Coronavirus

[burning dog]

Wish we could selectively breed out eugenicists.

It could be that "someone with underlying health conditions" means "died in hospital from Covid-19"

Blood pressure of 141-91? Underlying health condition!

[burning dog]

UK coronavirus live: Two-metre rule could be relaxed as lockdown eased, minister suggests


It one thing two people choosing to ignore the two metre rule but another to be forced to do so at work

[burning dog]

UK coronavirus live: Two-metre rule could be relaxed as lockdown eased, minister suggests

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/may/04/uk-coronavirus-live-draft-rules-on-post-lockdown-workplaces-leaked

It one thing two people choosing to ignore the two metre rule but another to be forced to do so at work

[johnb]

The Head of the ONS was interviewed yesterday, and noted that these international comparisons are 'unbelievably difficult' because each country compiles their statistics in different ways, and have different criteria and timescales for including deaths in their stats.
....
All of which confirms that international comparisons, especially at this stage, should be treated with a high degree of caution.

I haven't noticed this is a particular feature of the analysis quoted here*, but Professor Spiegelhalter (probably Newsnight, BBC2 last week) suggested that excess deaths is, in his view, an informative statistic to use, no doubt amongst others.

I totally agree with all that. We will only know the true effect of Covid-19 and be able to make reasonable international comparisons next year or perhaps the year after.

In the meantime it is not unreasonable to look at the metric that the government itself has chosen to use when comparing the UK to other countries, as flawed as it might be. This metric is the figure that is released on a daily basis for the deaths in the UK (not the weekly ONS figures).

It includes the deaths of people, both in hospital and outside hospital, who have been tested positive for Covid-19. Theoretically this includes care homes deaths but in practice it doesn't (at least not in the figures to date), because the amount of testing of care home staff and residents has been very low up to now.

The government appears to be taking the international data from the figures compiled by Johns Hopkins University (whose data is widely used by other bodies, e.g. the FT in their charts): https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
Johns Hopkins data sets: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/CO...19_time_series

What is actually included in the data from other countries is difficult to accurately pin down. LHC gave some assessment in an earlier post. For what it's worth, one of the slides in the government press briefing of 29th April was annotated with:

US: deaths from COVID-19, unclear whether includes care home deaths.
UK: deaths with COVID-19, includes care home deaths [misleading]
France: deaths from COVID-19, includes care home deaths
Italy: deaths with COVID-19, includes care home deaths
Spain: deaths with COVID-19, unclear whether includes care home deaths
Germany: deaths with COVID-19, includes care home deaths
Sweden: deaths with COVID-19, includes care home deaths

[DracoM]

But, but....but....

WHY are so fewer media sources working out how many people have SURVIVED / RECOVERED?
Would that not help to support national morale, and say EVEN better how well the NHS is doing? Not just watching deaths BUT making a significant difference so that people survive??

[Dave2002]

But, but....but....

WHY are so fewer media sources working out how many people have SURVIVED / RECOVERED?
Would that not help to support national morale, and say EVEN better how well the NHS is doing? Not just watching deaths BUT making a significant difference so that people survive??

That can be estimated from the deaths figures, though only if the ratio of infections to deaths is known "accurately" - which it isn't. Also, the number of asymptomatic cases is largely unknown, though again could still be estimated based on data from the UK and other countries. However, the parameters required to do that are probably highly uncertain.

Even the deaths aren't completely accurate, as we have noted.

I like your touching faith that encouraging the great mass of the British public is going to have a good effect, and/or that they need to have their morale boosted. Some people could do with "good" news, and some who are really depressed or suicidal do need help.

I think there are fairly good reasons why deaths are reported.

The NHS seems to be doing "quite well", though often with its hands tied behind its collective backs.

[teamsaint]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery

Doesn't make it a good thing though.



Time we got rid

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...2saNrBm9mTB5pM

Not whataboutery in my view, just pointing out that there is a wider context to the statistics.

[vinteuil]

... Professor Spiegelhalter suggested that excess deaths is, in his view, an informative statistic to use, no doubt amongst others.

... I'm sure Sir David Spiegelhalter is right. But even the counting of 'excess deaths' is tricky.

It seems to be the case that most covid-related deaths had serious co-morbid conditions.

If the person with the co-morbid condition dies a year earlier than they might otherwise have done, it is doubtless wise to consider that death an 'excess death' and attributable to covid.

If that person dies six months earlier than they might have done, it is also probably right to consider it an 'excess death' and attribute it to covid.

How do we consider deaths that occur one month - one week - one day - one hour earlier than might have been expected?

.

[johnb]

Johns Hopkins

Thanks - duly amended.

[johnb]

But, but....but....

WHY are so fewer media sources working out how many people have SURVIVED / RECOVERED?
Would that not help to support national morale, and say EVEN better how well the NHS is doing? Not just watching deaths BUT making a significant difference so that people survive??

I really do not understand why the hospital survival/recovery figures are not published.

The best information on this is a study by Liverpool University of 16,749 patients in 166 UK hospitals between 6th February and 18th April. They found:

Patients discharged alive: 49%
Patients who died: 33%
Patients still receiving care: 17% (presumably at the end of the study)

Guardian report: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ital-are-dying
Study preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...042v1.full.pdf

[DracoM]

Erm..........ominous report form Select Cttee in Parliament?


DCMS Committee Chair Julian Knight MP said:

“The defensive position demonstrated by the representatives sent by Twitter, Facebook and Google was deeply unhelpful and failed in clarifying what they are doing to tackle the threat posed by record levels of misinformation and disinformation online about Covid-19, some of it deadly.

“The lack of information and detail in the answers we were given showed a disregard for the important process of scrutiny.

“We’re again asking the social media companies for information that was so woefully lacking in order to prove to Parliament and their users that their organisations are open and accountable for their behaviour.”


Phew, no punches pulled there

[zola]

Patients who died: 33%[/url]

Might go some way towards explaining why these recover figures are not trumpeted ?

[Bryn]

Lightening the mix, a little, the lock-down get The Guardian in Radio 3 promotion mode:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/03/the-guardian-view-on-bbc-radio-3-a-balm-to-the-soul?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Of course, being The Guardian, one cannot expect it to get basic facts right. Egham, for instance, is neither in South London nor, indeed, in London at all but to the west of it, just outside the M25. It has not even been the extreme western extent of TfL buses for decades, either. Staines is now the limit.

[Belgrove]

Another excellent extended interview from Lockdown TV. This one features Nobel laureate Michael Levitt. His comments on Ro, which is rather simplistically dealt with by most of the media, are relevant:

https://youtu.be/bl-sZdfLcEk

[teamsaint]

Lightening the mix, a little, the lock-down get The Guardian in Radio 3 promotion mode:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/03/the-guardian-view-on-bbc-radio-3-a-balm-to-the-soul?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Of course, being The Guardian, one cannot expect it to get basic facts right. Egham, for instance, is neither in South London nor, indeed, in London at all but to the west of it, just outside the M25. It has not even been the extreme western extent of TfL buses for decades, either. Staines is now the limit.

I think we can all agree about that.


( i’m imagining the response in Egham to being rebranded as part of South London.... )