Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18397
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Vorpal » 13 May 2020, 6:01pm

irc wrote:Lots of sense in that post. Anecdotally GPs I work with doing house calls are finding patients with conditions where it is strongly advised they are admitted to hospital are refusing to go. Fear of Covid has been pushed so much that other serious conditions are not being treated optimally if at all.

Don't forget the risk from Covid is roughly another dose of the annual all causes risk we all run every year. We don't shut down society for those risks.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-muc ... 39118e1196

IMO, the problems with COVID-19, are not necessarily the increased risk to the average individual. They are instead,
-the contagiousness
-the risk of hospitalisation
-the increased risk to certain groups of people

The combination of contagiousness and a moderate risk of hospitalisation are why many countries have imposed social distancing and other measures.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

fastpedaller
Posts: 2615
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby fastpedaller » 13 May 2020, 7:15pm

The Govt hasn't taken the measures lightly, people are dying! The longer lockdown lasts (potentially) the fewer direct covid deaths, but the bigger the financial impact. of course if restrictions are lifted too soon the numbers of infection/deaths will rise again and the costs (both financial and emotional) may be huge - One week too early with 'lifting restrictions' could bee 4 weeks of lockdown implication at a later date. It's a very fine balancing act, and I certainly wouldn't want to be making the countrywide decisions. IMHO the key is testing - if everyone (including those with no symptoms) are tested regularly the infection rate will be slowed to almost (if not) zero.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16220
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby mjr » 13 May 2020, 8:47pm

reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:define second wave?.....

Define first wave and you have the answer.

The first wave is the period between the start and the first local minimum in cases. The second wave is the period between the first and second local minimums.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

reohn2
Posts: 39934
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby reohn2 » 13 May 2020, 9:14pm

mjr wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:define second wave?.....

Define first wave and you have the answer.

The first wave is the period between the start and the first local minimum in cases. The second wave is the period between the first and second local minimums.

I knew that :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 14 May 2020, 6:43pm

Copies of the 'emergency' measures to manipulate, specifically only for C.19 regards registering a death and mentioning C.19 on the certificate of death, directed to doctors to put C.19 even without a single test being done.
So any pneumonia case, any influenza case can being marked as C.19 and indeed all cases are being defined as C.19, this is a disgusting manipulation of the truth, and despite that twisting, doctors are still not putting covid19 as underlying cause of death down as much as influenza/other respiratory diseases in past years in like for like periods of time. Because to do so would be outright criminal, hpwever they are under pressure to mention and have been directed to put C.19 down on death certificate even without any testing. Which is what I said previously

regards the second wave thing.
I wanted a definition as to what constitutes a second wave in terms of numbers, second wave could be pronounced on the back of such a relatively small number/small weeks of increases, and as I said if you increase testing then a second wave can be declared very easily despite there not being a 'second wave at all.
Doctors guidance death cert.JPG

deathcert2.JPG

deathcrt3.JPG

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18397
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Vorpal » 14 May 2020, 7:04pm

I think it is a good point that some deaths are being counted incorrectly, but we don't need to go on and on about it.

Lots of things can be put on the death certificate on balance or clim=inical probabilities, without testing.

Chances are that many COVID-19 deaths are incorrectly put as something else, as well as something else incorrectly put as COVID-19.

The statisticians can sort it out later.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 14 May 2020, 7:17pm

Vorpal wrote:
irc wrote:Lots of sense in that post. Anecdotally GPs I work with doing house calls are finding patients with conditions where it is strongly advised they are admitted to hospital are refusing to go. Fear of Covid has been pushed so much that other serious conditions are not being treated optimally if at all.

Don't forget the risk from Covid is roughly another dose of the annual all causes risk we all run every year. We don't shut down society for those risks.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-muc ... 39118e1196

IMO, the problems with COVID-19, are not necessarily the increased risk to the average individual. They are instead,
-the contagiousness
-the risk of hospitalisation
-the increased risk to certain groups of people

The combination of contagiousness and a moderate risk of hospitalisation are why many countries have imposed social distancing and other measures.

