Coronavirus

[johnb]

I think this total includes deaths outside hospitals (care homes etc.), which haven’t been included before, and was expected to be much larger as there was a backlog to be included. Tomorrow’s figures may give a better idea where we are. In any case, because of the time lag between infections and fatalities, these figures won’t really show the effect of the lock down for at least another week or two, and they will continue to rise for that time. Hopefully, the rate of increase will start to slow after another week and before we reach the daily totals experienced in Italy.

Actually, the government website that reports the daily figures states "As of 5pm on 30 March 2020, of those hospitalised in the UK, 1,789 have died" so the daily figure of 381 excludes any deaths outside hospitals.

However, the number of deaths reported do not actually include all the deaths up to 5pm on the specific day as there are delays of various types. So one should treat any single day's figures with caution and not read too much into them, e.g. the figure reported yesterday was 180.

The reporting of deaths outside hospitals due to Covid-19 appears to be being done separately.

[Simon B]

Gaia attempting some corrective action?

It seems that is one way of looking at it, yes.

The high level argument seems to go that as human population grows, animal habitat shrinks. Then the two overlap more, partly in consequence and partly just because a proportionately increasing number of humans will interact with the relatively fixed or more slowly declining animal population. Obviously, seeking out animals deliberately for food has a big influence on this, but isn't the whole story.

All it takes is a small change in the probability of human-animal interactions for the probability of disease crossing species gaps to go up, and not necessarily proportionately.

To the layperson, that looks a lot like one more aspect of a self-regulating system - broadly in line with a Gaia concept.

However, now is probably the time to focus on the immediate. Reading back through the thread I saw that you've recently lost a friend to this thing Bryn. I'm very sorry to hear that you are among those to already be in this position.

I have a family member on the front line of this right now - an NHS nurse facing the issues with potentially inadequate PPE and working in an environment that isn't exactly well resourced at the best of times. Also, an elderly vulnerable parent to look after...

Abstract theorising is just a way (for some of us) to distract from worry by focusing on more rational things.

[Simon B]

It's still a scary figure!

It is.

Unfortunately, if random day-to-day fluctuations in the data* are dealt with properly, the apparent underlying trend is still almost exactly proceeding as it was a while back. 25% increase every day.

13 days ago, 104 deaths;
13 25% increases = 1819%.
1819% of 104 = 1891.
Today's actual total 1801.

This timespan is carefully chosen for the exactness of the match, but the actual data is jittering around the 25%/day trend throughout.

*What LHC said. Hopefully this means that this apparent consistent trend will turn out to be partly a statistical illusion and partly one which will now start to moderate.

Sadly, in the short term, continuation of roughly this trend won't be surprising.

[johnb]

It is.

Unfortunately, if random day-to-day fluctuations in the data* are dealt with properly, the apparent underlying trend is still almost exactly proceeding as it was a while back. 25% increase every day.

	       Cum.	Daily 	  %	5 day running
              Deaths    Inc      Incr    avg
18/03/2020	 103 	43	71.7%	62.9%
19/03/2020	 144 	41	39.8%	48.9%
20/03/2020	 177 	33	22.9%	40.1%
21/03/2020	 233 	56	31.6%	35.0%
22/03/2020	 281 	48	20.6%	37.3%
23/03/2020	 335 	54	19.2%	26.8%
24/03/2020	 422 	87	26.0%	24.1%
25/03/2020	 463 	41	9.7%	21.4%
26/03/2020	 578 	115	24.8%	20.1%
27/03/2020	 759 	181	31.3%	22.2%
28/03/2020	 1,019 	260	34.3%	25.2%
29/03/2020	 1,228 	209	20.5%	24.1%
30/03/2020	 1,408 	180	14.7%	25.1%
31/03/2020	 1,789 	381	27.1%	25.6%

The figure of 1,789 is taken from the official website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavi...umber-of-cases

(The dates are those when the figures are reported but, recently at least, they refer to deaths as at 5pm the previous day.)

[Dave2002]

Another concern deals with the official view as stated in the press conference today - and perhaps also in previous days.

If workers fall ill they should stay at home. Makes sense.
If they recover, what should they do? No testing available, so really not sure.

However, if testing available, what does this show?

If was ill and tests negative (presumably not previously infected Scenario 1 - Go to Work. Scenario 2 - Don't go to Work.
If was ill and test positive (assume now not likely to catch CV) - Go to Work.

Assume that only essential workers are covered by these rules - including health and care workers.

Under Scenario 1 workers "should" go to work, whether or not the test is positive or negative. Logically then, there is little point in doing the test - particularly if tests are in short supply. However, if the workers are NHS or similar health workers, they may be going back into an environment where there is a very much higher risk of catching CV if not previously infected, with all the possible ramifications that may involve.

This is because of another factor which has been raised - though not absolutedly confirmed - but mentioned in the virologist's article circulated earier - viral load and viral shedding. It has been suggested that some people generate and pass on a lot more of the virus if they become infected - I'm not quite sure when the peak of the viral shedding occurs for an infected person - possibly just before they are hospitalised.

Of course it is also not known how the virus works with people who have previously been infected. They may not get the disease again, but can they still carry it and spread it? Some of these issues may be known by experts in the health service, but I still have the feeling that there is uncertainty about some aspects - though there are some speculative expectations based on experience with other diseases.

There may not be enough workers to apply what I have called Scenario 2, so in that case Scenario 1 will be applied or other essential functions will not be carried out, but as it stands it does seem that it may expose some people to additional risks, both the returning workers, and those who associate with them.

If a health worker returns to work, and may still be infected, he or she may be puting his or her own life at risk, and also, since it seems there is a delay after picking up the virus, a likelihood that as their viral load and viral shedding occurs, they will put others they work with, and patients at greater risk. Of course if reliable testing does become available, then possibly better decisions can be made. It might be necessary to test health workers more frequently, if the viral load/viral shedding effects are really significant.

There is still significant uncertainty in how to deal with this nasty disease. If my understanding of the virologist's article is correct (which it may not be) it's not the disease which kills people, but the body's reaction to the virus, and the respiratory problems which follow as a consequence.

[burning dog]

Seems to be a ban on mail generally - haven’t had anything by post for over a week.

I’d be interested to know if others’ post is getting through...

Many Posties are doing "walks" (rounds) every other day due to staff shortages.

[Bryn]

Many Posties are doing "walks" (rounds) every other day due to staff shortages.

EIF, et al, canceled this year. (BBC News, just now).

[Bryn]

For all those worried sick about reports emanating from Nigeria, regarding the health status of Betty Windsor, https://factcheck.afp.com/buckingham...ve-coronavirus

[Dave2002]

The FT has a selection of articles on Covid 19 which are currently free to read, including this thoughtful and thought provoking one from Henry Marsh - https://www.ft.com/content/00312c48-...a-bf503995cd6f

[Bryn]

Many Posties are doing "walks" (rounds) every other day due to staff shortages.

No delivery here yesterday, but a little earlier than usual today.

[Bryn]

EIF, et al, canceled this year. (BBC News, just now).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-52121586

https://www.bbc.co.uk/proms

[johnb]

Today's figures:

                  Cum     Daily
Tested:          152,979  9,793
Confirmed cases:  29,474  4,324 (increase of +17.2%)
Deaths:            2,352    563 (increase of +31.5%

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public#number-of-cases

Not too sure what to say.

[Dave2002]

Today's figures:

                  Cum     Daily
Tested:          152,979  9,793
Confirmed cases:  29,474  4,324 (daily increase of +17.2%)
Deaths:            2,352    563 (daily increase of +31.5%

Not too sure what to say.

Perhaps wait to see the usual briefing around 5pm. I suspect things are going to be very slightly better than a few other countries, but not much. I am still concerned about the viral load and viral shedding factors, which may annul much of the benefit of social distancing if not handled appropriately.

[Bryn]

Indeed, the '7-day- rule' is simply not enough. Shedding beyond 8 days from the abating of symptoms has been reported.

[Dave2002]

Indeed, the '7-day- rule' is simply not enough. Shedding beyond 8 days from the abating of symptoms has been reported.

Yes, but this is a message which is not being picked up.