Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[elbows]

Does anyone know why the FT boffins have analysed everything and come up with a figure of 44,000 and the government is at 26,000?

The FT's not exactly an anti-Tory paper. Can't quite figure out the discrepancy.

It was a projection based on numbers that we already had and estimates of numbers that werent available yet.

Some articles will also look at total excess deaths, rather than deaths that had a test or something about Covid-19 on the death certificate. I know all this can get confusing.

 

[Petcha]

I've copied and pasted it.

If data are included from Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the dates do not entirely match, 29,751 excess deaths were recorded by mid-April, far above the government’s latest daily running total of 21,678.

The official figures verified Financial Times modelling that suggested 41,000 people across the UK had died by last Tuesday either directly or indirectly as a result of coronavirus, with the death registrations higher than expected by the FT's model.

With almost 30,000 excess deaths by mid-April across the UK, approximately two weeks ago, the number of total deaths now is likely to be about 47,000, according to the FT model.

 

[Azrael]

The Scottish government's objective is now to eliminate Covid-19. Just a month ago, Bute House had run up the white flag and allowed the "herd immunity" fatalists to do their worst.

That's some journey.

 

[sheothebudworths]

The daily numbers didnt used to include these. But the weekly ONS numbers did, so we have already heard about suspected deaths before, but not every day. Now we get those daily as well.

In terms of inclusion to the reported deaths though, am I missing something?

From Tuesday 28 April, NHS England and NHS Improvement started to report the number of patient deaths where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process. This change has been introduced for deaths that occurred on 24th April and subsequently and is shown separately in the region data table only. When making comparisons over time these figures should not be included.

The weekly ONS figures haven't been included in that, have they - so do we now have figures that will include daily deaths where covid was mentioned on the death certificate from 24/04 onwards but without them being adjsuted on that basis from before that date (based on the weekly figures)? I hope that makes sense!

 

[Artaxerxes]

The Scottish government's objective is now to eliminate Covid-19. Just a month ago, Bute House had run up the white flag and allowed the "herd immunity" fatalists to do their worst.

That's some journey.

Sure it’s the usual politics, they say this in the expectation that any deaths that do happen can be blamed on Westminster and being part of the uk.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Does anyone know why the FT boffins have analysed everything and come up with a figure of 44,000 and the government is at 26,000?

The FT's not exactly an anti-Tory paper. Can't quite figure out the discrepancy.

Even with the daily care home deaths now being reported, the overall figures still seem to only include confirmed cases, mainly tested, but maybe also where C-19 is on the the death certificates without a test.

A funeral director mate has told me that many doctors locally are not putting C-19 on deaths certificates, unless they have been tested, despite them having shown symptoms.

Care Homes using this new portal to report daily deaths, have been asked to report both confirmed & suspected C-19 cases, but separately, I suspect only confirmed cases are being included in the government figures.

 

[Azrael]

Sure it’s the usual politics, they say this in the expectation that any deaths that do happen can be blamed on Westminster and being part of the uk.

If that was "the usual politics", Bute House wouldn't have allowed a dentist to mouth off to anyone who'd listen about the merits of "herd immunity"!

It's an ongoing irony of this mess that both Whitehall and the Scottish Government initially took a position directly contrary to their political interests: Whitehall threw away the opportunity to make the case for strong borders; and Bute House signed Scotland up to the "four nation" approach.

 

[cupid_stunt]

What we do know from some other European counties, deaths in care homes & the community are around 50% of all cases, so double that of hospital cases.

As elbows has said, we'll never know the true figures, the best we will get is the total deaths compared to the average of the last 5 years, over the same weeks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Even with the daily care home deaths now being reported, the overall figures still seem to only include confirmed cases, mainly tested, but maybe also where C-19 is on the the death certificates without a test.

A funeral director mate has told me that many doctors locally are not putting C-19 on deaths certificates, unless they have been tested, despite them having shown symptoms.

Care Homes using this new portal to report daily deaths, have been asked to report both confirmed & suspected C-19 cases, but separately, I suspect only confirmed cases are being included in the government figures.

It is only confirmed cases, yes.

I don't blame them for that, but it really does make many of the international comparisons almost meaningless. I kind of applaud Belgium for trying to be as honest as it can be about the extent of its deaths, but it's been jumped on by many, including me a while back, as demonstrating that Belgium's having a particularly awful time of it. It isn't. Reality is that a bunch of countries, including the UK, are about as bad as Belgium.

 

[Lurdan]

Covid-19 death rates are comparable to ebola for hospital cases, NHS finds - The Times (Paywalled - archived version)

Setting aside the clickbait headline this isn't great

Researchers gathered data from almost 17,000 patients admitted to 166 NHS hospitals between February 6 and April 18.(...) By that time 49 per cent had been discharged alive, 33 per cent had died and 17 per cent continued to receive care. The study is continuing and the scientists behind it said they had found Covid to be a complex disease quite unlike other respiratory viruses. The details of how it kills people were still unclear, they said.

(...)

The new study, the largest conducted in Europe, confirmed several previous findings: Covid-19 is more dangerous for older people and men fare worse than women. However, it found symptoms to be far more diverse than the cough and fever that the public had been asked to look out for. (...) The study has not yet been peer-reviewed but Professor Semple said a preliminary analysis of the data suggested that worse outcomes seen among some ethnic minorities could probably be attributed to social deprivation rather than underlying biological causes. (...) The most common underlying health conditions were chronic cardiac disease (seen in 29 per cent of patients), uncomplicated diabetes (19 per cent), non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease (19 per cent) and asthma (14 per cent). However, almost half of the patients had no reported underlying illness.

(...)

Coronavirus in numbers Study of NHS patients
72 — The median age of patients admitted to hospital
80 —The median age of those who died
0.8 per cent of patients were were aged under five and 1.4 per cent were under 18
60 per cent of patients were male. “Those who have poor outcomes are more often elderly, male and obese,” the report says.
88 per cent of those who died had an underlying illness

But 47 per cent of those admitted into hospital had no underlying condition
For patients who received care on a general ward, 55 per cent were discharged alive, 31 per cent died and 14 per cent remained in hospital.
For those admitted to critical care 31 per cent were discharged alive, 45 per cent died and 24 per cent continued to receive care.
61 — median age of those on ventilation. Only 20 per cent had been discharged alive by April 4, 53 per cent have died and 27 per cent are still receiving care. By contrast, for influenza patients ventilated in ICUs in 2009 the death rate was 31per cent

The case definition of cough and fever, if strictly applied, would miss 7 per cent of hospitalised patients
4 per cent of patients presented with only stomach problems or other intestinal symptoms
Pregnancy was not associated with a higher risk of mortality, unlike influenza. The share of pregnant women mirrored the proportion in society.

 

[Chilli.s]

Daily deaths is not the stat I'm looking at, as its so easily corrupted. Daily new cases is the more telling. I get the feeling that they are all being twisted though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Daily deaths is not the stat I'm looking at, as its so easily corrupted. Daily new cases is the more telling. I get the feeling that they are all being twisted though.

Number of people in hospital with C19 is a pretty robust guide to where things are going. It didn't pick up on the care home tidal wave of the last couple of weeks, of course, but it's a decent general guide to the direction of things nonetheless.

 

[2hats]

Daily deaths is not the stat I'm looking at, as its so easily corrupted. Daily new cases is the more telling. I get the feeling that they are all being twisted though.

Of all the figures provided, daily new cases is the most meaningless.

 

[Chilli.s]

Of all the figures provided, daily new cases is the most meaningless.

Why's that then?

 

[Pickman's model]

Of all the figures provided, daily new cases is the most meaningless.

lies, damned lies, and coronavirus statistics

 

[2hats]

Why's that then?

It is self selecting and capped by availability of testing. Consequently tells you nothing about numbers of infections.

 

[Chilli.s]

It is self selecting and capped by availability of testing. Consequently tells you nothing about numbers of infections.

Just like the death one then.

 

[Pickman's model]

Number of people in hospital with C19 is a pretty robust guide to where things are going. It didn't pick up on the care home tidal wave of the last couple of weeks, of course, but it's a decent general guide to the direction of things nonetheless.

no it isn't. it's a guide to how things are going while certain conditions obtain. it tells us nothing about how things will proceed if certain decisions are made, eg schools reopening, people stop abiding by the lockdown etc

 

[elbows]

In terms of inclusion to the reported deaths though, am I missing something?

From Tuesday 28 April, NHS England and NHS Improvement started to report the number of patient deaths where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process. This change has been introduced for deaths that occurred on 24th April and subsequently and is shown separately in the region data table only. When making comparisons over time these figures should not be included.

The weekly ONS figures haven't been included in that, have they - so do we now have figures that will include daily deaths where covid was mentioned on the death certificate from 24/04 onwards but without them being adjsuted on that basis from before that date (based on the weekly figures)? I hope that makes sense!

The daily NHS England data has numbers that carry on just the same as ever (require positive test), and also some additional numbers that are still hospital deaths, but not requiring a test, only from that date in April onwards.

The daily number 10 slides & data go further as of today. They have UK numbers in several formats, including an attempt to give a daily figure for reported Dovid-19 deaths in the UK in any setting. However these are probably dated by reporting date, rather than actual date of death, which is how I prefer to see such data. But that introduces some lag, and I can still use daily reported deaths to see trends over time.

I think they messed up the final entry in that data too. Unless 25300 + 765 = 26097 oh dear!

I dont think I will make much use of those particular numbers, because the numbers are still thousands behind what I end up with cumulatively on earlier dates for which I already have the proper ONS data by day of death, rather than by day death was registered. eg the number 10 data has a number of 16,872 for 17/4/2020 but I can already come up with a number more like 24,359 for the total by that date.

Bottom line for me is that ultimately I still rely most on the ONS & Scottish & NI equivalent data with which to eventually build the most accurate set of figures. Much of this data comes out once a week but does include Covid-19 deaths by date of death. Ultimately, with much greater lag, I should also be able to see ONS daily figures for all deaths, not just ones where Covid-19 is mentioned on death certificate, by date of death. eg I can already see such numbers for March, and towards the end of May I should be able to see them for April. In the meantime when it comes to total deaths from all causes, I can see weekly figures.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

no it isn't. it's a guide to how things are going while certain conditions obtain. it tells us nothing about how things will proceed if certain decisions are made.

Sorry, try reading my post again. Yes, it absolutely is a guide to where things are going. Looked at across various countries, you see repeated shapes, where number of people in hospital levels off then starts to steadily fall. We're now in that steadily falling phase, with the number falling a bit more quickly in London. What I said was 'it is a guide to where things are going', present tense, direction of current travel, which it is. There is a time lag, of course, allowing for the time it takes for the infection to take hold, but all measures have a time lag.

 

[elbows]

Daily deaths is not the stat I'm looking at, as its so easily corrupted. Daily new cases is the more telling. I get the feeling that they are all being twisted though.

Cases in the UK is a number I consistently ignore because it tells you more about testing regime than actual number of new cases. If they eventually end up with huge testing capacity that is actually utilised then the numbers will mean more, but I wont fairly be able to compare them to the previous data from when testing was limited.

 

[Pickman's model]

Sorry, try reading my post again. Yes, it absolutely is a guide to where things are going. Looked at across various countries, you see repeated shapes, where number of people in hospital levels off then starts to steadily fall. We're now in that steadily falling phase, with the number falling a bit more quickly in London. What I said was 'it is a guide to where things are going', present tense, direction of current travel, which it is.

a guide to where things are going, no matter how you dress it up, refers to the future. and where the curve goes in the future depends very much on decisions made whether by groups of people to no longer abide by the lockdown or by the government to eg reopen schools. it's not all that robust a guide if in defending it you say it's only a guide to the present.

 

[Mation]

Chinese schools 'back to normal' :

View attachment 209633View attachment 209634

I don't have children, so feel free to shoot me down, but that looks like quite a sweet and doable way to at least encourage something that seems mightily difficult at best.

They need front and back blades too, though, to truly be the helicopter* generation

But I wonder why those few kids towards the back don't have the blades too

* helicovter?

 

[Cid]

Just like the death one then.

We now have much better estimates of the IFR, so the deaths one can give you some idea of the total number of cases. I mean with fairly massive margins for error... Ok, too massive. At the very least they tell you how many people have definitely died of coronavirus in hospital though. Which is something. The new cases figures are completely useless.

 

[PD58]

Campbell on the mark again... from the BBC

Former director of communications to Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, said he congratulated Boris Johnson on the birth of his baby boy but he should have taken part in Prime Minister's Questions earlier today.

Speaking to the BBC, Mr Campbell said he was not "mean-spirited" but it was important to "keep our perspective on the scale of the challenge" the UK was facing, citing the latest death figures in care homes and BA job losses.

He said there had been "too much of a focus on this almost like a personal soap opera, rather than one of the biggest national catastrophes that we've seen in our lifetime".

He added that he was worried the media coverage, mostly by newspapers, would be "disproportionate" and that it was possible to wish Mr Johnson well but "they’re not the Royal Family".

 

[2hats]

Just like the death one then.

Correctly binned deaths starts to give you a vague idea of trend. But none of the daily numbers provide a clear picture of what really is going on, as has been pointed out several times now.

Better ideas of overall transmission are being derived from analysis of sewage.

 

[two sheds]

NHS staff coronavirus inquests told not to look at PPE shortages

Exclusive: guidance to avoid examining systemic failures is ‘very worrying’, says Labour

www.theguardian.com

what cunts eh. Do inquests ever ignore "guidance" like this?

 

[agricola]

NHS staff coronavirus inquests told not to look at PPE shortages

Exclusive: guidance to avoid examining systemic failures is ‘very worrying’, says Labour

www.theguardian.com

what cunts eh. Do inquests ever ignore "guidance" like this?

TBF I am not sure "guidance" like that has ever gone out - even deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan where equipment was lacking were dealt with by coroners (edit: that article mentions one case but there were others).

If its apparent that someone in the NHS died because their Trust couldn't get PPE what on earth is the Coroner meant to do? Blame God?

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

On a slightly different note I see construction workers can now be tested. I wonder how they can tell one way or another whether everyone is being truthful about their job?

If the testing centre needs to check, every construction worker will have a CSCS card with their photo on.

 

[Mation]

NHS staff coronavirus inquests told not to look at PPE shortages

Exclusive: guidance to avoid examining systemic failures is ‘very worrying’, says Labour

www.theguardian.com

what cunts eh. Do inquests ever ignore "guidance" like this?

Does this mean that inquests into the effects of coronavirus on NHS staff will not look at the contribution of lack of PPE to staff outcomes, or that they won't consider any political/policy decisions that lead to those outcomes?

I read the headline as the former but the article itself as the latter.

[edited for clarity]