Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[SouthEastBuses]

15166 new cases today.

UK coronavirus deaths rise by 81 with 15,166 new cases reported

THE coronavirus death toll in the UK rose by 81 yesterday – with 15,166 new cases being reported as tougher lockdown looms for the North of England. Cases have nearly tripled in two weeks …

www.thesun.co.uk

I wonder if the spreadsheet error is still happening or not. Or whether new cases GENUINELY rose by 15166.

 

[adc82140]

As has been said before, the daily reported cases mean nothing. They are a waste of time, and should never be released into the public domain. The figures you need to look at are the numbers reported by specimen date.

 

[island]

This is from the pizza express website https://www.pizzaexpress.com/covid-19/faq



Implying you have to wear masks when sat but not eating or drinking.

(Mods. Sorry if I didn't follow the correct t format for quoting a website. Im not sure how to)

This is a correct statement of English law at present.

(might be best discussed further in the face coverings thread though)

 

[Bantamzen]

As has been said before, the daily reported cases mean nothing. They are a waste of time, and should never be released into the public domain. The figures you need to look at are the numbers reported by specimen date.

The daily reported cases is misleading as is the by specimen date, because both report the number of new positive test results. A case is where someone is actually ill from the virus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The daily reported cases is misleading as is the by specimen date, because both report the number of new positive test results. A case is where someone is actually ill from the virus.

It should say "identified infection rate" not "case rate". That does not make it invalid, though, as these "non-cases" still seem to be infectious.

(Or are they? There's a possibility, I suppose, that we might discover that actually they aren't, but that R in fact is about 20, i.e. every single symptomatic case is a superspreader...that'd be interesting!)

 

[Bantamzen]

It should say "identified infection rate" not "case rate". That does not make it invalid, though, as these "non-cases" still seem to be infectious.

(Or are they? There's a possibility, I suppose, that we might discover that actually they aren't, but that R in fact is about 20, i.e. every single symptomatic case is a superspreader...that'd be interesting!)

Well logically I imagine that people who don't have symptoms will fall into one of two groups, those whose immune systems have yet to react & those whose immune systems have successfully beaten the virus. Those in the first group could potentially spreading the virus unknowingly, but those in the second group almost certainly will not be. So in theory it could be that the R0 value is much higher, but then we have to consider all the people with symptoms who are not getting tested. So R0 could then be considerably lower. Basically there is really no way of telling for sure, its all just guesswork & estimates in the end.

This is why micro-managing the spread based on one value or another is so flawed, we should be focusing on the impact the virus is, or is not having on our healthcare systems.

 

[30907]

This is why micro-managing the spread based on one value or another is so flawed, we should be focusing on the impact the virus is, or is not having on our healthcare systems.

Fair enough, and I certainly wouldn't rely on anything less than a rolling 7-day figure, but the trends are broadly similar whichever data you use (from their lowest cases ×20, deaths ×10, admissions in between - for some reason I can't access the gov.uk data ATM). Correction - admissions also x10.

 

[Bantamzen]

Fair enough, and I certainly wouldn't rely on anything less than a rolling 7-day figure, but the trends are broadly similar whichever data you use (from their lowest cases ×20, deaths ×10, admissions in between - for some reason I can't access the gov.uk data ATM).

What you have done there is what the media is so good at doing, distorting the data. Yes it is true that deaths are up x10, however considering that a few weeks ago deaths were in single figures that wasn't exactly hard to come by. Keep in mind that a great many people have had operations, procedures & screening delayed "because covid", it is not a surprise that hospitalisation rates with covid are on the increase, the same for mortality rates. However the curve of both does not match that of the number of people tested positive, which should also not be a surprise as we know that it is the elderly and those with serious other medical conditions that are most at risk. Which is why these figures alone are not enough to make decisions by.

 

[30907]

What you have done there is what the media is so good at doing, distorting the data. Yes it is true that deaths are up x10, however considering that a few weeks ago deaths were in single figures that wasn't exactly hard to come by. Keep in mind that a great many people have had operations, procedures & screening delayed "because covid", it is not a surprise that hospitalisation rates with covid are on the increase, the same for mortality rates. However the curve of both does not match that of the number of people tested positive, which should also not be a surprise as we know that it is the elderly and those with serious other medical conditions that are most at risk. Which is why these figures alone are not enough to make decisions by.

With respect, I cannot see how quoting the data is distorting it.
(Now that I have found the hospitalisations figure, I have corrected my post).
It is excellent that the upwards curves are not at the same rate, and well below the Easter figures (we don't have comparable figures for positive tests back then, only guesstimates). As you say, this is very likely because the virus is spreading much more widely among younger people - while many older/extremely vulnerable people are (if they are able to) being extremely cautious about public life.

 

[trebor79]

Apparently about 25% of the "covid hospital admissions" are people who have been admitted to hospital for something else, and then become infected whilst in hospital.

