Coronavirus

[A Ram for All Seasons]

21 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Even so it will be a difficult choice for the government whether changes to current policy will change by region. 

The virus pops up in clusters. The R number can even vary at street level if the people at No. 61 hold a party and everyone comes down with Coronavirus but the neighbours at No. 63 hate their guts and refuse to have anything to do with them. That's the purpose of social distancing.

I believe the aim is to use the R number as a guide to taking regional action, which would be useful, but it is very volatile because of its small statistical base. The solution is to do a lot more testing and to report new cases without delay in order to improve the data quality, and to trace the people who are infected. That's what they did in South Korea.

[rammieib]

28 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I’ve pretty much given up trying to make any sense of the “data” being provided.

The report we’ve both seen suggests 0.27% during the period in question whilst a “Cambridge PHE team” (whatever that is) reckons 12% of the population have had it. Other reports say the NE are seeing over 4,000 cases a day with a total for the UK of in excess of 11,000 daily whereas the daily figures provided from the government/NHS seems to be somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand for the whole country. I think the NHS figures are only lab based tests (or something) so, where are the rest coming from and why are there so many more?

And somewhere between 6.5 million and 25 million have had it so far.

Nobody has a clue really - maybe once this antibody test has been rolled out in mass and we’ve done something like one million plus will we know.

Even then though the suspicions are many under 30 years of age didn’t even produce antibodies to fight this off.

Basically, no one has a clue yet.

[Gritstone Ram]

27 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I’ve pretty much given up trying to make any sense of the “data” being provided.

The report we’ve both seen suggests 0.27% during the period in question whilst a “Cambridge PHE team” (whatever that is) reckons 12% of the population have had it. Other reports say the NE are seeing over 4,000 cases a day with a total for the UK of in excess of 11,000 daily whereas the daily figures provided from the government/NHS seems to be somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand for the whole country. I think the NHS figures are only lab based tests (or something) so, where are the rest coming from and why are there so many more?

The figures given out at the briefing are confirmed numbers by testing carried out between 3000-4000. The latest figures are what they estimate is the current infections throughout the country after doing a survey testing of around 11000 people this was carried out in the two weeks prior to the 10 May when we had passed the peak. I suspect the peak was another two weeks prior to the 26 April that may be why they think 12% have had it in total. 

That Chris Whitty thought 10% had had it in London a couple of weeks ago.

[Gritstone Ram]

6 minutes ago, rammieib said:

And somewhere between 6.5 million and 25 million have had it so far.

Nobody has a clue really - maybe once this antibody test has been rolled out in mass and we’ve done something like one million plus will we know.

Even then though the suspicions are many under 30 years of age didn’t even produce antibodies to fight this off.

Basically, no one has a clue yet.

The other thing is the number of infections may vary due to location in the country so a high % of infections around cities but less in the country even cities may vary depending on population and location.

[richinspain]

20 minutes ago, rammieib said:

And somewhere between 6.5 million and 25 million have had it so far.

Nobody has a clue really - maybe once this antibody test has been rolled out in mass and we’ve done something like one million plus will we know.

Even then though the suspicions are many under 30 years of age didn’t even produce antibodies to fight this off.

Basically, no one has a clue yet.

Where has the idea that the under 30s aren't producing antibodies come from? And why would the over 30s be producing them?

[Stive Pesley]

Just now, richinspain said:

Where has the idea that the under 30s aren't producing antibodies come from? And why would the over 30s be producing them?

It'd make a nice change. Since I turned 30 my body has been slowly stopping doing things I need it to do

 

 

 

[richinspain]

Just now, SchtivePesley said:

It'd make a nice change. Since I turned 30 my body has been slowly stopping doing things I need it to do

 

 

 

Yeah, I can relate to that ?

[Comrade 86]

More grim news. The ONS is now saying that over 12,500 have died in care homes and that over 23,000 more have died in total than for the same period last year - December 28th to May 1st. It's a staggering rise to be honest and the Covid-19 death toll itself is close to 3 times the figures being mooted just 2 or 3 weeks ago. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

More grim news. The ONS is now saying that over 12,500 have died in care homes and that over 23,000 more have died in total than for the same period last year - December 28th to May 1st. It's a staggering rise to be honest and the Covid-19 death toll itself is close to 3 times the figures being mooted just 2 or 3 weeks ago. 

The figures get more and more confusing by the day.

Using the ONS figures, excess deaths above the 5 year average are 42k.

Deaths where Covid 19 are mentioned on the death certificate were 33k.

If 23k of these deaths were in care homes that leaves just 10k? Yet the Government figures were saying lots more than this had died in hospital weeks ago.

If the above is true I will definitely be left questioning why we have shut the economy down.

 

[Bob The Badger]

This is brilliant. 

 

[Gritstone Ram]

20 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The figures get more and more confusing by the day.

Using the ONS figures, excess deaths above the 5 year average are 42k.

Deaths where Covid 19 are mentioned on the death certificate were 33k.

If 23k of these deaths were in care homes that leaves just 10k? Yet the Government figures were saying lots more than this had died in hospital weeks ago.

If the above is true I will definitely be left questioning why we have shut the economy down.

 

Some of the 23k have been counted in both care home deaths and hospital deaths because the patient was originally in a care home when they caught the virus then died in hospital. Very confusing I know.

[ketteringram]

11 minutes ago, Van Gritters said:

Some of the 23k have been counted in both care home deaths and hospital deaths because the patient was originally in a care home when they caught the virus then died in hospital. Very confusing I know.

And no doubt, some caught it in hospital, and then died in a care home.

[Comrade 86]

23 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The figures get more and more confusing by the day.

Using the ONS figures, excess deaths above the 5 year average are 42k.

Deaths where Covid 19 are mentioned on the death certificate were 33k.

If 23k of these deaths were in care homes that leaves just 10k? Yet the Government figures were saying lots more than this had died in hospital weeks ago.

If the above is true I will definitely be left questioning why we have shut the economy down.

 

Yeah, it's making my head spin. They seem to have had a rough handle on the total numbers of deaths all along, but very little idea as to what these numbers comprised. If these latest stats are correct, I don't get how that is even possible. I can't see any particular advantage or reason to fudge the numbers either way either, so what the hell is going on? Equally, I think either the hospital stats or the care home stats must be incorrect and considerably so.

I hope they're not going to turn around and say well actually, the both sets of numbers were correct and actually we now know that the total figure to date is nearer 50k than 30. It's as if the one hand has no idea what the other is doing which scares me as much as the feckin virus if I'm honest! 

[Comrade 86]

18 minutes ago, Van Gritters said:

Some of the 23k have been counted in both care home deaths and hospital deaths because the patient was originally in a care home when they caught the virus then died in hospital. Very confusing I know.

Is this fact or an educated guess. It would at least make some sense if it's the former.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Yeah, it's making my head spin. They seem to have had a rough handle on the total numbers of deaths all along, but very little idea as to what these numbers comprised. If these latest stats are correct, I don't get how that is even possible. I can't see any particular advantage or reason to fudge the numbers either way either, so what the hell is going on? Equally, I think either the hospital stats or the care home stats must be incorrect and considerably so.

I hope they're not going to turn around and say well actually, the both sets of numbers were correct and actually we now know that the total figure to date is nearer 50k than 30. It's as if the one hand has no idea what the other is doing which scares me as much as the feckin virus if I'm honest! 

Think that is why the excess all cause mortality is the only figure that is worth looking at.

Even then, I think this will only be worth looking at further down the line as it may drop considerably as the year goes on, as people that may have died later in the year have been killed by/with the virus.

[GboroRam]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Think that is why the excess all cause mortality is the only figure that is worth looking at.

Even then, I think this will only be worth looking at further down the line as it may drop considerably as the year goes on, as people that may have died later in the year have been killed by/with the virus.

Even that doesn't tell the full story, as the lockdown is helping keep the Coronavirus death toll down. We're only comparing the impact of lockdown vs previous years. We can't compare lockdown impact to no lockdown impact during the pandemic - the data can't tell us what might have been if we had let the virus run its natural course.

[B4ev6is]

I want to know what is pecentage people got better and put against death toll you might be suprise not as high as goverment making it out to be.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Even that doesn't tell the full story, as the lockdown is helping keep the Coronavirus death toll down. We're only comparing the impact of lockdown vs previous years. We can't compare lockdown impact to no lockdown impact during the pandemic - the data can't tell us what might have been if we had let the virus run its natural course.

True.

Going the other way there will be those that have died through not attending hospital and those whose mental health has gotten the better of them.

[Tamworthram]

44 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Even that doesn't tell the full story, as the lockdown is helping keep the Coronavirus death toll down. We're only comparing the impact of lockdown vs previous years. We can't compare lockdown impact to no lockdown impact during the pandemic - the data can't tell us what might have been if we had let the virus run its natural course.

and, just to cloud the figures even more, this year may have been a particularly good or bad year any way.

Whilst I know an average (probably last five years) will be used, the attached chart shows that there was a variance of 64,000 between years just seven years apart (2011 - 2018). If my reading of this data is correct, the number of deaths in 2015 was 40k higher than the average for the previous five years. Even 2018 looks like 16,000 higher than the previous five year average.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

True.

Going the other way there will be those that have died through not attending hospital and those whose mental health has gotten the better of them.

Also there are deaths being attributed to corona without testing and just on having one of Any number of symptoms,lack of medical attention to residents in care homes through this has been an issue ,,, the figures are a total mess , not ness putting all the blame for this on the gov but it really needs looking at properly