Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

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

They never stopped it. All the way through people were freely flying around. 

Share this post


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

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. 

The thought was that as testing would not pick up those who were in the early stages, it was not cost effective.

However I think that was a retrospective take on it, as it was part of the then lackadaisical approach being taken.

Check out why the fat fraud allowed the Cheltenham Festival to go ahead, why he took 12 days off i that crucial period in Feb, why he failed to attend 5 vital COBRA meetings. Not interested

When other countries were taking this very serious, implementing procedures put in place previously Fatso was spouting sh yte at some hos[ital photo op where he bragged about shaking hands with corona virus patients

the airport scandal' was simply one part of a wider dereliction of duty - and it's been a shambles ever since

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The thought was that as testing would not pick up those who were in the early stages, it was not cost effective.

However I think that was a retrospective take on it, as it was part of the then lackadaisical approach being taken.

Check out why the fat fraud allowed the Cheltenham Festival to go ahead, why he took 12 days off i that crucial period in Feb, why he failed to attend 5 vital COBRA meetings. Not interested

When other countries were taking this very serious, implementing procedures put in place previously Fatso was spouting sh yte at some hos[ital photo op where he bragged about shaking hands with corona virus patients

the airport scandal' was simply one part of a wider dereliction of duty - and it's been a shambles ever since

Tend to agree with this - plus undoubtedly the number of locally transmitted cases was already very very much larger than any 'imports' ergo any 'flight quarantine ' would have made little effect.

The real question is why we didn't fully lock down 2 weeks earlier. Everything else is small beer by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Van wink said:

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.”

I was not surprised at all to read this because it was well trailed on here in many posts I seem to remember. Certainly there was a very early case, possibly one of the first 10 positive cases, (Ilkley) where the woman tested had returned from a ski trip in northern Italy. Other similar sources were referenced in the press.

Yet when challenged at those TV press conferences did we not learn from the spokesperson that the scientific guidance was not compelling? I think it may have been Patel or Hancock dismissing the question, but I can't recall.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


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

Tend to agree with this - plus undoubtedly the number of locally transmitted cases was already very very much larger than any 'imports' ergo any 'flight quarantine ' would have made little effect.

The real question is why we didn't fully lock down 2 weeks earlier. Everything else is small beer by comparison.

It was the approach that guided the action

A mindset that had previously seen nursing numbers fall dramatically, as the extra charge caused by the cut in bursaries was felt, the running down of PPE stocks and even the cut in border force staff.

The drastic cuts in public expenditure meant that should something like this happen, the failures and inabilities to cope were not aberrations but the inevitable consequence of such behaviour. Those cuts were also the cause of a previous exercise to 'stress test' the system, being ignored,

The events in early spring were not an unexpected blow out on the motorway, but the result of driving on four bald remoulds after ignoring pressure tests which  had shown those tyres to be wrongly inflated. Even the spare tyre was missing as it had not been replaced.

Send not for whom the fault lies, it lies with us.... who not only stood by those cuts, but supported them in the ballot box.

Share this post


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

A mindset that had previously seen nursing numbers fall dramatically, as the extra charge caused by the cut in bursaries was felt, the running down of PPE stocks and even the cut in border force staff.

I'm hopeful (perhaps unrealistically) that any future UK government never underfunds it's health service again. I hope there is learning about what is truly important in public administration....if you don't have good health, it restricts what you can do. We should fund public services well. But, this is far too naive?

Instead, we've seen pay freezes for nurses for a long time (3 years was it?) and numbers falling, exacerbated by Brexit, bursaries changed to loans (incidentally at interest rates of between 5.4% and 6.1% when the bank base rate has been around or below 1% for a decade).

It should be reviewed / looked back upon as a true scandal when people learn that NHS staff had to crowd fund for PPE.

Yet Bill, still... we are seeing parallel structures being formed alongside the NHS...track and test by large private sector companies like Serco, contracts offered outside of the NHS (and a recent vote passed not to protect it from external influence).

All of this structure is divorced from local residents, local public health and local communities. It's serious. Local services are being eviscerated. This includes other services.... (the police to give an example). 

There are consequences still to emerge for the whole of society putting it mildly. And what is the vision or even a realistic short term strategy? Don't tell me "Build, build, build". That is the opposite of course to what is happening (marketeers often tell you the opposite of what is reality).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who is to blame, for Tory cnts being Try cnts  /

The halfwits around us, that's who

People who seem unable, and are unwilling, to think for themselves.

Look at the US who probably has the most incompetent and stupid leader of any country, and yet as they drop like flies through the virus there are still those willing to back someone with absolutely NO redeeming feature. Would you want your teenage daughter working in an office with him ?

Similarly we have another lying incompetent, up to his neck in sleaze and corruption. Would you want your wife working in an office with him ?

Whatever damage this virus has done to the country, it will never reach the heights caused by pig ignorant stupidity

Share this post


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

Tend to agree with this - plus undoubtedly the number of locally transmitted cases was already very very much larger than any 'imports' ergo any 'flight quarantine ' would have made little effect.

The real question is why we didn't fully lock down 2 weeks earlier. Everything else is small beer by comparison.

Yes indeed, although I would say everything else except the complete failure to stock up on PPE which should have started in February and since the whole government response was apparently predicated on stopping the 'NHS being overwhelmed' you've have thought that it was a pretty obvious thing to have discussed and implemented right at the very start - perhaps at one of the five early COBRA meetings that Johnson couldn't be bothered to attend??

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes indeed, although I would say everything else except the complete failure to stock up on PPE which should have started in February and since the whole government response was apparently predicated on stopping the 'NHS being overwhelmed' you've have thought that it was a pretty obvious thing to have discussed and implemented right at the very start - perhaps at one of the five early COBRA meetings that Johnson couldn't be bothered to attend??

I have a different take. The two main issues as i see them being   (a)  not protecting the vulnerable, especially in care homes, correctly and (b) not putting more resources into track and trace immediately (ie jan-feb) as this is where Germany's relative success stemmed from. 

I could be persuaded on PPE but I would need to see evidence that a deficiency caused disproportionate infection in a hospital environment and I am not sure that this exists. I speak in aggregate terms, each individual case, of course, being a disaster to the individual.

Lockdown is the bluntest of instruments. Doing it earlier  will probably have saved lives overall but if we had sorted out (a) and (b) it should not have been necessary. We can see  some evidence for this in figures throughout Europe where lockdowns have eased but deaths have stayed suppressed or in Sweden.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ricardo said:

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. 

We were told at the time that we were following the scientific advice. If that;s true then the advice was nuts. Plainly obvious to a ten year-old even that if you allow people in from infected areas then they would spread the virus.

At work we had a colleague return from Milan in the middle of March and they had to quarantine at home for 14 days. If the scientists thought that everybody coming in were quarantining then they were sadly mistaken. 

Share this post


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

It was the approach that guided the action

A mindset that had previously seen nursing numbers fall dramatically, as the extra charge caused by the cut in bursaries was felt, the running down of PPE stocks and even the cut in border force staff.

The drastic cuts in public expenditure meant that should something like this happen, the failures and inabilities to cope were not aberrations but the inevitable consequence of such behaviour. Those cuts were also the cause of a previous exercise to 'stress test' the system, being ignored,

The events in early spring were not an unexpected blow out on the motorway, but the result of driving on four bald remoulds after ignoring pressure tests which  had shown those tyres to be wrongly inflated. Even the spare tyre was missing as it had not been replaced.

Send not for whom the fault lies, it lies with us.... who not only stood by those cuts, but supported them in the ballot box.

Clearly none of this is true. The NHS in March was running at a level needed to deal with the normal situation at the beginning of Springtime. Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be nice to reduce waiting lists for procedures but the fact is that the NHS was coping with a normal situation. I doubt there is a major health system anywhere in the world where there is idle capacity waiting just in case requirements might spike. That would, in fact, be a waste of valuable resources and a situation very few countries would be able to fund.

The corona virus blind-sided every country in the world and everyone had to learn from their mistakes as they went along. Every country was ill-equipped and we saw a huge global rise in demand for medical supplies and equipment that manufacturers struggled to meet demand.

Even though we are almost six months on from corona appearing on the global radar, there is still no global agreement of the best procedure to deal with this virus in everything from testing, tracing, medical care and treatment. There is still a long learning curve to be gone through before we can say we have this problem beaten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

We were told at the time that we were following the scientific advice. If that;s true then the advice was nuts. Plainly obvious to a ten year-old even that if you allow people in from infected areas then they would spread the virus.

At work we had a colleague return from Milan in the middle of March and they had to quarantine at home for 14 days. If the scientists thought that everybody coming in were quarantining then they were sadly mistaken. 

You are probably correct but by March it was probably a little too late. It was the February half term that was the issue I suspect 

Share this post


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

I have a different take. The two main issues as i see them being   (a)  not protecting the vulnerable, especially in care homes, correctly and (b) not putting more resources into track and trace immediately (ie jan-feb) as this is where Germany's relative success stemmed from. 

I could be persuaded on PPE but I would need to see evidence that a deficiency caused disproportionate infection in a hospital environment and I am not sure that this exists. I speak in aggregate terms, each individual case, of course, being a disaster to the individual.

Lockdown is the bluntest of instruments. Doing it earlier  will probably have saved lives overall but if we had sorted out (a) and (b) it should not have been necessary. We can see  some evidence for this in figures throughout Europe where lockdowns have eased but deaths have stayed suppressed or in Sweden.

 

 

I think this is fair comment but the PPE issue is relevant both in its own terms but also in relation to your point (a). Staff were struggling with adequate protection. There were countless care home managers reporting at the peak about availability and cost. It's why we saw a whole cottage industry of home made garments being made for them in local situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chart

This looks fairly static to me.

The next few days should tell us if there is really any lift off.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

You are probably correct but by March it was probably a little too late. It was the February half term that was the issue I suspect 

Now you mention it, the colleague was on school half-term and so that would have been mid-Feb when the Carnival was on.

I raised the issue with our senior management at the time as wanting to know what the company planned to do. I was told in no uncertain terms that to single out individuals would be to victimise them and I should therefore keep such comments to myself. Such was the level of thinking in mid-Feb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Clearly none of this is true. The NHS in March was running at a level needed to deal with the normal situation at the beginning of Springtime. Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be nice to reduce waiting lists for procedures but the fact is that the NHS was coping with a normal situation. I doubt there is a major health system anywhere in the world where there is idle capacity waiting just in case requirements might spike. That would, in fact, be a waste of valuable resources and a situation very few countries would be able to fund.

The corona virus blind-sided every country in the world and everyone had to learn from their mistakes as they went along. Every country was ill-equipped and we saw a huge global rise in demand for medical supplies and equipment that manufacturers struggled to meet demand.

Even though we are almost six months on from corona appearing on the global radar, there is still no global agreement of the best procedure to deal with this virus in everything from testing, tracing, medical care and treatment. There is still a long learning curve to be gone through before we can say we have this problem beaten

More misinformation from hand crank/BB to try and distract from a massive failure by the righties

"nursing numbers fall dramatically," true, the evidence is there'

extra charge caused by the cut in bursaries was felt' true, check with evidence from the RCN

'the running down of PPE stocks' true

'cut in border force staff. ' true

there is loads of spare capacity in the NHS as so much of it is dependent upon ..... emergencies happening - hence the name and something they have no control over ie the volume of cases

you don't live in the UK, and you give yourself away by posting in the same way as hand crank/BB, misrepresentation and lying

 

 

 

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...