In any case it's not an option using the Google Exposure Notifications System. It specifically doesn't use, save or share the device location, such as GPS.

Scott.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#339972

Postby scotia » September 13th, 2020, 1:12 am

I have been looking at the data extracted from the Government Covid-19 data site (which sometimes works – as I have described previously!). I have compared the sum of daily cases in the first seven days of August with the sum of daily cases in the first seven days of September to see how significant (or otherwise) the currently reported rises may be. I also checked the UK Tests processed, and estimated that the number of Pillar 1 & 2 Tests had increased by 23% in the month between these two weeks.

For England, the number of Covid-19 Cases increased from 5297 to 12037 – a factor of 2.27
For Scotland it increased from 263 to 1065 – a factor of 4.05
For London region it increased from 663 to 2167 – a factor of 3.27

So my first observation is that these are real rises – only slightly affected by the increase in testing.
And it looks like the increases in London are significantly higher than the English average.

Since the Scottish Population is approximately one tenth of the English population, it appears that the number of Scottish per capita Covid-19 daily cases was approximately one half of the English number at the beginning of August – but by the beginning of September the gap had closed significantly.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#339982

Postby johnhemming » September 13th, 2020, 8:45 am

I think it is clear that serious infections have increased since August. This is not surprising as although the lockdown did not prevent the peak of deaths it did accelerate the reduction in death rate. The government have reported a substantial increase in hospital admissions (to 136), which is now available on the published site.

It remains to be seen whether this is simply the expected number of bad cases that resulted from the effect of the lockdown or a proper second wave. My personal expectation is that we won't see much of this in London. I think the North West has areas which are potentially prone to further infection, but I would expect not that much in the big urban areas. The published figures are only at a regional level.

So far, however, the increases in hospital admissions have not shown an exponential curve on a national basis.

There is an alternative cause in that the lower temperatures are making the virus more serious. I am, however, not sure that the summer was that hot and the weather is not yet that cold.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340015

Postby UncleEbenezer » September 13th, 2020, 12:04 pm

johnhemming wrote:I think it is clear that serious infections have increased during and since August.


FTFY. As I predicted back in late July, when they made wearing of germ-incubators compulsory and their widespread distribution (aka careless disposal) inevitable.

Pleased to see we now have figures derived from population sampling. Altogether more meaningful than government stats whose basis is driven more by the ever-changing test and reporting regime than by the lurgy itself.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340018

Postby dealtn » September 13th, 2020, 12:18 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote: As I predicted back in late July, when they made wearing of germ-incubators compulsory and their widespread distribution (aka careless disposal) inevitable.



Always trade offs with opposing policies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54057799

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340020

Postby johnhemming » September 13th, 2020, 12:23 pm

The difficulty is always the selection of a random sample of tests. That is why I prefer the admissions figures.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340052

Postby scotia » September 13th, 2020, 5:29 pm

johnhemming wrote:The difficulty is always the selection of a random sample of tests. That is why I prefer the admissions figures.

Admissions figures are a poor indication of the growing infection rate. The severity of the infection is strongly age dependent, and the majority of new infections is currently heavily biased to the younger age groups who are unlikely to require hospital treatment. They are also timed lagged - and with Covid-19 the last thing we want is a delay in taking action. Currently the admissions data is only available on a nationwide basis.
As listed in my previous note, the Cases number is increasing dramatically, even in areas which experienced the highest infection rates in Spring - e.g. London. So we can forget about herd immunity - from any source. Lockdown worked, but its current easement (whether intentional or not) has increased the reproduction rate above unity. And that means growth.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340053

Postby dealtn » September 13th, 2020, 5:48 pm

scotia wrote:Admissions figures are a poor indication of the growing infection rate.


That might be true, but they are probably a better indicator of likely fatality numbers. So, it depends on what you deem important to measure.

Rising "cases" might in fact be a good measure, and predictor of lower overall deaths, and a speedier "end" to the pandemic. As you point out it depends on who those cases consist of.

One of the best outcomes would be if everyone that won't be medically affected by it were to catch it at the earliest opportunity, spreading amongst themselves, whilst everyone who would suffer medically was kept safe and isolated. Clearly difficult to achieve in practice (or for any politician to claim as an aim). A slow spread that ultimately gets to all the vulnerable, particularly during the regular flu season when immune systems might be naturally low, could be a worse outcome.

That's before even considering what the preferred outcome would be economically, and importantly all the other "non-Covid" medical problems society is suffering from as a result of the priorities given to Covid health.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340070

Postby johnhemming » September 13th, 2020, 8:45 pm

scotia wrote:They are also timed lagged - and with Covid-19 the last thing we want is a delay in taking action. Currently the admissions data is only available on a nationwide basis.

The government have the figures available on a per hospital basis and it is published by regions and nation. The delay is quite similar to the delay on tests anyway. (as people test positive for a period of time).

