Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Nucky Thompson]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

Sorry if this has been posted already. Was following the GP.

 

Scottish numbers: 11 October 2020

Summary

• 956 new cases of COVID-19 reported; this is 14.9%* of newly tested individuals [-53]
• 0 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive (noting that Register Offices are now generally closed at weekends) [-6]
• 35 people were in intensive care yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 [+1]
• 449 people were in hospital yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 [+17]
• 18,022 new tests for COVID-19 that reported results

I now see that the SG are going to revise the way that they calculate the percentage of positive cases

[Taffin]

33 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Appreciate the breakdown, I just find it hard to compute 😂

 

So if you have 100,000 people and you test them every day for 7 days, you'll have 7 times as many positive tests on day 7 as day 1? As that's effectively what your displaying if you multiply one days worth of tests by 7 but leave the sample the same.

 

As I say, I don't really understand the maths, it just seems mind boggling to me.

 

Also, as an aside, are they testing 100,000 people per day to get this number or are they doing random population testing?

 

Edit: just to demonstrate my level of thinking. I'm thinking along the basic lines of:

 

If I have 10 apples and I eat 2. Apples eaten = 2 per 10

If I times the amount eaten by 7,

14 apples per 10 gets eaten which isn't possible.

 

On a long enough time continuum, if you kept just multiplying the positive results, would you not eventually have more positive results than the sample?

 

Apologies for needing it spelled out for me 😂 and thanks for doing so

 

Think it just clicked in my head!! The 20 per 100,000 for quarantine was 20 positives in total for 7 days. Therefore to compare the daily rate we're currently reporting, we'd need to times that by 7 to compare like with like.

 

I get it now. Seems so obvious once it's there. 

 

Edit: I sti don't get it actually. 😂😂

Edited October 11, 2020 by Taffin

[The Internet]

24 minutes ago, jonesy said:

They celebrating Jacinta's resignation or summit, likes?

 

No I don't think that's it. 

[graygo]

31 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

New zealanders seem to be recovering well from the loss of all those civil liberties. 

 

Look like Aussies mainly to me.

[redjambo]

Just now, Nucky Thompson said:

I now see that the SG are going to revise the way that they calculate the percentage of positive cases

 

Yup. I have no idea what that entails, Nucky. To be honest, I find it difficult to wrap my modest brain around more esoteric subjects in general and find myself rather confused by the whole concept of retesting and new tests etc. I would far rather that there were a simple - "we did x tests today, here's the percentage of those tests which were positive", and ignore any previous tests someone may have had. I'll let the statisticians fight that one out.

[Enzo Chiefo]

Just now, coconut doug said:

 

Taking the first bit, first. They are cumulative figures and i am linking a site that shows just that.There are obviously other sites but this one clearly uses the term and shows the relevant figures for several countries.  https://www.total-croatia-news.com/travel/45818-uk-threshold

I trust you will now accept that it is a cumulative total or explain exactly where i am missing the point.

 

On the second claim. It is difficult to make a direct comparison between Lothian and Manchester however Edinburgh is imo representative enough. Yesterdays TT shows Man with 234 cases and 42.3 per 100K. Edin has 124 cases for 23.6 (comparable to your18 figure) per 100k. That is approximately half the rate of Man. The weekly cumulative figures for Man show 3,629 cases with a cumulative rate of 656.4 per 100k. Edin has had 802 cases for 152.8 per 100k. That shows that the weekly figure in Man is more than 4 times that of Edinburgh. That disparity has not been maintained throughout the pandemic though.

 

If you really believe this stuff why are you not supporting the Scottish strategy which you are claiming is so much better than in England.

The confusion has come from the fact that the poster quoted 20 per 100k, which is not the correct ratio, in the way it is normally used.  That ratio x/100k over a week or fortnight to smooth out any spikes, as I understand it??  It serves no purpose quoting it on one particular day alongside that day's figures. 20 per 100k or 100 per 500k for example in Edinburgh.  I've never seen it quoted that way before and I did wonder why it was so low.  Happy to agree that Manchester/Liverpool are approx 4 times higher in terms of infection rates.

 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Look like Aussies mainly to me.

 

It does indeed.

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Look like Aussies mainly to me.

All wearing hats with corks round them??

[graygo]

Just now, Enzo Chiefo said:

All wearing hats with corks round them??

