Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[RomeoCharlie71]

The Sky News headline that popped up on my phone earlier was "New UK coronavirus case numbers fall for second day in a row as 5,693 positive tests confirmed"

Is this the first time Sky have decided not to make a fuss out of case numbers in the last few weeks?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Couldn't care less. In fact I believe an exponential growth in cases would be a good thing, as it would get us to the natural conclusion of this situation all the quicker, and then we can get on with living life and rebuilding some sort of functioning economy.

The problem with that is that any sign of ongoing exponential growth will result in Johnson and Whitty panicking and imposing a total lockdown for at least a month...

 

[trebor79]

The problem with that is that any sign of ongoing exponential growth will result in Johnson and Whitty panicking and imposing a total lockdown for at least a month...

Hmm there is that! Fortunately, it appears the doom mongers scary graph was, well, an invention:

Graph showing Vallance and Whitty exponential rise graph in red, overlaid with actuals in blue, showing a plateau.

And of course these barely even register against spring if figures are adjusted for the amount of testing taking place:

 

[DerekC]

Hmm there is that! Fortunately, it appears the doom mongers scary graph was, well, an invention:
View attachment 84040
Graph showing Vallance and Whitty exponential rise graph in red, overlaid with actuals in blue, showing a plateau.

And of course these barely even register against spring if figures are adjusted for the amount of testing taking place:
View attachment 84041

The "Doom Mongers" were predicting what would happen in a do-nothing situation - clearly the action taken has had some effect.

And the "adjusted for the amount of testing taking place" graph really is pure invention.

 

[takno]

The "Doom Mongers" were predicting what would happen in a do-nothing situation - clearly the action taken has had some effect.

And the "adjusted for the amount of testing taking place" graph really is pure invention.

Nothing was done long enough ago to make much difference to testing stats now. Some of last week's provisions haven't even come into force yet.

The adjusted graph isn't perfect and makes some assumptions, but is a hell of a lot more related to what's actually happening than using of the raw positive test results.

 

[trebor79]

The "Doom Mongers" were predicting what would happen in a do-nothing situation - clearly the action taken has had some effect.

And the "adjusted for the amount of testing taking place" graph really is pure invention.

It's just about now the rule of 6 might start to have an impact. It's at least a week early for the pub curfew to be doing anything (not that that is likely to be doing much).

I don't think the second graph is invention. It's widely accepted, even by the doom mongers, that daily infections in the spring were probably over 100,000. If anything that graph downplays it. All they have done is normalised the positives for the number of tests performed on that day. So if we'd been doing 200,000 tests per day throughout, those are the sorts of numbers of positives you'd expect to have seen.
Indeed infections must have been at 100k per day for a while for the 8% of us carrying antibodies that Vallance spoke about to have happened.

 

[Class 33]

The problem with that is that any sign of ongoing exponential growth will result in Johnson and Whitty panicking and imposing a total lockdown for at least a month...

Indeed. If the new cases surges on past 7,000/8,000 per day no doubt there will be yet more restrictions/measures brought in, and Whitty will probably persuade Johnson to impose a full national lockdown again!

In fact even though there has been a huge DROP of 1,181 new cases over the past 2 days which is very encouraging, from what I read somewhere Johnson is looking at bringing in yet more additional measures/restrictions this week! It's not Coronavirus that is spiralling out of control, it's all these countless new measures/restrictions/laws that Johnson keeps introducing, along with all these umpteen local lockdowns when they're not needed. This is absolutely insane.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Indeed. If the new cases surges on past 7,000/8,000 per day no doubt there will be yet more restrictions/measures brought in, and Whitty will probably persuade Johnson to impose a full national lockdown again!

In fact even though there has been a huge DROP of 1,181 new cases over the past 2 days which is very encouraging, from what I read somewhere Johnson is looking at bringing in yet more additional measures/restrictions this week! It's not Coronavirus that is spiralling out of control, it's all these countless new measures/restrictions/laws that Johnson keeps introducing, along with all these umpteen local lockdowns when they're not needed. This is absolutely insane.

I am crossing my fingers that this Graham Brady amendment, or a Labour alternative version, passes. At least then, Johnson would face some oversight and scrutiny, and he'd have to justify any new measures taken. And hopefully with reference to the actual figures, not just whatever Whitty dreams up.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed. If the new cases surges on past 7,000/8,000 per day no doubt there will be yet more restrictions/measures brought in, and Whitty will probably persuade Johnson to impose a full national lockdown again!

In fact even though there has been a huge DROP of 1,181 new cases over the past 2 days which is very encouraging, from what I read somewhere Johnson is looking at bringing in yet more additional measures/restrictions this week! It's not Coronavirus that is spiralling out of control, it's all these countless new measures/restrictions/laws that Johnson keeps introducing, along with all these umpteen local lockdowns when they're not needed. This is absolutely insane.

Alarmingly, the press seem to have ‘intel’ that further restrictions are to be introduced (Sky News reported it an hour or so ago). That generally means that they will be. Total madness. What kind of society will we be living in this time next year?

EDIT: Just to be clear, there were no specifics but Sophie Ridge talked about it as if it were likely rather than merely a possibility. It just felt very much like the familiar ‘you heard it here first’ that we’ve become accustomed to in recent weeks.

 

[Class 33]

I am crossing my fingers that this Graham Brady amendment, or a Labour alternative version, passes. At least then, Johnson would face some oversight and scrutiny, and he'd have to justify any new measures taken. And hopefully with reference to the actual figures, not just whatever Whitty dreams up.

Indeed, I've got my fingers firmly crossed too. As I expect have many many others....

Also got my fingers crossed we will see a further decrease in new cases this week. If not a day by day decrease, then at least a good decrease across the whole week.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2020 ==

Alarmingly, the press seem to have ‘intel’ that further restrictions are to be introduced (Sky News reported it an hour or so ago). That generally means that they will be. Total madness. What kind of society will we be living in this time next year?

EDIT: Just to be clear, there were no specifics but Sophie Ridge talked about it as if it were likely rather than merely a possibility. It just felt very much like the familiar ‘you heard it here first’ that we’ve become accustomed to in recent weeks.

Well let's hope these intended restrictions this week are BLOCKED by the Graham Brady(or Labour alternative version) amendment passing this week. Otherwise if there's yet more restrictons/laws brought in this week along with probably even more over the coming weeks, well this is just all getting out of control now. The likes of Johnson, Hancock, Raab, etc are completely ruining the UK and making it very unpleasant. We've had 6 months of all this now, which is enough, and they're saying this will last AT LEAST another 6 months! There will be thousands more businesses going under, millions more unemployed, there will be regular civil unrest across the UK, and the mental health of much of the nation will be seriously effected - some of whom may just not be able to take this much longer and decide life is not worth living anymore. It appears Johnson is just not too concerned about the effects all this is continuing to have on the economy and people's mental health.

2020, what a thoroughly unpleasant and depressing year this has turned out to be. And it could well be the same well into 2021.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed, I've got my fingers firmly crossed too. As I expect have many many others....

Also got my fingers crossed we will see a further decrease in new cases this week. If not a day by day decrease, then at least a good decrease across the whole week.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2020 ==




Well let's hope these intended restrictions this week are BLOCKED by the Graham Brady(or Labour alternative version) amendment passing this week. Otherwise if there's yet more restrictons/laws brought in this week along with probably even more over the coming weeks, well this is just all getting out of control now. The likes of Johnson, Hancock, Raab, etc are completely ruining the UK and making it very unpleasant. We've had 6 months of all this now, which is enough, and they're saying this will last AT LEAST another 6 months! There will be thousands more businesses going under, millions more unemployed, there will be regular civil unrest across the UK, and the mental health of much of the nation will be seriously effected - some of whom may just not be able to this much longer and decide life is not worth living anymore. It appears Johnson is just not too concerned about the effects all this is continuing to have on the economy and people's mental health.

2020, what a thoroughly unpleasant and depressing year this has turned out to be. And it could well be the same well into 2021.

Right now I’m seeing 2021 as a write-off in terms of making advances or achieving anything in life. I think it’s going to be about surviving economically and looking after my mental health (and that of my family).

 

[yorkie]

And the "adjusted for the amount of testing taking place" graph really is pure invention.

What do you think the equivalent figures would have been for April if we'd had mass testing back then?

 

[Freightmaster]

Going back to the point about the majority of test results potentially being false positives which
I made on this thread ten days ago, this video describes the issue concisely in layman's terms:

Well worth spending five minutes watching, especially if you are as sceptical as I was!






MARK

 

[trebor79]

I am crossing my fingers that this Graham Brady amendment, or a Labour alternative version, passes. At least then, Johnson would face some oversight and scrutiny, and he'd have to justify any new measures taken. And hopefully with reference to the actual figures, not just whatever Whitty dreams up.

Sadly I don't think much will actually change. A lot of MPs are even more bonkers than Boris. I suspect even if the Brady amendment or a Labour version passes, things will get nodded through. But that'll be OK because parliament will have been consulted

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you think the equivalent figures would have been for April if we'd had mass testing back then?

It's widely reckoned that cases actually peaked at about 100K/day back in March.

 

[takno]

Sadly I don't think much will actually change. A lot of MPs are even more bonkers than Boris. I suspect even if the Brady amendment or a Labour version passes, things will get nodded through. But that'll be OK because parliament will have been consulted

Actually having the conversation in the open would be valuable. Right now it seems like Hancock, and the other assorted man-children in "gold command", make them as a result of their weekly hunker in the bunker with no evidence or reason. If it's in parliament they will need some numbers which will stand up to at least a bit of scrutiny.

It also forces Labour to take a position, rather than just letting the government mess everything up and then saying that they'd have done it better. Labour did make some useful criticism of the most arbitrary and counter-productive elements of the new rules over the weekend, so I've got some hope that they are ready to start developing actual policy responses.

 

[yorkie]

It's widely reckoned that cases actually peaked at about 100K/day back in March.

Indeed as a minimum; it's unclear if @DerekC is suggesting it was much lower than that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually having the conversation in the open would be valuable. Right now it seems like Hancock, and the other assorted man-children in "gold command", make them as a result of their weekly hunker in the bunker with no evidence or reason. If it's in parliament they will need some numbers which will stand up to at least a bit of scrutiny.

Yes, the "secret squirrelling" has hacked me off all along - why not have it out in public?

 

[trebor79]

Yes, the "secret squirrelling" has hacked me off all along - why not have it out in public?

I suspect that would be counter-productive. Regardless of which side of the lockdown/social restrictions/closing parts of the economy debate you sit on, there is a balance to be made in the decisions. They will have models suggesting that policy x might lead to this outcome, policy y to that outcome and policy z to this outcome. If all that is out in the open it's very hard to build a coherent strategy that most people can buy into (not that I'm saying the government have managed to do that in any case!).
It would just lead to more acrimony with some people screaming that they are killing grannies to prop up the economy, others screaming that they are destroying the economy and killing more people to extend a few grannies lives by a few months etc.
I think they'd just fall further into the trap of trying to placate everybody all of the time, which of course doesn't work and tends to lead to worse outcomes all round.

One of the newspaper commentators put it quite succinctly over the weekend "Boris has Dom telling him what to do based upon focus groups. Rishi has a philosophy."

 

[Meerkat]

Yes, the "secret squirrelling" has hacked me off all along - why not have it out in public?

Because that would undermine the answers, by giving even more people reason to ignore them.
They would spot something not allowed that is safer than something that is allowed for economic reasons, and decide for themselves that they therefore should carry on doing the not allowed thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because that would undermine the answers, by giving even more people reason to ignore them.
They would spot something not allowed that is safer than something that is allowed for economic reasons, and decide for themselves that they therefore should carry on doing the not allowed thing.

Not enough is made of why it is as it is, though.

The principle of how most countries are doing it is that you assess the effect on R etc of a raft of different unrelated measures. Then you "a la carte" pick the ones to add up to the desired reduction in R with minimal economic damage.

If people understood that, the inconsistency is no longer an issue.

So the answer to "why can I meet my family down the pub but not at home" is quite simply twofold - one, that the economy needs to be kept going (because if it collapses, people die too), and two, that COVID secure measures can be enforced there but not realistically in your house - you simply aren't going to hug people in a pub, for instance, as things stand.

It's quite a nuanced point that is different from most other things, yet almost nobody is actually explaining it. When I make that point on FB posts saying things like that question, the answer is usually "Ah, that makes sense".

But Bozza and Hancock like treating the public like they are thick. The Cummings saga proved that (and was a turning point on compliance). He still needs to be sacked in disgrace.

 

[Yew]

So the answer to "why can I meet my family down the pub but not at home" is quite simply twofold - one, that the economy needs to be kept going (because if it collapses, people die too), and two, that COVID secure measures can be enforced there but not realistically in your house - you simply aren't going to hug people in a pub, for instance, as things stand.

Do not meet other people unless necessary in order to sell your labour to the capitalist classes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do not meet other people unless necessary in order to sell your labour to the capitalist classes.

You can choose not to sell your labour to anyone. See how long you stay in your home if you do.

This does NOT need turning into a class war.

 

[Meerkat]

Not enough is made of why it is as it is, though.

The principle of how most countries are doing it is that you assess the effect on R etc of a raft of different unrelated measures. Then you "a la carte" pick the ones to add up to the desired reduction in R with minimal economic damage.

If people understood that, the inconsistency is no longer an issue.

So the answer to "why can I meet my family down the pub but not at home" is quite simply twofold - one, that the economy needs to be kept going (because if it collapses, people die too), and two, that COVID secure measures can be enforced there but not realistically in your house - you simply aren't going to hug people in a pub, for instance, as things stand.

It's quite a nuanced point that is different from most other things, yet almost nobody is actually explaining it. When I make that point on FB posts saying things like that question, the answer is usually "Ah, that makes sense".

But Bozza and Hancock like treating the public like they are thick. The Cummings saga proved that (and was a turning point on compliance). He still needs to be sacked in disgrace.

Do you have examples of other countries showing their workings to their people?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you have examples of other countries showing their workings to their people?

I don't see why that is relevant to the question.

The only circumstances under which Government should not be transparent is matters of national security where it is provable that being transparent would directly cause e.g. a terrorist threat.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't see why that is relevant to the question.

The only circumstances under which Government should not be transparent is matters of national security where it is provable that being transparent would directly cause e.g. a terrorist threat.

I don’t think that is at all practicable, but that’s wandering off topic.
you said other countries were showing their workings - I wanted to see what that really looked like.
More detail won’t reduce protest, it will just give them more data to misuse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

you said other countries were showing their workings - I wanted to see what that really looked like.

Ah, no, I didn't intend to say that. What I said was that most countries were picking from a menu of items, not that they were making the workings public. I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[Meerkat]

Ah, no, I didn't intend to say that. What I said was that most countries were picking from a menu of items, not that they were making the workings public. I don't know the answer to that question.

So why do you think our government isn’t picking from a menu of items?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why do you think our government isn’t picking from a menu of items?

I didn't say it wasn't - I think it is.

What I want our Government to do - irrespective of what any other Government is doing - is to do that in a more transparent manner, explaining their choices.

 

[Class 33]

Here we are look. Today's new cases 4,044! A HUGE drop in cases since yesterday. That's a HUGE drop of 1,649. And a HUGE drop of 2,830 since Friday. I'm no mathematician, but to me the cases are definitely going down NOT surging! Let's see the press and media report this good news of this MASSIVE drop in cases. I bet they don't.

Deaths today 13. That's a drop of 4 from last Monday. Deaths do appear to be going down from what I can see.