Science, Statistics and Studies [SARS-CoV-2]

Posted on
of 6
  • Where did I say everything was fine, bother to read the data on how influenza has posed a bigger risk every year (and greater infection rates than C.19), government data goes back to 2004 on their website, avail yourself of the facts, avail yourself of how Corona viruses have been around and have done precisely this in other years not just here but everywhere (mentioned in the video I linked to)

    Make the comparisons between other respiratory ailments and the numbers involved, understand what Excess Winter Mortality is and why it's important with regards to what is happening/has happened.
    More than 20,000 over 65s die just in England alone from influenza every year using the fluMoMo algorithm, why weren't you and everyone else locking down and social distancing to prevent that, or where they simply acceptable casualties of a society that when you have sometimes multiple other ailments already pre-existing means that inevitably many will die no matter happens which is what happens every year?

    We will not get rid of corona viruses, they will continue to come around with different strains just as they have in the past, no matter how stringent you are we cannot eradicate because we simply cannot isolate in totality within a normal functioning society. This is in part were countries like Italy are susceptible to spikes/high numbers from ailments like this, their average from a few years back based on 5 years worth of data was 5.5Million reported influenza cases (ILI - influenza like illness), the deaths averaged 17,000/year. We already know that deaths from flu and reported cases have been on the rise in the last few years so this number will be even higher in more recent years, this shows pretty much everywhere you look. China's reported flu cases per week are simply astronomical, but from a country with 1.6Bn and the huge cities with people en-mass it's not really surprising. As of 2018 their weekly average ILI was reported to be 55 cases per 100k per week for every week of the year, that's 880,000 flu cases PER WEEK on average.

    When the numbers go down, and they will as does influenza when the warmer months come around but we are still seeing deaths from respiratory ailments that aren't C.19 what are you going to do, keep locked down and SI, how long for, til 100% eradication?

    That means indefinitely as flu, other RD ailments and Corona virus will not go away and are a normal part of life as we know it, by throwing so many resources at this and people not able to earn money, businesses, self employed going belly up, we are making matters worse for the country/globe as a whole for the have nots in the long run.
    You think health services will continue with their output and increased costs currently or do you think it will get pared back even more due to the massive debt being created (let's not go into the whole who did what to pare it back before, we know)

    Should people have already being doing more with their personal hygiene and avoiding the frail/vulnerable when they themselves are unwell, absolutely, as a former Health Safety and Hygiene trainer/auditor in my former career I saw plenty all the time. Every day people with their dirty habits both in the home, at work and leisure, I've watched health professionals fail to stick to the most basic of rules.
    30+ years of watching how people go about their business it's no surprise that years such as 2017 we experienced massively high influenza cases with many tens of thousands of deaths but actually as we experience every year.
    In one week at its peak -either week 2 or 3 which is the 2 or 3rd week of Jan, we saw 244 acute outbreaks of influenza reported, most in care homes, there was a peak of reported ILI to medical professionals of 75/100k, that's 50,000 cases PER WEEK reported, which ignores all the milder flu cases that don't get reported. In France only just two weeks ago they were reporting 175/100k for influenza like illness, that's 105,000 cases in ONE WEEK!
    The ICU numbers for that one week may surprise people but they were 0.48/100k or 264 ICU cases (not all trusts report hence the numerical difference of reported ICU cases), the previous week it was even higher at 0.56 ICU cases /100k, these were just for England alone!

    In the grand scheme of things C.19 is a drop in the ocean, the 4% mortality rate being bandied around is utter nonsense, for a start you can't calculate mortality rates early on because of the spikes, especially through the months when deaths from RD are far more commonplace (hence why Excess Winter Mortality is important), it is far too easy to make numbers appear to tell you one thing when you are intently looking for that, which is what is explained in the YT video I linked to, it massively distorts the numbers and they way they are interpreted, worse so when you have cases/deaths in high dependency units filled with people that have multiple problems, of course you're going to have a high mortality rate, again the video explains this bias in the data.

    People like Vallance have barely mentioned EWM numbers, he briefly touched on it at a parliamentary committee meeting but did not expand as to why this was important, he also did not put C.19 into context to other RD ailments which he should have been done and was really important so that the public were not going to go into blind panic/fear. He and the CMO should have known about how you can produce bias results by actively testing for x and seeing higher death numbers when you take them from patients that already have multiple issues, but they do not want to put their heads above the parapet and state that WHO and others are wrong, nor does Boris because it would be career suicide for them all.
    The same thing happens with super-forcasters in the economic world and why they are so pish poor at predicting crashes, they are so frightened to go against the grain despite the evidence just in case they are the only one wrong, so they stick with the mass thinking.

    The herd immunity should have been the best way to go BUT with far more care in terms of how we go about our own personal hygiene and limiting visits to vulnerable people and ensuring strict guidelines are adhered to when you do.
    THAT would have had least disruption, but also addressed things for the longer term as a society/species because SD and isolation is impossible to carry on and isn't actually happening anyway due to the very nature that human beings live/exist.

    Hospitals are always swamped during certain times, emotive images of coffins being held and used as evidence that C.19 is a massive problem falsely represents what's happening as the likelihood is this occurs every year due to RD and other ailments when a particular countries health service cannot cope.
    And why can't they cope, because as someone mentioned above the number of people who are obese and have obesity related ailments make up a significant number of those in hospital, that is why increasing cycling should be the biggest thing to be done, when you also see the reduction in pollution and the premature deaths that brings about, which also will dwarf C.19 related premature deaths. But we know it won't because polis are utterly clueless and are too deep into certain industries and can't see past the lunacy of going the way we have the last 60 years, which is the same period of when corona Virus first started being a thing and has been with us ever since.

    Will I follow the rules, yes, am I worried about C.19 itself, not in the slightest, I'm worried about the reaction to it and the harm it's causing the vast majority in so many ways including mental health. Can there be an upshot in terms of increasing cycling, who knows but honestly I doubt it.

    2 Attachments

    • influenza deaths.JPG
    • 2017 2018 week3 flu ICU.JPG
  • Thanks for elaboration.

  • The new coronavirus may already have infected far more people in the UK than scientists had previously estimated — perhaps as much as half> the population — according to modelling by researchers at the > University of Oxford.­-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

    Here's the paper:­c/Draft-COVID-19-Model%20%2813%29.pdf?dl­=0­1242569190931869697

  • Interesting, thanks.


    "We find that interventions aimed at halting transmission in children may have minimal effects on preventing cases depending on the relative transmissibility of subclinical infections."

    "We found that school closures decreased peak incidence slightly for influenza-like infections, and delayed the peak substantially. For COVID-19 epidemics, the delay and decrease of the peak was smaller, and this was especially the case in Bulawayo, which has the highest proportion of children..."

    (depending on some still uncertain features of the virus)


    Symptom tracker. Please download and use if you can!

  • it was a throw away remark apologies if it caused offense.
    I did read the data its shocking and this covid is adding to that data of sick people adding to an already struggling system. personally im more worried about my older relatives and friends who are in that at risk group and that worry happens more and more each year as they are that bit older and this covid is another worry
    im glad your feeling ok about covid .
    (not a salty comment BTW)

  • Survey for the Preston show that shows mixed compliance the guidance.
    90% report staying away from non family members but only 48% actively working from home.


  • interesting read. thanks for taking time.


    Johns Hopkins free epi course for two weeks.

  • Not sure how he managed to generate 7 minutes of content from plotting a chart with different axis. Should have stopped watching when he said he wasn't an epidemiologist in the first five seconds.

  • Published yesterday­f/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fullt­ext

    Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis

    Using data on 24 deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9–19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9–28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for censoring) of 3·67% (95% CrI 3·56–3·80). However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment, we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27–0·38] in those aged <60 years vs 6·4% [5·7–7·2] in those aged ≥60 years), up to 13·4% (11·2–15·9) in those aged 80 years or older. Estimates of case fatality ratio from international cases stratified by age were consistent with those from China (parametric estimate 1·4% [0·4–3·5] in those aged <60 years [n=360] and 4·5% [1·8–11·1] in those aged ≥60 years [n=151]). Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33), with an increasing profile with age. Similarly, estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0–7·6) in those aged 80 years or older.

  • I see that the FT Coronavirus tracker has changed the way that it has been graphing deaths and confirmed cases. It now plots daily numbers, rather than cumulative numbers, as a fn of days since 20 deaths or 200 cases in 1 week respectively. This more clearly shows the turning points in daily figures, but does hide the total cumulative impact.

  • Proposed new testing method to ramp up lab capacity by batch testing samples:­sch/pool-testing-of-sars-cov-02-samples-­increases-worldwide-test-capacities-many­-times-over/

    Would take Germany from being able to test 40k a day to 200k-400k a day

  • I'll put this here.

    It takes data from the PHE tracker and lets you look at the more local picture.

  • This is interesting. Do you have the methods paper anywhere?

  • Sadly not, seems only the press release has been published, at least in English anyway

  • Royal Society of Statistics beginners guide to Coronavirus numbers­74-a-statistician-s-guide-to-coronavirus­-numbers

  • Really good source. Thanks.

    Noticed that The City of London doesn't have any data.
    Small number of residents I know but still...

  • It's included with Hackney.

  • City of London is never published alone. Numbers are too small. Disclosure etc and so on.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview

Science, Statistics and Studies [SARS-CoV-2]

Posted by Avatar for lowbrows @lowbrows