Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

I've not been keeping up but just read of todays briefing "He said people should wear face coverings in shops and on public transport".
Is that new or have we already been told to wear 'face coverings" when shopping?
 
I thought the ONS data indicated 42k where covid was on the death certificate?
elbows said:
I use the ONS (& equivalents for Scotland and Northern Ireland) data for official death toll. Leaving aside all the deaths not recorded as Covid19 on death certificate, for which we would look at overall mortality figures, the figure for COVID19 deaths was 38,420 deaths that happened up to and including 1st May.

The estimate for population infected so far is likely to be the most inaccurate. But it varies in different regions of the UK, and how many of those infections were in groups especially vulnerable to this disease would also make a difference.
Click to expand...
 
Doodler said:
Assuming an Infection Fatality Rate of 1% and 5% of the UK population having caught Covid-19 to date predicts around 33,000 deaths. This is not far off the official death toll.

Which of the above assumptions is likely to be the most inaccurate?
Click to expand...
I'm always doing this sum, for various countries. I get the excess death numbers from the Economist, The UK number is 51,000. Tracking covid-19 excess deaths across countries

The Spanish are confident about their national testing: 70,000 people and an infection rate of 5%. Antibody study shows just 5% of Spaniards have contracted the coronavirus If their unexplained deaths are counted as Covid they have an IFR of 1.3%. A sobering thought....13 times higher than seasonal flu. If everyone were to be infected before they are vaccinated we'd have 883,000 deaths in the UK and 101m worldwide.
 
Doodler said:
Thank you. There have been such widely varying estimates of the proportion of the population likely to have been infected so far, it's hard to know what to expect.
Click to expand...

The only ones I can take seriously so far are all within the same kind of pretty low range. I expect estimates to vary a bit, and those do, but not by baffling amounts.

Those low ones are the only ones I can take seriously because thats the sort of levels that various serology(antibody) studies have shown from various places. There have not been enough large, sustained studies yet for me to feel like I have all the definitive answers, far from its, its still early days, but there isnt much that contradicts initial findings from these.

And thats the reason I cannot currently take seriously any studies that have modelled or supposed a much higher proportion of populations infected so far. I'll still look at them in case they are onto something compelling, so far they have not been. I like to think I can still review them fairly despite whatever odious slugs are trying to use their findings to make some hideous anti-lockdown point, but its possible that this still influences my opinion of them. All the same, I usually end up being unimpressed by their methodologies, theories and models. I will change my angle if some new facts are established that are actually compatible with what ehy've come up with, but unless I've missed something that hasnt happened yet, so I do not allow their higher estimates to cloud my tentative impression of the reality.
 
frogwoman said:
I thought the ONS data indicated 42k where covid was on the death certificate?
Click to expand...

Give me a press article or the ONS themselves giving that number and I will be able to explain why mine is different.

I tried searching and I found news relating to someone in early May using ONS data on all deaths in order to estimate that there had been about 42,000 excess deaths at that point. Well I go on about excess mortality figures all the time but thats not what we were talking about so thats why I used the number I did. Maybe there is some other occasion where 42,000 from the ONS has come up, but if so I need help from someone to point me in the right direction.

ONS data I use comes out on Tuesdays. Scotlands equivalent comes out on Wednesdays, and Northern Irelands on Fridays. I prefer to use daily deaths by actual date of death (not date of registration), and the latest date for which I currently have that data in May 1st. I had 35,044 for England & Wales via the ONS, plus 2860 from National Records of Scotland plus 516 from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.
 
frogwoman said:
Even a fatality rate of 0.3% would be catastrophic and mean 203k people could potentially die if everyone is infected.
Click to expand...

Regarding 'if everyone infected', thats yet another number we dont know. It seems to be quite normal to have population attack rate estimates (without lockdown or other mitigation) of 60 to 80% chucked around, but as best I can tell this was just a crude assumption that they had to use because they didnt have anything better, and you cant do much planning unless you pick some number for that.
 
bimble said:
I've not been keeping up but just read of todays briefing "He said people should wear face coverings in shops and on public transport".
Is that new or have we already been told to wear 'face coverings" when shopping?
Click to expand...

It is not new, it was part of the detail that came out in the days following Johnsons botched Sunday speech to the nation. Johnson made reference to it in the speech too if I remember correctly, although it goes without saying that he was low on detail.
 
elbows said:
It is not new, it was part of the detail that came out in the days following Johnsons botched Sunday speech to the nation.
Click to expand...
I see. Have not noticed any increase in face coverings this week.
Did they explain why this is now the advice when it was not for the past 2 months?
 
elbows said:
The only ones I can take seriously so far are all within the same kind of pretty low range. I expect estimates to vary a bit, and those do, but not by baffling amounts.

