Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[littlebabyjesus]

The important thing is that no-one is defending this pathetic tory attempt at manipulating death statistics to their benefit.

(I haven't read the whole thread)

View attachment 226315

The important thing is to understand how the stats come about, all of them, especially if you want to compare them - what the strengths and shortcomings of various counting methods are and how they should be handled.

I know you have a particular interest in Scotland. All England is doing is adjusting its stats to match those of Scotland. So there are really only two possibilities here. First: a shortcoming in current English counting methodology has been identified and adjusted. Second, the Tories are attempting to manipulate death statistics to their benefit in a way that the Scottish authorities - and, by your reasoning, the Scottish government - have been doing, presumably pathetically, all along.

They had to make this change, or a change like it, at some point. You understand that, yes? You understand the change they made and why they made it?

 

[Maltin]

The important thing is to understand how the stats come about, all of them, especially if you want to compare them - what the strengths and shortcomings of various counting methods are and how they should be handled.

I know you have a particular interest in Scotland. All England is doing is adjusting its stats to match those of Scotland. So there are really only two possibilities here. First: a shortcoming in current English counting methodology has been identified and adjusted. Second, the Tories are attempting to manipulate death statistics to their benefit in a way that the Scottish authorities - and, by your reasoning, the Scottish government - have been doing, presumably pathetically, all along.

They had to make this change, or a change like it, at some point. You understand that, yes? You understand the change they made and why they made it?

This seems a bit of a disingenuous post. Surely you know that what the government has done is not just “adjusted its stats to match Scotland”. You suggest that there are only two possibilities which to me sounds as if you’re suggesting they are binary, where I would say what they’ve done is a mixture of the two and more geared toward the latter. You say they had to make this change but why? I agree that their methodology was flawed and could be improved but to make a change like this when the earlier figures are likely understated in the first place so the regularly reported figures will now be even more widely inaccurate of the situation as a whole, seems a bit bizarre. Maybe I would be more accepting if they didn’t just write off 5,000 deaths that have happened presumably mostly due to COVID19, and just announced new deaths under their new methodology.

 

[DexterTCN]

The important thing is to understand how the stats come about, all of them, especially if you want to compare them - what the strengths and shortcomings of various counting methods are and how they should be handled.

I know you have a particular interest in Scotland. All England is doing is adjusting its stats to match those of Scotland. So there are really only two possibilities here. First: a shortcoming in current English counting methodology has been identified and adjusted. Second, the Tories are attempting to manipulate death statistics to their benefit in a way that the Scottish authorities - and, by your reasoning, the Scottish government - have been doing, presumably pathetically, all along.

They had to make this change, or a change like it, at some point. You understand that, yes? You understand the change they made and why they made it?

I'm reasonably sure that you can't expand the terms of your definition and at the same time reduce yout total.

IIRC this isn't the first time the tories have changed the way they count deaths...or don't count them. Like a lot of people I view any change such as this with an extremely cynical eye. I understand that not everyone does.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This seems a bit of a disingenuous post. Surely you know that what the government has done is not just “adjusted its stats to match Scotland”. You suggest that there are only two possibilities which to me sounds as if you’re suggesting they are binary, where I would say what they’ve done is a mixture of the two and more geared toward the latter. You say they had to make this change but why? I agree that their methodology was flawed and could be improved but to make a change like this when the earlier figures are likely understated in the first place so the regularly reported figures will now be even more widely inaccurate of the situation as a whole, seems a bit bizarre. Maybe I would be more accepting if they didn’t just write off 5,000 deaths that have happened presumably mostly due to COVID19, and just announced new deaths under their new methodology.

That's where the 'excess deaths' figure comes in. I'm not saying we should passively accept all reasoning from the authorities. Far from it. We need to interrogate the figures thoroughly. Understanding this kind of change is part of that interrogation.

I apologise for the Scotland thing. That was tailored specifically for Dexter, whose opposition to the Tories has a specifically nationalist flavour to it.

 

[cupid_stunt]

The daily reported deaths, i.e. cases that had tested positive, used to always be lower than those reported by the ONS, i.e. cases when Covid is mentioned on the death certificate, yet that hadn't been the case in more recent weeks, so there was clearly something wrong with the daily figures.

The ONS data involves a lag, their latest figures are from week ending 31 July 2020 (Week 31), and report 193 Covid deaths, an average 27.5 per day, whereas the average of the daily figures for that week was around 55, basically double the ONS figure. Although the ONS' own data only covers England & Wales, they add in the figures released by Scotland & NI, see bolded bit below.

I'll just re-cap those as figures for the week - ONS (England & Wales) 193 + 7 for Scotland + 1 for NI = 201. The daily reported figures for the week had been around 385, which would appear well out.

The adjusted daily average for that week is now 15, 12.5 lower than the ONS figure, but likely to be adjusted upwards once checks are done on those dying up to 60 days after a positive test, which are no longer automatically included, but where the cause is indeed Covid, bringing it even more inline with the ONS data.

The daily figures have always been a rough & ready guide, I personally believe the ONS data is the important one.

• The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 31 July 2020 (Week 31) was 8,946; this was 55 more deaths than in Week 30.
• In Week 31, the number of deaths registered was 1.0% below the five-year average (90 deaths fewer); this is the seventh consecutive week that deaths have been below the five-year average.
• Of the deaths registered in Week 31, 193 mentioned "novel coronavirus (COVID-19)", the lowest number of deaths involving COVID-19 in the last 19 weeks and a 11.1% decrease compared with Week 30 (217 deaths), accounting for 2.2% of all deaths in England and Wales.
• The number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 31 July 2020 (Week 31) was 10,242, which was 42 deaths fewer than the five-year average; of the deaths registered in the UK in Week 31, 201 deaths involved COVID-19.

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics

Provisional counts of the number of deaths registered in England and Wales, including deaths involving the coronavirus pandemic, by age, sex and region.

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[cupid_stunt]

That's where the 'excess deaths' figure comes in.

TBH, that doesn't help much, as deaths this year were tracking below the 5-year average before Covid hit, and has been again for the last 7 weeks too, despite there being Covid deaths.

 

[frogwoman]

Thanks for the explanation. I really hope you're right, but I'm not confident that some sort of attempt at making the number look better doesn't come into it especially because the later upwards corrections probably wont be reported as widely as this has. And we all know about the Tories propensity to massage the unemployment and 'economically inactive' figures tbh so it's not a surprise people are suspicious. I realise 'it's the sort of thing they do' isnt a great argument though.

I know this makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist and your explanation makes a lot of sense, I'm still not sure about it though particularly since corrections probably won't be as reported or publicised widely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

TBH, that doesn't help much, as deaths this year were tracking below the 5-year average before Covid hit, and has been again for the last 7 weeks too, despite there being Covid deaths.

That shows a couple of things.

First that covid deaths have been very low in the last 7 weeks. More people are dying of flu now than covid. So covid has dropped right down the pecking order for the moment.

Second, tracking low for a while after the horrendous numbers of April/May is a reflection of the fact that covid took out the old and the sick. It's to be expected given the demographic of covid victims - median age around 81.

As ever all these numbers need to be understood in context, with their advantages and limits taken into account. You're dead right though that the daily covid death figure was always a very crude measure that needed to be treated with caution.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Thanks for the explanation. I really hope you're right, but I'm not confident that some sort of attempt at making the number look better doesn't come into it especially because the later upwards corrections probably wont be reported as widely as this has. And we all know about the Tories propensity to massage the unemployment and 'economically inactive' figures tbh so it's not a surprise people are suspicious. I realise 'it's the sort of thing they do' isnt a great argument though.

I know this makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist and your explanation makes a lot of sense, I'm still not sure about it though particularly since corrections probably won't be as reported or publicised widely.

Just trust the ONS data, as that is based on registered deaths, it's normally reported, but as it's only released weekly people tend to forget it, and focus on the daily figures, which were handy for spotting trends during the peak, but clearly not so good when the numbers are so low.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

One final point about excess deaths. They're tracking low now in part cos they were tracking so high before, but taken in bigger chunks, such as the first six months of this year or this whole year to date, they're awful reading for the UK in general and England in particular. So I will excuse the govt for changing this particular headline figure cos the reasoning behind the change is sound, but in no way am I making excuses for overall performance during this Covid year, which is what really matters, after all.

 

[frogwoman]

That shows a couple of things.

First that covid deaths have been very low in the last 7 weeks. More people are dying of flu now than covid.

I agree that covid deaths are currently low, but more people dying of flu, a highly seasonal infection with at least a 6 times lower death rate, in the middle of August?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree that covid deaths are currently low, but more people dying of flu, a highly seasonal infection with at least a 6 times lower death rate, in the middle of August?

Yep.

UK Covid Tracker

Track down to the bottom of this page. It gives the ONS figures for flu/covid.

It interests me because the measures we're taking to avoid catching covid will also be reducing flu, but not as much, evidently.

 

[maomao]

I'm all for statistical accuracy but there'll be a bunch of people today saying 'see, I told you they'd over reported, I bet it comes down more'.

I'd rather people were very very careful going into September rather than feeling vindicated in their conspiralunacy.

Yep.

UK Covid Tracker

Track down to the bottom of this page. It gives the ONS figures for flu/covid.

It interests me because the measures we're taking to avoid catching covid will also be reducing flu, but not as much, evidently.

It gives 'flu like deaths' which is not the same thing as flu. Could be anything from Covid without a positive test to certain kinds of poisoning.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd rather people were very very careful going into September rather than feeling vindicated in their conspiralunacy.
It gives 'flu like deaths' which is not the same thing as flu. Could be anything from Covid without a positive test to certain kinds of poisoning.

Yes and no. It says that because of reporting and testing issues - ie people suspected of dying of covid are given a covid test, while people suspected of dying of flu aren't so much. Any stats showing annual flu deaths will be quoting a 'flu like deaths' figure at you.

 

[maomao]

Yes and no. It says that because of reporting and testing issues - ie people suspected of dying of covid are given a covid test, while people suspected of dying of flu aren't so much. Any stats showing annual flu deaths will be quoting a 'flu like deaths' figure at you.

I'm aware of this, flu testing is very rare. However diseases that resemble flu are very common and there's no current flu epidemic. Non seasonal flu deaths are not necessarily connected to influenza viruses:

Protocol to investigate non-seasonal influenza and other emerging acute respiratory diseases

Protocol to investigate non-seasonal influenza and other emerging acute respiratory diseases

www.who.int

 

[frogwoman]

Can even be bacterial infections (and if your lungs are fucked up by a previous bout of the rona, or a bad flu for that matter then this could make you more susceptible to it) and humidity is bad for that kind of thing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm aware of this, flu testing is very rare. However diseases that resemble flu are very common and there's no current flu epidemic. Non seasonal flu deaths are not necessarily connected to influenza viruses:

Protocol to investigate non-seasonal influenza and other emerging acute respiratory diseases

Protocol to investigate non-seasonal influenza and other emerging acute respiratory diseases

www.who.int

Ok, I'll clarify it happily - covid deaths are currently running much lower than flu-like deaths, and have been for a little while.

But I'll hold you to the same standards if you ever talk about flu deaths in the future.

 

[maomao]

But I'll hold you to the same standards if you ever talk about flu deaths in the future.

Fill your boots. I just think your original post is misleading because it suggests there is a virus killing more people than the coronavirus which is certainly not a known fact.

In flu season the proportion of flu like deaths that are actual flu is considerably higher.

 

[elbows]

The comparison category the ONS have highlighted is actually called 'Influenza and Pneumonia'.

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics

Provisional counts of the number of deaths registered in England and Wales, including deaths involving the coronavirus pandemic, by age, sex and region.

www.ons.gov.uk

The International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) definitions are as follows: coronavirus (COVID-19) (U07.1 and U07.2) and Influenza and Pneumonia (J09-J18).

A death can be registered with both COVID-19 and Influenza and Pneumonia mentioned on the death certificate. Because pneumonia may be a consequence of COVID-19, deaths where both were mentioned have been counted only in the COVID-19 category.

In Week 31, 12.5% of all deaths mentioned "Influenza and Pneumonia", COVID-19 or both, compared with 13.2% in Week 30. "Influenza and Pneumonia" has been included for comparison, as a well-understood cause of death involving respiratory infection that is likely to have somewhat similar risk factors to COVID-19.

 

[maomao]

The comparison category the ONS have highlighted is actually called 'Influenza and Pneumonia'.

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics

Provisional counts of the number of deaths registered in England and Wales, including deaths involving the coronavirus pandemic, by age, sex and region.

www.ons.gov.uk

View attachment 226365

The full list of things covered by J09-J18 is:

J09	Influenza due to certain identified influenza viruses
J10	Influenza due to other identified influenza virus
J11	Influenza due to unidentified influenza virus
J12	Viral pneumonia, not elsewhere classified
J13	Pneumonia due to Streptococcus pneumoniae
J14	Pneumonia due to Hemophilus influenzae
J15	Bacterial pneumonia, not elsewhere classified
J16	Pneumonia due to other infectious organisms, not elsewhere classified
J17	Pneumonia in diseases classified elsewhere
J18	Pneumonia, unspecified organism

So would include a multitide of ailments that aren't 'flu'. A childhood death from croup for example.