 

They might be, can't see for all the wallabies flags.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

All wearing hats with corks round them??

 

There are no flies on you.

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

It does indeed.

 

They are but the game was in NZ.

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

There are no flies on you.

🤣

[Shanks said no]

1 hour ago, Barack said:

Has Christmas officially been cancelled yet?

 

 

 

Yes, but look on the bright side I'm getting to keep my santa hat for another year

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

They might be, can't see for all the wallabies flags.

😂

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

Not good.

 

 

 

Am I doing this right?

Are you the stunt man for someone in Hamilton?

[redjambo]

Just now, jonesy said:

Not good.

 

Am I doing this right?

 

No, you should follow that up with posting the FACTS poster.

 

The stats are showing a wee bit of a plateau at the moment, which is actually quite good. I'm hoping we will get on top of the current "spike".

 

Anyway, I post the stats for no other reason than to arm folk with the correct information, which they can use in whatever way the want (and they will ).

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

No, you should follow that up with posting the FACTS poster.

 

The stats are showing a wee bit of a plateau at the moment, which is actually quite good. I'm hoping we will get on top of the current "spike".

 

Anyway, I post the stats for no other reason than to arm folk with the correct information, which they can use in whatever way the want (and they will ).

Yes it looks like the pub and restaurant ban is already working. Incredible... 

[heartstastic]

More skullduggery from the Government...Covid 19 and flu data to be combined from now on. Hmmm i wonder if that would benefit them in keeping this going and justifying more lockdowns?

 

 

[Nucky Thompson]

12,872 positive results out of 285,015 tests processed in the UK

65 new deaths in all settings

[ArcticJambo]

5%.  where is the ever increasing ~14/15% in Scotland coming from?

[Nucky Thompson]

3 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

5%.  where is the ever increasing ~14/15% in Scotland coming from?

They are revising the way that they count the percentage from only new people tested

956 positive results out of 18,022 new tests that reported a result in Scotland is roughly 5%

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Morgan said:

 

We don’t have a choice at the moment.

 

It’s compulsory to wear a mask in every part of our town, failure to do so (if you get caught) results in a 135€ fine.

 

It is a really weird experience though.

 

 

 

Is it making a difference with the infection rates though?

 

And I'm asking that as a genuine question, because I recall Madrid made mask wearing compulsory and infection rates increased, which you'd think shouldn't happen.

 

And to the contray of what anybody may think, I'm not against the wearing of face masks in enclosed spaces, however I'm just not convinced about their usefulness in outdoor settings, especially where I live, which you know the area and you also know it is far from built up, busy or crowded.

 

[Justin Z]

40 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Yes it looks like the pub and restaurant ban is already working. Incredible... 

 

Who ever would have guessed. I mean really.

[ArcticJambo]

10 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

They are revising the way that they count the percentage from only new people tested

956 positive results out of 18,022 new tests that reported a result in Scotland is roughly 5%

Good, should be easier to understand. it's been trolling me for a while now!

[SE16 3LN]

1 hour ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

New zealanders seem to be recovering well from the loss of all those civil liberties. 

😀

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The confusion has come from the fact that the poster quoted 20 per 100k, which is not the correct ratio, in the way it is normally used.  That ratio x/100k over a week or fortnight to smooth out any spikes, as I understand it??  It serves no purpose quoting it on one particular day alongside that day's figures. 20 per 100k or 100 per 500k for example in Edinburgh.  I've never seen it quoted that way before and I did wonder why it was so low.  Happy to agree that Manchester/Liverpool are approx 4 times higher in terms of infection rates.

 

 

What a load of nonsense. trying to blame the original poster for a non standard depiction of the infection figures. Nobody, but nobody is quoting figures in terms of per 500K. You clearly do not understand what a ratio is.

in your previous post you demonstrated that it was the cumulative notion you hadn't understood. You said it didn't matter whether daily,weekly or whatever. Now you take the opposite view. Here's your previous statement. 

"You are completely missing the point. Over 7 or 14 days, these figures are expressed as an average, not a cumulative total. The rate can be daily,, weekly,  whatever. It's a rate not a total figure. Manchester are averaging 500+ per 100k. Lothian appears to be 18 per 100000

• It's you that doesn't understand very much about this whole thing but you that shouts loudest. Claims that our scientific community don't know what they are doing and that our politicians are corrupt are laughable from somebody who understands so little, and squirms, and changes position, as much as you do. 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

Look like Aussies mainly to me.

