Coronavirus

[Dave2002]

I was simply wondering: what is the point of having the correct answer if you then consistently fail to (a) convince others that you're right and (b) give any indication that you believe yourself that you're right? Then there's the small matter of over promising and under-delivering. Surely nothing damages public confidence, or increases general cynicism, more than repeated failure, as in the case of test numbers, to keep an endlessly repeated public promise that was probably made principally for political purposes.

I'd rather have Matt Hancock than BJ any day. I even have sympathy for Dominic Raab, who at least manages to stonewall pretty well, and doesn't appear to make statements which will send too many people off to do the wrong thing. I was horrified to read that at least one American paper is suggesting that the UK is in a mess because of a weak team in the UK cabinet, and because BJ was away. I'm not sure that any other group of people would have (so far) done a better job, but I am convinced that not having BJ around is a great benefit. The less interference he has in affairs, the better. That's just my opinion, though.

Cracks have started to appear in the wall from the scientific advisers. A few days ago Professor Tan suggested that the graph showing world wide deaths wasn't particularly useful, and should actually be a graph showing deaths per million of population. Such a graph has only appeared once, to my knowledge. I think the press conferences are being deliberately managed to not always give the most appropriate information. The proportionate graph should be reinstated, but for some I suspect rather petty reason, it's not happening. It's not actualy that difficult to do if the data sets are available. The data re deaths is - as discussed - slightly unreliable, but the population data, though is pretty solid for each country. The fact is that whatever spin is put on things, and the data, at the moment the UK is measurably leading the European countries in the number of deaths - and I do undertand that there are different ways of recording in different countries.

The adviser yesterday was also, it seemed to me, telling the truth, when she said she wanted the graph showing cases per country to go flat, and she did not want the UK to do better simply by having other countries overtake the UK, as that would imply more deaths. It's not a competition we really want countries to win.

[LMcD]

I'd rather have Matt Hancock than BJ any day. I even have sympathy for Dominic Raab, who at least manages to stonewall pretty well, and doesn't appear to make statements which will send too many people off to do the wrong thing. I was horrified to read that at least one American paper is suggesting that the UK is in a mess because of a weak team in the UK cabinet, and because BJ was away. I'm not sure that any other group of people would have (so far) done a better job, but I am convinced that not having BJ around is a great benefit. The less interference he has in affairs, the better. That's just my opinion, though.

Cracks have started to appear in the wall from the scientific advisers. A few days ago Professor Tan suggested that the graph showing world wide deaths wasn't particularly useful, and should actually be a graph showing deaths per million of population. Such a graph has only appeared once, to my knowledge. I think the press conferences are being deliberately managed to not always give the most appropriate information. The proportionate graph should be reinstated, but for some I suspect rather petty reason, it's not happening. It's not actualy that difficult to do if the data sets are available. The data re deaths is - as discussed - slightly unreliable, but the population data, though is pretty solid for each country. The fact is that whatever spin is put on things, and the data, at the moment the UK is measurably leading the European countries in the number of deaths - and I do undertand that there are different ways of recording in different countries.

The adviser yesterday was also, it seemed to me, telling the truth, when she said she wanted the graph showing cases per country to go flat, and she did not want the UK to do better simply by having other countries overtake the UK, as that would imply more deaths. It's not a competition we really want countries to win.

It was claimed, during last night's papers review on BBC News, that the UK has 'a much larger population than Italy'. Well, I suppose you could argue that 66 million is 'much larger' than 60 million ....

[Dave2002]

It was claimed, during last night's papers review on BBC News, that the UK has 'a much larger population than Italy'. Well, I suppose you could argue that 66 million is 'much larger' than 60 million ....

Indeed, though I would only claim about 10% larger, and it does make a slight difference to the presentation, but whether it still puts the UK or Italy "on top" I'm not sure - but it's a close thing. I've already written that it's not a competition we're trying to win. It does mean that compared with the USA we are so far doing less well if we look at deaths per million.

In msg 2131 I suggested that the press conference data presentations are being to some extent manipulated. While I do think that's the case, the information presented each day does vary, and sometimes the new data and changes are informative and to be welcomed. Yesterday's presentation, apart from the absence of the world wide comparison graph, was well discussed by Professor Angela Mclean, and did have new details.

[MrGongGong]

I'd rather have Matt Hancock than BJ any day.

That's a bit like saying you would rather have Syphilis than Gonorrhoea

There are other ways to do things....... there seem to be more sheep in the UK (or rather England) than in New Zeland these days.

BJ is of course.......

[teamsaint]

A poisonous mail article, even by their own bottom of the gutter standards.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEJ8dZNZrRXLI7SSIhmI9o_UqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowzuOICzCZ4ocDMKiaowY?hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen

Government ministers just making things up. Statistics warped so far as to mean nothing. Victims blamed.

Never mind, The VE Day flags are flying high round here.

At the risk of coming over all inter - generational warfare, it is older people why buy this nonsense, vote for these charlatans, as aspirations are meanwhile consistently ripped away from younger people as housing and pensions become ever more unattainable. Until the government cannot rely on their support for their divisive , “ help the already well off “ policies, nothing will change.

[johnb]

In msg 2131 I suggested that the press conference data presentations are being to some extent manipulated.

I am definitely no supporter of the government's handling of the pandemic but I do not believe the press conference data is being overly manipulated. (I add the word "overly" because all government briefings tend to present information selectively.) I think the information given out in the press conferences paints a reasonably representative picture.

My criticisms are:

- They use the very volatile figures for deaths by date reported instead of the much more informative and useful deaths by date of death. I can see why they do this as the deaths by date reported are available daily whereas the most recent 5 to 7 days of the deaths by date of death will be significantly amended and should be discounted - so there is a lag in the usefulness of the data.

