Coronavirus

[pete]

18 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

Remember with statistics you can make the numbers say anything to back up an argument 

Works the other way as well

[gregs24]

1 hour ago, sailorbob said:

I think there is doubt. There is an uptick in positive test results from the 13th onwards but nothing like a doubling every two days.

Remember there is a very established 'delta' wave ongoing - in the region of 50k cases per day. 'omicron' doubling doesn't double the total until it becomes totally dominant.

4 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

The government and other governments are going to try and introduce a division in society - between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

its bullshit I’m afraid. A vaccine is no different from natural immunity following infection. We are on a very dangerous path indeed.

This is not correct actually. Plenty of well documented evidence that natural infection doesn't result in any significant immunity in up to 30% of cases. The best protection is natural infection plus vaccination or three doses of vaccine.

 

[gregs24]

55 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

Remember with statistics you can make the numbers say anything to back up an argument 

Actually proper statistical analysis is there to ensure just the opposite. 

Statistics - Wikipedia

 

[gregs24]

48 minutes ago, eeyoreish said:

Surely a significant effect on the daily ‘cases’ number is that everyone and his dog now seems to be encouraged to do lateral flows almost daily?

So now we will be seeing many more asymptomatic ‘cases’ that could have been there already but would have gone undetected.

There are a couple of things here. Yes if you test more you find more (so by testing less all you do is under report positive cases). However if you look at the positivity rate this tells you whether the increased number of positives is just down to testing or whether it reflects a true change. You can see on the dataset above that this figure is not changing very much (I would suspect the 19/12 is incomplete because of the time scales) and may be slightly increasing. If you were just finding more positives by greater testing the % positive would fall as you would need to test more and more to find fewer and fewer cases. Always be concerned when looking at country data where there are relatively few cases but a high positivity rate (10% plus) because this just means that there is insufficient testing.

In this case it is safe to say that increased testing is not the reason for increased positives, it reflects just a greater number of positive cases.

[eeyoreish]

I’m no statistical expert but I suppose my point was that the media seem to talk mostly about total cases found per day. i.e test more people, find more cases, even if the positive to tested ratio remains the same?

[andydclements]

Don't forget that if a person has any symptoms they are more likely to be testing to work out whether they have COVID / flu/ cough , so more cases drives more testing, and that drives more results of positive.

So, yes test more for no underlying reason other than desire to test more, and you will find more cases but you may find a lower proportion of +ve results. test more because more people think there's a specific reason for them to test and you'll find more cases but you may find the proportion of +ve cases doesn't fall.

[Bibs]

[PaulCP]

1 hour ago, eeyoreish said:

I’m no statistical expert but I suppose my point was that the media seem to talk mostly about total cases found per day. i.e test more people, find more cases, even if the positive to tested ratio remains the same?

The media talk about anything that they can report as negative sensationalism!

[windymiller]

sounds like a lockdown 27th 28th onwards as wee mc kranky has already announced

[ChrisJ]

From the Guardian: New year ‘too late’ for extra Covid rules in England, scientists say | Coronavirus | The Guardian

Quote

Scientists have reacted with dismay to Boris Johnson’s decision not to impose fresh restrictions to curb the spread of Omicron, emphasising that waiting until the new year would “almost certainly be too late to have a material impact on the epidemic”.

Because the rate of growth in infection rates may already have plateaued or fallen by then, it may also be too late to know what impact those restrictions would have had if they had been introduced earlier. “We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t,” said Paul Hunter, a professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia.

 

[PaulCP]

Of it was left to the scientists we would all be permanently locked in our homes and ordered to wear spacesuits.

Another set of people who revel in being able to bring bad news and then exaggerate it. TBH I’m sick of hearing the words “an expert says” 😠

[eeyoreish]

1 hour ago, PaulCP said:

The media talk about anything that they can report as negative sensationalism!

The crux of my point. The danger is we are only hearing about new cases in the mainstream media, not the % of tests that are positive now vs pre Omicron.

3 hours ago, andydclements said:

Don't forget that if a person has any symptoms they are more likely to be testing to work out whether they have COVID / flu/ cough , so more cases drives more testing, and that drives more results of positive.

So, yes test more for no underlying reason other than desire to test more, and you will find more cases but you may find a lower proportion of +ve results. test more because more people think there's a specific reason for them to test and you'll find more cases but you may find the proportion of +ve cases doesn't fall.

I agree with your logic entirely but we are currently in a situation where people are being actively encouraged to test before meeting up, even if they have no symptoms. I know it’s a real phenomenon because my parents in law (who are watching the news all day every day) are now testing before meeting anyone and asking other people they meet to test as well. Hence we will inevitably find more asymptomatic cases that we otherwise (pre Omicron) would not have known we had. 

Im not suggesting this accounts for the whole rise in daily cases but it must be adding to it. I suspect over Christmas it’ll become even more of a contributing factor as whole families test before meeting up…

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by eeyoreish

[Bibs]

4 minutes ago, PaulCP said:

Another set of people who revel in being able to bring bad news and then exaggerate it. 

I'm sure I read yesterday in some news that SAGE or whoever it was said that they always use extremes otherwise decisions don't get made! 

Surely if the truth doesn't get a decision made on the actual facts, then that decision didn't need to me made?! 

[ChrisJ]

Yes - there was a twitter exchange where this was "revealed".

On 20/12/2021 at 11:47, ChrisJ said:

Same story - hopefully one isn't behind a paywall for you.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid-modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/

My Twitter conversation with the chairman of the Sage Covid modelling committee | The Spectator

 

From the horses mouth here.

[Barrykearley]

Panto tomorrow and family meal out on Boxing Day.

looks like I shall be dead by new year 👊

[pete]

👍

[Bibs]

I don't want to speak to soon but it does seem like the threat from Omicron is on the retreat. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/covid-news-cases-astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-christmas-restrictions/

This looks very promising too...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/21/paxlovid-anti-covid-pill-why-not-available

[Barrykearley]

Spanish flu did indeed go away all on its own as well 🤔

[Bibs]

After 50m dead people, that's quite a cost! This time around we do have a 100 year technical advantage thankfully!

[andydclements]

14 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

Spanish flu did indeed go away all on its own as well 🤔

As far as I know.

It did but then re-emerged and is the H1N1 that we face every year. Part of what made it such a big problem initially was the toxic combination of new virus variant we had little natural immunity to, poor general health (lots of food problems due to various wars) plus lots of troop movements meant it was spread by human movement not just normal day to day contagion.

It magically re-appeared and what re-appeared was almost an un-mutated version meaning it may well have been a lab breach rather than low level existence that then broke out again.

 

[gregs24]

35 minutes ago, andydclements said:

As far as I know.

It did but then re-emerged and is the H1N1 that we face every year. Part of what made it such a big problem initially was the toxic combination of new virus variant we had little natural immunity to, poor general health (lots of food problems due to various wars) plus lots of troop movements meant it was spread by human movement not just normal day to day contagion.

It magically re-appeared and what re-appeared was almost an un-mutated version meaning it may well have been a lab breach rather than low level existence that then broke out again.

 

I think you need to brush up on your understanding of H1N1 and it's origins

Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 - Wikipedia

15 hours ago, eeyoreish said:

The crux of my point. The danger is we are only hearing about new cases in the mainstream media, not the % of tests that are positive now vs pre Omicron.

I agree with your logic entirely but we are currently in a situation where people are being actively encouraged to test before meeting up, even if they have no symptoms. I know it’s a real phenomenon because my parents in law (who are watching the news all day every day) are now testing before meeting anyone and asking other people they meet to test as well. Hence we will inevitably find more asymptomatic cases that we otherwise (pre Omicron) would not have known we had. 

Im not suggesting this accounts for the whole rise in daily cases but it must be adding to it. I suspect over Christmas it’ll become even more of a contributing factor as whole families test before meeting up…

 

I did explain this above - nothing is being hidden or twisted.

[gregs24]

 

Interesting watch - explains a lot of the information well

[gregs24]

Be aware that Dr Campbell is giving personal opinions and has been criticised for some of his presentations. 

[RobinB5]

@gregs24 you seem to know your onions. Omicron might be a a milder, albeit more transmissible, variant. Is this a natural evolution of a virus? Is this its natural end game, where it can survive most effectively? 

[Barrykearley]

Chance of death from omicron covid is 0.024% looking at current numbers