Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

Goodness me.

Some people are ludicrous. There is widespread and general opinion that this Government was too slow and too blundering in its initial response. And thats being kind.

How can anyone defend what had happened?

People who continue to use politics over peoples health and lives need locking up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, sonyc said:

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.

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.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

Chart

This looks fairly static to me.

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

As ever it's the random testing of the whole population that matters with a disease that can be largely asymptomatic. Self-selecting people to test will clearly skew results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what is exercising minds, it’s a pandemic, we need to keep a very close eye on what’s happening in Europe.

IMG_0050.png

Share this post


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

This is what is exercising minds, it’s a pandemic, we need to keep a very close eye on what’s happening in Europe.

IMG_0050.png

Johnson/Cummings haven't got a grip on what is happening in England yet.......that would be the place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Johnson/Cummings haven't got a grip on what is happening in England yet.......that would be the place to start.

I’m not referring to those two clowns, I’m referring to the epidemiologists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Goodness me.

Some people are ludicrous. There is widespread and general opinion that this Government was too slow and too blundering in its initial response. And thats being kind.

How can anyone defend what had happened?

People who continue to use politics over peoples health and lives need locking up.

There are those on here that will criticise the government when the sun goes down in the evening and some that will praise it when the sun returns in the morning.

Others prefer a different approach bit I am not sure that anyone has given an unqualified defence over the last few pages.

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

There are those on here that will criticise the government when the sun goes down in the evening

ah yes, the old 'tribalism' misdirection gets dragged out - when there is no defence

the government have not failed, despite all the evidence since - and the comments by scientists, and even the government themselves

Barbie Boy................................our own Comical Ali

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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?

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/outrage-after-wells-beach-car-park-wait-1-6776265

plenty of sympathetic comments 😛

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Van wink said:

This is what is exercising minds, it’s a pandemic, we need to keep a very close eye on what’s happening in Europe.

IMG_0050.png

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?

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Posted (edited)
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

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...