Covid test figures
- Thread starter WouldBe
- Start date
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
It's just a guide to the direction of travel.
Although the media don't tend to report the number of tests, it's on the government's dashboard.
Although the media don't tend to report the number of tests, it's on the government's dashboard.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Testing numbers don't fluctuate from 1,000-100,000 day to day though. It's an easy figure for the media to talk about, and it does give (a rough) idea of the direction things are heading.
But a mix of other data is used for more accurate plotting: the ONS figures, Zoe app results, hospitalizations, deaths, research studies, etc.
Supine
Newt Member
Expressing rate as # cases per 100,000 is a good way to express the numbers more accurately than %. As said above to an extent it's only the direction of travel that is truly useful though.
Regarding test numbers going up - this is almost happening in a linear fashion but number of cases is exponential so it's not just test numbers that affect the result.
Test positivity is the other way to look at the data if you want to take test numbers out of the equation.
Regarding test numbers going up - this is almost happening in a linear fashion but number of cases is exponential so it's not just test numbers that affect the result.
Test positivity is the other way to look at the data if you want to take test numbers out of the equation.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Having (rather obsessively!) followed the numbers for months now, both here and abroad, imo the best 'real time' way to track trends in C-19 in the UK is the Zoe app results. They update the estimated total number of symptomatic cases daily, and now they are updating new cases daily as well.
Daily test results, especially at the moment with the various fuck-ups and backdated results, is not a good guide, other than showing that cases are much higher than they were. The Zoe app gives a better idea, imo. it shows infection rates at about 10-15 times more than they were in August. But it also shows the rise in infections slowing and the R number falling to close to 1.
That's the early indicator. Hospital admissions is a good later indicator, and is a pretty solid number to get a hold on the level of a problem c-19 is causing health-wise. That's rising pretty rapidly atm - close to 4,000 in hospital now in the UK. It will continue to rise even when daily infections start to fall, so we should expect it to go up for a while longer.
fwiw we've been pretty closely following behind France in these indicators. Spain has had more hospitalisations - 11,000 at peak, and now falling a little. My guess is that the UK will continue to follow France rather than reaching Spain's levels - that guess is based on the Zoe Covid App estimates rather than the daily test result figures.
Daily test results, especially at the moment with the various fuck-ups and backdated results, is not a good guide, other than showing that cases are much higher than they were. The Zoe app gives a better idea, imo. it shows infection rates at about 10-15 times more than they were in August. But it also shows the rise in infections slowing and the R number falling to close to 1.
That's the early indicator. Hospital admissions is a good later indicator, and is a pretty solid number to get a hold on the level of a problem c-19 is causing health-wise. That's rising pretty rapidly atm - close to 4,000 in hospital now in the UK. It will continue to rise even when daily infections start to fall, so we should expect it to go up for a while longer.
fwiw we've been pretty closely following behind France in these indicators. Spain has had more hospitalisations - 11,000 at peak, and now falling a little. My guess is that the UK will continue to follow France rather than reaching Spain's levels - that guess is based on the Zoe Covid App estimates rather than the daily test result figures.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's also an easy number for the media to use very selectively in order to give the desired editorial line for their headline. The Guardian has been bad at that. Quoting a single day's figure is not very meaningful.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's why I'm going by the Zoe app nowadays. Its figures have been borne out pretty well by the later, and more accurate, ONS figures.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'll be using this period and for a little while to come to judge how well the various survey test sampling type of studies are managing to estimate things. My eventual findings will have a lot of lag though, inevitably.
I should also caution that if ONS, ZOE etc are only covering community cases and not care homes and healthcare settings, they will not only be missing those cases but also wont be sensitive to aspects of epidemic waves that can be driven and amplified by spread in those settings.
The main testing system daily results are still of some value, especially if using data that records positive cases by specimen date rather than reported date. Not least because comparing these to the various survey/random sampling numbers will offer clues about which ones are showing the trends most accurately. That could change very quickly though, if the test system hits a clear and sustained limit in how many cases it can pickup per day, if at the same time we have other data to suggest cases are still rising really.
I should also caution that if ONS, ZOE etc are only covering community cases and not care homes and healthcare settings, they will not only be missing those cases but also wont be sensitive to aspects of epidemic waves that can be driven and amplified by spread in those settings.
The main testing system daily results are still of some value, especially if using data that records positive cases by specimen date rather than reported date. Not least because comparing these to the various survey/random sampling numbers will offer clues about which ones are showing the trends most accurately. That could change very quickly though, if the test system hits a clear and sustained limit in how many cases it can pickup per day, if at the same time we have other data to suggest cases are still rising really.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
I find that very hard to believe, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Why doesn't it make sense? Their estimates are that the R has come down from around 1.4 to 1.5 nationally a couple of weeks ago to 1.1. And it's been coming down everywhere, from slightly different levels. That's not inconsistent with the way hospital admissions have been growing steadily rather than exploding, even in the worst-hit NW. It's also pretty consistent with what has been happening in the second waves in France and Spain, which remain our best guide as to what is likely to happen here.
Elbows is right that it excludes care homes, but it is a good measure of spread in the general population. I don't have the info about care homes. One can but hope that lessons from last time were learned on that score.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Who's saying it's cause for celebration??
It is, however, an indication of the likely course of events in the next few weeks. There's no particular mystery to the way this second wave has been playing out. First time out we had Italy to look at to see our likely future. This time we have had Spain and France.
Anders Tegnell's point that, once infections have reached a certain point of spread, it's pretty much impossible to contain the spread, seems to be playing out. One thing we can be pretty confident of is that we're not going to explode into a thousand dead a day any time soon, or anything like it.
I can't find this estimate on their site - could you link us up?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I access it via the phone app. I'll have a look now.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's info only for contributors. You'll have to take my word for it that it's been coming down cos I know that from following it, but their latest Rs based records from the last couple of weeks are as follows:
Overall 1.1
SW 1
SE 1
East 1.1
London 1.1
Midlands 0.9
Wales 1.1
NW 1.1
NE 1.1
Sco 1.1
NI 0.8
Those are all down a fair bit. NW was at least 1.6 at one point, as were Wales and Scotland.
Overall 1.1
SW 1
SE 1
East 1.1
London 1.1
Midlands 0.9
Wales 1.1
NW 1.1
NE 1.1
Sco 1.1
NI 0.8
Those are all down a fair bit. NW was at least 1.6 at one point, as were Wales and Scotland.
elbows
Well-Known Member
What does that even mean? Contain the spread to what extent, in what sense? Whatever it is, its not likely to stop Sweden from imposing additional restrictions in areas where hospital capacity looks threatened, so they know that actually measures do things and are sometimes required.
Do you have a maximum in mind? And are these thoughts based on some notion about what you think the wave will do 'naturally' as opposed to what it will do when we inevitably bring in extra restrictions where required, to, you know, control the fucking spread.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I have far less confidence than you that many of the extra measures make much difference at all.
As to what Tegnell meant by that, essentially, it's admitting to not understanding certain aspects to how it spreads.
what do you think has caused the drop in R that Zoe has apparently observed in the past week or so?
elbows
Well-Known Member
If history is any indication then we are wasting our time by the way, he is a Barrington clown variant who doesnt want to believe in much of the substance of lockdown, masks or a range of other things. Prefers to pretend humanity has no real control at all and that therefore we should behave like an imaginary version of Sweden.
elbows
Well-Known Member
And even the Barrington clowns dont try to pretend lockdown etc have little impact on the virus.
It pisses me off so bad littlebabyjesus. I wasted so much time asking you questions that you dont answer, perhaps becaue I am too aggressive when you come out with a load of obvious bollocks. For a time I thought you would at least modify your stance as data from around the world came in, but no, it just gets woven into the existing fabric of whatever the fuck sort of quilt that is you've felt the need to make in this pandemic to protect some other pre-existing aspect of your worldview and beliefs.
I have a vague memory that you confessed to not understanding this pandemic and its issues at all well when it first started to loom large on the horizon. That was more than forgivable, but I just dont understand why what you then think you learnt since then leads to your current, frankly bizarre, stance.
I've forgotten if you ever told me in the past of any measures that you can actually bring yourself to believe make a difference. I mean proper mitigation measures, as its not good enough to spend months relying on the idea of track & trace to carry all the pandemic burden and then just move on when it fails to meet that challenge. Or to pin hopes on 'immunological dark matter' and then quietly move on when that one fell through via Madrid etc data. If these things were some kind of justification for your stance in the past then how do you prop up your stance sincerely now that those props are much diminished?
It pisses me off so bad littlebabyjesus. I wasted so much time asking you questions that you dont answer, perhaps becaue I am too aggressive when you come out with a load of obvious bollocks. For a time I thought you would at least modify your stance as data from around the world came in, but no, it just gets woven into the existing fabric of whatever the fuck sort of quilt that is you've felt the need to make in this pandemic to protect some other pre-existing aspect of your worldview and beliefs.
I have a vague memory that you confessed to not understanding this pandemic and its issues at all well when it first started to loom large on the horizon. That was more than forgivable, but I just dont understand why what you then think you learnt since then leads to your current, frankly bizarre, stance.
I've forgotten if you ever told me in the past of any measures that you can actually bring yourself to believe make a difference. I mean proper mitigation measures, as its not good enough to spend months relying on the idea of track & trace to carry all the pandemic burden and then just move on when it fails to meet that challenge. Or to pin hopes on 'immunological dark matter' and then quietly move on when that one fell through via Madrid etc data. If these things were some kind of justification for your stance in the past then how do you prop up your stance sincerely now that those props are much diminished?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
I thought it was only on the news last night that the R rate in Scotland was 1.6 or was that just in Glasgow?
elbows
Well-Known Member
R is always an estimate, and its not surprised to see quite large variations in estimates from different sources. I cannot tell you which one is more likely to be accurate on this occasion.
These are the figures Scotland put in its evidence paper yesterday when setting out the case for their new restrictions.
From https://www.gov.scot/binaries/conte...-19%29+-+evidence+paper+-+7+October+2020-.pdf
elbows
Well-Known Member
I should also point out that there was a stage in August where the limitations of things like Zoe became apparent, as well as there being lag between official testing figures coming out and people like me who were trying not to jump the gun really grasping the significance of them.
And funnily enough the posts I will use to illustrate this feature both myself and littlebabyjesus.
August 19th:
Later in that main UK thread, on August 27th:
and then in response to a post from someone else that included this graphic:
came:
to which a reply came
That reply came with a graph from the official dashboard:
I hope that gives quite a vivid demonstration of the limitations of certain studies at certain stages, how keen someone was to spin the picture those studies offered, and how far I ended up behind the curve with my own impression of where things were at for a time in August. My stance that I quoted above did not survive for very much longer after I made it. By August 29th I took how many people on these forums were mentioning various symptoms again as a bad sign. By around September 4th the extent to which the testing system was picking up continual rises and, even more worryingly, struggling to meet demand sealed the deal for me and I switched off my relaxed summer mode and returned to my default pandemic stance which is far less optimistic.
I was not at all pleased with my performance for a chunk of August, I was too slow to read the signs that were there, and one of the lessons for me was to place less weight on infection surveys and their laggy findings. The actual numbers from the main testing system were a better guide, as Supine showed and was them demonstrated to be correct with the subsequent passage of more time and the trajectory that emerged.
And funnily enough the posts I will use to illustrate this feature both myself and littlebabyjesus.
August 19th:
Later in that main UK thread, on August 27th:
and then in response to a post from someone else that included this graphic:
came:
to which a reply came
That reply came with a graph from the official dashboard:
I hope that gives quite a vivid demonstration of the limitations of certain studies at certain stages, how keen someone was to spin the picture those studies offered, and how far I ended up behind the curve with my own impression of where things were at for a time in August. My stance that I quoted above did not survive for very much longer after I made it. By August 29th I took how many people on these forums were mentioning various symptoms again as a bad sign. By around September 4th the extent to which the testing system was picking up continual rises and, even more worryingly, struggling to meet demand sealed the deal for me and I switched off my relaxed summer mode and returned to my default pandemic stance which is far less optimistic.
I was not at all pleased with my performance for a chunk of August, I was too slow to read the signs that were there, and one of the lessons for me was to place less weight on infection surveys and their laggy findings. The actual numbers from the main testing system were a better guide, as Supine showed and was them demonstrated to be correct with the subsequent passage of more time and the trajectory that emerged.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Although I suppose I dont feel quite so bad about my own attempts not to jump the gun in August, or what Zoe was coming out with then, when I remind myself that the scale of the increases then (as shown in Supines zoomed in graph of the time) is now hard to even see on a broader graph given the heights and trajectory reached subsequently. Which made it harder to discount infection surveys of the time too, without the benefit of hindsight at the time it was hard to be sure there really was the beginnings of a sustained increase as opposed to bumps along the bottom. Until September, that is.
elbows
Well-Known Member
So this weeks ONS numbers include:
Have to be careful because thats only England, and only community, so wont capture hospital or care home cases or changes in trajectory in those settings.
Have to be careful because thats only England, and only community, so wont capture hospital or care home cases or changes in trajectory in those settings.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey pilot - Office for National Statistics
Estimates for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This survey is being delivered in partnership with University of Oxford, University of Manchester, Public Health England and Wellcome Trust.
www.ons.gov.uk
elbows
Well-Known Member
Are you looking at hospital data from France and England by region at all?
Are any regions in France doing the following in terms of trajectory for number of people in hospital?
I dont find it at all easy to make any predictions about our trajectory relative to other countries right now, although it would be much better if I could. And I certainly feel like I'm not getting the right picture if I dont look at regional data too. And when it comes to regions of England, these are the most dramatic examples at the moment.
Number of Covid-19 patients in hospital:
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
I see that on the website the estimate date is now today, October 16th, based on data from September 28 to Octoer 12th. I was wondering if you could tell me what sort of values for R are showing up in the app these days, cheers.
They have an article about the latest finding here:
Case rising steadily and rapidly in the North of England
The latest COVID Symptom Study data shows that cases are continuing to rise steadily in the UK and daily new cases in the North are rising rapidly. This week we introduce the new Tier Prediction model, which predicts which regions in the UK may be made a Tier 3 region.
covid.joinzoe.com
Similar threads
