Generic Virus Thread

[Sid4ever]

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I thought there were some people flown back to the UK and shoved in a disused bit of a hospital somewhere up @bickster's way back at the beginning?

Yes to Arrowe Park on the Wirral, can't remember whether they were cruise passengers or repatriations

[HanoiVillan]

19 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I thought there were some people flown back to the UK and shoved in a disused bit of a hospital somewhere up @bickster's way back at the beginning?

Thanks for reminding me. Yes you're right. We needed that, but at about 10,000 times scale.

[VILLAMARV]

On the Adam Bienkov stuff. 

Before I add my 2p it is worth repeating over and over that at this stage the only figures that are in any way robust and not subject to change is the ons all cause mortality figures. There's a lag and all that but the amount of people who have died overall is the amount of people who have died overall. We can look at the 5 year average and extrapolate correlation from there.

Causation is hard to define without, as everyone is right to point out, testing. But is a matter for doctors and coroners as far as I'm aware. Covid can still be listed as a cause and as an underlying symptom without testing on an epidemiological or clinical diagnosis basis according to the WHO. (As per my post on page 470 of this thread)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-notes-for-completing-a-medical-certificate-of-cause-of-death

Quote

When someone dies, a doctor involved in their care has to complete a medical certificate of cause of death (MCCD), which the family take to the register office to register the death.

It's a matter for the coroners ultimately if an inquiry into cause of death is required. Wales, for example, has 1 coroner. (So if there's a backlog being referred to the coroners, we may be waiting some time for these). I believe the pandemic has meant any doctor can issue an MCCD, not necessarily the one providing care.

Registration is different though and can be done by lots of different people, after the MCCD is issued. And within (I think) 5 days.

Hence, why the ICD-10 clinical coding is the important data point in counting causation effectively, and, as in a previous post, distinguishes between 'with' or 'from' covid 19. If we are still going off official uk death certificates.

No-one within the government should be able to fudge the figures in this regard (discounting error or fraud of course)

As for the comparative graphs, personally I'm not that interested in them, but, assuming the countries that they are attempting to compare themselves to are also collecting the info in the same way as the new phe stuff, it would make sense from a comparison pov. 

It's not a robust way of seeing what's happened in the UK, but that's a different question. 

Where, on the new data is day 0? If they were plotted against previously released data from the ons what might it highlight? The interesting bit to me is more what's missing at the start rather than the change in gradient of the lines.

One further point worth mentioning

The ONS (theoretically at least) exist separate from govt and report to the national statistician. Unlike in the provinces where the likes of PHW are still part of the NHS, PHE are civil servants under the DHSC.

Make of that what you will but I trust the medical professionals filling in the Mccd's. Whether things are being misdiagnosed is speculation we should probably avoid without a medical license. What appears to be happening is that phe are circumventing the standard practice not only of the ons, but of the WHO. And while phe have no remit to follow WHO protocols, that system exists so that we can compare statistics internationally. 

[bickster]

35 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I thought there were some people flown back to the UK and shoved in a disused bit of a hospital somewhere up @bickster's way back at the beginning?

There were two lots banged up in the top secret location of the nurses quarters of Arrow Park Hospital.

Made for a good show on the telly

EDIT: The was also another lot I seem to remember being quarantined down south early on but not as much fuss was made, it was a few weeks later and I think it got missed by most as it wasn't the biggest news by then. All part of the lip service

 

[mjmooney]

Just now, bickster said:

There were two lots banged up in the top secret location of the nurses quarters of Arrow Park Hospital.

I got banged up in a nurses' hostel once. 

But that's another story. 

[VILLAMARV]

And I'm sorry for the last post, it's more to help me get my head around it and for people wiser than me to point out the faults in my thinking. 

[villakram]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't recall us ever having put new arrivals in quarantine?

On the point of comparison, Hong Kong could have been affected *worse* than the UK. The part where people actually live is amongst the most densely-populated areas on the planet, lots of people live in cramped and unsanitary conditions, and there are far far more direct travel routes to Wuhan.

But my point isn't really 'we should have been Hong Kong'. It would certainly have been nice! However, that ship sailed a very long time ago. My point *is* that we have a lot to learn about what works in handling pandemics, and we need to start learning best practices from those countries that haven't just done a bit better but are more similar like Germany, but from countries like Korea and Taiwan, and also from Hong Kong where applicable as well. That needs to include centralised quarantine locations to be honest.

HK etc., all had to deal with multiple SARS/avian outbreaks in the past 20 years and SK had an outbreak of MERS in 2015. Experience counts loads. Taiwan has it a lot easier given the political situation with China results in relatively little travel, and what happens all has a plan-B given continuous political flare-ups. 

Meanwhile, loads of praise for the dictatorship in Singapore a few weeks back, less so now. There's a certain amount of preparedness and a certain amount of luck, e.g., see the US stats and the mess in London/N. Italy is similar.

US death toll: New York ~ 26k, Rest of US ~ 36k.

 

 

 

 

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

This one's for all the BBC fans out there . . .

Here's a quality piece of data viz from one of the latest articles by health correspondent Nick Triggle:

Not enough likes from me there HV. It was him I quoted the 'would have died anyway' from the other day. His name is mud in our house. 

For shame Mr Triggle

Top post.

[Stevo985]

The government have been consistently clear that the R number has to remain below 1 to ease the lockdown. 
 

most of the reporters today using their questions to ask what a manageable R number is. 
 

LESS THAN 1! ARE YOU EVEN **** LISTENING?!

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I got banged up in a nurses' hostel once. 

But that's another story. 

[villakram]

39 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I remember an American scientist on the news weeks ago saying this was how China got it under control relatively quickly. 
 

lots of testing. Anyone with symptoms went to a testing location and were quarantined until the test came back negative. If it was positive then they were quarantined at special locations without seeing family until they were over it. 
 

I can’t remember the exact figure but it was something like 75% of transmissions were at home from family member to family member

I know of a student who went back to India 3.5 weeks ago. Mandatory 2 week quarantine in government hotel and then at the end of 2 weeks he was told, you can't leave until tested negative. He's still in there.

[Jareth]

81,000 tests by 9am this morning. Looks like they might make it after all. Still have very little trust when it comes to numbers from this lot, but if they sustain and increase on 100k that's a good start in the right direction. 

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Not enough likes from me there HV. It was him I quoted the 'would have died anyway' from the other day. His name is mud in our house. 

For shame Mr Triggle

Top post.

Thanks!

I should add, I know you're interested in delving into the numbers, and I have found a very good, thoughtful account to follow (and indirectly where I got the above post from) is https://twitter.com/policysketch

[snowychap]

30 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

the only figures that are ... and not subject to change is the ons all cause mortality figures

Just on this particular point, don't the ONS still publish them as provisional figures which can get amended on subsequent publications though only slightly? Hence why you're right to say that they're robust.

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

This one's for all the BBC fans out there . . .

Here's a quality piece of data viz from one of the latest articles by health correspondent Nick Triggle:

 

(from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52403772)

 

It turns out that if you compare a lot of excess deaths from a few weeks on a scale of an entire year, it doesn't look very much at all! Brilliant.

 

Triggle has been responsible for strongly hinting at the 'most of them would have died soon anyway' line in most stuff that he's written about the pandemic. This was the headline for his article on 21st March:

The reason you have to find that article on the Wayback Machine is that somebody at the BBC must have ordered a completely new article to be posted at exactly the same URL, now with the following headline:

Always good for the national broadcaster to be desperately shredding the evidence.

I don’t understand what the problem is here, is anything he is saying inaccurate or a lie? Surely we need a diversity of angles, provided they are accurate and sourced? Surely it doesn’t help anything to only read articles which support our preconceptions?

Edit: Was it a completely different article before with erroneous information which has now been changed?

Edited April 30, 2020 by LondonLax

[wazzap24]

Good briefing today and I think things are going to get more positive in the next few weeks. We’re going to start getting some good news. 

[chrisp65]

Did Laura Kuenssberg ask her usual question?

I’m worried one day she’ll ask something different and I’ll have missed it.

[DCJonah]

So the success word is being thrown out again. I hate this government with every part of me. 

I genuinely think you must be a total word removed if you defend and back them at this point. 

**** them. 

[bickster]

Paul was a couple of years ahead of me at Uni but we moved in similar circles but he's now the Torygraphs Senior Editor on Global Health Security, his Twotter is worth a follow, usually good for stats

[VILLAMARV]

28 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Just on this particular point, don't the ONS still publish them as provisional figures which can get amended on subsequent publications though only slightly? Hence why you're right to say that they're robust.

You're right, my wording is off, it's the difference between registered deaths and deaths that are certified. 

E.g. Hillsborough victims weren't certified until the enquiry and the 1989 figures would have been retrospectively updated. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by VILLAMARV
Missed a word out