Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Picking back up on a point I made previously, I really hope the government is basing the reintroduction of stricter measures on more than just increased number of infections - and that they make that information public pretty soon.

The more articles that come out like the one in my post above,  evidencing that the increased infections are merely a result of increased testing (and suggesting the percentage of positive tests is actually the same/decreasing), the more I worry increasing lockdown restrictions is going to have a big negative impact on the testing.

People will start to think they’d rather not get tested. If you’ve got mild symptoms only and the hospital admissions and deaths aren’t going up, why would you get tested and risk lockdown? There are good reasons of course (helping the track and trace, generally just collecting stats so we can get a grip of the real situation) - but if people think the government is solely imposing stricter restrictions because of literally just doing more tests (rather than actual increase in infections) many people simply won’t get tested and that “solves” the problem.

It shouldn't be difficult to understand that blanket testing takes place in hotspots. Where else would you prioritise?

They could test the entire population of Norwich and find very little because there is almost nothing here at present and would probably be a waste of resources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

North Norfolk coast is heaving, we will undoubtedly  be seeing number rise here as a result.

really ?

I wouldn't describe it as that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Herman said:

At a slight tangent there was a good discussion on radio today about coastal towns and how they are coping with the influx of tourists. St Ives and Swanage for example are now getting numbers they haven't experienced for decades and, although a bit snobby, not only the quantity but the quality was being questioned. Is this the same in Norfolk or are people staying away and keeping out of the way?

We all follow the rules up here Herman.

Apart from an occasional bloke on a bike😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ricardo said:

It shouldn't be difficult to understand that blanket testing takes place in hotspots. Where else would you prioritise?

They could test the entire population of Norwich and find very little because there is almost nothing here at present and would probably be a waste of resources. 

Not sure that’s the point I’m making.

I, for instance, got a test done a couple of weeks back because I had a cough. Thought I might as well get it tested, but wasn’t overly ill with it. 

If I had tested positive, track and trace kicks in, others can get notified, stops the spread, government knows true figures etc. So good thing to get tested.

However, if I’m sat at home wondering whether to get tested or not and I know the government are going to potentially increase lockdown in my area if I test positive, then why would I bother getting tested? 
 

If I’m really ill and go to hospital I’ll get tested there anyway as a matter of course. If I’ve just got a bad cough or a slight fever, which are the only symptoms many people who have Covid will show, I may as well sit it out at home and not bother getting tested. Some with really mild symptoms might not even stay at home which causes more problems if it then spreads.
 

If it’s clear that hospital admissions are going up, deaths are rising, and the percentage of positive tests is increasing, then lockdown or tightening of measures makes sense. But if you’re going to have to put up with an increased lockdown just literally because more tests are being done (and there are no other increases in deaths, hospital admissions etc) then why would you get tested?

Share this post


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

 

 

If it’s clear that hospital admissions are going up, deaths are rising, and the percentage of positive tests is increasing, then lockdown or tightening of measures makes sense. But if you’re going to have to put up with an increased lockdown just literally because more tests are being done (and there are no other increases in deaths, hospital admissions etc) then why would you get tested?

I find it difficult to believe that if you had symptoms you wouldn't get tested. Increasing hospitalisation and deaths are a considerable lagging factor and waiting until they materialise before taking action is tantamount to closing the stable door when Frankel is at the furlong pole.

Share this post


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

We all follow the rules up here Herman.

Apart from an occasional bloke on a bike😉

anti cycling, eh ?

cyclist !

Share this post


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

But what does it show? As per figures on France I posted yesterday, the percentage of positive infections per tests done there is decreasing. They’ve doubled the number of tests and have... you guessed it... double the number of infections. Does that mean twice as many people are infected now as a month ago or did we just not know about it? And if there were the same (or more) people infected a month ago and hospitalisation and deaths aren’t going up, then why are we concerned that we now know more have (and probably had) it?

Over what period have they doubled the number of tests Aggy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ricardo said:

I find it difficult to believe that if you had symptoms you wouldn't get tested. Increasing hospitalisation and deaths are a considerable lagging factor and waiting until they materialise before taking action is tantamount to closing the stable door when Frankel is at the furlong pole.

I don’t think it’s that difficult to believe at all. Lots of people think it’s ridiculous that the government are imposing increased restrictions when those people think it’s purely because more tests are being done.  

If you’re in your 20-40s (even outside of that range), have mild symptoms, see hospital admissions and deaths are falling and minimal, but know if you get tested you risk having your social life taken away, I think there will be quite a few people who don’t get tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-cases-in-england-arent-rising-heres-why/
 

Interesting stats based one (lots of graphs!) I read earlier today (article from 2 August). From CEBM, linked with Uni of Oxford. Not sure the first few graphs are really needed to explain the point they make using the final graph, but interesting all the same.

Basically come to the conclusion that percentage of positive infections out of tests done in care homes and hospitals is dropping slightly. Percentage of infections from tests done in the community is staying basically the same (“flatlining”). So the percentage of positive tests is the same/slightly decreasing and the increase in infections is a result of the increased testing.

Mentions also that Leicester, put into stricter lockdown than the rest of the country for quite a while, was doing more tests than anywhere else in the country at the start of July. Hardly surprising therefore they had more cases.

Thanks for this. It's fascinating. Heneghan is an interesting analyst and his periodic  Newsnight appearances make for a good watch. It makes compelling sense and is counter-media hyperbole. I hope this is the same story across Europe. Have you been able to evidence if testing has been increasing in France, Germany in the same manner as in the UK? I think you mentioned France the other day had improved their testing numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours 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!

@Van wink

edit: and @sonyc - As above, France have doubled tests between mid June and end of July. Haven’t looked elsewhere (but have got a few days off next week so might look into it when bored !! )

Edited by Aggy
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not questioning your calculations Aggy but if they are correct how do they how explain the remarks below from the French National Public Health Agency? When Public Health England see figures and remarks like that coming from across the channel it has to be taken seriously.

In its report for 20-26 July, Santé Publique France said the number of positive tests for coronavirus in France, including overseas departments, had risen for the third week in a row and the increase was “significant”. Just under 458,000 patients were tested and 6,407 found to be positive for the virus, an increase of 44% on the number of positive tests the previous week.

Of those tested, just under 440,000 were resident in mainland France, known as l’Hexagone, and 5,592 tested positive, an increase of 54% on the number of positive tests the previous week. In short, the number of tests carried out increased by 27%, while the number of positive results increased by 54%.

“In week 30 the increase in new positive cases is much higher than the increase in the number of tests carried out,” it declared.

 

Share this post


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

I don’t think it’s that difficult to believe at all. Lots of people think it’s ridiculous that the government are imposing increased restrictions when those people think it’s purely because more tests are being done.  

If you’re in your 20-40s (even outside of that range), have mild symptoms, see hospital admissions and deaths are falling and minimal, but know if you get tested you risk having your social life taken away, I think there will be quite a few people who don’t get tested.

I suppose it depends whether you value your social life above other people's actual lives. I just don't see lots of people ignoring symptoms just because they might miss a night at the pub.

Share this post


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

I suppose it depends whether you value your social life above other people's actual lives. I just don't see lots of people ignoring symptoms just because they might miss a night at the pub.

That’s the point though isn’t it. If it’s based purely on rise in infections because testing is increasing (and not because, proportionately the number of positive tests is higher), and hospital admissions are going down and deaths are going down, then many will think they aren’t putting their social life above other people’s actual lives.

And it’s not just social lives. If stricter restrictions come in, its potentially people’s jobs, their livelihoods, seeing family members, missing funerals of loved ones, weddings etc. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is not just 'a night at the pub' is it ? It is the full quarantine period.... quite a few nights at the pub.

Check the beaches and pubs, How many there are probably aware they have symptoms or have been in contact with someone who definitely has  the virus. Collectively their actions are a mixture of fatalism and selfishness.

And as Aggy points out, the lower the risk appears, the greater the risk they will take.

It is very naive to think that others are coming from your position, and so have your view on it all

..... in plain English, most don't give a fck any more

 

Share this post


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

That’s the point though isn’t it. If it’s based purely on rise in infections because testing is increasing (and not because, proportionately the number of positive tests is higher), and hospital admissions are going down and deaths are going down, then many will think they aren’t putting their social life above other people’s actual lives.

And it’s not just social lives. If stricter restrictions come in, its potentially people’s jobs, their livelihoods, seeing family members, missing funerals of loved ones, weddings etc. 
 

Are these the same people who said it was only flu?

Share this post


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

But it is not just 'a night at the pub' is it ? It is the full quarantine period.... quite a few nights at the pub.

Check the beaches and pubs, How many there are probably aware they have symptoms or have been in contact with someone who definitely has  the virus. Collectively their actions are a mixture of fatalism and selfishness.

And as Aggy points out, the lower the risk appears, the greater the risk they will take.

It is very naive to think that others are coming from your position, and so have your view on it all

..... in plain English, most don't give a fck any more

 

In that case the bigger will be the blow up when it comes. The virus doesn't give a fcuk whether you ignore it or not and being young it might not kill you but the enduring problems it leaves can change your life forever.

I guess there will always be fools who think it will never be them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the reasoning that because of more testing it is obvious the cases will go up.

Why? Surely all the stringent measures initially were to prevent the spread. So if people had done as asked it wouldn't matter about testing so much.

But civil liberties over health eh? 

Share this post


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

I’m not questioning your calculations Aggy but if they are correct how do they how explain the remarks below from the French National Public Health Agency? When Public Health England see figures and remarks like that coming from across the channel it has to be taken seriously.

In its report for 20-26 July, Santé Publique France said the number of positive tests for coronavirus in France, including overseas departments, had risen for the third week in a row and the increase was “significant”. Just under 458,000 patients were tested and 6,407 found to be positive for the virus, an increase of 44% on the number of positive tests the previous week.

Of those tested, just under 440,000 were resident in mainland France, known as l’Hexagone, and 5,592 tested positive, an increase of 54% on the number of positive tests the previous week. In short, the number of tests carried out increased by 27%, while the number of positive results increased by 54%.

“In week 30 the increase in new positive cases is much higher than the increase in the number of tests carried out,” it declared.

 

What in that suggests my figures are wrong? I’ve used seven day rolling averages a month and a half apart. You’ve used two weeks back to back which is neither at the start or end of the period my figures are based on.

Using the stats from the charts I linked to yesterday for the 7 day average between 19th and 26, in France, I come to a 26.25 per cent increase in tests and a 49 per cent increase in positive tests. So pretty much as those figures in your article, possibly some difference as a result of the mainland vs off shore this, as I’ve no idea which is used in the stats I’m referring to. 

Figures end 31 July so I can’t do the following week for comparison. Week 19-26 does look like it might not be just an increase in tests. But could also be because there was a large outbreak in a certain location with a large number of tests carried out, for instance. I’d take the trend over a mont rather than week to week.

Share this post


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

In that case the bigger will be the blow up when it comes. The virus doesn't give a fcuk whether you ignore it or not and being young it might not kill you but the enduring problems it leaves can change your life forever.

I guess there will always be fools who think it will never be them.

Are they fools though? Look at the stats Ricardo. There has been something like 400 working aged people died in seven months. If you’re under 45 or whatever the stat was, you’re more likely to die in a car crash.

My point here is simple. If the government has clear evidence and logic that it’s not just based on increased infections alone, then show it. 
 

If increasing restrictions is based purely on number of infections, then you give people the opportunity to think “well, hospital admissions aren’t going up, nor are deaths, I’ve seen no evidence that there is any increased risk to anyone, it’s all down to test increasing, so why should I risk my livelihood by getting tested”. 

If there is logic which shows it isn’t just down to the numbers of tests increasing, then show it, and it then takes that “option” away for most people.

 

Edit: that should have said in para 2 “not just based on increased infections alone” - updated.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


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

What in that suggests my figures are wrong? I’ve used seven day rolling averages a month and a half apart. You’ve used two weeks back to back which is neither at the start or end of the period my figures are based on.

Using the stats from the charts I linked to yesterday for the 7 day average between 19th and 26, in France, I come to a 26.25 per cent increase in tests and a 49 per cent increase in positive tests. So pretty much as those figures in your article, possibly some difference as a result of the mainland vs off shore this, as I’ve no idea which is used in the stats I’m referring to. 

Figures end 31 July so I can’t do the following week for comparison. Week 19-26 does look like it might not be just an increase in tests. But could also be because there was a large outbreak in a certain location with a large number of tests carried out, for instance. I’d take the trend over a mont rather than week to week.

The long term trends are important but with a weekly jump as seen the shift is regarded as significant. The rate of spread of infection can be so fast it would be foolish not to react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion now on Newsnight on your exact point @Aggy and talk of the degree of false positives (maybe very small particles in people not showing any symptoms nor infectious) and the dangers of making public policy based on these. 4.6m of us in the north currently affected of course 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The long term trends are important but with a weekly jump as seen the shift is regarded as significant. The rate of spread of infection can be so fast it would be foolish not to react.

You’re right if the numbers week on week show a massive increase then yes action is needed. But whilst a weekly increase of 150 per cent looks bad when you look at the percentage increase, it’s an increase of 800 cases in the whole of France, population 67 million. That means an extra 0.0012 per cent of the population was infected across the whole week. Any reaction needs to be sensible, proportionate and viewed in the context of the numbers still having gone down from a month before.

An increase of 150 per cent over a whole month would be more concerning (although still hardly panic stations when we’re talking about 800 extra cases a week) because it’s showing a continued steady increase.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


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

Interesting discussion now on Newsnight on your exact point @Aggy and talk of the degree of false positives (maybe very small particles in people not showing any symptoms nor infectious) and the dangers of making public policy based on these. 4.6m of us in the north currently affected of course 

I shall give it a watch tomorrow.

Share this post


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

Are they fools though? Look at the stats

My point here is if the government has clear evidence and logic that it’s not just based on increased infections alone, then show it

If there is logic which shows it isn’t just down to the numbers of tests increasing, then show it, and it then takes that “option” away for most people.

I suspect that there is a bit more to it than locking down on the basis of the raw numbers alone. 

Be interesting to see the rationale behind the two local lockdowns in full but in both cases a hypothesis could be made out that it is not the rate of spread that was the critical factor but the likelihood of spread to vulnerable members of extended family groups.

If you do go down the route of full publication though its easy for someone to excuse themselves from measures on the basis that they don't live with granny or whatever it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I suspect that there is a bit more to it than locking down on the basis of the raw numbers alone. 

Be interesting to see the rationale behind the two local lockdowns in full but in both cases a hypothesis could be made out that it is not the rate of spread that was the critical factor but the likelihood of spread to vulnerable members of extended family groups.

If you do go down the route of full publication though its easy for someone to excuse themselves from measures on the basis that they don't live with granny or whatever it is.

Probably so, but all we’ve had by way of explanation so far is some mumbled explanation from Burnham that infections are rising in the NW. In the worst hit boroughs, people then point to hospital numbers and deaths as an excuse not to bother. In the lesser hit districts, people point to the fact that , for instance, half the country has higher cases than Rossendale, but Rossendale has tighter restrictions whilst the rest of the country doesn’t.

Added to that, frankly, if the government makes a decision which limits people’s ability to go about their daily lives and see family etc., then it should be fully explained regardless of what they think the consequences of explaining it might be. Pretty sure they’ll have to fully explain it in parliament at some point as I think these emergency regs will eventually need parliamentary approval later?

(And we’ve still not heard why it took them over 28 hours to come up with the decision and still managed to mess up the announcement with four vague tweets and a tv interview the following day in which the Secretary of State got it wrong  - “PR” issue rather than substantive issue perhaps, but I’m sure millions of people who now can’t see their families wouldn’t mind knowing what processes the government went through in that 28 hour plus period). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't invite other family members to your house, even if they are wearing a mask - but you can join those same members in a restaurant without wearing a mask..... to stuff yourselves as part of the governments campaign to get the nation fitter.

Ride a bycycle without a silly 'crash' helmet and you are the devil - but zip about the roads and pavements on an electric scooter, without any safety headwear, and nothing is said, especially by the police.

Wearing a mask in a shop is mandatory...... unless you don't want to, and nothing will be said or done. And yesterday Sainsburys was very busy with no restrictions on the doors as to numbers, or distancing

A funeral is service is restricted to a few, and they must wear masks. The wake in the pub afterwards is unlimited in numbers , time and proximity.... and no masks.

And this w/e will see what notice the public is taking of Fatboy's bleats (advice)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Probably so, but all we’ve had by way of explanation so far is some mumbled explanation from Burnham that infections are rising in the NW. In the worst hit boroughs, people then point to hospital numbers and deaths as an excuse not to bother. In the lesser hit districts, people point to the fact that , for instance, half the country has higher cases than Rossendale, but Rossendale has tighter restrictions whilst the rest of the country doesn’t.

Added to that, frankly, if the government makes a decision which limits people’s ability to go about their daily lives and see family etc., then it should be fully explained regardless of what they think the consequences of explaining it might be. Pretty sure they’ll have to fully explain it in parliament at some point as I think these emergency regs will eventually need parliamentary approval later?

I think that this is fair enough.   They should be able to justify their actions retrospectively if time or circumstance do not permit soing so at the time.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think that this is fair enough.   They should be able to justify their actions retrospectively if time or circumstance do not permit soing so at the time.

It's hard to imagine what reality there would be for anyone to believe that guff

and it is did not

you need a grammar checker, as well as the spell checker you now use, hand crank

Share this post


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

You can't invite other family members to your house, even if they are wearing a mask - but you can join those same members in a restaurant without wearing a mask..... to stuff yourselves as part of the governments campaign to get the nation fitter.

Ride a bycycle without a silly 'crash' helmet and you are the devil - but zip about the roads and pavements on an electric scooter, without any safety headwear, and nothing is said, especially by the police.

Wearing a mask in a shop is mandatory...... unless you don't want to, and nothing will be said or done. And yesterday Sainsburys was very busy with no restrictions on the doors as to numbers, or distancing

A funeral is service is restricted to a few, and they must wear masks. The wake in the pub afterwards is unlimited in numbers , time and proximity.... and no masks.

And this w/e will see what notice the public is taking of Fatboy's bleats (advice)

In fairness, in the NW you can’t meet a family member inside a restaurant or pub  - but you’re fine to meet them in a beer garden just outside the same pub without a mask. Just make sure you don’t both go inside to the loo at the same time though as you’ll then be breaking the law. Only one law though, because it’s fine to go into a pub loo without a mask, despite presumably not eating or drinking in there. 

Of course it’s also fine for you to sit in a Manchester-based restaurant two socially-distanced tables apart from a stranger. But you’d probably be breaking the law if that stranger was your mum instead (unless you could prove it was just a coincidence your mum was there and you hadn’t arranged it).

All very simple really!

Although, has anyone seen the regulations governing this yet? Last I saw on Monday the government admitted they hadn’t been implemented yet. So I think most of the above is currently incorrect anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-waste-150m-buying-unusable-masks-from-banker-5v8390xtp

Government giving £225m of tax payers money to a £100 company, owned by an advisor to Conservative MP Liz Truss, for PPE that cannot be used, without due procurement process. I'm trying to think of a word.... Oh yeah, corruption.

Drain the swamp.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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...