Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

platinumsage said:
111/999 data would suggest there isn't a surge in cases:

Click to expand...


There's also something odd with the data for the end of June/start of July. Screenshots from the JHU Covid stats:

UK.jpg And zooming in...UK2.jpg

I assume that apparent pause in cases is some kind of gap in the statistics, which makes the end-of-June drop and then subsequent rise look sharper than they actually were. Doubtless someone who understands the data better than I do will be able to explain.
 
teuchter said:
It seems that we are now seeing fewer deaths overall than we normally would at this time of year.

One thing about this that is surprising to me is that it appears to apply to the younger age groups as well as the older ones.
Click to expand...
Not really. Spiegelhalter pointed out this mortality displacement weeks ago. Deaths of elderly/vulnerable brought forward, earlier in time, the deaths of younger cohorts moved back in time, to later dates, due to inactivity leading to risk reduction.
Doodler said:
Your graph image showed a substantial drop in deaths among 0-14 year olds, which is mysterious given the most common causes of childhood death:

View attachment 222219

'Childhood' is defined here by the ONS as 1-15 years of age. You might expect that only the external causes could diminish during the pandemic, e.g. traffic accidents, and that would not be enough to account for the overall drop in mortality. Maybe there have been delays in reporting or tabulating deaths.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what it does do if you read the data you are presenting and do the maths. (280-(280*0.164)=234)
 
2hats said:
Not really. Spiegelhalter pointed out this mortality displacement weeks ago. Deaths of elderly/vulnerable brought forward, earlier in time, the deaths of younger cohorts moved back in time, to later dates, due to inactivity leading to risk reduction.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean though, it's not entirely a surprise to see deaths amongst the elderly drop to levels below normal, but doesn't what you say imply that we should now be seeing an increase, relative to normal, in younger cohorts, if anything?
(link doesn't work by the way)
 
cupid_stunt said:
This hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, but would seem a fairly simple bit of research, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's confirmed, and is somewhat worrying, suggesting any immunity in recovered patients may only last a few months.



Coronavirus: antibody immunity could last 'just months'

Study by King’s College London finds a significant drop in antibody potency after three months.
www.sciencefocus.com www.sciencefocus.com
Click to expand...

leaving patients susceptible to reinfection year after year – similar to the common cold
Click to expand...

I thought cold reinfections were because there are so many variants of them that you get a different one each time.
 
2hats said:
That's pretty much what it does do if you read the data you are presenting and do the maths. (280-(280*0.164)=234)
Click to expand...

It looks like a bigger drop than that on the 0-14 years graph teuchter posted, more like from around 360-370 down to 280, say 23%.

teuchter.jpg

Also, it seems impossible for external causes to be completely eliminated. Some deaths happen within the home.
 
teuchter said:
That's what I mean though, it's not entirely a surprise to see deaths amongst the elderly drop to levels below normal, but doesn't what you say imply that we should now be seeing an increase, relative to normal, in younger cohorts, if anything?
(link doesn't work by the way)
Click to expand...
No. People (semi-)routinely engaging in risky activities aren't suddenly going to make up for it (even assuming they return to normal behaviours, which would appear to largely not be the case right now, let alone 2+ weeks ago when the data were collected).

The link works fine (is free FT content but requires registration); was only to point out he discussed mortality displacement many weeks ago.
 
Doodler said:
It looks like a bigger drop than that on the 0-14 years graph teuchter posted, more like from around 360-370 down to 280, say 23%.
Click to expand...
I trust you don't interpret data visualisations and statistical data for a living.
Also, it seems impossible for external causes to be completely eliminated. Some deaths happen within the home.
Click to expand...
External in this context means outside the corporeal body, not outside the home.
 
2hats said:
I trust you don't interpret data visualisations and statistical data for a living.
Click to expand...

You'll just have to resign yourself to rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi on a public forum like this.

2hats said:
External in this context means outside the corporeal body, not outside the home.
Click to expand...

Yes, and external causes therefore include ones which are unlikely to be reduced by lockdown restrictions on spending time outdoors. Some classes of injury will occur indoors, including assaults. The latter might even increase during lockdown - domestic violence has. Also, poisoning is a significant external cause among young children, and I would guess this often occurs within the home.
 
2hats said:
No. People (semi-)routinely engaging in risky activities aren't suddenly going to make up for it (even assuming they return to normal behaviours, which would appear to largely not be the case right now, let alone 2+ weeks ago when the data were collected).

The link works fine (is free FT content but requires registration); was only to point out he discussed mortality displacement many weeks ago.
Click to expand...
I think I'm not understanding something... what is the explanation for the drop in deaths for the 0-14 age group in the last 2-3 weeks? Or is it just an anomaly that will be insignificant in the longer term?
 
I suppose if it was just down to less risky behaviour we would have expected less deaths in the 0-14 age group throughout lockdown.
 
weepiper said:
3 new cases and 0 deaths for the sixth day running in Scotland and similarly negligible in Wales and NI. Reporting this as 'UK' is really disingenuous (of the government, not having a go at you).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's disingenuous really - it's pretty negligible in London now too. Should they report it as "provincial England" rather than UK?
 
teuchter said:
I'm not sure it's disingenuous really - it's pretty negligible in London now too. Should they report it as "provincial England" rather than UK?
Click to expand...
Scotland and England have different health services and policies. The public approach is generally different as well, so no, it isn't disingenuous. To most people outside England it looks like they're actively (sic) trying to kill as many as they can.

Anyway...masks in shops...in 10 days. Because what's the hurry, eh?
 
weepiper said:
London's not a country.
Click to expand...
London is arguably more distinct from the UK in general, than Scotland is, in certain ways. And it also has devolved government to some extent.

But anyway I don't really see what the problem is with reporting the UK figures as the UK figures - that's what they are. They include areas which have had quite different rates of infection. Scotland is one of the parts of the UK which you can draw a line around and say it has done better than the average, but it's not unique in that.

That Scotland & England are different countries does not really explain the disparity. For example, the south west region of England has seen almost exactly the same rate of deaths per head of population as Scotland has.
 
DexterTCN said:
What have the deaths been for the last 20 days then? For context.
Click to expand...

The average daily deaths has been falling slowly from around 100 to 80-something at present.

So still one Grenfell tower fire per day. Another month and, best case scenario, we'll be at one 7/7 bombing per day. Johnson and his pals should be heads on spikes by now.
 
elbows said:
That cunt Gove talking shit about masks, make him work in a small shop for a week and I reckon he'd change his tune after 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

Many years ago Gove wrote an article about Frank Capra's 'It's a Wonderful Life'. He claimed he hated the friendly small-town Bedford Falls but loved the cruel, corrupt alternative world of Pottersville because the latter had potential for change and growth.
 
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
1K
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
2K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
580
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom