COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Healdplace]

Someone on Twitter has plotted the all settings deaths per day versus the press conference on 31 October which created the lockdown in the country that has just ended.

On that day England deaths were averaging around 240. The different models shown then predicted really scary numbers if we did not act

The Cambridge study had us by now at 4000 a day. Imperial - the lowest - had us at 1440 or so a day. The other two were just above or below 1500 a day.

When lockdown came in on 5 Nov the average was around 270 a day. The 9 Nov peak was around 400. But it flattened off throughout the lockdown up to 18 Nov with a peak of around 420 (which coincides with what is still the hospital only peak of 317).

Since then the England average has carried on falling to around 320. That is 5 days ago. As data is not really close to fixed after that with add ons occurring daily.

This data fits the hospital only data I report and seems to support that 18 Nov is indeed the apparent peak of the second wave. And we may be on a slow fall like in the first wave from here on.

Question is will the events of the next month and the ending of lockdown putside tier 3 areas create a third wave in January.

Let us hope not. But it must be a possibility.

Though if it happens I have a feeling the focus will be further south and the north might be the one that escapes more lightly as they did in this second wave. Up to now at least.

All this is no more than a guess I should add.

 

[03 March 2002]

Blimey, all kicking off politically.

EU now claiming the UK have not analysed all the data:

EU criticises 'hasty' UK approval of COVID-19 vaccine

The European Union criticised Britain's rapid approval of Pfizer and BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine on Wednesday, saying its own procedure was more thorough, after Britain became the first western country to endorse a COVID-19 shot.

t.co

And Fauci over in the US with a quite remarkable claim that the UK hasn't done it safely:



Ruffled feathers this, hasn't it.

Difference being that the UK approval comes with the caveat that each and every batch must be reviewed by the MHRA before being used. You only register one progress for making the stuff. It's only registered at so many sites and it's not like you can or would change the way it's made anyway. If anything having to have each batch reviewed individually should increase confidence.

The rolling review gives the advantage of looking at some of the modules (such as S3.2 Control of Impurities) ahead of trial completion. Those impurities aren't going to change from what's predicted by the models and following the science.

Structure practically the same across all territories in the world, hence to call our review process bad is to call anyone else's review process bad.

Many of the granules relate to things that are done far before clinical trials occur and as such in this case the various Health Authorities have agreed to facilitate an early review by looking at them before the clinical trials concluded.

I think we can all agree you don't need to taste the cake to see the ingredients are correct.

Used to like Fauci, if he's actually said that verbatim then he's gone down a great many pegs in my opinion.

 

[Healdplace]

Does this mean (forgive me I've never got my head round this one) that the highest number of deaths on a particular day is really 317 ?

If so how do we explain the very high numbers on some days ?

Begs the question why this is not reported rather than "daily deaths" which clearly they aren't.

In terms of England hospital deaths only - yes. That is the highest in this second wave at the moment. Numbers since have been falling a little and there is no serious threat to any date going higher. But the numbers from days behind are not low enough to suggest another day will not surpass that one.

The numbers you see cited on TV are UK numbers not just England (though England is by far the biggest part of them).

It also includes 'out of hospital' deaths. N Ireland, Scotland and Wales give BOTH together (hospital and other places - such as care homes or in your own home or under the wheels of a bus if you have Covid too).

The out of hospital England data is added separately.

So every day ( post the three nations (all settings) deaths between about 12.30 and 2.30, The England hospital deaths come in somewhere in the middle of that period. So we then have a figure of everything bar the England out of hospital number for the day by around 3 pm. The out of hospital data for England then gets posted around 4 to 5 pm on the government site. But only as part of a total figure which IS the total we had from the other sources before 4 pm plus the out of hospital England deaths.

That final number is the one the evening news use and the press the next day cite as it is the final total .

But it is not even that simple. As this all settings number simply describes the number of deaths from all the above sources REPORTED that day. It often gets presented by the media as the number who died the day before as it is ascribed to that date.

But in reality - as you see from my England hospital day to day report above only 48 of the 414 deaths reported today as from yesterday occurred yesterday. The others are days or weeks (sometimes even months) old.

That is why I do this daily report on the numbers who died on the actual date.

It is the only way you can actually see if they are rising or falling. But because the add ons can trickle in for weeks it is not really anything like a firm number for any date until at minimum 5 - 7 days after the actual day by when the majority of deaths for that date will be reported.

It is complicated!

 

[twosips]

Difference being that the UK approval comes with the caveat that each and every batch must be reviewed by the MHRA before being used. You only register one progress for making the stuff. It's only registered at so many sites and it's not like you can or would change the way it's made anyway. If anything having to have each batch reviewed individually should increase confidence.

The rolling review gives the advantage of looking at some of the modules (such as S3.2 Control of Impurities) ahead of trial completion. Those impurities aren't going to change from what's predicted by the models and following the science.

Structure practically the same across all territories in the world, hence to call our review process bad is to call anyone else's review process bad.

Many of the granules relate to things that are done far before clinical trials occur and as such in this case the various Health Authorities have agreed to facilitate an early review by looking at them before the clinical trials concluded.

I think we can all agree you don't need to taste the cake to see the ingredients are correct.

Used to like Fauci, if he's actually said that verbatim then he's gone down a great many pegs in my opinion.

Dead interesting, cheers once again.

 

[Ban-jani]

Blimey, all kicking off politically.

EU now claiming the UK have not analysed all the data:

EU criticises 'hasty' UK approval of COVID-19 vaccine

The European Union criticised Britain's rapid approval of Pfizer and BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine on Wednesday, saying its own procedure was more thorough, after Britain became the first western country to endorse a COVID-19 shot.

t.co

And Fauci over in the US with a quite remarkable claim that the UK hasn't done it safely:



Ruffled feathers this, hasn't it.

The governments bragging approach and that utter fucking imbecile Williamson’s actions have now added fuel to the fire of conspiracy cunts.

They could have kept quiet and likely not had these accusations by the EU and that yank.

Fucking morons.

 

[Healdplace]

Take 7 days ago today: - 26 November. Last Thursday.

On that date Scotland reported 51, Wales 28 and N Ireland 8. Those 87 deaths were ALL the deaths collated on the day before (25 Nov) from those 3 countries in every setting. Not just hospitals.

England hospitals then reported 351 deaths IN hospital - making a total of 438.

Later the 351 England hospital deaths became 411. This was by adding on deaths reported by care homes etc and also from time to time removing a few of the 351 rejected because they do not meet the strict criteria of testing positive within 28 days of death for instance.

So as together the 87 all settings plus the the 411 = 498.

This is what shows now as the UK death total for 26 November (though really the day before as deaths on that date will not turn up until the next day, of course!).

However, if you look now at how many people ACTUALLY died with Covid for either of these two dates neither is 498.

The 25th (the date it really refers to) has a UK covid death number now of 449. And the date the 498 is cited for by the media - last Thursday - has just 380.

They may well grow by a few over coming weeks but almost certainly neither will be near to 498 now after a week of add oms.

So creating any kind of path of how the death numbers are moving is much more complicated than it seems from that number cited on TV every evening.

 

[cleavers]

The numbers you see cited on TV are UK numbers not just England (though England is by far the biggest part of them).

Sorry I hadn't read it carefully enough, I thought it was the UK number.

It is the only way you can actually see if they are rising or falling. But because the add ons can trickle in for weeks it is not really anything like a firm number for any date until at minimum 5 - 7 days after the actual day by when the majority of deaths for that date will be reported.

Which in the end is all we want to see.

It is complicated!

Yes far too complicated, it's little wonder half the country no longer any notice. I think we all want to see less complicated numbers so we can gauge where we really are.

Thanks again for all you do, I've got a bit out of the habit of following it all due to the complication, and the sheer array of numbers published.

I think it's called covid fatigue.

 

[M18CTID]

The governments bragging approach and that utter fucking imbecile Williamson’s actions have now added fuel to the fire of conspiracy cunts.

They could have kept quiet and likely not had these accusations by the EU and that yank.

Fucking morons.

As much as I’ve been critical of the government throughout this pandemic, with regards to this issue I’m pretty sure Williamson’s comments - although unhelpful - came after the US and EU gobbed off that the UK cut corners in getting the Pfizer vaccine approved. I said this morning that they should provide evidence of any corner cutting rather than mouthing off. My guess is that Williamson’s comments are in response to what has been thrown our way. Bunch of bitter salty cunts should be looking at getting their own approval stamp on the vaccine.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Difference being that the UK approval comes with the caveat that each and every batch must be reviewed by the MHRA before being used. You only register one progress for making the stuff. It's only registered at so many sites and it's not like you can or would change the way it's made anyway. If anything having to have each batch reviewed individually should increase confidence.

The rolling review gives the advantage of looking at some of the modules (such as S3.2 Control of Impurities) ahead of trial completion. Those impurities aren't going to change from what's predicted by the models and following the science.

Structure practically the same across all territories in the world, hence to call our review process bad is to call anyone else's review process bad.

Many of the granules relate to things that are done far before clinical trials occur and as such in this case the various Health Authorities have agreed to facilitate an early review by looking at them before the clinical trials concluded.

I think we can all agree you don't need to taste the cake to see the ingredients are correct.

Used to like Fauci, if he's actually said that verbatim then he's gone down a great many pegs in my opinion.

Might already have been mentioned, infact probably has, but good chance he's just trying to improve the level of uptake in US given there's reportedly more skepticism there than over here. If he can publicise how stringent their checks have been, then criticising other countries approach might be a small price to pay. Hopefully it doesn't hinder the confidence levels here but could have good effect over across the pond? Just thinking out loud tbh.

 

[cleavers]

As much as I’ve been critical of the government throughout this pandemic, with regards to this issue I’m pretty sure Williamson’s comments - although unhelpful - came after the US and EU gobbed off that the UK cut corners in getting the Pfizer vaccine approved. I said this morning that they should provide evidence of any corner cutting rather than mouthing off. My guess is that Williamson’s comments are in response to what has been thrown our way. Bunch of bitter salty cunts should be looking at getting their own approval stamp on the vaccine.

They did, but it's about time some of our lot "engaged brain", considering how badly we've actually done, trying to "point score" is just idiotic and unhelpful.