Contagiousness is no greater than influenza but then given the UK has stopped testing for influenza we have no idea, do you know how many actual influenza tests have been done in a week across Eng&Wales? In week 16 there were TWO tests across every single ILI case, TWO fgs!
Mortality is no greater than influenza
What have been the hospitalisations as a direct result of C.19, we can't know because the government don't produce that number, are simply including people all lumped together and calling everything C.19

However you missed out those dying at home in the thousands every single week, thousands dying in care/residential homes and hospitals when they had serious existing medical problems or suffered strokes and it's too late to do anything because the focus is on a threat that is being massively overly egged. Because of isolating vulnerable persons, taking staff/carers, nurses, doctors away from those that need help just as much as those with a virus. All of which kills more people, puts more burden on the system, this is a cyclical catch 22 scenario that gets worse because of the actions/lockdown.

When you already have a system that is at breaking point and the reaction to a scenario that isn't more than any other, it's that reaction that is actually doing the greater harm, not just short term but long term, very long term, C.19 will continue to be blamed but actually it's the reaction to it and the lack of decent care systems and governments that are selling us down the river every single day. The lives lost in advance of their time are dwarfing that actually FROM covid19 and will continue to do so as we'll be in recession for decades.

Can you not appreciate it or see it, the harm done by the reaction itself and lack of action in equal measure and that it is the biggest aspect of the harm and how it continues week in week out to be the threat (and we know it is because of more deaths but not FROM respiratory diseases)

When the NHS is sold off, when social/health care is reduced to that of the US clapping the PHS - Private Health Service won't do squat, locking down every time a so called extraordinary threat occurs will kill more people, this is obvious, the destruction of the fabric of our lives and the vulnerable suffer is because of fear, panic and outright ignorance, lies and bad leadership all the way from WHO downwards!

The have nots are going to be even more screwed than ever, but at least you can all blame a virus for it, at least you can pat yourselves on the back for blindly following orders to 'stay indoors' :twisted:
Money for cycling, don't make me laugh, piecemeal temporary lanes and lots of waffle won't do squat, there will be no money because the country was already on the bones of its buttock and the reaction to a virus that was no worse a threat than flu has ut us through to the bone!

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 14 May 2020, 7:25pm

Vorpal wrote:I think it is a good point that some deaths are being counted incorrectly, but we don't need to go on and on about it.

Lots of things can be put on the death certificate on balance or clim=inical probabilities, without testing.

Chances are that many COVID-19 deaths are incorrectly put as something else, as well as something else incorrectly put as COVID-19.

The statisticians can sort it out later.

Going on and on, oh right, because no-one on this forum hasn't go on and on saying the same old thing regarding anything :roll:
People on this thread going on and on ignoring the facts, do you want to mention the continual repeating of false reports on here by forum members, the continued going on and on about certain aspects of the situation from their POV?

Why is it only when someone sticks their head up and calls out the lies, manipulation is it 'going on and on'?

So using actual facts to prove that deaths are being falsely recorded by government and that doctors have been coerced into including C.19 on death certs in place of other potential viruses/illnesses should not be discussed? I produce different aspects when it comes to light, it's not 'going on and on'

Or are moderators going to attempt to stymie facts and a view point now as they attempted before to silence me and throw me off the site completely despite not replying to my asking what I had done to in fact get the warning in the first place.?

irc
Posts: 4796
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby irc » 14 May 2020, 7:43pm

The utility cyclist wrote:However you missed out those dying at home in the thousands every single week, thousands dying in care/residential homes and hospitals when they had serious existing medical problems or suffered strokes and it's too late to do anything because the focus is on a threat that is being massively overly egged.


Indeed. Last night a local GP told me local ambulance crews are attending more sudden deaths at home than ever before. People with chest pains not seeking treatment for example.

PH
Posts: 9518
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby PH » 14 May 2020, 7:53pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Contagiousness is no greater than influenza

That isn't true
Mortality is no greater than influenza

That isn't true either.
I know you have all the answers, but that's because you only consider your own questions.

wjhall
Posts: 121
Joined: 1 Sep 2014, 8:46am

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby wjhall » 14 May 2020, 9:13pm

mjr wrote:
wjhall wrote:The reality is that for people of working age the risks from coronavirus are small, [...] T...t.

What evidence do you have for that being reality? Early returns from Spain and the USA suggested an unmitigated R0 nearing 3, a 14-20% hospitalisation rate and a 1-2% ICU rate, ....


