Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mark .Y. said:

Has anybody seen any statistics from any country regarding numbers of cases versus numbers of hospital admissions ?

I posted a statement from 2 front-line Italian doctors about, I don't know, 6 weeks (maybe longer) ago in which they stated that the virus was losing it's effectiveness and infected people they were testing had far less "viral load" than had been seen at the height of the crisis in Italy.

I wondered whether that is true for other countries, and the fact that the number of cases rising may not be as bad as it initially  seems ??

Thanks for bringing this issue back to the fore. I will be interested in researching this later in the weekend. I really hope it is losing its effectiveness of course. @Aggy posted a view in looking at the stats and infection rates and one potential line of thought he had (and I hope I'm not mis-quoting here) is that whilst the number of tests is at a high level we are seeing more positive cases and yet hospitalisation (and deaths) have not increased. One factor he questioned might be a possible weakening of the virus as one (or part) potential explanation.

Whether we remain a week or two behind Spain and France though and our numbers will shortly rise, we don't yet know.

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

VW do you seriously want to make a comparison?  I see the UK and German news daily. The contrast between the competence of Germany and the incompetence of the UK is a shocking contrast. Germany has has progressional test track and trace with clear communication and a plan for dealing with outbreaks since February. The UK still hasn’t. And for some reason one of the worst death records in the world in the UK is deemed acceptable. It is truly bizarre. 

Were you banned or was it voluntary exile?

Share this post


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

Thanks for bringing this issue back to the fore. I will be interested in researching this later in the weekend. I really hope it is losing its effectiveness of course. @Aggy posted a view in looking at the stats and infection rates and one potential line of thought he had (and I hope I'm not mis-quoting here) is that whilst the number of tests is at a high level we are seeing more positive cases and yet hospitalisation (and deaths) have not increased. One factor he questioned might be a possible weakening of the virus as one (or part) potential explanation.

Whether we remain a week or two behind Spain and France though and our numbers will shortly rise, we don't yet know.

I did put it forward as a potential possibility to explain infection numbers up but hospital admissions/deaths stable and even decreasing. I have no evidence to support that (and walked out of my last AS level biology exam after the minimum period you had to wait, without having bothered to open the paper - so no chance of explaining the science...) but who knows.

It seems to me though that if infections go up but serious cases don’t, then the only options are (1) that it’s weakening but still spreading as it always has, or (2) we’ve always had that level of “mild” infection (or a higher level of it) and we’re only finding out about it as a result of the increased testing while the more serious infections reduce/stay the same.

As far as I’m aware we haven’t changed how we record hospital admissions or deaths - but if  we now only use “died from” rather than “died with” or “admitted with” rather than “admitted because of” that might explain a reduction in percentage of deaths and hospital admissions vs infections. Seems unlikely in the case of hospital admissions, but perhaps more possible on the deaths.

Of course there’s also the chance that the “lag” in both hospital admissions and deaths is just longer than we had expected. Seems unlikely as it’s now been over a month since the early July lifting of restrictions, and even longer since we saw earlier loosening of restrictions, but it’s the only other possibility. Again, possibly deaths (which come later in the infection ‘cycle’ than admissions) might catch up but you’d expect to have seen more significant increases in hospital admissions by now I think.
 

Share this post


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

Thanks for bringing this issue back to the fore. I will be interested in researching this later in the weekend. I really hope it is losing its effectiveness of course. @Aggy posted a view in looking at the stats and infection rates and one potential line of thought he had (and I hope I'm not mis-quoting here) is that whilst the number of tests is at a high level we are seeing more positive cases and yet hospitalisation (and deaths) have not increased. One factor he questioned might be a possible weakening of the virus as one (or part) potential explanation.

Whether we remain a week or two behind Spain and France though and our numbers will shortly rise, we don't yet know.

Yes, it would be very good news if true. Something worth keeping an eye on I think. I tried to do a bit of research on Spain because their case numbers have been rising for a while and should be being reflected in hospital admissions but I can't find the relevant statistics. I might try again later.

The number of positive tests per tests conducted has quite a wide variation across different countries (and the UK's is quite low) but could be explained by who is having the tests, ie if you are testing more of the general population who have no symptoms and have just decided to be tested, your figures are very likely to be better than those of a country who is only testing those people presenting with symptoms and/or frontline workers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think people should be banned for being against racism and the loss of lives and jobs? But self imposed ban as a result of being extremely busy dealing with post lockdown pent up demand in my business. No doubt while some businesses are suffering there are some that are booming. In particular I’m picking up additional business due to the restrictions in the UK because of the self inflicted damage the UK from the poor handling of Covid and Brexit. Not what I want for the UK but clearly other have other priorities than jobs and lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

Yes, it would be very good news if true. Something worth keeping an eye on I think. I tried to do a bit of research on Spain because their case numbers have been rising for a while and should be being reflected in hospital admissions but I can't find the relevant statistics. I might try again later.

The number of positive tests per tests conducted has quite a wide variation across different countries (and the UK's is quite low) but could be explained by who is having the tests, ie if you are testing more of the general population who have no symptoms and have just decided to be tested, your figures are very likely to be better than those of a country who is only testing those people presenting with symptoms and/or frontline workers. 

You could also add are you testing the same person 2,  3 or 4 times 

Share this post


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

You could also add are you testing the same person 2,  3 or 4 times 

Yes, hadn't thought of that, but very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Aggy said:

My confusion is why you disparagingly used the phrase “civil liberties over health eh” when discussing others, but then seem to have a problem with the civil liberties of over 50s being infringed. 

The stats clearly show that on average over fifties are at greater risk than under fifties.

You seem to suggest it’s unfair for all over-fifties to be lumped into the same category, because not all over fifties are at high risk. Yet you have no problem with young healthy people being lumped in the same category as far more at risk people, despite young healthy people being at extremely low risk. 

(Ps I said months ago that there are serious ethical issues with allowing some sections of society to be released from lockdown but not others - I don’t for one second think all over fifties should be forced to stay at home. I’m just intrigued why it’s acceptable for over fifties to get annoyed about this, but people in their twenties and thirties who have hardly any risk at all of dying from covid are expected to just suck it up, have their lives ruined, are called “selfish and stupid” for daring to say anything about it.)

My issue is that indeed there is risk, whether it be to or from groups in society. For any statement to be made that the young are not at risk is not reasonable as they could be a risk to others.

And many young have taken it as read that they are invulnerable and not obeying the rules. For instance, every Saturday night there is a large gathering of late teenage early twenties youngsters at our local park that has a small wood attached. Naturally they drink and play music into the early hours. I think it is fair to assume there is very little social distancing.

They may well be OK but the risk they are taking of catching and carrying and maybe infecting someone is not worth it in my opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark .Y. said:

 

The number of positive tests per tests conducted has quite a wide variation across different countries (and the UK's is quite low) but could be explained by who is having the tests, ie if you are testing more of the general population who have no symptoms and have just decided to be tested, your figures are very likely to be better than those of a country who is only testing those people presenting with symptoms and/or frontline workers. 

Agreed and isn’t that more evidence to support the argument that basing government policy/“lockdown theory” on number of infections alone is a bit pointless.

One of the links I posted a few days ago split the community vs hospital testing and that showed, as you’d probably expect, hospital tests had gone down, hospital infections had gone down (because there are fewer admissions currently than a three months ago) but the percentage of infections vs tests had stayed pretty much the same. Community tests had gone up, community infection had gone down and the percentage of community tests had gone down slightly as well.