 

[Freightmaster]

It is excellent that the upwards curves are not at the same rate, and well below the Easter figures (we don't have comparable figures for positive tests back then, only guesstimates). As you say, this is very likely because the virus is spreading much more widely among younger people - while many older/extremely vulnerable people are (if they are able to) being extremely cautious about public life.

To put the magnitude of the current 'second wave' into perspective,
someone on another forum put together a striking graph which directly
compares Covid deaths for the first six weeks of each wave:

...but the general public (and most politicians) still seem utterly convinced that all hell is about to break loose???








MARK

 

[scarby]

To put the magnitude of the current 'second wave' into perspective,
someone on another forum put together a striking graph which directly
compares Covid deaths for the first six weeks of each wave:

...but the general public (and most politicians) still seem utterly convinced that all hell is about to break loose???

MARK

The BBC have published an article which states:

Just as Europe was hoping it could put Covid to rest, the virus has risen again, with renewed venom.

Link

Shouldn't it be: "Just as Europe was hoping it could put Covid to rest, the virus has risen again - but with reduced venom." ?

 

[kristiang85]

The BBC have published an article which states:

Link

Shouldn't it be: "Just as Europe was hoping it could put Covid to rest, the virus has risen again - but with reduced venom." ?

The BBC should be ashamed using language like that. Absolutely nothing indicates any kind of 'renewed venom' (which is a terrible metaphor for this anyway). Increases in hospitalisation rates are slower than sring, increases in death rates are slower than spring, and surely they cannot be stupid enough to believe the positive test graphs are an accurate comparison to spring, where far less testing was done. I mean, they are stupid enough, but I just can't believe the BBC has sunk this low.

The only 'renewed venom' is coming from the lockdownistas and politicans, NOT the virus.

 

[Crossover]

Have the number of "cases" (positive tests) been published for today yet?

 

[NorthOxonian]

Have the number of "cases" (positive tests) been published for today yet?

I saw the figure 13,972 quoted a lot, not sure if that was for today or yesterday though.

 

[yorkie]

This is a correct statement of English law at present.

(might be best discussed further in the face coverings thread though)

yep any detail on face coverings is best posted in the dedicated thread

If any changes relating to face coverings are relevant to this thread, I'd encourage people to post in the face covering thread and feel free to link to the relevant post from here, to keep the discussion in one place.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I saw the figure 13,972 quoted a lot, not sure if that was for today or yesterday though.

13972 is today. Up on yesterday but 50 deaths versus 65 yesterday is a drop of a quarter.

 

[big_rig]

13972 is today. Up on yesterday but 50 deaths versus 65 yesterday is a drop of a quarter.

Awful lot of doubling to go before the upcoming deadline for the non-prediction of 50,000 recorded by mid October

 

[Crossover]

Awful lot of doubling to go before the upcoming deadline for the non-prediction of 50,000 recorded by mid October

If they 'fiddle' Excel again, they can create a new "peak" in a few weeks

I saw the figure 13,972 quoted a lot, not sure if that was for today or yesterday though.

13972 is today. Up on yesterday but 50 deaths versus 65 yesterday is a drop of a quarter.

Thanks both

 

[kristiang85]

The SAGE minutes from late September have been released:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925854/S0769_Summary_of_effectiveness_and_harms_of_NPIs.pdf

It seems all these so called experts genuinely believe that 90% of the population is susceptible to COVID.

This is what's being fed to the government.... No wonder they are all freaking out.

 

[Yew]

The SAGE minutes from late September have been released:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925854/S0769_Summary_of_effectiveness_and_harms_of_NPIs.pdf

It seems all these so called experts genuinely believe that 90% of the population is susceptible to COVID.

This is what's being fed to the government.... No wonder they are all freaking out.

That's basical;ly just wrong, even ignoring cross immunity, when we count T cells, it will be much higher than that.

Quite simply, something must be done about the dross that's being fed to the government.

 

[bramling]

The SAGE minutes from late September have been released:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925854/S0769_Summary_of_effectiveness_and_harms_of_NPIs.pdf

It seems all these so called experts genuinely believe that 90% of the population is susceptible to COVID.

This is what's being fed to the government.... No wonder they are all freaking out.

A few points which spring out from that.

Firstly, it’s clear the strategy is “gamble on a vaccine”. Secondly there seems to be no exit strategy apart from vaccine. So it’s quite clear the can is being kicked down the road.

Two things which didn’t feature in that paper, masks, and shielding of vulnerable groups. It seems quite incredible that we are claimed to be in the same level of trouble that we were in back in March, yet there seems to be no intent for vulnerable individuals to be shielded. Surely that means the rest of the population will therefore be subject to more restrictions than might otherwise have been the case, with consequences for jobs and all the other things which go with that.

I get the feeling that the plan is localised restrictions will be increasingly ramped up and become more widespread until we are back to a de-facto March-style lockdown, the only difference being schools and shops open.

What a mess.

 

[kristiang85]

That's basical;ly just wrong, even ignoring cross immunity, when we count T cells, it will be much higher than that.

Quite simply, something must be done about the dross that's being fed to the government.

Indeed. Even many ardent lockdowners aren't using figures like that. It is complete bovine excrement.

Yet we can pick apart these figures instantly on an Internet forum; why is nobody at the top of government questioning it?

 

[Yew]

Indeed. Even many ardent lockdowners aren't using figures like that. It is complete bovine excrement.

Yet we can pick apart these figures instantly on an Internet forum; why is nobody at the top of government questioning it?

The cabinet have been picked for loyalty, not skill? The opposition are happy to watch the Prime Minister mess it up, lest he claim credit for something they fought for? Fools like Witty and Shridhar being favoured over qualified epidemiologists as they're naiive enough to think we can get out of this without anyone dying?

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed. Even many ardent lockdowners aren't using figures like that. It is complete bovine excrement.

Yet we can pick apart these figures instantly on an Internet forum; why is nobody at the top of government questioning it?

I hate to say this (well I don't really) but maybe because we have a cabinet with the intellectual wit of a bag of dead badgers. So SAGE can rattle up some dodgy forecast, tell the chump BoJo that the situation is "grave" and that if he doesn't lockdown millions would die. Hell I half bet you could tell the clown that 100 million people in the UK could end up with and he'd be straight to a press conference to use this forecast as a reason for further lockdowns.

I'm afraid we have possibly the most incompetent government in our nation's history.

 

[al78]

Indeed. Even many ardent lockdowners aren't using figures like that. It is complete bovine excrement.

Yet we can pick apart these figures instantly on an Internet forum; why is nobody at the top of government questioning it?

People on the internet don't have the responsibility of making decisions that will affect the entire population and where any destructive consequences of those decisions will come back to them. Therefore, people on the internet can search for and interpret figures how they like to align with their opinion with no risk of comeback.

 

[trebor79]

A

Two things which didn’t feature in that paper, masks, and shielding of vulnerable groups. It seems quite incredible that we are claimed to be in the same level of trouble that we were in back in March, yet there seems to be no intent for vulnerable individuals to be shielded.

Van Tam mentioned that in yesterday mornings briefing. Showed his heat maps of the infection "bleeding into" older age groups and then quite offhandedly stated QED that "it isn't possible to prevent this spread into older and more vulnerable groups". Conveniently avoiding the obvious point that his heat maps are showing what happens when there is no shielding at all in place.
It's like driving a car towards a brick wall and telling everyone inside that "it isn't possible to stop the car using the brakes" because I'm not using the brakes at the moment and it isn't stopping.

What a mess.

Indeed.
I know the government is full of incompetent thickos, but the scientists I'm sure do understand this stuff and it's puzzling why they are coming out with such nonsense, and not being particularly challenged by anyone.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It seems all these so called experts genuinely believe that 90% of the population is susceptible to COVID.

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
Not that I am saying that they are right, but also not sure you can just claim that the experts are wrong without providing a reason for claiming that.

 

[DB]

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
Not that I am saying that they are right, but also not sure you can just claim that the experts are wrong without providing a reason for claiming that.

Well the number who now have immunity in one form or another is already likely to be more than 10%!

Plus it depends on what being susceptible actually means - if it means feeling a bit crap for a few days, that's not something which should be of concern. The percentage who have no immunity and are at ris of beoming seriously ill is going to be difficult to determine precisely, but it's not going to be especially large.

 

[kristiang85]

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
Not that I am saying that they are right, but also not sure you can just claim that the experts are wrong without providing a reason for claiming that.

I didn't provide reasons as they have been discussed at length on here already. There's lots of evidence that at least 30% of population already has T-cell immunity and antibodies from other coronavirus infections that protect against the current outbreak. Then, given that 85% of positive tests are asymptomatic, can you say that 90% of the population are susceptible to developing the disease? (to me that is developing symptoms). Not to mention that a fifth of the population is under 16, who don't seem to be susceptible at all, apart from a rare few cases.

Putting that on a document in such a stark number with no backup, a document that is advising government policy, is irresponsible.

People on the internet don't have the responsibility of making decisions that will affect the entire population and where any destructive consequences of those decisions will come back to them. Therefore, people on the internet can search for and interpret figures how they like to align with their opinion with no risk of comeback.

The point is that those at the top of government are all very well educated and experienced, and thus should have a huge degree of critical thinking in their decision making. I just can't believe they blindly sign off on the figures and parrot them to the population (i.e. us on the internet) with a straight face. Surely they must know that there is enough evidence available to be masses to quickly rebuke it?

It's not about interpreting figures to suit our argument; it is just plain wrong if you look at the evidence.