tjh290633 wrote:Quite why the 90% result was ignored by much of the media can only be construed as a wish to denigrate the Astrazeneca results.
Every report I heard or read yesterday reported the 90% figure.
Scott.
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
tjh290633 wrote:Quite why the 90% result was ignored by much of the media can only be construed as a wish to denigrate the Astrazeneca results.
servodude wrote:johnhemming wrote:servodude wrote:
That date suggests infections peaked around the 4th of November
3-5 days median to symptoms from exposure
- 11-12 days subsequently to most likely death date
Scotia produced a good chart that linked admission to date of death. That used 13 days from that.
Admissions are (at least) 13 or 14 days from infection.
I would be interested to see your detailed calculations as to how you work back from 11 November to get to 4 November.
The spread of symptoms onset to death (from a meta-analysis paper) has been posted before (I'll have a look later and see if I can find the post) - peak of that is 11-12 days
- same with the infections to symptoms onset being median 3-5
Now where do you go to hospital between those is a lot fuzzier: but generally if you need hospital you'll be to the earlier side of the spread; and 3-4 days after symptoms is what the wards we've been working with expect - albeit our data set was a lot less noisy than yours
Worth remembering also that peaks implies the mode of the set, so I wouldn't be surprised if any scheme involving week wise "averaging" pushed the time out by a couple of days given the distribution of these sets
- which is partly why there's an expected few of days error on these things (other parts being spread, latency, lumpiness and measurement error)
- but anyways I'm pretty sure we'd have had identical posts if the lockdown had started a month ago instead of last week (or whenever it was) - the numbers would just be lower
-sd
zico wrote:zico wrote: that they don't have any scientific logic as to why the half-dose full-dose regime would work more effectively, though there must be some reason why they switched to it.
Mystery solved. According to the Telegraph, the plan was to give two full-doses separated by a month, but someone messed up so about 3,000 people only got half the planned dose, but they decided to give the second full-dose and see what happened.
If they hadn't made the mistake, we'd be looking at 62% efficacy for this vaccine, which would have been pretty poor. As it is, something around 90% may be possible (though it's on extremely low positive infections for that group)
There have been lots of mistakes in the pandemic, but at last, a mistake with a very positive result! The AstraZeneca vaccine is more likely to be used worldwide (it's cheap, easy to store and non-profit making) so an improvement in its effectiveness could save hundreds of thousands of lives.
servodude wrote:hope that explains why I used the figures i did and why I think that claiming Admissions are (at least) 13 or 14 days from infection. is just a little bit wrong
With the exception of Singapore, the sum of the mean
incubation period and mean onset-to-hospitalisation interval is never shorter than 9 days.
johnhemming wrote:The substantive disagreement where there is one here is
servodude wrote:johnhemming wrote:The substantive disagreement where there is one here is
...using means or medians when they are absolutely the wrong metric
I don't disagree with the measures you've posted; only that they've been used incorrectly.
johnhemming wrote:although I accept the profile of range of dates is worth considering.
zico wrote:I'm genuinely interested in trying to understand the anti-lockdown rationale ...
(There's an associated argument that cracking down on Covid deaths causes more cancer deaths, suicides and other forms of deaths. This argument states that hospitals should be more focused on treating non-Covid diseases. The big problem here is that if there's a Covid epidemic, the hospitals can't treat non-Covid diseases, because they'll be full of Covid patients. Even if there is capacity, as in the first wave, cancer patients will be deterred from visiting hospitals because of the risk of catching Covid. The only way around this is to prevent Covid patients from entering hospitals, but then they will die at home, and the death rate will be 4/5 times if they are denied medical care)
swill453 wrote:tjh290633 wrote:Quite why the 90% result was ignored by much of the media can only be construed as a wish to denigrate the Astrazeneca results.
Every report I heard or read yesterday reported the 90% figure.
Scott.
zico wrote:zico wrote: that they don't have any scientific logic as to why the half-dose full-dose regime would work more effectively, though there must be some reason why they switched to it.
Mystery solved. According to the Telegraph, the plan was to give two full-doses separated by a month, but someone messed up so about 3,000 people only got half the planned dose, but they decided to give the second full-dose and see what happened.
johnhemming wrote:servodude wrote:hope that explains why I used the figures i did and why I think that claiming Admissions are (at least) 13 or 14 days from infection. is just a little bit wrong
I got that information from somewhere. I think scotia's work is good for the relationship between admissions and deaths. I still don't see how you can get seven days although I accept the profile of range of dates is worth considering.
redsturgeon wrote:This is one of the reasons why this sort of process usually takes years and short cuts can lead to mistakes.
1nvest wrote: Also why has the UK ordered 350 million doses of vaccines relative to a population of 65 million. Seems like yet a further case of political pals being gifted taxpayers money, in some cases for absolutely zero public benefit in return.
1nvest wrote:Raw virus might affect 10% severely, perhaps half of that group going on to die. 90% majority endure no/mild/modest symptoms, maybe at worst a week in bed with flu like condition. A rushed vaccine rolled out across the majority could turn around in 5, 10, whatever years time with severe adverse side effects hitting the majority of those inoculated.
Personally I think the vaccine should only be given to those more likely to be in the 10% group, and not more broadly across the remainder 90%.
1nvest wrote:Also why has the UK ordered 350 million doses of vaccines relative to a population of 65 million. Seems like yet a further case of political pals being gifted taxpayers money, in some cases for absolutely zero public benefit in return.
88V8 wrote:Given that the Helsinki dogs can detect COVID five days before it shows in PCR, does this mean that the initial estimate of incubation time was wrong, and is nearer ten days than five?
Apologies if this has been covered.
It would obviously make a significant difference in interpreting the effectiveness of control measures.
V8
zico wrote:I'm aware there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people who are against lockdown, and I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind it.
scotia wrote:I can extract deaths at the actual death date if I use the filter deaths =newDeaths28DaysByDeathDate, however this suffers from being a number which gets updated as the data is received. So it doesn't settle down to a final figure until a (variable) number of days have passed.
GoSeigen wrote:zico wrote:I'm aware there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people who are against lockdown, and I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind it.
You don't understand why people might be against governments telling you where you can and can't go, when and in what manner, and criminalise you if you infringe those rules?
johnhemming wrote:GoSeigen wrote:zico wrote:I'm aware there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people who are against lockdown, and I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind it.
You don't understand why people might be against governments telling you where you can and can't go, when and in what manner, and criminalise you if you infringe those rules?
Additionally there are questions as to whether there is any benefit from "lockdown" per se.
In Europe it appears that the countries who had the most effective "lockdown" previously are now having the largest number of seasonal wave deaths.
That, of course, would not be surprising as people would have been prevented from getting a milder version of the virus (the same virus, but a smaller viral load).
In England this lockdown started after the rate of infection had peaked and was going down. (primary source GP consultations).
redsturgeon wrote:A graph I saw yesterday shows that the UK and Japan are the two countries likely to hit herd immunity first in mid 2021.Back of the net!
Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests