Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

[Postboxer]

Also how can England be 0.75 if it's made up of the areas listed, most of which are lower, with London much lower?

[irc]

The 16% is significant but it's averaged over months before there were no cases, without lockdown, in the months going forward, it would be far far greater than 16%. As said already, the virus is widespread, how do you isolate the vulnerable, how do you isolate care homes, are their staff not allowed home to see their families until there is a vaccine? How do you supply food to the vulnerable? How long do they have to stay home for without leaving the house at all? Just so everyone else can go back to work and ignore that anything is happening?

The vulnerable need to isolate while the young and healthy get back out and about until herd immunity along with track and trace eliminates the virus. Nearly there in London. Locking uo the healthy just prolongs the period of lockdown.

Fewer than 24 people are catching coronavirus each day in London, new modelling suggests, with forecasts predicting the virus could be wiped out in the capital within a fortnight. Analysis by Public Health England (PHE) and Cambridge University calculates that the 'R' reproduction rate has fallen to 0.4 in London, with the number of new cases halving every 3.5 days. If cases continue to decrease at the current rate, the virus will be virtually eliminated in the city by the end of the month, raising questions about whether strict lockdown measures would need to continue.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... cases-day/

From the same link - putting the risk for healthy under 60s in perspective -

One of the points he made is that if you’re under 60 with no underlying health conditions you’re more likely to drown than die of COVID-19.

[mjr]

Interesting the R number for London is rather low?

Surprising indeed,what time frame does that include ?

If I remember correctly, it's an estimate of a couple of days ago.

[mjr]

Also how can England be 0.75 if it's made up of the areas listed, most of which are lower, with London much lower?

Because there are not the same number of currently infected people in each region.

[mjr]

The vulnerable need to isolate while the young and healthy get back out and about until herd immunity along with track and trace eliminates the virus. Nearly there in London. Locking uo the healthy just prolongs the period of lockdown.

Nearly there in London? Is track and trace working there then?

If cases continue to decrease at the current rate, the virus will be virtually eliminated in the city by the end of the month, raising questions about whether strict lockdown measures would need to continue.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... cases-day/

What questions does it raise? To lift lockdown, they'd have to ban travel in and out, else the first case transported in would spread like wildfire and bring a second wave as bad as the first.

[irc]

This study estimates 29% of Britons may already have had Covid inwhich case we are well on the way tlo herd immunity.

Too technical for me to have any opinion on it's accuracy but anyeway ....

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... _Editorial

[irc]

What questions does it raise? To lift lockdown, they'd have to ban travel in and out, else the first case transported in would spread like wildfire and bring a second wave as bad as the first.

Why would it? the first wave hits a virgin population. The second wave would hit a population where many would have immunity.

[irc]

The vulnerable need to isolate while the young and healthy get back out and about until herd immunity along with track and trace eliminates the virus. Nearly there in London. Locking uo the healthy just prolongs the period of lockdown.

Nearly there in London? Is track and trace working there then?

Obviously not. Because we aren't doing it. London has got nearly clear without it. Track and trace would help to keep on top on any further waves.

[mercalia]

Interesting the R number for London is rather low?

Surprising indeed,what time frame does that include ?

If I remember correctly, it's an estimate of a couple of days ago.

I got it from this BBC webpage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52677194

[slowster]

This study estimates 29% of Britons may already have had Covid inwhich case we are well on the way tlo herd immunity.

Too technical for me to have any opinion on it's accuracy but anyeway ....

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... _Editorial

What stands out on this thread and elsewhere online is the extent to which some individuals actively seek evidence that supports their preconceptions, often ignoring the quality of the evidence, the likely bias of the source or whether the evidence is widely accepted by peers in the scientific community, and to the exclusion of better/more evidence to the contrary.

By way of example, compare that study with this one undertaken by the Spanish, which appears to be far more reliable (actual antibody testing of 60,000 people).

The Spanish overall figure of 5% is in line with studies in other European countries that showed a prevalence of 4% to 5%, far below the rate that would provide the population with so-called herd immunity, and which experts place at 60% at the very least.

If the percentage of infected people who eventually die is around 1.1%, as the study suggests, the cost in human lives of herd immunity would be between 200,000 and 300,000, making the method unacceptable. Epidemiologists consulted by this newspaper said that social distancing measures must remain in place until a vaccine becomes available.

[mjal]

This study estimates 29% of Britons may already have had Covid inwhich case we are well on the way tlo herd immunity.

Too technical for me to have any opinion on it's accuracy but anyeway ....

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... _Editorial

What stands out on this thread and elsewhere online is the extent to which some individuals actively seek evidence that supports their preconceptions, often ignoring the quality of the evidence, the likely bias of the source or whether the evidence is widely accepted by peers in the scientific community, and to the exclusion of better/more evidence to the contrary.

By way of example, compare that study with this one undertaken by the Spanish, which appears to be far more reliable (actual antibody testing of 60,000 people).

The Spanish overall figure of 5% is in line with studies in other European countries that showed a prevalence of 4% to 5%, far below the rate that would provide the population with so-called herd immunity, and which experts place at 60% at the very least.

If the percentage of infected people who eventually die is around 1.1%, as the study suggests, the cost in human lives of herd immunity would be between 200,000 and 300,000, making the method unacceptable. Epidemiologists consulted by this newspaper said that social distancing measures must remain in place until a vaccine becomes available.

How kind of you to post the same link (although to the English version) as I posted last night!

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

This is what I wrote then:

"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."

So, The Utility Cyclist, where are you? The world (or at least this thread of Cycling UK Forum) awaits your response.

PS : I disapprove, in general, of censorship BUT should TUC be allowed to post re Covid-19 if he fails to comment on what seems a very good study?

[horizon]

London has got nearly clear without it [Track and trace]

I'm wondering what the current situation would be with neither track and trace nor any lockdown. Although I thought initially we might be in for no more than 25,000 deaths (going on past pandemics), our current 32,000 (maybe rising to 50,000) is maybe what we were going to get whatever we did. The virus would find its victims and then come to a halt.

The problem is that we don't have any control group comparison. The closest we can get to a non-lockdown state (AFAIK) is Belarus, which isn't a brilliant measure (though it says it has had only 156 deaths). So as the virus rips through hospitals and care homes, it looks as though it is unstoppable. If it does stop, it will appear that the lockdown stopped it and everyone will hold their breath in case the R number goes up and second waves appear. But how do we know it wouldn't have stopped anyway?

AIUI, there are two tests for corona virus: one to see if you have it and one to see if you've had it. I think the much more important test (which doesn't exist) is whether you are going to get it. If this test did exist, it would tell us who will go down with the virus and they could be shielded (assuming that actually works). At the moment there are people staying at home who won't get ill but think they might as they believe that the virus can potentially affect anyone - which we now know is obviously incorrect.

I wouldn't like to be the person who cancels the lockdown but I'm yet to be convinced that the number of deaths with the current lockdown is not exactly equal to the number of deaths without it.

[PH]

. But how do we know it wouldn't have stopped anyway?

We don't, that's the point. Well TUC thinks he knows but he's in a tiny minority.
Everything that's being done is on the balance of probability, when things are looking OK, restrictions are cautiously relaxed.
If those doing the guessing have it wrong (There's a lot of them that broadly agree and none of the conspiracy theorists have come up with a motive for that) then some individuals have needlessly suffered and the World economy has taken a missive hit unnecessarily. If we decide they have it wrong and it'll all go away anyway and we're wrong, hundreds of thousands of people die who wouldn't have.
I'm going along with the vast majority of experts, if it turns out they were wrong, I shall shrug and carry on, what's the alternative?

[wjhall]

...

If you can't be bothered to provide links to articles, they probably aren't relevant.

On the contrary, it is you who wish to challenge some very detailed data that are accepted scientific wisdom, common knowledge and summarised quite well in newspaper articles. If you wish to challenge the accepted position it is for you to supply references. In fact it is incumbent on you to go further, read the standard positions and provide a critique of them based on your preferred references. In this case you could start with the Guardian article, a useful newspaper level exposition, although from a notoriously pro-government source, and the Edinburgh CEBM work, probably from an institution receiving government funding, or possibly the ONS data, actually an arm of government, so there should be plenty to be sceptical about when they support the government drive to urge people back to work.

The references are all easy to find especially with the hints I have given. It is time people learned to find things out for themselves. The point at issue, in case we forget, is whether or not the established scientific position that the risk of death for working age people is low is correct.

[mjr]

The references are all easy to find especially with the hints I have given. It is time people learned to find things out for themselves. The point at issue, in case we forget, is whether or not the established scientific position that the risk of death for working age people is low is correct.

No, the point was that the claim "for people of working age the risks from coronavirus are small". Risks plural. Not only the risk of death. The risks of hospitalisation and ventilation and the consequences are significant, even for working age people.

I think exact references aren't given because they'd contradict the claim. Instead, handwaving seeks to waste other people's time.