Jump to content

Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

Just now, Albert said:

Completely agree, no country can afford to keep kicking the can down the road. The issue is that just letting this burn will have the same result as a lockdown, but with more lives lost, and no control of the situation. I daren't think of the long term impacts of such a gruesome decision. 

Nobody's asking for the government to let it burn though (at least on here), more for them to fix trace and trace and come up with correct measures so we can actually have things open. Another lockdown would be catastrophic, and people won't listen to it anyway. They had their chance in the 4 month period, they've squandered it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Albert said:

The issue is that if that isn't the strategy going forward, the problem just keeps getting kicked down the road. Whether it's the government, or the virus, shutting things down, the impact will ultimately be the same. At least when the government does so it's in a controlled fashion, that can be adjusted with circumstances, rather than a forced collapse of the system, which is what the threat is as it stands. 

Assuming uniform underestimates is naive, as we have no reason to believe it is the case, and later data suggests that a larger fraction of cases are being caught. This wouldn't have started happening overnight.

The death rate never 'fell', what you're confusing in the infection and case fatality ratios. Early estimates of the infection fatality ratio was below 1%, and at this point it seems that just above 0.50% is a good estimate for European populations. This tends to be lower for younger populations. 

You have no reason to believe it's the case?

To save me writing loads and wasting my time, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that there wasn't a massive underestimate when our own government and ONS say there is one now. Never mind back then? 

OK, I call it the death rate. And I could quote you quoting 6 percent. And i know where the 6 percent figure came from. So don't then tell me it hasn't gone from 6 percent to 0.5. And that it isn't still falling. 

Don't go off track here, Albert. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Nobody's asking for the government to let it burn though (at least on here), more for them to fix trace and trace and come up with correct measures so we can actually have things open. Another lockdown would be catastrophic, and people won't listen to it anyway. They had their chance in the 4 month period, they've squandered it. 

A few have, though they've gone awfully quiet in the last couple of weeks. 

As much of a proponent of test and trace as I am, the horse has likely bolted on that one until things are under control, one way or another. 

You're entirely right, they squandered the position, but they did so for much the same logic as you're presenting now. The country couldn't afford to continue, so it opened. Now it can't afford to close. Something has to give, and I just hope someone in the government has a better plan out of this than they're showing. 

Just now, Norman said:

You have no reason to believe it's the case?

To save me writing loads and wasting my time, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that there wasn't a massive underestimate when our own government and ONS say there is one now. Never mind back then? 

I said a uniform underestimate. There's definitely been a massive underestimate, as I've said before on numerous occasions, particularly in the first wave. My point is that the scale of the underestimate has clearly changed, so applying uniform scaling to the figure isn't going to be particularly useful. The comparison between the figure ~3000 a day at the 600 a day reporting from the ONS, noted by @Ghost of Clough, and the scaled figure of 12,000 they presented through the first method of using the same scaling as the first wave, shows this issue. 

Just now, Norman said:

OK, I call it the death rate. And I could quote you quoting 6 percent. And i know where the 6 percent figure came from. So don't then tell me it hasn't gone from 6 percent to 0.5. And that it isn't still falling. 

Don't go off track here, Albert. 

Where could you quote me saying 6% exactly? 

Again, by calling it 'death rate', you're conflating two different things. One is the deaths per confirmed case, the other is the deaths per actual infection. 

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

A few have, though they've gone awfully quiet in the last couple of weeks. 

As much of a proponent of test and trace as I am, the horse has likely bolted on that one until things are under control, one way or another. 

You're entirely right, they squandered the position, but they did so for much the same logic as you're presenting now. The country couldn't afford to continue, so it opened. Now it can't afford to close. Something has to give, and I just hope someone in the government has a better plan out of this than they're showing. 

I said a uniform underestimate. There's definitely been a massive underestimate, as I've said before on numerous occasions, particularly in the first wave. My point is that the scale of the underestimate has clearly changed, so applying uniform scaling to the figure isn't going to be particularly useful. The comparison between the figure ~3000 a day at the 600 a day reporting from the ONS, noted by @Ghost of Clough, and the scaled figure of 12,000 they presented through the first method of using the same scaling as the first wave, shows this issue. 

Where could you quote me saying 6% exactly? 

Again, by calling it 'death rate', you're conflating two different things. One is the deaths per confirmed case, the other is the deaths per actual infection. 

I'm not conflating. If I changed the word to ratio you still wouldn't answer the ducking question. The death ratio has changed too, so why is one naive and not the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Is that just a guess? It was my initial thought too on seeing his photo and "profession" but I didn't want to be judgmental in the circumstances

I think steroids are fairly common in the yoof in our country now, so I hope that's not a significant contributor to risks.

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

I'm not conflating. If I changed the word to ratio you still wouldn't answer the ducking question. The death ratio has changed too, so why is one naive and not the other?

I did answer it, multiple times, and in multiple ways. You are also definitely conflating the two, given you're still saying 'death ratio'. 

The term 'death rate' isn't specific, and could mean either the infection fatality ratio, or the case fatality ratio. 

The infection fatality ratio has not changed, but our estimates of it have improved over the course of the pandemic. 

The case fatality ratio is just a crude ratio of deaths and confirmed cases, it changes with how effective the testing regime is, that is, what fraction of the cases are actually being found. We're literally discussing fraction of missed cases. Yes, the case fatality ratio will go down as testing begins to catch up with the rate of new infections. This is why this particular ratio can change so much in time though. 

I should also point out that the 'death rate' has most certainly not gone from "6% to 0.5%", the current case fatality ratio in the UK is 6.43% at the moment, and was as high as 10% at one point. The only way you can go from "6% to 0.5%" is confusing case and infection fatality ratios. 

