wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
still lagging, was there a date attached to that timestamp?
Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
elbows
Well-Known Member
See pages 52 and 53 of the ICNARC report I mentioned earlier today if you want to see an even more obvious display of those trends.
( COVID-19 Report )
They show admissions to critical care as a percentage of hospital admission. And the number of critical care admissions where covid was reported as the primary cause for admission compared to secondary reason for admission to critical care. Just be aware of the usual caveats with that (in this case "For patients with COVID-19 reported as secondary reason for admission, COVID-19 may or may not have contributed to the reason for admission." ) and that the most recent periods data in that report is incomplete.
( COVID-19 Report )
They show admissions to critical care as a percentage of hospital admission. And the number of critical care admissions where covid was reported as the primary cause for admission compared to secondary reason for admission to critical care. Just be aware of the usual caveats with that (in this case "For patients with COVID-19 reported as secondary reason for admission, COVID-19 may or may not have contributed to the reason for admission." ) and that the most recent periods data in that report is incomplete.
elbows
Well-Known Member
This is how the reinfection data added or England looks when graphed on its own.
The first reinfection recorded in the data using the new method they introduced is for a test specimen on June 19th 2020. But do keep in mind that a lot of reinfections will have been counted as first infections due to the extreme lack of testing during the first wave.
We can clearly see that reinfections became a much bigger deal when Omicron grew. No doubt it is an escape mutant.
Since for a long time its hard to even see the reinfections on a graph using a linear scale, I have also included a graph that uses log scale so that it is clearer what numbers were being seen in the earlier period.
The first reinfection recorded in the data using the new method they introduced is for a test specimen on June 19th 2020. But do keep in mind that a lot of reinfections will have been counted as first infections due to the extreme lack of testing during the first wave.
We can clearly see that reinfections became a much bigger deal when Omicron grew. No doubt it is an escape mutant.
Since for a long time its hard to even see the reinfections on a graph using a linear scale, I have also included a graph that uses log scale so that it is clearer what numbers were being seen in the earlier period.
elbows
Well-Known Member
The age groups 04, 5-9 and 10-14 saw new highs reached quite a bit later than other age groups. Its the wrong moment for me to say with confidence whether these have now reached their peak. But they are so much higher than levels recorded via the testing system in previous waves, and frankly there are many other age groups where even after some large drops earlier in January, levels remain very high relative to previous waves. And some regions such as the South East are seeing more obvious growth again in more age groups.
I've got too many graphs to know where to start, and I probably wont update them till later this week, so to illustrate my point here is a graph from the weekly surveillance report. https://assets.publishing.service.g...1050508/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w4.pdf
elbows
Well-Known Member
Actually I did find time to graph latest data for the 10-14 age group.
As usual this is by test specimen date so the most recent 5ish days of data are incomplete. Data actually goes up to January 30th despite what the labels say.
England:
The South East:
elbows
Well-Known Member
At the same time as adding the half million+ reinfections to Engalnds figures yesterday, their new methods also caused them to discover other missing records:
www.gov.uk
Northern Irelands data was also updated to include reinfections yesterday but I'm afraid I've paid little attention to their data.
Today they are apparently going to add any deaths within 28 and 60 days of a positive test that occurred after reinfection. Apparently it wont be a very large number but I will reserve judgement till I see the new data.
COVID-19 daily dashboard amended to include reinfections
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) is now including data on possible reinfections in its COVID-19 dashboard.
Northern Irelands data was also updated to include reinfections yesterday but I'm afraid I've paid little attention to their data.
Today they are apparently going to add any deaths within 28 and 60 days of a positive test that occurred after reinfection. Apparently it wont be a very large number but I will reserve judgement till I see the new data.
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
In my local area it’s highest in 0-9s, second highest in 40-49s (ie age of many parents) and third highest 10-19s.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Someone in Whitehall has been telling the press that they plan to end the daily data publication by easter:
inews.co.uk
Daily Covid death stats could be axed by Easter under plan to 'live with Covid', source says
Covid expert says the move could lead to a new variant of the virus going unnoticed
inews.co.uk
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
Someone in Whitehall has been telling the press that they plan to end the daily data publication by easter:
Daily Covid death stats could be axed by Easter under plan to 'live with Covid', source says
Covid expert says the move could lead to a new variant of the virus going unnoticed
So how is that supposed to help ?
[I don't think it will !]
elbows
Well-Known Member
Its to help the 'back to the old normal' agenda, rather than actually do anything to reduce levels of infection.
From a psychological point of view I would expect it to make a difference, it will play into the 'its all over' agenda, although that stuff has already come quite a long way in this country in the last couple of months, as the current pace of this thread demonstrates.
From a psychological point of view I would expect it to make a difference, it will play into the 'its all over' agenda, although that stuff has already come quite a long way in this country in the last couple of months, as the current pace of this thread demonstrates.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thats just because a big chunk of the weekend catchup figure of reported deaths has happened a day later than normal this week. Overall daily numbers by date of death have also increased slightly because reinfections are now included, but this isnt responsible for a large leap in numbers, just a subtle increase.
The trend and levels seen in the data when looked at by date of death hasnt really changed in a significant way at all, so there will be no fucking hell comment from me, although I remain unhappy about various aspects of the current UK approach.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Yeah. I know...but tbh 250-300 per day is fucking hell, anyway.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'm not happy about it but its in line with my thinking about what level of death they'll ask us to live with in the vaccine era, at least in winter. In fact its probably a bit below the levels they would probably consider we should put up with, probably due to a combination of Omicrons intrinsic properties and the size and timing off the booster campaign. What happens next is where my attention starts to turn, eg what impact from vaccine protection waning will be seen in the months ahead. Thats one of the reasons I wont be happy if rates of infection remain at similar levels to the present ones for a long period of time. And I watch data from Israel with some unease.
I'm not a big fan of those who want 'incidental' covid explanations to do all of their dirty justification work for them, but that doesnt mean I ignore such factors either. For that reason I am paying attention to ONS deaths data, which is laggy but can eventually help a better picture of covid death levels to emerge. Via their work we can get a sense of what proportion of all deaths are being caused by covid at the moment, how our total deaths compare to other winters death rates, and what proportion of covid deaths had covid listeed as the primary underlying cause (though dont push this too far, covid can still be a contributory factor in the other deaths too) eg:
None of this makes me too complacent in regards future winters because we dont know what will happen with variants, vaccine programmes, vaccine waning, and the return of more flu etc deaths in future.
I'm not a big fan of those who want 'incidental' covid explanations to do all of their dirty justification work for them, but that doesnt mean I ignore such factors either. For that reason I am paying attention to ONS deaths data, which is laggy but can eventually help a better picture of covid death levels to emerge. Via their work we can get a sense of what proportion of all deaths are being caused by covid at the moment, how our total deaths compare to other winters death rates, and what proportion of covid deaths had covid listeed as the primary underlying cause (though dont push this too far, covid can still be a contributory factor in the other deaths too) eg:
Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics
Provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the latest weeks.
www.ons.gov.uk
None of this makes me too complacent in regards future winters because we dont know what will happen with variants, vaccine programmes, vaccine waning, and the return of more flu etc deaths in future.
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
This^
Isn't believing it's all over tantamount to believing in Father Christmas, or the tooth fairy?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Depends what 'it' is in peoples minds exactly.
If 'it' is the heavy use of non-pharmaceutical measures to an extent not seen before in our lifetimes, then for now that is all over here. I just cant offer any guarantees about how sustainable that is because of various unknowns like the ones I just mentioned in my previous post. But certainly some properties of Omicron and the timing and takeup levels of the booster shots has meant that whats been seen this winter has proven to be compatible with that agenda and way of seeing things.
If 'it' is the heavy use of non-pharmaceutical measures to an extent not seen before in our lifetimes, then for now that is all over here. I just cant offer any guarantees about how sustainable that is because of various unknowns like the ones I just mentioned in my previous post. But certainly some properties of Omicron and the timing and takeup levels of the booster shots has meant that whats been seen this winter has proven to be compatible with that agenda and way of seeing things.
elbows
Well-Known Member
By the way, a UKHSA document describes the changes to data caused by now having a method for counting reinfections in England and Northern Ireland.
Here is a graph from that document showing weekly additional deaths that now show up in the 'deaths within 28 days of a positive test' data:
Here is a graph from that document showing weekly additional deaths that now show up in the 'deaths within 28 days of a positive test' data:
Cloo
Approved by toads
Rather BS-seeming headline on COVID from Telegraph here (you'll have to open post to see) - it says 'Lockdown only prevented 0.2% of deaths in first wave':
It says that closing schools, shops, businesses and stay at home orders lowered potential deaths by up to 18%, but then says 'mandatory lockdown' only lowered deaths by 0.2%. Surely those first things listed are most of what you'd consider mandatory lockdown? Unless they're using it solely to mean orders not to go to anyone else's house/not meeting with anyone else at all?
It says that closing schools, shops, businesses and stay at home orders lowered potential deaths by up to 18%, but then says 'mandatory lockdown' only lowered deaths by 0.2%. Surely those first things listed are most of what you'd consider mandatory lockdown? Unless they're using it solely to mean orders not to go to anyone else's house/not meeting with anyone else at all?
Steel Icarus
we move
It's the Telegraph
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yeah I saw that late last night and would normally pick it apart in detail but was hoping it wouldnt be necessary because I am a bit burnt out. It certainly seems to be the case that in order to fit the Telegraphs agenda, they've included only a few of the measures under the label of 'lockdown'. I will actually read the analysis they refer to at some point, but for now I'll say that it looks like the thing the report found greatest fault with was people not being allowed to do various things outdoors, combined with the idea that a bunch of the stuff done with formal rules could have been done voluntarily by the masses. I've always gone on about peoples behaviours and number of contacts being the thing that matters, but a lot of the right things that people would need to have done is incompatible with what the likes of the Telegraph would have spouted at the time, so they are trying to have their cake and eat it.
A similar contradiction arises when the early death modelling is criticised - if you want peoples voluntarily behavioural changes to act in a manner equivalent to formal lockdown then you need people to take the risk very seriously and act at the right moment. Worst case modelling scenarios that show the potential magnitude of events if everyone just carried on as normal are part of the necessary grim mood music. So self-defeating prophecies of the type that modelling offered are a useful thing, not something to complain about. But right up until the government u-turned and locked down in the first wave they were spending all their energy trying to get people to carry on almost as normal for as long as possible, and they utterly fucked the timing up as well. Plus one of their crap excuses for not considering asking people to suffer massive restrictions and behavioural changes earlier was that they didnt think people would accept such stuff, so they were hardly likely to then rely in a strategy that required people to do the right thing without formal laws at that stage. Meanwhile the reality of the first wave in the UK was that a lot of people did understand and took matters into their own hand a week or so earlier than the formal measures were announced, saving more people from death than would have otherwise been the case, so there was an important voluntary aspect to the first wave response.
Plus for those that choose to maintain the belief that UK lockdown came too late to make a big difference to the peak, we've now seen via the Delta wave (and potentially now with the Omicron wave) that strong measures also make a difference after the peak, and lots of the hospitalisations and deaths happened in the post-peak period in the pre-vaccine era. I wouldnt have wanted to see those long deadly tails play out without heavy restrictions and grim mood music in the first wave, as I expect it would have prolonged the agony.
A similar contradiction arises when the early death modelling is criticised - if you want peoples voluntarily behavioural changes to act in a manner equivalent to formal lockdown then you need people to take the risk very seriously and act at the right moment. Worst case modelling scenarios that show the potential magnitude of events if everyone just carried on as normal are part of the necessary grim mood music. So self-defeating prophecies of the type that modelling offered are a useful thing, not something to complain about. But right up until the government u-turned and locked down in the first wave they were spending all their energy trying to get people to carry on almost as normal for as long as possible, and they utterly fucked the timing up as well. Plus one of their crap excuses for not considering asking people to suffer massive restrictions and behavioural changes earlier was that they didnt think people would accept such stuff, so they were hardly likely to then rely in a strategy that required people to do the right thing without formal laws at that stage. Meanwhile the reality of the first wave in the UK was that a lot of people did understand and took matters into their own hand a week or so earlier than the formal measures were announced, saving more people from death than would have otherwise been the case, so there was an important voluntary aspect to the first wave response.
Plus for those that choose to maintain the belief that UK lockdown came too late to make a big difference to the peak, we've now seen via the Delta wave (and potentially now with the Omicron wave) that strong measures also make a difference after the peak, and lots of the hospitalisations and deaths happened in the post-peak period in the pre-vaccine era. I wouldnt have wanted to see those long deadly tails play out without heavy restrictions and grim mood music in the first wave, as I expect it would have prolonged the agony.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
And none of that means that I wouldnt change anything about the details of non-pharmaceutical measures now that we have the benefit of hindsight. We know more of what measures make the biggest differences, how people will behave in such circumstances, and that for example people could of exercised etc outdoors without a devastating impact.
But I suspect there were also other non-epidemiological reasons authorities favoured going that far. They were worried about unrest and loss of control, due to factors including a loss of emergency service capacity due to staff absences etc. So they tried to simplify the picture by having more people simply stay at home, until some of the unknowns about behaviour and wave magnitude revealed themselves. Likewise there were unknowns about the role of pollution at the time, and we have also seen that non-Covid health system pressures are reduced when people arent indulging in normal economic and leisure activities outside the home. Certainly if you then keep those heavy restrictions in place for way too long then some of the resulting health etc implications eventually start to tip in the other direction, but to start with its unsurprising that they felt the need to simplify the picture by curtailing normal activities with a very broad brush.
Also we had shit all mass testing capacity the first time around, so they couldnt use any of that stuff to take any of the strain, couldnt use it to unlock more nuanced approaches to stopping infectious people spreading the virus around. And public health messaging, rules and guidance are best kept simple. 'Stay home' was crude and heavy but at least people had a lot less trouble understanding it compared to all the rules and systems they introduced later, which included details that people have struggled to keep up with ever since.
But I suspect there were also other non-epidemiological reasons authorities favoured going that far. They were worried about unrest and loss of control, due to factors including a loss of emergency service capacity due to staff absences etc. So they tried to simplify the picture by having more people simply stay at home, until some of the unknowns about behaviour and wave magnitude revealed themselves. Likewise there were unknowns about the role of pollution at the time, and we have also seen that non-Covid health system pressures are reduced when people arent indulging in normal economic and leisure activities outside the home. Certainly if you then keep those heavy restrictions in place for way too long then some of the resulting health etc implications eventually start to tip in the other direction, but to start with its unsurprising that they felt the need to simplify the picture by curtailing normal activities with a very broad brush.
Also we had shit all mass testing capacity the first time around, so they couldnt use any of that stuff to take any of the strain, couldnt use it to unlock more nuanced approaches to stopping infectious people spreading the virus around. And public health messaging, rules and guidance are best kept simple. 'Stay home' was crude and heavy but at least people had a lot less trouble understanding it compared to all the rules and systems they introduced later, which included details that people have struggled to keep up with ever since.
Last edited:
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
If the telegraph said the sun rises in the east I would have to get up early to make sure the earth hadn't changed its rotional direction (something I actually wish for)
e2a: leaving the late evening wine fuelled typo for future historians to pore over while pulling myself another glass of stay at home juice.
e2a: leaving the late evening wine fuelled typo for future historians to pore over while pulling myself another glass of stay at home juice.
Last edited:
Cloo
Approved by toads
Annoyingly of course people will nonetheless complain 'See it was all pointless!' rather than understanding that until you have data and mitigation, you have to assume the worst and this information isn't intended to discredit somehow what was done, rather it's info we can build on for the future.
Similar threads
