Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

[MrFoolish]

The rate of hospitalisations in London during the latest wave of Covid infections may have peaked, a health boss tells the BBC.

Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers, says in London - the first region to be hit hard by Omicron - the number of hospitalisations has "dropped significantly" in the past two days.

That could mean the number of hospitalisations in the capital is now matching an earlier apparent peak in cases, he says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59857255

Can't say I'm surprised.

[Hallucigenia]

The stats on ventilators are the ones I keep my eyes on most, as admissions covers all admissions into hospital with covid, not because of covid, so is picking up people going into hospital with ingrowing toe nails and testing positive on admission. Likewise, the deaths data doesn't define people dying of Covid. However, the ventilator stats give a really good indication of the number of people requiring high levels of care, because of covid

The ventilator numbers were the ones to look at up until November, as that was the critical constraint at the time (and not enough people were concentrating on them). But it looks like it's different with omicron, the ratio of ventilation to ordinary admissions appears to be rather different, and it looks like general & acute beds will be the constraint rather than ventilation.

I'm sure the Gov have all of the finer details on deaths and admissions, and assume this is the info they use when deciding on any lockdown measures. Why they don't publish them is beyond me. I reckon its their public relations teams who aren't very good with numbers assume everyone else is the same

That won't be it. At a micro level it comes down to medical privacy - they blank areas on the national case chart when there's only 1 or 2 in a reporting area, not that it's a problem at the moment. And whilst more data is always good, there comes a point where you have to trade the work required for the benefit it allows. Yes it would be nice to know how many 26 year-olds in Stevenage have Covid showing as a sore throat but not with anosmia - but so what? Do the frontline staff who have to generate that data have better things to do at the moment?

The dashboard team do a great job of hiding the complexity of what it entails, but just getting the current data out every day at high reliability is a full-time job for several people. And whilst the dashboard rightly concentrates on presenting the most important details, there's a lot of information that's available in the data for download. For instance, it populates this site which focuses on trends in different age groups - omicron is not going well for babies and toddlers at the moment :

https://ilpandacentrostudio.it/uk.html

[Hallucigenia]

I don't think they've ever been clear about the reasons for admissions. Maybe it's buried in the stats somewhere, but they certainly don't emphasise it.

I find it most curious the BBC are not trawling the covid wards, dressed like a Salisbury decontamination team, showing us pictures of distressed patients and staff. They did it for the first wave but not now. Answers on a postcard please.

They've been very open about the incidental thing, seems to be running at around 30% of admissions - but you can't just ignore it. Even if they're in for a broken leg they still need to be isolated from other patients - and you really don't want eg a cancer patient on chemotherapy to get incidental Covid.

The fact that there's 800+ Covid patients on ventilation means there's no shortage of opportunities for the media to do crisis porn if they want to, but a) once you've seen it once you've seen it a thousand times and b) media visits are very disruptive to hospitals when they are already stretched thing, it's just not helpful.

[1nvest]

2020, the first year of Covid, when a vaccine wasn't available until mid December 2020, and comparing ONS data UK deaths to 1990 through 2003 years ...


and 2020 had the lowest number across all of those years.

[doolally]

2020, the first year of Covid, when a vaccine wasn't available until mid December 2020, and comparing ONS data UK deaths to 1990 through 2003 years ...


and 2020 had the lowest number across all of those years.

Are you hiding anything by missing out the years between 2003 and 2020?
doolally
edit... I also note the ONS state "please note, 2020 data is still provisional"

[Julian]

2020, the first year of Covid, when a vaccine wasn't available until mid December 2020, and comparing ONS data UK deaths to 1990 through 2003 years ...


and 2020 had the lowest number across all of those years.

Are you hiding anything by missing out the years between 2003 and 2020?
doolally
edit... I also note the ONS state "please note, 2020 data is still provisional"

Unbelievable! Good spot doolally. Yes, he's hiding all the years where the death rates were lower than the provisional 2020 figures, in fact in all the omitted years they were below 1,000 per 100,000 but that wouldn't have made his table look so good.

Since 1invest seems to hate quoting data sources here is the link to the raw data...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... 1990to2020

- Julian

[dealtn]

Since 1invest seems to hate quoting data sources here is the link to the raw data...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... 1990to2020

- Julian

That's a pretty impressive 36% improvement in Age Standardised Mortality Rate for the UK in 30 years. A great trend. It's not always obvious the advances in not just standard of living, but length of that living, that have occurred in the space of pretty much a single generation.

[jfgw]

Unbelievable! Good spot doolally. Yes, he's hiding all the years where the death rates were lower than the provisional 2020 figures, in fact in all the omitted years they were below 1,000 per 100,000 but that wouldn't have made his table look so good.

That depends upon the intended suggestion.

The data, as presented, superficially support the notion that the mitigation measures (lockdowns, mask mandates, etc.) were so effective that the reduction in non-Covid deaths (e.g., from other transmissible diseases such as flu) outweighed the additional deaths due to Covid and collateral effects (such as a reduced availability of NHS resources for non-Covid patients). In other words, the data suggest that Covid, plus the measures put in place to control it, had the net effect of saving lives.

The missing data scupper this idea.


Julian F. G. W.

[Hallucigenia]

The Mortality Monitor from the Institute of Actuaries is what you want for excess deaths - it's a non-trivial problem :

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/learn-and- ... ty-monitor

[Julian]

Unbelievable! Good spot doolally. Yes, he's hiding all the years where the death rates were lower than the provisional 2020 figures, in fact in all the omitted years they were below 1,000 per 100,000 but that wouldn't have made his table look so good.

That depends upon the intended suggestion.

The data, as presented, superficially support the notion that the mitigation measures (lockdowns, mask mandates, etc.) were so effective that the reduction in non-Covid deaths (e.g., from other transmissible diseases such as flu) outweighed the additional deaths due to Covid and collateral effects (such as a reduced availability of NHS resources for non-Covid patients). In other words, the data suggest that Covid, plus the measures put in place to control it, had the net effect of saving lives.

The missing data scupper this idea.


Julian F. G. W.

I confess that I made a personal guess at the point that 1invest was intending to make based on my perception that his previous posts have tended towards downplaying Covid-19 (I accept that is just my perception and hence might be a misinterpretation). Your alternative interpretation of intent is totally valid though and is one that hadn't even occurred to me; yet another illustration of why I really like these forums.

- Julian

[XFool]

2020, the first year of Covid, when a vaccine wasn't available until mid December 2020, and comparing ONS data UK deaths to 1990 through 2003 years ...


and 2020 had the lowest number across all of those years.

No agenda here. Nothing to see here!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsintheukfrom1990to2020


and 2020 had the highest number across all of those years.

[servodude]

The Mortality Monitor from the Institute of Actuaries is what you want for excess deaths

Not if the you in question were a tendentious miscreant
- in that case they probably just want big stinky lies to spam with

-sd

[1nvest]

2020, the first year of Covid, when a vaccine wasn't available until mid December 2020, and comparing ONS data UK deaths to 1990 through 2003 years ...


and 2020 had the lowest number across all of those years.

Yes. Or ranked 15th of 31 across all years since 1990, near middle/average.

[1nvest]

The data, as presented, superficially support the notion that the mitigation measures (lockdowns, mask mandates, etc.) were so effective that the reduction in non-Covid deaths (e.g., from other transmissible diseases such as flu) outweighed the additional deaths due to Covid and collateral effects (such as a reduced availability of NHS resources for non-Covid patients). In other words, the data suggest that Covid, plus the measures put in place to control it, had the net effect of saving lives.

What lockdown? As I recall it was only selected individuals that were paid £2.5K/month to stay at home. Yes roads were pleasantly less congested, but far from empty. Home supply/delivery was very poor to say the least, families had to go out/about for groceries/medication ..etc. The government even promoted Covid being deployed into care homes, many of which had no supplies of PPE.

Magnify a human hair to the size of a old oak tree and the virus is about the size of a grain of rice next to that, masks are about as useful as trying to swat a fly with a tennis racket void of any strings.

[XFool]

2020, the first year of Covid, when a vaccine wasn't available until mid December 2020, and comparing ONS data UK deaths to 1990 through 2003 years ...


and 2020 had the lowest number across all of those years.

Yes. Or ranked 15th of 31 across all years since 1990, near middle/average.

Like to do a table of differentials? Year on year changes.

[XFool]

Magnify a human hair to the size of a old oak tree and the virus is about the size of a grain of rice next to that, masks are about as useful as trying to swat a fly with a tennis racket void of any strings.

You are now claiming viruses always 'fly' solo? What next?

[1nvest]

Many hereabouts clearly think the government did a good/great job at lockdowns/controls/management. I beg to disagree and am just grateful that it has been relatively mild. As I see it their main plan was for councils to establish tented temporary morgues across the country that thankfully were never called upon.

Next time, given a far deadlier pandemic, a real 3+ sigma, maybe 90,000+ out of every 100,000 !!!

[XFool]

Many hereabouts clearly think the government did a good/great job at lockdowns/controls/management. I beg to disagree and am just grateful that it has been relatively mild. As I see it their main plan was for councils to establish tented temporary morgues across the country that thankfully were never called upon.

Next time, given a far deadlier pandemic, a real 3+ sigma, maybe 90,000+ out of every 100,000 !!!

I'm finding your posts on this matter confusingly contradictory. On the one hand you seem to want to minimise the effects of the pandemic, rubbish the precautions and criticise the government's actions. Then you warn us how serious things could be in a future pandemic.

[1nvest]

Many hereabouts clearly think the government did a good/great job at lockdowns/controls/management. I beg to disagree and am just grateful that it has been relatively mild. As I see it their main plan was for councils to establish tented temporary morgues across the country that thankfully were never called upon.

Next time, given a far deadlier pandemic, a real 3+ sigma, maybe 90,000+ out of every 100,000 !!!

I'm finding your posts on this matter confusingly contradictory. On the one hand you seem to want to minimise the effects of the pandemic, rubbish the precautions and criticise the government's actions. Then you warn us how serious things could be in a future pandemic.

Simply : the government actions at managing a pandemic have been clearly rubbish, and that we're fortunate that the trial run of a real (far deadlier) pandemic have highlighted such incompetence.

It's parliaments job to plan for such events in advance, not manage crises on a make it up as we go basis. Consider high rise homes for instance, a simple regulation of having zip wire escape routes or mandatory skysavers (backpacks with wires that lower you down) in each such home above level three/whatever seems all to obvious to most, but seemingly not to MP's who I guess are just in Parliament more often as a second job for their own interests.

[1nvest]

Covid is really really small, yet N95 masks afford reasonable protection against such



Given the risks of similar small viruses that might be far deadlier, seems only reasonable that the UK should have the capacity to roll out large numbers of such masks along with other PPE independently. £25M might suffice, however I suspect MP's would rather vote to award themselves a 10% pay increase instead.