Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[belboid]

I think I picked the wrong day to miss the press conference. WIll have to go back and watch it.



23m ago 17:17

that was the only interesting bit. It is a good bit though. Otherwise lots of Raab not saying what would happen if he had to actually be in real charge

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Jesus, Raab has a proper creepy smile doesn't he?

 

[little_legs]

he should have said actual 80% higher

 

[cupid_stunt]

Jesus, Raab has a proper creepy smile doesn't he?

Second only to Hancock, on the creepy scale.

 

[elbows]

he should have said actual 80% higher

Yeah the same thing I've been going on about with my tables and graphs. Nicer presentation of the same thing my earlier tables showed, albeit I used slightly more recent data but presented it in a less useful manner.

 

[little_legs]

elbows - Mobile posting be damned. Aye, I saw you posting your own tables and feedback 2 pages ago and this was in response to them. Your detailed posts on reporting are super informative and helpful.

 

[elbows]

I'm glad you posted it, I was so busy creating my own versions of the data that I wasnt looking at how it was being covered elsewhere.

The other reason its being reported on today is the related ONS data had its weekly release today. So here is another related graph:

 

[littlebabyjesus]

he should have said actual 80% higher

Fuck that is a rather perfect exponential curve.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Second only to Hancock, on the creepy scale.

Nah, I reckon Raab's ahead. He asks a question then that weird serial-killer fake smile that says 'now I'll extract your eyeballs and eat them'

 

[editor]

Good stuff from Lambeth.

Lambeth Council and coronavirus: keep your dogs on leads in the park, and joggers will be fined £150 for spitting

Lambeth Council have tweeted a message asking people to keep their dogs on leads when walking in the park. In a subsequent tweet, they reminded joggers that anyone caught spitting in the park could…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[SpookyFrank]

he should have said actual 80% higher

Yes '80% too low' to me suggested that the reported figures were only 20% of the real totals, which was an alarming prospect.

And if the discrepancy is caused largely by people dying at home and not in hospital, how many of those deaths could have been prevented if hospital capacity and testing and monitoring of patients were at the level they should have been? So far the narrative is still very much 'the NHS is coping' but I fear the true story, or as much of it as ever gets heard, will be very different.

I really really hope people end up on trial for their willfull sabotage of the NHS. Hunt and Lansley first off.

 

[zahir]

World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak.

The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus death toll stood at 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed.

The newly released data is disputed by scientists whose modelling of the likely shape of the UK epidemic is relied on by the government. Prof Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College, said the IHME figures on “healthcare demand” – including hospital bed use and deaths – were twice as high as they should be.

Coronavirus: UK will have Europe's worst death toll, says study

IHME analysis is disputed by scientists whose modelling is relied on by UK government

www.theguardian.com

 

[elbows]

Yes '80% too low' to me suggested that the reported figures were only 20% of the real totals, which was an alarming prospect.

And if the discrepancy is caused largely by people dying at home and not in hospital, how many of those deaths could have been prevented if hospital capacity and testing and monitoring of patients were at the level they should have been? So far the narrative is still very much 'the NHS is coping' but I fear the true story, or as much of it as ever gets heard, will be very different.

I really really hope people end up on trial for their willfull sabotage of the NHS. Hunt and Lansley first off.

This particular discrepancy is not actually about deaths that didnt happen in hospital. The numbers shown by that graph are both for hospital deaths. Its just one shows them on the day they were reported, and one shows them on the day they actually died. Thats also why that graph ends in March, because the blue ones, which are the corrected ones, the actual date of death, lag behind due to reporting delays so the data for April isnt that good yet, it would spoil the graph.

 

[bimble]

Coronavirus: UK will have Europe's worst death toll, says study

IHME analysis is disputed by scientists whose modelling is relied on by UK government

www.theguardian.com

Fuck.
Is that based on good predicting ?

 

[zahir]

I’ve no idea really. I was hoping elbows would give us his opinion on it.

 

[Cid]

Did anyone else get a high-risk text?

I am not, as it happens, actually on the list of extremely vulnerable conditions they link to. It's a bit grim... essentially just says stay at home for 12 weeks, there is some support available.

 

[elbows]

I’ve no idea really. I was hoping elbows would give us his opinion on it.

The only way is know really is to test the models against the reality over time. Quite possibly they have got some things wrong, and as we have been discussing today with NHS England hospital deaths data, there can be a big difference between deaths reported on a day, and actual number of deaths in hospitals that day. If they have fed the former into their model, then I would expect it to be wrong. But maybe there are other things built into the model to correct for that, or maybe they are accidentally wrong about certain things in a way that compensates for other mistakes.

Anyway the model they are talking about is one that we can actually see online. I was looking at it in regards the USA the other day, but their UK version does indeed seem to be available.

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

The large shaded areas reflect the range of uncertainty in the predictions, and I often talk about how a lot of these numbers we should be thinking of in terms of ranges rather than single numbers, because there is often a lot of uncertainty in science and modelling.

I havent actually studied their UK projections yet, I might end up thinking they are likely to be way off, but I think I used up all my brain already today so these thoughts will have to wait.

 

[Supine]

Fuck.
Is that based on good predicting ?

Time will tell. Models do their best to make predictions but their results are based on inputted data which comes from incomplete scientific studies and assumptions.

Anyone telling you 'facts' about how things will turn out are bullshitting.

 

[Edie]

he should have said actual 80% higher

Oh my god that is frightening.

Wait is that cumulative deaths, or daily death counts on the x?

 

[two sheds]

Did anyone else get a high-risk text?

I am not, as it happens, actually on the list of extremely vulnerable conditions they link to. It's a bit grim... essentially just says stay at home for 12 weeks, there is some support available.

I got a government veg box delivery today

I told him I felt a bit of a fraud because I'm perfectly ok at the moment so he said he could give it to someone else who needed it I then felt a bit guilty because he'd phoned me to tell me he couldn't find my house so I gave him instructions and eventually he did find me at which point he took them back

 

[keybored]

i presume this thing would be quite effective (filters are for aerosol paint) but i’m not sure i could take the strange looks

View attachment 205345

Not really (I use those sometimes). The air is filtered breathing in (through the cartridges on either side) but when you breathe out it goes through the exhaust (the red circle/grey membrane in the middle), which is unfiltered. If you sneezed, your germy droplets would simply be diffused in several sideways and up/down directions rather than straight ahead.

Might offer you some protection (depending on choice of cartridge), but will offer no protection to your fellow humans if you are asymptomatic.

It's basically a "Fuck you" mask.

 

[elbows]

Time will tell. Models do their best to make predictions but their results are based on inputted data which comes from incomplete scientific studies and assumptions.

Anyone telling you 'facts' about how things will turn out are bullshitting.

Yes. I just checked this model we are talking about now, and its using uncorrected daily deaths data, so it means even less to me than it would have otherwise. Having just spent half the day gawping at the corrected data, I just cannot take the old graphs seriously any more.

But how the uncorrected and corrected data compare to the data that has been reported in other countries I cannot say, so its not like I even have a solid basis for comparing countries at the moment either. Can still spot broad, strong emerging trends once enough recent days of similar stuff have passed in countries, so I do feel like we have a broad overview of how things are going in places, but its so easy for the detail to be highly misleading t this stage.

 

[elbows]

Oh my god that is frightening.

Wait is that cumulative deaths, or daily death counts on the x?

Its cumulative. At the point that graph ends, around March 27th, the highest number of deaths in hospitals in England on single day was around 316, and a week earlier than that it was still under 100 per day. (although that might still change a little as late data gets added).

I have slightly more recent data, although it still doesnt show the April picture very well. But by the last day or two in March the number of daily hospital deaths in England had gone over 500. I dont know how high it is currently, 3-7 days for the data to improve enough that I'd have a better clue.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh my god that is frightening.

Wait is that cumulative deaths, or daily death counts on the x?

It's still bad as it's a perfect exponential curve - each day's growth that little bit higher than the previous day's growth. But, to try to be positive about this, pretty much all of those deaths will be of people who contracted the virus before lockdown. We already knew that this was spreading exponentially at that point, so we should expect there to be an exponential growth in deaths right through that graph. It is merely confirming what we were already pretty sure about.

It does mean that the late action taken here has and will cost lives - thousands of them - but data from the next two weeks after that graph, when it finally comes, will start to tell us at what point the exponential spread was halted and how effectively it was slowed. I think we can safely say that locking down one week earlier would have made a huge difference, but we can't say how much of a difference yet.

The UK's pitiful testing has left us in the dark on this. The absence of test-trace-isolate and failure to test NHS staff have surely been a massive folly.

 

[lefteri]

Not really (I use those sometimes). The air is filtered breathing in (through the cartridges on either side) but when you breathe out it goes through the exhaust (the red circle/grey membrane in the middle), which is unfiltered. If you sneezed, your germy droplets would simply be diffused in several sideways and up/down directions rather than straight ahead.

Might offer you some protection (depending on choice of cartridge), but will offer no protection to your fellow humans if you are asymptomatic.

It's basically a "Fuck you" mask.

i’m sure a sneeze wouldn’t travel 8m going down and sideways through those small holes but i take your point - wouldn’t have the balls to wear it unless things got really desperate anyway

 

[SpookyFrank]

Oh my god that is frightening.

Wait is that cumulative deaths, or daily death counts on the x?

Remember that's only up to the 27th. We're falling away from exponential growth in the total number of deaths at present, assuming the reported figures have any bearing on reality.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Remember that's only up to the 27th. We're falling away from exponential growth in the total number of deaths at present, assuming the reported figures have any bearing on reality.

The only thing we can be sure of is that the reported figures are way out. It will be hard to tell when we've reached peak because the reported deaths will continue to go up for a while after peak as they fill in the gaps. Number of hospitalisations is the better guide, I think.

 

[keybored]

i’m sure a sneeze wouldn’t travel 8m going down and sideways through those small holes

No it wouldn't. Just a couple of meters to the left, right and below then (just checked mine, there's no hole at the top of the exhaust).

 

[xes]

Fuck.
Is that based on good predicting ?

If it's from J-IDEA then probably.

 

[Cid]

Not really (I use those sometimes). The air is filtered breathing in (through the cartridges on either side) but when you breathe out it goes through the exhaust (the red circle/grey membrane in the middle), which is unfiltered. If you sneezed, your germy droplets would simply be diffused in several sideways and up/down directions rather than straight ahead.

Might offer you some protection (depending on choice of cartridge), but will offer no protection to your fellow humans if you are asymptomatic.

It's basically a "Fuck you" mask.

They also have a tendency to drip with extended use.