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
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

#386388

Postby redsturgeon » February 13th, 2021, 1:19 pm

Mike4 wrote:
servodude wrote:
I'd be really interested to see what their criteria for relaxation is
- whether it's driven by statistics, and which, and how measured?
- or by opinion and whose?

I think it would help if they could be clear about how and why they will make the decision
- more so than choosing a date and trying to make stuff fit to it

-sd


My impression is thay have no idea, other than balancing media pressure to drop all restrictions and get back to 'normal', with hospitals being rammed with dying patients.

Once the death rate is demonstrably on a downward trajectory, I'm expecting a headlong rush to cancel all restrictions just in time for the summer reduction in infection to be attributed to the vaccination programme. Rinse and repeat next winter as I'm really not convinced vaccinating 50% of the population is gonna get us to "herd immunity".


I think herd immunity has bitten the dust now, it will be more a case of managing symptoms and keeping the vulnerable away from hospitalisation and death. Both of which I believe are reasonable objectives.

John

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6472
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 939 times
Been thanked: 2261 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386392

Postby Nimrod103 » February 13th, 2021, 1:24 pm

Mike4 wrote:
servodude wrote:
I'd be really interested to see what their criteria for relaxation is
- whether it's driven by statistics, and which, and how measured?
- or by opinion and whose?

I think it would help if they could be clear about how and why they will make the decision
- more so than choosing a date and trying to make stuff fit to it

-sd


My impression is thay have no idea, other than balancing media pressure to drop all restrictions and get back to 'normal', with hospitals being rammed with dying patients.

Once the death rate is demonstrably on a downward trajectory, I'm expecting a headlong rush to cancel all restrictions just in time for the summer reduction in infection to be attributed to the vaccination programme. Rinse and repeat next winter as I'm really not convinced vaccinating 50% of the population is gonna get us to "herd immunity".


Surely the Govt criterion on reopening the economy is that there must be no chance of a need for a further lockdown again.
Govt scientists probably have the best view on that, and I am sure the Govt will follow their majority advice.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7086
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3794 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386401

Postby Mike4 » February 13th, 2021, 1:39 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
servodude wrote:
I'd be really interested to see what their criteria for relaxation is
- whether it's driven by statistics, and which, and how measured?
- or by opinion and whose?

I think it would help if they could be clear about how and why they will make the decision
- more so than choosing a date and trying to make stuff fit to it

-sd


My impression is thay have no idea, other than balancing media pressure to drop all restrictions and get back to 'normal', with hospitals being rammed with dying patients.

Once the death rate is demonstrably on a downward trajectory, I'm expecting a headlong rush to cancel all restrictions just in time for the summer reduction in infection to be attributed to the vaccination programme. Rinse and repeat next winter as I'm really not convinced vaccinating 50% of the population is gonna get us to "herd immunity".


Surely the Govt criterion on reopening the economy is that there must be no chance of a need for a further lockdown again.
Govt scientists probably have the best view on that, and I am sure the Govt will follow their majority advice.


Why would they start now?

Edit to expand on that. The gov't has a track record of starting with scientific advice then watering it down to take account of economic and political factors. I'll be surprised no amazed, if they start applying the undiluted advice of the scientists.

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6472
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 939 times
Been thanked: 2261 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386404

Postby Nimrod103 » February 13th, 2021, 1:49 pm

Mike4 wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
My impression is thay have no idea, other than balancing media pressure to drop all restrictions and get back to 'normal', with hospitals being rammed with dying patients.

Once the death rate is demonstrably on a downward trajectory, I'm expecting a headlong rush to cancel all restrictions just in time for the summer reduction in infection to be attributed to the vaccination programme. Rinse and repeat next winter as I'm really not convinced vaccinating 50% of the population is gonna get us to "herd immunity".


Surely the Govt criterion on reopening the economy is that there must be no chance of a need for a further lockdown again.
Govt scientists probably have the best view on that, and I am sure the Govt will follow their majority advice.


Why would they start now?

Edit to expand on that. The gov't has a track record of starting with scientific advice then watering it down to take account of economic and political factors. I'll be surprised no amazed, if they start applying the undiluted advice of the scientists.


There has been a wide range of scientific advice of all kinds (not just epidemiologists) over the last year, much of it conflicting. I have always presumed that the chief medical and scientific officers and their deputies were responsible for choosing which scientists to believe, and pass that advice on to Govts. What are your examples of where the Govt has not followed those peoples' advice?

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

#386408

Postby Julian » February 13th, 2021, 1:59 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
servodude wrote:
I'd be really interested to see what their criteria for relaxation is
- whether it's driven by statistics, and which, and how measured?
- or by opinion and whose?

I think it would help if they could be clear about how and why they will make the decision
- more so than choosing a date and trying to make stuff fit to it

-sd


My impression is thay have no idea, other than balancing media pressure to drop all restrictions and get back to 'normal', with hospitals being rammed with dying patients.

Once the death rate is demonstrably on a downward trajectory, I'm expecting a headlong rush to cancel all restrictions just in time for the summer reduction in infection to be attributed to the vaccination programme. Rinse and repeat next winter as I'm really not convinced vaccinating 50% of the population is gonna get us to "herd immunity".


Surely the Govt criterion on reopening the economy is that there must be no chance of a need for a further lockdown again.
Govt scientists probably have the best view on that, and I am sure the Govt will follow their majority advice.

I agree but, after in my view a history of the Government going into lockdowns too slowly vs what many scientists were advising, I’m beginning to wonder whether Boris etc might this time err just a bit on the side of over-caution vs scientific advice on the basis that if they get it wrong this time and we end up back in lockdown towards the end of this year that would be a political atom bomb and if padding just a week or two onto deadlines and/or 5% more stringent thresholds on deaths, hospitalisations, vaccine progress or whatever metrics are used to start a countdown to the various stages of relaxation I think the Government might weigh the political calculation in favour of just a bit of extra caution.

Also, after so long in lockdown especially for those of us who were in tier 3 and above for a long time before Christmas something like tier 1, or even tier 2, plus strong mask restrictions and bans on major public gatherings still in place coupled with, I hope, nicer more outdoorsy spring/summer/autumn weather will still make the middle months of the year feel like fabulous freedom in comparison to the last 6 months or at least that’s how I will feel. This is why I’m not at all surprised to hear some chatter in the press over the last few days about mask and social distancing rules staying in place all the way through 2021. I suspect the Government weight well, for political reasons, be willing to go that slight bit further to try and reduce as much as it can the risk of the potential political suicide of another end-of-2021 national lockdown happening.

Whether the virus and its mutant offspring cooperate through mid and late 2021 is another matter of course.

- Julian

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7086
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3794 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386430

Postby Mike4 » February 13th, 2021, 3:07 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:What are your examples of where the Govt has not followed those peoples' advice?


Are you having a laugh?

As Julian already mentioned, all the lockdowns came weeks later than scientists advised. The Xmas debacle was particularly notable for the scientific advice being ignored ("cancelling Christmas would be inhuman") right up to the point it was blindingly obvious an utter disaster was unfolding for our hospitals then a screeching U turn was executed.

Plenty of other example, masks being another good one.

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6472
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 939 times
Been thanked: 2261 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386446

Postby Nimrod103 » February 13th, 2021, 4:21 pm

Mike4 wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:What are your examples of where the Govt has not followed those peoples' advice?


Are you having a laugh?

As Julian already mentioned, all the lockdowns came weeks later than scientists advised. The Xmas debacle was particularly notable for the scientific advice being ignored ("cancelling Christmas would be inhuman") right up to the point it was blindingly obvious an utter disaster was unfolding for our hospitals then a screeching U turn was executed.

Plenty of other example, masks being another good one.


I did ask for evidence. You are not quoting any.
The scientific advice came from Whitty and Vallance. I assume you must be privy to what they told ministers. I was not.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386470

Postby jfgw » February 13th, 2021, 6:01 pm

Here are this week's usual graphs including data updated today on the NHS data site. All heading in the right direction.

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/

What admissions look like since the end of March 2020,
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/

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/

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.

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386475

Postby swill453 » February 13th, 2021, 6:16 pm

jfgw wrote:What admissions look like since the end of March 2020,
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/

If only we'd kept lockdown 2 going a bit longer and cancelled Christmas, how many would still be alive today? And how much of a smaller effect would it have had on the economy?

Scott.

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386508

Postby Sorcery » February 13th, 2021, 10:06 pm

swill453 wrote:
jfgw wrote:What admissions look like since the end of March 2020,
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/

If only we'd kept lockdown 2 going a bit longer and cancelled Christmas, how many would still be alive today? And how much of a smaller effect would it have had on the economy?

Scott.


Do you ever get the feeling that historical graphs are much better at telling us what happened than current graphs?

Edited to clarify : Current graphs don't tell us as much about the future.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386528

Postby jfgw » February 13th, 2021, 11:17 pm

Sorcery wrote:Edited to clarify : Current graphs don't tell us as much about the future.


I thought most graphs were historical, just that some are more historical than others :)

If you have any ideas for graphs, I am open to suggestions, although I won't promise anything. Some take a lot longer than others to prepare.

Some of the heatmap data on the government website seem wrong at the moment (rollingRate values, and 05_09 age group in the wrong place on one of them) although the heatmaps are still beta.


Julian F. G. W.

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6472
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 939 times
Been thanked: 2261 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386532

Postby Nimrod103 » February 13th, 2021, 11:45 pm

swill453 wrote:
jfgw wrote:What admissions look like since the end of March 2020,
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/

If only we'd kept lockdown 2 going a bit longer and cancelled Christmas, how many would still be alive today? And how much of a smaller effect would it have had on the economy?

Scott.


The big peak which precipitated lockdown 3 was due to the more infectious Kent strain taking hold. As I recall this was not predicted when lockdown 2 ended, and resulted in Xmas being cancelled at short notice.
Living close to where the Kent strain had its epicentres (Sheppey and Thanet), more useful inquiry should be directed at where the strain came from and why the chance to contain it there was lost.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#386697

Postby jfgw » February 14th, 2021, 5:27 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:The big peak which precipitated lockdown 3 was due to the more infectious Kent strain taking hold.

And the second lockdown, which was from 5/11/2021 to 2/12/2021, does not appear to have suppressed it. The Kent strain (labelled "S Gene Variant" on this graph) continued to increase exponentially until about Christmas.

This graph is based upon test results at the Milton Keynes Lighthouse Lab.
Image
My graph. Based upon data derived from the graph posted 6/1/2021 here, https://twitter.com/The_Soup_Dragon .


Julian F. G. W.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387026

Postby jfgw » February 15th, 2021, 6:01 pm

I have taken the rolling rate for deaths and divided this by the rolling rate for new cases. New cases data have been timeshifted by 13 days to allow for the delay between testing positive and dying. (I am not sure if this is the correct offset but it should be close.) 00_64 data are the averaged data for the different five-year age groups without weighting for population sizes. This is accurate enough given the small numbers.

Data are for England. These data do not appear to be available for other UK nations.

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/

I plotted this to see if I could see evidence of vaccines working. A comparison between death rates of those who have been vaccinated and those who have not would be better but I do not have those data. The variation in survival rates over time, especially for older people, is of concern. Maybe weather (hence, viral load) and a strain on hospitals are relevant factors.


Julian F. G. W.

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6472
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 939 times
Been thanked: 2261 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387033

Postby Nimrod103 » February 15th, 2021, 6:32 pm

jfgw wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:The big peak which precipitated lockdown 3 was due to the more infectious Kent strain taking hold.

And the second lockdown, which was from 5/11/2021 to 2/12/2021, does not appear to have suppressed it. The Kent strain (labelled "S Gene Variant" on this graph) continued to increase exponentially until about Christmas.



I was talking to nurses at my local hospital in late November about the sudden rise in Covid cases, which seemed to be spreading out of Sheppey and Thanet. It was not public knowledge at that time that this was a new more infectious strain. Kent had been relatively unaffected by Covid up to then, and it was not clear why infections in those two areas had mushroomed.
The nurses were of the opinion that the prisons on Sheppey, and hostels on Thanet were incubating this. Indeed the strain may have entered Thanet from somewhere outside the UK.

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387200

Postby 1nvest » February 16th, 2021, 2:45 pm

Cost/Benefit

65 million man (person) years cost (imprisonment/loss of human rights)
... for the sake of 0.15% of the population

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387204

Postby swill453 » February 16th, 2021, 2:49 pm

1nvest wrote:Cost/Benefit

65 million man (person) years cost (imprisonment/loss of human rights)
... for the sake of 0.15% of the population

I guess this could get political quite quickly, but - hasn't the cost been to keep it at 0.15% of the population*, and not get much worse?

* - I haven't checked your figure.

Scott.

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

#387205

Postby dealtn » February 16th, 2021, 2:51 pm

swill453 wrote:
1nvest wrote:Cost/Benefit

65 million man (person) years cost (imprisonment/loss of human rights)
... for the sake of 0.15% of the population

I guess this could get political quite quickly, but - hasn't the cost been to keep it at 0.15% of the population*, and not get much worse?

* - I haven't checked your figure.

Scott.


Presumably that's why it's a cost/benefit analysis.

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

#387305

Postby servodude » February 16th, 2021, 9:41 pm

dealtn wrote:
swill453 wrote:
1nvest wrote:Cost/Benefit

65 million man (person) years cost (imprisonment/loss of human rights)
... for the sake of 0.15% of the population

I guess this could get political quite quickly, but - hasn't the cost been to keep it at 0.15% of the population*, and not get much worse?

* - I haven't checked your figure.

Scott.


Presumably that's why it's a cost/benefit analysis.


Presumably If one were to go down that route - those both are "costs" for that purpose?

That is, the "cost" of one's present situation would be measured in "time in restrictions", "level of restrictions", "dead people", "sequalae", "viral variants of concern", etc
- the other side of the ledger is a bit more opaque

perhaps it would be better viewed as more of a risk analysis?

- sd

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387555

Postby 1nvest » February 17th, 2021, 7:13 pm

For the 0.15%/whatever percentage of lives saved from everyone enduring extreme loss of rights its obviously a benefit for them at a considerable cost to others.

Equally extreme/restrictive laws could be instated to stop everyone driving so air quality might be improved and save 0.06% of lives, but again at considerable cost.

Restrictions have associated costs, where more lives might be destroyed/lost than the numbers being saved. Personally I am aware of a individual in their 20's who lost her life as a result of lockdown, whereas my 89 year old mother who contracted Covid whilst in hospital for a fractured hip survived through that without even a snivel. A year+ (so far) lost in isolation/lockdown for a 89 year old is a considerable cost, potentially a remaining lifetime lost to a misery of imprisonment over that of living remainder of life to the fullest.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests