Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Van wink said:

The figures you have seen may be based on the latest ons survey as shown below, this relates to 2-8 October so they may have extrapolated the figures to bring them up to date? 

During the most recent week (2 to 8 October 2020), we estimate there were around 5.11 new COVID-19 infections for every 10,000 people per day (95% credible interval: 4.15 to 6.99) in the community population in England, equating to around 27,900 new cases per day (95% credible interval: 22,700 to 38,200).

Doubled up 😄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don’t get it, I am sure they said they do not take any notice of this figure anymore. Maybe I am being very thick but yesterday there were 792 hospital admissions for Covid. There are more daily admissions in each of the North East, North West and Midlands ( the lowest was Midlands with 230 ) than the national figure in the official figures of each days admissions. If you take the total English admissions at 127,622 over 7 months that averages out at around 608 per day. image.thumb.png.d5c3780485286323b01fac7ca9622206.png
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Well b back said:

Still don’t get it, I am sure they said they do not take any notice of this figure anymore. Maybe I am being very thick but yesterday there were 792 hospital admissions for Covid. There are more daily admissions in each of the North East, North West and Midlands ( the lowest was Midlands with 230 ) than the national figure in the official figures of each days admissions. If you take the total English admissions at 127,622 over 7 months that averages out at around 608 per day. image.thumb.png.d5c3780485286323b01fac7ca9622206.png
 

What you are not seeing is the numbers leaving hospital. The number on the official data page are those in hospital on that current day. Yes 792 may well have entered hospital but on the official figures it looks like over 500 left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really am not trying to argue, but on Friday they said the test and trace figures are a long way out and they no longer use them. ( see the link below. Based on the ONS figures their model try’s to bring the figures up to date and their model ( the one which the government and SAGE are using ) have daily infections at 43,000. At 30 minutes and 31 minutes these points are made saying test and trace numbers  are a small proportion of what’s really happening. Then at 46 minutes SKY change their question to ask why the government are not locking down based on these figures. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000nzkn/bbc-news-special-coronavirus-update-16102020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Well b back said:

I really am not trying to argue, but on Friday they said the test and trace figures are a long way out and they no longer use them. ( see the link below. Based on the ONS figures their model try’s to bring the figures up to date and their model ( the one which the government and SAGE are using ) have daily infections at 43,000. At 30 minutes and 31 minutes these points are made saying test and trace numbers  are a small proportion of what’s really happening. Then at 46 minutes SKY change their question to ask why the government are not locking down based on these figures. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000nzkn/bbc-news-special-coronavirus-update-16102020

No argument from me WBB. As per me (and VW) and indeed Vallence the current 'confirmed' cases are only a proportion (and very misleading) for any policy decision - indeed also on the course and spread of the virus. That why they are largely ignored and only the ONS (plus the academic sampling/studies) are used. I've been making that point on the 'daily' figures since last March although they make good headline figures for the unwary.

Ditto 'deaths' and indeed hospital admissions at 'face' value. Lots of reporting delays hence usually best to wait a week to see how they settle down. 

Frankly the experts have much better handle on this (and on unseens local data sets) than the average layman like you or me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

No argument from me WBB. As per me (and VW) and indeed Vallence the current 'confirmed' cases are only a proportion (and very misleading) for any policy decision - indeed also on the course and spread of the virus. That why they are largely ignored and only the ONS (plus the academic sampling/studies) are used. I've been making that point on the 'daily' figures since last March although they make good headline figures for the unwary.

Ditto 'deaths' and indeed hospital admissions at 'face' value. Lots of reporting delays hence usually best to wait a week to see how they settle down. 

Frankly the experts have much better handle on this (and on unseens local data sets) than the average layman like you or me.

Thanks thought I was going mad.

I don’t like to be confrontational as you know and I am always happy to be corrected. To that end the person I know on the frontline who keeps telling me about how bad it is I asked why is there such a difference in the hospital figures and the government figures ( when she was on the phone to my wife ). She told me 4 alarming things, 1. A proportion of ICU deaths do not even count anymore as it takes an average of 21 days to die once you go to ICU, therefore a % will die over 28 days as they go over 28 days of being diagnosed. 2.Lots still die at home and it is really quick, so a frail 80 year old for instance will likely die without a test. 3. I asked why if the number of net admissions are going up so slowly why are they so swamped. Her explanation was the figures we are seeing conveniently do not have the deaths added, so if there are 150 hospital deaths in a day, that will look like 150 discharges. 4. To keep the hospital beds as open as possible several homes and places of rest are designated as recovery areas, ie you are no longer thought to be contagious, you are no longer likely to die, but you still need hospital care. You are therefore discharged, but under normal circumstances you wouldn’t be. 
I would guess we are somewhere in the middle, ie the government are feeding us headline figures which we take without question, and for those on the frontline ( with the greatest of respect ) see it at the worst then add some. 
To add some positivity, she is hopeful that not so many people will die this time round, but added scarily that of course the less deaths there are the more swamped they will become. 
Now you must remember as well we live in the Midlands. When I lived in Norwich during phase 1 we were sheltered and it was difficult to comprehend what was happening. Now I see it in a different light and in some areas once it takes hold it is like a tsunami.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don’t like to be confrontational as you know and I am always happy to be corrected. To that end the person I know on the frontline who keeps telling me about how bad it is I asked why is there such a difference in the hospital figures and the government figures "

 

Thanks WBB. Like you I'm not an awkward person but I have reached the stage of not believing the figures provided by government. I've probably been a gullible believer before. I tend to trust Zoe more because it is independent, whilst the source of course is people self-reporting. Where I live I watch new infection rates go from +200 some days to +1000 (the latter is not just one day but on many days in the last month, occasionally there are lower figures.... so from 6000 it can go to 5200 for example). So, I imagine if my city area is representative (it probably is a decent guide) then daily infection rates must be at least 10 times the daily increase in my city, purely on projections of population. Probably more. It's made me believe that new infection rates must be north of 50,000 each day. I'm no expert but I watch the figures and try and apply common sense.

 

I don't wish to be scaremongering either, don't see the point. Yet I'm wary of the official figures and especially of people with over-confident positions I read in the media. So I treat assertions that things are not at the stage where we should worry with a degree of scepticism yet hope my caution is ill-founded and that I'm  badly informed. I don't know who to believe!

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Thanks thought I was going mad.

I don’t like to be confrontational as you know and I am always happy to be corrected. To that end the person I know on the frontline who keeps telling me about how bad it is I asked why is there such a difference in the hospital figures and the government figures ( when she was on the phone to my wife ). She told me 4 alarming things, 1. A proportion of ICU deaths do not even count anymore as it takes an average of 21 days to die once you go to ICU, therefore a % will die over 28 days as they go over 28 days of being diagnosed. 2.Lots still die at home and it is really quick, so a frail 80 year old for instance will likely die without a test. 3. I asked why if the number of net admissions are going up so slowly why are they so swamped. Her explanation was the figures we are seeing conveniently do not have the deaths added, so if there are 150 hospital deaths in a day, that will look like 150 discharges. 4. To keep the hospital beds as open as possible several homes and places of rest are designated as recovery areas, ie you are no longer thought to be contagious, you are no longer likely to die, but you still need hospital care. You are therefore discharged, but under normal circumstances you wouldn’t be. 
I would guess we are somewhere in the middle, ie the government are feeding us headline figures which we take without question, and for those on the frontline ( with the greatest of respect ) see it at the worst then add some. 
To add some positivity, she is hopeful that not so many people will die this time round, but added scarily that of course the less deaths there are the more swamped they will become. 
Now you must remember as well we live in the Midlands. When I lived in Norwich during phase 1 we were sheltered and it was difficult to comprehend what was happening. Now I see it in a different light and in some areas once it takes hold it is like a tsunami.

