Corona Virus main thread

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

23k. Doubling every day !

Now we know its artificially high for 1 day (or is it 2) but i think we can safely say the apparent lull was artificial too.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[ricardo 7,928]

Impossible to make any analysis since we dont know the daily figures and thus the percentage of positives.

If the deaths and hospitalisation figures are correct however then this is nowhere on the level of  March / April and thats about all we can say for certainty.

[ricardo 7,928]

BBC News now saying 16k figures were not put into the system. Dear oh bloody dear, heads should roll.

[Van wink 2,994]

6 minutes ago, ricardo said:

BBC News now saying 16k figures were not put into the system. Dear oh bloody dear, heads should roll.

Shocking, not put through to contact tracing, absolute joke!

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

If it helps everybody. PhE.. Guardian

Missing numbers. Looks like try number was c. 12000 on the 2nd.

September 25, when the original figure given was 6,874
744 on September 26, when the original figure given was 6,042
757 on September 27, when the original figure given was 5,693
none on September 28, when the original figure given was 4,044
1,415 on September 29, when the original figure given was 7,143
3,049 on September 30, when the original figure given was 7,108
4,133 on October 1, when the original figure given was 6,914
4,786 on October 2, when the original figure given was 6,968

[Well b back 3,590]

57 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

If it helps everybody. PhE.. Guardian

Missing numbers. Looks like try number was c. 12000 on the 2nd.

September 25, when the original figure given was 6,874
744 on September 26, when the original figure given was 6,042
757 on September 27, when the original figure given was 5,693
none on September 28, when the original figure given was 4,044
1,415 on September 29, when the original figure given was 7,143
3,049 on September 30, when the original figure given was 7,108
4,133 on October 1, when the original figure given was 6,914
4,786 on October 2, when the original figure given was 6,968

That looks like it could be the results from private tests not being added maybe, would make sense.

[Barbe bleu 1,031]

Worldometer is publishing the corrected data by sample date. Numbers down last two days (likely due to limited weekend testing/reporting?) But three days at over 10,000.

Upwards progression is quite evident but it seems at a lower pace than could have been predicted.

Deaths still a week or so behind France and quite a bit behind Spain.

 

[Well b back 3,590]

Hi

As you have been discussing contact tracing and the more rapid spread thought I would share these NY Times stories with you. The first looks at contact tracing the world vs the west, the second how Britain has lost confidence in its leadership so flought the rules.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/world/europe/covid-contract-tracing.html?campaign_id=51&emc=edit_MBE_p_20201005&instance_id=22808&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=141174537&section=longRead&segment_id=39827&te=1&user_id=974bdc9414d93873197a0e53bd27f7aa
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/04/world/europe/britain-london-coronavirus.html?campaign_id=51&emc=edit_MBE_p_20201005&instance_id=22808&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=141174537&section=topNews&segment_id=39827&te=1&user_id=974bdc9414d93873197a0e53bd27f7aa

 

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

9 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Worldometer is publishing the corrected data by sample date. Numbers down last two days (likely due to limited weekend testing/reporting?) But three days at over 10,000.

Upwards progression is quite evident but it seems at a lower pace than could have been predicted.

Deaths still a week or so behind France and quite a bit behind Spain.

 

I would hope it is slowing down a bit - with is it a third of the country is some form of enhanced lockdown.

[ricardo 7,928]

Here is the corrected chart (England only)

[Herman 11,112]

The wrong version of excel is the latest excuse?! 

[Well b back 3,590]

32 minutes ago, Herman said:

The wrong version of excel is the latest excuse?! 

Lol

I still suspect it was because somebody pulled them up about the private test positives as on the day when the one uni alone declared 750 if you added that to the uni ones that were publicly saying we have x positive that added up to over 1/2 of the positives that day so it asks the question why are areas in lockdown when the higher % is in unis. As I understood it most Unis went private. But who knows ? do any of these figures include the private tests or not, wish I knew the answer.

 

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, Well b back said:

Lol

I still suspect it was because somebody pulled them up about the private test positives as on the day when the one uni alone declared 750 if you added that to the uni ones that were publicly saying we have x positive that added up to over 1/2 of the positives that day so it asks the question why are areas in lockdown when the higher % is in unis. As I understood it most Unis went private. But who knows ? do any of these figures include the private tests or not, wish I knew the answer.

 

I think you are somewhere near the truth with your thoughts on this, it bodes the question how many other results are not being integrated into the system. 

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

12 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I think you are somewhere near the truth with your thoughts on this, it bodes the question how many other results are not being integrated into the system. 

This is kind of my issue with all these 'test ' results that aren't random i.e ONS. People are trying to read far too much into them, compare with other countries, when there is no common basis with which to do. They are almost by definition tests of a self selecting biased bunch (either those that think they have it or excessive caution with school children and every snivel - take your pick).

At best they are for a media frenzy and may show a trend but all with pinch of salt either too high or indeed too low as over the weekend. Regional random data showing the hotspots is far more informative - and possibly ZOE.

Frankly I don't even think the powers that be take too much notice of the daily figures  - they are making policy on the true random data and local reporting not these figures!

Edited October 5, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[Well b back 3,590]

6 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I think you are somewhere near the truth with your thoughts on this, it bodes the question how many other results are not being integrated into the system. 

This is the Boris view. If you look back on this message board over the last 2 weeks it seemed something was not right with the app ( which is of course an estimation ) always equating to the official figures ( the actual ) around 7 days later. If we spotted this how on earth did it take so long for it to dawn on the people monitoring ? Maybe he should read that NY Times article and do something about educating people rapidly before it really is to late.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said the addition of the missing 16,000 confirmed cases from last week gives a more “realistic” picture of the UK epidemic.

He said the corrected data “corresponds to pretty much where we thought we were”.

“To be frank, I think that the slightly lower numbers that we’d seen, you know, didn’t really reflect where we thought the disease was likely to go, so I think these numbers are realistic,” he said.

He added that the “crucial thing” was to see in the next few days and weeks whether the additional restrictions and enforcement have an impact.

With the extra cases added to last week's figures, Manchester now has England's highest rate of infection, with 495.6 cases per 100,000 people, up from 223.2 in the previous week.

The second highest is in Liverpool, up to 456.4 per 100,000 from 287.1. Nearby Knowsley is close behind in third place.

Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Leeds and Sheffield also saw sharp increases once missing cases were added to their total.

[Well b back 3,590]

Scotland’s figures go up with similarities to ours but no technical glitch on theirs announced.

Scotland considering new restrictions

The Scottish Government is considering if more restrictions need to be put in place to control rising cases of coronavirus.

At her daily briefing today, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said a decision would be made in the next few days.

She said there had been a "quite significant number of new cases" reported over the weekend, which was a cause for concern.

697 new cases have been reported in Scotland since yesterday, which represents 12.8 percent of new tests.

[Van wink 2,994]

45 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This is kind of my issue with all these 'test ' results that aren't random i.e ONS. People are trying to read far too much into them, compare with other countries, when there is no common basis with which to do. They are almost by definition tests of a self selecting biased bunch (either those that think they have it or excessive caution with school children and every snivel - take your pick).

At best they are for a media frenzy and may show a trend but all with pinch of salt either too high or indeed too low as over the weekend. Regional random data showing the hotspots is far more informative - and possibly ZOE.

Frankly I don't even think the powers that be take too much notice of the daily figures  - they are making policy on the true random data and local reporting not these figures!

ONS and Zoe give a better picture.The problem with these 16000 is not so much in the stats but the fact that the data didn’t come through to T and T in good time, defeats the whole point of what we are trying to do. Frustrating and further demoralises T and T staff.

 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

6 hours ago, Well b back said:

Hi

As you have been discussing contact tracing and the more rapid spread thought I would share these NY Times stories with you. The first looks at contact tracing the world vs the west, the second how Britain has lost confidence in its leadership so flought the rules.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/world/europe/covid-contract-tracing.html?campaign_id=51&emc=edit_MBE_p_20201005&instance_id=22808&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=141174537&section=longRead&segment_id=39827&te=1&user_id=974bdc9414d93873197a0e53bd27f7aa
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/04/world/europe/britain-london-coronavirus.html?campaign_id=51&emc=edit_MBE_p_20201005&instance_id=22808&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=141174537&section=topNews&segment_id=39827&te=1&user_id=974bdc9414d93873197a0e53bd27f7aa

 

Hahaha what effing hypocrits at the NYTimes. Pretending to be much worried about the covid 19 virus and the death it cause, but no concern or coverage of the brutal killing of millions of Iraqis and othousands of civilian Afghans, as related to them By Julian Assange via the Wikileaks papers.

Are they frit of a 1917 Espionage act? or is it due to the fact that Thompson once ran the BBC and channel 4?

[Van wink 2,994]

Looks like we are moving to a traffic light system for restrictions, very good idea but a tad late😏

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

ONS and Zoe give a better picture.The problem with these 16000 is not so much in the stats but the fact that the data didn’t come through to T and T in good time, defeats the whole point of what we are trying to do. Frustrating and further demoralises T and T staff.

 

Agree with the T & T 'error'.

On the more broader point - Anybody who wasn't guilty of wishful thinking (i.e. its not not too bad / getting better) would have run a sanity check on the numbers and shouted 'something's wrong' before publishing or at least added a large caveat. This is what bugs me - too many people 'believe' or plain accepting what the computer says without any sanity check (it's not the computer it's duff human error data in) . If a £1M dropped into your bank account accidentally you'd question it wouldn't you (don't answer that 🙂 )?  The numbers are rising - I need to see lots of corroborating  evidence to believe at present they are falling / levelling.

[Creative Midfielder 2,200]

12 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Looks like we are moving to a traffic light system for restrictions, very good idea but a tad late😏

Very true, although more than a tad late IMO.

Should have had it, or at least something like it (or as an absolute minimum something that had been thought through), from the start of the unlock rather than the shambolic, making it up as he went along, mess that Johnson produced.

 

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

15 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Looks like we are moving to a traffic light system for restrictions, very good idea but a tad late😏

With all the colours of the rainbow though !

[ricardo 7,928]

The argument for a different approach

 

[ricardo 7,928]

I don't know if they are still adding backdates but this is todays reported number on 250k tests

12594 - 19

Inpatients  2428 same as Saturday or perhaps still not updated yet

 

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

Yesterdays European.

Italy   2578 - 18 Italy  test rate less than a third of ours

France 12565 - 32

Spain nothing reportedfor a couple days

Germany  1543 - 5

[Van wink 2,994]

No surprises here then

Edited October 5, 2020 by Van wink

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

41 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The argument for a different approach

 

 

This seems fine in theory but poor in practice.

Lock up your Grannies (but when, if ever, can they come out again?). Can you protect the vulnerable for 6 months away from their extended families whilst everybody else has Covid ? No. It would be endemic at the end of it anyway. Never be safe!

3 to 6 months economic chaos as most people fall sick ?

Ignores any long term issues with Covid.

Does the immune system forget in 3 to 6 months ?

The large number of casualties - fatalities / hospitalization in the supposedly 'resilient' as just collateral damage. NHS would be overwhelmed anyway (Did Johnson think he was 'vulnerable' ? - No) - I suppose as in any war you will have to triage who lives and dies. Good luck with that (and those already being shielded would have to be bottom of the list by definition) !

Truth is we are a long way from any effective 'herd immunity' (hence the rapidly increasing infections here and elsewhere) but we might be only 3 to 6 months from a vaccine (and longer to roll out).

All in all try and suppress it generally and yes 'try' to protect the vulnerable. That's the civilized sensible thing to do. 

[Matt Morriss 69]

Taken from BBC News.

 

So the official Covid death toll is 42,350 deaths. Hang on, wait a minute, no it isnt.

 

According to the official UK Govt graphic below it is 42,350 deaths FOR ANY REASON of people who also happened to have had Covid that died within 28 days of testing positive.

 

So what that suggests is that you can get hit by a bus and die, but if you had Covid, with no symptoms, mild symptoms or severe, your added to the death toll.

 

I would suggest that if you have had Covid for 28 days, and at least 28 days, then your not going to die from it.

And how is this figure presented to the public?

 

42,350 PEOPLE HAVE DIED OF COVID.

 

Yes it has the fine print, but that isnt how the figure is conveyed on the MSM.

 

Who knows what the real death toll is. Could be 150 people, and the average age is 81, so what does that tell you?

 

UK GOVT AND BBC NEWS THE BIGGEST PERPETRATORS OF FAKE NEWS WE HAVE EVER SEEN.

 

How many suicides and undiagnosed disease deaths will we see due to the lies that have been told?

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

6 minutes ago, Matt Morriss said:

Taken from BBC News.

 

So the official Covid death toll is 42,350 deaths. Hang on, wait a minute, no it isnt.

 

According to the official UK Govt graphic below it is 42,350 deaths FOR ANY REASON of people who also happened to have had Covid that died within 28 days of testing positive.

 

So what that suggests is that you can get hit by a bus and die, but if you had Covid, with no symptoms, mild symptoms or severe, your added to the death toll.

 

I would suggest that if you have had Covid for 28 days, and at least 28 days, then your not going to die from it.

And how is this figure presented to the public?

 

42,350 PEOPLE HAVE DIED OF COVID.

 

Yes it has the fine print, but that isnt how the figure is conveyed on the MSM.

 

Who knows what the real death toll is. Could be 150 people, and the average age is 81, so what does that tell you?

 

UK GOVT AND BBC NEWS THE BIGGEST PERPETRATORS OF FAKE NEWS WE HAVE EVER SEEN.

 

How many suicides and undiagnosed disease deaths will we see due to the lies that have been told?

This has been done to death many times Matt. The number is a 'good' estimate. There are bigger numbers (not smaller) if you wish.

If the large raft (is it 60K plus) of 'excess' deaths aren't due to Covid - what are they - a wave of suicides?

Edited October 5, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[NFN FC 1,142]

5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This has been done to death many times Matt. The number is a 'good' estimate. There are bigger numbers (not smaller) if you wish.

If the large raft (is it 60K plus) of 'excess' deaths aren't due to Covid - what are they - a wave of suicides?

Where's the excess death figures? Please share 

[ricardo 7,928]

20 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

The large number of casualties - fatalities / hospitalization in the supposedly 'resilient' as just collateral damage. NHS would be overwhelmed anyway (Did Johnson think he was 'vulnerable' ? - No) - I suppose as in any war you will have to triage who lives and dies. Good luck with that (and those already being shielded would have to be bottom of the list by definition) !

The large number of fatalities in March / April was largely amongst the old in care homes and even at worst the NHS was never close to being overwhelmed so I don't  think that argument holds water. The truth appears to be that near enough everyone is going to get it eventually and we don't close down society for all the other infections that at this moment are taking a heavier toll than Covid. 

Eventually herd immunity will come, either naturally or with the aid of vaccines. The argument is whether a different approach will be less costly over the longer term. Since government is only concerned with the short term I expect we will trundle along as we are.