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

[brad465]

Not least because Bracknell, Ipswich, and London all have northern levels of infection despite being distinctly southern!

Yes I forgot to point out they're outliers in the overall lower infection levels estimated in the south. If the rates of infection estimated in the darkest crimson shade were translated into positive tests, going by the thresholds local lockdowns/tighter restrictions have been introduced, they'd be being introducing the toughest levels currently to almost the whole country (of course this does now apply to almost all of northern England).

 

[Freightmaster]

As for the infection graph - interesting reading. I wonder how good they are at distingushing Covid symptoms from other things that are likely to spread at this time of year...and with schools back.

Interestingly, Professor Carl Heneghan was speaking about that (among many other things) at this Commons committee meeting earlier today:

Coronavirus testing and contact tracing - Committees - UK Parliament

<p>On Thursday 17 September, the Science and Technology Committee is to revisit its scrutiny of coronavirus testing and contact tracing as part its inquiry into <a...

committees.parliament.uk

Parliamentlive.tv

Science and Technology Committee

parliamentlive.tv

Some of the points he made:

• we need to be mindful that we are operating against a back-drop of what normally happens in September, anyway;
• September always sees a marked increase in [non-CV19] acute respiratory conditions;
• current testing is seeing ~200,000 people coming forward per day;
• of these, 25% are showing no symptoms;
• of the other 150k (who do show some symptoms), 97% have some other respiratory condition;
• 3k-4k test positive for CV19;
• the apparent rise in cases is not translating to a marked rise in hospitalisations or deaths;
• Professor Henegan dismissed comment from another contributor who claimed that increases in hospitalisations and deaths follow 'several weeks' after a rise in infections (pointing out that 14 days would be the norm to see an upturn in those figures);
• it's normal behaviour for endemic viruses to circulate throughout the younger population during the summer;
• this is what we are seeing now;
• we need to be mindful not to use delaying tactics and push the virus into the winter;
• during winter, the population's immunity is reduced and vitamin D levels are lower - artificially delaying the virus now could result in more significant medical consequences during the winter months;
• the period between Sept & Dec always sees a 4 to 8 fold increase in respiratory consultations;
• it is incorrect language to use the term 'exponential increase' when the increase we are seeing currently is inline with what we normally see each year;
• if you target your tests at people with symptoms, it is inevitable you will detect more positives.

He also dismissed the widespread panic about supposed 'outbreaks' in northern towns such as Oldham and Bolton.

A summary of his comments can be found on this Twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/jadenozzz/status/1306589793506086912

Good to see someone reputable calling out the governments scandalous (mis)use of 'case' figures at last!




MARK

 

[Tom B]

It could be used to knock cases down to a level where they would be controllable by way of traditional, highly invasive contact tracing.

Yet we have seen that the government's shady contractors cannot even deal with the current "contact tracing" (which seems to be a case of a hastily trained telephonist asking who a person has been in contact with, taking phone numbers then ringing them... And if they've been to the pub, getting the scraps of paper filled in in crayon and ringing them (well, the two who filled it in right)).

 

[Domh245]

The ZOE chart scale doesn't help matters - a 4000/million range means that Milton Keynes' 1003/mil shows up the same as Wigan's 4503

 

[yorkie]

• of the other 150k (who do show some symptoms), 97% have some other respiratory condition;
• 3k-4k test positive for CV19;
• the apparent rise in cases is not translating to a marked rise in hospitalisations or deaths

And I wonder if anyone who is asymptomatic with Covid19 who is hospitalised due to some other reason counts in the Covid19 hospitalisation stats!

• we need to be mindful not to use delaying tactics and push the virus into the winter;

We are doing this! I agree we shouldn't be.

• during winter, the population's immunity is reduced and vitamin D levels are lower - artificially delaying the virus now could result in more significant medical consequences during the winter months;

Of course, we will do exactly this; people are also being encouraged to lower their Vitamin D levels by stating at home.

• the period between Sept & Dec always sees a 4 to 8 fold increase in respiratory consultations;
• it is incorrect language to use the term 'exponential increase' when the increase we are seeing currently is inline with what we normally see each year;

You can guarantee the hysterical brigade will use such terms

He also dismissed the widespread panic about supposed 'outbreaks' in northern towns such as Oldham and Bolton.

I suspect lockdown effectively came too 'early' for these places; if they'd been at a similar stage to London when we locked down, they'd not be locking down again now.

Good to see someone reputable calling out the governments scandalous (mis)use of 'case' figures at last!

It all sounds too sensible for the Government to listen to; the Government will instead listen to the authoritarian hysterical mad people.

 

[Meerkat]

- positive tests now: 3,000-4,000 a day (most of which are false positives),
so the number of true infections will be in the hundreds per day.

Have you got a link to the false positives data please?

 

[yorkie]

Have you got a link to the false positives data please?

I doubt we can ever reliably know how many people who test positive are actually infectious, though whether you count that as a false negative is perhaps a matter of semantics.

Coronavirus: Tests 'could be picking up dead virus'

Scientists say a positive coronavirus result does not guarantee that someone is infectious.

www.bbc.co.uk

Most people are infectious only for about a week, but could test positive weeks afterwards.

In contrast, antibody tests have the opposite problem; a strong antibody response is only present when people have more severe symptoms. Many people are able to fight the virus off using T-cells, which are difficult to test.

Of course, predictably, pro-lockdown people tend to be keen to downplay the possibility of people testing positive and not being infectious as well as ignoring the role of T-cells in fighting this virus.

 

[Meerkat]

Of course, predictably, pro-lockdown people tend to be keen to downplay the possibility of people testing positive and not being infectious as well as ignoring the role of T-cells in fighting this virus

Examples? And who is actually pro-lockdown?

 

[Jozhua]

And...the growth in infections depends both on immunity levels and opportunities for transmission.

So in a sense, any area where infections are level could be said to have herd immunity for the current level of restrictions (I don't know if that's how the term is generally used though).

So presumably London may have sufficient immunity to keep things on an even keel given what is currently being done to reduce transmission, but not neccesarily if it was all dropped.

Seems reasonable.

It's difficult to see why transmision in London should be any less than other cities if behaviours was an important factor - it would actually be expected to be worse given the number of people and reliance on public transport. The fact that it isn't does strongly suggest a higher level of existing immunity.

Yeah, I mean the tube is basically a superspreading machine. If you wanted to design the perfect conditions for the virus to spread, I would create a deep level tube line. Terrible ventilation, cramped space, etc...

Examples? And who is actually pro-lockdown?

You'd be surprised lol, a lot of people. There's a decent percentage who would support the government bringing in curfews...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

You'd be surprised lol, a lot of people. There's a decent percentage who would support the government bringing in curfews...

Indeed. I will try and find a link but I have seen that in more than 1 place/publicatio.

 

[Jozhua]

Indeed. I will try and find a link but I have seen that in more than 1 place/publicatio.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1303731977615486979

62% of Britons – and all ages ranges - say they would support the introduction of a curfew between 10pm and 5am as a measure to prevent a second coronavirus wave

 

[Freightmaster]

Have you got a link to the false positives data please?

As per Yorkie's reply, there is no 'data' as such, but the nature of the PCR test
means that can never be 100% reliable, and because of the way that errors are
compounded when prevalence of the virus in the population is extremely low,
as it is at the moment, even if the test is is 99% reliable that can still lead
to up to 90% false positives!

I realise that the bit in bold above sounds absolutely bonkers,
but it was explained to me by a statistician on another forum
like this:

Imagine that you test 100,000 asymptomatic people. We know from random sampling by the ONS that prevalence in the population is about 1 in 2000.
So we can expect 50 people in that 100,000 to actually have the virus and to give a true positive...

Assume the specificity of the PCR test is ~99.5%. In other words, it gives the correct result (or a false negative) 99.5% of the time,
so we can expect a false positive rate of 0.5%. Applied to the 100,000 people that means we can expect 500 false positive tests where
the person does not have the virus but the test says that they do.

Hence, 50 "real" positives and 500 "false" positives from a test of 100,000 asymptomatic people using a test with 99.5% specificity.

Or to put it another way, if you test positive there's a 500/550 chance (91% give or take) that it's a false positive and you've not actually got the virus

I had to read the above several times before it sunk in, as it's so utterly counterintuitive,
but once you 'get it', you realise that that PCR test results are a terrible basis (on their own)
for deciding where/when to introduce local restrictions/lockdowns.


Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public, including senior government figures,
seem to think the test is infallible.




MARK

 

[Bantamzen]

Further to this ZOE thinks there are around 69,687 active symptomatic cases, with the latest daily increase of 6478. It is on the up fast but still a long way off the March/April peak. They also think there is a very strong North/South divide along the classic Severn estuary to the Wash line:

Latest Daily UK COVID-19 Data: Vaccines, Cases, Trends | ZOE

COVID infection & vaccination rates in the UK today, based on public data and reports from millions of users of the ZOE Health Study app

covid.joinzoe.com

View attachment 83635

View attachment 83634

Quite honestly that heat map looks more like something drawn up when a senior civil servant is asked to highlight the parts of the country desirable to live in, the parts desirable to holiday in, and "Ooop North".....

