COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Healdplace]

Regional scoreboard:

London 397 - down from 587. But more than it was 2 days ago so a higher % of UK cases in London than was.

Midlands 327 - big fall from 569 and the lowest number in this region for 20 days.

Yorkshire 525 - down from 636. Around the level it was at 7 - 10 days ago. Though this is the lowest regional % fall of the day.

And North West did not quite make it back into three figures but a big drop from 1569 to 1038. Which is the lowest in the region for 11 days. So a fall of about a third on the day.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Either there is something VERY wrong with the testing today (as Nicola Sturgeon suggested the need to investigate) or things have turned a corner.

Just 4044 cases. Less than last Monday.

From 226 K tests - 7000 more than 7 days ago.

I think, as some have pointed out, the reported number of cases may not be that accurate. Given the shambles of the testing system, false positives, false negatives, batches being delayed etc etc. At the start of the pandemic the definition of a case in the media was generally someone who was tested in hospital, now its a much wider scope including thousands of swab tests from people with no symptoms. I don't think we can trust the so-called case figures.
The most reliable indicator must be hospitalisations and deaths, and they are increasing. I just hope we have done a better job at protecting the vulnerable groups than last time.

 

[Healdplace]

I get the argument about testing data not being reliable. But I assume they are relatively consistently unreliable so - unless as Nicola Sturgeon obviously suspected this morning - something unusual had gone wrong - significantly lower numbers today from what were actually only 7000 fewer tests than the day before (also weekend data) and 5000 more than the previous Sunday ought to be fairly stable.

I assume we will be told if there was an unusual factor in the testing today to produce this result.

And tomorrow is another day and could be up miles again. Who knows?

 

[bluejon]

Can you remind me what are your predictions? I don't recall any other than scepticism that the current reported rises are significant, but that isn't really a prediction.

My prediction is that we are not going to see a significant rise again in covid deaths (and when i say significant, to be clear, I mean numbers like we were seeing earlier this year, I don't think a second wave is going to happen).

 

[Healdplace]

For what it is worth the GM scoreboard is the best total for 8 days too. At 486 - down from 728 yesterday.

So 486 out of 1038 in the NW (about 47%) v 728 out of 1569 (about 46%). Actually a slightly higher % today from GM in NW total, But not by much.

 

[Healdplace]

My prediction is that we are not going to see a significant rise again in covid deaths (and when i say significant, to be clear, I mean numbers like we were seeing earlier this year, I don't think a second wave is going to happen).

I agree on the numbers. Likely 100/200 max not 1000 + May hopefully not even get there. And that a second wave will look worse cases wise because of the far increased testing. But a second wave means - I assume - a second up/down curve in cases and hospitalisations and deaths.

Are we not already seeing the up part and will hopefully still soon (ish) see the down part of the curve. I don't see why calling it a second wave is incorrect. It just will not be - we all trust - as awful as the first rise and fall - which is really all that a wave is. A curve on a graph.

 

[bluejon]

I agree on the numbers. Likely 100/200 max not 1000 + May hopefully not even get there. And that a second wave will look worse cases wise because of the far increased testing. But a second wave means - I assume - a second up/down curve in cases and hospitalisations and deaths.

Are we not already seeing the up part and will hopefully still see the down part of the curve. I don't see why calling it a second wave is incorrect. It just will not be as awful as the first rise and fall - which is what a wave is.

You could argue any uptick in numbers is a second wave, but i would argue a wave requires an amplitude similar or greater than the first to call it a second instance of what happened the first time. My argument is more to do with me thinking the current lockdown measures are a complete waste of time and are going to cause significantly more harm than they will solve. There is also scant concrete evidence that lockdown in this country has had any actual effect.

 

[Healdplace]

GM scoreboard today is interesting and may offer debate for those who think todays low numbers are a testing anomaly. As they may be.

Some places have huge falls.

Wigan for instance from its record unexpectedly huge peak yesterday to what today is its lowest in 2 weeks. Which was the anomaly? Yesterday or today? Or somewhere inbetween?

Other places very consistent day to day. The only big number today was Manchester and even that is well down.

And the two 'best' boroughs in GM which you all know as they are rarely any other score 28 and 29 - very consistent - and the best.

So does that suggest the data is messed up on the correct numbers but equally wrong or right consistently and so OK in measuring relative levels of the outbreak.

 

[cleavers]

My prediction is that we are not going to see a significant rise again in covid deaths (and when i say significant, to be clear, I mean numbers like we were seeing earlier this year, I don't think a second wave is going to happen).

I don't think anyone expects covid deaths to be anything like earlier in the year, simply because we have better treatments and we know far more about it now, ie we ventilated too many early on, and it probably was a cause of death in itself.

However a "second wave" isn't just deaths, it's also about hospitalisations, and when you've got that far (needing hospital) there is a significant risk of both death in a few cases, but just as importantly, serious long term illness caused by the virus.

On top of that hospital beds taken up by covid patients, take out of service wards / beds / nurses / doctors for other treatments.

 

[Marvin]

Given that it has only been tested in ferrets and with no humans whatsoever, would you consider your call for fast tracking prudent or perilous? ;-)

The Russians, Chinese and UAE are vaccinating key groups.

You have to balance risks associated with a vaccine that has not gone through all trial stages against the risks faced by an at-risk individual or someone frequently exposed to the virus, and who may act as an unwitting vector.

For information/background, TASS released this today...

" MOSCOW, September 28. /TASS/. Mass inoculation against the novel coronavirus infection with the Sputnik V vaccine may begin in Russia in late October, Fyodor Lisitsyn of the Gamaleya National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology of the Russian Health Ministry, said on Monday. "