COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[blueparrot]

The cases are again hinting at a plateau - though they are still investigating the drop yesterday caused by diverting Lighthouse lab cases elsewhere due to our old friend'testing capacity issues'.

They are also changing the way they record % positive tests in Scotland by not counting them more than once as has apparently been happening.

So the % positive will change from here on to better reflect NEW positive cases only not just people who have been reconfirmed via multiple tests. I think that is what she is saying.

She notes that the 17.1% positive today under the old measures will - under the new measure - fall to 6.4%.

So it creates a big change and worth recalling that in future when this seems to be much lower in weekly comparisons.

Don't think it is that, currently the positives are given as a %age of newly tested. So if somebody has been tested previously or tested every week they aren't counted currently. For example if they do 100 tests and 10 are positive, but 50 of those had previos tests only the 50 newley tested would count giving a 20% positive figure. Under the new method the whole 100 tests will count giving 10% positive.
The idea being over time a very high number of us will have had previous tests, so the newly tested number will be smaller and meaningless.

 

[shemnel]

With all due respect, it's this kind of comment and sensationalisation that is the route cause of the scare tactics that so many find problematic.

If the increase was from 1 to 5, say in the same family, would it be right to say there has been a four hundred percent increase? Would it not be better to say 8 out of xxxxx and 21 out of xxxxx?

Lies, damn lies and statistics, we can twist them to fit any narrative but to frighten people in this way is very irresponsible IMO.

i think the poster went on to say what you're saying in the very next paragraph really.

 

[Healdplace]

With all due respect, it's this kind of comment and sensationalisation that is the route cause of the scare tactics that so many find problematic.

If the increase was from 1 to 5, say in the same family, would it be right to say there has been a four hundred percent increase? Would it not be better to say 8 out of xxxxx and 21 out of xxxxx?

Lies, damn lies and statistics, we can twist them to fit any narrative but to frighten people in this way is very irresponsible IMO.

That was what I posted.

Given that the use of statistics to make any argument you want was NOT what I was doing but what I was showing could be done by others.

It was why I made the post.

So in truth we agree here.

 

[Healdplace]

The Northern Ireland data on 7090 cases over the past 7 days up to yesterday splits by age as follows.


1114 under 20

2812 20 - 39

2094 40 - 59

832 60 - 79

238 over 80.

These numbers in the over 60s have been creeping up and are baffling me as to why more is not being done now on the shielding of the most vulnerable. We seem to have almost just accepted that as inevitable.

Sir Richard Leese in GM this morning said instead of millions to prop up business we should keep them open and spend the money shielding the ones most likely to get sick this winter.

That is certainly an argument that needs to be had more visibly than we are right now.

 

[BigJoe#1]

That was what I posted.

Given that the use of statistics to make any argument you want was NOT what I was doing but what I was showing could be done by others.

It was why I made the post.

So in truth we agree here.

Apologies, my bad.... I totally misread the argument.

That's my political career in tatters, doesn't do to admit you're wrong.

 

[Toney’s bookie]

The cases are again hinting at a plateau - though they are still investigating the drop yesterday caused by diverting Lighthouse lab cases elsewhere due to our old friend'testing capacity issues'.

They are also changing the way they record % positive tests in Scotland by not counting them more than once as has apparently been happening.

So the % positive will change from here on to better reflect NEW positive cases only not just people who have been reconfirmed via multiple tests. I think that is what she is saying.

She notes that the 17.1% positive today under the old measures will - under the new measure - fall to 6.4%.

So it creates a big change and worth recalling that in future when this seems to be much lower in weekly comparisons.

I imagine it will show a miraculous decrease in ‘cases’ to prove that the government’s measures are ‘working’.

 

[Fame Monster]

Just got off the phone cancelling my break to Wales. I imagine lots will be doing the same today and sadly this will put a lot of people out of jobs, plenty not to return for a long, long time.

We've got the masks, the sanitiser, we know who it affects and how: it's about time we learn to live with it imo.

 

[Scottyboi]

Wales into a 2 week lockdown that will last 4/5 months. Just ridiculous now. Try implementing the measures from the last restrictions properly. Just a police state now because people won't fucking behave.

A police state lmao drama queen.

 

[Healdplace]

Apologies, my bad.... I totally misread the argument.

That's my political career in tatters, doesn't do to admit you're wrong.

If yours is mine was years ago. Not that I ever wanted one. I have seen Westminster in operation from the inside and met some big ministers. Including Prime Ministers. Never for a second wanted into that world.

 

[Manchester33]

Is anyone else sick of how the MSM keep using the confirmed positive cases graph to create a sense that cases now are dwarfing the levels in the Spring?

The only figure that should matter is the % of beds/ventilators available. If we have enough capacity to treat everyone who needs it, then we shouldn't be killing our economy. If we don't have the capacity, then I'd support lockdowns, but I'd also want the government held accountable as to why that was.

 

[Healdplace]

Prime Minister's Spokesman just cited in the Telegraph as stating that Manchester had 282 confirmed cases on 12 October compared to 89 cases per 100,000 on 28 Sep. Why the mixed data in one comparison?

Cases have tripled amongst the over 60s in past 15 days they say (though not from what to what).

Peak of the wave expected on 2 November but ICU will be full by 28 October.

By Nov 8 all ICU will be Covid patients and by Nov 12 all surgical capacity.

And these are best case estimates.

How accurate is this scary data?

The actual number of cases on 12 October on the Gov site on that day was 333 on the 12th and 401 reported on the 13th from the day before. Neither of which is 282.

The number on the actual date of 12 October after when the cases were allocated to that specific date is not 282 either but 209, 365, 383 over the three dates 11/12/13 October.

So where does the number 282 come from?

And on 27/28/29 September the numbers were 182/119/223 at the start of the rise of student testing numbers that dominated the next week and rise to over 1000 one day then fell back. Which does not seem to square with the 89 cases per 100K as Manchester Pop is around 540,000 - which would make 89 equate to around 490 cases in a week when they had more than that in those 3 days alone.

So where are the government sourcing these numbers? Anyone know as if they have a better source of this I would like to access it every day not the apparently very misleading one given to the public.

 

[Blue Maverick]

I wonder how many people are changing their masks after 60 mins use? That according to my paramedic cousin is what you should be doing as they degrade after that. So all those wearing them after aren’t really doing much after a few days of wear.

 

[Craig]

GM hospitals are within a couple of days of accute beds being full - yet he still plays politics. (This information is from a Registrar friend of my daughters who works at Manchester Royal not the press.)
I dispair, I really do.

Look at the stats from this time last year to now! Slightly less ICU beds currently being taken up if anything. Yet the media have a headline that beds are running out but only mention the figures from last year at the bottom of the article. I wonder who’s pushing this agenda? Also he’s doing well to be playing politics when the local torie and labour MP’s are all in agreement over this. One thing that is becoming clear is these lockdowns and restrictions are not working.

 

[ganganvince]

I wonder how many people are changing their masks after 60 mins use? That according to my paramedic cousin is what you should be doing as they degrade after that. So all those wearing them after aren’t really doing much after a few days of wear.

A paramedic mask is designed to protect the user a face covering is to protect others

 

[artfuldodger]

Look at the stats from this time last year to now! Slightly less ICU beds currently being taken up if anything. Yet the media have a headline that beds are running out but only mention the figures from last year at the bottom of the article. I wonder who’s pushing this agenda? Also he’s doing well to be playing politics when the local torie and labour MP’s are all in agreement over this. One thing that is becoming clear is these lockdowns and restrictions are not working.

From the BBC

The hospitals in and around Manchester and Liverpool have borne the brunt of the pressures. Particular concern has been expressed about intensive care, with reports that more than 80% of beds in Manchester are occupied.
That is not unusual - last winter similar occupancy rates were seen.
In fact, this is one of the difficulties the NHS faces with Covid - it works so close to capacity in normal times that an extra pressure causes real problems.
But again the local NHS is not yet in the position it was in the spring when it had to take emergency measures to open up extra intensive care beds by cancelling non-Covid work.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Could they not spend the 50 million plus that Greater Manchester are being offered to shut down on supporting employees and employers, so self isolation is more tolerable. And some money spent actually enforcing it. Not with fines, but daily visits to check people are coping and offering support.

You’d think so...
Could also reduce self isolation to 7 days post symptom/positive test, but I’m sure they won’t.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

The comms of the govt have been atrocious.

At the weekend were vids and stories of the vaccines being prepared and ready.
assuming This is the case don’t you think the PM would be addressing the nation (either way confirm or deny) . But let’s assume the positive

you think he would be addressing the nation saying we need us

all to follow the new tier rules for one last time and compliance please from all.
together with an update and timeline for the roll out of vaccines To give hope.

in the meantime the public are just left to hope, believe what they want to believe or have no fucking clue.

even if it’s bollox and the vaccines aren’t ready for roll out he should be communicating with us clearly That position .

 

[shemnel]

Prime Minister's Spokesman just cited in the Telegraph as stating that Manchester had 282 confirmed cases on 12 October compared to 89 cases per 100,000 on 28 Sep. Why the mixed data in one comparison?

Cases have tripled amongst the over 60s in past 15 days they say (though not from what to what).

Peak of the wave expected on 2 November but ICU will be full by 28 October.

By Nov 8 all ICU will be Covid patients and by Nov 12 all surgical capacity.

And these are best case estimates.

How accurate is this scary data?

The actual number of cases on 12 October on the Gov site on that day was 333 on the 12th and 401 reported on the 13th from the day before. Neither of which is 282.

The number on the actual date of 12 October after when the cases were allocated to that specific date is not 282 either but 209, 365, 383 over the three dates 11/12/13 October.

So where does the number 282 come from?

And on 27/28/29 September the numbers were 182/119/223 at the start of the rise of student testing numbers that dominated the next week and rise to over 1000 one day then fell back.

282 cases and 89 cases refers to: positive cases in over 60s per 100,000 in manchester. This data is not available to public. Other unclear things: what is 'Manchester' (UTLA or wider Gtr Manchester?) and per 100,000 people over 60 or per 100,000 all people?

 

[Healdplace]

Thank you shemnel. That makes sense.

The rise in the over 60s makes it all the more baffling that shielding seems to have been downgraded to zero.

If that is the biggest problem why are we doing less about it now than we were in April?

 

[grunge]

Lessons from one million Covid-19 deaths

Covid-19 still hasn't given up all its mysteries, but experts have a fair idea about what is needed to control its spread. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

Dr Ryan from the WHO's take on why some countries were hit harder than others.

Generally, countries with better social cohesion handled things better as the population as a whole acted quickly.