Re: COVID-19
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:26 pm
Have you seen this thread?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:59 pmAnother good thread on excess mortality in the UK
https://twitter.com/mike_aka_logiqx/sta ... 86177?s=21
THREAD – Mortality 2020
Today we published England & Wales mortality statistics for the w/e 25 Dec
Nearly a full year’s data for 2020
In the last 52 weeks there were:
c.604k deaths registered across E&W
This is:
c.73k deaths (14%) above the 5-yr avg = excess deaths
1/11
That is very feeble evidence. There are confounding factors which are extremely difficult to eliminate - compliance with mask wearing is likely strongly correlated with taking other precautions, and government orders to wear masks are likely strongly correclated with other effective government measures.Little waster wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:29 pm*My 30 seconds pubmed search chucked up 747 such papers, not all will be relevant, but as a random example Number 3 was this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32335167/
Findings: Within first 100 days (31 December 2019 to 8 April 2020), 961 COVID-19 patients were diagnosed in HKSAR. The COVID-19 incidence in HKSAR (129.0 per million population) was significantly lower (p<0.001) than that of Spain (2983.2), Italy (2250.8), Germany (1241.5), France (1151.6), U.S. (1102.8), U.K. (831.5), Singapore (259.8), and South Korea (200.5). The compliance of face mask usage by HKSAR general public was 96.6% (range: 95.7% to 97.2%). We observed 11 COVID-19 clusters in recreational 'mask-off' settings compared to only 3 in workplace 'mask-on' settings (p = 0.036 by Chi square test of goodness-of-fit).
Conclusion: Community-wide mask wearing may contribute to the control of COVID-19 by reducing the amount of emission of infected saliva and respiratory droplets from individuals with subclinical or mild COVID-19.
Like I said that was merely the most recent of hundreds of such papers that a mere single pubmed search chucked up.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:46 am...mask wearing...That is very feeble evidence. There are confounding factors which are extremely difficult to eliminate - compliance with mask wearing is likely strongly correlated with taking other precautions, and government orders to wear masks are likely strongly correclated with other effective government measures.Little waster wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:29 pm*My 30 seconds pubmed search chucked up 747 such papers, not all will be relevant, but as a random example Number 3 was this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32335167/
Findings: Within first 100 days (31 December 2019 to 8 April 2020), 961 COVID-19 patients were diagnosed in HKSAR. The COVID-19 incidence in HKSAR (129.0 per million population) was significantly lower (p<0.001) than that of Spain (2983.2), Italy (2250.8), Germany (1241.5), France (1151.6), U.S. (1102.8), U.K. (831.5), Singapore (259.8), and South Korea (200.5). The compliance of face mask usage by HKSAR general public was 96.6% (range: 95.7% to 97.2%). We observed 11 COVID-19 clusters in recreational 'mask-off' settings compared to only 3 in workplace 'mask-on' settings (p = 0.036 by Chi square test of goodness-of-fit).
Conclusion: Community-wide mask wearing may contribute to the control of COVID-19 by reducing the amount of emission of infected saliva and respiratory droplets from individuals with subclinical or mild COVID-19.
For the general public, masks are probably only useful for identifying those who refuse to take a cheap and simple precaution so that others can take special care to avoid them.
Here's another one which seems to be from about a year ago
turns out the police can't be arsedshpalman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:34 pmHere's another one which seems to be from about a year ago
Morrisons to ban shoppers who refuse to wear face masks
It's a bit old and relies on self-reporting but supermarkets [are the] most common places visited before [a person gets a] positive [for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the infectious agent causing the CoVid-19 illness, as ascertained by RT-PCR] test.shpalman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:53 amturns out the police can't be arsedshpalman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:34 pmHere's another one which seems to be from about a year ago
Morrisons to ban shoppers who refuse to wear face masks
Maybe they'd rather hang around parks making sure nobody goes for a walk.
Maybe, but I'm not sure. UK cases by specimen date. Zero-weighting the latest 5 (marked as incomplete by coronavirus.data.gov.uk) and Xmas Day and New Years Day. Interestingly (to a geek ) the dependence on day-of-week seems to be weakening.lpm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:29 pmCases have peaked, though?
The lockdown started for much of the country on 26 Dec and schools and workplaces were shut. Official lockdown started 5 Jan (but is actually looser in some ways than 25 Dec to 4 Jan). It make sense for cases to peak at around 10 to 14 days after lockdown.
Possible cases will nudge upwards again for a few days, reflecting the return to work and the mad one day of school last week?
Code: Select all
Analysis of Variance Table
Response: log(SpecCases)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
poly(date, 2) 2 2.70375 1.35187 55.0275 3.757e-08 ***
day 6 0.48420 0.08070 3.2849 0.02476 *
Residuals 17 0.41764 0.02457
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 10.61298 0.08151 130.197 < 2e-16 ***
poly(date, 2)1 1.77598 0.25579 6.943 2.37e-06 ***
poly(date, 2)2 -0.53400 0.24951 -2.140 0.0471 *
dayMon 0.23770 0.11091 2.143 0.0469 *
dayTue 0.29031 0.11113 2.612 0.0182 *
dayWed 0.17668 0.11150 1.585 0.1315
dayThu -0.03299 0.11205 -0.294 0.7720
dayFri 0.17051 0.14372 1.186 0.2518
daySat -0.07320 0.11092 -0.660 0.5181
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.1567 on 17 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.8842, Adjusted R-squared: 0.8297
Code: Select all
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 5.66313 0.05715 99.085 < 2e-16 ***
poly(date, 2)1 3.59291 0.39608 9.071 4.65e-09 ***
poly(date, 2)2 0.04600 0.38772 0.119 0.907
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.2507 on 23 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.8387, Adjusted R-squared: 0.8247
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21249564v1We fitted a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in care homes and the community to regional surveillance data for England. Among control measures implemented, only national lockdown brought the reproduction number below 1 consistently; introduced one week earlier it could have reduced first wave deaths from 36,700 to 15,700 (95%CrI: 8,900-26,800). Improved clinical care reduced the infection fatality ratio from 1.25% (95%CrI: 1.18%-1.33%) to 0.77% (95%CrI: 0.71%-0.84%). The infection fatality ratio was higher in the elderly residing in care homes (35.9%, 95%CrI: 29.1%-43.4%) than those residing in the community (10.4%, 95%CrI: 9.1%-11.5%). England is still far from herd immunity, with regional cumulative infection incidence to 1st December 2020 between 4.8% (95%CrI: 4.4%-5.1%) and 15.4% (95%CrI: 14.9%-15.9%) of the population.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-madnessLittle waster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:52 pmhttps://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -half-term
Do you ever get the feeling of having had dejavu again again again?
I'm guessing there will be a few newscycles of outcry while Government ministers doggedly defend this and cast nasturtiums on anybody who dares complain about it before Johnson's inevitable U-turn, after which the self-same ministers will hail the U-turn as making them very happy and what they actually always wanted.
Plan to discharge Covid patients to care homes in England is 'madness'
tbf, they've been isolating for 14 days so there's no need to retest them. We now know they do not pose an infection risk to other residents in a care home.jimbob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:38 pmEqually relevant:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-madnessLittle waster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:52 pmhttps://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -half-term
Do you ever get the feeling of having had dejavu again again again?
I'm guessing there will be a few newscycles of outcry while Government ministers doggedly defend this and cast nasturtiums on anybody who dares complain about it before Johnson's inevitable U-turn, after which the self-same ministers will hail the U-turn as making them very happy and what they actually always wanted.
Plan to discharge Covid patients to care homes in England is 'madness'
Yes - I did check the date for that story
... and a person who's managed to stay ill for a long time is a great way to breed a new variantjdc wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:23 pmtbf, they've been isolating for 14 days so there's no need to retest them. We now know they do not pose an infection risk to other residents in a care home.jimbob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:38 pmEqually relevant:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-madnessLittle waster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:52 pmhttps://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -half-term
Do you ever get the feeling of having had dejavu again again again?
I'm guessing there will be a few newscycles of outcry while Government ministers doggedly defend this and cast nasturtiums on anybody who dares complain about it before Johnson's inevitable U-turn, after which the self-same ministers will hail the U-turn as making them very happy and what they actually always wanted.
Plan to discharge Covid patients to care homes in England is 'madness'
Yes - I did check the date for that story
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2 ... 63ad2032c6 "There are several situations where you may be contagious for longer than the 10 to 20 day period. If your immune system is weaker, consider erring on the conservative side."
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S009 ... 20)31456-2 "Long-term severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shedding was observed from the upper respiratory tract of a female immunocompromised individual with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and acquired hypogammaglobulinemia. Shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 was observed up to 70 days, and of genomic and subgenomic RNA up to 105 days, after initial diagnosis."
The reproduction number, or R value, of coronavirus transmission in the UK is between 1.2 and 1.3, the Government Office for Science and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) has said.