Did the All Blacks not tie the game in the last minute. 

[3fingersreid]

2 hours ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

New zealanders seem to be recovering well from the loss of all those civil liberties. 

But their country , an island , did what this ****ing island should’ve done back in March , SHUT THE ISLAND TO ALL INCOMERS, you could leave but you aren’t getting back in , 

[Enzo Chiefo]

20 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

What a load of nonsense. trying to blame the original poster for a non standard depiction of the infection figures. Nobody, but nobody is quoting figures in terms of per 500K. You clearly do not understand what a ratio is.

in your previous post you demonstrated that it was the cumulative notion you hadn't understood. You said it didn't matter whether daily,weekly or whatever. Now you take the opposite view. Here's your previous statement. 

"You are completely missing the point. Over 7 or 14 days, these figures are expressed as an average, not a cumulative total. The rate can be daily,, weekly,  whatever. It's a rate not a total figure. Manchester are averaging 500+ per 100k. Lothian appears to be 18 per 100000

• It's you that doesn't understand very much about this whole thing but you that shouts loudest. Claims that our scientific community don't know what they are doing and that our politicians are corrupt are laughable from somebody who understands so little, and squirms, and changes position, as much as you do. 

Give it a rest ffs. You're becoming boring now. Read my post. The 100k rate - RATE - not number of cases, is used over a week or 14 days to smooth out spikes. It is used to indicate the average number of cases over a period, not one day, so it can be compared with other areas.

When I saw 20 cases per 100k, it did not look right, which is why I questioned it. I am well aware that nobody uses 500k. I mentioned that to indicate that very point. 100 cases in Edinburgh on any one day is effectively 100/500k on that one day, or 20/100k on that day. The comparison is always made over a week or 2 weeks. So, like it or not, that is why there was confusion.  I assume we can conclude this ridiculous discussion right now.

And yes, I will criticise our scientists who deliberately present misleading and downright inaccurate figures in order to spook the public and politicians alike, in order to influence policy.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Enzo Chiefo

[steve123]

Not meaning to get involved in any argument as I am mighty confused, what is the Lothian figure per 100,000 is it below 20 ? 

 

I am sure I read some places like liverpool etc were 500/600 per 100,000

 

Does not take alot to confuse me but apparently that number would be green in Boris 3 tier system- unless I am totally misunderstanding.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2020 by steve123

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, Morgan said:

 

We don’t have a choice at the moment.

 

It’s compulsory to wear a mask in every part of our town, failure to do so (if you get caught) results in a 135€ fine.

 

It is a really weird experience though.

 

 

At the moment it’s not compulsory but I can understand people wearing them if it makes them feel more comfortable.

[Enzo Chiefo]

4 minutes ago, steve123 said:

Not meaning to get involved in any argument as I am mighty confused, what is the Lothian figure per 100,000 is it below 20 ? 

 

I am sure I read some places like liverpool etc were 500/600 per 100,000

 

Does not take alot to confuse me but apparently that number would be green in Boris 3 tier system- unless I am totally misunderstanding.

 

 

That's what I thought when I first saw that and made that very point. It is actually about 145/100k. It was quoted as a daily figure apparently whereas it is never normally broken down like that. So unfortunately I think we miss out on Boris's green tier and fall into Nicola's prohibition tier

 

[steve123]

9 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

That's what I thought when I first saw that and made that very point. It is actually about 145/100k. It was quoted as a daily figure apparently whereas it is never normally broken down like that. So unfortunately I think we miss out on Boris's green tier and fall into Nicola's prohibition tier

 

perfect cheers for explaining.

[Governor Tarkin]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I'm usually isolated up their sites, but now the site is getting smaller, it may become a problem, GT. (2 sites becoming 1)

 

Hopefully you're alright bud. 👍

 

I'm forever seeing vans full of workies outside Greggs and the sandwich shops with no social distancing so it looks like tradesmen are probably immune anyway.

[The Internet]

46 minutes ago, 3fingersreid said:

But their country , an island , did what this ****ing island should’ve done back in March , SHUT THE ISLAND TO ALL INCOMERS, you could leave but you aren’t getting back in , 

 

 

Too late now though. Stuck in an infinite loop of economically devastating 'partial lockdowns' until the fabled vaccine. 

[redjambo]

38 minutes ago, steve123 said:

Not meaning to get involved in any argument as I am mighty confused, what is the Lothian figure per 100,000 is it below 20 ? 

 

I am sure I read some places like liverpool etc were 500/600 per 100,000

 

Does not take alot to confuse me but apparently that number would be green in Boris 3 tier system- unless I am totally misunderstanding.

 

If you want to compare them, the current infection stats (per-100,000) over the last 7 days (total over the 7 days) are:

 

Liverpool 635.9

Glasgow City 256.2

City of Edinburgh 145.2

Aberdeen City 89.6

 

For others, check out the "New Local Authority Cases Table" at https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/. (if you type scot into the table's search box then you get just the Scottish local authorities).

[graygo]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Did the All Blacks not tie the game in the last minute. 

 

I believe so, doesn't alter the fact that the photo shows mainly Aussies.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

2 hours ago, redjambo said:

Sorry if this has been posted already. Was following the GP.

 

Scottish numbers: 11 October 2020

Summary

• 956 new cases of COVID-19 reported; this is 14.9%* of newly tested individuals [-53]
• 0 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive (noting that Register Offices are now generally closed at weekends) [-6]
• 35 people were in intensive care yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 [+1]
• 449 people were in hospital yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 [+17]
• 18,022 new tests for COVID-19 that reported results

Not good 

[redjambo]

11 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

If you want to compare them, the current infection stats (per-100,000) over the last 7 days (total over the 7 days) are:

 

Liverpool 635.9

Glasgow City 256.2

City of Edinburgh 145.2

Aberdeen City 89.6

 

For others, check out the "New Local Authority Cases Table" at https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/. (if you type scot into the table's search box then you get just the Scottish local authorities).

 

@steve123: As explanation, this article - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/11/three-tier-covid-plan-for-england-what-it-means-and-how-it-may-work - appears to imply that the tiers will be based on a rolling week's per-100,000 case stats. The stat for Lothian posted earlier on was purely today's stat, not one based on a week's data, which is why it appeared much lower than the 100 per 100,000 cut-off. Under the proposed tier system, only Aberdeen City above would be classified as Tier 1. As I read it, anyway.

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, Jambo 4 Ever said:

Not good 

 

@jonesy will be pleased that the Earth still turns in a predictable way.

[steve123]

5 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

@steve123: As explanation, this article - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/11/three-tier-covid-plan-for-england-what-it-means-and-how-it-may-work - appears to imply that the tiers will be based on a rolling week's per-100,000 case stats. The stat for Lothian posted earlier on was purely today's stat, not one based on a week's data, which is why it appeared much lower than the 100 per 100,000 cut-off. Under the proposed tier system, only Aberdeen City above would be classified as Tier 1. As I read it, anyway.

brilliant thank you 

[Governor Tarkin]

10 minutes ago, Jambo 4 Ever said:

Not good 

 

But enough about your sexual prowess.

Where do you stand on the Chinese AIDS, mate?

[JudyJudyJudy]

Back to that old chestnut...yawn

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8828323/Coronavirus-stays-banknotes-28-days-thrives-cold-Australian-research-finds.html

[Jambo 4 Ever]

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-indonesia-people-caught-without-facemasks-forced-to-dig-graves-and-get-into-coffins-12099172?fbclid=IwAR2OhArTIrsx0w9TBEIlltinbKUio4C28_X6bF_IV9_C5Ebt2DsMfYgWjxU#sdc-site-footer

[3fingersreid]

29 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

 

Too late now though. Stuck in an infinite loop of economically devastating 'partial lockdowns' until the fabled vaccine. 

Yep , I’m dreading the unemployment figures in the coming weeks and months , whilst being aware that many many people will be affected health wise too . 
 

Not one politician on this island can hold their head up during this crisis, NOT ONE 😡

[Nucky Thompson]

7 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Back to that old chestnut...yawn

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8828323/Coronavirus-stays-banknotes-28-days-thrives-cold-Australian-research-finds.html

Australia was nearly heading towards a cashless society even before covid 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, Nucky Thompson said:

Australia was nearly heading towards a cashless society even before covid 

Yes i read some of the comments on twitter regarding this. All very convenient. 

[Taffin]

51 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

If you want to compare them, the current infection stats (per-100,000) over the last 7 days (total over the 7 days) are:

 

Liverpool 635.9

Glasgow City 256.2

City of Edinburgh 145.2

Aberdeen City 89.6

 

For others, check out the "New Local Authority Cases Table" at https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/. (if you type scot into the table's search box then you get just the Scottish local authorities).

 

Why are the daily figures that make up the 7 day average so different to allow it to be 19 one day but the average actually be 145?

 

Also, are the positive cases from a randomised sample and then extrapolated upwards or are we actually testing a random 100,000 people per local authority over a 1 week period?

[Seymour M Hersh]

From the Telegraph. Missing the graphs. 

 

Revealed: How Covid cases have fallen far short of the Government's 'doomsday graph'
Graph presented by chief scientific adviser last month warned case numbers could reach 50,000 a day by middle of this month
By
Bill Gardner
11 October 2020 • 6:15pm

 
It was perhaps the most notorious graph of the pandemic so far – a stark warning of 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day by mid-October unless ministers placed new restrictions on daily life.

Presented by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, at a Downing Street press conference on September 22, the graph showed that case numbers could double every week, with deaths growing past 200 a day.

"If – and that's quite a big if – but if that [rising cases] continues unabated, and this grows, doubling every seven days, you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day," he said.

However the latest figures show that the true acceleration of Covid has fallen far short of his doomsday scenario.

 
The Government said that, as of 9am on Sunday, there had been a further 12,872 lab-confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK, although the figure is likely to be skewed downwards by a weekend lag in reporting. 

According to the worst-case scenario, there would have been upwards of 40,000 cases confirmed. Daily infections would need to rise by a further 37,128 on Sunday's total to hit 50,000 by Wednesday October 13, as suggested by the model.

The Government said a further 65 people had died within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19 as of Sunday, fewer than one third of the total predicted by mid-October in the worst case scenario.

Experts have accused officials of attempting to "scare people" into accepting new lockdown restrictions to contain the virus.

Professor Karol Sikora, a former director at the World Health Organisation, suggested the "implausible" graph had damaged public trust in the Government and said: "If you try to scare people with worst case scenarios, it doesn't work. Instead, they just think the whole thing is silly and they lose trust in everything else you say. 

"I can't see any value in that graph at all. The more you test, the more cases you find – and of course testing has been prioritised towards areas with higher infection rates. We need a sensible discussion of the risks posed by coronavirus, not doomsday scenarios based on shaky science."

It later emerged that the Government's suggestion that infections were doubling every seven days (one of the scenarios illustrated below) was based largely on studies involving only a few hundred cases rather than large-scale testing data.

 
The Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne suggested the graph was a "sackable offence", adding: "It was project fear. It was an attempt to terrify the British people, as if they had not been terrified enough."

Scientists have suggested that more than 100,000 Britons were infected with Covid-19 each day during the peak of the pandemic, although most cases went undetected due to a lack of testing. However, this was in March and April, after the virus was left to spread uncontrollably. 

Professor Azeem Majeed, the head of public health at Imperial College, said he had "sympathy" for the Government, adding that the graph (illustrated below) had been a "necessary exercise".

 
"In order to justify more restrictions, you do need to set out what would happen if the Government failed to act," Prof Majeed said.

"Since then, we have introduced measures like the pub curfew and the working from home directive. I think it's understandable that the rates are not going up as quickly as the graph suggested, but the rates are still increasing quickly in Northern towns and cities and it's a concerning time." 

Last month, Sir Patrick defended the graph by insisting it had never been a "prediction". He said the scenario was designed to "point out" that epidemics either "double or halve", adding that when they double "things go very big quite quickly".

He added: "So things move quickly, and when things double you see that exponential growth, which means you end up with very high numbers and it means you have to act quickly in order to deal with that."

Edited October 11, 2020 by Seymour M Hersh

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Why are the daily figures that make up the 7 day average so different to allow it to be 19 one day but the average actually be 145?

 

Also, are the positive cases from a randomised sample and then extrapolated upwards or are we actually testing a random 100,000 people per local authority over a 1 week period?

 

19x7 = 133. It's not an average of the daily figures. It's a weekly total per-100,000 stat. 145 infections per 100,000 over the entire week. Note also, although it's not relevant, that the 19 pertained to the entire Lothian NHS area, the 145 to the City of Edinburgh (although the city does make up the majority of the population of the NHS board).

 

The positive cases are not from a sample. They're from actual positive tests. As far as I am aware, anyway.