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340080

Postby Alaric » September 13th, 2020, 9:07 pm

Headline in the Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -plan.html

Up to 4.5million most at risk from Covid 'will be told to stay home under new shielding plan based on health, age and weight'


Whilst GP practices know age and broadly health, or that part of health requiring past consultations, I don't believe they collect weight, at lest not on a systematic and regular basis.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340081

Postby Bouleversee » September 13th, 2020, 9:37 pm

They don't even check blood pressure or cholesterol levels until there is a problem, if then . Why don't we get an MOT once in a while?

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4097 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340091

Postby 88V8 » September 13th, 2020, 10:53 pm

When new lockdown measures are introduced, the Beeb keep quoting the number of cases. If that were the only issue, the solution is as Trump said, do less testing !

V8

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340093

Postby tjh290633 » September 13th, 2020, 10:56 pm

88V8 wrote:When new lockdown measures are introduced, the Beeb keep quoting the number of cases. If that were the only issue, the solution is as Trump said, do less testing !

V8

As I understand it "cases" means positive test results. But are they "cases"? Are they not people who have tested positive for having, or perhaps having had, Covid-19 rather than people who are ill with it?

TJH

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6469
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 939 times
Been thanked: 2256 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340095

Postby Nimrod103 » September 13th, 2020, 11:01 pm

tjh290633 wrote:
88V8 wrote:When new lockdown measures are introduced, the Beeb keep quoting the number of cases. If that were the only issue, the solution is as Trump said, do less testing !

V8

As I understand it "cases" means positive test results. But are they "cases"? Are they not people who have tested positive for having, or perhaps having had, Covid-19 rather than people who are ill with it?

TJH


I thought "cases" referred to those with the Covid19 disease i.e. symptoms of disease. Many people will test positive, but who will not have the disease either because they are asymptomatic, or because their test has been one of the many false positives, reckoned to be anything up to 1% of all tests. Hence the major difference and confusion over case fatality rate, andinfection fertility rate.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3792 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340098

Postby Mike4 » September 13th, 2020, 11:18 pm

tjh290633 wrote:
88V8 wrote:When new lockdown measures are introduced, the Beeb keep quoting the number of cases. If that were the only issue, the solution is as Trump said, do less testing !

V8

As I understand it "cases" means positive test results. But are they "cases"? Are they not people who have tested positive for having, or perhaps having had, Covid-19 rather than people who are ill with it?

TJH


No they are not.

Dr Kendrick had a long and fascinating rant about the difference the other day, here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/0 ... y-matters/

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340099

Postby UncleEbenezer » September 13th, 2020, 11:22 pm

88V8 wrote:When new lockdown measures are introduced, the Beeb keep quoting the number of cases. If that were the only issue, the solution is as Trump said, do less testing !

V8

We know government stats are driven by the constantly-changing testing regime, and indeed classification criteria.

That doesn't apply to population sampling, like the Imperial College work showing a steep rise starting in August. I think it's already been posted here, but in case it hasn't, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/203873/ ... ows-cases/ . And in another thread, someone posted today about an Oxford repeat-testing study.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340100

Postby tjh290633 » September 13th, 2020, 11:27 pm

Mike4 wrote:Dr Kendrick had a long and fascinating rant about the difference the other day, here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/0 ... y-matters/

Thank you for that link, which should be compulsory reading.

TJH

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3792 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340101

Postby Mike4 » September 13th, 2020, 11:36 pm

tjh290633 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:Dr Kendrick had a long and fascinating rant about the difference the other day, here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/0 ... y-matters/

Thank you for that link, which should be compulsory reading.

TJH


You're welcome. His latest missive should also be compulsory reading, here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/1 ... 9-for-now/


UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#340102

Postby UncleEbenezer » September 14th, 2020, 12:13 am

Mike4 wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:Dr Kendrick had a long and fascinating rant about the difference the other day, here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/0 ... y-matters/

Thank you for that link, which should be compulsory reading.

TJH


You're welcome. His latest missive should also be compulsory reading, here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/1 ... 9-for-now/


While it makes some fair points, that one also contains such innumerate nonsense as to discredit it. I stopped reading.

He's arguing, as others have done over the months, for herd immunity. So far as it goes, that has merit, though the argument would've had more merit in March than after we've already trashed the economy and so many lives. But the end game of herd immunity isn't that it goes away (his exponentially-rising figures make the identical mistake to the supposition that a Ponzi scheme can go on forever, and though he caveats it he appears to regard the caveat as insignificant), it's that it becomes a background illness - just another common cold, that happens to be particularly nasty in some cases.

Sure, we'll get there, and the basic argument (maximise herd immunity amongst those to whom it's no threat) makes sense twice over: it reduces the risk to the vulnerable, and it lets the non-vulnerable get on with life. But we were saying that back in March. I recollect on a personal level saying (possibly including here on lemonfool) I'd rather catch it now than when I'm older and correspondingly more vulnerable.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests