RootsChat.Com
General => The Stay Safe Board => Topic started by: LizzieL on Wednesday 17 June 20 08:47 BST (UK)
-
Each day the Government announces the number of new cases i.e number of people reported to have tested positive. For the last couple of weeks it has been well under 2000 - one day even under 1000.
But I recall a few weeks ago it being said that the true figure was around 8000 per day when the government was quoting a little over 2000 at the time. I think this was just before eligibility for testing had increased, so hopefully the figures shouldn't now be under reported by so much and the 1279 reported yesterday is a bit closer to the truth.
Assuming an average number of infections of 1500 per day over the last 10 days, there would be 15000 people walking around infected but not knowing it if they all only exhibited symptoms on the 10th day. (I know there's a spread from about 5 - 14 days in showing symptoms, but those who showed symptoms before 10 days would hopefully isolate themselves). That works out at about 1 in 4500 of the UK population. That is still a frighteningly high number. My nearest supermarket is in what is regarded as a small town (doesn't have a Sainsburys or an ASDA) and has a population almost 4 times that.
I had thought New Zealand was incredibly unlucky to import 2 UK residents who were infected, but having done the figures it doesn't seem so unlikely. As they were family members travelling together I have only counted them as one infection
-
Each day the Government announces the number of new cases i.e number of people reported to have tested positive. For the last couple of weeks it has been well under 2000 - one day even under 1000.
But I recall a few weeks ago it being said that the true figure was around 8000 per day when the government was quoting a little over 2000 at the time. I think this was just before eligibility for testing had increased, so hopefully the figures shouldn't now be under reported by so much and the 1279 reported yesterday is a bit closer to the truth.
Assuming an average number of infections of 1500 per day over the last 10 days, there would be 15000 people walking around infected but not knowing it if they all only exhibited symptoms on the 10th day. (I know there's a spread from about 5 - 14 days in showing symptoms, but those who showed symptoms before 10 days would hopefully isolate themselves). That works out at about 1 in 4500 of the UK population. That is still a frighteningly high number. My nearest supermarket is in what is regarded as a small town (doesn't have a Sainsburys or an ASDA) and has a population almost 4 times that.
I had thought New Zealand was incredibly unlucky to import 2 UK residents who were infected, but having done the figures it doesn't seem so unlikely. As they were family members travelling together I have only counted them as one infection
The population of the England is estimated at 55,977,178 people
Latest estimates indicate that during the two weeks from 25 May to 7 June 2020, an average of 33,000 people in England had the coronavirus
So that means that roughly 1 person in every 1696 people is infected at any one time in England, whilst that is a high figure it also means that if you take sensible precautions the chance of being in contact with any one of those infected people is pretty low.
In other words for most people if you follow the guidance (distancing & handwashing) and be careful you are unlikely to get infected.
Cheers
Guy
-
GUY: Evidently IoM took similar and sensible precautions in a timely manner to be totally free of infection now.
How was it done?
Closing of ports and airport, or temperature testing and quarantining?
I do feel it is spooky that of all the people in the whole of England, the 2 who went to NZ just happened to be infected!!
-
GUY: Evidently IoM took similar and sensible precautions in a timely manner to be totally free of infection now.
How was it done?
Closing of ports and airport, or temperature testing and quarantining?
I do feel it is spooky that of all the people in the whole of England, the 2 who went to NZ just happened to be infected!!
Port and airport closed to all but essential passenger - i.e repatriations (which had to be applied for), urgent patient visits to UK, health service staff, etc.
Track-and-trace on all positive cases - admittedly much easier on an island of 85000 people!
Compulsory self-isolation for positive tests and their families.
Failure to adhere to lockdown measures resulted in cautions, fines, and ultimately jail ;D
Our Government introduced Emergency Powers.
KG (Isle of Man resident)
P.S.
Our borders will remain closed until the UK sorts out it's problems ;D
P.P.S.
Bars, pubs and clubs open tomorrow ;)
-
Quite so.
The entire globe must be rocking with mirth. :-[
-
GUY: Evidently IoM took similar and sensible precautions in a timely manner to be totally free of infection now.
How was it done?
Closing of ports and airport, or temperature testing and quarantining?
I do feel it is spooky that of all the people in the whole of England, the 2 who went to NZ just happened to be infected!!
Spooky or willing to take the risk, apparently "One of the women had "mild symptoms", but put this down to a pre-existing condition."
But that is just repeating reported news and may not be accurate.
Cheers
Guy
-
GUY: Evidently IoM took similar and sensible precautions in a timely manner to be totally free of infection now.
How was it done?
Closing of ports and airport, or temperature testing and quarantining?
I do feel it is spooky that of all the people in the whole of England, the 2 who went to NZ just happened to be infected!!
New Zealand’s director general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, told the media the women could have picked up the coronavirus in the UK, in airports, or on their flights.
Stan
-
New Zealand’s director general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, told the media the women could have picked up the coronavirus in the UK, in airports, or on their flights.
Stan
That's one of the problems of air travel the virus has an incubation period of up to 14 days where some infected persons can be contagious, this can mean that airport virus checks may give a false negative result, which is why the hated 14 day quarantine period has been evoked.
One small sign of hope though is that most of these "secondary" outbreaks have been clamped down on quickly.
Cheers
Guy
-
BBC Midlands Today at 6.30pm this evening 17 June 2020 were reporting 20 more at Nuneaton, Warwickshire admitted to Hospital in 24hrs.
Thirty Covid cases in the George Eliot Hospital increases to 50 in 24 hours.
Rugby Hospital had no Covid patients.
Councillor Keith Kondakor - Green, Nuneaton (featured on Midlands Today) claims online 3 Covid deaths today at the hospital, making 5 in three days.
I was extremely surprised local Public Health were playing it down and didn't even know postcodes in the BBC Interview, but it was claimed the NHS had already ordered an investigation into the sudden increase.
-
GUY: Evidently IoM took similar and sensible precautions in a timely manner to be totally free of infection now.
How was it done?
Closing of ports and airport, or temperature testing and quarantining?
I do feel it is spooky that of all the people in the whole of England, the 2 who went to NZ just happened to be infected!!
New Zealand’s director general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, told the media the women could have picked up the coronavirus in the UK, in airports, or on their flights.
Stan
I made the same deduction as Ashley Bloomfield - talk about stating the obvious. Giz a job!.
:)
By the way, there is a recent outbreak on Anglesey. Figures seem to vary but all work in the same factory. Not good news.
-
Further bad news - another outbreak at the opposite side of north Wales. Again all work in the same factory.
-
Not good. :'(
-
Not good. :'(
Yes it is disturbing that a number of outbreaks have occurred at meat processing plants both in the UK and Europe, it would be hoped that such plants were particularly conscious of hygiene (including distancing) regulations particularly at times like this.
Cheers
Guy
-
Not good. :'(
Yes it is disturbing that a number of outbreaks have occurred at meat processing plants both in the UK and Europe, it would be hoped that such plants were particularly conscious of hygiene (including distancing) regulations particularly at times like this.
Cheers
Guy
There was a similar outbreak a few weeks ago in Australia too.
-
Just seen today's latest number of infections: 1346. So its up again
17th June 1115
18th June 1218 9.2% up on 17th
19th June 1346 10.5% up on 18th
-
Not good. :'(
Yes it is disturbing that a number of outbreaks have occurred at meat processing plants both in the UK and Europe, it would be hoped that such plants were particularly conscious of hygiene (including distancing) regulations particularly at times like this.
Cheers
Guy
There was a similar outbreak a few weeks ago in Australia too.
There have been outbreaks in Canada as well, and in US plants too.
-
Is the common denominator meat processing plants in all countries affected?. If so, that seems a little strange to say the least.
The new cases on Anglesey and Wrexham meat processing plants would take up a lot of the increase in the above figures provided by Lizzie.
:)
-
Is the common denominator meat processing plants in all countries affected?. If so, that seems a little strange to say the least.
A BBC article suggested that a cool, damp and indoor environment was ideal for the virus. Added to which, the noise of machinery requiring workers to talk loudly or shout.
Plausible, if not yet proven.
-
I am not sure if this is a good place to put this link for today's Guardian article?
Talk about manipulation!!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/19/over-1000-deaths-day-uk-ministers-accused-downplaying-covid-19-peak
-
The trouble is that at that time they were only counting deaths in hospital after a positive test. The general public knew that there were more than the government stated, but didn't know just how bad the discrepancy was.
The Downing street briefings always try and present a bit of good news every day, even if it means recycling something from a few days earlier with a slightly different slant. So many of the questions from the press are side-stepped without any real answer given, and frequently you can see that the journalist wants to ask a follow-up but is cut off.
If the government had really emphasised the seriousness of the situation in early April, there would possibly have been better compliance with lockdown in the early stages. If lockdown had come in a week earlier coupled with closing borders, it could have been much shorter. As has happened in many other countries.
-
If the government had really emphasised the seriousness of the situation in early April, there would possibly have been better compliance with lockdown in the early stages. If lockdown had come in a week earlier coupled with closing borders, it could have been much shorter. As has happened in many other countries.
Yes, YES, YES, so agree with your comments about daily briefing and late taking of action, because truly the foreign office MUST have had an inkling about the gravity of the situation before xmas if not in November, and I maintain it was criminal negligence to have allowed all the massive public events in March. >:(
Exactly how has it helped to lie about the mortality rate? Although I do suspect a breakdown of the true statistics would only serve to make a stronger case that younger people are not particularly vulnerable and don't need to be cautious.
-
Exactly how has it helped to lie about the mortality rate?
Nobody has lied about the mortality rate.
The Guardian (and the BBC) themselves clearly reported the figures were only for deaths in hospital for people who had a positive test result.
The reasons why that measure was being used were explained, and minutely pored over by the media at the time.
The only "manipulation" here is in the Guardian's historical negationism.
-
When you have a glove-puppet Prime Minister who lies as a matter of course, nothing surprises with this crew.
Skoosh.
-
Lets not forget though that the Guardian is equally as capable of misleading as anyone else.
For a start, their claim that over 1,000 people a day died of Covid is blatantly false. Figures include those who died with Covid on the death certificate but not necessarily the primary cause and in many cases not confirmed.
Also the figures announced by the Government are those that have been notified that day, not those that have happened that day. Separate figures are released daily showing when the notified deaths actually occurred - often weeks earlier, although this is improving.
I'm no fan of this government, but I do think they've been reasonably open about what exactly they report on each day, and anyone wanting more detailed information can find it fairly easily online. Being in England I use the reports on the NHS England site, along with those released by the ONS.
Personally I've taken comfort in reading the NHS/ONS reports as they are factual with no 'agenda', unlike politicians or the press, who will spin things according to their political allegiances. As the saying goes: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
-
Personally I've taken comfort in reading the NHS/ONS reports as they are factual with no 'agenda', unlike politicians or the press, who will spin things according to their political allegiances. As the saying goes: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Agreed.
On a site used by people with an interest in family history you'd think it might be well understood that the central recording of deaths is not an exact art, and expecting to have accurate figures of all the people who have died from a specific cause reported, collated, checked and published by 4pm the next day (weekends included) is an expectation beyond reasonable or practicable.
I think the people involved in gathering and processing the data have done a remarkable job in the circumstances, and articles like the one in the Guardian just denigrates the effort that has been put in to keep us informed.
-
Seem to be an awful lot of opinions here. The figures are estimates and will only ever be so.
-
On BBC Any Answers today, the first member of the public to be called to ask a question was a woman claiming to be 'a doctor' and her question was why we couldn't get all the children back to school immediately. It wasn't clear from what she said as to whether she had children herself; however, she said that social distancing for children was unnecessary because it was proved that they didn't become seriously ill with Covid-19, and if they did get it, their parents would be young and strong enough to be able to cope. I'm not sure what her plans were for teachers in all this.
I was horrified that someone claiming to be from the medical profession could say such a thing, but of course the 'panel' all thought it was a jolly good idea ... at which point I switched off. It did make me wonder if she was actually a real doctor, or a propaganda plant. Certainly, the GPs I know would be appalled at being asked to manipulate people into believing their children would be safe if infected with coronavirus - particularly as in the past two days there has been publicity about the deaths of a 13 day old baby, and a 12 year old child.
-
Personally I've taken comfort in reading the NHS/ONS reports as they are factual with no 'agenda', unlike politicians or the press, who will spin things according to their political allegiances. As the saying goes: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Agreed.
On a site used by people with an interest in family history you'd think it might be well understood that the central recording of deaths is not an exact art, and expecting to have accurate figures of all the people who have died from a specific cause reported, collated, checked and published by 4pm the next day (weekends included) is an expectation beyond reasonable or practicable.
I think the people involved in gathering and processing the data have done a remarkable job in the circumstances, and articles like the one in the Guardian just denigrates the effort that has been put in to keep us informed.
So glad you explained the various processes involved when a person dies who went into hospital for one ailment but medics state death from another cause. It's then a lengthy delay whilst the Registrar contacts family and during n arranged meeting asks if they're satisfied with the reasons for the death, or would they like to take the matter "further".
For your reasons, I'm not blaming any government, even though I think a few should be replaced.
-
Just seen today's latest number of infections: 1346. So its up again
17th June 1115
18th June 1218 9.2% up on 17th
19th June 1346 10.5% up on 18th
1295 today - so come down a bit.
-
Lizzie, these are all estimates and should be treated as such - no more and no less.
-
Lizzie, these are all estimates and should be treated as such - no more and no less.
I don't think its fair to say the numbers are estimates, they are the number of lab-confirmed cases announced on a particular day, which is, of course, not the same as the number of people infected in total, but then no country could provide that data.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
A link within the documents explains the methodology for the figures.
-
Ipsos Mori and Imperial College London are carrying out random testing on behalf of Dept of Health and Social Care to find out how much virus is circulating in the population without symptoms.
After initial contact by letter requesting agreement to take part, a swab test will be sent and then on completion collected by a courier. Hopefully this will provide some useful information. OH, niece and a neighbour have all been chosen to take part.
-
Ipsos Mori and Imperial College London are carrying out random testing on behalf of Dept of Health and Social Care to find out how much virus is circulating in the population without symptoms.
After initial contact by letter requesting agreement to take part, a swab test will be sent and then on completion collected by a courier. Hopefully this will provide some useful information. OH, niece and a neighbour have all been chosen to take part.
And me. My kit arrived today.
-
In today's Eastern Daily Press, Dr Louise Smith, Director of Public Health for Norfolk said of the number of confirmed cases:
"These figures are in line with what we expected.
I don't have the data locally to know whether the people diagnosed as positive in our local system are going through test and trace. That is data I would very much like to have.
...... moving towards much more specific, clinical level data about care for individuals.... That's a very different level of data and at the moment the national strategy and system is not established for that to be managed at a local level. "
There has been much talk (from government) about possibly 'moving swiftly' to contain local outbreaks, as other countries have done, notably China currently dealing with the outbreak in Beijing. But if the local Director of Public Health isn't being given the necessary data how would these local lockdowns be managed? If this regional data is available why can't she have it?
I'm afraid I shall go on taking the same precautions including 2m distancing & not going to crowded places - & all my friends of my generation say the same - & some younger generation too. There might be a much lower risk of catching it, but if I do, it'll still be just as serious for me personally as before.
Pat
-
Do be very careful with a hint of scepticism in believing data.
It is obvious to me that the Government is now changing focus on reviving the economy, which is going to be in a very poor shape for quite a time.
My advice based on 25 years working in the NHS is simple, if you are in an at risk category you will remain in that category and hence still be at risk of CV19 which will remain out there.
Be safe, maintain your own social distancing and await the availability of a vaccine.
-
Ipsos Mori and Imperial College London are carrying out random testing on behalf of Dept of Health and Social Care to find out how much virus is circulating in the population without symptoms.
After initial contact by letter requesting agreement to take part, a swab test will be sent and then on completion collected by a courier. Hopefully this will provide some useful information. OH, niece and a neighbour have all been chosen to take part.
And me. My kit arrived today.
My brother has too
-
I've just come across this article:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632853-300-why-have-there-been-so-many-coronavirus-deaths-in-the-uk/
which makes it clear that the shocking record is due to incompetence and wrong decisions in high places. The article is about three weeks old, and the numbers have risen since.
I feel a few heads should roll, but it's unlikely they will. Governments never apologize, and they seldom learn from their mistakes.
Paul Nurse, referred to in the article, is in fact Sir Paul, director of the Francis Crick Institute, who shared the 2001 Nobel Prize. I imagine he knows what he's talking about.
-
Thanks to poll-slippage Boris (Cummings) is set to weed out ministers (like Williamson?) who have under-performed during the crisis! Mirror mirror on the wall! ;D
Skoosh.
-
From the outset, the performance of the MPs with Portfolios has been diabolical and its been so bad that I've startedf to think there's some element or elements in the civil service who want this government to fail the public.
-
I think it might be special advisers rather than civil servants, Rena. I read (I think in The Sunday Times) that, in No 10, 'policy' is made in response to the outcome of daily opinion polls and focus group, which would explain some of the u-turns.
-
I think it might be special advisers rather than civil servants, Rena. I read (I think in The Sunday Times) that, in No 10, 'policy' is made in response to the outcome of daily opinion polls and focus group, which would explain some of the u-turns.
I don't usually mind a few "U" turns, as I quite often do them myself - e.g. I planned to do a bit of laundry today but changed my mind when I saw the black clouds approaching.
What I do mind is these alleged "A" listers being so slow off the blocks.... and if I hear "we've been really busy" (but it's been fruitless) one more time, I'll do myself a mischief.
-
Is there any way of getting infection numbers broken down into small areas? Probably not, but it would be nice to know if the virus is actually circulating in my rural area. The only people I actually know of who have had it were those who were ill very early on.
-
See https://www.covidlive.co.uk/
CovidLiveUK
Live coronavirus figures.
Tap on the map or search postcode to see figures.
Stan
-
I found the COVID 19 interactive map on the ONS website interesting, it gives the deaths by post code in March April and May.
-
I found the COVID 19 interactive map on the ONS website interesting, it gives the deaths by post code in March April and May.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc811/msoamap/index.html?from=timeline
Stan
-
Thank you for those. The covidlive one will only show Kent rather than postcode area? The ONS one shows no deaths in this area, which is good, but only goes up to mid-April. I shall keep an eye on them.
-
The one I found gives April May and June but I don’t know how to do a link I just googled and found it.
-
TofH. If you go here:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=ltlas&map=rate
and either use the map or the table to select you local authority (LTLA - lower tier local authority) , it will give you the current rates.
-
TofH. If you go here:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=ltlas&map=rate
and either use the map or the table to select you local authority (LTLA - lower tier local authority) , it will give you the current rates.
If I do that for my LTLA it gives me 236 - I hope that's not the CURRENT number. I can only find cumlative cases on this site, not how many in last 24 hrs / week etc.
-
TofH wanted total number of confirmed cases in her area, Lizzie.
I'm not quite sure what you're looking at - there is a cumulative total and a rate for each LTLA.
Add - I think we've had this discussion before. I keep a mental record of total cases recorded in my area for the last time I looked (I don't check every day) and I see how many more cases have been recorded since then. I see that my area hasn't had any extra cases for a few days.
They are totals for those tested positive.
-
The LTLA still covers quite a large area. I will keep checking!
-
What is you LA, TofH. I don't think you'll get them for a postcode - those seem to be only for deaths. I gather that GPs, etc. aren't being informed of the totals for their practice areas.
-
The problem is that we really don't know how many cases of Covid-19 there are. The figures that are given are lab confirmed cases. There are also those that have not been tested or are asymptomatic.
PS - I prefer looking at the excess deaths figures.
-
Is there any way of getting infection numbers broken down into small areas? Probably not, but it would be nice to know if the virus is actually circulating in my rural area. The only people I actually know of who have had it were those who were ill very early on.
I read it as Toth wanted information to assess their current risk. To know that 500 people have had it in their area since late February may be interesting, but it is more relevant now to know that in the last week there were only 1 - 2 people per day for example. I know there will always be people who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, but numbers of positive tests are better than nothing.
-
Can I refer you to this article in New Scientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632873-000-how-many-of-us-are-likely-to-have-caught-the-coronavirus-so-far/
The UK is estimated to have reported only 14 per cent..............What these statistics don’t reflect is the number of symptomless cases, which some evidence suggests can account for between a quarter and half of all coronavirus infections.
Also:
“The quality and quantity of testing is inconsistent, so it is difficult to get a true number of those infected”
-
....but it is more relevant now to know that in the last week there were only 1 - 2 people per day for example.
From 21 March I've been checking the figures for various places (all UTLAs) I'm interested in, and then entering the figures into a spreadsheet on a daily basis. (out of curiosity rather than anything scientific).
The main message I've taken away from this is the figures for the cumulative positive tests aren't that reliable in 'real time' when you start looking at smaller areas on a day-to-day basis.
For example, the figure for the Greater Glasgow and Clyde UTLA remained unchanged at 4010 from 14/06 through to 17/06 - the impression you might get is it was completely safe to go out. Then on 18/06 the reported figure jumped to 4813 - which suggests 803 positive tests were carried out in a 24 hour period (obviously not!).
But how should an individual looking at the figures to judge how safe it is to go out interpret a sudden jump of 803 cases? (my guess is it was the uncovering of a historic under-reporting of positive tests, not a 24-hour mini-pandemic)
As a generalisation, almost all of the 25 places I'm looking at have no more than +2 positive test results per day, many have none for several days in a row.
...but numbers of positive tests are better than nothing.
I'm not sure about that. On a national level it is true that the number of positive tests is a reasonable proxy for how active the virus is.
But when you start looking at individual UTLA and LTLA figures the sample size is so small it doesn't really tell you very much, other than perhaps indicating the random nature of the process of infection/severity of symptoms/choice to get tested/data collection and reporting.
-
Thank goodness someone understands.
That's what I've been saying in various posts over the last week or so, Nick.
I've worked with social stats, especially health related ones, since the early 1970s (MRC unit, universities and local and health authorities), so am aware of the limitations.
Gadget
-
Checked my area Lothian Health Board and the figures state -
3147 Total Cases/351 per 100,000 people/699 deaths approximately 78 per 100,000.
It looks like the numbers are coming down but I will still be cautious.
Update due today from the National Records of Scotland. These figures will include people who have died where Coronovirous is mentioned on the death certificate as a contributory factor.
Dorrie
-
My apologies if this has already been discussed, I haven't read all the pages of the thread. Also, sorry if it seems a silly question, I don't read or watch a lot of the news reports as it depresses me.
If a person has a positive test for Covid19, do they have to have a further test to see if they're clear? The reason I ask is that the number of confirmed positive cases in my area has stayed the same for about three weeks, although it has now gone up by one. When do cases drop off the end of this? If you know what I mean! Is it just assumed that after a couple of weeks they're clear? Either way, why would the figures in my area be so consistent?
-
My apologies if this has already been discussed, I haven't read all the pages of the thread. Also, sorry if it seems a silly question, I don't read or watch a lot of the news reports as it depresses me.
You aren't alone in avoiding the news, some outlets seem determined to spread as much misery as they can, I know a few people who are shielding themselves more from the news than from the virus.
But there are no silly questions, only silly answers. ;D
If a person has a positive test for Covid19, do they have to have a further test to see if they're clear?
Usually people won't have a test to see if they are clear - it is assumed if their symptoms stop after a period of time then they are 'clear', although not necessarily fully over the effects of the disease.
The reason I ask is that the number of confirmed positive cases in my area has stayed the same for about three weeks, although it has now gone up by one.
If we are talking about the same figures then it represents the cumulative number since they started testing, not the number of people currently positive.
E.g. dowdstree's 3147 for Lothian (now 3150) is the total number of cases confirmed by a positive test since the start of the pandemic - most of those people will have recovered, some will have sadly died, and only some (now likely to be very few) will still have the virus.
Because the figure in your area has stayed the same for three weeks it probably means no new cases (but now at least one) have been detected.
It is also possible that some new cases have been detected, but the total number hasn't increased because some of the previous cases have been removed. The data seems to be constantly under review - presumably some double-counting or other kinds of error are being found.
When do cases drop off the end of this? If you know what I mean! Is it just assumed that after a couple of weeks they're clear?
The cases won't drop off. As explained above, the figures are for the cases to date, not the ones that are currently active. So once they are added on to the total they won't be removed (unless there is an error in the data).
Either way, why would the figures in my area be so consistent?
Again for the reasons above, because the figure is the cumulative total it will be consistent (unchanging) when there are no new cases being detected. You shouldn't expect the figure to go down, and it will only start going up if new cases are detected.
-
Checked my area Lothian Health Board and the figures state -
3147 Total Cases/351 per 100,000 people/699 deaths approximately 78 per 100,000.
It looks like the numbers are coming down but I will still be cautious.
Update due today from the National Records of Scotland. These figures will include people who have died where Coronovirous is mentioned on the death certificate as a contributory factor.
Dorrie
Over all Scottish figures do look promising although we're obviously not out of the woods yet because as long as their is circulating virus there is potential for flare ups.
There has been a slight dip in the numbers tested in the past week but the percentage of people tested testing positive has continued to fall over all. The 7 day average for both numbers of new cases and deaths has overall been on an overall downward trend despite a few small blips.
-
Just in case you've not listened to these:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b006qshd
Some interesting, non-biased reporting.
-
Thanks for the info Nick_Ips. The figures I looked at were taken from the BBC interactive map. So from what you say there's no means of knowing how many people are currently infected. I find that a bit disconcerting but on the other hand if the figures have been largely the same for three weeks, the majority of those people could probably be over it. We recently had a mobile testing station in the town and if that has only led to one new case being identified it has to be good news. Doesn't it? ???
-
So from what you say there's no means of knowing how many people are currently infected.
That's right. The figures published are only for confirmed cases. It would be impossible* to ever know exactly how many people are currently infected, not least because some people (possibly quite a large percentage) may have no symptoms and therefore not be tested. Then there will also be people who have symptoms but refuse to get tested.
(*I say impossible, but in theory if every single person in the country was compulsorily tested several times a day then you could get close to an exact figure... but would we really want to live that way?)
I find that a bit disconcerting but on the other hand if the figures have been largely the same for three weeks, the majority of those people could probably be over it. We recently had a mobile testing station in the town and if that has only led to one new case being identified it has to be good news. Doesn't it? ???
Yes.
If the number of positive tests per day is a reasonable proxy for the total number of people infected at any one time then the low rates of positive tests is a good sign.
It doesn't mean the virus has gone away completely as there may still be symptomless transmission taking place which doesn't result in testing (aka "the wrong people are being tested")
This is one of the reasons why the media obsession with testing and daily reporting of the figures was so disappointing. The figures were only ever a guide - an approximation - and the value of that approximation was broadly the same whether 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 people were being tested per day.
-
If the number of positive tests per day is a reasonable proxy for the total number of people infected at any one time then the low rates of positive tests is a good sign.
It doesn't mean the virus has gone away completely as there may still be symptomless transmission taking place which doesn't result in testing (aka "the wrong people are being tested")
This is one of the reasons why the media obsession with testing and daily reporting of the figures was so disappointing. The figures were only ever a guide - an approximation - and the value of that approximation was broadly the same whether 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 people were being tested per day.
Amended - a link to the latest T& T
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-methodology
Sorry - too many links - I think this one might give relevant info!
-
The reports so far can be reached from here
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports
What is worrying is that the number of close contacts is so high. 3,633 people said they had one or more close contacts - between them they generated 30,286 people who might be at risk, that's an average of more than 8 people each. I wonder how many of those 30K plus people really will self isolate, or will it be "only if I get symptoms - meanwhile it's the beach for me and the family"
-
The reports so far can be reached from here
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports
What is worrying is that the number of close contacts is so high. 3,633 people said they had one or more close contacts - between them they generated 30,286 people who might be at risk, that's an average of more than 8 people each. I wonder how many of those 30K plus people really will self isolate, or will it be "only if I get symptoms - meanwhile it's the beach for me and the family"
Even more worrying there have been cases of people with symptoms who haven't isolated and not done anything until they become too ill to cope with the symptoms.
-
A quick summary of today's info from the G
Some 70.3% of the 6,923 people who tested positive for coronavirus and were referred to the service were reached and asked to provide details of their recent contacts. That is down from 75.2%, the equivalent figure for the previous week.
Of those people who were reached and asked to provide details of their close contacts, 69.9% were reached within 24 hours. That is down from 77%, the equivalent figure for the previous week.
And of those people whose names were given to the service because they had been in close contact with someone testing positive, the service reached 81.7% of them to ask them to self-isolate. That is down from 90.9%, the equivalent figure for the previous week
-
175 people (hope that's an exaggeration!) tested positive at a meat processing plant in Ynys Mon (Anglesey.)
There will have to be a lot of self-isolating and it shows how this virus like a forest fire can take hold.
-
For those who are interested in R
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk
Overall still .7 to .9 but regional variations.
-
New cases reported today - 1118 - quite a lot more than the 652 reported yesterday, I wonder if that includes the 175 from Anglesey
-
Ipsos Mori and Imperial College London are carrying out random testing on behalf of Dept of Health and Social Care to find out how much virus is circulating in the population without symptoms.
After initial contact by letter requesting agreement to take part, a swab test will be sent and then on completion collected by a courier. Hopefully this will provide some useful information. OH, niece and a neighbour have all been chosen to take part.
And me. My kit arrived today.
I've just been selected too, but mine is to compare the swab test with the standard (nose & throat) test, so I have to do both.
-
Deaths up again today - 184.
-
And 1381 new infections reported, up 263 from Thursday - (23.5% increase)
-
Now that the daily briefings have ended, is there a site where they publish the data and graphs in the same format as before?
I know all the issues with the graphs but they were a useful proxy and showed the trends.
-
Do you mean these, Mike
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
(also a link to the new beta)
-
this quite useful for comparisons
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
if you click on the country you get more detail
-
Do you mean these, Mike
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
(also a link to the new beta)
Yes - thanks.
-
Do you mean these, Mike
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
(also a link to the new beta)
I like that new beta - easy to follow.
-
The problem with these bare stats is that they don't provide the detail of when the deaths actually occurred - often several days, weeks or even months earlier - nor do they detail which 'strand' of testing unearthed the new cases.
There's also been a huge increase in the number of tests - several people on here, including me, have been invited to test for various purposes - so daily fluctuations are to be expected.
-
The information is out there.
On another forum, the following was posted yesterday:
78 further deaths in English hospitals reported today. Split is:
21 April - 1 death (South East)
5 May - 1 death (Midlands)
28 May - 1 death (N East & Yorks)
31 May - 1 death (South East)
4 June - 1 death (Midlands)
5 June - 1 death (North West)
6 June - 1 death (North West)
7 June - 2 deaths (North West and South East)
8 June - 2 deaths (Midlands and South East)
9 June - 1 death (North West)
10 June - 4 deaths (2 North West, 1 each South East and South West)
12 June - 2 deaths (North West and South East)
13 June - 3 deaths (2 South East and 1 North West)
14 June - 1 death (South East)
16 June - 4 deaths (2 North West and 1 each South East and South West)
18 June - 2 deaths (both North West)
20 June - 1 death (South East)
22 June - 1 death (East of England)
23 June - 3 deaths (all North West)
24 June - 12 deaths (5 South East, 3 North West, 2 Midlands, 1 each East and London)
25 June - 23 deaths (9 Midlands, 7 North West, 4 South East, 2 N East & Yorks, and 1 London)
26 June - 10 deaths (3 East, 2 each North West and South East, 1 each Midlands, North East and South West)
Regional Split :
North West - 27 deaths
South East - 22 deaths
Midlands - 15 deaths
East of England - 5 deaths
N East & Yorks - 4 deaths
South West - 3 deaths
London - 2 deaths
Current (past week) deaths are predominantly focused around 3 areas, Greater Manchester, Kent and South Midlands (Leicester, Northants and Nuneaton).
-
Interesting that reports from America that cases and deaths have risen sharply in Texas and Florida and they re-imposed restrictions in places like bars. Even more interesting that the age of those infected and dying is going down, could that be because they are the ones mixing in crowded places?
-
Interesting that reports from America that cases and deaths have risen sharply in Texas and Florida and they re-imposed restrictions in places like bars. Even more interesting that the age of those infected and dying is going down, could that be because they are the ones mixing in crowded places?
I suspect so, in fact I hope so as the alternative is a significant mutation in the virus changing how it affects people.
-
Interesting that reports from America that cases and deaths have risen sharply in Texas and Florida and they re-imposed restrictions in places like bars. Even more interesting that the age of those infected and dying is going down, could that be because they are the ones mixing in crowded places?
Many of the early infections in Germany had a high proportion of people in their 20s and 30s and attributed to a lot of them going to festivals over or near the Italian border. Whereas the older people didn't go out partying.
-
The information is out there.
Yes, I know, but only the deaths in hospitals are reported, and there no centralised figures for the whole of the UK so you have to go hunting down the numbers/dates for each of the home nations.
-
Do you mean these, Mike
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
(also a link to the new beta)
With the current spike in Leicester, I checked the above website to see how my local authority compares with Leicester.
Leicester is shown as 1056 total cases with a rate of 297.3 per 100,000 population
My local authority has 236 total and a rate of 177.2/100,000 which is reassuring.
But according to the BBC:
The authority [Leicester City Council] said in a statement: "The latest figures obtained by the city council show that 3,216 Covid-19 cases have been confirmed in Leicester since the start of the epidemic. Of these, 944 cases were reported in the last two weeks.These figures include the number of patients and staff testing as positive in hospitals... and positive cases identified in testing centres."
So for Leicester the figure they now have is more than three times the number of cases reported on the official government website which states "Last updated on Monday 29 June 2020 at 4:02pm", so it's not as if the figures should be greatly out of date.
I can understand that there will be differences in estimate given by the various modelling processes, but it looks as if the figures of actual positive tests produced by the government for general public consumption and those provided to local authority officials differ by 200%.
Once again this morning Matt Hancock refused to disclose the actual number of people being tested when interviewed on BBC Breakfast programme.
-
Leicester is shown as 1056 total cases with a rate of 297.3 per 100,000 population
My local authority has 236 total and a rate of 177.2/100,000 which is reassuring.
I wouldn't take any reassurance from those figures. It doesn't tell you anything about how active the virus is in your area today.
All they tell you is how many cases were confirmed by a positive test in the past.
In the absence of any other information the figures could be interpreted as suggesting more people in Leicester have had the virus (and therefore probably have immunity) than in your local area - and thus Leicester might be a safer place to go out in. However, the other information we have clearly shows that to be a nonsense conclusion.
So for Leicester the figure they now have is more than three times the number of cases reported on the official government website which states "Last updated on Monday 29 June 2020 at 4:02pm", so it's not as if the figures should be greatly out of date.
I can understand that there will be differences in estimate given by the various modelling processes, but it looks as if the figures of actual positive tests produced by the government for general public consumption and those provided to local authority officials differ by 200%.
The figures on the .gov website aren't estimates or the result of modelling. They are accurate facts.
But they are only measuring one specific thing (as explained in the methodology) which is cases confirmed by a positive test carried out in specific circumstances.
The explanation for the difference is partially in the phrase quoted in the article "...and positive cases identified in testing centres." These cases are not included (AIUI) in the PHE figures as they aren't what is known as "Pillar 1" tests.
With apologies for quoting myself from the other day:-
...but numbers of positive tests are better than nothing.
I'm not sure about that. On a national level it is true that the number of positive tests is a reasonable proxy for how active the virus is.
But when you start looking at individual UTLA and LTLA figures the sample size is so small it doesn't really tell you very much, other than perhaps indicating the random nature of the process of infection/severity of symptoms/choice to get tested/data collection and reporting.
The figures collated by PHE and published on the Government website are an interesting guide for the layperson, but have never been a definitive count of how many people have been (or are) infected with Coronavirus. Such a thing doesn't exist. Even the figures quoted by Leicester City council are still only an approximation of the real total.
Once again this morning Matt Hancock refused to disclose the actual number of people being tested when interviewed on BBC Breakfast programme.
Wise man.
How on earth could he know the answer to that question?
And if he offered a guess of (say) "200,000" then some Clever Richard journalist would pop up this afternoon and accuse him of lying because someone else's guess is 199,999.
One of the saddest aspects of modern politics is the media obsession with trying to catch people out - in order to grab a headline - is resulting in less openness and honesty than we enjoyed in the past. The very thing the media are complaining about.
-
The problem is the number of deaths is not correct. How many are people who actually died OF the virus, rather than WITH the virus. Many doctors are now saying publicly, what they've only been saying privately so far, that almost every person dying in hospital has had Covid put on their death certificate, even if it wasn't the cause of death and even if Covid had never been confirmed and in some cases not even suspected. Also, many of the people who died were already seriously ill and probably would have died over the next few months and Covid has just hastened their death. This is already being borne out by the fact (Leicester apart maybe) that the overall number of deaths in June was way below average, doctors believing that this is because these very ill people just died earlier.
What we really need is the total number of deaths above the average, although as Covid has been put on nearly every death certificate recently, we'll never get that true figure.
-
Many doctors are now saying publicly, what they've only been saying privately so far, that almost every person dying in hospital has had Covid put on their death certificate, even if it wasn't the cause of death and even if Covid had never been confirmed and in some cases not even suspected.
What is your source for this?
-
What we really need is the total number of deaths above the average, although as Covid has been put on nearly every death certificate recently, we'll never get that true figure.
This makes no sense.
-
Many doctors are now saying publicly, what they've only been saying privately so far, that almost every person dying in hospital has had Covid put on their death certificate, even if it wasn't the cause of death and even if Covid had never been confirmed and in some cases not even suspected.
What is your source for this?
That is completely not true with all the death certificates. Covid has only been listed as cause of death or contributory factor to death for people who have either tested positive for covid (the majority) or been clinically diagnosed as having covid. Covid tests are not 100% so sometimes you can get a false negative. Covid causes a distinctive chest x-ray for example, different from bacterial pneumonia that usually develops secondary to flu, and different from aspiration pneumonia. In the early days of the outbreak, for us anyway the majority of people dying had covid. The few who did not DID NOT have covid recorded on their death certificate. OK I did not see what was recorded on the certificate issued by the records office but it did not refer to covid on the form completed by my colleagues. The number is more likely to be an underestimate for those who were at home and had not had medical attention.
When a death certificate form is completed the doctor enters cause of death and contributory factors. If someone who was already ill contracted covid it would at the very least be a contributory factor to their death as it would hasten their death
-
Deaths being reported are EXCESS deaths, ie the number of deaths this year above the five year average number of deaths.
-
Many doctors are now saying publicly, what they've only been saying privately so far, that almost every person dying in hospital has had Covid put on their death certificate, even if it wasn't the cause of death and even if Covid had never been confirmed and in some cases not even suspected.
What is your source for this?
That is completely not true with all the death certificates. Covid has only been listed as cause of death or contributory factor to death for people who have either tested positive for covid (the majority) or been clinically diagnosed as having covid. Covid tests are not 100% so sometimes you can get a false negative. Covid causes a distinctive chest x-ray for example, different from bacterial pneumonia that usually develops secondary to flu, and different from aspiration pneumonia. In the early days of the outbreak, for us anyway the majority of people dying had covid. The few who did not DID NOT have covid recorded on their death certificate. OK I did not see what was recorded on the certificate issued by the records office but it did not refer to covid on the form completed by my colleagues. The number is more likely to be an underestimate for those who were at home and had not had medical attention.
When a death certificate form is completed the doctor enters cause of death and contributory factors. If someone who was already ill contracted covid it would at the very least be a contributory factor to their death as it would hasten their death
For those infected with Covid-19 even where it only attacks the brain, they can be diagnosed from brain scans too.
https://www.itnonline.com/content/multi-institutional-study-looks-brain-mri-findings-covid-19
https://www.rsna.org/en/news/2020/April/COVID-19-News
Just because the daily death figures are much reduced, the British public need to continue to stay alert, follow hygiene and social distancing, people are still carrying it with no symptoms.
Our hospital had 20 Covid admissions in one day and from Leicestershire in the last two weeks!
But we are seeing a rediculous change in attitude locally and on TV and some have seen the Lockdown release to go bonkers celebrating since VE Day! Even leaving huge amounts litter behind (a possible contact spreader).
I was always taught to take my own rubbish home!
Mark
-
But we are seeing a rediculous change in attitude locally and on TV and some have seen the Lockdown release to go bonkers celebrating since VE Day! Even leaving huge amounts litter behind (a possible contact spreader).
I was always taught to take my own rubbish home!
Mark
I agree but in some places the gatherings have been moved on by police and in such instances they cannot pick up their litter.
That does not excuse the litter or indeed the mass gatherings but it does make it more understandable
Cheers
Guy
-
But we are seeing a rediculous change in attitude locally and on TV and some have seen the Lockdown release to go bonkers celebrating since VE Day! Even leaving huge amounts litter behind (a possible contact spreader).
I was always taught to take my own rubbish home!
Mark
I agree but in some places the gatherings have been moved on by police and in such instances they cannot pick up their litter.
That does not excuse the litter or indeed the mass gatherings but it does make it more understandable
Cheers
Guy
That infers that they have dropped it on the floor around them anyway rather than putting it straight into a bag when they have finished with it, so probably had no intention of picking it up. Majority of gatherings weren't moved on by the police as they weren't actually breaking the law, they just couldn't be bothered to clear up after themselves.
-
Latest report from the MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group:
https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
-
Downing Street latest briefing
DHSC [the Department for Health and Social Care] will no longer publish the number of people tested daily any more, and will instead publish the number of daily tests processed. This is because the daily people tested statistic only counts new people being tested. For example, someone who was tested in February, and then tested again this month, would be counted once. Considering hospital and care home staff will now be tested on a regular basis, we don’t think this statistic would be an accurate reflection of the amount of daily testing that is taking place.
Test and trace statistics published weekly will include the number of people who have been tested.
-
Personally, I don't really need to know the number of people who are being tested - I want to know those who actually test positive and the deaths.plus where these are.
-
Personally, I don't really need to know the number of people who are being tested - I want to know those who actually test positive and the deaths.plus where these are.
Personally I like to know both and preferably the criteria for testing to get a better idea if they are testing the correct people. For example If you get only 4 positive cases and only 4 symptomatic people have been tested that is not as reassuring as say 4 positive tests but 1000 symptomatic and 500 routine tests have been done IYSWIM. The former suggests good targeting but could have missed many cases the later suggests that the majority of the covid like symptoms circulating are not due to covid.
-
Personally, I don't really need to know the number of people who are being tested - I want to know those who actually test positive and the deaths.plus where these are.
Whilst it is obviously critical to know who has tested positive, and the results of their illness to locality, it is impossible to judge the extent of the spread without having a record of the total number of people tested.
For example, 5 people testing positive out of 100,000 tests gives one indication, whilst 5 people testing positive out of 100 tests (i exaggerate for effect, of course) is a very different matter.
And whilst the US President is wont to say the statistics in the US regarding C-19 infection are exaggerated by the tests, and to slow testing down to produce better results - you are able to judge from increased testing whether the number of positive results goes up in line with the extra tests, or whether the number of positive results are increasing above the number of tests carried out.
I gather from More or Less (BBC) that at present in some US locations, increased testing is showing an increased proportion of positives, above that which would be expected.