Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4434 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#472960

Postby servodude » January 14th, 2022, 3:32 am

9873210 wrote:
servodude wrote:
Julian wrote:Neither of those distortions happen with the CODC numbers but there is a delay in compiling that data due to the time it takes for the death certificates to be processed so I can see why the 28DA data is still published but I do worry that with the massive amount of testing and probably quite a few people testing themselves for the first time in the run up and over Christmas the distortions on the 28DA data might be in danger of making those data a very unreliable indicator now.


Indeed

it was useful for "dead reckoning" during the fog at the start of the pandemic when things were moving faster than the paperwork could keep up
- it has served its purpose and should be retired

the pun was accidental
-sd


The two numbers track very closely. Between Jan 1 2021 and Dec 15 2021 the r-square between the seven day averages of 28DA and the CODC is 0.99!!!! (and the death certificate numbers are 7% higher).

I think we can reasonably use 28DA as a timely proxy for CODC. In any case the alternatives that don't use it are worse. Either you make policy without data or you make policy based on data such as cases, which would result in a massive overreaction to Omicron.

!!!! I rarely use multiple explanation marks, but I have never seen an R^2 of .99 in real data. I was ready to work up a multi-variant model that included test numbers. But with only 1% left to explain it scarcely seems worth it.


I agree on the R^2 stuff
- it's the kind of thing that makes you think you've made a mistake (or I did anyway when I tried exponential fits to the rising hospital figures back in the mists of this thing)

The main issue I have with the 28DA as it is "going forward" is we know it's going to get less and less accurate
- particularly in the face of a variant with a proven degree of significant escape
- which leaves it open to some valid criticism (and then we're into politics :( )

Fixing that for me would just require the removal of the word "first" from the definition - but i think that might be fixing it in the wrong direction for most of its detractors (whereas i think likelihood of anyone dying in a given 28day period is probably quite well understood)

- sd

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473044

Postby Julian » January 14th, 2022, 12:18 pm

servodude wrote:
9873210 wrote:
servodude wrote:
Julian wrote:Neither of those distortions happen with the CODC numbers but there is a delay in compiling that data due to the time it takes for the death certificates to be processed so I can see why the 28DA data is still published but I do worry that with the massive amount of testing and probably quite a few people testing themselves for the first time in the run up and over Christmas the distortions on the 28DA data might be in danger of making those data a very unreliable indicator now.


Indeed

it was useful for "dead reckoning" during the fog at the start of the pandemic when things were moving faster than the paperwork could keep up
- it has served its purpose and should be retired

the pun was accidental
-sd


The two numbers track very closely. Between Jan 1 2021 and Dec 15 2021 the r-square between the seven day averages of 28DA and the CODC is 0.99!!!! (and the death certificate numbers are 7% higher).

I think we can reasonably use 28DA as a timely proxy for CODC. In any case the alternatives that don't use it are worse. Either you make policy without data or you make policy based on data such as cases, which would result in a massive overreaction to Omicron.

!!!! I rarely use multiple explanation marks, but I have never seen an R^2 of .99 in real data. I was ready to work up a multi-variant model that included test numbers. But with only 1% left to explain it scarcely seems worth it.


I agree on the R^2 stuff
- it's the kind of thing that makes you think you've made a mistake (or I did anyway when I tried exponential fits to the rising hospital figures back in the mists of this thing)

The main issue I have with the 28DA as it is "going forward" is we know it's going to get less and less accurate
- particularly in the face of a variant with a proven degree of significant escape
- which leaves it open to some valid criticism (and then we're into politics :( )

Fixing that for me would just require the removal of the word "first" from the definition - but i think that might be fixing it in the wrong direction for most of its detractors (whereas i think likelihood of anyone dying in a given 28day period is probably quite well understood)

- sd

As I observed before there are 2 potential distortions in the 28DA data pulling in opposite directions and it is interesting (and gratifying) to see quite how well those seem to have cancelled out between 1-Jan-2021 and 15-Dec-2021. I have no issues with using 28DA as a timely proxy, even if it doesn't maintain the same level of accuracy as seen in 2021 timeliness in many cases is crucial enough to outweigh some level of error in the proxy data. My concern is the same as servodude's that going forward we might see increasing inaccuracy in how well the 28DA does act as a proxy for the CODC data. Time will tell and I assume that the sort of R^2 analysis you did is being done fairly regularly across varying time windows as part of the data analysis.

- Julian

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473166

Postby jfgw » January 14th, 2022, 7:34 pm

I think we need to look at the data again in another week. There could be an increasing number of non-Covid deaths within 28 days of a first positive test (or, for Wales, a first positive test within a six-week testing period).
Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


Julian F. G. W.

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473167

Postby Julian » January 14th, 2022, 7:37 pm

BBC News just posted a news piece about concern that recent(*) 28 days after data might be becoming skewed - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60000391

- Julian

(*) emphasis on recent, not disputing the good R^2 correlation for data up to 15th Dec.

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 984
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 226 times
Been thanked: 295 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473198

Postby 9873210 » January 14th, 2022, 10:31 pm

jfgw wrote:I think we need to look at the data again in another week. There could be an increasing number of non-Covid deaths within 28 days of a first positive test (or, for Wales, a first positive test within a six-week testing period).
Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


Julian F. G. W.

What that graph shows is that there is a lag in the numbers from death certificates. That's why the grey area is grey.
The graphs of the most up-to-date numbers has been showing this pattern for over a year, yet as time passes it becomes clear that there is a reporting lag so that for the most recent dates death certificate data was incomplete.

I predict, with confidence, that in two weeks a similar graph will be available showing the two lines tracking closely up until Jan 1 then diverging. I also predict that people will still use this as evidence that "this time it's different".

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473287

Postby scotia » January 15th, 2022, 1:05 pm

9873210 wrote:I predict, with confidence, that in two weeks a similar graph will be available showing the two lines tracking closely up until Jan 1 then diverging. I also predict that people will still use this as evidence that "this time it's different".

Yes - when I first looked for correlations between admissions and deaths, I quickly discovered the considerable time lag before deaths by death date settled down to their final values - so were of little value when looking at recent trends, although they could be used for historical data. However I was pleasantly surprised by the reasonable correlations between admissions and deaths by publication date, which I have used ever since (over on the modelling discussions).

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473291

Postby scotia » January 15th, 2022, 1:31 pm

Julian wrote:BBC News just posted a news piece about concern that recent(*) 28 days after data might be becoming skewed - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60000391

- Julian

(*) emphasis on recent, not disputing the good R^2 correlation for data up to 15th Dec.


Thanks for the link - my thoughts on it are:-

They have chosen a bad period to analyse death rates - around the Christmas/New Year period the deaths by published date jump around - even when summed over 7 day periods. And deaths by death date, are at best, delayed by a significant time before settling down to a terminal value. I would like to reserve judgement, and wait for a period of reasonable stability, then take a careful look at any further computations that the author(s) provide.

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 984
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 226 times
Been thanked: 295 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473377

Postby 9873210 » January 15th, 2022, 7:47 pm

For those with OCD.

At least three different statistics and two distinctions have recently been mentioned in this thread.
The statistics are:
  • Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported
  • Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death
  • Daily deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date of death

The distinctions being discussed
  • Delays in reporting and "weekend"effects. The reported date statistic for a date is available late on the same day but has a very strong weekend effect. The other two have noticable delays of about a week for the second and about four weeks for the death certificates. The last two are published before those periods but are usually revised upwards during that time frame.
  • The criteria for including the death as a covid related death. The first two are "automatic" while the last depends on the judgement of the person filling out the death certificate, and perhaps on the judgement of the person reading the certificate.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473392

Postby jfgw » January 15th, 2022, 8:50 pm

9873210 wrote:I predict, with confidence, that in two weeks a similar graph will be available showing the two lines tracking closely up until Jan 1 then diverging. I also predict that people will still use this as evidence that "this time it's different".

A difference here is a noticeable increase in deaths within 28 days of a first positive test. The question is whether the errors will continue to cancel out so precisely.


There are different criteria for being counted as dying within 28 days in Wales and the numbers tend to be significantly lower: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/metrics/doc/newDeaths28DaysByDeathDate.
Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


Julian F. G. W.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473435

Postby dealtn » January 16th, 2022, 9:19 am

9873210 wrote:For those with OCD.

