Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Van wink said:

And what makes it worse is we never got our level of community infection sufficiently under control before we started to release. I don’t think there is much doubt what is going to happen here, our salvation will rest in whether this period has bought sufficient time to establish a decent track and trace service properly integrated with DPH, sufficient testing capacity and a governance regime that inspires confidence and compliance. Mmm...

Is the government learning? ...  slowly? The experience of the northern LAs  recently attests to them being treated like mushrooms. Ricardo's charts do show increasing testing numbers. And Aggy I see has just posted that hospital admissions are greatly down. The number of deaths has reduced. I'm unsure if that's because of the virus changing / weakening or its because of better treatments. My worry has always been that higher infection rates would translate later 'down the line' into worsening death rates.

@Aggy, I don't know if it is 8 to 11 days. My 3/4 weeks was based simply on my take on relaxation of behaviours (distancing), ergo increased chance for close contact (pubs, bars for example as well as some industrial food processing sources) and these leaching into community infection. Thus, we have been about 4 or 5 weeks since early July. Your 8/11 days may make sense in this time period. Though I have no wish to be pedantic.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

 

@Aggy, I don't know if it is 8 to 11 days. My 3/4 weeks was based simply on my take on relaxation of behaviours (distancing), ergo increased chance for close contact (pubs, bars for example as well as some industrial food processing sources) and these leaching into community infection. Thus, we have been about 4 or 5 weeks since early July. Your 8/11 days may make sense in this time period.

I think 2 to 3 weeks lag is what most work from

The Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M), a subgroup of SAGE, use several different models, each using data from a variety of sources to estimate R and growth rate. Epidemiological data, such as hospital admissions, ICU admissions and deaths, usually take 2 to 3 weeks for changes in the spread of disease to be reflected in the estimates. This is due to the time delay between initial infection and the need for hospital care. As a result, the figures published today more accurately represent the average situation over the past few weeks rather than the situation today.”

Edited by Van wink
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Hospital admissions lag isn’t 3-4 weeks. 8-11 days on average between catching it, showing symptoms and being hospitalised. According to Ricardo’s graphs, infections started rising over a month ago, yet hospital admissions continue to drop.

In the same time period, the seven day average number of tests carried out has continued to go up.

So we’ve had 4 weeks of increasing infections, 4 weeks of increasing tests, but 4 weeks of reduced hospital admissions despite it taking only 1-1.5 weeks to be hospitalised after catching it (on average - so some even earlier than that).

Either suggests to me that it’s down to the increased testing, or the virus has become a lot weaker than it was before.

 

If increased testing is the cause we should see the  % positive falling. 

As to the vitus being weaker, possibly though unlikely I reckon. More likely the disease is not spreading to the most vulnerable groups anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a curious thing that parts of Liverpool are subject to emergency restrictions as numbers of infections have risen some 4/5 weeks after the title celebrations.

Reading about it reminded me of the breakouts in infections earlier this year in Italy and Spain after  football matches. 

Coincidence or not? I suppose it's impossible to corroborate (like Cheltenham racing). Leeds will be interesting to watch if numbers increase in a week or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It's a curious thing that parts of Liverpool are subject to emergency restrictions as numbers of infections have risen some 4/5 weeks after the title celebrations.

Reading about it reminded me of the breakouts in infections earlier this year in Italy and Spain after  football matches. 

Coincidence or not? I suppose it's impossible to corroborate (like Cheltenham racing). Leeds will be interesting to watch if numbers increase in a week or so.

Yes the Leeds area numbers do seem to be accelerating. Hopefully quick action will be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well at least Ipswich won't have such virus related concerns

Share this post


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

The 8-11 days between infection and hospitalisation sounds a little low to me Aggy, can I ask where those figures are from?

The pic below is from patient info. I have a feeling you may have posted this during a tete a tete with Bill a while back. It’s from mid April so possibly out of date but the best I can find. Would also say though that from a quick google, the American cdc.gov website also suggests most hospitalisation happens during the second week of infection. The 2/3 week lag is the number I’ve heard for deaths - and by that logic 8-11 days also sounds about right for hospitalisation.

 

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

If increased testing is the cause we should see the  % positive falling. 

 

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:


If increased testing is the cause we should see the  % positive falling. 

 

Using Ricardo’s chart, and using 7 day rolling averages here for fairness. Infections rose from early July, so I’ve compared 30 June and 31 July (because the charts don’t seem to have full data for August yet).

30 June - 132,779.9 is the 7 day rolling average number of tests carried out. 749.1 is the 7 day rolling average number of cases. I make that 0.56 per cent. 

31 July - 163,180.9 is the 7 day rolling average number of tests carried out. 789 is the 7 day rolling average number of cases. I make that 0.48 per cent.

 

Share this post


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

The pic below is from patient info. I have a feeling you may have posted this during a tete a tete with Bill a while back. It’s from mid April so possibly out of date but the best I can find. Would also say though that from a quick google, the American cdc.gov website also suggests most hospitalisation happens during the second week of infection. The 2/3 week lag is the number I’ve heard for deaths - and by that logic 8-11 days also sounds about right for hospitalisation.

 

Using Ricardo’s chart, and using 7 day rolling averages here for fairness. Infections rose from early July, so I’ve compared 30 June and 31 July (because the charts don’t seem to have full data for August yet).

30 June - 132,779.9 is the 7 day rolling average number of tests carried out. 749.1 is the 7 day rolling average number of cases. I make that 0.56 per cent. 

31 July - 163,180.9 is the 7 day rolling average number of tests carried out. 789 is the 7 day rolling average number of cases. I make that 0.48 per cent.

 

So sounds possible that at least some of the increase in confirmed cases  is due to increased testing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aggy said:

The pic below is from patient info. I have a feeling you may have posted this during a tete a tete with Bill a while back. It’s from mid April so possibly out of date but the best I can find. Would also say though that from a quick google, the American cdc.gov website also suggests most hospitalisation happens during the second week of infection. The 2/3 week lag is the number I’ve heard for deaths - and by that logic 8-11 days also sounds about right for hospitalisation.

 

Using Ricardo’s chart, and using 7 day rolling averages here for fairness. Infections rose from early July, so I’ve compared 30 June and 31 July (because the charts don’t seem to have full data for August yet).

30 June - 132,779.9 is the 7 day rolling average number of tests carried out. 749.1 is the 7 day rolling average number of cases. I make that 0.56 per cent. 

31 July - 163,180.9 is the 7 day rolling average number of tests carried out. 789 is the 7 day rolling average number of cases. I make that 0.48 per cent.

 

There is no picture below Aggy.? Did you see the quote I posted earlier referring to the 2/3 week lag on admissions?  It was from a report published on 31 July. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Van wink said:

And what makes it worse is we never got our level of community infection sufficiently under control before we started to release. I don’t think there is much doubt what is going to happen here, our salvation will rest in whether this period has bought sufficient time to establish a decent track and trace service properly integrated with DPH, sufficient testing capacity and a governance regime that inspires confidence and compliance. Mmm...

Getting past the sensationalism in the headline, there are concerns about T and T, schools re-opening and more people going back to offices.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/second-coronavirus-wave-could-twice-22464251?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

The article speaks of trade offs to manage increasing infection rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Getting past the sensationalism in the headline, there are concerns about T and T, schools re-opening and more people going back to offices.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/second-coronavirus-wave-could-twice-22464251?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

The article speaks of trade offs to manage increasing infection rates.

I’m really concerned sonyc. As I have repeated like a broken record, we opened up too soon, the opportunity we had/have was/is a period when the sun would shine and people would be outside, reduced infection rates,  when we could build capacity for what for me is the inevitable surge. I fear we may be at risk of blowing this opportunity. I know that T and T is not what it should be, my experience has been of a very poorly managed system with very little communication and dogged by a lack of human resources to support those on the front line. I know of several people appointed to tier 2 who have given up,  its incumbent on Government to keep these people on board so that they are ready and able to go when needed.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


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

There is no picture below Aggy.? Did you see the quote I posted earlier referring to the 2/3 week lag on admissions?  It was from a report published on 31 July. 

Attached.

Even if you extend it to 2/3 weeks - the infections started rising 4.5 weeks ago now and hospital admissions continue to go down, not up.

The other point is that the large majority of tests being done are still people showing symptoms or even going into hospitals  (because why would a member of the public order a test if they don’t show any symptoms?). The lags usually take into account that you often don’t show symptoms for a few days up to a week or so - so if the positive test results started rising  around 4 weeks ago, that suggests people were showing symptoms around 4 weeks ago, which then suggests many of the infections were probably “caught” 5-6 weeks ago, before restrictions were lifted.

So it’s either (1) a very long lag of potentially 5/6 weeks between infection and hospitalisation and increased infections were occurring before restrictions were lifted, or (2) it’s getting weaker, or (3) it’s as a result of the increased testing. As per BB’s point on percentages and my back of a fag packet maths, there are more tests being done and proportionately fewer testing positive, but number of infections going up.

 

image.jpeg

Edited by Aggy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should say, there’s probably an option (4) which is that it’s a mix of increased testing and increased infections from less social distancing, but given the percentage of positive tests is going down, I think chances are it’s far more to do with increased testing than the latter.

I don’t think people realise how many extra tests are being done even when you compare with a month ago. It’s an extra 20-30,000 a day (on the seven week average). If you do an extra 20-30,000 tests a day, chances are you will find an extra 200 cases, which is what we’re seeing now. 

Share this post


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

Should say, there’s probably an option (4) which is that it’s a mix of increased testing and increased infections from less social distancing, but given the percentage of positive tests is going down, I think chances are it’s far more to do with increased testing than the latter.

I don’t think people realise how many extra tests are being done even when you compare with a month ago. It’s an extra 20-30,000 a day (on the seven week average). If you do an extra 20-30,000 tests a day, chances are you will find an extra 200 cases, which is what we’re seeing now. 

I was encouraged by the number of tests reading the latest figures.  Plus I'm one of the people more inclined to believe your 'option' 4. I've not read anything about the virus weakening as yet.

Share this post


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

Should say, there’s probably an option (4) which is that it’s a mix of increased testing and increased infections from less social distancing, but given the percentage of positive tests is going down, I think chances are it’s far more to do with increased testing than the latter.

I don’t think people realise how many extra tests are being done even when you compare with a month ago. It’s an extra 20-30,000 a day (on the seven week average). If you do an extra 20-30,000 tests a day, chances are you will find an extra 200 cases, which is what we’re seeing now. 

I would certainly agree that the increased testing and release of lockdown will inevitably show a rise in numbers. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers do appear to be a function of increased testing at the moment with a positive result steady at around half a percent. At its height we were seeing over 30 percent  positives so we need to reserve judgement until and if there is an exponential take off in the coming days.

Share this post


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

Numbers do appear to be a function of increased testing at the moment with a positive result steady at around half a percent. At its height we were seeing over 30 percent  positives so we need to reserve judgement until and if there is an exponential take off in the coming days.

Yep, I didn’t go further back than June in my comparison yesterday as the numbers in April and May would have been skewed massively because we hadn’t got it even remotely “under control” at the beginning of that period - and the tests were more limited to only hospital admissions and key workers at that point rather than the public at large, so the percentage of tests that were positive would have been much much higher. 

In respect of the percentage, as you say, it’s also about whether there’s a large increase. As it’s now open to the public more widely, you might get some fluctuation - one day/week you might just have had a load of people being overly cautious getting tested after a cough (which lowers the percentage of positive tests) but the next we might ramp up the testing in a particular setting (care homes for instance or if we have tested everyone from one particular identified break out) which might then skew it the other way. Unless you were literally testing every person in the country every day/week, it’s open to some minor discrepancies on occasion. If we were seeing regular marked increases though then you’d have some concern.

Share this post


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

Should say, there’s probably an option (4) which is that it’s a mix of increased testing and increased infections from less social distancing, but given the percentage of positive tests is going down, I think chances are it’s far more to do with increased testing than the latter.

I don’t think people realise how many extra tests are being done even when you compare with a month ago. It’s an extra 20-30,000 a day (on the seven week average). If you do an extra 20-30,000 tests a day, chances are you will find an extra 200 cases, which is what we’re seeing now. 

It stands to reason that the number of reported infections will increase as testing increases. So the % of infections per test becomes the number to watch. But even then you'd expect that in the beginning of testing they would be going to those places where the infection is most likely to be found ie in hospitals, care homes and among front line workers. As testing is increased it will include those less likely to be infected, ie those not on the front line. But if we say that those who think they may be infected are the people now getting tested it still suggests that the reported infection rate is higher than the infection rate in the general population. 

And we can see this is true when the death rate continues to decline as deaths will happen whether tested or not. 

So it's a fairly positive outlook if the numbers are to be believed and as long as people continue to do the right thing with masks, social distancing and handwashing we should be able to get back to something approaching normality. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Big drop in new cases today (670).

 

It gets so confusing. Low cases, very low deaths and yet some leading scientists say second wave will be bigger than the first unless we up the test and track.

I know you are classed as vulnerable naturally Ricardo but just how many vulnerable are there in reality? And if many of the vulnerable were to take the antibody test, would it be reliable enough to judge how they should be treated if there is another wave?

Share this post


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

It gets so confusing. Low cases, very low deaths and yet some leading scientists say second wave will be bigger than the first unless we up the test and track.

I know you are classed as vulnerable naturally Ricardo but just how many vulnerable are there in reality? And if many of the vulnerable were to take the antibody test, would it be reliable enough to judge how they should be treated if there is another wave?

