Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

[johnhemming]

There is, of course, no evidence that the HIT has been, er, hit anywhere.

If you are saying "anywhere" you would have to explain Manaus.

However, Guys and Kings are clear examples of there not being a seasonal wave.

There is also prevalence testing data which demonstrates some MSOAs have hit herd immunity. Someone wrote about it, but I don't have the time to find the link now.

Hence saying "No Evidence" is a provably false statement.

[swill453]

There is, of course, no evidence that the HIT has been, er, hit anywhere.

If you are saying "anywhere" you would have to explain Manaus.

Which MSOA is it in?

Scott.

[servodude]

There is, of course, no evidence that the HIT has been, er, hit anywhere.

If you are saying "anywhere" you would have to explain Manaus.

Which MSOA is it in?

Scott.

Manaus is really interesting as a data point. (You should be able to find it on Google easily)

It suggests that the HIT for this virus is around 76%.
- and that there's not as many people who don't produce antibodies as some might think

Take that with the fact that we appear to be able to obtain and retain immunity to SARS (which confers immunity for this virus)
- and it suggests that if you don't suppress it this virus will be "seasonal" for one season
- and that there's likely a lot of fuel left in places like the UK

-sd

[johnhemming]

- and that there's likely a lot of fuel left in places like the UK

That, of course, is an important question. I accept there remains some fuel in the UK, but not all of the UK. The government has sufficient information to work this sort of thing out.

A separate policy question which may be considered properly in the long term, but probably won't in the short term is

Would it not be better to have a policy which is targeted on reducing deaths and serious illness rather than a policy which tries but fails to reduce infections?

I think people would generally accept that countries (apart from a small number) are failing to control the virus and it remains be seen what happens in the next winter in the Antipodes. My view is that they could find themselves currently in a position much like Slovakia was in July. However, there are some vaccines now.

Incidentally I accept that people disagree about this, but I do not think the question should just disappear.

[XFool]

A separate policy question which may be considered properly in the long term, but probably won't in the short term is

Would it not be better to have a policy which is targeted on reducing deaths and serious illness rather than a policy which tries but fails to reduce infections?

Some might think they are the same thing. Why are we wrong?

[johnhemming]

A separate policy question which may be considered properly in the long term, but probably won't in the short term is

Would it not be better to have a policy which is targeted on reducing deaths and serious illness rather than a policy which tries but fails to reduce infections?

Some might think they are the same thing. Why are we wrong?

Because "reducing deaths and serious illness" does not necessarily reducing all infections. If less effort had gone into holding back the infection amongst people unlikely to be harmed by it then there would be fewer people around now capable of infecting the vulnerable. However, to a substantial amount now there are vaccines being provided the dynamics shift anyway.

[dealtn]

A separate policy question which may be considered properly in the long term, but probably won't in the short term is

Would it not be better to have a policy which is targeted on reducing deaths and serious illness rather than a policy which tries but fails to reduce infections?

Some might think they are the same thing. Why are we wrong?

Targeting.

Having a policy which limits "interactions" and possible transmission of infection in all areas, rather than those where infection is most likely, for instance.

Of course that introduces a whole host of other problems, but the current tiering shows an attempt at doing so. Identifying areas with low infection, and even harder to do, but progressively we might see this, areas with "herd immunity" (deliberately left vague).

If an area is low in infection it is more "manageable". If an area has a higher population either "naturally immune", higher proportion vaccinated, or higher past incidence (assuming this gives protection), then the rules don't need to be as harsh, or as focussed on preventing infection, but can be targeted on reducing deaths and serious illness.

Like most problems there can be "macro" and "micro" ways of approaching things.

In practice how much "micro" could have been done is debateable, but that could change as we go forward. The categories of vaccination priority demonstrate this thinking is being put into practice, of course.

[XFool]

A separate policy question which may be considered properly in the long term, but probably won't in the short term is

Would it not be better to have a policy which is targeted on reducing deaths and serious illness rather than a policy which tries but fails to reduce infections?

Some might think they are the same thing. Why are we wrong?

Because "reducing deaths and serious illness" does not necessarily reducing all infections.

Uh? This seems back to front to me, whatever way I look at it. Surely it should be reducing infections in order to reduce "deaths and serious illness"?

If less effort had gone into holding back the infection amongst people unlikely to be harmed by it then there would be fewer people around now capable of infecting the vulnerable.

Nobody has yet seriously explained how do do this - I wonder why? The concept of two sets of people - The Vulnerable/The Invulnerable - is fine as an abstract concept from set theory, I just remain a bit sceptical as to how set theory is applied to real human beings, families, populations. Just for starters, how large is The Vulnerable set?

And, by the way, didn't Sweden try this with their Vulnerable set? I heard it had failed.

However, to a substantial amount now there are vaccines being provided the dynamics shift anyway.

This was always (hopefully) the long term strategy.

[johnhemming]

Nobody has yet seriously explained how do do this - I wonder why? The concept of two sets of people - The Vulnerable/The Invulnerable - is fine as an abstract concept from set theory, I just remain a bit sceptical as to how set theory is applied to real human beings, families, populations. Just for starters, how large is The Vulnerable set?

And, by the way, didn't Sweden try this with their Vulnerable set? I heard it had failed.

I went through this before. I think Sweden accepted they did not do a good job with care homes.

I think the seasonal wave has finished in Sweden.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experienc ... ge/page_0/

They are gradually going down the league table of deaths per 1 million people as other countries continue their seasonal wave.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

[XFool]

Nobody has yet seriously explained how do do this - I wonder why? The concept of two sets of people - The Vulnerable/The Invulnerable - is fine as an abstract concept from set theory, I just remain a bit sceptical as to how set theory is applied to real human beings, families, populations. Just for starters, how large is The Vulnerable set?

And, by the way, didn't Sweden try this with their Vulnerable set? I heard it had failed.

I went through this before. I think Sweden accepted they did not do a good job with care homes.

And they 'locked up' their elderly until they found, unsurprisingly, that mental health problems became a real problem and they had to 'set them free'.

How can it be that the elderly and "vulnerable" can be "protected", i.e. locked up indefinitely without problem, whereas a definite and known few weeks lockdown is all just too much to bear for the strong and healthy?

[dealtn]

Nobody has yet seriously explained how do do this - I wonder why? The concept of two sets of people - The Vulnerable/The Invulnerable - is fine as an abstract concept from set theory, I just remain a bit sceptical as to how set theory is applied to real human beings, families, populations. Just for starters, how large is The Vulnerable set?

And, by the way, didn't Sweden try this with their Vulnerable set? I heard it had failed.

I went through this before. I think Sweden accepted they did not do a good job with care homes.

And they 'locked up' their elderly until they found, unsurprisingly, that mental health problems became a real problem and they had to 'set them free'.

How can it be that the elderly and "vulnerable" can be "protected", i.e. locked up indefinitely without problem, whereas a definite and known few weeks lockdown is all just too much to bear for the strong and healthy?

How do we know it will be "a definite and known few weeks"? Didn't we try that once? Even then it resulted in a lot of negatives too.

It might be preferable, inevitable even, but to portray it as a simple choice with no alternative downsides isn't the case.

[XFool]

I went through this before. I think Sweden accepted they did not do a good job with care homes.

And they 'locked up' their elderly until they found, unsurprisingly, that mental health problems became a real problem and they had to 'set them free'.

How can it be that the elderly and "vulnerable" can be "protected", i.e. locked up indefinitely without problem, whereas a definite and known few weeks lockdown is all just too much to bear for the strong and healthy?

How do we know it will be "a definite and known few weeks"? Didn't we try that once? Even then it resulted in a lot of negatives too.

Because it is, and was and would be. "Protecting the vulnerable", while the 'invulnerable' continue with normal life, is what implies an indefinite sentence for the vulnerable. That was my point. (Amongst others)

[johnhemming]

whereas a definite and known few weeks lockdown is all just too much to bear for the strong and healthy?

What we are currently doing is not controlling the virus, but at best spreading out the process of infection which hence makes the whole process much longer in terms of the constraints on the move vulnerable members of society as well as those who are not.

The November Lockdown probably delayed slightly the kicking off of the seasonal wave in the South/East although it started going during the lockdown.

If you look at
East London:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... on%20Trust

Frimley:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... on%20Trust

Salisbury:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... on%20Trust

Maidstone: (here the seasonal wave started at the start of lockdown)
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... HS%20Trust

The impression I get from Maidstone is that there was little Covid active there until November.

[dealtn]

And they 'locked up' their elderly until they found, unsurprisingly, that mental health problems became a real problem and they had to 'set them free'.

How can it be that the elderly and "vulnerable" can be "protected", i.e. locked up indefinitely without problem, whereas a definite and known few weeks lockdown is all just too much to bear for the strong and healthy?

How do we know it will be "a definite and known few weeks"? Didn't we try that once? Even then it resulted in a lot of negatives too.

Because it is, and was and would be. "Protecting the vulnerable", while the 'invulnerable' continue with normal life, is what implies an indefinite sentence for the vulnerable. That was my point. (Amongst others)

I get your point, but you alternative wasn't "it is, and was and would be" last time, and had (other) negatives to the "invulnerables". Expecting that "easy" solution to be repeated, even if it is your, and others, preference isn't realistic. At least as we currently stand.

[Itsallaguess]

What we are currently doing is not controlling the virus, but at best spreading out the process of infection which hence makes the whole process much longer in terms of the constraints on the move vulnerable members of society as well as those who are not.

It's called flattening the curve...

Which is precisely what you'd expect them to do when we're talking about enhanced seasonal infection rates...

You're forgetting that the heavy seasonal influence is time-limited, and on top of that we're rolling out two vaccines at pace...

Opening up and allowing unnecessary spikes right now, especially where hospitals throughout the land are coming under more and more pressure at this current time, is absolutely the worst thing to suggest for all those reasons...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Newroad]

Afternoon All.

Looks like flattening is not working, or not working enough, anymore

From the NHS via the Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/01/nhs-staff-face-burnout-covid-hospital-admissions-rise the graph in middle shows Covid-19 related hospital admissions are c20% above the April peak, with the seven day rolling average still rising.

Some further data in this link (from Scotland): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/01/healthcare-workers-covid-conspiracies-coronavirus-deniers where the average age of ICU patients is now 61 - with anecdotal reports of routine presentation of people in their 30's and 40's also.

Regards, Newroad

[Mike4]

Afternoon All.

Looks like flattening is not working, or not working enough, anymore

From the NHS via the Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/01/nhs-staff-face-burnout-covid-hospital-admissions-rise the graph in middle shows Covid-19 related hospital admissions are c20% above the April peak, with the seven day rolling average still rising.

Some further data in this link (from Scotland): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/01/healthcare-workers-covid-conspiracies-coronavirus-deniers where the average age of ICU patients is now 61 - with anecdotal reports of routine presentation of people in their 30's and 40's also.

Regards, Newroad

This seems consistent with the observations of the ICU doctor whose "blood on their hands" radio interview yesterday morning got such a widespread airing. Sadly much of his message got overlooked such was the outrage about his blood on hands comment. One of the other things he said was the typical age profile of a COVID patient had changed markedly and most of the COVID patients being admitted now were younger than him, and he was 56 (IIRC).

Sometimes he said, they (meaning the ICU) were losing members of every generation of a family i.e. a child, a parent and grandparent.

[seekingbalance]

My cousin, aged 30, thin, super fit, mother of a one year old, died within a week of contracting covid, a day after being sent home after first admission to hospital. All the rest of her close and (seemingly too close) wider family contracted it too (despite generally very rigid adherence to the rules), three have been to hospital and fortunately have pulled through. All are in Kent.

As I am now saying to everyone and anyone who persists with the BS that this is an old person's problem and "they would have died soon anyway" - Do you feel lucky?

Keeping schools closed, keeping restrictions in place while vaccines are rolled out, and vigorously enforcing rule breaking is the only way we are going to get through this without a lot of senseless loss of life and massive problems in the NHS. You simply cannot trust the great British public enough to do it any other way - evidenced by the photos we see every day of "revellers" out for a final drink before lockdowns in their area.

SB

[look]

comparing UK and India

in India, i calculate 110 deaths per million inhabitants.
in UK i calculate 1112 deaths per million inhabitant

if you don1t believe, you read it right... 10 times more deaths per miliion inhabitants in UK!

the numbers i used for calculation:

UK 66650 million inhabitants (year 2019), 74125 deaths
India 1353 million inhabitants (year2018), 146994 deaths


perhaps the zoverdo is causing part of that big difference.

[dealtn]

comparing UK and India

in India, i calculate 110 deaths per million inhabitants.
in UK i calculate 1112 deaths per million inhabitant

if you don1t believe, you read it right... 10 times more deaths per miliion inhabitants in UK!

the numbers i used for calculation:

UK 66650 million inhabitants (year 2019), 74125 deaths
India 1353 million inhabitants (year2018), 146994 deaths


perhaps the zoverdo is causing part of that big difference.

I know what I read.

Now can you define what is the measurement of a Covid death is in the UK and India please, and confirm they are the same definition? If not can you provide the same numbers on an "excess deaths" basis please?

Once that has been done we can move on to see if we can find a reason for the disparity, which may or may not include "zoverdo".