The Lemon Fool

Nimrod103 wrote:I am still not clear. The Daily Mail regularly shows graphs of number of tests. The numbers clearly are of tests actually performed. For 17th Sept, they show 236,219 tests. That is not capacity, that must be actual tests:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... kdown.html
Scroll down to the green graph labelled
'Coronavirus tests each day in UK'

The number for "people tested" is always far less, usually less than half of, the number of "tests performed". Some people are tested twice, some tests fail etc.

Perhaps the media should interrogate or highlight this more than they do.

Scott.

Having become extremely fed up with the idiocy that this country has become I decided I needed to seek refuge for a few days in a more sane place.

After carefully considering all the options I opted for Slovenia. It’s one of the few European countries that I’ve never visited, and I’d heard good reports from friends who had been there.

I duly made arrangements last week, and we were due to leave next Saturday.

Unfortunately, quarantine bingo then kicked in and as of yesterday Slovenia has been added to the no-go list.

The justification for this is that the infection rate is supposedly 29 per 100,000.

The infection rate in Bolton is approximately 10 times that figure. Can anyone therefore explain to me why if I visit Slovenia I have to self isolate for 14 days on my return, whereas I am entirely free to go to Bolton, spend all day in the pub with potentially infected people, and then return home without any restrictions at all?

It’s ironic that it’s precisely this sort of Alice in Wonderland logic that made me want to leave in the first place.

And now back to studying the list of exempt countries again - I believe Cyprus is quite pleasant in the autumn ...

Yesterday, I finally had my long delayed lung function tests, having been assured on enquiry that full anti-infection measures would be in place. I had to leave home earlier than originally planned after discovering that their parking meters only took cash and I didn't have any. I was surprised on checking in to see the receptionist wearing a cloth mask underneath her nose and even more surprised when she emerged from her booth to take my temperature with a gun at a distance of only around a yard. I don't really see the point of these temperature checks anyway since they only indicate symptoms, rather than infection. The person conducting the tests (which were not as extensive as on the previous occasion) was wearing a close fitting plastic mask but not my idea of full PPE though he had to come close. I obviously had to remove my mask to do the tests. Something tells me that if either side had been infected, the virus might not have had too much difficulty in clocking up another victim or two.

It will be interesting to see what happens when I have my rescheduled appt. with the consultant next month. I had better check whether they have omitted telling me it will be over the phone, as happened to someone I know. Of course, we may be in total lockdown by then the way things are going.

Government Testing Statistics:- https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/testing
The Seven Day UK Average on the 6th September for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 tests was 179,152. The testing capacity was 221,867. These statistics should match (in time) with Fiona Bruce's figure of 81,000. And the discrepancy, as swill453 wrote, is that the 81,000 should refer to "newly tested people" in England - source the Department of Health and Care Statistical Bulletin. This would seem to indicate that around half of the tests are repeats. I suppose there are a considerable number of persons in the care and medical areas who will need to be regularly checked.

At 17th September, the UK pillar 1 and 2 tests processed = 236,219. the Testing capacity = 252,911.

Clitheroekid wrote:Having become extremely fed up with the idiocy that this country has become I decided I needed to seek refuge for a few days in a more sane place.

After carefully considering all the options I opted for Slovenia. It’s one of the few European countries that I’ve never visited, and I’d heard good reports from friends who had been there.

I duly made arrangements last week, and we were due to leave next Saturday.

Unfortunately, quarantine bingo then kicked in and as of yesterday Slovenia has been added to the no-go list.

The justification for this is that the infection rate is supposedly 29 per 100,000.

The infection rate in Bolton is approximately 10 times that figure. Can anyone therefore explain to me why if I visit Slovenia I have to self isolate for 14 days on my return, whereas I am entirely free to go to Bolton, spend all day in the pub with potentially infected people, and then return home without any restrictions at all?

It’s ironic that it’s precisely this sort of Alice in Wonderland logic that made me want to leave in the first place.

And now back to studying the list of exempt countries again - I believe Cyprus is quite pleasant in the autumn ...

Can anyone explain why other countries would want to let British people in? Actually, some don't, according to my son, who is self employed in the travel trade.

Clitheroekid wrote:The infection rate in Bolton is approximately 10 times that figure. Can anyone therefore explain to me why if I visit Slovenia I have to self isolate for 14 days on my return, whereas I am entirely free to go to Bolton, spend all day in the pub with potentially infected people, and then return home without any restrictions at all?

One might speculate that the testing figures show that more outbreaks of Covid in the UK have been shown to be caused by people returning from holidays in infected countries than have been caused by people socialising in pubs.

Scott.

Bouleversee wrote: Something tells me that if either side had been infected, the virus might not have had too much difficulty in clocking up another victim or two.

Exposure isn't the same as infection. Plenty of couples share a bed for several hours 7 days a week without partners being infected. I doubt your exposure was even close to that kind of "affection". I agree though that no-one should be made to feel uncomfortable with anything they are asked to do, or be exposed to though - although that is a different thing.

Bouleversee wrote:
Can anyone explain why other countries would want to let British people in? Actually, some don't, according to my son, who is self employed in the travel trade.

Because we bring money. Lack of money and the effect of that on the economy is more harmful to most citizens.

dealtn wrote:

Bouleversee wrote: Something tells me that if either side had been infected, the virus might not have had too much difficulty in clocking up another victim or two.

Exposure isn't the same as infection. Plenty of couples share a bed for several hours 7 days a week without partners being infected. I doubt your exposure was even close to that kind of "affection". I agree though that no-one should be made to feel uncomfortable with anything they are asked to do, or be exposed to though - although that is a different thing.

How do you know the partners are not affected? They may just be asymptomatic but nevertheless infectious to others. Unless they had a test for infection or an antibody test at the right time, you can't know. I do know the difference between exposure and infection. In any event, it just doesn't look good in a hospital setting, especially in a department dealing with highly vulnerable patients with respiratory diseases, and sets a bad example to the rest of the community. Much of the spread of the virus is due to ignorance and complacency.

Clitheroekid wrote:
And now back to studying the list of exempt countries again - I believe Cyprus is quite pleasant in the autumn ...

Mrs RS is in Madeira at the moment, enjoying it, great walking in the mountains.
Daughter is on a small Greek island, no cases (yet).

John

Bouleversee wrote:

dealtn wrote:

Bouleversee wrote: Something tells me that if either side had been infected, the virus might not have had too much difficulty in clocking up another victim or two.

Exposure isn't the same as infection. Plenty of couples share a bed for several hours 7 days a week without partners being infected. I doubt your exposure was even close to that kind of "affection". I agree though that no-one should be made to feel uncomfortable with anything they are asked to do, or be exposed to though - although that is a different thing.

How do you know the partners are not affected? They may just be asymptomatic but nevertheless infectious to others. Unless they had a test for infection or an antibody test at the right time, you can't know. I do know the difference between exposure and infection. In any event, it just doesn't look good in a hospital setting, especially in a department dealing with highly vulnerable patients with respiratory diseases, and sets a bad example to the rest of the community. Much of the spread of the virus is due to ignorance and complacency.

Well I agree with the second part (as can be seen from my initial response).

My wife is a nurse. We have a number of nurses as friends. Of those 3 have so far tested positive, and have been tested on occasions before the positive tests, returning negative a number of times, and negative too since "recovery". So there would have been plenty of time before, when they were "infectious" yet asymptomatic when they were sharing a house with family and bed with partner. No one else in the 3 households tested positive at the time, or subsequently, or showed symptoms. (2 of the tested nurses did - 1 only very mildly).

This doesn't appear dissimilar to other episodes. There have been a number of people testing positive to antibody tests that had no idea they ever had it, and shared households with families and beds with partners throughout, but are the only one in that house to test positive. Yet some "super-spreader" events appear to give an impression it is easy to transmit.

Oops, sorry about that I totally forgot the link. Apologies.

scotia wrote:The Seven Day UK Average on the 6th September for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 tests was 179,152. The testing capacity was 221,867. These statistics should match (in time) with Fiona Bruce's figure of 81,000. And the discrepancy, as swill453 wrote, is that the 81,000 should refer to "newly tested people"

So hang on. Why is the "newly tested people" figure relevant at all? Why do the media think that repeat tests should not "count"? Is this the same media who constantly bleat about testing of medical staff, care home staff, teachers, etc...? This is just a blatant "How to lie with statistics".

Gryff

gryffron wrote:

scotia wrote:The Seven Day UK Average on the 6th September for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 tests was 179,152. The testing capacity was 221,867. These statistics should match (in time) with Fiona Bruce's figure of 81,000. And the discrepancy, as swill453 wrote, is that the 81,000 should refer to "newly tested people"

So hang on. Why is the "newly tested people" figure relevant at all? Why do the media think that repeat tests should not "count"? Is this the same media who constantly bleat about testing of medical staff, care home staff, teachers, etc...? This is just a blatant "How to lie with statistics".

Gryff

I think you have to assume that everyone is using statistics to suit their own agenda. I stopped looking at numbers before the end of April because it was obvious they were being used by the government and the media to suit their own purposes. It has also been obvious for a long time that the numbers presented are a poor estimation of what's happening in the real world, which is ultimately all that matters. All you can conclude is that people are making it up as they go along because they were totally unprepared for what has happened in the last 6 months and they are now comparing things that are not comparable.

I assume everyone interested in the numbers listens to "More or Less" with Tim Harford on R4? If not, you should do. There's not much to laugh about currently but it's the best comedy show anywhere and every Wednesday morning it gives me a good chuckle. As an example, last week they revealed that when the Health Secretary announced that the average distance anyone travels to get a test is 10 Miles, the average he was talking about was the median, not the mean! One can only assume from this that the mean was much higher. And of course, it was also only the average of the people that actually travelled to a test centre, so didn't include people that couldn't, or didn't fancy driving 100 miles to get a test. I'd like to say "you couldn't make it up", but obviously you can.

All the best, Si

There's a Penguin book called "How to Lie with Statistics". Written 60+ years ago but still relevant. A must read for anyone who listens to politicians or the media. Covers all the tricks about use of different "averages", choosing reference points, scaling graphs, rate of change...

Gryff

gryffron wrote:

scotia wrote:The Seven Day UK Average on the 6th September for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 tests was 179,152. The testing capacity was 221,867. These statistics should match (in time) with Fiona Bruce's figure of 81,000. And the discrepancy, as swill453 wrote, is that the 81,000 should refer to "newly tested people"

So hang on. Why is the "newly tested people" figure relevant at all? Why do the media think that repeat tests should not "count"? Is this the same media who constantly bleat about testing of medical staff, care home staff, teachers, etc...? This is just a blatant "How to lie with statistics".
Gryff

Agreed.

For me the crucial statistic is turnaround time. Any covid test is pretty useless if you have to wait two weeks for it.

John

dealtn wrote:
This doesn't appear dissimilar to other episodes. There have been a number of people testing positive to antibody tests that had no idea they ever had it, and shared households with families and beds with partners throughout, but are the only one in that house to test positive. Yet some "super-spreader" events appear to give an impression it is easy to transmit.

How accurate are the antibody tests? I know some if not most can produce false positives by picking up earlier corona virus infections that weren't/aren't Sars- CoV- 2.

I ask because I'm not up to date on current antibody tests in use in this country.

redsturgeon wrote:For me the crucial statistic is turnaround time. Any covid test is pretty useless if you have to wait two weeks for it.

A local pub that had a positive covid test did not find out until 13 days after the person infected visited the pub.