Coronavirus

[Carlos]

Shops have been busy the weekend, 50m queues to get in so I suspect the hoarding has started again.

This morning the Welsh Government reassures people a national lockdown is not imminent phew as I'm low on toilet roll, wine and dad's out of Black Label.

2 hours later another 4 counties go into lockdown

[Swervin_Mervin]

Anyone seen the latest made up what could happen scareograph? What a joke. I reckon its making way for some other redic announcement from the government this afternoon.

i think you've missed off the link.

For the technically inept;

As Andrew Neil has been pointing out on Twitter, they've been suggesting that our trends are following those of France but in the same breath mention this doubling every 7 days. Yet France has gone as follows: 9,406 cases Sept 11, 13,215 Sept 18. That would put us at around 10,000 cases/day by mid-October not 50,000.

Our cases have gone from 3,330 on Sept 13 to 3,889 on Sept 20. Where's this doubling every 7 days coming from?

[Rich B]

New Cases Per day 21 Apr - 3896
New cases per day 21 Sep - 4368

OH MY GAWD WE'RE BACK IN LOCKDOWN!!!!!!

Deaths per day 21 Apr - 1166
Deaths per day 21 sept - 11

Oh. Maybe not.

[Rich B]

And some more comparisons info:

Tests per day 21 Apr. - 17,365
Tests per day 18 Sept - 233,199

[Simon]

Always look at deaths from cases figures 2 to 4 week prior due to the lag...

[duncs500]

Number of cases is a bit of a pointless stat in many ways. Could depend on how many tests were done, how well targeted those tests were etc etc.

[Rich B]

Always look at deaths from cases figures 2 to 4 week prior due to the lag...

2 weeks ago there were 2619 new cases from 169,930 tests carried out. Which is about the same percentage as today's figures - 1.5% tested are positive.

Back in April tests were 23% positive.

We're simply testing way more and finding the non-serious cases, which is a good thing.

[Gwaredd]

Still a lot of stupids out there, but by and large, people are being sensible (by keeping distanced and wearing masks), so I think that's helping to keep the viral load down which may go some way to explain the high amount of cases yet low death toll. Just a reasoned thought.

[Simon]

I picked up a Chinese from the takeaway at the weekend. Of the 8 of us in and out the takeaway in a 10 minute period, only 2 of us were wearing masks, and of those 2 I was the only one who didn't have it tucked under my nose.

There was no pattern or stereotype of the other 6 either. They were well dressed, scruffy, old, young, etc etc. I belmed at them all hard, from behind my mask.

[McSwede]

Still a lot of stupids out there, but by and large, people are being sensible (by keeping distanced and wearing masks), so I think that's helping to keep the viral load down which may go some way to explain the high amount of cases yet low death toll. Just a reasoned thought.

I agree with what he said to be fair.

[drcarlos]

Always look at deaths from cases figures 2 to 4 week prior due to the lag...

2 weeks ago there were 2619 new cases from 169,930 tests carried out. Which is about the same percentage as today's figures - 1.5% tested are positive.

Back in April tests were 23% positive.

We're simply testing way more and finding the non-serious cases, which is a good thing.

The false positive rate for the pcr test is around 1%. Having read about it and the way it works by dna amplification it’s finding a lot of dead virus.

[GG.]

Assuming that 1 in 100 is correct and working from Rich's numbers, that would put false positives at around 53.39% of all positive cases.

As I said above, I would think that any extrapolation of a trend based on that overall percentage of false positives requires very careful adjustment. If the figures are just reported with no adjustment and those giving us the figures KNOW half of all those cases are imaginary, that is a very serious misrepresentation.

[Nefarious]

I'm shocked, but not surprised at how successful the campaign of "blame each other" has been. From the immediate post-lockdown beach shots, to the current focus on "raves" and mask non-compliance, there has been a sustained effort to get everyone to lay the blame squarely at the door of another group in society - irresponsible "young people", mask refusers, muslims ( ).
Don't get me wrong - I wear a mask where required - but primarily to make others feel comfortable. The evidence says that the actual effectiveness of masks is marginal at best. And marginal is better than nothing. But non-wearers are not making the difference between spike and no spike.
Likewise, clearly parties are happening, but many (at least of the well publicised ones) are outdoors, and the overall numbers of people congregating are minuscule compared with, say, a single morning on the London tube.

Yes, the rise in cases is ultimately down to people's behaviour, but it's absolutely not a case of 98% "doing it properly" and 2% bad people spoiling it for everyone else. It is just an inevitable consequence of *everyone* increasing their average number of interactions. And to a large extent, that comes down to policy - opening public transport, allowing certain mass gatherings (horse racing???), insisting it's a "moral duty" to get back to work.

Very simply, there is a trade off between infection rates and economic recovery. And the point of that trade off is set by policy. And whatever point is chosen, there will always be people to criticise and argue that the point should have been set further towards either extreme. But don't let's fall for the rhetoric that exonerates policy-makers from responsibility, and demonises other people for their biological existence.

[Gavin]

I'm shocked, but not surprised at how successful the campaign of "blame each other" has been. From the immediate post-lockdown beach shots, to the current focus on "raves" and mask non-compliance, there has been a sustained effort to get everyone to lay the blame squarely at the door of another group in society - irresponsible "young people", mask refusers, muslims ( ).
Don't get me wrong - I wear a mask where required - but primarily to make others feel comfortable. The evidence says that the actual effectiveness of masks is marginal at best. And marginal is better than nothing. But non-wearers are not making the difference between spike and no spike.
Likewise, clearly parties are happening, but many (at least of the well publicised ones) are outdoors, and the overall numbers of people congregating are minuscule compared with, say, a single morning on the London tube.

Yes, the rise in cases is ultimately down to people's behaviour, but it's absolutely not a case of 98% "doing it properly" and 2% bad people spoiling it for everyone else. It is just an inevitable consequence of *everyone* increasing their average number of interactions. And to a large extent, that comes down to policy - opening public transport, allowing certain mass gatherings (horse racing???), insisting it's a "moral duty" to get back to work.

Very simply, there is a trade off between infection rates and economic recovery. And the point of that trade off is set by policy. And whatever point is chosen, there will always be people to criticise and argue that the point should have been set further towards either extreme. But don't let's fall for the rhetoric that exonerates policy-makers from responsibility, and demonises other people for their biological existence.

Well said.

[Marv]

I'm shocked, but not surprised at how successful the campaign of "blame each other" has been. From the immediate post-lockdown beach shots, to the current focus on "raves" and mask non-compliance, there has been a sustained effort to get everyone to lay the blame squarely at the door of another group in society - irresponsible "young people", mask refusers, muslims ( ).
Don't get me wrong - I wear a mask where required - but primarily to make others feel comfortable. The evidence says that the actual effectiveness of masks is marginal at best. And marginal is better than nothing. But non-wearers are not making the difference between spike and no spike.
Likewise, clearly parties are happening, but many (at least of the well publicised ones) are outdoors, and the overall numbers of people congregating are minuscule compared with, say, a single morning on the London tube.

Yes, the rise in cases is ultimately down to people's behaviour, but it's absolutely not a case of 98% "doing it properly" and 2% bad people spoiling it for everyone else. It is just an inevitable consequence of *everyone* increasing their average number of interactions. And to a large extent, that comes down to policy - opening public transport, allowing certain mass gatherings (horse racing???), insisting it's a "moral duty" to get back to work.

Very simply, there is a trade off between infection rates and economic recovery. And the point of that trade off is set by policy. And whatever point is chosen, there will always be people to criticise and argue that the point should have been set further towards either extreme. But don't let's fall for the rhetoric that exonerates policy-makers from responsibility, and demonises other people for their biological existence.

Probably the work of Dominic Cummings again.

"If we get the public to turn on each other, then they won't come after us"

[Mito Man]

Good to know coronavirus only infects people after 10pm.

[Rich B]

Assuming that 1 in 100 is correct and working from Rich's numbers, that would put false positives at around 53.39% of all positive cases.

As I said above, I would think that any extrapolation of a trend based on that overall percentage of false positives requires very careful adjustment. If the figures are just reported with no adjustment and those giving us the figures KNOW half of all those cases are imaginary, that is a very serious misrepresentation.

how have you got to that?

[integrale_evo]

Surely it’s 1% of positive results are false positives, not 1% of all tests done

[integrale_evo]

Good to know coronavirus only infects people after 10pm.

The longer people drink the more lairy they get and more likely they are to ignore any guidance.

Hardly rocket science is it. Seems a reasonable measure to do something without completely destroying the industry with a total shutdown again?

[Broccers]

Good to know coronavirus only infects people after 10pm.

The longer people drink the more lairy they get and more likely they are to ignore any guidance.

Hardly rocket science is it. Seems a reasonable measure to do something without completely destroying the industry with a total shutdown again?

You're right but people historically when pubs shut at 3pm in days gone by would cram as much alcohol down before closing time - it will also create more dense crowds as the drinking window is smaller.