Interestingly, Professor Carl Heneghan was speaking about that (among many other things) at this Commons committee meeting earlier today:

Coronavirus testing and contact tracing - Committees - UK Parliament

<p>On Thursday 17 September, the Science and Technology Committee is to revisit its scrutiny of coronavirus testing and contact tracing as part its inquiry into <a...

committees.parliament.uk

Parliamentlive.tv

Science and Technology Committee

parliamentlive.tv

Some of the points he made:

• we need to be mindful that we are operating against a back-drop of what normally happens in September, anyway;
• September always sees a marked increase in [non-CV19] acute respiratory conditions;
• current testing is seeing ~200,000 people coming forward per day;
• of these, 25% are showing no symptoms;
• of the other 150k (who do show some symptoms), 97% have some other respiratory condition;
• 3k-4k test positive for CV19;
• the apparent rise in cases is not translating to a marked rise in hospitalisations or deaths;
• Professor Henegan dismissed comment from another contributor who claimed that increases in hospitalisations and deaths follow 'several weeks' after a rise in infections (pointing out that 14 days would be the norm to see an upturn in those figures);
• it's normal behaviour for endemic viruses to circulate throughout the younger population during the summer;
• this is what we are seeing now;
• we need to be mindful not to use delaying tactics and push the virus into the winter;
• during winter, the population's immunity is reduced and vitamin D levels are lower - artificially delaying the virus now could result in more significant medical consequences during the winter months;
• the period between Sept & Dec always sees a 4 to 8 fold increase in respiratory consultations;
• it is incorrect language to use the term 'exponential increase' when the increase we are seeing currently is inline with what we normally see each year;
• if you target your tests at people with symptoms, it is inevitable you will detect more positives.

He also dismissed the widespread panic about supposed 'outbreaks' in northern towns such as Oldham and Bolton.

A summary of his comments can be found on this Twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/jadenozzz/status/1306589793506086912

Good to see someone reputable calling out the governments scandalous (mis)use of 'case' figures at last!




MARK

Some very good points there. I'm sure they will promptly be ignored by the government and their merry band of lockdown supporters...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet we have seen that the government's shady contractors cannot even deal with the current "contact tracing" (which seems to be a case of a hastily trained telephonist asking who a person has been in contact with, taking phone numbers then ringing them... And if they've been to the pub, getting the scraps of paper filled in in crayon and ringing them (well, the two who filled it in right)).

Indeed.

Proper invasive contact tracing is basically private investigation - you interview the person in detail, and then you go further - for instance, if you have record of them being in a supermarket you get the CCTV and see where they went and who they came close to, getting peoples' details via payment records etc if necessary, and so on. You need to find out everyone that person walked past, basically.

That type of contact tracing does stop spread. A "phone your mates" service doesn't.

 

[Meerkat]

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1303731977615486979

So the question said the curfew would prevent a second wave. Not quite the same as people being pro lockdown now based on the info they read.

 

[DB]

So the question said the curfew would prevent a second wave. Not quite the same as people being pro lockdown now based on the info they read.

And of course the question implies that a curfew would actually make a difference - for which I can see no evidence at all! If they force pubs to close, which they are also talking about, there will be few places for people to congregate anyway so a curfew would be entirely pointless.

 

[Howardh]

Well Hancock's just been on Sky News talking about a "circuit breaker". No, I haven't a clue either but it sounds like that 2 - 3 week shutcown.

Matt Hancock today admitted that a new national crackdown is on the cards as he warned infections are 'accelerating across the country' and more people will die. The Health Secretary pleaded with the public to 'come together to tackle this virus' as ministers consider imposing draconian restrictions for a fortnight in a 'circuit break' to stop the spread. The move could come as soon as next week, with pubs, restaurants and hotels facing being shut to prevent 'significant' casualties.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8745475/Lancashire-placed-Covid-curfew-TOMORROW.html
So for all of you rubbishing my " 2- 3 week lockdown" idea....it really looks like it's on the way? I don't wnat it, but would prefer it to the bits-and-pieces approach we are having now.
Won't help though, as afterwards, if numbers improve we will soon be back to the start.

 

[Huntergreed]

I see on the Jeremy Vine show this morning the debate is about whether we should have another two week national lockdown to try and get the virus under control. A mix of support and opposition. Some people saying they believe that a second lockdown is needed to keep us safe and they would support a harsher lockdown than the first one (ie everything closes, if you haven’t got enough food, tough.) It’s scary how authoritarian some people are.



I believe this would be pointless, because if we did have one it would simply delay what’s already happening and the virus would spread again when we come out. We cannot go on like this, we can’t eliminate it, the only realistic option is to let it spread. Otherwise, pending a vaccine, we’re facing these measures for quite literally decades.

 

[takno]

Well Hancock's just been on Sky News talking about a "circuit breaker". No, I haven't a clue either but it sounds like that 2 - 3 week shutcown. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8745475/Lancashire-placed-Covid-curfew-TOMORROW.html
So for all of you rubbishing my " 2- 3 week lockdown" idea....it really looks like it's on the way? I don't wnat it, but would prefer it to the bits-and-pieces approach we are having now.
Won't help though, as afterwards, if numbers improve we will soon be back to the start.

It's still a rubbish idea, even if it happens. And the fact that Matt Hancock supports it should make that obvious

 

[birchesgreen]

I think a second national lockdown is going to be a very hard sell, all the goodwill and novelty from march has long gone.

 

[trebor79]

Absolute stupidity. Ministers and their advisors should be working out how to protect and support the most vulnerable, not spend time thinking about measures which will have no long term effect.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well Hancock's just been on Sky News talking about a "circuit breaker". No, I haven't a clue either but it sounds like that 2 - 3 week shutcown. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8745475/Lancashire-placed-Covid-curfew-TOMORROW.html
So for all of you rubbishing my " 2- 3 week lockdown" idea....it really looks like it's on the way? I don't wnat it, but would prefer it to the bits-and-pieces approach we are having now.
Won't help though, as afterwards, if numbers improve we will soon be back to the start.

But we do now have someone to blame if it happens.....

 

[Howardh]

Absolute stupidity. Ministers and their advisors should be working out how to protect and support the most vulnerable, not spend time thinking about measures which will have no long term effect.

The country voted for them, the "will of the people" and all that, so they won't be turning their backs on what they voted for.

EDIT I'm hearing on thr radio that the govt. are thinking of the next lockdown over half-term (mid Oct?) so they won't be going back on their idea to open up the schools. If anyone has that in print I'll be pleased if you could link. hard to cut and paste a radio discussion!

 

[trebor79]

EDIT I'm hearing on thr radio that the govt. are thinking of the next lockdown over half-term (mid Oct?) so they won't be going back on their idea to open up the schools. If anyone has that in print I'll be pleased if you could link. hard to cut and paste a radio discussion!

Oh that's going to go down really well isn't it? I can hear the arguments now:
"So I can't take my kids to see their grandparents at half term, but it's fine for them to go back to school afterwards and mix with 30 other children all day?"

 

[takno]

Oh that's going to go down really well isn't it? I can hear the arguments now:
"So I can't take my kids to see their grandparents at half term, bit it's fine for them to go back to school afterwards and mix with 30 other children all day?"

I think it sends a clear message - get on the train and do all your visiting now

 

[Howardh]

Another lockdown will surely mean the Bank of England go into negative interest rates? So savers, especiall the retired banking on savings, be prepared to pay banks to keep your money.

 

[yorksrob]

Another lockdown will surely mean the Bank of England go into negative interest rates? So savers, especiall the retired banking on savings, be prepared to pay banks to keep your money.

The whole idea of negative interest rates are to encourage people to spend more, so I'm not sure what people are supposed to spend it on during a lockdown. Cider and online gambling presumably.

 

[Meerkat]

Oh that's going to go down really well isn't it? I can hear the arguments now:
"So I can't take my kids to see their grandparents at half term, but it's fine for them to go back to school afterwards and mix with 30 other children all day?"

People who spout nonsense like that have no right to criticise Hancock as incompetent

 

[trebor79]

People who spout nonsense like that have no right to criticise Hancock as incompetent

I agree it's a completely brain dead argument, but that is the kind of thing you see and hear being said.

 

[Meerkat]

I believe this would be pointless, because if we did have one it would simply delay what’s already happening and the virus would spread again when we come out. We cannot go on like this, we can’t eliminate it, the only realistic option is to let it spread. Otherwise, pending a vaccine, we’re facing these measures for quite literally decades.

As usual the aim would be to keep below healthcare capacity. They may well be operating off the wrong data and not need to act, but the concept is perfectly reasonabl.
Not necessarily yourself but I find it odd that the same people often allege loads of us have already been infected so we are nearing herd immunity AND that suppression will take years and years.