Coronavirus

[johnb]

I am baffled by the deaths figures.
They dont seem to bear any relation to the government dashboard.
I’m sure johnb can sort it all out.........

I don't know about that - but the "Deaths" section on the Dashboard can be confusing, at least to me.

I'm not sure this is any help but, obviously, there are three sections:

Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death, by nation
This, being first, is what we all tend to look at BUT it shows deaths by date of death. So if, say today's reported deaths are 7 for England, those 7 show up under the various dates of death - which will mostly be over the previous few days but can be weeks or even months ago on occasion.

Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported, by nation
These are the figures we are used to seeing and which are widely reported

Deaths within 28 days of positive test
Cumulative deaths by Nation/Region/Upper Tier Local Authority/Lower Tier Local Authority.
As this only shows the cumulatives it is of very limited use. (What I mean is that it is of no use what-so-ever unless you make a note of the figures every day.)

Incidentally, the reported deaths for England which are shown on the Dashboard are often lower than the total hospital deaths as reported by NHS England. This is because the Dashboard figures only include deaths were there has been a positive test whereas NHS England also gives the figure for CV19 deaths where there hasn't been a positive test (there were 3 today).

[teamsaint]

I don't know about that - but the "Deaths" section on the Dashboard can be confusing, at least to me.

I'm not sure this is any help but, obviously, there are three sections:

Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death, by nation
This, being first, is what we all tend to look at BUT it shows deaths by date of death. So if, say today's reported deaths are 7 for England, those 7 show up under the various dates of death - which will mostly be over the previous few days but can be weeks or even months ago on occasion.

Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported, by nation
These are the figures we are used to seeing and which are widely reported

Deaths within 28 days of positive test
Cumulative deaths by Nation/Region/Upper Tier Local Authority/Lower Tier Local Authority.
As this only shows the cumulatives it is of very limited use. (What I mean is that it is of no use what-so-ever unless you make a note of the figures every day.)

Ah , yes, I see. Thanks , very helpful.
Which still means that the only really meaningful mortality figures( ie those which minimise the effect of reporting delays etc) are things like 7 day rolling averages ?
And in fact, numbers in hospital are likely to be a more helpful predictor of future trends in deaths?

[oddoneout]

Very interesting. Definitely worth a read. The suggestion that vitamin D might mitigate problems is also worth noting.

That's reminded me I need to start with my VitD supplement again. I'm supposed to take it all year round but given the solar exposure this summer I did stop for a while.

[Dave2002]

Nicola Sturgeon's briefing today is interesting - see BBC News - probably Scotland channels.

The R number is now estimated to be above 1 - perhaps as high as 1.4.

Most of the problems are currently in the Glasgow area. Some counter intuitive factors: currently analysis seems to show spreading is general and in communities, households - hence the suggestion for household lockdowns in that area. Whereas in other parts spreading seems to have been by hospitality locations - pubs etc., the current evidence seems to be that localised transmission is the major mechanism.

The message is still that this is not going away, and that "sensible" precautions still need to be taken.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcscotland - presumably there'll be a link for a replay version later on.

Here's the replay - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ecial-03092020

[LeMartinPecheur]

I think the link to Vitamin D is old news, though that's not to say it isn't extremely important.

IIRC, in the very first months of the outbreak in China scientists there were reported that post-mortems were showing low levels of Vit D in many victims. It has also been suggested as one possible reason for the higher mortality rates (at least in Europe) for non-whites, their skin pigmentation apparently having a significant effect on their production of Vit D from sunlight, this not being a problem nearer the equator.

Since then I've been very careful to eat plenty of it, even going out in sunshine occasionally

[johnb]

I'm puzzled by Matt Hancock (on Today) and now Dido Harding (on PM) saying how a large increase in demand for CV19 tests has lead to problems with capacity. Dido Harding indicated that this is lab processing capacity.

However, the lab capacity for swab tests (Pillars 1, 2 & 4) over the 7 days to 2nd Sep has averaged 237,000 per day according to government dashboard.

Over the same 7 days the average number of swab tests (Pillars 1, 2 & 4) processed each day has been 186,000.

True, the tests processed are edging up towards the lab capacity but there is still a margin of 51,000 per day.

The figures on the website might be wrong or there might have been problems at one or more labs but I don't believe anything this lot says, other than when there is some form of reliable independent corroboration.

Later:
One explanation might be that there is excess capacity in PHE and NHS labs (used by Pillar 1 tests) but a shortfall in the commercial labs which Pillar 2 uses - a consequence of outsourcing Pillar 2 testing.

[Dave2002]

I think the link to Vitamin D is old news, though that's not to say it isn't extremely important.

Isn't the difference that now there are plausible explanations as to why Vitamin D might have an effect, and better data, so a bit more confidence in its efficacy? It was indeed considered way back.

[johnb]

I'm puzzled by Matt Hancock (on Today) and now Dido Harding (on PM) saying how a large increase in demand for CV19 tests has lead to problems with capacity. Dido Harding indicated that this is lab processing capacity.

However, the lab capacity for swab tests (Pillars 1, 2 & 4) over the 7 days to 2nd Sep has averaged 237,000 per day according to government dashboard.

Over the same 7 days the average number of swab tests (Pillars 1, 2 & 4) processed each day has been 186,000.
......

Later:
One explanation might be that there is excess capacity in PHE and NHS labs (used by Pillar 1 tests) but a shortfall in the commercial labs which Pillar 2 uses - a consequence of outsourcing Pillar 2 testing.

I *think* the explanation in the last para might well be correct.

The Pillar 1 (NHS/PHE) tests processed over the 7 days to 2nd Sep averaged 49,000
The Pillar 1 capacity was 82,000 back in mid August (the figures are no longer published).

So it is very likely that the NHS/PHE labs processing Pillar 1 swab tests currently have surplus capacity and it is the commercial labs processing Pillar 2 swab tests that do not have sufficient capacity to meet the current demand. There is an obvious question though .....

[french frank]

So it is very likely that the NHS/PHE labs processing Pillar 1 swab tests currently have surplus capacity and it is the commercial labs processing Pillar 2 swab tests that do not have sufficient capacity to meet the current demand. There is an obvious question though .....

And apparently in the wrong places. A friend's son in Hampshire last week applied for a test as he wasn't feeling well and was told to go to a centre in Bradford. He found out there was a drive-in facility not too far away and went there.

[oddoneout]

And apparently in the wrong places. A friend's son in Hampshire last week applied for a test as he wasn't feeling well and was told to go to a centre in Bradford. He found out there was a drive-in facility not too far away and went there.

That has been a recurring feature and really isn't at all helpful. It probably hasn't been helped by the temporary nature of some/many of the testing sites and a lack of capacity to update locations in a sufficiently timely fashion. Another problem I think I read somewhere is that the booking system will just find the next available slot/spare capacity regardless of proximity.

[DracoM]

And if you are a non-driver, and there are no predictable buses, and the nearest centre is 10+ miles away and the taxi fare to get there is £25 - same coming back?

[Dave2002]

And if you are a non-driver, and there are no predictable buses, and the nearest centre is 10+ miles away and the taxi fare to get there is £25 - same coming back?

I thought the whole point was that if one might have coronavirus then going on buses could be considered somewhat anti-scocial. Asking a taxi driver to go to a drive through centre might also raise eyebrows.

If one estimates the likelihood of having the disease as quite low - i.e. could be a cold, or other relatively minor ailment - then keeping away from others for a few days might not be unreasonable. If one's concerns are serious enough to feel a test is needed, then does it make sense to travel with others on public transport or in taxis, and if not travelling with others, should one be driving anyway? [Except perhaps for eysesight tests.]

[oddoneout]

And if you are a non-driver, and there are no predictable buses, and the nearest centre is 10+ miles away and the taxi fare to get there is £25 - same coming back?

This cropped up many times in this part of the world as well - not helped by the unavailability/uselessness of home tests as an alternative. If you don't have the means to use a drive-through then tough, you fall at the first hurdle. There have been a couple of pop-up centres in my town that I know of(might be more) but whether they would accept walk-through booked appointments I don't know...
It was evident that the car requirement was leading to a lot of non-household car-sharing which seems more than a little counter-productive in terms of infection control; even if the likelihood of a positive test result is very low the implications of the car-sharing plus result delay mean the overall risk factor seems too high to me - but the I'm not an expert so what do I know. But there will be those who, with justification, may feel they have to take that risk as the lesser of two evils.

[Dave2002]

It was evident that the car requirement was leading to a lot of non-household car-sharing which seems more than a little counter-productive in terms of infection control; even if the likelihood of a positive test result is very low the implications of the car-sharing plus result delay mean the overall risk factor seems too high to me - but the I'm not an expert so what do I know. But there will be those who, with justification, may feel they have to take that risk as the lesser of two evils.

If the likelihood of a positive test is very low, then perhaps the only people who would really make an effort to get tested would be those with moderate to severe symptoms. Anyone else might simply adopt a wait and see strategy, and not declare any illness at all.

Added consequences follow for people or families in which there could be a significant effect if coronavirus is diagnosed. If there are going to be financial disadvantages to being obviously away from work for a few weeks, and there are several dependents who would also suffer hardship as a result, then someone who has mild symptoms which could be attributable to a cold or mild flu, might - perhaps not totally unreasonably - choose not to declare an illness or be tested.

That might then significantly skew the characteristics of people who do decide to declare and take a test - possibly (but not necessarily - for example some people might be hypochondriacs) in the direction of increased likelihood of a positive diagnosis.

[oddoneout]

If the likelihood of a positive test is very low, then perhaps the only people who would really make an effort to get tested would be those with moderate to severe symptoms. Anyone else might simply adopt a wait and see strategy, and not declare any illness at all.

Added consequences follow for people or families in which there could be a significant effect if coronavirus is diagnosed. If there are going to be financial disadvantages to being obviously away from work for a few weeks, and there are several dependents who would also suffer hardship as a result, then someone who has mild symptoms which could be attributable to a cold or mild flu, might - perhaps not totally unreasonably - choose not to declare an illness or be tested.

That might then significantly skew the characteristics of people who do decide to declare and take a test - possibly (but not necessarily - for example some people might be hypochondriacs) in the direction of increased likelihood of a positive diagnosis.

Which is where it's going to get increasingly difficult in my view, as the season for coughs and sneezes comes around. It's been apparent for months that the government does not understand the scale of the difficulties faced by those on low pay already struggling to balance financial demands, and the predicted rise in unemployment once furlough ceases creates added disincentives to obeying infection control measures.