Coronavirus

[Old Grumpy]

I found this which attempts to explain some of the interactions between bodies and pathogens - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ystery/614956/

Some of this appears to make sense. I don't find the "joke" at the start at all funny - but maybe it is to some people.

Not funny, but not offensive either. I'm probably not clever enough to understand it!

OG

[french frank]

Some of this appears to make sense. I don't find the "joke" at the start at all funny - but maybe it is to some people.

As I read it, I found it mildly amusing. But as they say, if you find yourself explaining a joke …

I discover that the person who told the 'joke' lectures in epidemiology. I think the point is that, although the cardiologist can explain his simple engineer's contribution to humanity, he recognises that he's completely out of his depth when it comes to immunology. So the immunologist only has to start off with “The thing is, the immune system is very complicated …” and the cardiologist throws in the towel.

But maybe I didn't understand it either, and I just find my joke amusing. But I found the article fascinating.

[Rolmill]

As I read it, I found it mildly amusing. But as they say, if you find yourself explaining a joke …

I discover that the person who told the 'joke' lectures in epidemiology. I think the point is that, although the cardiologist can explain his simple engineer's contribution to humanity, he recognises that he's completely out of his depth when it comes to immunology. So the immunologist only has to start off with “The thing is, the immune system is very complicated …” and the cardiologist throws in the towel.

But maybe I didn't understand it either, and I just find my joke amusing. But I found the article fascinating.

I took the "Shoot me now..." punchline to refer to the imminent tedium of the predictably lengthy explanation on its way, i.e. shorthand for: Oh God, hear we go again, please put me out of my misery... So a request for delivery from boredom rather than admission of defeat.

Anyway, now that I've killed the joke stone dead...yes, the article was indeed very interesting, with a lot of information new to me.

[french frank]

I took the "Shoot me now..." punchline to refer to the imminent tedium of the predictably lengthy explanation on its way, i.e. shorthand for: Oh God, hear we go again, please put me out of my misery... So a request for delivery from boredom rather than admission of defeat.

Anyway, now that I've killed the joke stone dead...yes, the article was indeed very interesting, with a lot of information new to me.

That's very funny too! Still, we've enjoyed wrestling with the obscurities of the article. (I think I prefer your interpretation).

[french frank]

And thinking about it again, the reason why I think your (rolmill's) explanation is the correct one is because a) it's simpler and b) it describes something which everyone can relate to: tedium at someone droning on and on at about something.

Er

[Cockney Sparrow]

The Atlantic article is indeed a long read - it will have to be later. I noticed this:

"Editor’s Note: The Atlantic is making vital coverage of the coronavirus available to all readers. Find the collection here"

https://www.theatlantic.com/category/what-you-need-know-coronavirus/

BTW Spiegelhalter was on "Today" R4 this morning (about 07:38 -40) talking about the overstatement of deaths about to be changed by the revisions to the PHE stats. That Englands were much overstated and Scotland's understated. He also criticised the media and the BBC for the poor explanation of the true position hitherto. The interviewer, true BBC professional**, referred to the welcome return of "More or Less" & the prof. agreed.

(** Didn't manage to work in a mention of the Proms though).

Carl Heneghan was on at the end of Newsnight last night making much the same points.

[Rolmill]

And thinking about it again, the reason why I think your (rolmill's) explanation is the correct one is because a) it's simpler and b) it describes something which everyone can relate to: tedium at someone droning on and on at about something.

Er

[johnb]

I've just cobbled together a chart that compares the daily CV19 deaths calculated using the previous and revised methods with the ONS and NHS England Hospital deaths.

The press has homed in on the difference the change in method makes to the cumulative death count, but when you look at the last 7 days the revised method reduces the average daily deaths during that period from 59 to 13 - a reduction of 78% !!!.

What isn't clear is how many non-Covid deaths were included in the previous figures and how many Covid deaths are lost in the revised numbers.

I've read reports in the press that 88% of Covid-19 deaths will be captured using the revised method with a 28 day cut off. That is misleading. The revised cumulative number of CV19 deaths is 88% of the previously calculated cumulative but, as I said above, it isn't clear is how many non-Covid deaths were included in the previous figures and how many Covid deaths are lost in the revised numbers.



The last 5 days are unreliable where the data is by date of death, and should be discounted.

Both the revised "Gov" figures and the "Hosp" figures shown in the chart are for deaths where there has been a positive CV19 test.

The revised "Gov" figures for recent weeks are very close indeed to those for NHS England Hospitals but we know that approx 30% of recent CV19 deaths have occured in care homes [source ONS]. So it is likely that the revised measure understates the current CV19 deaths, either because few if any care home deaths have had CV19 tests or because of the methodology employed.

[johnb]

References are being made in various places to the observation that while confirmed cases are going up, associated hospitalisations are going down. This appears to have been going on for long enough to not be explainable away by the lag between these previously well-correlated variables.

However, I've not seen any proper data on the age distribution of recent confirmed cases. Rhetorical allusions yes, data with verifiable sources, no. Does anyone know of a source of this information in digestible format?

If, as seems plausible, current infections are heavily biased towards younger cohorts, this is exactly what would be expected. A toll of severe illness and worse could then come weeks or even months later when an outbreak inevitably propagates into higher risk groups...

I've grabbed the cases by age group data for the last two days and can confirm that the age profile has changed markedly with 44% of the cases aged between 20 and 49 for those two days. Of course, as it is only a couple days the results might be unrepresentative.

Rather than cluttering up the thread with yet another chart, this is the link to it in Imgur. The chart shows the percentage of cases in each 5 year age band, together with the cumulative age profile: https://imgur.com/8K9Saw3

[johnb]

so...will the spreadsheet be maintained? No pressure - and, if you chose to, perhaps you could update less regularly and post here when you had?

I've updated the Excel file of weekly cases by local authority to go up to w/e 8th August and included the English Regions and England itself (at the bottom of the spreadsheet). It is set up with "frozen" header rows and columns together with an Autofilter for those using Excel to view the file.

https://app.box.com/s/dx9e7k2fot6f79wfx2tqpap400ugpj83

[LMcD]

I would not be at all surprised if some 'expert' popped up tomorrow and told us that the total number of people who have died from Covid-19 in England has been re-recalculated and the real figure is actually -260.73.

[johnb]

I would not be at all surprised if some 'expert' popped up tomorrow and told us that the total number of people who have died from Covid-19 in England has been re-recalculated and the real figure is actually -260.73.

Or, in absolute terms, -273.15.

[french frank]

Or, in absolute terms, -273.15.

I listened to the Today clip mentioned by Cockney Sparrow (Spiegelhalter) and thought it was slightly unfair to blame the media for not 'explaining' the figures properly. If the various 'official' figures have been - as he said - very confusing, how would journalists fathom out what's been going on?

[LMcD]

Or, in absolute terms, -273.15.

Thanks, Kelvin!

[johnb]

I listened to the Today clip mentioned by Cockney Sparrow (Spiegelhalter) and thought it was slightly unfair to blame the media for not 'explaining' the figures properly. If the various 'official' figures have been - as he said - very confusing, how would journalists fathom out what's been going on?

I've just caught it with it too and, like ff, thought it a bit unfair to pour scorn on the media, after all the only scientist I am aware of seen who publicly criticised the Covid-19 death figures was Carl Heneghan.

Even more so when he himself made a "misleading" statement when he said that NHS England had only reported one death the previous day.

They reported an additional 8 deaths in total, spread over various days, including one death on the 11th August.

(The NHS England figure for the 11th will be added to over the coming days, e.g. there were a further 6 deaths for the 11th in today's report.)