In all tiny villages right up to the big cities there are police enforcing these rules.
Where's those 20,000 Police officers when we need them?
Son at an 1800 strong 6th form college. One staff member tested positive a fortnight ago, a pupil tested positive this week on a random ONS test, no symptoms. Took him a moment to come to terms with the fact that there may be asymptomatic students around him, but he's sensible everywhere else
when it clearly hasn’t in countries like Spain
Is this the “restrictions in Spain haven’t slowed the spread enough, therefore they are pointless” argument? What are you suggesting? That they should have been more lax and accepted an even faster spread, and all that would have entailed in public health terms?
I really don’t understand people arguing that we should do less, because others have done more and still have a problem with their outbreak. It makes little sense, no matter what outcome you are hoping for.
Still, our leader has some encouraging words and a world beating plan for us…
^^ I think it was more a reaction to holding Spain up as an exemplar of how to dealing with C19
The ‘point’ was a claim that we are far more lax than Spain (according to anecdotes, because as it happens I think there are strong regional differences to the response in both countries)… where as “JP” just moans about any and everything we in the UK are asked to do to try and reduce the health impact here… read all his contributions… he’s not ambiguous. He’s against the state imposing restrictions on us (fair enough), and was using Spain as reasoning against further restrictions/compliance/enforcement here… because they still have a health emergency there despite the measures they are taking.
Oops they did it again
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1312790420120899585?s=19
Oops they did it again
This was made quite clear in yesterday's statistics so nothing unexpected, should anyone actually ready things carefully (i.e. the pointless Twitter post).
Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.
Hospital admissions are what matters. Those are recorded every night and reported to NHSE. Deaths have about a three day lag for accurate collation. Gold standard ONS all-cause deaths are about 10 days behind. We probably have no idea the stresses the people who’s job it is to collate these numbers are under. It’s easy to throw a few twitter rocks. But I haven’t seen overwhelming praise for our all-encompassing NHS integrated IT system that make all of this so simple. It isn’t.
Ooh 22k
Level 3 lockdown all round?
Depends where they were
I believe these had already been fed into Track & Trace? but I suppose for local lockdowns that info might not have got through?
Admissions rising slowly it seems
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare
Well… the testing is such a mess now that it isn’t really a useful tool for working out where we are short term. And the ONS survey is weak when it comes to local outbreaks. And hospital admissions aren’t a useful guide if outbreaks are currently primarily amongst people young enough to be unlikely to admitted to hospital. So all we really know is we don’t have a good picture of where we are after the past week at all. Could be that the rate of increase is decreasing, and current measures are working to some degree… or it could be that it’s increasing faster, but we can’t see that. Reminds me of the week before the spring “lockdown”. Glad I’m not in government. Especially not with a team around me who have been picked for their blind faith rather than their reasoning.
Anyway… what promotion will Dido Harding get this time?
Again, it might be worthwhile digesting the information before an all-out panic.
An issue was identified overnight on Friday 2 October in the automated process that transfers positive cases data to PHE. It has now been resolved.
The cases by publish date for 3 and 4 October include 15,841 additional cases with specimen dates between 25 September and 2 October — they are therefore artificially high for England and the UK.
GlennQuagmire
Free Member
Again, it might be worthwhile digesting the information before an all-out panic.
its not panic, were all resigned to it now, its the kind of incompetence weve come to expect from the government
But it is doing damage, it damages the public's trust in what the government tells us, it feeds in to the growing number of conspiracy nuts who think the entire thing is a hoax
Johnson has blown so much trust & good faith already, all this makes the next ask that much harder
They also weren’t fed into our ‘world beating’ track/trace/isolate system… so it’s not just a reporting error… it will have been preventing our systems from acting to reduce transmission.
They also weren’t fed into our ‘world beating’ track/trace/isolate system… so it’s not just a reporting error… it will have been preventing our systems from acting to reduce trans
I thought Johnson said that it hadnt effected T & T ?
edit he said this, which isnt quite that
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/fbc1367a-a614-3743-8a8a-87afc9d194de“All the people who had a positive test have now been notified and I think the data that we have is realistic, and again it’s very useful in helping us to identify you know where the incidence is and what we need to do to tackle it.”