The charts for hospital deaths in England, by date of death can be seen here: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-...pdate-5th-may/

- There should be a method of collecting care home deaths on a daily basis and these and hospital deaths should both be presented at the press conference.

- The data for daily overall number confirmed cases is meaningless as the we are not seeing like for like data as the days and weeks roll on. Having said that, they do separate the Pillar 1 positives (the blue bars) from Pillar 2 (in orange), which is helpful, but even Pillar 1 testing has evolved over time.

- .... then there is the fiddling of the figures for the number of tests, purely to enable Matt Hancock to say he has met is target.

[Old Grumpy]

That's a bit like saying you would rather have Syphilis than Gonorrhoea

There are other ways to do things....... there seem to be more sheep in the UK (or rather England) than in New Zeland these days.

BJ is of course.......

Is Matt Hancock a euphemism as well?

[Dave2002]

That's a bit like saying you would rather have Syphilis than Gonorrhoea

There are other ways to do things....... there seem to be more sheep in the UK (or rather England) than in New Zeland these days.

BJ is of course.......

No - there is one thing I disagree with you about. I don't want to have either disease, but although MH has been trying to keep the line on "the tests" - and clearly failing, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that other geniuses within the government have set him up to do that, and keep droning out the same message each day. I think that several of the people who appear in these press conferences are able and bright enough, but they can't show it - and have to go with the general line - though several of the science people have gotten close to calling the whole thing a sham. OTOH there are probably some in government who accept all this stuff without thinking that some of it's just rubbish.

Nobody in their right mind, except perhaps a true genius or a complete madman/fool would want BJ's "job" now - so I think he'll just stay there until circumstances change.

[Dave2002]

I am definitely no supporter of the government's handling of the pandemic but I do not believe the press conference data is being overly manipulated. (I add the word "overly" because all government briefings tend to present information selectively.) I think the information given out in the press conferences paints a reasonably representative picture.

Agreed - that is really what I meant - though how far that is manipulation - I'm not sure. Keir Starmer at PMQs today produced the graph I don't like, and when the answer was that "comparisons are not completely meaningful" - or words to that effect emerged, his response was something along the lines of "so it's not really worth putting in every day, then, is it?"

My view is that it would be better to have the deaths/million comparison, but maybe the government would rather supress even the graph that is shown. I hope they don't.

- .... then there is the fiddling of the figures for the number of tests, purely to enable Matt Hancock to say he has met is target.

Completely dishonest - but whose idea was it to do that? I don't expect anyone is going to own up. Seems that postal workers wll be kept in employment now, as apparently the tests are going to be ramped up to 200,000 per day now.

[oddoneout]

Is Matt Hancock a euphemism as well?

More of a socially acceptable version of his name, which has been subject to several 'adaptations' in recent weeks.

[MrGongGong]

No - there is one thing I disagree with you about. I don't want to have either disease, but although MH has been trying to keep the line on "the tests" - and clearly failing, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt .

Given the way he spoke to Dr Rosena Allin-Khan I would give him something else

Scumbag of the year award

[Dave2002]

Great news. The deaths/million graph reappeared today. Perhaps it was permitted because it looks as though that tracks Spain in a slightly worse light than the UK. I hope that this presentation continues over the next few weeks. There are no winners - this is not a competition any country wants to win, but it is helpful to see roughly how things are going - and both graphs taken together, do that.

The question about why Italy appeared to have been swamped, and yet finally the UK seems to have more overall deaths, didn't seem to me to be answered, though that's not unusual in discussions with politicians, though not all are instinctively evasive, and sometimes there are other reasons why questions aren't answered. It is quite an interesting question. Possibly it's because the problems in Italy were concentrated in a relatively small part of the country, though that doesn't quite work as an answer, as in the UK a lot of problem cases seem to have been concentrated in the London area, with a few other concentrated hot spots.
It will be something to examine later on, and some plausible explanations may come forward eventually. It is still surprising that there aren't some tentative solutions for that particular question, though.

Today it was mentioned that the north east of England is now a significant hot spot.

[johnb]

So today, when UK deaths of confirmed cases were 649, it was stated that measures to ease the lock down will be announced on Monday*.

Sounds sensible to me.

[Edit] (* Or was it Sunday?)

Great news. The deaths/million graph reappeared today. Perhaps it was permitted because it looks as though that tracks Spain in a slightly worse light than the UK.

That graph had a logarithmic Y-axis so isn't directly comparable to the "normal" graph.

[Count Boso]

So today, when UK deaths of confirmed cases were 649, it was stated that measures to ease the lock down will be announced on Monday.

Sounds sensible to me.

Indeed. Prospect magazine has an interesting article comparing Germany's policies (first case announced two days before the UK's) with the UK. Now that Germany is easing up, one of their experts said that the recovery rate was now greater than the new infections. But the UK doesn't seem to provide the recovery figures.

[johnb]

When discussing the easing of lock down restrictions I thought it might be interesting to look at the average number of deaths that our neighbours have announced for the seven days to 5th May. (Yes I know there are some difficulties in comparing data from different countries.)

United Kingdom	589
France		267
Spain		255
Italy		279
Germany *	123

(c/o Johns Hopkins)

* Germany's average is for the 7 days to 4th May as the Johns Hopkins data shows no deaths on the 5th for Germany - probably an error.

The government (and the experts in the press conferences) talk about keeping the R rate below 1. That worries me because if the R rate is, say, 0.9 there will be a very slow decline in the number of deaths with many more people dying as a result.