Coronavirus.

Thehooperman

Well-Known Forumite
I know these stats vary dramatically over the week but this is a bit strange. It usually varies by up to say 200 but over 1700 from c1000 cases in a week doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.

I had hoped the impact of Tier 2 and lockdown 2 would have started to influence the numbers by now.

919EEC45-39A4-4868-8D47-39C82F7DF5EC.png
 

Thehooperman

Well-Known Forumite
I'd like to see these as a percentage of people tested, rather than just numbers. It's hard to put them into context otherwise.

I totally agee and without knowing how many people were tested it could be a bit misleading.

It just seems a bit of a sharp rise in only one week but with no explanation it’s hard to understand what is driving the rise.
 

cj1

Well-Known Forumite
From a sample of approx 2300 (stafford) people a day report there symptoms if any. a computer model will make an assessment on whether each participant is positive or negative of covid than a small selection of these will then submit for a test to ensure the model is performing well. These figures are then extrapolated to the population of Stafford and this gives the figure.
So today the infected population is approximately 2% or 20511 per million
 

Thehooperman

Well-Known Forumite
From a sample of approx 2300 (stafford) people a day report there symptoms if any. a computer model will make an assessment on whether each participant is positive or negative of covid than a small selection of these will then submit for a test to ensure the model is performing well. These figures are then extrapolated to the population of Stafford and this gives the figure.
So today the infected population is approximately 2% or 20511 per million

Where do you get this data from on the Zoe site?
 

Tilly

Well-Known Forumite
What if there was only one wave, and the positive tests are old positives, remnants of the first wave, with a few exceptions

If they are all new positives why are we not seeing the hospital full of trollies in corridors and ambulances queuing up outside?

Half a million people die each year in the UK regardless of novel viruses



I'm not being rhetorical
 

Noah

Well-Known Forumite
First wave many of the people who were infected were elderly or vulnerable and tended to be affected severely. Second wave seems to be mainly affecting younger people who on the whole are not severely affected.
 

Cue

Well-Known Forumite
Yeah it ripped through carehomes, it was borderline a government sanctioned culling of the elderly population given how they handled it and the whole pretty much using carehomes as overflows
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Mike Yeadon...

Not sure what to think
Two things i do know - Yeadon isn't thought highly of much further than the immediate outside of Yeadon, and his assumptions begin somewhere others' don't.

I haven't watched what you've posted so i'll leave it at that - i may be wrong.

We choose who to trust, ultimately, and that can be difficult in a post-truth Four Seasons landscape.
 
Last edited:

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
What if there was only one wave, and the positive tests are old positives, remnants of the first wave, with a few exceptions

If they are all new positives why are we not seeing the hospital full of trollies in corridors and ambulances queuing up outside?

Half a million people die each year in the UK regardless of novel viruses



I'm not being rhetorical
You are being scientifically illiterate though.

You are also missing the fact that cases, schmases.

What really counts now is Hospital admissions - people may or may not have symptoms, and they may or may not show up on a symptom tracker, and the people may or may not take a test, that may or may not say that they are or are not positive for Sars-Cov-2.

What cannot be denied are people turning up at Hospitals with what is actually Covid-19 - ie a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, that is killing 1 in 5 (only 1 in 7 in a good week) of all who have been admitted into Hospital with it.

The 'null hypothesis' with a novel pathogen is that -

  • 100% of people are susceptible
  • there is only prevention until there is a cure
As far as we know, the first emergence of this novel coronavirus was in November of 2019, it became a flagged potential regional problem in December 2019, it was recognised as a potential world threat in late December/January 2020.

This is something that emerged one year ago, and was recognised as a serious threat less than one year ago. And yet in that time so much more is known about it - behavioural changes have had some effect, it would be better if everyone pitched in but, you know... There are therapeutics in the form of already licenced drugs and new practices like turning folk onto their fronts to increase lung capacity that have massively increased the likelihood of coming out of ICU not in a body bag...

And now we have 2 vaccines approaching approval, with possibly 6 more waiting in the wings.

The reason we did what we did was because there really was only one sure-fire way to stop it from ripping through us. It's easy to say we should have let that happen, but that would have been not just scientifically illiterate, but criminally negligent. We already have an inordinate amount of blood on our hands. We did what we did to buy time, and we are on the verge of cashing in on that investment.

You might not be seeing chokka Hospitals, but that might be because you don't work in one.
 
Last edited:

Tilly

Well-Known Forumite
You are being scientifically illiterate though.

You are also missing the fact that cases, schmases.

What really counts now is Hospital admissions - people may or may not have symptoms, and they may or may not show up on a symptom tracker, and the people may or may not take a test, that may or may not say that they are or are not positive for Sars-Cov-2.

What cannot be denied are people turning up at Hospitals with what is actually Covid-19 - ie a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, that is killing 1 in 5 (only 1 in 7 in a good week) of all who have been admitted into Hospital with it.

The 'null hypothesis' with a novel pathogen is that -

  • 100% of people are susceptible
  • there is only prevention until there is a cure
As far as we know, the first emergence of this novel coronavirus was in November of 2019, it became a flagged potential regional problem in December 2019, it was recognised as a potential world threat in late December/January 2020.

This is something that emerged one year ago, and was recognised as a serious threat less than one year ago. And yet in that time so much more is known about it - behavioural changes have had some effect, it would be better if everyone pitched in but, you know... There are therapeutics in the form of already licenced drugs and new practices like turning folk onto their fronts to increase lung capacity that have massively increased the likelihood of coming out of ICU not in a body bag...

And now we have 2 vaccines approaching approval, with possibly 6 more waiting in the wings.

The reason we did what we did was because there really was only one sure-fire way to stop it from ripping through us. It's easy to say we should have let that happen, but that would have been not just scientifically illiterate, but criminally negligent. We already have an inordinate amount of blood on our hands. We did what we did to buy time, and we are on the verge of cashing in on that investment.

You might not be seeing chokka Hospitals, but that might be because you don't work in one.

Cheers

Just needed someone with a clear head to form my reply elsewhere

Cheque is in the post

Usual repeat fees
 

rudie111

Well-Known Forumite
What if there was only one wave, and the positive tests are old positives, remnants of the first wave, with a few exceptions

If they are all new positives why are we not seeing the hospital full of trollies in corridors and ambulances queuing up outside?

Half a million people die each year in the UK regardless of novel viruses



I'm not being rhetorical

We are now (mostly) wearing mask which are believed to reduce viral load
 
Top