Those low ones are the only ones I can take seriously because thats the sort of levels that various serology(antibody) studies have shown from various places. There have not been enough large, sustained studies yet for me to feel like I have all the definitive answers, far from its, its still early days, but there isnt much that contradicts initial findings from these.

And thats the reason I cannot currently take seriously any studies that have modelled or supposed a much higher proportion of populations infected so far. I'll still look at them in case they are onto something compelling, so far they have not been. I like to think I can still review them fairly despite whatever odious slugs are trying to use their findings to make some hideous anti-lockdown point, but its possible that this still influences my opinion of them. All the same, I usually end up being unimpressed by their methodologies, theories and models. I will change my angle if some new facts are established that are actually compatible with what ehy've come up with, but unless I've missed something that hasnt happened yet, so I do not allow their higher estimates to cloud my tentative impression of the reality.
Click to expand...

The number is going to be higher if loads of people aren't being tested (even when dead) ? Although I guess if there are random antibodies tests throughout the country, not just in hard hit areas or in people who think they had it, it should give an idea of prevalence
 
elbows said:
Regarding 'if everyone infected', thats yet another number we dont know. It seems to be quite normal to have population attack rate estimates (without lockdown or other mitigation) of 60 to 80% chucked around, but as best I can tell this was just a crude assumption that they had to use because they didnt have anything better, and you cant do much planning unless you pick some number for that.
Click to expand...

How many people do more established viruses like the ones that cause colds infect every year? Is it 60%? Not every cold is caused by the same virus. Has anyone ever measured that?
 
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
 
David Clapson said:
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
Click to expand...

Let's hope it has spread more but there is no way of knowing until testing of random 'well' people is completed in big numbers.

Anecdotally 5% seems about right to me based on the number of my FB friends who mention having had it. Obviously that isn't a great data gathering technique.

Now I've just typed that I'm wondering if FB are actually analysing how many people have had it. Probably.
 
weltweit said:
I've been hearing the number of UK tests reportedly carried out each day, might be a bit misleading.
Click to expand...

You have only just caught up on this story? :facepalm:

It was wildly reported at the time, that to show they had hit 100k tests a day target by the end of April, they changed how they reported the figures, from tests actually carried out, to include tests posted out and/or in transit to testing stations, etc.
 
David Clapson said:
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
Click to expand...

Yes 5% seemed low somehow. I thought it might have spread quicker in the West Midlands, London and the commuter belt of south-east England. Vague notions which likely stem from the overwhelming importance given to the pandemic in the media. You read and hear about it everywhere which gives the impression it must be very widespread.
 
m.jpost.com

Coronavirus: UK synagogues not to reopen before July

Contrary to what happens in many Jewish communities around the world, the BOD manages to have a fairly accurate idea of how many Jews have died because of the virus.
m.jpost.com m.jpost.com
David Clapson said:
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
Click to expand...
I think it's disappointing because it means the case fatality rate is much higher if you do get it.
 
Chilli.s said:
I wish people would stop going on about herd immunity. It's an easy/lazy phrase to trot out but in the situation we have at the moment there's a good chance that it doesn't even exist.
Click to expand...

Yes but its a little hard to avoid as it would appear to be actual government policy. Also London appears to be one giant ongoing experiment into it's efficacy.
 
I can see that there are more face masks now than last week (just got through the thrill of my weekly tesco outing).
For the first time I feel like it would be at the leat a politeness to stick one on from now on. Will be looking up those youtube videos of making one out of a stray sock. Feel a bit bloody stupid for having in effect waited until the gov told me to do it.
 
David Clapson said:
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
Click to expand...

I think that when the govt has been going on about achieving herd immunity you would expect us to have got a decent part of the way there before lockdown. To only have 5% of people having been infected tells you how stupid an idea it was that we might get up to the 80-90% we'd need for herd immunity (assuming of course that infection gives immunity for a decent period of time).
 
I still don't think even 90% would make it safe for vulnerable people to go out. If restrictions were lifted then 30 people on a bus with one of them having it and two of them vulnerable doesn't sound too safe to me.
 
two sheds said:
I still don't think even 90% would make it safe for vulnerable people to go out. If restrictions were lifted then 30 people on a bus with one of them having it and two of them vulnerable doesn't sound too safe to me.
Click to expand...
If herd immunity is being discussed, then 90% tells you how many people on the bus are likely immune but it doesn't tell you how many are likely infected - over time it would approach zero.

I think we rely on about 95% for measles and it varies per disease, with a lower percentage having been suggested for covid 19.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
UK Inquiry Module 3: Impact on UK Healthcare Systems
2 3
Replies
76
Views
2K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 1: Resilience and preparedness
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
6K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 2: Decision-making & political governance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
5K
elbows
elbows
frogwoman
Shanghai lockdown
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
595
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom