India:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...857-2/fulltext
Brazil
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...l?country=~BRA
Printable View
So this is referring back to the discussion you had with MR a few days ago - I see. I'll leave it to you guys :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
I'd only say I'm concerned about the interpretation of the number of cases being detected. I'm in one of the areas that was identified as having a spike.
That supposed spike was way back in early July and we got the testing teams in, so they found more and it led to local restrictions as we know.
But there has been no resulting hospitalisation and the COVID ward is empty, and it covers the whole of East Lancs which have also had enhanced measures. Some areas along the M65 are still under those measures.
In other areas and other countries where they have also identified spikes the hospitals also seem unaffected.
In England, the number of COVID patients in hospital have gone from
1/4 11540 (Peaked 17172 on 12/4)
1/5 10970
1/6 5358
1/7 2289
1/8 809
1/9 472
So are these spikes really genuine, active, live COVID infections, or are they detecting residual viral fragments from early in the pandemic?
For those who like graphs, and comparing one country with another, this is one to look at. Well found, DaveQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
I thought I'd do a bit of number crunching looking at the Government's site.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
I've looked at the averages of the last six weeks data for:
- Number of cases
- Number of tests processed (pillar 1 and pillar 2)
- Cases as a percentage of tests processed
- Number of hospital admissions for covid
- Number of people with covid in hospital
- Number of people on a ventilator
- Number of covid deaths
The most recent end week date is 2nd September since this is the last date that every category is available. I've only taken England rather than the UK as a whole since the Scottish figures are skewed for number of people in hospital. Apparently they include everybody who has ever had a test for covid regardless of whether they still have it. But they don't do that for their admission figures.
02-Sep-20 - 1,180 - 135,986 - 0.87% - 56 - 451 - 56 - 6
26-Aug-20 - 948 - 138,249 - 0.69% - 45 - 484 - 63 - 9
19-Aug-20 - 935 - 138,598 - 0.67% - 50 - 569 - 65 - 9
12-Aug-20 - 850 - 129,070 - 0.66% - 58 - 611 - 60 - 10
05-Aug-20 - 757 - 119,024 - 0.64% - 61 - 779 - 68 - 8
29-Jul-20 - 669 - 104,955 - 0.64% - 78 - 895 - 84 - 17
It seems pretty clear that the case numbers detected are going up even when taking account of the increased testing. But every other category is still going the right way, either dropping or stable. Possible explanations that have been suggested for this apparent contradiction are:
- Mainly young people being infected, who are less prone to the disease.
- Social distancing has meant the viral load people are getting has fallen enabling the immune system to more easily fight off the virus. So if you come into contact with somebody with the virus you may be less close to them than in the past.
- The virus test is so sensitive it is picking up fragments of old infections. More on this here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54000629
Whatever the reason, it is when hospital admissions start picking up that we should start getting more concerned rather than increased case detection numbers.
Hadn't noticed you'd post this when I did mine - some similar points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I recall someone being interviewed at an early stage in all this who said one of two things would probably happen. 1) The virus would mutate and become even more serious,or 2) It would mutate and become less serious.
I wonder if in light of much reduced hospital admissions and deaths the 2nd is happening? I appreciate that many of the new cases involve younger people but that could be down to easing in lockdown or a change in the virus?
The old method assumes every person who gets infected with the virus eventually dies of it - an infection fatality rate of 100%. This method of counting is now completely discredited (although strangely not by you). So I suspect that this might be the reason the figure is hard to find.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
The old method also includes those who died of Covid beyond 28 days - of whom there seem to be plenty. Funny how it was an acceptable counting method for so long. It is not perfect, but continuing to use/display it lets us compare the numbers since counting began. When they changed the counting method they did say both numbers would be shown - but the old method has quietly become harder and harder to find. A bit like getting a test in some parts of the country - harder and harder to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
From my reading, if you allow for the age of those currently being infected, there is not a lot left to explain. Risk of infection/death at 65 is 10 times that at 45, which is 10 times that at 25. And the risk at 85 is 10 times that at 65. So a very steep increase with age. Those at high risk of exposure and of dying died early; we still have plenty who are at high risk of dying, but they are mainly able to socially distance/isolate/quarantine, so the new cases are much younger than before. There has also been some improvement in treatment - delaying ventilation, steroids, avoiding hydroxychlororquine. There is a mutation that some think is more infectious but less lethal, but it has been around for months, and it is not taking over from the other variant. The different age profile seems to be the main thing.
I'd make that very concerned - by then we will be in real trouble - that is the problem - the let's wait and see approach is so often followed by dramatic increases in the really ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Unless, of course, you think the virus is essentially a hoax and that well known public health procedures of dealing with pandemics don't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
But then, who'd be that stupid?
How can assuming an IFR of 100% ever be an acceptable method?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
The fact that PHE were counting deaths this way was discovered by Carl Heneghan, who is director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. So it didn't come from the Government. It was clear that Hancock had no idea this approach was being taken, which admittedly doesn't put him in a good light.
