langley59 wrote:Finally...so can we treat it like the flu and now get on with life again please?
If it was like flu we'd already be treating it like flu.
Scott.
Thanks to gpadsa,Steffers0,lansdown,Wasron,jfgw, for Donating to support the site
langley59 wrote:Finally...so can we treat it like the flu and now get on with life again please?
johnhemming wrote:servodude wrote:Thanks I scraped them from the request to load the dropdown
Thanks. Do you easily have a doubling time for your best fits?
XFool wrote:THE JOHN SNOW MEMORANDUM
https://www.johnsnowmemo.com
"MORE THAN 4,400 scientists, researchers & healthcare professionals have now signed the John Snow Memorandum.
We vet every signature, so it may take 48 hours for your name to appear.
Thanks for your support, and please continue to share with your colleagues."
servodude wrote:johnhemming wrote:servodude wrote:Thanks I scraped them from the request to load the dropdown
Thanks. Do you easily have a doubling time for your best fits?
I think I should be able to if I can remember how the maths works
if y_1 = a e^(b.x_1) and y_2 = a e^(b.x_2)
we want y_2/y_1 = 2
=> 2 = a e^(b.x_2) / (a e^(b.x_1)) = e^(b ( delta_T))
=> ln(2) = b(delta_T)
=> delta_T = ln(2) / b
or something like that?
I'll see how that looks
-sd
johnhemming wrote:Thank you for doing this. If we accept for the purpose of discussion that fitting all the regions to an exponential curve is correct (which I think is valid for two regions at the moment anyway) we then have a variation in doubling time to consider
The original doubling time of infection in an entirely susceptible population was 5 days. The various restrictions will have some effect (increasing that time) although most infection is in the home and the schools being open will move infection around between households. Public transport will also move infection around, but I think that is reduced. I do think that the figures demonstrate that SAGE's assumptions on susceptibility are wrong, but a few more weeks data will provide more information.
I expect there to be systemic problems in the positivity testing (cases) that make it hard for the cases to reflect the true situation.
servodude wrote:As it looks presently it's 30 days till you're back at the peak for admissions nationally
- feeling optimistic?
servodude wrote:XFool wrote:THE JOHN SNOW MEMORANDUM
https://www.johnsnowmemo.com
"MORE THAN 4,400 scientists, researchers & healthcare professionals have now signed the John Snow Memorandum.
We vet every signature, so it may take 48 hours for your name to appear.
Thanks for your support, and please continue to share with your colleagues."
Ah that John Snow
- the cholera guy
- not the "Winter is coming" guy that "knows nothing"
- nor the news chap
makes sense now
- sd
Mike4 wrote:And can you IMAGINE the furore of objections that would have happened when when he disabled that water pump, had they had Twitter, FB,TLF et al back then? Demands for evidence, assertions his evidence was flawed, this is no different from 'flu, etc etc...
langley59 wrote:Mike4 wrote:And can you IMAGINE the furore of objections that would have happened when when he disabled that water pump, had they had Twitter, FB,TLF et al back then? Demands for evidence, assertions his evidence was flawed, this is no different from 'flu, etc etc...
Indeed because he was going against the establishment consensus of the time, so he would be in the GBD camp wouldn't he?
Mike4 wrote:this is no different from 'flu, etc etc...
langley59 wrote:Mike4 wrote:And can you IMAGINE the furore of objections that would have happened when when he disabled that water pump, had they had Twitter, FB,TLF et al back then? Demands for evidence, assertions his evidence was flawed, this is no different from 'flu, etc etc...
Indeed because he was going against the establishment consensus of the time, so he would be in the GBD camp wouldn't he?
Mike4 wrote:What is the "GBD camp"?
johnhemming wrote:servodude wrote:As it looks presently it's 30 days till you're back at the peak for admissions nationally
- feeling optimistic?
The first test is to look as to whether there is a difference between regions. I think it is clear that there is.
Then we need to know why there is a difference I would contend
a) Weather/Climate (whether that be consequential behaviour) and
b) Prior infections ie level of herd immunity.
In theory the restrictions should reduce the spreading of the virus and hence the north should not be growing as much as it is because there are harsher restrictions in the north. One possible conclusion from this is that the harsher lockdown in the north has the effect of making the disease spread further. I don't, however, think that is true. Hence I think the main reasons for the difference are a) and b) above.
I don't think the weather is that different. It could cause the seasonal variation to kick off earlier and I think it did, but I don't think it is sufficiently different.
I do think the levels of prior infection (herd immunity levels) are higher than the North first in the Midlands and South West and then in the East, South East and London.
I think that is the primary reason that things are both not as high in the South Easterly regions and also less than the North in the Midlands and South West. Remember I am taking into account also the ratio between the peak admissions earlier this year and the peak admissions now. Those I think reflect the same factors.
The eternal question, of course, is when this is likely to peak. We need to keep an eye on the Midlands/South West as they could start accelerating, but I think the big constraint nationally is the North. NE has peaked at 41% of the peak earlier this year and NW at 57%.
London is picking up a bit at the moment (and that may be weather related), but it has peaked (so far) at 10% of the previous peak.
I don't think London will beat the previous peak for London, but there is a chance that NE and NW do this although I am not sure at the moment.
I think the analysis above is correct, but I don't really have sufficient information to forecast with any precision what is going to happen. We know that a high proportion of cases of infection in hospital are found over a week after admission which implies they are nosocomial and that this is a particular problem in the North West.
johnhemming wrote:
The first test is to look as to whether there is a difference between regions. I think it is clear that there is.
Then we need to know why there is a difference I would contend
a) Weather/Climate (whether that be consequential behaviour) and
b) Prior infections ie level of herd immunity.
In theory the restrictions should reduce the spreading of the virus and hence the north should not be growing as much as it is because there are harsher restrictions in the north. One possible conclusion from this is that the harsher lockdown in the north has the effect of making the disease spread further. I don't, however, think that is true.
Hence I think the main reasons for the difference are a) and b) above.
I don't think the weather is that different. It could cause the seasonal variation to kick off earlier and I think it did, but I don't think it is sufficiently different.
I do think the levels of prior infection (herd immunity levels) are higher than the North first in the Midlands and South West and then in the East, South East and London.
I think that is the primary reason that things are both not as high in the South Easterly regions and also less than the North in the Midlands and South West. Remember I am taking into account also the ratio between the peak admissions earlier this year and the peak admissions now. Those I think reflect the same factors.
Itsallaguess wrote:Jonathan Van Tam, when asked at one of his recent televised briefings why there was an apparent disconnect between new infection numbers in Northern and Southern England regions, singularly stated that it was because during the summer months some of the Southern regions were able to get the level of infection down to such low numbers compared to the generally higher Northern regions, that it's simply a case of some Southern regions now starting from a 'lower-base' of any new re-infection curves.
Given that he gave that clear and direct answer to the same issue that you're also considering above, then I'm very surprised to see the lack of any recognition of Van Tam's specific reasoning in your own conclusions, or yours in his...
Why do you think that is?
Cheers,
Itsallaguess
Itsallaguess wrote:Jonathan Van Tam, when asked at one of his recent televised briefings why there was an apparent disconnect between new infection numbers in Northern and Southern England regions, singularly stated that it was because during the summer months some of the Southern regions were able to get the level of infection down to such low numbers compared to the generally higher Northern regions, that it's simply a case of some Southern regions now starting from a 'lower-base' of any new re-infection curves.
Given that he gave that clear and direct answer to the same issue that you're also considering above, then I'm very surprised to see the lack of any recognition of Van Tam's specific reasoning in your own conclusions, or yours in his...
servodude wrote:So reading between the lines you still attest that relaxing restrictions could have had no significant effect? (I remember you posit that "lockdown" didn't affect the peak)
Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests