COVID19

[Donny osmond]

A good example of why arguing about published stats, even from well meaning respectable sources, is a fools errand...

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Mellsblue]

Yep. They were posted on here. They seemed incredibly flawed at the time. To varying degrees, people will cling/jump on to things that suit their agenda/outlook, and I include myself in that. I’d imagine this is even more true in times such as these.

[Sandydragon]

Considering that the daily death toll isn’t complete, it’s way too early to gauge anything. The media today are getting excited that yesterday’s death toll was higher than Italy’s or Spain’s has been, yet these numbers are misleading.

[Sandydragon]

Yep. They were posted on here. They seemed incredibly flawed at the time. To varying degrees, people will cling/jump on to things that suit their agenda/outlook, and I include myself in that. I’d imagine this is even more true in times such as these.

We definitely need to have a review once this is over of how we reacted. And the role of the scientific advisors has got to be included in that; politicians can only make judgements on the evidence they are provided with. Also how open was China from the beginning and how did our response compare to other counties. After being held up as an alternative l, Sweden is looking like there could be problems there, only South Korea and Singapore have really bucked the trend by doing something different.

[Mellsblue]

Yep. They were posted on here. They seemed incredibly flawed at the time. To varying degrees, people will cling/jump on to things that suit their agenda/outlook, and I include myself in that. I’d imagine this is even more true in times such as these.

We definitely need to have a review once this is over of how we reacted. And the role of the scientific advisors has got to be included in that; politicians can only make judgements on the evidence they are provided with. Also how open was China from the beginning and how did our response compare to other counties. After being held up as an alternative l, Sweden is looking like there could be problems there, only South Korea and Singapore have really bucked the trend by doing something different.

I wouldn’t get too excited about Singapore. Cases are going up and lockdowns are being brought in. They had a lot going for them - small city state with easy perimeters and small pop to control, and the means to do both. Against that, it’s very densely populated. If the virus takes hold....

But, yeah. It’s a long game and nobody will know for absolute certain what is right and what is wrong until it’s over and done with. Tbh, dependent on the severity of recession, how long it takes us to recover from it and what harm that does in the long term, we won’t have an idea for years after this is over.
The inquiry needs to be from top to bottom. From Boris, Witty and Valance, to treatment pathways, to PPE numbers, use and distribution etc etc. It will be the mother of all inquiries.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Interesting claims in the Times today that scientists in Taiwan were keen to provide evidence that the virus could be transmitted from person to person back in January, but they were ignored by the WHO and China. Whilst you can still blame a few governments for taking risks with their populations health, the role of the WHO, it’s neutrality and the openness of China do need to be looked at once this is over.

By January everyone knew it was being transmitted person to person so if that's what The Times story was it's a bullshit attempt at distraction.

[Banquo]

Interesting claims in the Times today that scientists in Taiwan were keen to provide evidence that the virus could be transmitted from person to person back in January, but they were ignored by the WHO and China. Whilst you can still blame a few governments for taking risks with their populations health, the role of the WHO, it’s neutrality and the openness of China do need to be looked at once this is over.

By January everyone knew it was being transmitted person to person so if that's what The Times story was it's a bullshit attempt at distraction.

Guardian's take

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ump-claims

[Banquo]

Yep. They were posted on here. They seemed incredibly flawed at the time. To varying degrees, people will cling/jump on to things that suit their agenda/outlook, and I include myself in that. I’d imagine this is even more true in times such as these.

We definitely need to have a review once this is over of how we reacted. And the role of the scientific advisors has got to be included in that; politicians can only make judgements on the evidence they are provided with. Also how open was China from the beginning and how did our response compare to other counties. After being held up as an alternative l, Sweden is looking like there could be problems there, only South Korea and Singapore have really bucked the trend by doing something different.

I wouldn’t get too excited about Singapore. Cases are going up and lockdowns are being brought in. They had a lot going for them - small city state with easy perimeters and small pop to control, and the means to do both. Against that, it’s very densely populated. If the virus takes hold....

But, yeah. It’s a long game and nobody will know for absolute certain what is right and what is wrong until it’s over and done with. Tbh, dependent on the severity of recession, how long it takes us to recover from it and what harm that does in the long term, we won’t have an idea for years after this is over.
The inquiry needs to be from top to bottom. From Boris, Witty and Valance, to treatment pathways, to PPE numbers, use and distribution etc etc. It will be the mother of all inquiries.

Govt/DOH/PHE/NHSE ....its a bureaucracy too far, built to avoid individual accountability, inadequate when having to mobilise quickly. Speed was and is of the essence, and the urgency just wasn't, and sadly isn't there. The 'clinical' decision makers have a lot of questions to answer, but ultimately they are appointed by govt, and that is where the buck stops. Frankly this is all remains true, irrespective of what the CV out-turn is. If you want to find more cash for the NHS frontline, its straightforward to find, and has needed to be done for decades.

[Digby]

Matt Hancock refused earlier to answer the question on whether NHS staff without suitable PPE should withdraw their services. I get it's a tough question, and he might not even have the outright authority, but there has to be direction given from the top and if he doesn't want to make the call he can hand the decision to Raab and/or quit. Hancock merely said it was his job to get the PPE to the staff that need it, given in some instances that's apparently not happening it's unacceptable that the leaders don't lead

[Mellsblue]

Interesting claims in the Times today that scientists in Taiwan were keen to provide evidence that the virus could be transmitted from person to person back in January, but they were ignored by the WHO and China. Whilst you can still blame a few governments for taking risks with their populations health, the role of the WHO, it’s neutrality and the openness of China do need to be looked at once this is over.

By January everyone knew it was being transmitted person to person so if that's what The Times story was it's a bullshit attempt at distraction.

Depends when in Jan you’re talking. It’s not till mid-Jan that there is acceptance that human to human transfer is possible and it’s not until 22nd until the WHO stated there was evidence of human to human transmission. Even then, there’s the caveat that they’re not sure how contagious it is.

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08 ... --covid-19

[Banquo]

Matt Hancock refused earlier to answer the question on whether NHS staff without suitable PPE should withdraw their services. I get it's a tough question, and he might not even have the outright authority, but there has to be direction given from the top and if he doesn't want to make the call he can hand the decision to Raab and/or quit. Hancock merely said it was his job to get the PPE to the staff that need it, given in some instances that's apparently not happening it's unacceptable that the leaders don't lead

Funny, because the easy answer is yes. Then the local folks have to make a call. I'm still a bit baffled, as literally no reports in any of the local acutes or GP surgeries of issues; pharmacies have had some issues, because until Wednesday they couldn't use the NHS supply chain (all are private businesses), and other suppliers have been swamped. We however had no issues getting enough gear.

[Mellsblue]

Matt Hancock refused earlier to answer the question on whether NHS staff without suitable PPE should withdraw their services. I get it's a tough question, and he might not even have the outright authority, but there has to be direction given from the top and if he doesn't want to make the call he can hand the decision to Raab and/or quit. Hancock merely said it was his job to get the PPE to the staff that need it, given in some instances that's apparently not happening it's unacceptable that the leaders don't lead

Funny, because the easy answer is yes. Then the local folks have to make a call. I'm still a bit baffled, as literally no reports in any of the local acutes or GP surgeries of issues; pharmacies have had some issues, because until Wednesday they couldn't use the NHS supply chain (all are private businesses), and other suppliers have been swamped. We however had no issues getting enough gear.

Same at my local hospital re PPE levels - info via anaesthetist’s wife.
I like this twitter thread:

[Banquo]

Matt Hancock refused earlier to answer the question on whether NHS staff without suitable PPE should withdraw their services. I get it's a tough question, and he might not even have the outright authority, but there has to be direction given from the top and if he doesn't want to make the call he can hand the decision to Raab and/or quit. Hancock merely said it was his job to get the PPE to the staff that need it, given in some instances that's apparently not happening it's unacceptable that the leaders don't lead

Funny, because the easy answer is yes. Then the local folks have to make a call. I'm still a bit baffled, as literally no reports in any of the local acutes or GP surgeries of issues; pharmacies have had some issues, because until Wednesday they couldn't use the NHS supply chain (all are private businesses), and other suppliers have been swamped. We however had no issues getting enough gear.

Same at my local hospital re PPE levels - info via anaesthetist’s wife.
I like this twitter thread:

That said, the pressures vary hugely by location. 6 of my team have been deployed doing the same job as her.

[Mellsblue]

Funny, because the easy answer is yes. Then the local folks have to make a call. I'm still a bit baffled, as literally no reports in any of the local acutes or GP surgeries of issues; pharmacies have had some issues, because until Wednesday they couldn't use the NHS supply chain (all are private businesses), and other suppliers have been swamped. We however had no issues getting enough gear.

Same at my local hospital re PPE levels - info via anaesthetist’s wife.
I like this twitter thread:

That said, the pressures vary hugely by location. 6 of my team have been deployed doing the same job as her.

Oh, yeah. I’ve no doubt the hotspots are struggling.

[Son of Mathonwy]

For what you just said it makes no difference whether you use log of absolute deaths or log of per capita deaths.

If a big country and a small country are controlling the spread equally well it will grow at the same rate in each, correct?
Say big country is 10x population of small country.
Assume an equal proportion of their populations are infected initially, say 100 and 10 people respectively.
In a week, they grow at the same rate, so that the new numbers are 200 and 20.
Absolute numbers say the big country's infections increased by 100, and the small one by 10. Does that mean the big country is handling the problem worse? No - the infection rate is the same in each.
But a graph of absolute numbers will make the big country look 10 times worse than the small one.
Per capita they will look the same - which surely is the fair representation since they have the same infection rate.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you but...no. I suppose...does the virus spread less quickly because a country has a lower pop? No it spreads by it’s R0 regardless. The virus’s R0 is the same wherever it is. If the virus takes no account of pop size why would you use per capita as a measure? Al that matters is containing the spread, which ultimately manifests in deaths, so just measure by gross numbers.

Agreed, the virus takes no account of pop size. The reason you 'd want to use per capita numbers is exactly because they remove pop size from the picture.

Compare San Marino and Thailand. They have a very similar number of Covid-19 deaths, 34 and 33 respectively.
However, due to their vastly different populations, 0.034m and 69.8m respectively, your chance of dying of Covid-19 to date was 2119 times greater if you lived in San Marino rather than Thailand.
Can we agree that San Marino has a bigger Covid-19 problem than Thailand?

But if you look at the absolute number, they look almost the same at 34 and 33.
On the other hand, the per capita numbers are 0.001 and .0000005, which basically shows that Thailand has lost 0.5 people per million whereas SM has lost 1000 per million.
That's why it's better to compare countries of different sizes using the per capita numbers.

The rate of growth thing you mention is a red herring - if it's exponential, it will appear as exponential whether you use absolute or per capita numbers.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The only old post I remember you putting up about death rates is that we’d all be dead within weeks.

That's not what I said. No worries, it's on page 12 of this thread, just take a look.

I’m not trawling back through your posts. You had a complete meltdown weeks ago and your ability to be levelled headed and understand the nuances of it all still seems to be missing.

Look, if you said I'd misunderstood one of your posts, I'd read it.
If you want to have an honest discussion, my post is near the bottom of page 12.

[Son of Mathonwy]

As we get further into the pandemic it will make more sense to show graphs of current cases rather than cumulative cases. Current cases are much more relevant to what health systems need to cope with and what current growth and death rates are likely to be.

Current cases/1 M pop as of 10 Apr (for a selection of countries):
Italy 1625
USA 1380
Spain 1851
France 1329
UK 949
Iran 339
China 1
Belgium 1560
Germany 782
Netherlands 1187
Brazil 87
Turkey 517
Switzerland 1438
Sweden 835
Canada 412
Portugal 1452
Austria 797
Indonesia 11
Ecuador 368
Ireland 1575
Romania 232
Algeria 25
India 5
Denmark 656
Philippines 35
S. Korea 61
Mexico 20
Poland 144
Peru 126
Egypt 12

[Mellsblue]

That's not what I said. No worries, it's on page 12 of this thread, just take a look.

I’m not trawling back through your posts. You had a complete meltdown weeks ago and your ability to be levelled headed and understand the nuances of it all still seems to be missing.

Look, if you said I'd misunderstood one of your posts, I'd read it.
If you want to have an honest discussion, my post is near the bottom of page 12.

You’ve repeatedly misunderstood my posts or just ignored points.
I am having an honest discussion. It’s not really been possible when you continue to insist all countries have exactly the same issues when battling the spread of the disease, despite this not being the case, when you jump to definite conclusions despite us being at the very start of this fight and using the Chinese Communist Party as some some sort of model to follow.
I’ll leave it here.

[Mellsblue]

For what you just said it makes no difference whether you use log of absolute deaths or log of per capita deaths.

If a big country and a small country are controlling the spread equally well it will grow at the same rate in each, correct?
Say big country is 10x population of small country.
Assume an equal proportion of their populations are infected initially, say 100 and 10 people respectively.
In a week, they grow at the same rate, so that the new numbers are 200 and 20.
Absolute numbers say the big country's infections increased by 100, and the small one by 10. Does that mean the big country is handling the problem worse? No - the infection rate is the same in each.
But a graph of absolute numbers will make the big country look 10 times worse than the small one.
Per capita they will look the same - which surely is the fair representation since they have the same infection rate.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you but...no. I suppose...does the virus spread less quickly because a country has a lower pop? No it spreads by it’s R0 regardless. The virus’s R0 is the same wherever it is. If the virus takes no account of pop size why would you use per capita as a measure? Al that matters is containing the spread, which ultimately manifests in deaths, so just measure by gross numbers.

Agreed, the virus takes no account of pop size. The reason you 'd want to use per capita numbers is exactly because they remove pop size from the picture.

Compare San Marino and Thailand. They have a very similar number of Covid-19 deaths, 34 and 33 respectively.
However, due to their vastly different populations, 0.034m and 69.8m respectively, your chance of dying of Covid-19 to date was 2119 times greater if you lived in San Marino rather than Thailand.
Can we agree that San Marino has a bigger Covid-19 problem than Thailand?

But if you look at the absolute number, they look almost the same at 34 and 33.
On the other hand, the per capita numbers are 0.001 and .0000005, which basically shows that Thailand has lost 0.5 people per million whereas SM has lost 1000 per million.
That's why it's better to compare countries of different sizes using the per capita numbers.

The rate of growth thing you mention is a red herring - if it's exponential, it will appear as exponential whether you use absolute or per capita numbers.

We’re going round in circles. I’ll leave it and trust the experts to present it in the best way.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ideally, in a cold hearted clinical context we would like to plot total deaths for this time of year against deaths during the onset of community virus spread (again differences in testing are a confound) in a population that has resisted social distancing. An unethical experiment variable yes, but it would sort the argument out. Would require transparency in normal data. All this globalism and no reliable commonly accessible data base. We really do fuck ourselves with the long fetid dick of the free market don’t we?

We're never going to be able to do double-blind, randomized controlled studies on this. As you say, a little unethical. We can only do our best to get comparable numbers. If we don't make some assumptions it will be impossible to compare anything.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I’m not trawling back through your posts. You had a complete meltdown weeks ago and your ability to be levelled headed and understand the nuances of it all still seems to be missing.

Look, if you said I'd misunderstood one of your posts, I'd read it.
If you want to have an honest discussion, my post is near the bottom of page 12.

You’ve repeatedly misunderstood my posts or just ignored points.
I am having an honest discussion. It’s not really been possible when you continue to insist all countries have exactly the same issues when battling the spread of the disease, despite this not being the case, when you jump to definite conclusions despite us being at the very start of this fight and using the Chinese Communist Party as some some sort of model to follow.
I’ll leave it here.

Okay, we disagree.
My feeling is that you are refusing to draw any conclusions which suggest we could be doing things substantially better, regardless of the evidence, because of some differences between the UK (or the West) and South Korea. China is a red herring, since everything I'm arguing for is being done by democratic South Korea.
I’ll leave it here.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I don’t know how else to explain it to you but...no. I suppose...does the virus spread less quickly because a country has a lower pop? No it spreads by it’s R0 regardless. The virus’s R0 is the same wherever it is. If the virus takes no account of pop size why would you use per capita as a measure? Al that matters is containing the spread, which ultimately manifests in deaths, so just measure by gross numbers.

Agreed, the virus takes no account of pop size. The reason you 'd want to use per capita numbers is exactly because they remove pop size from the picture.

Compare San Marino and Thailand. They have a very similar number of Covid-19 deaths, 34 and 33 respectively.
However, due to their vastly different populations, 0.034m and 69.8m respectively, your chance of dying of Covid-19 to date was 2119 times greater if you lived in San Marino rather than Thailand.
Can we agree that San Marino has a bigger Covid-19 problem than Thailand?

But if you look at the absolute number, they look almost the same at 34 and 33.
On the other hand, the per capita numbers are 0.001 and .0000005, which basically shows that Thailand has lost 0.5 people per million whereas SM has lost 1000 per million.
That's why it's better to compare countries of different sizes using the per capita numbers.

The rate of growth thing you mention is a red herring - if it's exponential, it will appear as exponential whether you use absolute or per capita numbers.

We’re going round in circles. I’ll leave it and trust the experts to present it in the best way.

No worries. Let me know if you want any more maths explanations.

[Mellsblue]

Look, if you said I'd misunderstood one of your posts, I'd read it.
If you want to have an honest discussion, my post is near the bottom of page 12.

You’ve repeatedly misunderstood my posts or just ignored points.
I am having an honest discussion. It’s not really been possible when you continue to insist all countries have exactly the same issues when battling the spread of the disease, despite this not being the case, when you jump to definite conclusions despite us being at the very start of this fight and using the Chinese Communist Party as some some sort of model to follow.
I’ll leave it here.

Okay, we disagree.
My feeling is that you are refusing to draw any conclusions which suggest we could be doing things substantially better, regardless of the evidence, because of some differences between the UK (or the West) and South Korea. China is a red herring, since everything I'm arguing for is being done by democratic South Korea.
I’ll leave it here.

The biggest misrepresentation of the lot. I’ve consistently said we could do a better and that others are doing so. I just don’t agree that both being democracies means two countries are identical in what is possible.

[Banquo]

Meanwhile, intensive care outcomes look pretty bad- not sure if there is a comparator out there? It could well be folks are being admitted too late.

[Galfon]

That would re-affirm a shortage of ICU slots and ventilators rather than performance/quality of care measure.(?)...bottleneck central.
'We are having to make difficult life/death decisions' gets quoted a bit from front line staff,.
It's a sad thing, but we appear to be prime fodder for this one.
Meanwhile, quickish infections needed to speed-up the vaccine efficacy testing...
Sep availabilty for some public use would be a great result.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 60481.html