The approach was never used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who have always adopted the 28 days approach.
I don't think it was acceptable and hence that's why it was discontinued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
So when the virus first hit UK do you think it almost exclusively targeted the elderly and ill?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
It must have been circulating in all of the population. Young and old.
That the younger ones in my home town who have been testing positive have avoided contact with older relatives is hard to believe. You only need to see some of the local press reports on large gatherings to realise that some think there is little to no risk AND act accordingly.
I think there is little to no risk, but still play ball with the regulations.
So if these spikes are genuine spikes, there should be a knock on effect by now.
We have been waiting and seeing for over 3 months since the first easing of lockdown measures and we are still waiting and seeing diddly-squat.
A calm and balanced approach should be taken. While we have to be wary of Covid-19 escalating again, we also have to look at the huge backlog of cases that have built up for other conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
The majority of hospitals in this country currently don't have a single case of covid but services are nothing like back to normal as Graham illustrated a few days ago. You're just as dead from cancer or a heart attack as you are from covid.
meanwhile, whilst everyone is debating the efficacy of lockdown....
https://www.sueryder.org/news/bereav...st-a-statistic
It had access to the elderly/ill in care homes/nursing homes via the need for frequent face to face care with multiple agency staff and absent/inadequate PPE. So they were highly likely to contact the virus, and then they were highly likely to succumb to it. Sending back cases to these homes despite positive tests also contributed, as did deciding not to admit some cases for more active care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
The age breakdown of positive cases has plummeted, but the numbers are drifting up. I hope I am wrong, but I think we will soon see an increase in hospitalisations.
And we must not ignore those non fatal cases that result in prolonged illness - harder to measure of course.
Harder to measure and largely ignored by those obsessed by graphs of fatalities.Quote:
non fatal cases that result in prolonged illness
We simply don't know the long-term impact of infection: there is some talk of permanent lung damage, brain issues, heart damage, chronic fatigue etc etc....
It's not simply a case of getting it and getting better or dying....
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3218
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...arm-scientists
It had to get to the elderly/ill from the general population coming back directly from the Far East or their ski holiday in the Dolomites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
And here is where I think we have the main issue. We do not know how many cases we had in March.
6 months in we really don't have any history on this virus that holds water.
The stats that you want to see are largely meaningless as are the stats that we are being given are similarly meaningless because any comparisons with the early stages of the virus are impossible to make.
We had a panic lockdown in Blackburn because they found just over 100 positive cases in 2 weeks.
Had they tested at the same level in March they might have found 10,000 positive cases in 2 weeks.
I rarely watch Sky News these days, but had Sophie Ridge on this morning.
With regards to COVID the discussions are all one way.
If we consider the Govt way the middle way, there is no probing whatsoever towards the lockdown sceptic side of the argument.
The probing of Raab for example is all about testing more, testing at airports, a looming second wave.....
It would be refreshing if at least something along the lines of
"all the measures we have indicate that the virus is fading away and many academics are now aligning with that point of view. None of the recent spikes identified have led to a rise in hospital admissions. Can the Govt still justify all the lockdown measures that are still in place and are restricting the speed at which the economy can bounce back?"
Whether you come from my point of view or not, a balanced approach to scrutiny should ask those sort of questions.
for precisely the same reason there's no "probing of the climate change sceptic" side of the "argument".Quote:
there is no probing whatsoever towards the lockdown sceptic side of the argument.
I've never met a climate change sceptic. I have met some that are sceptical of the ER, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Greta.... narrative on Climate Armageddon, or the latest #climatecollapse.
But that is for another thread.
As far as scepticism of lockdown policy goes, to suggest it shouldn't even be up for discussion is narrow-minded.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Almost 3,000 cases today, 756 in hospital, 69 on ventilators, 124 admissions. Sure, "only" 2 deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Winter, especially Xmas/New Year, will be the real test. All that bug mixing - there used to be huge numbers of admissions at that time of year of chest infection after chest infection, mostly seemingly picked up at the seasonal get togethers. Do we ban grandparents from these celebrations? I am not talking about government action, but personally, what do we do? The risk of succumbing to Covid is 1,000 fold at 85 what it is at 25. My older folk are in Oz, and we have not seen each other for decades, so the issue will not concern me, but it will many others. And the risk in the mid 60s is high enough - 100 fold that at 25.
I bet you've never met anyone who died of covid, either.....Quote:
I've never met a climate change sceptic
Well I guess that it comes down to personal responsibility. If you have lots of old, vulnerable people in your close family then you take responsibility to take extra precautions around hygiene, getting tested, distancing at gatherings etc. If you are young and have very little contact with oldsters, you just live your life. As you say Mike, chest infections run riot every winter, even without Covid and we have never “locked down” before. I just don’t think it is reasonable to lock up young people forever on the off chance that someone else’s 90 year old grandma might catch it. They’ve made clear they’ve had enough anyway by the number of infections, house parties, raves etc. I don’t think these will stop anytime soon.
I've not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
To come back to my previous assertion, we need to consider an age stratified response. Anyone over 60 needs to consider low level precautions and anyone over 80 needs to think of avoiding large groups of younger people or at least accept the risks of doing so. We need to shift from global enforcement of disease avoidance to personal responsibility for disease avoidance according to personal risk indicators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Partner of a running colleague - early 40s I think - died from Covid a couple of months back. He is understandably absolutely devastated. I do not know her medical history, but she looked 100% fit in every respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
And to refer back to my point made when you last said that, your idea falls down completely when the younger and more probably infected mix with essential workers in the health service (for example) and other hubs where the elderly and/or unhealthy have to go from time to time. If the disease became endemic, as it inevitably would if all youngsters were given free reign, it fairly likely that all of the doctors and consultants in the health sector would get it (many of which aren't necessarily that healthy themselves) which would also decimate the health service's ability to deal with the likely massive spike in cases they're having to deal withQuote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
If only people had just their own risk to worry about. If you are 85, and don't go out, you still need food, medical and dental care, house maintenance - and if the younger people providing these services are living "normally" then they risk catching and spreading Covid. There do need to be some limits on everybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I figure we will just have to add it to this list:-
https://www.livescience.com/56598-de...-on-earth.html
and learn to live with it.
Mike. If you're in a high risk group you can still get those things in a low risk way.
and your point falls down because the idea that the cases of the last 2 months, and more pertinent the local spikes, have been in a bubble of their own and not mixing with essential workers in the health service (for example) and other hubs..... is not tenable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
Yet the only "negative" stat we have seen is an increase in cases and there are plenty out there with great credentials questioning this.
Prof Heneghan for example or Dr Waqar Rashid.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...virus-12064151
I'm all for anything that looks like good news or optimism about covid, don't get me wrong. I just don't think that suddenly opening up the flood gates by unleashing the young is a particularly good idea, especially right now and especially given that there are still so many unknowns about covid. It would just be a massive roll of the dice and, given the government's track record so far, they've surely learned by now that rolling the dice again could potentially be catastrophic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
On a positive note, despite increasing positive tests, death and hospital admissions still remain low. If that's still the case in say 3 or 4 weeks, that would be fantastic news. There was an article a couple of weeks ago or so (either in the Times or the Guardian) that talked about the effect of covid diminishing but, at the same time, they could only speculate that this might be happening and further speculate about possible reasons. Some of the reasons though make sense:
1. That the virus has already picked off the most susceptible 'low hanging fruit'
2. That the virus was evolving to diminish in its virulence so as to survive
3. That, due to social distancing and mask wearing, people might only be picking up 'glancing blow' infections that were of lower effect (rather than the previously 15 or more minutes close exposure to those infected without any protection)
4. That perhaps more people have picked up some form of covid already without knowing (although outbreaks in more confined poorer communities and work places, such as food preparation, seem to fly in the face of that)
5.That the most susceptical are especially hunkering down and keeping themselves isolated
6. That its mainly the young now picking up the current version of covid and they are not, in the main, becoming seriously ill with it
Anyway I'm optimistic that this will all sort itself out in some way or other (ideally a vaccine) and that hanging in there with the current version of opening the economy as far as possible, while controlling the spread with local lockdowns and restrictions and whatnot, is the best way to go about things now.
And definitely not just telling the young to just crack on regardless
I don't think anyone is talking of flood gates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
The case of Leicester was discussed this morning and Dr Rashid was part of the debate.
How come Leicester had this spike but no increase in hospitalisation and deaths? Could it due to the Govt and Local authority response?
He thought that unlikely. His opinion was that as the response was after the event (the positive cases when detected had been developing and there for the previous 2-4 weeks) then based on the previous history of the virus we should have expected an increase of hospital admissions for up to two weeks before the additional measures kicked in.
But no - there was nothing.
You can add that to the Northern towns as well.
There seems to be a head of steam building behind saving/subsidising city centre coffee shops and sandwich/snack outlets because office workers are not using them.
So what. These places are more of luxury, rather than being essential, and if the custom is not there, it is not there.
I suspect that, in the future, some office workers might realise how much they have saved during lockdown by not using these places and will become less lazy by making their own sandwiches and take a flask to work.
Having said that, many won't know what a flask is!
You're missing the point a bit. A huge number of office workers have been able to work really well from home and have at present no need drive/train/bus to work in a city centre office, left alone use a coffee shop :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
Au contraire, I think I hit the point spot on when I said "because office workers are not using them".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellbeast
I would see this as a short term problem, these jobs only exist to support other worker doing their jobs. I would much rather see subsidies going to protect 'first level' jobs like steel works, car manufacture etc. Yet another cultural change that we have to adapt to although it can't happen overnight.
Yeah but for some weird reason you were implying office workers as being too lazy to make sandwiches and carry a flask :rolleyes:. My home -> office -> home journey is 100 miles, say 3 to 4 hours travelling time each day; I guess I was somehow unlazy enough to do that but too lazy to make a sandwich though....Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy