Number of Deaths

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Surely though, the idea is to read the fine line between keeping R below one, and small adjustments like opening pubs or closing them will have an effect which may keep it below one?

Yes but finely adjusting the sails on a boat in the Solent as the wind changes only makes sense if it is the wind in the Solent. Responding to a squall in the Bistol Channel would be ****wittery, Shirley? A change in R mediated by an outbreak in Glasgow cannot be remedied by closing a pub in Bethnal Green.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

not really. i dont believe the government understands much whats going on, so rely on input from others, we hope expert. the idea (and share misgivings on effective R use) is that one contribution to R can be removed, offsetting another contribution to R. if they are the same or the latter smaller then this will keep under the magic threshold. it is not assumed the schools and pubs have the same cohort, they are different but can be weighed against each other. if an area if having a spike, the pubs shut, that cohort is removed and schools stay open, if that fails then yes schools shut too. actually i think it relies on them being roughly different cohorts, with little overlap, a naive but a somewhat reasonable assumption.

whats far more interesting is the implication the children spread it, when there's strong suggestion (dont know how well studied, verified) that children are not carrying. its the parents picking up thats the threat, so if schools manage this, rather than classrooms, playtime, etc, that will have greatest effect.

Yes but offsetting has be be local or it will be ineffective. R is an indicator of average spread among the population that is used to calculate R. You can't extrapolate R from one population to another. UK R cannot be used to manage local outbreaks and it is not a measure of local outbreaks.

Let's take this beyong the parochial UK R. There is an R for the world. It is easily calculated. Cases (and contribution to global R) are big for/from Brazil and low for/from Uganda. So if there are more outbreaks in Brazil, increasing global R, the solution would be to reduce cases and global R by having a bit of a lockdown in Uganda, right? No. Wrong. WRONG!

If R goes up in the UK due to an outbreak in Faversham you could reduce UK R by locking everyone up in Truro.

If I shoot 100 fat ******** in Hull the national obesity indices will fall instantly, but that doesn't mean that the chance of you or I having an MI would be reduced.

Do you now see why dealing with local problems with national intervention using national R as the guide is stupid?

You intervene nationally only when your precision is only national and not regional. Once you have decent track and trace data for small regions the focus of intervention should be local. I hope I don't need to invoke any more analogies or explanations....

If an area has a spike due to an outbreak mediated in schools then shutting the pubs will only have an effect if the increase in R is due to the pubs, which is obviously a logical absurdity. In a weeks time there will be no new spreading via pubs, but the spreading in schools, the reason R when up, will continue exponentially and R will get bigger. That's what happens with no social distancing (you cannot socially distance a class of 30 six year olds or a school of 200 pupils).

There is a separate argument for deliberately infecting all schoolkids (which is what will happen) to create herd immunity in the young and fit. But you need to isolate people like me (over 60) because my risk of death is high.

The messages we are receiving are inconsitent, incoherent and basically a mix of faxt and bollocks. f you mix fact with bollocks, it doesn't matter how much extra fact you add, the result is still bollocks.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Yes but finely adjusting the sails on a boat in the Solent as the wind changes only makes sense if it is the wind in the Solent. Responding to a squall in the Bistol Channel would be ****wittery, Shirley? A change in R mediated by an outbreak in Glasgow cannot be remedied by closing a pub in Bethnal Green.

Yes, true. Obviously I bow to your knowledge, but surely the part I've bolded, highlights the need for control on a more granular level? I have no idea of the efficacy of that plan, hope it works, but that is my understanding of its approach.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes but offsetting has be be local or it will be ineffective. R is an indicator of average spread among the population that is used to calculate R. You can't extrapolate R from one population to another. UK R cannot be used to manage local outbreaks and it is not a measure of local outbreaks.

agree, and believe/hope that is how things will be handled. and R shouldnt be published or talk about outside those epidemiologists.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes, true. Obviously I bow to your knowledge, but surely the part I've bolded, highlights the need for control on a more granular level? I have no idea of the efficacy of that plan, hope it works, but that is my understanding of its approach.

Yes, absolutely agree.

I suspect that one fly in the ointment is lack of sufficiently granular data.

In Manchester, too, areas were shut down that had no spike so as to not make it look like HMG were picking on Muslims (where the spikes were located).

And then we are not actualy policing lockdowns are we?

Sorry, also, I wasn't trying to assert the supremacy of my knowledge. Rather it struck me that we were being fed absolute twaddle by membesr of HMG and the media conflating issues and making fasle inferences.

Anyway....

All the best

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Yes, absolutely agree.

I suspect that one fly in the ointment is lack of sufficiently granular data.

In Manchester, too, areas were shut down that had no spike so as to not make it look like HMG were picking on Muslims (where the spikes were located).

And then we are not actualy policing lockdowns are we?

Sorry, also, I wasn't trying to assert the supremacy of my knowledge. Rather it struck me that we were being fed absolute twaddle by membesr of HMG and the media conflating issues and making fasle inferences.

Anyway....

All the best

No need to apologise, I didn't find your answer condescending at all, just, for once in my life, wanted to defer to someone whose knowledge is greater than mine.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'll post this on the numbers thread as it is about numbers.

I have commented on the limited value of R (when the sample is small) before. I'd like to comment on the absurd plan to keep R down, if it starts to go up when schools open, by closing pubs.

If R goes up nationally when schools open, it means that kids at school are swapping and spreading the virus. If you close down pubs, this would be useful only if people are swapping and spreading the virus also in pubs. So why not shut pubs and schools? Because the government wants to open schools and figure one can calculate the relative contribution to R of spread in pubs and spread in schools.

OK, let us imagine that you can actually calculate the relative contribution to R from schools and from pubs. Shutting pubs will not have any effect on the spread of the virus caused by schools. R, nationally, will not go up so much over a couple of weeks if pubs are shut to offset the increase in R from the opening of schools.

BUT, after a couple of weeks, the increase in R will get bigger and bigger from the effect of the open schools, and R nationally will increase. Of course it will.

Let us imagine I am bleeding from a cut in my right arm. I then get another bigger cut on my left arm. In order to reduce total blood loss I put a tournequet on my right arm. I have shut the pubs. Then, over the following hours, I bleed to death from the new cut on my left arm (I left the schools open). If you don't deal with the spread of virus in schools we will have a spread of virus in schools. The virus will not, however, remain in the schools unless the children are prevented from going home at the end of the school day. Perhaps the members of government who favour this plan are familiar only with boarding schools and assume that all kids are boarders?

Likewise, wearing a mask in London where Covid has almost vanished will not reduce the spread of Covid in Darwen, even if wearing a mask in London keeps the national R value a bit lower than it would be for a week or so by eeducing spread in London.

I remember having a meal with a couple of fat lasses in a university 30 years ago. They piled up their plates with about 3000 calories of nosh, chips, fat, creamy deserts, and washed it down with diet Coke. Yes, I agree, that there are fewer calories in diet Coke than in ordinary coke. But I do not agree that the fat lasses were on course to achieve their hearts' desire (to be less fat).

Are we following all this?

I am quite convinced that the government is populated by innumerate charlatans who either don't understand or don't want to understand anything other than their own hubris.

You might have gathered I'm no fan of this government but in my view they're right to prioritise opening schools and keeping them open. My 13 yo needs to be going to school, because he's had next to no education since lockdown. I'm by no means alone in thinking this.
[MENTION=19881]Birdie Boy[/MENTION] has this right.
Your whole argument rests on the assumption that the R rate will be rising in schools, but not in pubs. Whitty's argument is that we've reached the limit in terms of opening up the economy, while the R rate still isn't far off 1. The virus isn't going away in a hurry in other words. If schools are opened on top of this then that provides a further site in which the R rate could be increased, and Whitty's view is that, in opening up an area (schools -- which should be done), another area might have to be restricted.

 

[Weststander]

England’s Covid death total has just been reduced by 5,400, by bringing the statistical methodology in line with other nations, not least Scotland, NI and Wales. Until now, anyone who died from a non-covid cause, over 28 days after a positive test, was treated as a covid death in England. Following a detailed review, those deaths have been reclassified. Most of these were in July.

Professor Heneghan of the University of Oxford CEBM, a leading light through the pandemic, explained all on BBC News24 earlier.

Separately, using the excess deaths method, the UK has experienced lower than normal deaths for this time of year for over 7 weeks now.

 

[drew]

England’s Covid death total has just been reduced by 5,400, by bringing the statistical methodology in line with other nations, not least Scotland, NI and Wales. Until now, anyone who died from a non-covid cause, over 28 days after a positive test, was treated as a covid death in England. Following a detailed review, those deaths have been reclassified. Most of these were in July.

Professor Heneghan of the University of Oxford CEBM, a leading light through the pandemic, explained all on BBC News24 earlier.

Separately, using the excess deaths method, the UK has experienced lower than normal deaths for this time of year for over 7 weeks now.

It's just massaging the figures. It's been brought into line with Wales, Scotland and NI, not necessarily other nations. Also, it means that if you are in intensive care for, for example, five weeks and die from Covid, it doesn't count.

 

[darkwolf666]

It's just massaging the figures. It's been brought into line with Wales, Scotland and NI, not necessarily other nations. Also, it means that if you are in intensive care for, for example, five weeks and die from Covid, it doesn't count.

Spot on, and yes there were the silly examples of someone being tested positive for Covid being knocked down by a bus, and therefore counting as a Covid death, but I am sure there are a far greater number of people who have spent a lot longer than 28 days since testing positive to their death, who will now be discounted from the figures.

So if these 5,400 people didn't die of Covid, what was their cause of death - do we get that answer, or just a rewriting of the figures to suite an agenda?

 

[Butch Willykins]

Also, it means that if you are in intensive care for, for example, five weeks and die from Covid, it doesn't count.

Er, no. I’m pretty sure you’d be included in the hospital death figures. Unless you have an ICU bed at home.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Spot on, and yes there were the silly examples of someone being tested positive for Covid being knocked down by a bus, and therefore counting as a Covid death, but I am sure there are a far greater number of people who have spent a lot longer than 28 days since testing positive to their death, who will now be discounted from the figures.

So if these 5,400 people didn't die of Covid, what was their cause of death - do we get that answer, or just a rewriting of the figures to suite an agenda?

When you say you are sure ...how do you know ...you say a far greater number?..but then reading again what you’ve said ...I guess people do die more than 28 days after testing positive...symptoms or no symptoms..then why should they be classified Covid no matter what.....I really don’t get this agenda bit, if the figures are more accurate than the system was

 

[LamieRobertson]

It's just massaging the figures. It's been brought into line with Wales, Scotland and NI, not necessarily other nations. Also, it means that if you are in intensive care for, for example, five weeks and die from Covid, it doesn't count.

Though it takes care of the anomaly that once tested positive for Covid even if asymptotic..then you are deemed to have died from it no matter what caused your death...surely it makes greater sense.

 

[darkwolf666]

Though it takes care of the anomaly that once tested positive for Covid even if asymptotic..then you are deemed to have died from it no matter what caused your death...surely it makes greater sense.

Being slightly morbid then, if Kate Garroway’s husband, who has been in a coma, intensive care, etc for more than 28 days died tomorrow (god forbid), he wouldn’t be counted as it’s more than 28 days since he was diagnosed with Covid.

And yes, there are anomaly’s but you can’t just change the counting rules and say look how well we have done/not so badly done...

Where is the analysis to say how positive Covid tested people have died, other than Matt Hancock and his bus analogy...

 

[LamieRobertson]

Being slightly morbid then, if Kate Garroway’s husband, who has been in a coma, intensive care, etc for more than 28 days died tomorrow (god forbid), he wouldn’t be counted as it’s more than 28 days since he was diagnosed with Covid.

And yes, there are anomaly’s but you can’t just change the counting rules and say look how well we have done/not so badly done...

And if someone who had been tested positive of Covid but died 2 months later of cancer..he still would have listed as Covid...who’s saying how bad/good we’ve done? ...Surely it also makes sense to be on the same methodology as the rest of UK? People have already said how difficult it is to compare country to country because of the various different methods of counting

 

[darkwolf666]

And if someone who had been tested positive of Covid but died 2 months later of cancer..he still would have listed as Covid...who’s saying how bad/good we’ve done? ...Surely it also makes sense to be on the same methodology as the rest of UK? People have already said how difficult it is to compare country to country because of the various different methods of counting

Yes, agree that doesn’t, on paper make sense, but could Covid have hastened that death?

Or do you just adjust the figures, as people would have died anyway! Ignore anyone who tests positive for Covid and has a terminal illness, as they were going to die soon...

 

[LamieRobertson]

Yes, agree that doesn’t, on paper make sense, but could Covid have hastened that death?

Or do you just adjust the figures, as people would have died anyway! Ignore anyone who tests positive for Covid and has a terminal illness, as they were going to die soon...

Well who knows in answer to that question...and they aren’t arbitrarily ignoring positive Covid tests...but drawing a line at twenty eight days...rather than assuming it was Covid....I didn’t see many people complaining over how Scotland, Wales and NI were calculating their figures by roughly the same method.

 

[darkwolf666]

Well who knows in answer to that question...and they aren’t arbitrarily ignoring positive Covid tests...but drawing a line at twenty eight days...rather than assuming it was Covid....I didn’t see many people complaining over how Scotland, Wales and NI were calculating their figures by roughly the same method.

Guess because they measured that way from the outset.

Also, there was evidence in care homes that deaths were not attributed to Covid even when it was the likely cause of death...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52175891

It’s all an inexact science, which like much of the crisis has been poorly handled and fudged...

 

[atomised]

I'm interested to see how the media play this now. I am.in agreement with the 28 day cut off in spite of the anomalies. I believe it will give a more honest overall picture the thing that concerns me most now though is the media still being determined to report it as deaths in the last 24 hours and people lapping that up as fact

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I'm interested to see how the media play this now. I am.in agreement with the 28 day cut off in spite of the anomalies. I believe it will give a more honest overall picture the thing that concerns me most now though is the media still being determined to report it as deaths in the last 24 hours and people lapping that up as fact

The 28 cut of is another tool to try and get more confidence in going out I imagine.

The example of being in intensive care Longer and dying after 28 Days - I would assume they would be doing more than 1 covid test during that time ? So wouldn’t it just refresh the 28 days.