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
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

#370076

Postby jfgw » December 27th, 2020, 12:19 pm

Moderator Message:
Here is the place to post your numbers and stats heavy posts. Your starter for 10 is the link to John Hemming's Hospital numbers below

Here is the link,

https://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2020/1 ... -data.html

Julian F. G. W.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370586

Postby johnhemming » December 28th, 2020, 7:44 pm

I was surprised, but the figures have been released for hospital admissions up to Boxing day. Going back from 26/12 for England 2298, 1925, 1795, 1980, 2203.

Although most of the growth was in London London has still not hit the peak admissions from the first wave. The peak percentages are:
England 74, East 133, London 69, Midlands 56, North East 92, North West 71, South East 119, South West 112.

As you can see the second wave peak is higher than the first wave in some regions. The overall peak, however, is still at 3/4 of the first wave. However, because this wave is drawn out we will if we have not already seen it, see more people in hospital at any one time.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370596

Postby redsturgeon » December 28th, 2020, 8:18 pm

johnhemming wrote:I was surprised, but the figures have been released for hospital admissions up to Boxing day. Going back from 26/12 for England 2298, 1925, 1795, 1980, 2203.

Although most of the growth was in London London has still not hit the peak admissions from the first wave. The peak percentages are:
England 74, East 133, London 69, Midlands 56, North East 92, North West 71, South East 119, South West 112.

As you can see the second wave peak is higher than the first wave in some regions. The overall peak, however, is still at 3/4 of the first wave. However, because this wave is drawn out we will if we have not already seen it, see more people in hospital at any one time.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... irus-cases

The latest figures showed 21,286 people in hospital with Covid-19 as of 22 December. The first wave peak was 21,683 people in hospital on 12 April.



John

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370599

Postby johnhemming » December 28th, 2020, 8:30 pm

What has happened with this seasonal wave is that it started in the north. It then went south and was calming down, but something happened around November to kick it off again.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370657

Postby tjh290633 » December 28th, 2020, 11:20 pm

No doubt the relaxation over Christmas will be blamed for the surge, but presumably anyone displaying symptoms will have contracted the disease 5 days beforehand, and it is not yet December 30th.

Was it the sudden imposition of Tier 4 that led to it? That is the obvious inference.

TJH

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370662

Postby servodude » December 28th, 2020, 11:45 pm

tjh290633 wrote:presumably anyone displaying symptoms will have contracted the disease 5 days beforehand


Range typically given is 1 to 14 days incubation with the median being 4.9-7
- sd

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370918

Postby johnhemming » December 29th, 2020, 6:24 pm

There has been quite a big jump in hospital admissions mainly in the East and South East from 2298 to 2572. To what extent this relates to timing and Christmas is unclear or indeed whether people spending more time at home is part of the additional severity and/or quantity of infection is unclear.

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

#370920

Postby Bouleversee » December 29th, 2020, 6:26 pm

#370912Postby Bouleversee » December 29th, 2020, 6:19 pm
Just heard on the news that another 53,135 new cases and another 414 deaths have been confirmed today. No doubt there will have been many more which have not been reported, tested or confirmed. Although fewer are dying now they still require prolonged care so the hospital situation is getting close to collapse. Apparently the Nightingale hospitals are being stripped of their equipment as there are not sufficient staff to serve them so Covid patients are being accommodated in hospital wards which would normally be used for other patients rather than ICUs. All very alarming, especially as the incubation period for cases acquired over Christmas is not yet over so some will not yet be included and we still have New Year's Eve to cope with.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370927

Postby johnhemming » December 29th, 2020, 6:33 pm

Bouleversee wrote:Although fewer are dying now

Remember that scotias figures would indicate 26.5% of the admissions dying one would expect the deaths to increase.

I really don't think the evidence is that the government models are well informed.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3793 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370930

Postby Mike4 » December 29th, 2020, 6:44 pm

Bouleversee wrote:#370912Postby Bouleversee » December 29th, 2020, 6:19 pm
Just heard on the news that another 53,135 new cases and another 414 deaths have been confirmed today.


Yes deeply shocking that yesterday the figure was 41,000 or so IIRC, and an increase of 11,000(ish) in one day is simply astounding.

Being of fundamentally cheerful disposition, I'm gonna forecast the Christmas and New Year bulge in infections when it arrives, will not breach 100,000 new infections per day.

I'm seriously worried for the NHS once the New Year's Eve 'celebrations' are rolled in. As usual, our government is steering the situation by watching the rear view mirror and sitting on its hands instead of looking forwards and proactively heading off impending disaster. This is not meant as a political point-score, more an observation of what is happening. We must prepare for the worst. I'm on the brink of stopping all household boiler repair visits as I think the situation is deteriorating exponentially. (Is that a thing?)

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

#370936

Postby Bouleversee » December 29th, 2020, 6:58 pm

johnhemming wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:Although fewer are dying now

Remember that scotias figures would indicate 26.5% of the admissions dying one would expect the deaths to increase.

I really don't think the evidence is that the government models are well informed.


As at what date? The situation is changing all the time and I am discussing statistics rather than models. The medics got better at treating patients after a while so the death rate went down but now we have a variant which is, we are told, more transmissible but I don't think has been around long enough to establish what its mortality risk is. The medics I have heard tend to think it unlikely that it will be any different but time will tell.

The lad who used to help me in the garden, now back from Uni, has done some leaf gathering for me today and told me that a family friend aged 45, a builder with no other health issues, has died of Covid recently but I don't know which strain that was, and the number of people with long-term consequences, which includes a lot of quite young people, is increasing all the time (part of the reason for shortage of NHS staff) so don't kid yourselves that only the dispensable oldies are likely to pop their clogs.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370938

Postby johnhemming » December 29th, 2020, 7:12 pm

Bouleversee wrote:As at what date?

Any date really. (in 2020)

The first lockdown was unnecessary and was held for too long. That has resulted in more people dying from Covid-19 because they did not catch the disease when it was in its milder summer form and have caught it later in the year.

It appears that the second lockdown has kicked off the virus again. It was calming down before the second lockdown and has now picked up.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370946

Postby XFool » December 29th, 2020, 7:33 pm

johnhemming wrote:The first lockdown was unnecessary and was held for too long. That has resulted in more people dying from Covid-19 because they did not catch the disease when it was in its milder summer form and have caught it later in the year.

Still don't believe there was a "milder summer form" (virus or illness?).

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

#370962

Postby Bouleversee » December 29th, 2020, 8:16 pm

XFool wrote:
johnhemming wrote:The first lockdown was unnecessary and was held for too long. That has resulted in more people dying from Covid-19 because they did not catch the disease when it was in its milder summer form and have caught it later in the year.

Still don't believe there was a "milder summer form" (virus or illness?).


Nor do I. I believe (and so do the experts) that the virus survives and spreads better in colder weather but that doesn't mean it affects people more acutely, just that they are more likely to be infected, and now we have a more infectious variant which will survive and spread more because of the cold weather and that is why we are getting more cases and the only way to control this is to avoid contact with others whenever possible. The indisputable fact is that whereas the medics didn't know how to treat patients initially, they learned as they went along what worked and what didn't and adapted their treatment accordingly. I haven't heard that we are now getting more deaths pro rata to cases than we did earlier in the year. Where is the evidence for that, JH?

What I'd like is an update on the survival dates for the virus itself. I started off by reading my newspapers with rubber gloves on and isolating any groceries delivered for long enough to exceed the various survival times on surfaces quoted by the experts, but does the beast survive more on surfaces of one sort or another now the weather is much colder? I haven't seen any update about that. I'd also like to know how far aerosols can be transported and survive when blown about in the open air in colder weather and whether anyone has been infected without having any close contact with another person.

I can't agree that the first lockdown was unnecessary and was held for too long. IMO it was too little, too late and masks should have been compulsory in public from the outset but that couldn't happen because there weren't enough even for the medics and carers, let alone the public. One of the things Taiwan did was to muster supplies of masks at the outset and make people wear them, thereby avoiding a lockdown interestingly enough. The proof of the pudding .....

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370967

Postby johnhemming » December 29th, 2020, 8:43 pm

XFool wrote:Still don't believe there was a "milder summer form" (virus or illness?).

I accept that I cannot persuade you.

However, it is clear that the viral load affects the outcome. The viral load is lower in the summer (according to the figures).

QED

But if you disagree I don't mind.

Interestingly I just went for a walk and one person agreed with me and another didn't. That is a sign of a free society.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370968

Postby johnhemming » December 29th, 2020, 8:44 pm

Bouleversee wrote:IMO it was too little, too late and masks should have been compulsory in public from the outset

You now have different countries with different policies. Italy had an earlier harder lockdown. Is their outcome better or worse?

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370988

Postby servodude » December 29th, 2020, 9:28 pm

johnhemming wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:IMO it was too little, too late and masks should have been compulsory in public from the outset

You now have different countries with different policies. Italy had an earlier harder lockdown. Is their outcome better or worse?


Italian cherries in season at the moment? ;)
We seem to have moved on from there can't be a second wave because of herd immunity - to Italy is as bad?

History tells us that the economic vs health debate is nonsense so
surely the a sensible plan should have been to minimise the spread outbreak as early as possible?
so that:
- you don't run out of hospital space
- you can develop treatments and vaccines while protecting your population
- you reduce the chance of a nasty mutation

I suppose you could just let it rip and pretend that you couldn't do anything, or contrive flexible and ridiculous excuses for why (look at some of the editorials this past year!)
- eventually though you'll probably be reduced to "well they messed it up also"
- which is fine, but you still lose a lot more people than you needed to
- and there will probably still be a way to go when you get there

So I have to say I agree with Bouleversee on the too little too late

Meanwhile... I'm guessing the UK healthcare figures are taking an Xmas break?

-sd

Newroad
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1090
Joined: November 23rd, 2019, 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370991

Postby Newroad » December 29th, 2020, 9:33 pm

Hi JohnHemming.

Italy went too soft, too late - it's all relative to index case(s) - do you not recall the Italians fleeing the north once a lockdown of sorts was belatedly announced? Compare to Australia, New Zealand and many East Asian countries. Also, note the business normality in most of the successful elimination areas now - did their initially hard lockdowns lead to a worse economic outcome?

Further, any talk of a "milder" summer form is misplaced. If you have anything authoritative indicating that such a form existed, please post a link to it. Conversely, if, as it appears, you are talking typical behaviours, leading to fewer people infected and/or positing that the starting point of infection would be on average lower due to viral load, it would be useful if you used clearer language first time around. Whilst it almost certainly has some merit as an argument, it's not clear that the probable Swedish-like outcome (likely worse, considering the two nations' respective ability to observe informal societal rules) is more desirable, if at all, to the UK outcome.

For what it's worth, I judge there were two, perhaps three mistakes in the UK

    Going too soft, too late - though I can understand the misguided political imperative to wait, see and hope, and
    Appalling chop'n'change communications by the government once decision(s) were belatedly made, and (perhaps more controversially)
    That periodic hard lockdowns weren't planned, notified in advance then enforced until vaccines and/or herd immunity* were achieved (I think acting too late meant elimination was almost impractical). These would logically have been planned around school half terms and similar, e.g. a week extra either side. This would have allowed businesses to plan, e.g. not order food for restaurants that would go to waste, to plan holidays and furlough around the breaks, etc

In short, simply a poor and inconsistent approach which unfortunately got and continues to get what it deserved - I say this without any satisfaction :(

Regards, Newroad

* it's not clear whether herd immunity via infection is possible, as we don't yet know the nature of immunity conferred by previous exposure to the live virus

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#370995

Postby johnhemming » December 29th, 2020, 9:50 pm

Newroad wrote:Italy went too soft, too late

At this point I lose any enthusiasm for debate.

In the Northern Hemisphere there were lockdowns in March/April. The more effective they were the more people died in the autumn winter period.

Newroad
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1090
Joined: November 23rd, 2019, 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#371001

Postby Newroad » December 29th, 2020, 10:15 pm

Indeed, JohnHemming.

I had to rouse enthusiasm after observing your linguistic gymnastics with respect to rationalising your use of "milder", yet nevertheless, I did you the courtesy of doing so.

A clear difficulty underpinning your argument is that you can't reasonably explore the counter-factual path. The closest putative relation to it is probably Sweden, yet like the UK, Covid-19 ripped through their nursing homes. In addition to the known issues with less trained and poorly paid staff, nursing homes don't in general benefit from your hoped for seasonal effects - their residents spend considerable time together indoors, even in the summer.

Regards, Newroad


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests