The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Doesn't your article cover it?rick_chasey said:Also does anyone have any explanation for why Greece is doing so well?
This is why I have such an issue with assumptions along the line of Germany has a low death rate and does a lot of testing ergo lots of testing prevents death. If all countries with low death rates did a lot of testing it would be a reasonable conclusion.
Maybe Greece is testing a lot but if not it suggest that there are all sorts of issues at play that we just don't understand but hopefully will become clearer.0 -
Yep, there isn’t yet a clear correlation between a country’s test numbers and their death count.0
-
For contextrick_chasey said:
It is doing worse then its neighbours howeverfocuszing723 said:
That makes sense.kingstongraham said:
The anecdotal evidence from conversations with people in Sweden is that it is definitely not business as usual, and the whole social distancing is happening anyway.focuszing723 said:I keep wondering what's going to happen to Sweden? Perhaps their population will just be careful and not take risks.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVuyv5yXgAE4vQD?format=jpg&name=large
0 -
But if you have a limited number of people admitted to hospital then the number of hospital deaths tells you nothing.mrfpb said:
Some data is "noisy", you can't guarantee a high degree of accuracy. The care market is so atomised across big corporate providers and small independents that the data takes a long time to "cleanse". NHS Hospitals in England (and a lot of NHS England contracted private hospitals) all work to standards set by NHS England and reports flow into the same pool of data according to NHS England reporting templates. So data is much more "clean" from this source and can be turned around and used more quickly. Similar systems exist in Wales and Scotland. NI has a much more integrated health and social care system than GB, and I would expect them to have better care home stats, (but I haven't looked at it).rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
CQC (and their Welsh and Scottish equivalents) can set a new question (or more) on their notifications from all care homes to pick up Covid-19 (they regularly do this in a reactive way) but there is still the problem of collating up to 15,000 (in England) data sets. And that's before you get to domiciliary care or supported living settings.
So while it's important to know the extent of spread in the care sector, this isn't going to be "noise free" for a while and is never (IMO) going to be prompt enough for day to day decisions. To make policy decisions on a daily changing crisis you use the most reliable data set, which is still diagnosed cases and deaths in hospitals.1 -
Well you don't understand then. So far only the trend matters.rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
They had enough information to lock down or not before they pulled the trigger. May have been too late but it wasn't a testing related issue. From that point on it's been about keeping the peak as low as possible and knowing when it is. Doesn't matter if there is another identical trend you don't know the exact size of.0 -
Cheers Rick,rick_chasey said:
For contextrick_chasey said:
It is doing worse then its neighbours howeverfocuszing723 said:
That makes sense.kingstongraham said:
The anecdotal evidence from conversations with people in Sweden is that it is definitely not business as usual, and the whole social distancing is happening anyway.focuszing723 said:I keep wondering what's going to happen to Sweden? Perhaps their population will just be careful and not take risks.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVuyv5yXgAE4vQD?format=jpg&name=large
Pretty stark if the figures are correct.0 -
Total lockdown, which we are in, is as extreme as you can be. If you want anything more nuanced you have to have accurate information.First.Aspect said:
Well you don't understand then. So far only the trend matters.rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
They had enough information to lock down or not before they pulled the trigger. May have been too late but it wasn't a testing related issue. From that point on it's been about keeping the peak as low as possible and knowing when it is. Doesn't matter if there is another identical trend you don't know the exact size of.
That is why testing is part almost all exit plans, including the one the U.K. announced todayz0 -
We've had enough of experts, like the ONS. Let's listen to journalists instead.rick_chasey said:
I didn’t write it, right?Pross said:So there
A few questions / observations there:rick_chasey said:Pross said:
But their rates are higher than ours. I can't be bothered registering and undoubtably ending up with a load of junk email coming my way. If they're asking why we have so many more deaths than Germany and some others then fair enough. If they're asking why we have more than France and Italy (and to a lesser extent Spain though I note them referring to the poor south and rich north) less so wouldn't you agree? Hence the reason I questioned the statement.rick_chasey said:
Yeah. You can read it. It is free.Pross said:
So like France and Italy?rick_chasey said:
That is the headline of the article. You can also see it in the URL. It is in comparison to other comparably wealthy European countries (and indeed, all of Western Europe)Pross said:
I haven't looked to see if the bit in bold is selective quoting or how it is actually worded but the obvious question is 'so many in comparison to who?'rick_chasey said:https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/04/18/why-britain-has-so-many-covid-19-deaths
Freely available if you register.
"Why does Britain have so many Covid 19 deaths?"On most social, political and economic issues, Europe divides into north and south, and Britain sits comfortably among the more orderly, prosperous and efficient northern states. But on covid-19, that’s not how it looks. Britain appears closer to badly hit southern European countries. Indeed, Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of the government’s scientific advisory council, has said that Britain is on track to be among the worst—if not the worst—affected country in Europe.
...Instead, the problems appear to have started earlier. The British government gave up quickly on the sort of test-and-isolate strategy common in countries that have kept deaths down. Its aim became simply to protect the vulnerable and the health service, accepting the virus would spread among the population, which would at least build herd immunity.
It goes on about testing, but apparently worrying about testing fanciful and pointless so I won't share that.Growth in the number of cases in Britain is now slowing, but as The Economist went to press, 12,868 people were confirmed to have died from covid-19 in hospital. Although Britain looks to be some way off the peak in France (see chart), France’s figures include deaths that occur in care homes—nearly half the total—while Britain’s do not.
A clearer picture of the pandemic requires evidence of its impacts on all deaths, including those as a result of measures introduced to stop its spread. More detailed, though lagging, data from the Office for National Statistics suggest that many more are dying both of other causes (as trips to hospitals are put off) and outside of hospitals (often in care homes). On the week ending April 3rd, there were 16,387 deaths, more than a third higher than normal at this time of year. Excess deaths in Britain are in the same range as those in France, Spain and Italy at a similar point.
1. It says the ONS statistics show 'many more' are dying. That's pretty woolly and as discussed yesterday those stats seem to be showing the deaths outside of hospital are not in the same range as they are in the countries they mention.
2. They talk about deaths due to people putting off going to hospital that the ONS stats include and yet it doesn't say that the French numbers do and it also makes no mention of the other countries including care home deaths in their figures.
3. Even with the above they are saying the excess death rate is on a par with France, Italy and Spain which takes us back to my original point of 'compared to whom'. A more reasonable headline question would be 'Why does the UK have so many Covid-19 deaths than some other European countries?' which would be a perfectly reasonable question. The one they ask implies we are somewhere out on our own which we aren't.
It just happens to have the same thought process and logic as me...
Besides if more people have died and we are back in the race for first place, what use is that information right now?0 -
Burn him. Heretic.kingstonian said:Yep, there isn’t yet a clear correlation between a country’s test numbers and their death count.
0 -
You’ve got to recognise the problem before you can solve it.First.Aspect said:
We've had enough of experts, like the ONS. Let's listen to journalists instead.rick_chasey said:
I didn’t write it, right?Pross said:So there
A few questions / observations there:rick_chasey said:Pross said:
But their rates are higher than ours. I can't be bothered registering and undoubtably ending up with a load of junk email coming my way. If they're asking why we have so many more deaths than Germany and some others then fair enough. If they're asking why we have more than France and Italy (and to a lesser extent Spain though I note them referring to the poor south and rich north) less so wouldn't you agree? Hence the reason I questioned the statement.rick_chasey said:
Yeah. You can read it. It is free.Pross said:
So like France and Italy?rick_chasey said:
That is the headline of the article. You can also see it in the URL. It is in comparison to other comparably wealthy European countries (and indeed, all of Western Europe)Pross said:
I haven't looked to see if the bit in bold is selective quoting or how it is actually worded but the obvious question is 'so many in comparison to who?'rick_chasey said:https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/04/18/why-britain-has-so-many-covid-19-deaths
Freely available if you register.
"Why does Britain have so many Covid 19 deaths?"On most social, political and economic issues, Europe divides into north and south, and Britain sits comfortably among the more orderly, prosperous and efficient northern states. But on covid-19, that’s not how it looks. Britain appears closer to badly hit southern European countries. Indeed, Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of the government’s scientific advisory council, has said that Britain is on track to be among the worst—if not the worst—affected country in Europe.
...Instead, the problems appear to have started earlier. The British government gave up quickly on the sort of test-and-isolate strategy common in countries that have kept deaths down. Its aim became simply to protect the vulnerable and the health service, accepting the virus would spread among the population, which would at least build herd immunity.
It goes on about testing, but apparently worrying about testing fanciful and pointless so I won't share that.Growth in the number of cases in Britain is now slowing, but as The Economist went to press, 12,868 people were confirmed to have died from covid-19 in hospital. Although Britain looks to be some way off the peak in France (see chart), France’s figures include deaths that occur in care homes—nearly half the total—while Britain’s do not.
A clearer picture of the pandemic requires evidence of its impacts on all deaths, including those as a result of measures introduced to stop its spread. More detailed, though lagging, data from the Office for National Statistics suggest that many more are dying both of other causes (as trips to hospitals are put off) and outside of hospitals (often in care homes). On the week ending April 3rd, there were 16,387 deaths, more than a third higher than normal at this time of year. Excess deaths in Britain are in the same range as those in France, Spain and Italy at a similar point.
1. It says the ONS statistics show 'many more' are dying. That's pretty woolly and as discussed yesterday those stats seem to be showing the deaths outside of hospital are not in the same range as they are in the countries they mention.
2. They talk about deaths due to people putting off going to hospital that the ONS stats include and yet it doesn't say that the French numbers do and it also makes no mention of the other countries including care home deaths in their figures.
3. Even with the above they are saying the excess death rate is on a par with France, Italy and Spain which takes us back to my original point of 'compared to whom'. A more reasonable headline question would be 'Why does the UK have so many Covid-19 deaths than some other European countries?' which would be a perfectly reasonable question. The one they ask implies we are somewhere out on our own which we aren't.
It just happens to have the same thought process and logic as me...
Besides if more people have died and we are back in the race for first place, what use is that information right now?
And the article specifically references the ONS stats anyway?0 -
Sorry are we talking about testing from this point forward now, or still lamenting that we haven't been testing to this point and look how bad it is?rick_chasey said:
Total lockdown, which we are in, is as extreme as you can be. If you want anything more nuanced you have to have accurate information.First.Aspect said:
Well you don't understand then. So far only the trend matters.rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
They had enough information to lock down or not before they pulled the trigger. May have been too late but it wasn't a testing related issue. From that point on it's been about keeping the peak as low as possible and knowing when it is. Doesn't matter if there is another identical trend you don't know the exact size of.
That is why testing is part almost all exit plans, including the one the U.K. announced todayz
Because about half of the last 156 pages are you lamenting what should have been.
For what it's worth there is a consensus on what needs to happen to inform things from here, and they have 3 weeks to get their act together.0 -
Allowed out to exercise? Allowed out to offices if you can't work from home?rick_chasey said:
Total lockdown, which we are in, is as extreme as you can be. If you want anything more nuanced you have to have accurate information.First.Aspect said:
Well you don't understand then. So far only the trend matters.rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
They had enough information to lock down or not before they pulled the trigger. May have been too late but it wasn't a testing related issue. From that point on it's been about keeping the peak as low as possible and knowing when it is. Doesn't matter if there is another identical trend you don't know the exact size of.
That is why testing is part almost all exit plans, including the one the U.K. announced todayz
If could be more extreme. Apparently in Spain children aren't allowed out of their homes.
You can see how the disease spreads based on what is locked down in other countries, and copy them, without confirming with testing yourself.0 -
First.Aspect said:
Burn him. Heretic.kingstonian said:Yep, there isn’t yet a clear correlation between a country’s test numbers and their death count.
Haha, I feel those flames !!!0 -
Britain is behind the curve on testing. It squandered an opportunity that Germany etc had to sort stuff out before lockdown and the govt is playing catch up.
Not only is this documented it is also illustrated by the repeated broken testing promising from the govt, who, separately, *still* have Hancock’s mate and biggest political doner in charge of improving testing numbers.
This will make a future exit more challenging as testing is a key component of a safe lifting of lockdown.
0 -
Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy0 -
focuszing723 said:
Cheers Rick,rick_chasey said:
For contextrick_chasey said:
It is doing worse then its neighbours howeverfocuszing723 said:
That makes sense.kingstongraham said:
The anecdotal evidence from conversations with people in Sweden is that it is definitely not business as usual, and the whole social distancing is happening anyway.focuszing723 said:I keep wondering what's going to happen to Sweden? Perhaps their population will just be careful and not take risks.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVuyv5yXgAE4vQD?format=jpg&name=large
Pretty stark if the figures are correct.
It is also fairly logical. If lockdown works, which common sense tells you it must, having no lockdown is not going to help.focuszing723 said:
Cheers Rick,rick_chasey said:
For contextrick_chasey said:
It is doing worse then its neighbours howeverfocuszing723 said:
That makes sense.kingstongraham said:
The anecdotal evidence from conversations with people in Sweden is that it is definitely not business as usual, and the whole social distancing is happening anyway.focuszing723 said:I keep wondering what's going to happen to Sweden? Perhaps their population will just be careful and not take risks.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVuyv5yXgAE4vQD?format=jpg&name=large
Pretty stark if the figures are correct.
It also shows if you lift a lockdown with uncertainty a fair chunk of people will still act as if anyway, if the reports that most of Sweden is isolating anyway.0 -
I'm surprised today's announcement seems like they are trying to rule out future lock downs.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
-
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy0 -
Maybe it is just an attempt to restore confidence faster once lockdown 1 is over. Of course if it really came to it they would do it again.rick_chasey said:
Like they ruled out a Brexit extension...pangolin said:I'm surprised today's announcement seems like they are trying to rule out future lock downs.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I think looking back it will be clear it was the peak (hopefully) but we're still a bit too close to it to say with certainty.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I accept we need testing as part of relaxing the current rules but we're not in anything like total lockdown. You can go out and do a 50 mile bike ride and then take a trip to the supermarket before stopping off on your way home at B&Q to get some bits for the garden (providing you've ordered in advance). You could even go into work if it's necessary for you to do so.rick_chasey said:
Total lockdown, which we are in, is as extreme as you can be. If you want anything more nuanced you have to have accurate information.First.Aspect said:
Well you don't understand then. So far only the trend matters.rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
They had enough information to lock down or not before they pulled the trigger. May have been too late but it wasn't a testing related issue. From that point on it's been about keeping the peak as low as possible and knowing when it is. Doesn't matter if there is another identical trend you don't know the exact size of.
That is why testing is part almost all exit plans, including the one the U.K. announced todayz0 -
£2.4bn a daysurrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy0 -
Doesn’t this chart suggest that an enormous effort should be focussed on facilitating proper self isolation for the over 60’s and vulnerable groups whilst the rest of the country tries to get back to normality.
1 -
Not really. Peak of what? We might well be past peak infection rate, but from the noises coming out of ICUs up and down the country we are not past peak ICU demand yet, which is one of the critical issues.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Everything I have read recently has told me that we have ICU capacity, so not sure that is a critical issue currently. (If you recall, I posted recently that only 19 patients were treated in the Nightingale hospital over Easter, for example).rjsterry said:
Not really. Peak of what? We might well be past peak infection rate, but from the noises coming out of ICUs up and down the country we are not past peak ICU demand yet, which is one of the critical issues.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The other point here is there is more to this thread than testing and politics. It does appear that we have been steered down this route by some.First.Aspect said:
Sorry are we talking about testing from this point forward now, or still lamenting that we haven't been testing to this point and look how bad it is?rick_chasey said:
Total lockdown, which we are in, is as extreme as you can be. If you want anything more nuanced you have to have accurate information.First.Aspect said:
Well you don't understand then. So far only the trend matters.rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
They had enough information to lock down or not before they pulled the trigger. May have been too late but it wasn't a testing related issue. From that point on it's been about keeping the peak as low as possible and knowing when it is. Doesn't matter if there is another identical trend you don't know the exact size of.
That is why testing is part almost all exit plans, including the one the U.K. announced todayz
Because about half of the last 156 pages are you lamenting what should have been.
For what it's worth there is a consensus on what needs to happen to inform things from here, and they have 3 weeks to get their act together."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Based on it being one of points to satisfy before we can start to relax the lockdown I think the limited PPE is now the limiting factor on ICU capacity.Stevo_666 said:
Everything I have read recently has told me that we have ICU capacity, so not sure that is a critical issue currently. (If you recall, I posted recently that only 19 patients were treated in the Nightingale hospital over Easter, for example).rjsterry said:
Not really. Peak of what? We might well be past peak infection rate, but from the noises coming out of ICUs up and down the country we are not past peak ICU demand yet, which is one of the critical issues.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy0
