Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Gersemi]

I just listened to it and thought it was no more than gushing praise for the work done so far with no challenging questions. I would have liked to hear discussion of the side effects sufferered by the participant which caused the trial to be paused (I understand from other sources that it caused inflammation of the spinal cord...sounds pretty serious). I would have also have liked to hear discussion about the reported thousands of people severely affected by neurological issues after receiving the Swine flu vaccine a decade ago and how that will be avoided with this vaccine.

Is it known that the adverse reaction was a side effect of the vaccine? A report in the Telegraph today suggests that may not have been the case.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... aused-jab/

I would imagine that they would need more data to know with any certainty.

[langley59]

No offence meant by my comment and glad Simoan posted the link as I like to hear as many points of view as possible. I just feel that if they are discussing the development of a vaccine which potentially is going to forced upon everyone (social outcast if refused) then it should be a balanced discussion. Regarding the Telegraph comment they leave the door open to different attributions, hence why I would like to know more.

[Mike4]

I would have liked to hear discussion of the side effects sufferered by the participant which caused the trial to be paused (I understand from other sources that it caused inflammation of the spinal cord...sounds pretty serious).

Dr John Campbell said in his video a couple of days ago this condition occurs rarely and spontaneously in the population and this was probably one of these cases, unrelated to the vaccine. The regulators must have decided the same given the prompt resumption of the trial, he also suggested.

[UncleEbenezer]

I would have liked to hear discussion of the side effects sufferered by the participant which caused the trial to be paused (I understand from other sources that it caused inflammation of the spinal cord...sounds pretty serious).

Dr John Campbell said in his video a couple of days ago this condition occurs rarely and spontaneously in the population and this was probably one of these cases, unrelated to the vaccine. The regulators must have decided the same given the prompt resumption of the trial, he also suggested.

While that is entirely plausible, it may also be a conclusion the regulators were desperate to reach in the circumstances. Like the Boeing report on yesterday's news.

[redsturgeon]

I just listened to it and thought it was no more than gushing praise for the work done so far with no challenging questions. I would have liked to hear discussion of the side effects sufferered by the participant which caused the trial to be paused (I understand from other sources that it caused inflammation of the spinal cord...sounds pretty serious). I would have also have liked to hear discussion about the reported thousands of people severely affected by neurological issues after receiving the Swine flu vaccine a decade ago and how that will be avoided with this vaccine.

It would be avoided by doing all the necessary clinical trials and taking the time required to do that properly. This is why it normally takes years for the development of safe vaccines. Unfortunately there are strong forces who are trying to rush this one through.

John

[Bouleversee]

The Briefing Room on R4 this evg. was interestng and informative.

[servodude]

The Briefing Room on R4 this evg. was interestng and informative.

Thanks for the pointer - it was a good listen (adding it to my growing podcast list)

All the best
- sd

[jonb1950]

I hope this is OK to post under a "No Politics" thread. If not, I apologise, and doubtless it will get moved if need be.

On Question Time last night Fiona Bruce asserted (about 13 mins into the programme) "the government's own figures for 2nd to 9th September are that only 81,000 people are being tested every day". No-one apart from the government spokesman Nadhim Zahawi challenged her on it - he had just mentioned 240,000. Does anyone know where the figure of 81,000 comes from? The only reference I have found with a quick Google search (81,000 tests) is to the testing capacity having been 81,000 in a Metro story dated 30 April.

[swill453]

I hope this is OK to post under a "No Politics" thread. If not, I apologise, and doubtless it will get moved if need be.

On Question Time last night Fiona Bruce asserted (about 13 mins into the programme) "the government's own figures for 2nd to 9th September are that only 81,000 people are being tested every day". No-one apart from the government spokesman Nadhim Zahawi challenged her on it - he had just mentioned 240,000. Does anyone know where the figure of 81,000 comes from? The only reference I have found with a quick Google search (81,000 tests) is to the testing capacity having been 81,000 in a Metro story dated 30 April.

I think she said it was people tested between 2nd and 9th September, I don't know source.

Remember people tested < tests performed < testing capability

i.e. 3 very different numbers, and to most people only the first is particularly meaningful. (With the last being the most quoted by the government, but that's getting political).

Scott.

[XFool]

I just listened to it and thought it was no more than gushing praise for the work done so far with no challenging questions. I would have liked to hear discussion of the side effects sufferered by the participant which caused the trial to be paused (I understand from other sources that it caused inflammation of the spinal cord...sounds pretty serious).

Do we have any information the interview was recorded after the trial was halted, as opposed to before?

[jonb1950]

I think she said it was people tested between 2nd and 9th September, I don't know source.

Remember people tested < tests performed < testing capability

i.e. 3 very different numbers, and to most people only the first is particularly meaningful. (With the last being the most quoted by the government, but that's getting political).

Scott.

Well the 81,000 is far less than any recent official figure that I have seen for the number of people tested. I would have expected such a claim to be easily verified rather than asserted.

However, I just noticed that New Scientist 17th Sept says:
The weekly number of people testing positive for the coronavirus in England has risen sharply, as the country is experiencing testing shortages. Between 3 and 9 September, 18,371 people were diagnosed with covid-19, which is “a substantial increase of 167 per cent compared to the end of August,”
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... z6YPV2OtT9

Surely someone at BBC did not read that figure (18,371), taken it to refer to the number of people tested (as opposed to tested positive) then mistyped it as 81,000? Surely not??

[sg31]

An excellent article in The Scientist which covers a lot of ground on what we know about the immune response to the virus. I strongly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the science of the immune response.

The Immune Hallmarks of Severe COVID-19

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... e=hs_email

[bungeejumper]

Surely someone at BBC did not read that figure (18,371), taken it to refer to the number of people tested (as opposed to tested positive) then mistyped it as 81,000? Surely not??

Having done my share of editing, I can assure you that that would be a wholly plausible scenario. The hack would have vaguely noticed that something looked wrong, then 'fixed' it in a way that must have seemed like a good idea at the time. And the resulting error would have been far enough into the right ballpark for a lazy or overstretched editor not to do his own reality check.

In their defence, editors generally have to work at high speed on information-dense reporting, and often without having the necessary technical knowledge. They are generalists, after all, and in ten minutes' time these same editors might be working on a piece about a pop star or a football match. They are also human beings - I recall the BBC story about a man who fell overboard from a cross-channel ferry into the Channel Tunnel. But good editorial systems check their stuff over and over again. And then again for good measure. Errors like this (if errors they be) shouldn't stay up on the website for long.

BJ

[swill453]

Surely someone at BBC did not read that figure (18,371), taken it to refer to the number of people tested (as opposed to tested positive) then mistyped it as 81,000? Surely not??

Having done my share of editing, I can assure you that that would be a wholly plausible scenario. The hack would have vaguely noticed that something looked wrong, then 'fixed' it in a way that must have seemed like a good idea at the time. And the resulting error would have been far enough into the right ballpark for a lazy or overstretched editor not to do his own reality check.

I've found the source of the 81,000 figure, it wasn't an error.

The weekly NHS Test and Trace bulletin https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-15.pdf

Between 03 September – 09 September, 571,400 people were newly tested for coronavirus (COVID-19)

Dividing this by 7 gives the 81,000 per day (roughly).

This must be what Fiona Bruce was quoting on Question Time.

The government minister was arguing back with test capacity of about 240,000 per day, obviously not the same thing.

EDIT: Link to main page here https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... ly-reports. The one above is the latest one at time of writing.

Scott.

[sg31]

This is an interesting article about Taiwan and how 24m people have managed to keep infections very low and deaths limited to single figures. It's very American orientated but ignoring that it's very interesting how Taiwan's health care system was able to adapt and proactively test exposed people by linking their health system database with that of the immigrations and customs department.

The article was written some time ago but I checked and as far as I can see they have no deaths since. Truly remarkable. There's much more in the article.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/30/tai ... h-records/

The government merged the health card database with information from immigration and customs to send physicians alerts about patients at higher risk for having Covid-19 based on their travel history. Utilization data was also employed to identify candidates for Covid-19 testing when supplies were limited. As researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Taiwan enhanced Covid-19 case finding by proactively seeking out patients with severe respiratory symptoms (based on information from the National Health Insurance [NHI] database) who had tested negative for influenza and retested them for Covid-19.” The availability of almost immediate data on patient visits allowed the country to efficiently identify, test, trace, and isolate cases. This has dramatically reduced Covid-19 spread without the need for extensive lockdowns.

[redsturgeon]

The figures have been "de-duplicated" probably much to the dismay of the government.

This explains it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ethodology

Figures for people tested, and people testing positive have been de-duplicated so people who have multiple tests in both pillars 1 and 2 would only appear once. An individual is counted in ‘people tested’ in the week where they first tested positive (for those with at least one positive test) or the week where they were first tested (for those without a positive test result). If a person is tested under both pillar 1 and pillar 2, then only the test under the pillar where they first tested positive or where they were first tested (for those without a positive test) is counted. This means that individuals newly testing positive who have previously only tested negative, will change which week they are counted in for ‘people tested’. They may also change which pillar they are counted under. Previous figures are revised to account for these changes.

For example, someone testing negative for the first time in week 1 will be counted in the ‘people tested’ figure for that week. If that same person tests positive for the first time in week 4, they will be counted in the ‘people testing positive’ figure and ‘people tested’ figure for week 4 but removed from the ‘people tested’ figure for week 1. People testing positive refers only to people who have newly tested positive for COVID-19 and does not include people who have had more than one positive test.

[swill453]

The figures have been "de-duplicated" probably much to the dismay of the government.

This explains it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ethodology

Figures for people tested, and people testing positive have been de-duplicated so people who have multiple tests in both pillars 1 and 2 would only appear once. An individual is counted in ‘people tested’ in the week where they first tested positive (for those with at least one positive test) or the week where they were first tested (for those without a positive test result). If a person is tested under both pillar 1 and pillar 2, then only the test under the pillar where they first tested positive or where they were first tested (for those without a positive test) is counted. This means that individuals newly testing positive who have previously only tested negative, will change which week they are counted in for ‘people tested’. They may also change which pillar they are counted under. Previous figures are revised to account for these changes.

For example, someone testing negative for the first time in week 1 will be counted in the ‘people tested’ figure for that week. If that same person tests positive for the first time in week 4, they will be counted in the ‘people testing positive’ figure and ‘people tested’ figure for week 4 but removed from the ‘people tested’ figure for week 1. People testing positive refers only to people who have newly tested positive for COVID-19 and does not include people who have had more than one positive test.

Actually some of that works in the government's favour. If a person tests negative in week X-1 then positive in week X, they'll appear in the "current week" total both times. The number for week X-1 will be retrospectively reduced, but you can bet that'll only be buried in a report, not highlighted.

Scott.

[jonb1950]

I've found the source of the 81,000 figure, it wasn't an error.

The weekly NHS Test and Trace bulletin https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-15.pdf

Between 03 September – 09 September, 571,400 people were newly tested for coronavirus (COVID-19)

Dividing this by 7 gives the 81,000 per day (roughly).

This must be what Fiona Bruce was quoting on Question Time.

The government minister was arguing back with test capacity of about 240,000 per day, obviously not the same thing.

EDIT: Link to main page here https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... ly-reports. The one above is the latest one at time of writing.

Scott.

Brilliant! As so often happens when people squabble about numbers they were talking about two different things, but giving the impression (or thinking that) they were talking about the same thing.

I did not know about the NHS Test & Trace bulletin thanks for that. Seems to me that the number newly tested is a very different statistic from the total number tested, which so far as I am aware is what people usually quote, and would have been much higher, though of course significantly short of 240,000. The same NHS bulletin say "1,407,430 tests were processed in the UK, across all pillars, in the week from 03
September to 09 September". Dividing by 7 gives 201,161.

I do think that Fiona Bruce could have made the distinction clearer, but perhaps it did not suit her to do so. Nadhim Zahawi stuck to quoting the total capacity, but at least he was being (relatively) open about it. The figure she quoted is about 40% of the "official" figure (that is, 60% lower) for numbers tested, while his is 120% (that is 20% higher). Poor show from both in my view.

[dealtn]

I would think, when much of the debate is about capacity, and the constraints in the system, it makes sense to use the "capacity" number, and the "processed" number (and the trends in such). International comparisons on a similar basis (albeit per 100,000 of population).

Sadly, whilst we are striving to keep this "politics free" here, that objective doesn't appear to be of sufficiently high a priority in the political and media worlds.

[Nimrod103]

I've found the source of the 81,000 figure, it wasn't an error.

The weekly NHS Test and Trace bulletin https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-15.pdf

Between 03 September – 09 September, 571,400 people were newly tested for coronavirus (COVID-19)

Dividing this by 7 gives the 81,000 per day (roughly).

This must be what Fiona Bruce was quoting on Question Time.

The government minister was arguing back with test capacity of about 240,000 per day, obviously not the same thing.

EDIT: Link to main page here https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... ly-reports. The one above is the latest one at time of writing.

Scott.

Brilliant! As so often happens when people squabble about numbers they were talking about two different things, but giving the impression (or thinking that) they were talking about the same thing.

I did not know about the NHS Test & Trace bulletin thanks for that. Seems to me that the number newly tested is a very different statistic from the total number tested, which so far as I am aware is what people usually quote, and would have been much higher, though of course significantly short of 240,000. The same NHS bulletin say "1,407,430 tests were processed in the UK, across all pillars, in the week from 03
September to 09 September". Dividing by 7 gives 201,161.

I do think that Fiona Bruce could have made the distinction clearer, but perhaps it did not suit her to do so. Nadhim Zahawi stuck to quoting the total capacity, but at least he was being (relatively) open about it. The figure she quoted is about 40% of the "official" figure (that is, 60% lower) for numbers tested, while his is 120% (that is 20% higher). Poor show from both in my view.

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'