At least three different statistics and two distinctions have recently been mentioned in this thread.
The statistics are:
  • Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported
  • Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death
  • Daily deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date of death

The distinctions being discussed
  • Delays in reporting and "weekend"effects. The reported date statistic for a date is available late on the same day but has a very strong weekend effect. The other two have noticable delays of about a week for the second and about four weeks for the death certificates. The last two are published before those periods but are usually revised upwards during that time frame.
  • The criteria for including the death as a covid related death. The first two are "automatic" while the last depends on the judgement of the person filling out the death certificate, and perhaps on the judgement of the person reading the certificate.


What's that got to do with OCD?

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473484

Postby Julian » January 16th, 2022, 12:22 pm

scotia wrote:
Julian wrote:BBC News just posted a news piece about concern that recent(*) 28 days after data might be becoming skewed - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60000391

- Julian

(*) emphasis on recent, not disputing the good R^2 correlation for data up to 15th Dec.


Thanks for the link - my thoughts on it are:-

They have chosen a bad period to analyse death rates - around the Christmas/New Year period the deaths by published date jump around - even when summed over 7 day periods. And deaths by death date, are at best, delayed by a significant time before settling down to a terminal value. I would like to reserve judgement, and wait for a period of reasonable stability, then take a careful look at any further computations that the author(s) provide.

The conundrum here is that if my hunch is correct about high testing rates coupled with increased transmission due to socialising over Christmas dragging more non-Covid-19 deaths into the 28-days-after figures simply because of a coincidental positive test in the few weeks before dying those effects really become most pronounced over the holiday period and the few weeks after so if they are trying to determine if that effect is real they are forced to look at the data over that period. It is true however that the lumpiness of the data over that period and into early January is simply terrible. The fact of the matter is that we won't be able to do proper analysis for quite a few weeks yet (as you point out). Work worth doing though, in my opinion, since we do need to be constantly monitoring how accurate our more timely "canary in the cage" 28-days-after figures are.

- Julian

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#473563

Postby jfgw » January 16th, 2022, 5:14 pm

9873210 wrote:At least three different statistics and two distinctions have recently been mentioned in this thread.
The statistics are:
  • Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported
  • Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death
  • Daily deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date of death

The first two can be elaborated upon thus:

Deaths within 28 days include,
- England: All deaths within 28 days of a first ever (since the dawn of time) positive test result.
- Northern Ireland: All deaths within 28 days of any positive test result.
- Scotland: All deaths within 28 days of a first ever (since the dawn of time) lab-confirmed positive test result.
- Wales: Deaths within Wales in hospitals and care homes where there is a lab-confirmed positive test result and where the clinician suspects that Covid was a causative factor.

(Based upon criteria cited on the UK government and individual countries' websites.)


Julian F. G. W.

terminal7
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1916
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:26 pm
Has thanked: 225 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474476

Postby terminal7 » January 19th, 2022, 3:33 pm

We are told that all 'the big calls' have been made correctly in this country and the UK is a world leader in vax roll-out. Whether the latter is completely valid, the success of the 'big calls' should surely be seen in the the number and even more importantly the Incidence of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths from the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020.

This indicates that the UK has a significantly higher incidence than the most of the main EEA countries. In addition, the UK is sixth worldwide in the number of deaths.

Are these 2 vectors the most important in comparing data between countries? Clearly, there maybe many concerns about the incidence of testing.

T7

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474487

Postby dealtn » January 19th, 2022, 4:22 pm

terminal7 wrote:We are told that all 'the big calls' have been made correctly in this country and the UK is a world leader in vax roll-out. Whether the latter is completely valid, the success of the 'big calls' should surely be seen in the the number and even more importantly the Incidence of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths from the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020.

This indicates that the UK has a significantly higher incidence than the most of the main EEA countries. In addition, the UK is sixth worldwide in the number of deaths.

Are these 2 vectors the most important in comparing data between countries? Clearly, there maybe many concerns about the incidence of testing.

T7


I don't think many are making that claim about "all" the big calls. Many might be doing so about "some" of the big calls, such as vaccination, relatively early opening up after waves, sooner reaching herd(ish) immunity, despite the negatives in getting there.

As such deaths alone, and particularly as measured against "from the beginning of the pandemic", aren't appropriate ways of judging those "big calls".

Would you think an appropriate measure of the success of the seat belt introudction in the UK would be comparing deaths on the roads since the invention of the motor car between countries?

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6358
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1527 times
Been thanked: 958 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474661

Postby odysseus2000 » January 20th, 2022, 9:55 am

Farage has put outa piece saying the uk deaths from Corona virus alone are 17,000:

https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/14838 ... 94657?s=21

He claims his source is a freedom of information request to ons.

Is this number anything like correct?

Regards,

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4434 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474665

Postby servodude » January 20th, 2022, 10:04 am

odysseus2000 wrote:Farage has put outa piece saying the uk deaths from Corona virus alone are 17,000:

https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/14838 ... 94657?s=21

He claims his source is a freedom of information request to ons.

Is this number anything like correct?

Regards,


Nah...

He's just being a little frightened twunt waving his wee flag in the wind because he's afraid of becoming irrelevant (after recently backing that anti-vax icon who didn't get to play tennis)

Tell you what though you might be able to find 17k COVID deaths who were otherwise in the absolute peak of health (so discounting old, chubby, asthmatic, ginger, Celtic, sunburned, or people with hayfever)
- perhaps that's the wee flag he's waving? (The ones who otherwise had 0% chance of dying ?)
I'm sure he'll adjust the figures for whatever he's trying to compare it to also; actually that's unlikely innit?

If you want the actual figure add a 0 to his
-sd

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8910
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3665 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474675

Postby redsturgeon » January 20th, 2022, 10:30 am

odysseus2000 wrote:Farage has put outa piece saying the uk deaths from Corona virus alone are 17,000:

https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/14838 ... 94657?s=21

He claims his source is a freedom of information request to ons.

Is this number anything like correct?

Regards,


Yes it is likely correct within very specifically defined terms.

Most covid deaths are in the elderly and it is very unlikely that you will find many over 70s with zero co-morbidities.

Similarly if you look at deaths from car accidents in the over 70s you will find very few that show no co-morbidities, perhaps you might even argue that it was a heart attack or sudden fainting spell that caused the accident in the first place.

John

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474680

Postby Bouleversee » January 20th, 2022, 10:40 am

Well, it's a rather meaningless statistic anyway. Even if you had some other illness you might have lived for many years if you hadn't caught the virus so effectively it could still have been responsible for your death.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6358
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1527 times
Been thanked: 958 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474694

Postby odysseus2000 » January 20th, 2022, 11:08 am

Assuming the 17,000 is correct that is about 8500 per year, roughly 3x the number killed or seriously injured on the roads each year.

Spending has been around 400 billion, so if we take the uk population as 70 million that works out to be around £5714 per person.

If the virus is predominantly killing people with under lying health conditions it seems with hindsight that a better policy could have been to lock down only people with such conditions while allowing the rest of the population to carry on, relying on natural infection to create population resistance. Something like, as I understand it, was done in Russia & other countries where the vaccine was not available.

The current policy of reopening the economy looks sensible if one can protect those most at risk & at the same time cut a lot of the government spending & increase the tax take to pair down some of the debt taken on getting us to this point.

Whether covid has not been as potent as the Spanish flu or we have had much better defences is unclear to me, but it seems covid has been far less of an hit to people than was the Spanish flu & that is something to be thankful for.

Regards,

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2612
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 165 times
Been thanked: 1716 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#474702

Postby Hallucigenia » January 20th, 2022, 11:44 am

odysseus2000 wrote:If the virus is predominantly killing people with under lying health conditions


You're making the common mistake of assuming that deaths are the main bad thing about Covid-19, when I suspect that with hindsight we'll view it as something more like polio, where the real problem is not in the (non-trivial) number of deaths, but on the long-term health impacts. An editorial in the Lancet has said "Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order."

Health economists prefer to look at disease impacts in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), so something that is debilitating for young people counts as much, if not more, than something that kills old people. The ONS suggests 2% of the UK population, 1.3 million people, have long Covid as self-reported in a survey. Obviously it would be better if that number could be confirmed by diagnosis in a medical setting, but they're a bit busy at the moment. Two thirds of those people (800k) have day-to-day activities hindered by it, and 20% (250k) are "limited a lot".


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests