COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
roubaixtuesday said:
The Zoe app numbers maybe give some degree of independent test of the figures.

They're showing a very gradual decline nationally. Faster in the NW.

Suggests some kind of glitch in today's figures, maybe a bundle found down the back of the sofa.

Click to expand...

There was a massive rise on the 9th November (27 000 from 19000 the day before) on positives by specimen date. That is the HIGHEST number of positive cases, by specimen date, we’ve ever had. What’s even stranger is that the 9th was the second LOWEST number of daily tests since the start of October!
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Whether or not he has a point, that's not the letter of a concerned healthcare professional, it reads as though it's from a barely literate student agitator.

As to who he should be making a point to, the health regulator MHRA makes the call on safety, not Hancock, so he's writing to the wrong person.

On the long term safety of the vaccine, it's self evident that cannot be proven with short term studies. But that doesn't mean there's no understanding, and there seems to be very little reason to believe this class of therapeutics has long term consequences.
Click to expand...
made me laugh, thanks
 
johnnytapia said:
What an absolute crock of pure shit. There is ZERO chance that of the 1.3m or so positives thus far that 260k will be diagnosed with such disorders. ZERO.
Click to expand...
Bollocks , as i am finding out covid patients who have been in hospital particulary are closely monitored , i will go with the experts if that is ok


The most common conditions that recovered patients are diagnosed with include anxiety, depression and insomnia, although the researchers also found significantly higher risks of dementia


"People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of mental health problems, and our findings show this to be likely," said Professor Paul Harrison, a psychiatrist at the University of Oxford.

The mechanism which causes the increased risk of mental illness is not yet known and deserves urgent investigation, Professor Harrison says. Health services need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates [of the number of patients in psychiatric care]," he added.

The study, published this week in the Lancet Psychiatry journal, analysed the electronic health records of 69 million people in the US including 62,000 people who had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

It found that in the three months following a positive test, 20% of survivors received their first-ever diagnosis for anxiety, depression or insomnia - roughly twice as common as those illnesses that arise in other groups of patients.


The research adds to observations and evidence that the coronavirus can impact the brain and mind.

"This is likely due to a combination of the psychological stressors associated with this particular pandemic and the physical effects of the illness," according to Dr Michael Bloomfield, a consultant psychiatrist at University College London.
 
Last edited:
Summerbuzz said:
That's just anti-vax parcelled up as a letter to Hancock.

The point is, don't trust one scientist. A scientist is one human. Any one human can lose the plot. I knew an incredibly bright and well educated woman with 2 phd's in biochemsitry and something else, she worked in an Oxbridge lab, worked on a really succesful pharma product.

She ended up believing in homeopathy, of all things, and as far as I could tell, it all goes back to a family tragedy. Our attachments to the people we love (and to ourselves) can screw with anyone's mind, leave them barking up the wrong tree, or losing the plot completely. There are many other reasons someone very healthy can develop an obsesssive stance, or unbalanced view. In fact, it's more or less the default reality for a human. A persons view is that way because they have to meet their personal needs.

Science is a communal activity. One person doesn't count for anything unless he can clearly demonstrate every step of his work so that the rest of the community can replicate it. That's why the advice for outsiders is always to look for the consensus view. Consensus views within scientific communities are not always perfect. It's part of the process that they attack and revise their own and each other's ideas. And as the evidence mounts up over time, so can the consensus. Following that official, public statements that communicate the consensus, will not always give you the right answer now and forever. But it's always, by far, the best chance any of us have of getting our hands on the best answer and explanation.
Click to expand...

i wouldnt trust Yeadon's gang as far as i could throw them

no, i have a great distrust of narrative and i think it's fine for a group of people to begin to question certain tings, such as whether the testing methods we have in place and the money spent on them is wise. This fluff is just the more vocal/pushy end i guess.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
And this a week into lockdown? It’s all looking very wrong and I’ll be interested to see tomorrow’s figures. I thought it was interesting that Powis said people shouldn’t read too much into a single days figure as well. Whitty would have said it meant the moon was about to fall from the sky :-)
Click to expand...
The timeline would be about right if lots of people went out and forgot the rules on the last night before lockdown. We’ve also had bonfire night.

As the experts have said, there’s little point going off one day’s figures and there’s not a huge gap in the estimates of the R number for the Governments 1.1-1.3 to the unofficial 0.9. The reality is that R number has to come down well below 1 if electric care is going to be maintained alongside care for Covid patients.
 
ITV news just trying to suggest this is not as bad as it looks and a blip tied to half term. If I understood correctly.

Still want to know why the testing was all over the shop in numbers over the past few days.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
The Zoe app numbers maybe give some degree of independent test of the figures.

They're showing a very gradual decline nationally. Faster in the NW.

Suggests some kind of glitch in today's figures, maybe a bundle found down the back of the sofa.

Click to expand...

What am I missing in that graph ?

The commentary says "shows rates of new disease falling slowly below 36k", yet the numbers along the side are 20k, 40k, 60k, 80k, 100k , and the lines are for each region, and suggest the NW had over 100k cases at the beginning of November, and is still ~87k alone.
 
cleavers said:
What am I missing in that graph ?

The commentary says "shows rates of new disease falling slowly below 36k", yet the numbers along the side are 20k, 40k, 60k, 80k, 100k , and the lines are for each region, and suggest the NW had over 100k cases at the beginning of November, and is still ~87k alone.
Click to expand...
The scale is estimated and active cases, so I guess new cases would only be a part of those as cases will be active for 2 weeks or more. That’s my guess anyway.
 