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases
So, help me understand this then.
Looking at cases by *specimen date* it seems to have stopped rising around the 23rd.
The cases by date reported are the ones that have the big jumps everyone is getting excited about, but that's surely much less interesting? As TiRed noted, collating these numbers is likely a lot harder than it looks.
From a very casual glance - Scotland seems to have double the case rate of England.
The doubling time for hospital admissions appears to be (very very roughly) about 3 weeks? But actually it's also levelling off.
Deaths is about 30 a day (E&W) and hasn't really changed much.
Going a long way out on a limb - that Imperial College survey was saying about 1/200 people were infected around the 18th to 26th September, so about 300k people in England and Wales. So very roughly, does that give an IFR of about 0.1% ?
Getting the age distribution of those tests would be quite interesting - the ONS report that data I think, something to look forward to.
Looking at cases by *specimen date* it seems to have stopped rising around the 23rd.
The cases by date reported are the ones that have the big jumps everyone is getting excited about, but that’s surely much less interesting?
theyve said that there are more to be added in, over the coming days, not sure how many though
also how does it stop rising around 23rd?
also
From a very casual glance – Scotland seems to have double the case rate of England.
?
england has 10x the population of scotland and a bit more than 10x the cases per day?
edit he said this, which isnt quite that
Indeed. Those tested positive were informed, but the data didn’t go into test and trace.
Going a long way out on a limb
You always do. Your 0.1% is, coincidently, the same figure that keeps coming up in blatant disinformation ‘news’ pieces. It would be comforting if it were true.
You always do. Your 0.1% is, coincidently, the same figure that keeps coming up in blatant disinformation ‘news’ pieces. It would be comforting if it was true.
About 300k people infected over that period of about 10 days. About 30 deaths/day - so 0.1%.
Please come up with a better estimate.
I’m not climbing out on your limb, you can dangle out there by yourself.
From a very casual glance – Scotland seems to have double the case rate of England.
England - 3706 cases, pop 56M, 66 cases/1M
Scotland - 687 cases, pop 5.5M, 124 cases/1M
That’s numberwang!
About 300k people infected over that period of about 10 days. About 30 deaths/day – so 0.1%.
Please come up with a better estimate.
whats the lag time between positive test & death? 2-3 weeks?
so you want to be looking at deaths in the next weeks, not those at the time
its about 45 a day at the moment, & treatment is now much better as well
Youve also got to consider age range, a large chunk of those infected will have been students, more so in Scotland as they went back earlier, so that would bring fatality rate down by quite a bit
and cases were brought back into UK by younger skiiers & travellers in Feb/March, took a few weeks to cross over into OAPs & cause many more deaths
Kelvin - what I’m arguing is that many measures put in place in Spain clearly don’t work. Suggesting that we should follow them as some sort of exemplar of good practice is absurd.
As I’ve said before, many measures are based on studies that are clearly flawed (post hoc fallacies, cherry picking, etc), then, when a country like Spain clearly shows that certain measures aren’t working, it gets explained away with ‘oh - it would have been worse if we hadn’t done that’ with zero supporting evidence for that claim.
JP
England – 3706 cases, pop 56M, 66 cases/1M
Scotland – 687 cases, pop 5.5M, 124 cases/1M
what date was that on?
‘oh – it would have been worse if we hadn’t done that’
Exactly that. Let me guess… all that work preparing computer systems for 21st century dates was a waste of time, yeah?
what date was that on?
You’d be better off not bothering Kimbers.
kimbers
Full MemberEngland – 3706 cases, pop 56M, 66 cases/1M
Scotland – 687 cases, pop 5.5M, 124 cases/1Mwhat date was that on?
That's from the 1st October. So the final number for that day may well go up over the next few days.
That’s numberwang
[ 8,527 vs 712 … may well go up further yet ]
kelvin
Full MemberThat’s numberwang
[ 8,527 vs 712 ]
Just copying from the handy spreadsheet of cases by specimen date you can download:
nation Scotland S92000003 2020-10-01 687 31231
nation England E92000001 2020-10-01 3706 409496
nation Northern Ireland N92000002 2020-10-01 404 12886
nation Wales 92000004 2020-10-01 127 25418
Im just curious, am I reading the data wrong?
cases by specemin date says this
Date Eng Scotland
01/10/2020 8,527 712
30/09/2020 9,466 784
29/09/2020 8,446 657
28/09/2020 8,462 626
27/09/2020 5,882 359
26/09/2020 4,996 436
25/09/2020 5,397 577
24/09/2020 6,116 716
23/09/2020 5,766 572
22/09/2020 5,351 497
21/09/2020 4,688 453
20/09/2020 4,608 320
I used the data at the link you provided oldnpastit using specimen date.
You can’t go by date reported for 1st October… as the news talked about on this page explains.
kimbers
Full MemberIm just curious, am I reading the data wrong?
cases by specemin date says this
I doubt you're reading it wrong. FWIW, I'm using the link from "Cases by specimen date" her https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases
nation Scotland S92000003 2020-10-01 712 31333
nation England E92000001 2020-10-01 8527 426416
You can’t go by date reported for 1st October… as the news talked about on this page explains.
Fair enough.
Id download the spreadsheet again
its saying twice that number for uK now
kelvin
Full Membernation England E92000001 2020-10-01 8527 426416
Something weird going on with their website or firefox. Bizarre.
kimbers
Full MemberId download the spreadsheet again
its saying twice that number for uK now
Just tried downloading it again, I get a file called "data_2020-Oct-03.csv" which shows 3706 for 1st October. Very puzzling.
The data was updated this evening.
Anyway, you could have looked at a reasonable range of dates… rather than trying to pick one day… the England:Scotland ratio has been quite consistent. We have nothing to crow about down here, this side of the border, despite education kicking off later down here.
data_2020-Oct-04
for me
are we communicating through a temporal vortex?
do you want the lottery numbers?
England and Wales all-cause excess mortality is 66,000 this year compared with the same week (39) for data from the previous 10 years. The population of E&W is about 60,000,000 - hence a lower bound on the IFR must be IFR >= 60,000/60,000,000, or >0.1%. One can debate what proportion of E&W have had the infection, but I think most people would be hard-pressed to believe that everyone has had the infection. We think that the lower bound is about 10% based on serology - everyone who has had the infection seems to seroconvert.
In Gupta-land, half may have been infected - so the IFR is ~0.2%. In Ferguson-Land, it's only 10% and the IFR is 1%. Now the truth is somewhere in that range. Of course it is highly age-dependent; >85's are less than 2% of the population, but 50% of cases so the breakdown may be 0.00001% for the young (15-45) and 10% for 85+.
Personaly, about 0.25% or 1/400 is likely to be not far off, but less than 1% is a useful working value for a Reasonable Worst Case Scenario.
SARS-COV1 was 10%. MERS was 30%! Fortunately, neither were very transmissible from human to human.
kimbers
Full Memberdata_2020-Oct-04
for me
are we communicating through a temporal vortex?
do you want the lottery numbers?
Using the above URL, together with curl:
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="data_2020-Oct-03.csv"
Last-Modified: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 14:33:24 GMT
Expires: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 23:00:22 GMT
PHE-API-Cache-Duration: 20822
I wonder what a PHE-API-Cache does.
So we can safely ignore the 0.1% IFR guess … and the idea that Scotland has twice the rate of new cases per population as England. Well, I am surprised. I look forward to the next game of numberwang. I hope I have had more sleep and can offer more patience next time.
Thought this was interesting, top 100 covid areas by local authority, past 7 days. per 100k.
In at number 76 for me!
[img] 
[/img]
So 0.2% is Gupta-land that requires half the population to have been infected but the real answer is 0.25%? That makes no sense.
Close to 1% was certainly close to correct initially, it may be dropping towards 0.5% now. Assuming a representative distribution of age etc.
