Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[scotia]

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).

Where is this data published? I have been using the official site coronavirus.data.gov.uk. I have only been able to obtain non-blank data on admissions and hospital cases at a country level (e.g. for Scotland and England ) and not at regional (e.g. London) or lower levels.

[scotia]

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

If you wish clarification on the data (including cases) as reported by the UK Governments have a look at the web site coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Select "About the Data", and drop down to the desired level in the Table of Contents - e.g. "Daily and cumulative numbers of cases"
It contains sound factual material with lots of detail.

[scotia]

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.

I read his first rant - so from your writeup, I'll skip the second one.

[Itsallaguess]

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.

It would be difficult to argue with that if it were not for three important points -

1. Given the long-COVID issues, where many younger people who have had the virus seem to have lingering long-term health issues that we simply don't know enough about at this stage, it's clear that we're not really in a position to say 'non-vulnerable' other that for it to perhaps mean 'you're unlikely to die from it' for large sections of younger society..

2. Herd-immunity might well turn out to be the only tool in the box, but given the number of global vaccines currently undergoing Phase 3 trials, with many more in Phase 2 trials as well, and given Point 1 means that a rush to herd-immunity using the young as guinea pigs might well mean leaving a generation with long-term health issues, I think it's right at this point in time to resist having to rely on herd-immunity to to get us through this. I note that the Phase 3 Oxford vaccine trials, which is one of the most advanced in the western world, has now been given permission to resume, following a brief pause last week...

3. Whilst the rising number of UK cases don't seem to be feeding through to hospital-admissions right now, it's too early to say if that situation is going to be maintained, and especially given the coming colder weeks and months of a UK winter. We don't know at this stage where the peak of the current UK wave of cases is...

Like most things, it's a balancing act based on known data at the time, and I think those calling for encouraging large-scale herd-immunity in younger age-groups, with a view that a widespread immunity level in those age-groups would then automatically protect older, more susceptible age-groups, is perhaps risking the long-term health prospects of many within that younger section of society, given the lack of current knowledge around these 'long-COVID' issues..

I personally think a more cautious approach whilst we wait for some of the Phase 3 trial results is the right way to go at this stage. Whilst it's clear that many in the younger population are making their own minds up by perhaps going against the current guidance in many cases, I think that's a completely different situation to one where we'd be seen to be actually encouraging them to be our 'herd-immunity' guinea pigs...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

Where is this data published?

Try this
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthc ... ame=London

[scotia]

Where is this data published?

Try this
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthc ... ame=London

Many Thanks - This allowed me to find the graphical data, and from that I discovered that the Admissions and Hospital cases data is present for a Country and for an NHS Region, but not for a Region or below. So in my app I changed from Region London to NHS Region London - and I got the Admissions and Hospital cases, but I lost the Cases! Ok with a bit more code fiddling I'll load down both Region London and NHS Region London and merge them.
Thanks

[dealtn]

1. Given the long-COVID issues, where many younger people who have had the virus seem to have lingering long-term health issues that we simply don't know enough about at this stage, it's clear that we're not really in a position to say 'non-vulnerable' other that for it to perhaps mean 'you're unlikely to die from it' for large sections of younger society..

Like most things, it's a balancing act based on known data at the time, and I think those calling for encouraging large-scale herd-immunity in younger age-groups, with a view that a widespread immunity level in those age-groups would then automatically protect older, more susceptible age-groups, is perhaps risking the long-term health prospects of many within that younger section of society, given the lack of current knowledge around these 'long-COVID' issues..

Any links about this "many"? It's not something I've seen or heard about (other than in a few, seemingly rare, instances) so would be good to discover more about this.

[vrdiver]

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?

The NHS do offer an "MOT" of sorts, for ages 40 - 74.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-healt ... lth-check/

Whether your local authority / GP surgery is on the ball with it is another question of course...

VRD

[johnhemming]

I have extracted the data for hospital admissions by NHS region (and for England) and resized the charts so that the peak admission is always the same figures. That then gives this:


I think you can see in this how London and the Midlands decelerate more rapidly than the other regions. I assume myself because the effect of a mixture of herd immunity and lockdown caused this to happen. It also shows how in the North East at the moment infection rates have been increasing moreso than in other regions.

The figures have just been extracted and include admissions to 9th September.

[Mike4]

1. Given the long-COVID issues, where many younger people who have had the virus seem to have lingering long-term health issues that we simply don't know enough about at this stage, it's clear that we're not really in a position to say 'non-vulnerable' other that for it to perhaps mean 'you're unlikely to die from it' for large sections of younger society..

Like most things, it's a balancing act based on known data at the time, and I think those calling for encouraging large-scale herd-immunity in younger age-groups, with a view that a widespread immunity level in those age-groups would then automatically protect older, more susceptible age-groups, is perhaps risking the long-term health prospects of many within that younger section of society, given the lack of current knowledge around these 'long-COVID' issues..

Any links about this "many"? It's not something I've seen or heard about (other than in a few, seemingly rare, instances) so would be good to discover more about this.

The BBC programme "File on 4" claimed 10% of people who have had COVID-19 are now suffering from 'Long Covid'. Long term and serious sequelae. The programme was aired again this weekend. Will try to find you the link.

Here it is:

"Covid 19: The Long Road to Recovery"
After coronavirus, the survivors left with life-changing and long-term conditions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mczc

[Itsallaguess]

1. Given the long-COVID issues, where many younger people who have had the virus seem to have lingering long-term health issues that we simply don't know enough about at this stage, it's clear that we're not really in a position to say 'non-vulnerable' other that for it to perhaps mean 'you're unlikely to die from it' for large sections of younger society..

Like most things, it's a balancing act based on known data at the time, and I think those calling for encouraging large-scale herd-immunity in younger age-groups, with a view that a widespread immunity level in those age-groups would then automatically protect older, more susceptible age-groups, is perhaps risking the long-term health prospects of many within that younger section of society, given the lack of current knowledge around these 'long-COVID' issues..

Any links about this "many"? It's not something I've seen or heard about (other than in a few, seemingly rare, instances) so would be good to discover more about this.

The BBC programme "File on 4" claimed 10% of people who have had COVID-19 are now suffering from 'Long Covid'. Long term and serious sequelae. The programme was aired again this weekend. Will try to find you the link.

Here it is:

"Covid 19: The Long Road to Recovery"

After coronavirus, the survivors left with life-changing and long-term conditions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mczc

There was a Huffington Post article a while back that also talked about 1 in 10 people suffering long-COVID issues, so it's interesting to see that figure also being mentioned by the above BBC article.

Here's both the original one that I read, and also a link to a more recent article on the subject -

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-is-long-covid-and-how-many-people-are-suffering_uk_5efb3487c5b612083c52d91d

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/this-is-how-common-long-covid-is_uk_5f3e46bac5b6dd14014a8ab8

My concern would be that whilst even a 10% long-COVID level is quite alarming, there may actually be more carrying around legacy issues that are just not bad enough at the moment to have warranted further medical intervention, and which may only become more seriously apparent much later in life.

As I said earlier, I think given that herd-immunity may not be the only tool we've got available given the up-coming results from the many vaccine trials due to come out in the coming months, I'm not sure history will look kindly on an approach that knows enough about long-COVID to know it's an issue, but doesn't know enough about it regarding how much of an issue it is, but carries on regardless with a potentially cavalier 'You young-uns will be fine....' attitude to that type of approach...

Is it worth the risk?

I'm not convinced that it is yet, given that we may have other less risky options available in a relatively short period of time..

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[UncleEbenezer]

My concern would be that whilst even a 10% long-COVID level is quite alarming, there may actually be more carrying around legacy issues that are just not bad enough at the moment to have warranted further medical intervention, and which may only become more seriously apparent much later in life.

Is there any reason to suppose covid is unusual in leaving long-lasting[1] effects?

Even the talk around covid acknowledges there are others. A new cough is a potential covid symptom; a cough you've had for years from some other lurgy isn't. And even among specifically respiratory diseases, the long-term ones go up to the fatal TB.

[1] Of course we can't yet know if any of them are truly long-term, let alone lifelong.

[scotia]

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?

The NHS do offer an "MOT" of sorts, for ages 40 - 74.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-healt ... lth-check/

Whether your local authority / GP surgery is on the ball with it is another question of course...

VRD

You mean that at 76 I'll need to reiterate the words of Lonnie Donegan "You've missed me, am I too late?"
(apologies to youngsters who haven't a clue as to what I'm referring)

[Bouleversee]

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?

The NHS do offer an "MOT" of sorts, for ages 40 - 74.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-healt ... lth-check/

Whether your local authority / GP surgery is on the ball with it is another question of course...

VRD

Well, I am over 74 and I really don't understand why it should stop at that age, not that I remember getting any before I reached 74. What is the rationale behind that other than they want you to drop off the perch at that point? I didn't have much wrong with me before then other than accidental damage and I think that what is wrong with me now could probably have been avoided with simple blood tests. Prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than cure, which may not be available if found too late.

[dealtn]

1. Given the long-COVID issues, where many younger people who have had the virus seem to have lingering long-term health issues that we simply don't know enough about at this stage, it's clear that we're not really in a position to say 'non-vulnerable' other that for it to perhaps mean 'you're unlikely to die from it' for large sections of younger society..

Like most things, it's a balancing act based on known data at the time, and I think those calling for encouraging large-scale herd-immunity in younger age-groups, with a view that a widespread immunity level in those age-groups would then automatically protect older, more susceptible age-groups, is perhaps risking the long-term health prospects of many within that younger section of society, given the lack of current knowledge around these 'long-COVID' issues..

Any links about this "many"? It's not something I've seen or heard about (other than in a few, seemingly rare, instances) so would be good to discover more about this.

The BBC programme "File on 4" claimed 10% of people who have had COVID-19 are now suffering from 'Long Covid'. Long term and serious sequelae. The programme was aired again this weekend. Will try to find you the link.

Here it is:

"Covid 19: The Long Road to Recovery"
After coronavirus, the survivors left with life-changing and long-term conditions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mczc

Well thank you for that, it was an interesting listen.

However it doesn't really touch on much of what (I think) is being talked of here. Maybe this comes down to what people mean by "young" and "many".

The programme only talks of one person who I would describe as young, being 37. In fact whilst she had "symptoms" she came back negative in her test. Her long term symptoms are described as Covid-like, but essentially that is tiredness/fatigue (admittedly lasting some months). Now I am not dismissing the claim she is unwell. Indeed I have been "diagnosed" as having the long term effects of a virus I caught back in November. I'm still not right, and am constantly tired etc. I wouldn't describe it as suffering, although I wish I was over it!

Elsewhere in the programme mention was made of 10% of people having long term, longer than a month, symptoms, but again these were vague and along the lines of tiredness etc.

It's clear that only time will reveal how many, and to what extent, Covid sufferers face long term health issues, and how different they are to other viruses. Sadly there really wasn't much in the programme to suggest serious long term effects exist except in rare cases, and even then they manifest mainly in the older, or those with other health issues. That's not to dismiss its existence, but the claim that a "rush" to herd immunity targeted at the young and healthy is in some way reckless doesn't stack up to any evidence presented here.

[Mike4]

Well thank you for that, it was an interesting listen.

However it doesn't really touch on much of what (I think) is being talked of here. Maybe this comes down to what people mean by "young" and "many".

The programme only talks of one person who I would describe as young, being 37. In fact whilst she had "symptoms" she came back negative in her test. Her long term symptoms are described as Covid-like, but essentially that is tiredness/fatigue (admittedly lasting some months). Now I am not dismissing the claim she is unwell. Indeed I have been "diagnosed" as having the long term effects of a virus I caught back in November. I'm still not right, and am constantly tired etc. I wouldn't describe it as suffering, although I wish I was over it!

Elsewhere in the programme mention was made of 10% of people having long term, longer than a month, symptoms, but again these were vague and along the lines of tiredness etc.

It's clear that only time will reveal how many, and to what extent, Covid sufferers face long term health issues, and how different they are to other viruses. Sadly there really wasn't much in the programme to suggest serious long term effects exist except in rare cases, and even then they manifest mainly in the older, or those with other health issues. That's not to dismiss its existence, but the claim that a "rush" to herd immunity targeted at the young and healthy is in some way reckless doesn't stack up to any evidence presented here.

The thing I take away from all this is how important it has recently become to distinguish between people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the (very small) subset of those infectees who develop COVID-19 the disease.

Dr Campbell did a detailed report on serious long term sequelae a few weeks back which highlighted that age or how seriously people get COVID-19 is NOT an indicator of whether they will have serious long term sequelae, but there is a lot of it about. Did the programme not say 60,000 people are now registered with the NHS COVID aftercare service for those with serious long term sequelae? ISTR they also said the service is only accessible to people who were hospitalised with COVID. I find myself wondering how many have long covid who were not hospitalised. I hear a lot of anecdotes but it is hard to get a feel for numbers.

[dealtn]

Well thank you for that, it was an interesting listen.

However it doesn't really touch on much of what (I think) is being talked of here. Maybe this comes down to what people mean by "young" and "many".

The programme only talks of one person who I would describe as young, being 37. In fact whilst she had "symptoms" she came back negative in her test. Her long term symptoms are described as Covid-like, but essentially that is tiredness/fatigue (admittedly lasting some months). Now I am not dismissing the claim she is unwell. Indeed I have been "diagnosed" as having the long term effects of a virus I caught back in November. I'm still not right, and am constantly tired etc. I wouldn't describe it as suffering, although I wish I was over it!

Elsewhere in the programme mention was made of 10% of people having long term, longer than a month, symptoms, but again these were vague and along the lines of tiredness etc.

It's clear that only time will reveal how many, and to what extent, Covid sufferers face long term health issues, and how different they are to other viruses. Sadly there really wasn't much in the programme to suggest serious long term effects exist except in rare cases, and even then they manifest mainly in the older, or those with other health issues. That's not to dismiss its existence, but the claim that a "rush" to herd immunity targeted at the young and healthy is in some way reckless doesn't stack up to any evidence presented here.

The thing I take away from all this is how important it has recently become to distinguish between people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the (very small) subset of those infectees who develop COVID-19 the disease.

Dr Campbell did a detailed report on serious long term sequelae a few weeks back which highlighted that age or how seriously people get COVID-19 is NOT an indicator of whether they will have serious long term sequelae, but there is a lot of it about. Did the programme not say 60,000 people are now registered with the NHS COVID aftercare service for those with serious long term sequelae? ISTR they also said the service is only accessible to people who were hospitalised with COVID. I find myself wondering how many have long covid who were not hospitalised. I hear a lot of anecdotes but it is hard to get a feel for numbers.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... -activity/

According to this there have been only 25,428 hospital admissions in England due to Covid. It's hard to see how 60,000 could be registered for NHS Covis aftercare if it were the case they had to be "hospitalised with COVID".

I agree though that there will likely be many thousands that were not only not hospitalised but also not even tested positive who probably have long term symptoms. The problem with this though is for that to be true also there requires a large percentage of the population to have had it, which doesn't suit the argument of those claiming we are a long way from herd immunity (and the risks to the many yet to get it on the journey to it).

What I don't like about a lot of the claims is the language. "Serious" when used in this context simply seems to mean "long-term", which isn't to trivialise it (as someone with a long term virus reaction myself), but "serious" is usually meant to indicate towards the upper end of the health consequences spectrum (such as "serious" head injury - potentially life threatening).

[UncleEbenezer]

You mean that at 76 I'll need to reiterate the words of Lonnie Donegan "You've missed me, am I too late?"
(apologies to youngsters who haven't a clue as to what I'm referring)

I'm firmly within that age range. I've never been MOTd by the NHS, despite having asked a few times.

Indeed, I was already firmly within the age range ten years ago, when my then-employer paid for a private health MOT. Nuffield performed extensive tests, but then just said "refer to your GP" when one of them wasn't fully all-clear. Yeah, right.

[vrdiver]

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?

The NHS do offer an "MOT" of sorts, for ages 40 - 74.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-healt ... lth-check/

Whether your local authority / GP surgery is on the ball with it is another question of course...

VRD

Well, I am over 74 and I really don't understand why it should stop at that age, not that I remember getting any before I reached 74. What is the rationale behind that other than they want you to drop off the perch at that point? I didn't have much wrong with me before then other than accidental damage and I think that what is wrong with me now could probably have been avoided with simple blood tests. Prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than cure, which may not be available if found too late.

I'd love to be able to answer that, but have no logical answer other than the one you imply (i.e. cost saving over life quality and/or quantity). I need to try my own GP's approach to this, as I'm in the right age bracket (previously employee health insurance covered similar tests); just a case of waiting for the Covid-19 situation to dissipate first, as I can't imagine this being a priority in normal times, let alone currently

[johnhemming]

According to this there have been only 25,428 hospital admissions in England due to Covid.

This currently says 114,523.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthc ... me=England