However, once you get to a point where your hospital testing is dropping down to pretty minimal numbers, I wouldn’t be shocked if even the percentage starts to rise as you widen community testing. Even now, the majority of people being tested or getting tests have some symptoms - chances of a completely asymptomatic person getting tested at the moment (in the community) is pretty low. But if we start doing more “random” tests, then we might find out that actually a lot more people has asymptomatic/very mild symptoms than we thought, so the percentage might jump up. So a rise in percentages even (which we haven’t got yet anyway) might not necessarily be a cause for concern either.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My issue is that indeed there is risk, whether it be to or from groups in society. For any statement to be made that the young are not at risk is not reasonable as they could be a risk to others.

And many young have taken it as read that they are invulnerable and not obeying the rules. For instance, every Saturday night there is a large gathering of late teenage early twenties youngsters at our local park that has a small wood attached. Naturally they drink and play music into the early hours. I think it is fair to assume there is very little social distancing.

They may well be OK but the risk they are taking of catching and carrying and maybe infecting someone is not worth it in my opinion.

 

Why does being a risk to others mean you are “at risk” yourself?

Many young aren’t invulnerable, but the risk is absolutely minimal. 450 under 40 year olds is it who have died? You live with risk all the time. I could drive to work and get smashed by a lorry driver falling asleep. Doesn’t mean I have to worry myself about it for ever and never leave the house.

And it’s not as though there is no other infection that we live with normally. If you’re 85 and go to a football match in December, you could easily pick up “normal” flu and die. 

Nobody is saying twenty year olds should go round deliberately coughing in the faces of seventy year olds because there is minimal risk to the twenty year old. But at the same time, there needs to be a balance - and your varying response to higher risk over fifties being asked to ‘take one for the good of others’ compared to lower risk 20-40 year olds didn’t suggest much balance.

Share this post


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

Thanks for bringing this issue back to the fore. I will be interested in researching this later in the weekend. I really hope it is losing its effectiveness of course. @Aggy posted a view in looking at the stats and infection rates and one potential line of thought he had (and I hope I'm not mis-quoting here) is that whilst the number of tests is at a high level we are seeing more positive cases and yet hospitalisation (and deaths) have not increased. One factor he questioned might be a possible weakening of the virus as one (or part) potential explanation.

Whether we remain a week or two behind Spain and France though and our numbers will shortly rise, we don't yet know.

The virus weakening is a possible explanation but with so many explanations for the growing differences between recorded infections and recorded deaths/hospitalisations its probably wishful thinking. 

Share this post


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

The virus weakening is a possible explanation but with so many explanations for the growing differences between recorded infections and recorded deaths/hospitalisations its probably wishful thinking. 

I accept that there may be a lot of explanations Bb. But at least the fact that the virus may be weakening has been previously endorsed by Italian doctors with as much experience as anybody of it, surely makes it a better possibility than some other explanations ???

Share this post


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

Positives drop again to 758.

0.4%

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

It's like your match day reports Ricardo (look out for them each day rather than about 7pm on a Saturday)😆

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Why does being a risk to others mean you are “at risk” yourself?

Many young aren’t invulnerable, but the risk is absolutely minimal. 450 under 40 year olds is it who have died? You live with risk all the time. I could drive to work and get smashed by a lorry driver falling asleep. Doesn’t mean I have to worry myself about it for ever and never leave the house.

And it’s not as though there is no other infection that we live with normally. If you’re 85 and go to a football match in December, you could easily pick up “normal” flu and die. 

Nobody is saying twenty year olds should go round deliberately coughing in the faces of seventy year olds because there is minimal risk to the twenty year old. But at the same time, there needs to be a balance - and your varying response to higher risk over fifties being asked to ‘take one for the good of others’ compared to lower risk 20-40 year olds didn’t suggest much balance.

Fine, you think the risk is acceptable. At the moment I do not. 

We are obviously miles apart on this so there is no point deliberating further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks there are issues in Germany they  should be appalled  by the performance in the UK.   The systems and procedures iGermany had at the start are still way ahead of what the UK has now. Germany has had negligible excess death rwhereas. UK has one of the worst records in the world. People should be disgusted ashamed and embarrassed by the performance of the UK  which has been outperformed by many so called third world countries if they care about lives and jobs. The feeble efforts to distract and divert from the performance of the UK are shameful. 

Share this post


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

The latest R.K.I. report is not encouraging.

R 1.16

Cases sharply increasing thanks to numerous small outbreaks since easing lockdown. 

An interesting read

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-08-07-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

It’s a worrying picture, we really thought the Germans had this cracked.
An interesting feature of the initial outbreak in Germany was it was thought to have infected a younger fitter demographic than in the UK and the clinical outcome for those infected was quite positive. We are now seeing in the UK a marginal increase in infections which is not matched by the level of hospital admissions we saw for corresponding numbers early on. There are a number of proposed explanations for this, one being that the virus has weakened, but, this might be the German phenomenon where our current infections are amongst a younger fitter group of individuals.

 

Share this post


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

It’s a worrying picture, we really thought the Germans had this cracked.
An interesting feature of the initial outbreak in Germany was it was thought to have infected a younger fitter demographic than in the UK and the clinical outcome for those infected was quite positive. We are now seeing in the UK a marginal increase in infections which is not matched by the level of hospital admissions we saw for corresponding numbers early on. There are a number of proposed explanations for this, one being that the virus has weakened, but, this might be the German phenomenon where our current infections are amongst a younger fitter group of individuals.

 

I think that's an interesting point. Spead in the UK also I suspect due largely to pubs and restaurants opening ie younger venues opening and extended family get togethers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You may have seen comparisons and claims about the performance of the US v the rest of the world.

You may also have heard the President claim the US is doing too many tests, as if you test more you will get more cases.... you may also understand that the US is less than 90 days away from the next election, so it's very important to the President that traditionally Republican voting States don't abandon him and elect Joe Biden instead.... so here's a glimpse of Democrat stronghold California, swing state Florida, and new swing state Arizona and Georgia and ruby red Texas. If Trump lost Texas he'd lose the election irrespective of what Florida, Arizona and Georgia do....

So first up is the USA, seems like good news, cases are falling now although the number of tests is falling too, which is a concern, but hospitalization are starting to fall and deaths, recently rising are falling again. 

Next California, the largest State with almost 40 million people. Testing is above the national average and steady at about 3,000/million/day with a positive test rate around 6%. Cases are falling quickly to below 200/million/day and hospitalizations are falling too to about 200 per million. There is still problem here, the focus has shifted to the Central Valley region which is much more rural, and happens to be more Republican.

Arizona had a huge problem and so they drove their testing up to about 2,000/million/day and their positive test rate has fallen from the high 20's to around 9%. Cases are falling quickly but still above 1,000/million/day, same with hospitalizations which are falling too but still above 2,000/million/day. 

Georgia is the state that is the home to the Center for Disease Control, so if anyone should have a handle on things it should be them... their testing is actually climbing just under 3,000/million/day and we are not seeing cases fall off significantly from a peak of over 300/million/per. So overall it's doing significant worse than California, but looking at the numbers it seems to be above board.  

Florida is the state who's Governor demanded an apology from New York in April for their Covid response, since then things have changed. They managed to get their testing up to the national average but look what happened then - it's fallen over the past two weeks to under 2,000/million/day with a positive test rate around 18%. Maybe as a result their case count is falling quickly..... but is it really? Their hospitalization rate has dropped from just over to just under 400/million, but that is still more than twice the national average.

Texas managed to get their testing up to the national average and oops look what happened then - it's way down over the past two weeks to only 1,500/million/day with a positive test rate around 20%. Maybe as a result their case count is falling..... but is it really? Their hospitalization rate has dropped from 400/million to 300/million, but that is still about one and a half times the national average.

So the question for these two critical States is - is someone cooking the books, or is this data accurate?

Arizona, George, Florida and Texas also states that refused to implement mask requirements or close bars, that is unit reality caught up with them, and Arizona has been the most aggressive fixing those loopholes. 

Covid US.jpg

Covid California.jpg

 

 

 

 

Covid Arizona.jpg

Covid Georgia.jpg

Covid Florida.jpg

Covid Texas.jpg

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting read Surfer, thanks. I would have thought that reducing testing to reduce apparent prevalence of CV19 would be one of the more obvious stunts that Trump and his merry men will be pulling over the coming months, made more noticeable  of course by his “you test more you find more” mantra, which in its simplest interpretation is arguable. 
What is noticeable  from the graphs you show is that it appears that the number of hospitalisations is begInning to fall, we see it here with the rate of infection static or gently rising but new hospitalisations down.

Am I correct in thinking that US citizens admitted to hospital with CV19 have their treatment cost covered by the State if they don’t have insurance? Is there a possibility that politicians are in some way influencing the number of admissions to paint a more rosy picture.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last couple of posts are very reassuring, especially the swedish figures. 

I'd be interested in the same graphs for New York state as I believe that it (possibly with surrounding states) is the closest comparator we have other maybe than the greater Paris area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

The last couple of posts are very reassuring, especially the swedish figures. 

I'd be interested in the same graphs for New York state as I believe that it (possibly with surrounding states) is the closest comparator we have other maybe than the greater Paris area

Yes the data is here https://covidtracking.com/data.  New York State looks like this - it's almost as if it's a different country. As you can see from the dotted line, their testing has stayed well above the US average even though new cases per million have fallen away. Fall off in New York and New England states is a big factor in why the US curves look the way they do, offsetting recent big increases in the South and West. 

As the Governor of New York said "it's like nobody learned anything from our experience"  - sounds rather familiar eh? 

Their New tests and New cases per day data puts the lie to the President's comment we only have more cases because we do more tests. While it is true that you won't be able to confirm that you have infected people in your population if you don't do any tests to find out, New York proves that if you continue to do a lot of testing does not mean that your case rate can't also fall away dramatically. I think the mayor of New York said this week that their test positivity rate was now around 1%, and so schools could reopen and remain open as long as it stayed under a 2% threshold. 

Once more we need to look to the media to dig deeper and get past the stupid headlines like "California now has the worst outbreak of Covid 19 in America" Well based on raw case count yes it does, but if you look at cases per million it's right at the US average. The question they should be asking is - why is testing falling off in states like Florida and Texas? How did New York contain the pandemic and what lessons can the State and Federal Governments learn from that?.... all too hard apparently for reporters to actually report on, so we will very likely continue with this fiasco for months to come. 

New York.jpg

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be interesting to see some data on the level of immunity in New York now.

Share this post


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

I see there is also a piece in the Mail wondering if Sweden got it right. I think the Swedish expert is honest enough to say that no-one knew quite how to deal with the virus at the start (apparently no two potential pandemic viruses work in the same way), that there is no one right answer, and that they would have done things a bit differently, but only a bit, knowing what they know now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I see there is also a piece in the Mail wondering if Sweden got it right. I think the Swedish expert is honest enough to say that no-one knew quite how to deal with the virus at the start (apparently no two potential pandemic viruses work in the same way), that there is no one right answer, and that they would have done things a bit differently, but only a bit, knowing what they know now.

I've been impressed with the Swedish scientist (epidemiologist) Tegnell. He seems level headed and is even able to admit to his own possible miscalculations. How refreshing. I tend to agree too that it will perhaps only be known in a decade or certainly, many years time, which approach has been best. I did see a report that their economy had fared far better than other countries because they had not really locked down. Yet, as noted on here before, perhaps Swedish life and geography is so different so they are able to take a different approach (Tegnell also alluded before to the vulnerable and care sector mistakes).

I also like his comments about managing lockdowns in very specific ways. That seems measured. I live up north (semi rural) and where I live has the same rules as inner Manchester. Nearly 5m people affected currently too.

UK policy still feels quite broad brush and a little 'on the hoof' (though, I do sense an improvement from those early days). Sweden appears to have a longer term plan.

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...