 

[8ball]

Can even be bacterial infections (and if your lungs are fucked up by a previous bout of the rona, or a bad flu for that matter then this could make you more susceptible to it) and humidity is bad for that kind of thing.

"The rona" - I thought that was a Scottish expression..

</derail>

 

[souljacker]

I'm all for statistical accuracy but there'll be a bunch of people today saying 'see, I told you they'd over reported, I bet it comes down more'.

My conspiraloon mate said exactly this last night.

 

[elbows]

Anyone got a local perspective on the Northampton situation. I got some vulnerable folk working in the office and they are freaking about the idea of local lockdown.

I remembered your post from a while back. Northampton has been in the news today:

A sandwich-making company in the UK says “a number” of its workers have tested positive for coronavirus at its factory in Northampton, in the East Midlands.

Greencore said in a statement that it had decided to "start proactively testing" all of its workers at its Northampton site after a rise of Covid-19 cases in the area.

"We can confirm that a number of colleagues have tested positive for the virus and are now self-isolating," it said.

The director of public health at Northamptonshire County Council, Lucy Wightman, said the borough had been experiencing a "high number of cases over the last four weeks" and employers had been asked to "act now" to avoid a local lockdown.

From 12:46 of the BBC live updates page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-53730372

edit - ah it has its own story now:

Coronavirus: Greencore staff self-isolate after outbreak

Health officials are working with the sandwich makers in Northampton, where 299 tested positive.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

My conspiraloon mate said exactly this last night.

My "I'm only asking questions" acquaintances were all over it repeatedly yesterday :/

 

[elbows]

A not too subtle degree of bias from Northamptonshires director of public health in the quotes from that article methinks:

Mrs Wightman said Greencore had "highly effective measures in place and they continue to work extremely hard to exceed the requirements needed to be Covid-19 secure within the workplace".

She said the outbreak was "about how people behave outside of Greencore, not at work," adding if people failed to follow the rules "a possible local lockdown will follow".

 

[elbows]

Personally I'd tend to believe that if a single employer can detect 299 cases and they arent thought to involve infection at that workplace, surely thats a sign of very high levels of community spread and they should arguably already be in some sort of lockdown.

But I'm not convinced that is the actual picture, and 'continue to work extremely hard to exceed the requirements' is such a weasel statement. I could fall exceedingly far short of 'covid secure' but could still be said to be working hard to exceed the standards.

 

[zora]

I literally just read that myself and was thinking the same thing. If NHS testing returns 70-odd cases and employer testing nearly 300 - either cases in the community generally must be magnitudes higher, or the workplace situation isn't all that.
Like with all health and safety measures, I think anyone who has ever worked for any company, will know that the written proposals/requirements and the reality of the everyday work situation are not always the same.

My company is saying all the right things as well, and it all looks great on paper, but in reality we are all run so ragged (while x-number of staff are still on furlough to save the company money...), that it is impossible in every single situation to keep a cool head and manage social distancing to perfection (let alone the different buy-in to the rules among staff and customers, and the whole human nature thing of operating at the distances that come naturally to us, or wanting to make ourselves understood- hence people removing masks when speaking to others etc).

I very strongly have the feeling that my workplace is covid-secure while noone with actual covid is in it...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Personally I'd tend to believe that if a single employer can detect 299 cases and they arent thought to involve infection at that workplace, surely thats a sign of very high levels of community spread and they should arguably already be in some sort of lockdown.

But I'm not convinced that is the actual picture, and 'continue to work extremely hard to exceed the requirements' is such a weasel statement. I could fall exceedingly far short of 'covid secure' but could still be said to be working hard to exceed the standards.

This sort of shit really fucks me off, tbh. And this is where employers are taking their lead from the government - a clear workplace outbreak, with what looks like a massive superspreader event, and yet of course they are doing everything right.

Yet another food processing factory.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A not too subtle degree of bias from Northamptonshires director of public health in the quotes from that article methinks:

I just reread that. It is actually quite shocking for her to say that with a straight face. Blame the workers!!!

 

[Supine]

That company has fucked up somehow someway. Can't believe they are allowed to keep running with so many cases.