Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[simoan]

This article written by someone who appears to have the requisite background to judge claims that the false positive rate is enormous and consequently the government's published case figures are wildly exaggerated:
https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damne ... positives/

Could this be a site for an unbiased, impartial and accurate source of information

I would say no such thing exists. I noticed with the increase in cases the BBC started its latest round of propaganda on behalf of the government at the weekend; showing some very personal cases of people who lost loved ones during the "first wave". It's a blatant attempt to influence the proletariat using a tried and tested technique.

All the best, Si

[scotia]

Could this be a site for an unbiased, impartial and accurate source of information

Its certainly an alternative to the definitely biased, partial and inaccurate agenda pushing mainstream media in my honest opinion.

Why bother either of these alternatives? Look at the Data - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Then do a bit of number crunching to determine the facts.

[simoan]

Could this be a site for an unbiased, impartial and accurate source of information

Its certainly an alternative to the definitely biased, partial and inaccurate agenda pushing mainstream media in my honest opinion.

Why bother either of these alternatives? Look at the Data - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Then do a bit of number crunching to determine the facts.

How can you determine facts if the data is inaccurate? You don't need to be a professor of Computer Science to know Crap in -> Crap out. I keep seeing that graph of number of cases all over the BBC and other websites and it just makes my blood boil. It's just total lunacy having a chart that shows the number of cases going back 6 months when the testing regime (in particular number of tests) has changed so much. It's just plain insulting to any sane, numerate person. It's now widely accepted that the number of positive cases was likely to be 20x that shown on the graph back in March/April.

All the best, Si

[servodude]

I think there is a general shortage of D (particularly D3), but I do suggest that my BAME friends take some vitamin D

However, I don't think that is the key issue. (I may be wrong).

I'd imagine that the key question for Vitamin D would be how many more African-Americans than whites are going down with Covid in the sunshine states where there ain't no such deficiency?

My understanding is that people of African descent have a whole raft of other genetic issues, ranging from sickle cell anaemia down to the inconvenient fact that black males (in the US) are up to twice as likely as whites to develop cancer or diabetes. Of course, some of that might be down to poor diet; but one in four will get prostate cancer - almost twice the rate for whites. And that's one place where the sun certainly don't shine.

Any or all of these things may be relevant factors when we're considering the body's natural resistance levels to an invader like Covid. Then again, it might all just be one gigantic coincidence? I'm inclined to think not. Our best hope of getting to the truth is to avoid the temptation to insist that we know it all, and that peop.le who draw other inferences from us are decisively and definitively "wrong".

BJ

And why is the death rate so high for African Americans but so low for sub Saharan Africa...except South Africa?

John

The first place I'd start would be to look at the relative ages of the populations (e.g. https://www.prb.org/sub-saharan-africas ... -pandemic/ or https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/ ... in-africa/)
- i reckon if I just wrote the figures out you might not believe them

-sd

[scotia]

Its certainly an alternative to the definitely biased, partial and inaccurate agenda pushing mainstream media in my honest opinion.

Why bother either of these alternatives? Look at the Data - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Then do a bit of number crunching to determine the facts.

How can you determine facts if the data is inaccurate? You don't need to be a professor of Computer Science to know Crap in -> Crap out. I keep seeing that graph of number of cases all over the BBC and other websites and it just makes my blood boil. It's just total lunacy having a chart that shows the number of cases going back 6 months when the testing regime (in particular number of tests) has changed so much. It's just plain insulting to any sane, numerate person. It's now widely accepted that the number of positive cases was likely to be 20x that shown on the graph back in March/April.

All the best, Si

The graphical data is shown on the site https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
To get the raw numerical data, have a look at the developers guide - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/developers-guide
That should let you get csv files which you can import into a spreadsheet - then you can number-crunch.
The testing regime was initially almost all Pillar 1, but by the middle of July Pillar 2 testing came online.
At the moment we (and the government) should be concerned about the increase in cases (normalised to the number of Pillar 1 plus Pillar 2 tests) over the past month.
So here are some processed results for England (I would appreciate someone independently checking them)
From 1 to 7 August there were 5297 new cases - or 0.62% of tests
From 1 to 7 September there were 12037 new cases - or 1.2% of tests
From 8 to 14 September there were 18205 new cases - or 1.46% of tests
We clearly have a problem. And if you assume a fixed percentage of the tests create false positives, it only increases the above rate of increase.

[servodude]

Its certainly an alternative to the definitely biased, partial and inaccurate agenda pushing mainstream media in my honest opinion.

Why bother either of these alternatives? Look at the Data - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Then do a bit of number crunching to determine the facts.

How can you determine facts if the data is inaccurate? You don't need to be a professor of Computer Science to know Crap in -> Crap out. I keep seeing that graph of number of cases all over the BBC and other websites and it just makes my blood boil. It's just total lunacy having a chart that shows the number of cases going back 6 months when the testing regime (in particular number of tests) has changed so much. It's just plain insulting to any sane, numerate person. It's now widely accepted that the number of positive cases was likely to be 20x that shown on the graph back in March/April.

All the best, Si

I'm with you on the the large period graph being bandied about without due interpretation - it doesn't help.

That said though for a lot of measurements precision is as useful as accuracy
- once you've established a testing regime that has sufficient headroom and is sampling from a consistently similar pool with a sufficient and similar volume it is possible to detect trends (even though the absolute values measured are not accurate)
- at present those trends indicate an increasing in prevalence

- sd

[gryffron]

And why is the death rate so high for African Americans but so low for sub Saharan Africa...except South Africa?

The first place I'd start would be to look at the relative ages of the populations (e.g. https://www.prb.org/sub-saharan-africas ... -pandemic/ or https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/ ... in-africa/)

And, although I cannot provide figures, I suspect there are few sub-Saharan Africans who are overweight, or living with diabetes or other existing medical conditions. In the absence of comprehensive medical care, all the major at-risk groups are long gone.

Gryff

[servodude]

all the major at-risk groups are long gone

That would appear to be it in a nutshell

- sd

[redsturgeon]

Yes it it clearly demographics but the irony is that in affluent societies it seems that the Africa/Caribbean/Latino/South Asian populations are the most at risk.

Also if you look at how badly the South American countries have coped then age of population is not the only factor.

John

[bungeejumper]

Yes it it clearly demographics but the irony is that in affluent societies it seems that the Africa/Caribbean/Latino/South Asian populations are the most at risk.

That seems to be clear, but once again the medical statistics don't always play ball with the theory. I was recently looking at some US statistics on weight, height and waist size across ethnic groups, and the results were not quite the way I'd have expected from the apparent susceptibility patterns.

CDC data for adults (aged over 20) in 2015-2016 showed that both black non-hispanic men and Mexican-American men were (a) slimmer and (b) slightly less heavy than white men (although they were not significantly different in height). Whereas black women outweighed their white counterparts by an average of sixteen pounds. That wouldn't seem to square too well with the Covid/obesity hypothesis, where more men than women are being felled by the disease.

The CDC data is at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr122-508.pdf, Tables 1 to 5.

BJ

[Bouleversee]

Yes it it clearly demographics but the irony is that in affluent societies it seems that the Africa/Caribbean/Latino/South Asian populations are the most at risk.

Also if you look at how badly the South American countries have coped then age of population is not the only factor.

John

Could it be that more of those categories work in the medical and caring fields and are/were more exposed to heavy viral loads? I think the reason some people get off lightly is they have only received a light load which a fit person can shrug off.

Incidentally, it is possible to share a double bed without exchanging exhalations.

[simoan]

Why bother either of these alternatives? Look at the Data - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Then do a bit of number crunching to determine the facts.

How can you determine facts if the data is inaccurate? You don't need to be a professor of Computer Science to know Crap in -> Crap out. I keep seeing that graph of number of cases all over the BBC and other websites and it just makes my blood boil. It's just total lunacy having a chart that shows the number of cases going back 6 months when the testing regime (in particular number of tests) has changed so much. It's just plain insulting to any sane, numerate person. It's now widely accepted that the number of positive cases was likely to be 20x that shown on the graph back in March/April.

All the best, Si

I'm with you on the the large period graph being bandied about without due interpretation - it doesn't help.

- sd

Oh it does help!! What a piece of propaganda showing the recent rise in "positive" cases soaring up towards those in March/April. It will scare the wotsit out of the vast majority of the population, which I take as the intent with it being widely shared by those that should know better even though it shows a totally warped version of reality.

All the best, Si

[GoSeigen]

How can you determine facts if the data is inaccurate? You don't need to be a professor of Computer Science to know Crap in -> Crap out. I keep seeing that graph of number of cases all over the BBC and other websites and it just makes my blood boil. It's just total lunacy having a chart that shows the number of cases going back 6 months when the testing regime (in particular number of tests) has changed so much. It's just plain insulting to any sane, numerate person. It's now widely accepted that the number of positive cases was likely to be 20x that shown on the graph back in March/April.

All the best, Si

I'm with you on the the large period graph being bandied about without due interpretation - it doesn't help.

- sd

Oh it does help!! What a piece of propaganda showing the recent rise in "positive" cases soaring up towards those in March/April. It will scare the wotsit out of the vast majority of the population, which I take as the intent with it being widely shared by those that should know better even though it shows a totally warped version of reality.

All the best, Si

So what exactly is simoan's argument? That the case numbers are simply made up "propaganda"? Or that the four-fold rise in case numbers since a month ago is adequately explained by the 40% increase in tests processed over the same period?

GS

[sg31]

Our best hope of getting to the truth is to avoid the temptation to insist that we know it all, and that people who draw other inferences from us are decisively and definitively "wrong".

BJ

Wise words indeed. I wish more people understood this.

The latest scientific papers usually add to our knowledge base of the virus and the illness but there is so much we still don't know. It doesn't look like there is one answer or one truth. There are shades of grey, things that help or give us ideas for further research.

There is no right answer that covers everything and no magic bullet.

[gryffron]

it seems that the Africa/Caribbean/Latino/South Asian populations are the most at risk.

Yes, but there's nothing that connects all these diverse groups. Nor the catch-all "BAME", which basically means "everybody except whites". Genetically, culturally and financially, these groups are hugely diverse, so there's little reason they can be lumped together.

I suppose it is possible that the outlier group is "White Europeans". Several millennia of exposure to winter colds and flu might have given us greater ability to combat such viruses than those whose ancestors lived in warmer climes. Or is it evil racism to suggest that?

Gryff

[redsturgeon]

it seems that the Africa/Caribbean/Latino/South Asian populations are the most at risk.

Yes, but there's nothing that connects all these diverse groups. Nor the catch-all "BAME", which basically means "everybody except whites". Genetically, culturally and financially, these groups are hugely diverse, so there's little reason they can be lumped together.

I suppose it is possible that the outlier group is "White Europeans". Several millennia of exposure to winter colds and flu might have given us greater ability to combat such viruses than those whose ancestors lived in warmer climes. Or is it evil racism to suggest that?

Gryff

I think it is clear that in affluent nations socioeconomics plays an important role. The "White European" thing is clearly a myth since at a global level this group is an outlier on the wrong side of the equation.

Clearly the global picture is a multifactorial one comprising, preparedness, national mitigation response, demographics, health systems, international links and climate.

BTW I think the comment on "evil racism" is an unnecessary dig unworthy of you.

John

[servodude]

I'm with you on the the large period graph being bandied about without due interpretation - it doesn't help.

- sd

Oh it does help!! What a piece of propaganda showing the recent rise in "positive" cases soaring up towards those in March/April. It will scare the wotsit out of the vast majority of the population, which I take as the intent with it being widely shared by those that should know better even though it shows a totally warped version of reality.

All the best, Si

So what exactly is simoan's argument? That the case numbers are simply made up "propaganda"? Or that the four-fold rise in case numbers since a month ago is adequately explained by the 40% increase in tests processed over the same period?

GS

COVID denial is "a thing";some dress it up as "common sense"
- it's an understandable reaction to what is a quite unusual situation c.f. the stages of grief
We're still learning about this and there ARE different ways to interpret the data, but not many satisfy Occam's razor


-sd

[langley59]

Yes, but there's nothing that connects all these diverse groups.

I would guess that greater vitamin D deficiency may do.

[servodude]

it seems that the Africa/Caribbean/Latino/South Asian populations are the most at risk.

Yes, but there's nothing that connects all these diverse groups. Nor the catch-all "BAME", which basically means "everybody except whites". Genetically, culturally and financially, these groups are hugely diverse, so there's little reason they can be lumped together.

I suppose it is possible that the outlier group is "White Europeans". Several millennia of exposure to winter colds and flu might have given us greater ability to combat such viruses than those whose ancestors lived in warmer climes. Or is it evil racism to suggest that?

Gryff

I think it is clear that in affluent nations socioeconomics plays an important role. The "White European" thing is clearly a myth since at a global level this group is an outlier on the wrong side of the equation.

Clearly the global picture is a multifactorial one comprising, preparedness, national mitigation response, demographics, health systems, international links and climate.

BTW I think the comment on "evil racism" is an unnecessary dig unworthy of you.

John

I thought all our ancestors lived in warmer climes?

As a species there's a much larger genetic variation in sub-saharan humans than in the whole of the rest of the world... but I do think that their "success" with COVID is likely down to a median age below 20 and spending almost all their time outdoors (or in well ventilated accommodation)

-sd

[scotia]

Some more statistics - new daily hospital admissions due to Covid-19 in England
Week 12/9/20 to 18/9/90 (most recent data) = 1249 Admissions
Week 12/8/20 to 18/8/20 = 345 Admissions.