Page 89 of 258
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:57 pm
by shpalman
Italy's number today was about 1000 less than the prediction based on the exponential I'd fit to the past week of total positives. Every time there's a number which is slightly lower than the day before, everyone hopes it's the inflection, but it usually turns out that we still have growth even if it's slower each time.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:24 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Portugal has just announced that everyone with a current application underway for residence or asylum are granted access to healthcare, social security and are allowed to work.
https://www.publico.pt/2020/03/28/socie ... ef-1909791
Minister of Internal Administration wrote:In a state of emergency the priority is defending health and collective safety. It's in these moments that it becomes even more important to guarantee the rights of the most vulnerable, as is the case of migrants.
Nice to see somebody showing a bit of humanity (although, from a self-preservation standpoint, this is also undoubtedly a good move).
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:30 pm
by sTeamTraen
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:24 pm
Portugal has just announced that everyone with a current application underway for residence or asylum are granted access to healthcare, social security
and are allowed to work.
Emphasis added... Sánchez has just announced on national TV that almost nobody is Spain is allowed to work!
Joking aside, this is a fine measure. Mrs sTeamTraen and I are registered as living in Palma at the town hall, but we haven't yet started the process of applying for residency at a national level. We have complete confidence that Spain does not operate a "deport first, ask questions later" policy, but we are probably not going to leave the island (Mallorca) while entry is limited to "residents", as we are not sure how that will be interpreted, either by Spanish immigration officials or by check-in staff at whatever our departure airport might be.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:30 pm
by FlammableFlower
From the Washington Post:
The U.S. recorded its first 1,000 coronavirus deaths in a month. The next 1,000 took two days.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:39 am
by Millennie Al
As of the last Thursday in January,
England had 4123 adult critical care beds, of which 3423 were occupied, so a capacity for 700 new patients.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:47 am
by Millennie Al
purplehaze wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:29 pm
I didn't know this until I spoke to them though. By all accounts they were a group of four young people sitting together. And I still think that four should not be allowed to go out together on a break.
Why shouldn't they?
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:01 am
by Millennie Al
lpm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:16 am
The original plan was to be highly tuned to the facts on the ground, tuning up or down isolation measures at the exact moment - keep the infections suppressed but enable the economy to tick over. A nice idea on paper, but would never have been possible in real life even with huge detail on cases.
That was a complete nonsense plan which could never have worked. There are two fundamental problems with it. Firstly, there is a delay between a policy adjustment and its effect, so it is not possible to evaluate the policy until some time has passed, when it may be to late to change it. This is why you can fly a model aircraft by remote control, you
might be able to remotely drive a vehicle on the moon, but it's completely impossible to drive one on Mars. Secondly, in a population where a large majority are still susceptible, the growth will be exponential, so a small error in policy will quickly magnify. Combining these effects means that for a highly infectious disease the policy must be to take extreme measures quickly as otherwise the spread is too wide to control.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:10 am
by shpalman
Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:01 am
lpm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:16 am
The original plan was to be highly tuned to the facts on the ground, tuning up or down isolation measures at the exact moment - keep the infections suppressed but enable the economy to tick over. A nice idea on paper, but would never have been possible in real life even with huge detail on cases.
That was a complete nonsense plan which could never have worked. There are two fundamental problems with it. Firstly, there is a delay between a policy adjustment and its effect, so it is not possible to evaluate the policy until some time has passed, when it may be to late to change it. This is why you can fly a model aircraft by remote control, you
might be able to remotely drive a vehicle on the moon, but it's completely impossible to drive one on Mars. Secondly, in a population where a large majority are still susceptible, the growth will be exponential, so a small error in policy will quickly magnify. Combining these effects means that for a highly infectious disease the policy must be to take extreme measures quickly as otherwise the spread is too wide to control.
Also, the R0 of covid-19 is somewhat higher than that of seasonal influenza and from what's happening in Italy right now, it seems that you need
all the isolation measures and R0 still isn't obviously less than 1. So you don't have the luxury to turn the measures up or down. You need them all turned up to the max.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:24 am
by PeteB
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:06 am
by AMS
I saw that yesterday and thought of posting it too. While the numbers are scary, is the headline justified?
Data from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) showed that of 165 patients treated in critical care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland since the end of February, 79 died, while 86 survived and were discharged. The figures were taken from an audit of 775 people who have been or are in critical care with the disease, across 285 intensive care units. The remaining 610 patients continue to receive intensive care.
Surely it's pretty dubious stats to ignore the ~80% of the sample who'd neither died or recovered at the time of the survey?
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:30 am
by Vertigowooyay
I f.cking hate my country at times.
- 62390693-BBBC-4D4B-AB2D-73FC7165253D.jpeg (372.73 KiB) Viewed 3582 times
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:36 am
by greyspoke
That's what I thought AMS.
I was going to discuss the implications of those sorts of numbers, but this paragraph ended up so gloomy that I decided to post a kitty pic instead.
- 20181001_210935_crop.jpg (434.63 KiB) Viewed 3579 times
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:54 am
by jimbob
Vertigowooyay wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:30 am
I f.cking hate my country at times.
62390693-BBBC-4D4B-AB2D-73FC7165253D.jpeg
Typhoid Dorries was a far more likely candidate
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:56 am
by purplehaze
jimbob wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:54 am
Vertigowooyay wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:30 am
I f.cking hate my country at times.
62390693-BBBC-4D4B-AB2D-73FC7165253D.jpeg
Typhoid Dorries was a far more likely candidate
Or when Johnson said he had shaken the hands of those with CORVID-19 in hospital - which was clearly a lie though not so sure now as it hasn't been denied.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:56 pm
by Squeak
Australia has now banned gatherings of more than two people in public places. But you can still go out to buy essential things like jigsaw puzzles for the kids. (PM's official advice to the nation.)
Essential *may* mean something slightly different to politicians then it does to me. :/
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:20 pm
by Opti
Squeak wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:56 pm
Australia has now banned gatherings of more than two people in public places. But you can still go out to buy essential things like jigsaw puzzles for the kids. (PM's official advice to the nation.)
Essential *may* mean something slightly different to politicians then it does to me. :/
At least, here in Spain, the government has been very clear about what activities are permitted. And there's not many.
Mind you, being able to walk 30 sec to within 1 cm of the beach ... BUT NO FURTHER ... is a little frustrating. But everyone is sticking to the rules.
The figures here are quite alarming if you don't look further into the spread.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:00 pm
by Sciolus
AMS wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:06 am
I saw that yesterday and thought of posting it too. While the numbers are scary, is the headline justified?
Data from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) showed that of 165 patients treated in critical care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland since the end of February, 79 died, while 86 survived and were discharged. The figures were taken from an audit of 775 people who have been or are in critical care with the disease, across 285 intensive care units. The remaining 610 patients continue to receive intensive care.
Surely it's pretty dubious stats to ignore the ~80% of the sample who'd neither died or recovered at the time of the survey?
If you are triaging who is given access to a scarce treatment (and I'm not sure if that is the case yet in England), wouldn't you expect a roughly 50% survival rate, regardless of the actual effectiveness of the treatment?
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:12 pm
by Woodchopper
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:16 pm
by Grumble
Someone I know, although not well, died with breathing difficulties in intensive care this morning. Not sure if Covid-19 yet, had a shadow in his lungs from previous pneumonia.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:19 pm
by sTeamTraen
This article from Italy has some worrying implications, if it's not debunked for some reason.
Summary:
- In the town in question, the historically expected number of deaths in the first 3 months of the year is 35, give or take some small fluctuations.
- This year that number was 158.
- Of those 123 extra deaths, only 31 are recorded as being due to COVID-19.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:42 pm
by quiescent
This is what I don't understand about the apparent under-reporting of COVID-19 deaths in the UK. You can downplay the number of deaths attributed to the virus, but you can't downplay the overall death rate for the year, and understating the seriousness of the situation now will make the eventual number of all-causes deaths worse. I'm sure even Johnson understands this.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:51 pm
by lpm
The UK official figures at least state clearly that the deaths figure is only for people hospitalised.
As of 5pm on 28 March, of those hospitalised in the UK, 1,228 have sadly died.
But the media never conveys this. It is always presented as the actual number.
Presumably in the initial weeks the hospitalisation rate was quite high, but over the next month a higher ratio will die in at home and in nursing homes - because doctors will not recommend transfers to overloaded hospitals.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:57 pm
by bob sterman
sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:19 pm
This article from Italy has some worrying implications, if it's not debunked for some reason.
Summary:
- In the town in question, the historically expected number of deaths in the first 3 months of the year is 35, give or take some small fluctuations.
- This year that number was 158.
- Of those 123 extra deaths, only 31 are recorded as being due to COVID-19.
Excess all-cause mortality will eventually show up here...
https://www.euromomo.eu/index.html
The hypothesis in that article is that the virus spread pretty much unhindered through the town (before Italy went into some sort of lockdown) killing 1% of the population.
Isn't the implication basically what the epidemiological models have been predicting would happen without lockdown / social distancing etc?
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:10 pm
by Woodchopper
lpm wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:51 pm
The UK official figures at least state clearly that the deaths figure is only for people hospitalised.
As of 5pm on 28 March, of those hospitalised in the UK, 1,228 have sadly died.
But the media never conveys this. It is always presented as the actual number.
Presumably in the initial weeks the hospitalisation rate was quite high, but over the next month a higher ratio will die in at home and in nursing homes - because doctors will not recommend transfers to overloaded hospitals.
One issue is that until there is a widely available and clinically useful antibody test it may not be possible to know whether someone died of Covid or another illness.
So long as tests are a scarce and vital resource it’ll be difficult to justify using them on the deceased.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:41 pm
by Pucksoppet
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:10 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:51 pm
The UK official figures at least state clearly that the deaths figure is only for people hospitalised.
As of 5pm on 28 March, of those hospitalised in the UK, 1,228 have sadly died.
But the media never conveys this. It is always presented as the actual number.
Presumably in the initial weeks the hospitalisation rate was quite high, but over the next month a higher ratio will die in at home and in nursing homes - because doctors will not recommend transfers to overloaded hospitals.
One issue is that until there is a widely available and clinically useful antibody test it may not be possible to know whether someone died of Covid or another illness.
So long as tests are a scarce and vital resource it’ll be difficult to justify using them on the deceased.
Taking (body fluid) samples and preserving them for subsequent analysis when tests are readily available and cheap shouldn't be too controversial, though.