Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[kabbes]

What’s the false positive rate of the test and how much above that are we on a daily basis? And, I guess, what’s the false negative too?

 

[teuchter]

The ZOE graph at the moment, in theory not affected by things like testing rates as it's based on self-reported symptoms.

 

[BigMoaner]

By my back of a beer mat calculations, the cases have been level for long enough now to have transferred into hospital admissions. But they are still decreasing. Maybe that pesky killer vaccine rollout is actually working? According to anti-vaxxers, people should be dropping dead from 5g activated illnesses by now as well so someone isn't telling the truth.

news circulating that a percentage of those vacinnated have turned into 5G masts. not covered in the msm, of course.

 

[prunus]

What’s the false positive rate of the test and how much above that are we on a daily basis? And, I guess, what’s the false negative too?

The false positive rate on the PCR test is tiny, at most something of the order of 0.1% and likely significantly lower.

I believe the lateral flow test is more like 0.3%.

False negatives are much more common, something like 25% for the lateral flow tests (though they claim 5% for high viral load individuals); can’t recall what it is for pcr, but I remember it’s higher than one might think - 15% or something.

 

[elbows]

The ZOE graph at the moment, in theory not affected by things like testing rates as it's based on self-reported symptoms.

Also note their current regional R estimates. Although it should be said that there was a period a while ago where some of these also went above 1, but that time it did not last. I think these change every day and fluctuation isnt unusual due to the way they calculate them.

 

[elbows]

By my back of a beer mat calculations, the cases have been level for long enough now to have transferred into hospital admissions. But they are still decreasing. Maybe that pesky killer vaccine rollout is actually working? According to anti-vaxxers, people should be dropping dead from 5g activated illnesses by now as well so someone isn't telling the truth.

Daily hospital admissions/diagnoses have been pretty stagnant for about 5 days of the most recent data for England. But this has also happened before, earlier in March, and then they resumed a downwards trend, so at this particular stage they dont offer me any certainty about what will happen next.


Using data from Statistics » COVID-19 Hospital Activity

 

[kabbes]

The false positive rate on the PCR test is tiny, at most something of the order of 0.1% and likely significantly lower.

I believe the lateral flow test is more like 0.3%.

False negatives are much more common, something like 25% for the lateral flow tests (though they claim 5% for high viral load individuals); can’t recall what it is for pcr, but I remember it’s higher than one might think - 15% or something.

If memory serves, they’re doing something like 1.5m tests a day? So if nobody has the disease at all, that’s about 1500 to 4500 positive results right there. So that’s our baseline “zero”.

 

[elbows]

People learnt the hard way long ago not to be reassured at all by claims that increase in cases is due to increase in testing.

 

[kabbes]

People learnt the hard way long ago not to be reassured at all by claims that increase in cases is due to increase in testing.

Of course. That’s a different issue though.

 

[elbows]

As I've mentioned before we can see things like percentage positivity rates, and lab-tested data in the weekly surveillance report. And since its Thursday, a new version of that report came out today.

As usual, too many charts for me to do justice to the whole thing by placing them all here, but here are a few.



From https://assets.publishing.service.g...973174/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w12.pdf
Probably I will have to post a few more shortly in order to cover the main stuff I'd seek to highlight right now.

 

[elbows]

Number of incidents in this sort of data does not provide a full picture of cases in these settings, but its something, and we can see school incidents rising but impressive decrease in care home outbreaks, and hospital outbreaks also much reduced.

 

[elbows]

10-19 year olds of note:

 

[elbows]

Last few, dealing with different education year groups:



Those are from the supplimentary document rather than the main surveillance report.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973176/Weekly_COVID-19_and_Influenza_Surveillance_Graphs_W12.pdf

 

[elbows]

Oh one more from the main report. Hopefully the rise in 65-74 year old intensive care admissions is just a blip, but I am never sure until more time passes and data arrives.

 

[prunus]

If memory serves, they’re doing something like 1.5m tests a day? So if nobody has the disease at all, that’s about 1500 to 4500 positive results right there. So that’s our baseline “zero”.

It depends on the mix of tests of course, and the 0.1% for pcr tests is an upper limit (based on positive results in low prevalence surveys), it is very likely significantly lower, possibly something like tenfold (based on comparisons between symptomatic and asymptotic positive result distributions in different prevalence scenarios).

The lateral flow tests are a likely confounder though with their lower specificity; in short, who knows?

 

[Combustible]

Isn't the main cause of false positives in PCR tests thought to be from cross contamination, in which case the false positive rate should also drop off with the infection rate.

 

[elbows]

Nick Triggle continues to be apparently reformed compared to some of the terrible, dangerous rubbish he came out with in the past, notably his terrible judgement at the start of the first and second waves has given way to stuff which I am far less likely to take a shit on. Indeed I'm more likely to post some of his articles because they contain useful information, like the following one that just popped up, rather than post them so I can rant about the contents and the misframing. Even manages to include thoughts from Mark Woolhouse that dont wind me up for once.

Covid: What might a third wave look like?

Restrictions are easing, but with parts of Europe seeing rising infections, should the UK be worried?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[cupid_stunt]

Interesting link here, you can check the percentage of over 50s that have had their first jab in your area, big differences from around 66% to 96%.

Number of over 50s vaccinated in each local authority in England

Where does your local area rank?

www.inyourarea.co.uk

 

[emanymton]

Interesting link here, you can check the percentage of over 50s that have had their first jab in your area, big differences from around 66% to 96%.

Number of over 50s vaccinated in each local authority in England

Where does your local area rank?

www.inyourarea.co.uk

All I get is a shit load of pop up spam

 

[cupid_stunt]

All I get is a shit load of pop up spam

I don't.

Oh, hang on, are you not using a adblocker? I always assume everyone does.

 

[gentlegreen]

Bristol and South Glos seem to have it pretty well sorted

 

[Boudicca]

So what's going on in London then? Anecdotally (well urbanites in Brixton) the under 50s are now getting called up, but only 78.7% of over 50s in Lambeth have had the vaccine versus 90.5% in my current area. The gap is too big for it to be distribution issues.

 

[cupid_stunt]

So what's going on in London then? Anecdotally (well urbanites in Brixton) the under 50s are now getting called up, but only 78.7% of over 50s in Lambeth have had the vaccine versus 90.5% in my current area. The gap is too big for it to be distribution issues.

And, Camden is only on about 66%!

I guess resistance from certain communities, in particular the BAME community has been highlighted as less likely to get vaccinated.

 

[Numbers]

26.7% in my area

 

[cupid_stunt]

26.7% in my area

where's that?

 

[Espresso]

Bloody hellfire - 91.8% for Blackpool. Well done to all of the people involved in that.
Excellent.

 

[StoneRoad]

My titchy area (probably less than 10,000 people) has only managed 53.2% - well done for that, but still a looooong way to go.

[a very dispersed and tending towards elderly population, low proportion of BAME - a lot of poor farmland, on the edge of a coalfield, very little other industry, a lot of people commuting to larger settlements and some fragmentary service industries]


e2a - tbh, that figure and % seems low.

 

[elbows]

Interesting link here, you can check the percentage of over 50s that have had their first jab in your area, big differences from around 66% to 96%.

Number of over 50s vaccinated in each local authority in England

Where does your local area rank?

www.inyourarea.co.uk

I really need someone to check some numbers from that site compared to the raw NHS data available. Because I cannot get them to match up at all, but have only tried a few MSOA areas in my town.

Use that website to search for your MSOA by postcode, take note of the number it says, and the name of the MSOA.

Download the spreadsheet COVID-19 weekly announced vaccinations 25 March 2021 from the following site: Statistics » COVID-19 Vaccinations

Open the spreadsheet, go to the MSOA tab, search for the name of the MSOA you are going to check.
Ignore the number in the under 50 column. Add all the other numbers together. Compare with what the website says. Miles off?

Its possible to check percentages too, using the ONS or NIMS population estimates tab on the spreadsheet and then scrolling across to the MSOA section, but have to be careful not to include a bunch of columns when totting up population size. And then you'll have to calculate the percentages yourself. And I dont think there is any need to go this far if cant even get the numbers of people vaccinated to match.

The website claims the data covers up to March 21st, which is a proper match for the time period included in the NHS spreadsheet version of the data, so I have no idea whats causing this issue, if it even is an issue for areas other than mine. But for now I would not assume the website is accurate, not unless someone checks and reports a good match rather than my experience. Or spots a glaring error in my methodology.

 

[elbows]

Oh and the reason I was checking for myself is that the website you linked to said the percentage in my area was only 46.2% !!!!!

 

[Supine]

In Indy sage just now there was a graph on vaccine hesitancy. I think it showed a race breakdown as white 8%, Asian/mixed 17% and black 44%. If so a lot of work to do in areas with high bame populations.