The age profile for mortality is well known and appears to have stayed fairly constant throughout. For example, it has been referred to a number of times by Spiegelhalter and is covered in a Guardian article today. There is also a recent preprint from the Oxford University CEBM. If particular groups are excluded, again see a Guardian article, the mortality rate is even less. An Edinburgh University group recently published a paper on the effects of age related risk on return to work programmes.

The figures you quote are presumably integrated over all ages, so not relevant to the point I made.


The point about non-mortal effects is valid, but there seems to be rather less information on that than on mortality, where the information is quite confusing enough.


There is also a Guardian article about those who have been condemned to die by working through the pandemic, some of whom are complaining that they have been made to work right through without social distancing or PPE. Whatever the effects of different parts of lock down may be, their survival strongly suggests that attending those particular work places is not a risk factor.


I shall return to the question of human behaviour predictions in the other thread, some time.

mjal
Posts: 16
Joined: 4 Jul 2011, 2:22pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby mjal » 14 May 2020, 10:23pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Vorpal wrote:I think it is a good point that some deaths are being counted incorrectly, but we don't need to go on and on about it.

Lots of things can be put on the death certificate on balance or clim=inical probabilities, without testing.

Chances are that many COVID-19 deaths are incorrectly put as something else, as well as something else incorrectly put as COVID-19.

The statisticians can sort it out later.

Going on and on, oh right, because no-one on this forum hasn't go on and on saying the same old thing regarding anything :roll:
People on this thread going on and on ignoring the facts, do you want to mention the continual repeating of false reports on here by forum members, the continued going on and on about certain aspects of the situation from their POV?

Why is it only when someone sticks their head up and calls out the lies, manipulation is it 'going on and on'?

So using actual facts to prove that deaths are being falsely recorded by government and that doctors have been coerced into including C.19 on death certs in place of other potential viruses/illnesses should not be discussed? I produce different aspects when it comes to light, it's not 'going on and on'

Or are moderators going to attempt to stymie facts and a view point now as they attempted before to silence me and throw me off the site completely despite not replying to my asking what I had done to in fact get the warning in the first place.?


Let's see you spin this one :

https://elpais.com/sociedad/2020-05-13/ ... ml?rel=lom

From a fairly rapid read, this study from Spain appears to overcome the usual problems re Case Fatality Rate (CFR) for Covid-19.

It is based on rapid antibody tests which suggest that an average of just 5% of the study population (which was randomly selected by a method endorsed by the National Statistics Insitute) have had Covid-19.

“5% is equivalent to 2,350,000 cases. If there are some 27,100 deaths, this means that the case fatality is between 1 and 1.2% ”, calculates Jesús Molina Cabrillana, epidemiologist at the Spanish Society for Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Hygiene (Sempsph)". (Google translation)

Now, is there anyone who is prepared to argue that influenza has a CFR anywhere close to these figures? Most authorities suggest 0.1%.

TUC, you have failed to acknowledge my previous posts on this topic (perhaps because the facts did not support your views?). I suggest (again) that if you wish to have any pretence at credibility re your opinions on Covid-19, you MUST reply.

irc
Posts: 4796
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby irc » 14 May 2020, 10:24pm

Stats seem to show DEcember to May mortality is only slightly higher than previous recent years.

A4-Deaths-All-Causes-Per-Million-England-Wales-During-Weeks-47-18s740.jpg
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/13/week-18-bar-graphs/

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16220
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby mjr » 14 May 2020, 10:53pm

wjhall wrote:The figures you quote are presumably integrated over all ages, so not relevant to the point I made.

No, they're working age figures, so completely relevant and disagree with your point.

If you can't be bothered to provide links to articles, they probably aren't relevant.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Postboxer
Posts: 1698
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Postboxer » 15 May 2020, 12:31am

irc wrote:Stats seem to show DEcember to May mortality is only slightly higher than previous recent years.

A4-Deaths-All-Causes-Per-Million-England-Wales-During-Weeks-47-18s740.jpg


Only slightly higher? I worked out the average of the first 9 bars to be 4449.4 so the bar for the 5 months up to the end of April this year, at 5197, is 16.8% higher than average, given the first death occurred on 28th February 2020, nearly 3 months into the 5 month period, then the number of deaths increased from then on, I would say the 16% increase in deaths per million over a 5 month period is highly significant. That graph seems to be based on cherry picked data, it's a strange time frame, 5 months, although it is possibly so it coincides with the winter flu season.