2.2 million of us in the extremely vulnerable group so I'm led to believe. 

The very low prevalence of the virus in this neck of the woods means we should be able to go out and about in safe environments. I have been to the supermarket a few times and only at quiet periods. I have also been to the coast, but not where there are crowds and I have not been to a pub or restaurant.

I probably wouldn't  chance it in a high prevalence area but I think we just have to exercise a bit of common sense and keep abreast of developments in our own areas. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

2.2 million of us in the extremely vulnerable group so I'm led to believe. 

The very low prevalence of the virus in this neck of the woods means we should be able to go out and about in safe environments. I have been to the supermarket a few times and only at quiet periods. I have also been to the coast, but not where there are crowds and I have not been to a pub or restaurant.

I probably wouldn't  chance it in a high prevalence area but I think we just have to exercise a bit of common sense and keep abreast of developments in our own areas. 

I didn't realise there were that many. Thats three or four percent of the population. Is that including Care Homes as well?

i know you are sensible but is every one else? Looking at the beaches down here, I have my doubts.

We are booked for a golf weekend in October at Ashbury which normally would have well over a hundred staying there, eating and boozing at every weekend.

I told Mrs KG, if she was worried I might bring the virus back I wouldn't go but she thinks I and the resort are sensible enough to keep safe.

I will be taking a sleeping bag and my own pillow to sleep on top of the bed and own towel etc and spend as much time in the swimming pool when not golfing.🏌🏊

Share this post


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

Patterns emerging across Europe:

Global report: France 'could lose control of Covid-19 at any time'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/04/global-report-france-could-lose-control-of-covid-19-at-any-time?

 

 

Not read the report Sonyc, here’s a link to the data (no idea how accurate but looks decent). 
 

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/france?country=~FRA

Extrapolating the stats in France for comparison:

Mid June just before infections started to rise (I used June 18) - rolling seven day average number if tests was 0.48 people tested per 1000 population. Population of 67,081,000, so 32,198 tests. Rolling seven day average infections 440. Percentage of positive tests = 1.37

July 31 - rolling seven day average tests 1.1 person tested per 1000 population, so 73,789.1 tests. Rolling seven day average infections 980. Percentage of positive tests 1.33. 
 

You double the tests, get double the infections at virtually the same level of positive infections to tests done ratio (slight improvement in fact). 
 

As you say, patterns emerging across Europe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More accurate to start to watch the hospital figures, if these even increase slightly tighter restrictions must be put in place, as above testing increase and those who are probably more resilient to the virus younger generations who get infected through easing will no doubt raise that figure of positive tests.

Share this post


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

Not read the report Sonyc, here’s a link to the data (no idea how accurate but looks decent). 
 

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/france?country=~FRA

Extrapolating the stats in France for comparison:

Mid June just before infections started to rise (I used June 18) - rolling seven day average number if tests was 0.48 people tested per 1000 population. Population of 67,081,000, so 32,198 tests. Rolling seven day average infections 440. Percentage of positive tests = 1.37

July 31 - rolling seven day average tests 1.1 person tested per 1000 population, so 73,789.1 tests. Rolling seven day average infections 980. Percentage of positive tests 1.33. 
 

You double the tests, get double the infections at virtually the same level of positive infections to tests done ratio (slight improvement in fact). 
 

As you say, patterns emerging across Europe!

Thanks. I enjoy the stats analysis. I was reading that Guardian article and how concerned scientists and health experts feel (about how close they sense they are to sharper increases). This kind of article seems to be appearing a lot in the media so I 'take the temperature' from these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astonishing that this happened, we need to know why and there must be accountability!


“Failure to introduce quarantine at the start of the coronavirus outbreak led to 10,000 infected people entering the UK, accelerating the spread of disease, an investigation by MPs has found.
The all-party home affairs committee said the Government's "inexplicable" decision to lift restrictions on about one million people who arrived in the UK between March 13 and lockdown on March 23 contributed to the pace and scale of the Covid-19 outbreak.
They said this "highly unusual approach" to the pandemic contrasted with other countries - from Singapore and New Zealand to Spain - that were introducing more comprehensive measures, including quarantine and self-isolation for international arrivals.
Experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told the MPs that they calculated up to 10,000 infected people, largely from Spain, France and Italy - including families returning from half-term breaks - imported Covid-19 into the UK. 
This was confirmed by Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, who pointed to evidence that hundreds of different strains of Covid-19 were brought into the UK after the Government abandoned special measures for international arrivals on March 13.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The failure to curtail flights from Milan in those early stages always seemed like a serious mistake. I couldnt understand the logic of the scientific advice at the time and still don't. 

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...