No worries from me - All opinion is good but I just caution about trying to read unduly 'positive' meanings (not that good new isn't good) from dodgy data sets. Rubbish in rubbish out etc. Seems like 'Sky'  or was it the 'BBC' as you note came to the same conclusions on a serious informed programme. As you know I keep saying 'no wishful thinking' - its too serious and indeed unethical / immoral to gamble peoples lives on a hunch. Keep to the basics of what we know works as to public health unless you have good data to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

No worries from me - All opinion is good but I just caution about trying to read unduly 'positive' meanings (not that good new isn't good) from dodgy data sets. Rubbish in rubbish out etc. Seems like 'Sky'  or was it the 'BBC' as you note came to the same conclusions on a serious informed programme. As you know I keep saying 'no wishful thinking' - its too serious and indeed unethical / immoral to gamble peoples lives on a hunch. Keep to the basics of what we know works as to public health unless you have good data to the contrary.

I agree.

I now tend to think that everybody that has an interest adds their own take. Andy Burnham is just quoted as saying there were 4 admissions yesterday so Johnson is scaremongering. Now I suspect he is telling the truth, but basing his figures on one hospital rather than than the area. If however his statement is correct I tend to agree why are Manchester locking down and London not.
I am at the stage where I have no idea who to believe anymore, why can’t we be treated like adults and given the facts. Surely with the facts people can decide for themselves if they should socially distance ect ect more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54436334
 

excellent article of the true cost of covid 19

its not all transmission rates and death rates. It’s ruining people’s lives and damaging them permanently. Physically and mentally. That’s why I totally oppose another national lockdown. There must be another way of fighting this virus and managing the other effects it has. 

Edited by The Real Buh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

304k  tests

16982 - 67           7days ago 12872        14 days ago  12594

 

Inpatients  5608  not updated as yet

 

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

Yesterdays European.

Italy   10925 - 47

France 32427 - 89

Spain  as usual no weekend update available

Germany  4971 - 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54436334
 

excellent article of the true cost of covid 19

its not all transmission rates and death rates. It’s ruining people’s lives and damaging them permanently. Physically and mentally. That’s why I totally oppose another national lockdown. There must be another way of fighting this virus and managing the other effects it has. 

We find ourselves in a similar position to some of these cases. 
The visiting rules are there to protect all residents, but that makes it none the less difficult for my wife and her dad. The stark realities are he lost his wife to Covid. He is now in a care home as he needs 24 hour care, he is 94 by the way. You are however dammed if you do or dammed if you don’t as with him in the care home whose staff are basically sacrificing a part of their own lives he is safe, but doesn’t see his family except on zoom, but if he comes home he will need a 24 carer ( a few carers ) and we will be there, however one of that group will eventually give him Covid, so what’s best safety with loneliness or danger without the loneliness. Who knows what’s best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Well b back said:

We find ourselves in a similar position to some of these cases. 
The visiting rules are there to protect all residents, but that makes it none the less difficult for my wife and her dad. The stark realities are he lost his wife to Covid. He is now in a care home as he needs 24 hour care, he is 94 by the way. You are however dammed if you do or dammed if you don’t as with him in the care home whose staff are basically sacrificing a part of their own lives he is safe, but doesn’t see his family except on zoom, but if he comes home he will need a 24 carer ( a few carers ) and we will be there, however one of that group will eventually give him Covid, so what’s best safety with loneliness or danger without the loneliness. Who knows what’s best.

When they said old people are “just existing” in these homes it hit home big time. It’s killing people’s spirit. I’ve seen older people who were full of life before this become doddery old fogeys, terrified of the world. It’s horrendous.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Real Buh said:

When they said old people are “just existing” in these homes it hit home big time. It’s killing people’s spirit. I’ve seen older people who were full of life before this become doddery old fogeys, terrified of the world. It’s horrendous.

Spot on, he is desperate to come home, we are desperate for him not to get Covid.
I wish I knew the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update you all from our Come On Sarah thread, there are reports now from sources all over the place, quoted by SAGE, The Vaccine group and Van what’s his name, saying there will be 2 vaccines in the U.K. prior to Christmas. It more or less says the same as the Midlands Today report, just a month later. Going by what’s being said about it the 2 vaccines are Oxford and Pfizer. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Well b back said:

Just to update you all from our Come On Sarah thread, there are reports now from sources all over the place, quoted by SAGE, The Vaccine group and Van what’s his name, saying there will be 2 vaccines in the U.K. prior to Christmas. It more or less says the same as the Midlands Today report, just a month later. Going by what’s being said about it the 2 vaccines are Oxford and Pfizer. 

Sunday Mail says first vaccine will be sent to U.S.A. from Belgium manufacturer’s, Boris says he doesn’t want it !

Share this post


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

Sunday Mail says first vaccine will be sent to U.S.A. from Belgium manufacturer’s, Boris says he doesn’t want it !

Lol

They are not very good at their jobs then, one is manufactured at Keele University Stoke on Trent England, the other is manufactured at various sites around the world, including the U.K. One of the few places I haven’t seen it being manufactured is Belgium as the EU have bought all their doses in.

In addition the US would not be able to use the Oxford vaccine at present as they decided not to continue their programme, Trump made the biggest mistake ever there thinking Moderna would overtake it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anybody from IT who also started making less after the lockdown? I'm a software developer for already 7 years and my income was always fine ans stable but half a year ago my company started cutting my salary (a little in the very beginning, more and more in some months). I always thought IT industry will never suffer from neither pandemic nor economical crisis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, here's a graphic for you!

There is no trade-off between controlling the pandemic with strict mesures and economic pain, quite on the contrary. (Chart: Financial Times)

Image

I 've no idea what it means but someone took some time to do it so I thought it should be shared.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Is there anybody from IT who also started making less after the lockdown? I'm a software developer for already 7 years and my income was always fine ans stable but half a year ago my company started cutting my salary (a little in the very beginning, more and more in some months). I always thought IT industry will never suffer from neither pandemic nor economical crisis. 

I was fortunate to have the opposite experience that wasn't actually related to the pandemic or economic crisis and was purely coincidental that I was asked to take on extra work when a colleague moved on.

But I would say generally that the pandemic has been 'good' (seems a strange thing to to say but sadly true) for the IT industry - in all sorts of ways there has been an even greater dependence on software based services than ever before and I think much of that change is permanent rather than temporary.

If you have experienced the opposite then my guess is that the cause is Brexit rather than the pandemic - like all service industries IT is going to have a lot of problems\extra costs when the transition period ends, including finding high quality staff. So hopefully depending on what area you work in you may find you salary recovering - we used to recruit a lot of our software developers from Europe where there are some very well trained\educated people prepared to work for very reasonable money in the UK but no longer - the UK is now a very unattractive destination (for multiple reasons) for these people.

Edited by Creative Midfielder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put on yesterday the comment from Andy Burnham re the 4 admissions saying I have no idea who’s telling the truth anymore. Now I see this and realise he probably was telling the truth, the catch some Manchester Hospitals are already full according to a leaked document. 
 

The files apparently show that three of the region's 12 hospitals are already full after a rise in Covid-19 cases. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Wow, here's a graphic for you!

There is no trade-off between controlling the pandemic with strict mesures and economic pain, quite on the contrary. (Chart: Financial Times)

Image

I 've no idea what it means but someone took some time to do it so I thought it should be shared.

Whereas I wouldn't read too much into the 'exact' positions of the various countries (societal and demographic differences at play) but the horizontal axis could equally be labelled increasing government incompetence.

Clearly shows however that the UK (and Spain) had the worst of all worlds (More deaths & large economic hit) being in the bottom right and yes those that acted swiftly and ruthlessly with societal compliance did best economically too. Who would of guessed that? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Whereas I wouldn't read too much into the 'exact' positions of the various countries (societal and demographic differences at play) but the horizontal axis could equally be labelled increasing government incompetence.

Clearly shows however that the UK (and Spain) had the worst of all worlds (More deaths & large economic hit) being in the bottom right and yes those that acted swiftly and ruthlessly with societal compliance did best economically too. Who would of guessed that? 

 

The answer Oxford would have guessed that

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...