There are some nice stats on the NHS test and trace service:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports

(Or is that Serco, it’s hard to keep track).

One thing they list as coming in Autumn, but sadly missing at present, is just how many of the contacts of people testing +ve do themselves then also test +ve. If nothing else, that would be a good way to know if contact tracing is useful or not.

The other thing they don’t report is where people actually pick up their infections. Maybe that’s reported elsewhere, but it seems like an obvious thing to collect, which they ought to know, or at least have some rough indication of for some proportion of cases.

If I take a taxi home from the pub which should of those three should I worry about more?

oldnpastit
Full Member

The other thing they don’t report is where people actually pick up their infections.

When we were still playing Travel Ban Shuffle, the scottish government got a lot of criticism because they based part of their decisions on contact tracing. Literally “we’re putting Greece on the travel restrictions list because most of the overseas cases in Scotland came from Greece” Westminster didn’t even really seem to understand that this is a thing. Like, what exactly is your tracing for, if not stuff like that?

The TTI isn’t useful because it wasn’t designed to be useful and isn’t intended to be useful. It’s primary purpose is to satisfy headline-writers with slogans about the numbers of tests, and also to funnel healthcare funding into the private sector under the guise of the NHS label.

Once you realise that, it all makes sense.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54598728

Morning Guys,

Not posted on this thread before but followed it daily and found it very informative. Hadn’t seen anyone post the stats mentioned in the link below about the extra 26,000 deaths that have happened at home. I’m not a a sceptic of Covid and know it is real but i do struggle a bit with what is happening to all the other people that go undiagnosed etc. I live in the southwest and the virus hasn’t affected me personally but know people who were being treated for other diseases which just stopped and are now not going to make it long term etc. My brother was diagnosed with cancer in march but luckily his treatment continued. I think a balance has to be struck between shielding and continuing daily life, I am just not sure what that balance is.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why that ICL map shows the probability of the Sheffield area reaching over 200 cases per 100,000 dropping over time – whilst the surrounding area and pretty much the rest of the country are increasing in probability? The wirral is doing the same. Areas around both the Wirral and Sheffield also start increasing in probability for the 500 cases category.

Well what choice do we have? If we don’t lock down we’d rapidly be overwhelmed.

People are looking at the numbers going ‘well it’s not such a big deal the numbers aren’t that big’ but those are the numbers that we saw WITH the lockdown.

Of course, we should have the spare capacity in the health service. This is what happens when you have Tories in power who strip everything to the bone.

Of course, we should have the spare capacity in the health service. This is what happens when you have Tories in power who strip everything to the bone.

Probably not intended to be part of the original thread, but this meant that we started much further behind the curve than countries who have had better outcomes so far, and as others have said, their ideology prevents them making appropriate decisions to address the resulting problems.

Hadn’t seen anyone post the stats mentioned in the link below about the extra 26,000 deaths that have happened at home

Of course the problem with statistics is interpretation, especially when taken in isolation. What the article only hints at is the number of fewer deaths in hospital – most likely a similar amount.

What we do know is up to the current week of reporting, 66,000 more people have died this year compared with the previous 10 years. One can think of many reasons why this may be the case. The single largest difference is the emergence of a novel pathogen with high morbidity and mortality in the elderly.

I agree that balancing the economy and mortality is a huge challenge. I don’t know where that balance lies and don’t have to make the decision (thank goodness). It is, however, relatively straightforward to predict the consequences of actions, however unpalatable, both intended and unintended. IF maintaining a functional healthcare system and open education are the objective, then there are no options that do not involve pretty aggressive social distancing measures. IF maintaining open economic activity and “back to normal”, then so be it. But the public should understand the grave consequences of such an action, including overwhelmed healthcare services (no operations without functioning HDU/ITU capacity), unknown future morbidity, and reduced life expectancy for the elderly – who we as a country singularly fail to protect from seasonal respiratory diseases.

Those are the rules of the game. We have no options but to play. There are no good choices.

Great post TiRed, as usual I might add.

Needs cutting and pasting into all the Coronavirus related threads.

Thanks TiRed. Like you, I’m glad I’m not making the the choices at the moment.

Needs putting into national newspapers and in front of politicians if you ask me

Needs putting into national newspapers and in front of politicians if you ask me

And apparently today is World Statistics Day. What are the odds?

IGMC

I’m with TiRed on not having the policy answers but on presenting the likely outcomes of choices. For example:

*IF* the aim is to suppress the outbreak via some sort of lockdown, then there is no benefit, and in fact a huge cost, to delaying taking this action. It’s a simple calculation based on exponential growth, it cost us grievously back in March and is doing so again now (albeit to a less dramatic effect).

*IF* indefinite lockdown is not sustainable then in the absence of a vaccine we can only suppress in the longer term via alternative control measures which appears to require a functional TTI system. No-one has any other ideas, let alone better ideas. It’s hard to do well but can certainly help to maintain a suppressed state, allowing greater social and economic activity while keeping the infection under control.

If all the above is impossible or unworkable in practice given the state of govt, then attempting to protect vulnerable people could be of some benefit but given the numbers of them (over 10 million) and the multiplicity of their various necessary contacts with the rest of society, it won’t be terribly effective. As we already saw.

The “scientists” / sage outline the possible course of action and the effects of those. the politicians decide what course of action we take

What are the odds?

About 0.3%!
HTH

About 0.3%!
HTH

👏👏

How many standard deviant Poussin’s is that?

Thanks for the balanced response it was sort of the one I was hoping for. It is such an unknown and living where I am it is all a bit weird because we haven’t yet had the masses of infections and deaths as elsewhere so its sometimes difficult to see it other ways from the one that is in front of you. Thanks again.

About 0.3%!
HTH

Actually 0.06% – it’s only held every 5 years!

A depressing summary of events by our joke of a government and the consequences.

There is a repeatable daily pattern in the numbers due to reporting logistics.

Monday is always low.

Last Monday was 50 deaths so we have a 60% increase at 80 this Monday.

If that 60% increase follows through to tomorrow’s deaths where we had 143 last Tuesday (Tuesday is always high), We could sadly pass the 200 deaths in a day milestone. (229 tomorrow based on a 60% increase)

You can’t really infer much looking at day to day trends.

241 deaths today sadly, close to the 229 I suggested yesterday.

The response to today’s figures will be…?

a) ‘nobody could have predicted this’
b) ‘the science says we are on course’
c) ‘hospitals are coping for now’
d) ‘the pesky northern politicians caused this’
e) ‘if we all just follow the rules’

I know one data point doesn’t make a time series but I wonder how 241 looks on your recent graph TiRed….

D) it’s pretty clear they are setting Burnham up. They can easily impose tier 3 without the mayor but have created this conflict so they can blame him if the hospitals get overwhelmed

Cases started going mad 2-3 weeks ago so sadly not surprised.

it’s pretty clear they are setting Burnham up.

Yep, the is what this announcement is for, what a bunch af arseholes.

I’m assuming the data isn’t made up though.

“The Prime Minister has asked me to focus on Greater Manchester” … so, option D coming, for sure.

I know one data point doesn’t make a time series but I wonder how 241 looks on your recent graph TiRed….

Errrm. Come back in a few days 😉 . Daily deaths is hand-assembled from NHS SITREPS. My analysis does not include deaths for the previous few days for this reason. There was a big daily spike in mid-September too.

Johnson has gone big on option E in answering questions.

JVT has backed up the PM against the idea of a national circuit break.

So there you go, we have the correct rules, it’s all the fault of the plebs for not following those rules.

Things are going to get very bad this winter, and it’ll be all our fault, not the government’s.

Things will get quite heated between Sage members this week I suspect.

JVT – sounds like a Honda. More worryingly it sounds too cosy with BJ (- sounds like a prick) Agree about setting up Andy Burnham – sounds like a decent bloke to me.

When they’re coming up with infection rates and deaths does the fact that there is a major hospital within an area add those numbers to the stats for the area?

When they’re coming up with infection rates and deaths does the fact that there is a major hospital within an area add those numbers to the stats for the area?

Bloody good question that, very few hospitals in rural wales for example. I presume its homevaddress of patient but not sure

Going to be interesting to see if in using the market to set support we have established a UK rate of just a price for a northerner. I guess the government will be hoping a vaccine arrives before they have to calculate a London settlement. Which will just move us into the next can of worms – priority vaccination areas.

Realistically – where will we be when summer returns next year?

at this point It feels like there is no plan

I know the 3 tiered lockdown thing was supposed to make things easier, but restrictions varying between liverpool & manchaster & financial support per person varrying between them too, despite both being tier 3 makes no sense

would a series of national rolling lockdowns not make more sense?

2 weeks now, a month off, then 2 weeks just before xmas to keep the waves surpressed

at least people & businesses could plan accordingly, even if one size doesnt fit all really, would it help sell this to an increasingly fractious public?

Rolling lockdowns on the Welsh model are the only way. We’ve had various restrictions in Lancashire and cases are still escalating.

Boris is going to blame people for not following the rules, if that’s the case the rules aren’t fit for purpose.

West Yorkshire and Sheffield are next on their hit list
Woe is me

Boris saying 22m is separate and business support package still to be agreed but must be inline with others.

Quizzed further on the support package offered to Greater Manchester, the PM says: “The £22m that you mention, that’s separate and additional to any other support that we were trying to agree with Manchester for business support.”

He adds: “Our door is open to continue that particular conversation.”

He really should have explained that a lot better, thats not how it sounded to his own MPs even

Johnson isnt up to the job of running a village fete tombola, let alone a country in the midst of a pandemic

where will we be when summer returns next year?

Posted 33 minutes ago

There won’t be a summer next year at this rate.

Interesting question about big hospitals distorting the death/admission rate. Surely it’s based on home address 🤷‍♂️