advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XX

Status
Not open for further replies.
We need to see admissions come down a lot more. I presume these are people who were infected about a fortnight ago so there is still some way to go if case numbers are a true reflection of prevalence...
 
IanW said:
No it isn't, and we have a few more days of the number of deaths rising.

Hopefully starting to reduce thereafter, if it follows the pattern seen in all previous waves.

88.7% of adults vaccinated at least once is good news, as is 73% of adults vaccinated with 2 doses.
Click to expand...
Yes, all deaths are tragic but Tuesday's headline figure is often the worst of the week.

And yes - I quite agree with the rest. The weekly increase rate in deaths is still unfortunately positive but does show signs that it might soon follow the rate of increase in cases into the negative. And the weekly increase rate in hospital admissions has just gone below zero - but not yet by much. So that's definitely not to be taken for granted.

I look forward to checking the figures again in a week's time or so to see if today's encouraging tendencies are maintained or not. Let us hope for the improvement to continue.
 
wacko said:
If restrictions are not being tightened why does the number of cases reduce ?
Click to expand...

School holidays, the Euros ending and better weather. It's important to follow positivity and not just case numbers, however. Kids though remain a significant pool for the virus to come back for those who are not well protected by the vaccines. For those people, these coming months through to Christmas will be the most dangerous of the pandemic to date...
 
wacko said:
If restrictions are not being tightened why does the number of cases reduce ?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that there are a number of factors involved.

Firstly the schools being on summer holiday means that transmission amongst young people (previously a driver) is very much reduced. In this respect England seems to be following Scotland, albeit 2 weeks later.

Secondly the uptake of the vaccine(s) kills the transmission rate.

Thirdly the good weather means people are outdoors more, which also kills the transmission rate.

My fear is that we haven't yet seen the results of 'Freedom Day' and it's aftermath - 19 July was a mere 15 days ago and spikes in transmission/infection/hospitalisation/deaths tend to lag by at least 2 weeks.
 
wacko said:
If restrictions are not being tightened why does the number of cases reduce ?
Click to expand...

The first thing to say is that we don't really know what's happening to cases, what you see reducing on .gov.uk for the past couple of weeks is positive test results.

So maybe your question is: why should the numbers of positive tests have turned a corner a couple of weeks ago? I think there are two likely reasons.

1. schools on holiday, so no compulsory tests
2. people unwilling to take tests if they're going on holiday, especially if the symptoms are mild


I think that we should get a better handle on cases mid August, from ONS (Aug 17 maybe? Can't remember.)
 
Debs said:
...My fear is that we haven't yet seen the results of 'Freedom Day' and it's aftermath - 19 July was a mere 15 days ago and spikes in transmission/infection/hospitalisation/deaths tend to lag by at least 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
If you look back at the data, at times when restrictions have been lifted there is a fairly consistent pattern of rates of change in the indicators going in the wrong direction about a week before the announced official date. When released, people seem to start adjusting their behaviour before they officially should. That seems quite natural to me for the people side of the equation [1].

So it effectively may have been more like three weeks since the restrictions were lifted than two calendar weeks.

Of course there may still be a surprise. But I wonder how long it must be before the reality of our new situation is established and should be accepted.

[1] And the data equally show it takes two to three weeks after a restriction is imposed before the rates of change go in the right direction. People seem to be reluctant to change when asked to restrict themselves. Again that seems quite natural to me.
 
John Phillips said:
Of course there may still be a surprise. But I wonder how long it must be before the reality of our new situation is established and should be accepted.
Click to expand...

If it's true that prevalence is reducing, it is so unexpected! And I think, quite hard to explain. I remember Hancock once said that he thought models were useless as predictive tools -- maybe he was right.

I note that the ZOE figures have started to plateau.
 
Last edited:
mandryka said:
If it's true that prevalence is reducing, it is so unexpected! And I think, quite hard to explain. I remember Hancock once said that he thought models were useless as predictive tools -- maybe he was right.
Click to expand...
Hancock was never right. He was a self serving fraud.
 
Incidence is the measure to look at.

Prevalence refers to proportion of people (or critters if you’re studying disease in animals) that have a disease or condition at or during a particular time period. Incidence is the proportion or rate of persons who develop a condition or disease during a particular time period.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Incidence is the measure to look at.

Prevalence refers to proportion of people (or critters if you’re studying disease in animals) that have a disease or condition at or during a particular time period. Incidence is the proportion or rate of persons who develop a condition or disease during a particular time period.

Joe
Click to expand...

yes
 
mandryka said:
The first thing to say is that we don't really know what's happening to cases, what you see reducing on .gov.uk for the past couple of weeks is positive test results.

So maybe your question is: why should the numbers of positive tests have turned a corner a couple of weeks ago? I think there are two likely reasons.

1. schools on holiday, so no compulsory tests
2. people unwilling to take tests if they're going on holiday, especially if the symptoms are mild


I think that we should get a better handle on cases mid August, from ONS (Aug 17 maybe? Can't remember.)
Click to expand...
People who have had covid before and get it again are not being counted.
 
mandryka said:
If it's true that prevalence is reducing, it is so unexpected! And I think, quite hard to explain. I remember Hancock once said that he thought models were useless as predictive tools -- maybe he was right.
Click to expand...
But it’s not that unexpected and the models aren’t that far off. James Ward’s in particular has faired pretty well. Mainstream expectations were shaped by headlines and letters to the Lancet rather than modelling.
 
ff1d1l said:
People who have had covid before and get it again are not being counted.
Click to expand...

Admitting for the sake of argument that this is true, I don't see that it will explain why incidence changed a fortnight or so ago from growing rapidly to receding.

Seanm said:
But it’s not that unexpected and the models aren’t that far off. James Ward’s in particular has faired pretty well. Mainstream expectations were shaped by headlines and letters to the Lancet rather than modelling.
Click to expand...

The models I was thinking of were these

SAGE meetings, July 2021 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
 
ff1d1l said:
Don't have a link but it was Peston on his twitter.
Plenty of people getting it twice - how do you rationalise not counting them makes no difference to the figures?
Click to expand...

If it's true of course it makes a difference to the figures. It's the change in the figures I'm focussing on, the change from growth to decline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top