On the R number I am baffled too as how can the pandemic can be growing at speed if its under 1.

But Nicola Sturgeon said in her briefing today that their data says it is in most of Scotland.

That makes sense of cases that seem to be plateauing there.

It is in N Ireland and Wales too.

So why would England be out of step especially if its R is also lower.

Either today is caused by an unexplained anomaly or the plateau we seemed to have developed in England too with cases at the same level has been KOd by the virus in one day.

Much more likely it is a testing related issue like the last sudden jump.
 
Last edited:
Healdplace said:
On the R number I am baffled too as how can the pandemic can be growing at speed if its under 1.

But Nicola Sturgeon said in her briefing today that their data says it is in most of Scotland.
Click to expand...
Well weekly cases nationally are slightly down on the previous week, so slightly less than 1. I guess the biggest problem is Glasgow and Lanarkshire make up the most population and positives where it seems stuck at about 600 new cases / day but slightly down so that’s I guess just under 1. Whereas where I am in Scotland it doubled from about 10 to 19 today which suggests nearer 2, but that 2 would be masked by a national R of 1 because of the numbers in Glasgow. Think that’s what she was alluding to.
 
blueparrot said:
Well weekly cases nationally are slightly down on the previous week, so slightly less than 1. I guess the biggest problem is Glasgow and Lanarkshire make up the most population and positives where it seems stuck at about 600 new cases / day but slightly down so that’s I guess just under 1. Whereas where I am in Scotland it doubled from about 10 to 19 today which suggests nearer 2, but that 2 would be masked by a national R of 1 because of the numbers in Glasgow. Think that’s what she was alluding to.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. As I said in my post it makes sense of what is happening in Scotland and indeed all the three nations.

But not in England where all of today's big increase comes from.

If this leap today was credible and spread around almost the entire nation as it seems to be then there is no real way to explain it as you can by isolated hot spots driving up cases bit not impacting the wider national R number.
 
Healdplace said:
Yes, I agree. As I said in my post it makes sense of what is happening in Scotland and indeed all the three nations.

But not in England where all of today's big increase comes from.

If this leap today was credible and spread around almost the entire nation as it seems to be then there is no real way to explain it as you can by isolated hot spots driving up cases bit not impacting the wider national R number.
Click to expand...
Agree, though isn’t the R number calculated week to week? So todays figures won’t yet be included in any R calculation.
 
GM scoreboard: (Caution - these numbers may be true, false or by tomorrow have been explained as a myth).


Manchester 443 - up big from 310. Total cases 24, 401. Weekly 2193. Pop score up 80 to 4414. Weekly Pop up to 397.

Wigan 321 - up big from 218. Total cases 14, 067. Weekly 1656. Pop score up 98 to 4280. Weekly Pop down to 504.

Oldham 308 - up from 230. Total cases 12, 581. Weekly 1576. Pop score up 130 - highest in UK today. Weekly Pop up to 665.

Salford 273 - up big from 157. Total cases 11,199. Weekly 1262. Pop score up 106 to 4327. Weekly Pop up to 487.

Rochdale 242 - up from 173. Total cases 10, 557. Weekly 1245. Pop score up 109 to 4747. Weekly Pop up to 560.

Bolton 225 - up from 210. Total cases 12, 937. Weekly 1322. Pop score up 78 to 4499. Weekly Pop down to 460

Bury 205 - up big from 133. Total cases 8331. Weekly 1005. Pop score up 107 to 4362. Weekly Pop up to 526.

Stockport 201 - up from 151. Total cases 9090. Weekly 999. JUST stays sub 1000 for the week! Pop score up 69 to 3098. Lowest rise in GM today. Weekly Pop up to 341.

Tameside 188 - up from 121, Total cases 8896. Weekly 911. This is enough to give Tameside the title of lowest weekly score in GM. Just. Pop score up 83 to 3928. Could enter the 4000 club tomorrow. Weekly Pop down to 402.

Trafford 181 - well up from 108. But best in GM again. Total cases 7868. Weekly 922. Enough to cost it the lowest weekly total (for now) with 3 towns now scrapping for this. Which is good to see again. Pop score up 76 to 3315. Meaning the gap to Stockport for overall Pop score rises to 217 from under 150 a week ago. Weekly Pop up to 389.
 
Last edited:
Evening all. I just watched this streamed live, David Spiegelhalter giving a talk on the communication of statistics, specifically during covid. An absolute must watch for those with a more statistics leaning. He's a brilliant speaker:
 
Anyone baffled by why I give both cases and pop scores look at Stockport and Bury. Very similar case numbers but Stockport's Pop (as in Population) Score goes up by lowest in GM (69) whereas Bury rises by 107 - one of the biggest in the UK. That is because Stockport has a much bigger POPulation than Bury so 200 or so cases is pro rata less concerning in Stockport than in Bury so you can judge them side by side in a visible way that the 201/205 cases do not do.

The ongoing Pop score is across the entire pandemic. It must rise every day even with just 1 case added. The weekly Pop only judges the last 7 days and changes daily by comparison with the ups and downs of cases day to day across that week.

So the overall one guides you to which places have coped best across the whole pandemic. The weekly pop reveals if they are moving up or down compared to their own past scores so flag up place where they are controlling the outbreaks and those that are seeing it escalate.

Hence why the weekly pop score is what the government use to identify red watch locations and decide any special measures on how their weekly pop is doing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top