As to what makes one thing naive, and not the other. The point was that you can use the rate of deaths as a crude estimate for the actual number of cases, this is because the infection fatality ratio should be approximately constant, save for some minor changes due to which parts of the population are being hit more at a given time. Given how wide spread it was in the first and second waves, this shouldn't be having a major impact. In terms of using the 'ratio of missed cases' as a constant, this assumes that testing has remained the same throughout, and there have been no changes to protocol; this is definitely not the case. The numbers, and further reasoning, was already provided above. 

Now, you claimed before:

48 minutes ago, Norman said:

OK, I call it the death rate. And I could quote you quoting 6 percent. And i know where the 6 percent figure came from. So don't then tell me it hasn't gone from 6 percent to 0.5. And that it isn't still falling. 

Come on, I'm waiting. Quote me writing that. 

Don't go off track here, @Norman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Albert said:

I did answer it, multiple times, and in multiple ways. You are also definitely conflating the two, given you're still saying 'death ratio'. 

The term 'death rate' isn't specific, and could mean either the infection fatality ratio, or the case fatality ratio. 

The infection fatality ratio has not changed, but our estimates of it have improved over the course of the pandemic. 

The case fatality ratio is just a crude ratio of deaths and confirmed cases, it changes with how effective the testing regime is, that is, what fraction of the cases are actually being found. We're literally discussing fraction of missed cases. Yes, the case fatality ratio will go down as testing begins to catch up with the rate of new infections. This is why this particular ratio can change so much in time though. 

I should also point out that the 'death rate' has most certainly not gone from "6% to 0.5%", the current case fatality ratio in the UK is 6.43% at the moment, and was as high as 10% at one point. The only way you can go from "6% to 0.5%" is confusing case and infection fatality ratios. 

As to what makes one thing naive, and not the other. The point was that you can use the rate of deaths as a crude estimate for the actual number of cases, this is because the infection fatality ratio should be approximately constant, save for some minor changes due to which parts of the population are being hit more at a given time. Given how wide spread it was in the first and second waves, this shouldn't be having a major impact. In terms of using the 'ratio of missed cases' as a constant, this assumes that testing has remained the same throughout, and there have been no changes to protocol; this is definitely not the case. The numbers, and further reasoning, was already provided above. 

Now, you claimed before:

Come on, I'm waiting. Quote me writing that. 

Don't go off track here, @Norman.

'The CFR has fallen substantially from its peak in April. We now present data suggesting that the  CFR as of the 4th of  August stood at around 1.5%, having fallen from over 6%' 

I will have a look for your quote. I'm sure it was you talking about it. Or a figure around there. If it wasn't, I present the above. 

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

I think steroids are fairly common in the yoof in our country now, so I hope that's not a significant contributor to risks.

Blooming well hope not. My skin problem is being treated with steroids at the moment.

OK, it's a glucocorticoid and not an anabolic steroid, but the difference may be lost on some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Norman said:

'The CFR has fallen substantially from its peak in April. We now present data suggesting that the  CFR as of the 4th of  August stood at around 1.5%, having fallen from over 6%' 

They're referring to weekly CFR in that source. Also, maybe actually link the sources you're using, with context. Here's the link for those curious.

Using this source, we can note this section:

Quote

Explanations of this effect include the greater ascertainment of cases that were previously not being detected, and/or cases of equal severity now proving less fatal, due to perhaps improved treatment. The former is likely, given the ramping up of community testing and the recent trends in the age profile of detected cases being younger (See Figure 2)

ie exactly what I've been explaining to you. They do indeed also note that this is not the infection fatality ratio. 

The source also provides an interesting challenge to the UK's 28 days cutoff for deaths, but that's a different point, and just for you we should avoid going off track. 

2 minutes ago, Norman said:

I will have a look for your quote. I'm sure it was you talking about it. Or a figure around there. If it wasn't, I present the above. 

...good luck. 

Also, I'm not quite sure what you think your point is here. You've taken a quote from a source backing my position, and that's what you'll present if it turns out you were mistaken in your belief that I said something? 

Okey dokey. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Albert said:

They're referring to weekly CFR in that source. Also, maybe actually link the sources you're using, with context. Here's the link for those curious.

Using this source, we can note this section:

ie exactly what I've been explaining to you. They do indeed also note that this is not the infection fatality ratio. 

The source also provides an interesting challenge to the UK's 28 days cutoff for deaths, but that's a different point, and just for you we should avoid going off track. 

...good luck. 

Also, I'm not quite sure what you think your point is here. You've taken a quote from a source backing my position, and that's what you'll present if it turns out you were mistaken in your belief that I said something? 

Okey dokey. 

I'm trying to this in a prison car park surrounded by phone blocking technology. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

I heard a report yesterday that the death rate from cancer had increased by 50% since March! 😪

Don't know if its accurate, but that is an horrendous statistic if its true?

Interesting to hear where that data comes from as I can't find any evidence of that rate. From the Lancet:

"We estimated that across the four major tumour types, breast, colorectal, lung, and oesophageal, 3291 to 3621 avoidable deaths and an additional 59 204 to 63 229 YLLs (years of lost life) will be attributable to delays in cancer diagnosis alone as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. The increase in deaths due to cancer up to 5 years after diagnosis ranged from 4·8% for lung cancer to 16·6% for colorectal cancer. These additional deaths are projected to occur as a consequence of the national COVID-19 pandemic measures, which have reduced the number of people seeking health care and access to and availability of diagnostic services. Our findings complement those from a study by Sud and colleagues showing the impact of treatment delay, predominantly surgical, on excess mortality."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext

So between 5% and 17% over 5 years, with a very hard calculation to make for future expected deaths.

It is still horrendous, but what was the alternative? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.