Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

On 28/07/2020 at 14:55, ricardo said:

or as we say in Norfolk

Thass stillĀ  a hossin on down bor.

I dont do stats much now, but i see that this weeks cases and deaths for Tuesday and Wednesday are definitely up on the same days for last week. This rollin' 7 day average seems to be the in vogue thing nowadays so i suppose better than a 2 day thing, but anyway..still a bit of a concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Essjayess said:

I dont do stats much now, but i see that this weeks cases and deaths for Tuesday and Wednesday are definitely up on the same days for last week. This rollin' 7 day average seems to be the in vogue thing nowadays so i suppose better than a 2 day thing, but anyway..still a bit of a concern.

Actually no, the daily reported numbers include many from previous days. Here is the latest all settings graph. Perhaps it needs stressing again that the numbers announced on the BBC are NOT the number that died yesterday.

image.thumb.png.08fb1e64a0b75fe0cf53683c55e447ef.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Actually no, the daily reported numbers include many from previous days. Here is the latest all settings graph. Perhaps it needs stressing again that the numbers announced on the BBC are NOT the number that died yesterday.

image.thumb.png.08fb1e64a0b75fe0cf53683c55e447ef.png

Youā€™ve probably explained this before Ricardo, but Iā€™m presuming from the above,Ā the colours are the day they were announced, with the bar chart showing the actualĀ number of deathsĀ that day? If so, was it the case we reported 0 deaths on 29 June and hardly an until mid-July but then loads were added retrospectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ons publication out yesterday referring to week ending 17 July - fifth consecutive week with deaths below the 5 year average.


This publicationĀ also includes a graph which shows between 27 March and 15 May, even if you exclude covid deaths, we had more deaths than the 5 yearlyĀ average. So whilst excess deaths are a good insight, some of those excess deaths werenā€™t related to covid. Worth remembering the five yearly average is an average - soĀ we must have excess deaths on a fairly regular basis in many years (and fewer deaths in others, to arrive at the average).

Ā 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question though is, did this year's excess deaths fall outside the usual parameters ?

The first chart here shows the numbers are way above normal range - and using the z-scores*Ā  graph you can get a much clearer picture

* explained via link

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bill said:

The question though is, did this year's excess deaths fall outside the usual parameters ?

The first chart here shows the numbers are way above normal range - and using the z-scores*Ā  graph you can get a much clearer picture

* explained via link

No link showing Bill.

Iā€™ve been looking for a breakdown of the last five years individually so as to see what the highest year was (havenā€™t found one). I expect as a result of covid we were still quite a bit higher during the ā€œcovid peakā€ than even the highest of the years included in the average. But if weā€™re now under the five year average again, weā€™ll be well below the highest of those years.

Another questionĀ isĀ why were we above the five yearly average deathsĀ anyway (even discounting covid deaths)? WereĀ there conditionsĀ which meant, for instance, flu was worse or there were more pneumonia death?Ā Ā Did those same conditions makeĀ covid worse this year than it might have been in another year?Ā 

If even the non-covid deaths were above the five yearly average, it makes you wonder just how many died ā€œwith covidā€ rather than ā€œfrom covidā€. If more people than normal were dying anyway, itĀ could be that some of those covid deaths might actually have died from something else...especially when you consider weā€re now below the five year average .

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might sound callous Ricardo but the deaths will go down as the NHS is under less load and techniques improve.

But we must be concerned that new cases are increasing, as much as 28% says one report, and that there are suspicions that the R rate is over 1 in the South East and South West where I am.

Some of our resorts in Cornwall are heaving at the moment. An area that has escaped the worst is now under threat.

Yes, this area is dependent on visitors but it cannot cope with twice as many trying to get into only half what is normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

It might sound callous Ricardo but the deaths will go down as the NHS is under less load and techniques improve.

But we must be concerned that new cases are increasing, as much as 28% says one report, and that there are suspicions that the R rate is over 1 in the South East and South West where I am.

Some of our resorts in Cornwall are heaving at the moment. An area that has escaped the worst is now under threat.

Yes, this area is dependent on visitors but it cannot cope with twice as many trying to get into only half what is normal.

The 'r' rate is pretty meaningless as it is pretty much guess work

the real question is how many of the not vulnerable will now die, or become severely incapacitated, as the view seems to be from the public that those who were going to die have died so it is relatively safe for the vast majority

which maybe an argument that has some support were it not set against what happened in 1918

it dies down that summer but when it returned it had mutated into a variation that killed with days the young and healthy - by it causing their immune system to 'over re-act and so shut down the body

Ā 

now here's the real question, one that I have searched for be found no answer as yet - nor seen raised

did those people who died in the second wave have the previous virus but showed no noticeable symptoms, but died from the next strain, or more worryingly which is my thought, their death may have been a 'flare up' of a dormant virus (original strain)

ie you contracted the virus the first time, but what killed you the second time was that it then becoming active

if that is the case then the consequences are extremely frightening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few charts for interest from Burn-Murdoch (FT). Lots of outliers. He also shows excess mortality graphs if people want to look at (click for the link)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Youā€™ve probably explained this before Ricardo, but Iā€™m presuming from the above,Ā the colours are the day they were announced, with the bar chart showing the actualĀ number of deathsĀ that day? If so, was it the case we reported 0 deaths on 29 June and hardly an until mid-July but then loads were added retrospectively?

No the colour coded day of reporting only goes back the 7 days shown at the top right of the chart. Those days that have just solid blue have had updates in previous weeks but none in the last 7 days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Aggy said:

No link showing Bill.

Iā€™ve been looking for a breakdown of the last five years individually so as to see what the highest year was (havenā€™t found one). I expect as a result of covid we were still quite a bit higher during the ā€œcovid peakā€ than even the highest of the years included in the average. But if weā€™re now under the five year average again, weā€™ll be well below the highest of those years.

Another questionĀ isĀ why were we above the five yearly average deathsĀ anyway (even discounting covid deaths)? WereĀ there conditionsĀ which meant, for instance, flu was worse or there were more pneumonia death?Ā Ā Did those same conditions makeĀ covid worse this year than it might have been in another year?Ā 

If even the non-covid deaths were above the five yearly average, it makes you wonder just how many died ā€œwith covidā€ rather than ā€œfrom covidā€. If more people than normal were dying anyway, itĀ could be that some of those covid deaths might actually have died from something else...especially when you consider weā€re now below the five year average .

This is the best I could find Aggy. Details a range of data and lots of graphs. We heard last year that life expectancy was levelling and even falling (pre Covid) and the Marmot review also referenced the inequalities.

Ā 

Edit: pdf link wouldn't seem to open, apologies. I've made a screenshot of the source of you're interested.

Ā 

IMG_20200729_222209.jpg

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

It might sound callous Ricardo but the deaths will go down as the NHS is under less load and techniques improve.

But we must be concerned that new cases are increasing, as much as 28% says one report, and that there are suspicions that the R rate is over 1 in the South East and South West where I am.

Some of our resorts in Cornwall are heaving at the moment. An area that has escaped the worst is now under threat.

Yes, this area is dependent on visitors but it cannot cope with twice as many trying to get into only half what is normal.

You have had low rates of infection in your neck of the woods so I would think an uptickĀ due to the influx of holiday makers is very probable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

You have had low rates of infection in your neck of the woods so I would think an uptickĀ due to the influx of holiday makers is very probable.

Just reading our local news tonight and there is serious talk (again) of a local lockdown (Bradford). Talks ongoing with government. We've been there two or three times in the last 2 weeks.

Obviously, it depends where they draw the lines geographically. Lots of the population in the city celebrates Eid on Friday too. Numbers are going up again -enough for concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.5fe8dd4a55044015178fb01f00a408d6.pngNumbers in North Norfolk appear to be on the up, as in Norwich. These are the Kings College data which show national figures for new infections remaining steady but with some regional variations. Take care chaps, social distance,Ā face coverings and good hand hygiene.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bill said:

Ā 

the real question is how many of the not vulnerable will now die,

In seven months and of over,Ā what, 45,000 deaths from covid, there have been 555 deaths in thoseĀ under the age of 45. An additional 4,895 in those under the age of 65. So under the age of 65, there have been only 5,450 deaths.Ā c.10k deaths are people between 65 and 75, and the remaining c.30kĀ are age group 75 and above.

Thatā€™s why the economy is now taking centre stage - the group hit hardest by the economic impact, who are losing their jobs and career prospects, many of whom need to be able to work to feed their kids but canā€™t get jobs, are still more likely to die in a car crash every 200 miles they drive than they are from coronavirus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sonyc said:

This is the best I could find Aggy. Details a range of data and lots of graphs. We heard last year that life expectancy was levelling and even falling (pre Covid) and the Marmot review also referenced the inequalities.

Ā 

Edit: pdf link wouldn't seem to open, apologies. I've made a screenshot of the source of you're interested.

Ā 

IMG_20200729_222209.jpg

Havenā€™t read all of that yet Sony, although have since noticed the ONS weekly death stats does show a maximum and minimum range on one of its graphs.
Ā 

Iā€™m sure the politically minded would have fun with the first graph in your link though - minimal decrease in death rates through the 80s,Ā reduction in death rate accelerates from the mid 90s, and death rates start increasing again almost overnight in 2010....Ā 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Havenā€™t read all of that yet Sony, although have since noticed the ONS weekly death stats does show a maximum and minimum range on one of its graphs.
Ā 

Iā€™m sure the politically minded would have fun with the first graph in your link though - minimal decrease in death rates through the 80s,Ā reduction in death rate accelerates from the mid 90s, and death rates start increasing again almost overnight in 2010....Ā 

Yes, the change since 2010/2011 is quite a thing. I don't even think it's such a debate though because there have been quite recent studies into the austerity 'era' and links to increased mortality. That Marmot report (the original report especially) is shocking (in my eyes).

There are so many interesting things in this 80 page paper.

On another point (and it relates to austerity actually), I happen to agree entirely with your point about the economy and the interface with the pandemic (the kind of policy decisions that have to be made). Indy mentioned this right at the outset. What's worse is what will come, with millions of people who are going to struggle (and reports are already emerging that it's the over 50s who will find it harder to find work.... not to ignore the challenges for the youngest sections of the workforce). This will impact on health of course.

Meanwhile, the press stories are ramping up on 'second waves' including cabinet ministers.

Edited by sonyc
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by the latest results and data, the weather/seasons doesn't seem to have much affect on Covid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sonyc said:

Ā 

Meanwhile, the press stories are ramping up on 'second waves' including cabinet ministers.

Bbc had an article ā€œfact checkingā€ Borisā€™ claim about a second wave yesterday (itā€™s second on the homepage of the app as I look at it but donā€™t know if that moves round depending on what I look at). This article quotes multiple professors of infectious disease and similar from different universities who are unanimous in the view that there is no second wave, and itā€™s just that the ā€œfirst waveā€ hasnā€™t gone away but is being controlled, and will lead to small outbreaks from time to time. The article ends by saying ā€œwhat will be seen are the ripples from the first wave rather than a big second waveā€. Iā€™ll take their word for it over Boris and cabinet ministers making it up as they go along.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spain had highest daily increase since May 11th today.

Government quarrantine action was certainly correct.

France also noticeably increasing as is Germany, although from low bases. Whether this is due to blanket testing in hotspots it is too early to be certain. What is clear is that lifting lockdown will see an uptick in numbers.

Edited by ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Spain had highest daily increase since May 11th today.

Government quarrantine action was certainly correct.

France also noticeably increasing as is Germany, although from low bases. Whether this is due to blanket testing in hotspots it is too early to be certain. What is clear is that lifting lockdown will see an uptick in numbers.

Seven day rolling averages on the up. We are doing the right thing imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Spain had highest daily increase since May 11th today.

Government quarrantine action was certainly correct.

France also noticeably increasing as is Germany, although from low bases. Whether this is due to blanket testing in hotspots it is too early to be certain. What is clear is that lifting lockdown will see an uptick in numbers.

Numbers of infections or deaths? Evidence for the first, not so much for the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Once again most of the 38 announced today are from previous days.

image

Sent you pm

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aggy said:

Numbers of infections or deaths? Evidence for the first, not so much for the second.

infections. Deaths are a lagging indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

infections. Deaths are a lagging indicator.

How lagging though? France, Germany, Spain all lifted restrictions much earlier than us - many in Germany as early as May. Yet deaths in all three countries are remaining stable and very low. Infections are going up (and have been in those countries for a few weeks) but deaths arenā€™t.Ā 
Ā 

(edit: not suggesting youā€™ll know the answer to that Ricardo, more just that Iā€™m fairly hopeful the infections will go up without a corresponding increase in deaths.)

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

How lagging though? France, Germany, Spain all lifted restrictions much earlier than us - many in Germany as early as May. Yet deaths in all three countries are remaining stable and very low. Infections are going up (and have been in those countries for a few weeks) but deaths arenā€™t.Ā 
Ā 

(edit: not suggesting youā€™ll know the answer to that Ricardo, more just that Iā€™m fairly hopeful the infections will go up without a corresponding increase in deaths.)

The lag is around three to four weeks but it should also be taken into account that hospitals are now better prepared and have developed more effective interventions. I expect you will be proved correct in your assumption that the fatality rate will be lower.šŸ‘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deaths will decrease for now. The vulnerable have born the brunt already unfortunately for them and now they have become nothing more than statistics even to the extent that they are playing catch up with the totals.

Now the 80% of us with no underlying health issues will be able to resist and only exhibit mild flu at best.

But if enough catch it and show symptoms, measures will still have to be taken. It would take a hell of a long time to get through nearly 50 million of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The lag is around three to four weeks but it should also be taken into account that hospitals are now better prepared and have developed more effective interventions. I expect you will be proved correct in your assumption that the fatality rate will be lower.šŸ‘

really ?

''The UKā€™s largest independent provider of social care has issued a warning that it will have no access to regular coronavirus testing for residents and staff in England for at least five weeks.

In a letter to relatives of residents, Care UK chief executive Andrew Knight, said the Department of Health was blaming issues with kits from a particular supplier, but said communication with government had been ā€œsorely lackingā€.''

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-social-care-uk-coronavirus-testing-staff-residents-a9646351.html

and if as to emphasise the stupidity of the fancy dress nonsense ,we have

''From 1 August the government is no longer advising extremely clinically vulnerable people to shield from the virus. Support from the National Shielding Service ā€“ free food parcels, medicine deliveries and care ā€“ will stop, and more than 2 million people who are at high risk from coronavirus will be told they can go to work as long as their workplaces are ā€œCovid-secureā€.

If there were any credibility in the fancy dress scam, there would be no need to any quarantining as that would serve the purpose of avoiding infection. But it is no more than a comfort blanket to help herd back into work, irrespective of condition, proximity or their health situation everyone they can round up/

And when the numbers rise it will be down to the naughty folk who did not fall for this scam

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...