Coronavirus (2021) thread

[Healdplace]

Greater Manchester

Weekly total cases:-




Tameside 513, Rochdale 548, Oldham 557, Stockport 580, Trafford 582, Bury 637, Bolton 701, Salford 854. Wigan 1034, Manchester 2035.



Manchester tops 2000 now and Wigan tops 1000 weekly cases as well.

Both well ahead of Salford and Bolton.

Stockport's good few days see it in a close scrap with Trafford and both closer now to the ret

Tameside's recemt rises means nobody now under 500 weekly cases. A month ago we had several under 100.

 

[Marvin]

The models are, as they have been throughout, way, way out. Period

Well we all model risk all the time in our every day world. The idea that scientists delberately get it wrong because they are risk averse is not really credible.

You state your assumptions at the outset, and your methodology and someone else can come along and improve it.

 

[Healdplace]

GM Weekly Pop Data after today:~

Borough / Pop Today / 7 days ago / up or down wk to wk/ Testing is % of local population who have tested positive for Covid over past year.

As ever with Pop going up is bad, going down good - the higher the number the better or worse depending on direction moving. The Pop is total cases in past week versus 100,000 POPulation to even out the comparison versus size and expected cases based on numbers living there.


Manchester 368 / 340 / UP 28 Testing positive 10.9%

Bury 334 / 309 / UP 25 Testing positive 10.2%

Salford 330 / 338 / DOWN 8 Testing positive 10.2%

Wigan 314 / 257 / UP 57 Testing positive 9.8%

Rochdale 247 / 220 / UP 27 Testing positive 10.5 %

Trafford 245 / 224 / UP 21 Testing positive 7.9%

Bolton 244 / 283 / DOWN 39 Testing positive 11.4%

Oldham 235 / 181 / UP 54 Testing positive 10.5%

Tameside 226 / 178 / UP 48 Testing positive 8.8%

Stockport 198 / 216 / DOWN 18 Testing positive 8.0%


Manchester pulling clear of Bury now with Salford third and Wigan rising up over 300 too.

And Trafford's run of bad numbers took them above Bolton yesterday and Rochdale did it today.

So Bolton is now closer the BEST in GM to the WORST!

Stockport still the only borough below 200 but looks to have plateaued and inded rose and almost went back above there today.

But with Bolton and Salford Stockport make only 3 NOT rising week to week.


Trafford's high numbers lost it another chunk of its lead on overall Pop Score from Stockport who had a much better day today.

Stockport now on 7974 and Trafford on 7856 cutting the latter's lead by another 5 to 118.

However, Bolton unsurprisingly given its recent big numbers still has the highest GM Pop Score on 11, 369.

However, there are now 5 boroughs in the 10,000 club - Manchester on 10, 888 a week at most away from joining Bolton in the 11K club.

Rochdale on 10, 492 and Oldham 10, 481 - in a tight neighboroughood spat still.

Salford are on 10, 183 and Bury just behind on 10173.

So only 4 boroughs now sub 10,000.

Wigan up to 9828 and if they continue at this rate are a few days away from entering the 10K club as well.

Tameside possibly may get there too this side of autumn - at 8808 - but that is a good few weeks away.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I strongly disagree with this - but I can understand the viewpoint.

For older children, at least, the downsides are minimal, whereas the downsides of continued disruption are big, the dangers of COVID real albeit relatively small, and the knock on to the whole population potentially big too.

I've a 16yo who's been isolating three times so far. I don't want that again. I think we should offer (voluntarily at parental consent of course) vaccines to 12-17yo, and exempt the vaccinated from any of this contact isolation.

If the vaccine actually stopped the disease, you might have a point, but a healthy young immune system is a wonderful thing and it is more than capable of fighting coronavirus, so why would you?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The models are, as they have been throughout, way, way out. Period

Your arrogance is, as it has been throughout, way, way worse than your ignorance.

"Period" FFS.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

If the vaccine actually stopped the disease, you might have a point, but a healthy young immune system is a wonderful thing and it is more than capable of fighting coronavirus, so why would you?

Because it isn't, universally, it's still a serious disease in enough children to be a problem. And then they pass it on to the rest of us, unfortunately.

But I don't think this is black and white, it's a nuanced position.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Because it isn't, universally, it's still a serious disease in enough children to be a problem. And then they pass it on to the rest of us, unfortunately.

But I don't think this is black and white, it's a nuanced position.

Indeed it is nuanced, but I do think it’s immoral to be vaccinating children whilst millions of elderly and vulnerable people throughout the rest of the world haven't been vaccinated.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Indeed it is nuanced, but I do think it’s immoral to be vaccinating children whilst millions of elderly and vulnerable people throughout the rest of the world haven't been vaccinated.

I think immoral may be overdoing it a bit. You can make that case about most of the adults too, including me at 52, likely a billion or two more vulnerable people unvaccinated elsewhere.

 

[Healdplace]

Vaccinations are right down. Looks like supply problems. When Hancock and Johnson announced the delay in the easing of lockdown I recall them saying this would allow another circa 3.5m vaccinations, and people on this forum very quickly picked up on the fact that at the current rate many more than that would be vaccinated. I'm guessing they knew at that point that the vaccine supply would dry up somewhat. if that's true why not just be straight with people and tell them ?

All the England data today got lost in yet another data glitch on IT

So there is no full UK data today. It will be updated tomorrow.

That's why numbers will look low as we only have them for the smaller nations not England.

As such I cannot post my usual evening GM ten boroughs vaccination numbers.

This will have to be two days worth tomorrow.

 

[Kompany Car]

Well we all model risk all the time in our every day world. The idea that scientists delberately get it wrong because they are risk averse is not really credible.

You state your assumptions at the outset, and your methodology and someone else can come along and improve it.

What irritates me is that they don’t tend to give an uncertainty. Models , as with measurements should have an uncertainty associated with them. For a good model you would be looking at a confidence interval of above 90%. From looking at this paper …
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-021-00028-9 the model being used are a long way from that. Likewise the uncertainty in the input data which as stated in the same paper can be as large as 300%.
Its correct that models do get refined by studying the empirical data but for chaotic systems you need vast quantities of it, which 1 and a bit yrs into this we just don’t have.
The modelling is akin to predicting the long range forecast for the weather, yes it’s sometimes accurate but it only takes a few parameters to change and it can be wildly inaccurate.