Page 166 of 258
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:35 pm
by discovolante
14,500
*amends shopping order to include wine*
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:24 pm
by RoMo
KAJ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:28 pm
RoMo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:02 pm
Yep, Notts has gone shooting up:
Taking data from the government dashboard
link and plotting by specimen date looks bad, but not quite as bad as that.
Screenshot 2020-10-06 at 16.26.30.png
It is that bad- local authority numbers just for Nottingham from the gov website are 222, 342 and 342 for 30th Sep, 1st and 2nd October respectively and the other boroughs add even more to those.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:01 pm
by mediocrity511
The associated boroughs make the question of what area gets locked down interesting. Nottingham City is artificially small and given the amount of students in Beeston, you'd assume theyd be included too.
It even looks like a mini spike out at Sutton Bonington.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:13 pm
by KAJ
RoMo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:24 pm
It is that bad- local authority numbers just for Nottingham from the gov website are 222, 342 and 342 for 30th Sep, 1st and 2nd October respectively and the other boroughs add even more to those.
You're right. The numbers in Nottingham are greater than those in Nottinghamshire.
- Nottingham.png (22.59 KiB) Viewed 2943 times
- Nottinghamshire.png (21.14 KiB) Viewed 2943 times
I don't understand that. Is Nottingham not totally included in Nottinghamshire? Or is there something very wrong with the data?
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:27 pm
by mediocrity511
KAJ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:13 pm
RoMo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:24 pm
It is that bad- local authority numbers just for Nottingham from the gov website are 222, 342 and 342 for 30th Sep, 1st and 2nd October respectively and the other boroughs add even more to those.
You're right. The numbers in Nottingham are greater than those in Nottinghamshire.
Nottingham.pngNottinghamshire.png
I don't understand that. Is Nottingham not totally included in Nottinghamshire? Or is there something very wrong with the data?
Different councils. There's the City council and then the County council which is made up of several smaller local authorities.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:43 pm
by KAJ
mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:27 pm
KAJ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:13 pm
don't understand that. Is Nottingham not totally included in Nottinghamshire? Or is there something very wrong with the data?
Different councils. There's the City council and then the County council which is made up of several smaller local authorities.
You're right. Nottingham is not included in Nottinghamshire
.
wikipedia says:
The council does not have jurisdiction over Nottingham, which is a unitary authority governed by Nottingham City Council.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:35 pm
by jimbob
KAJ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:43 pm
mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:27 pm
KAJ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:13 pm
don't understand that. Is Nottingham not totally included in Nottinghamshire? Or is there something very wrong with the data?
Different councils. There's the City council and then the County council which is made up of several smaller local authorities.
You're right. Nottingham is not included in Nottinghamshire
.
wikipedia says:
The council does not have jurisdiction over Nottingham, which is a unitary authority governed by Nottingham City Council.
Same for Derbyshire and Derby. Although there seem to be some links - presumably as it made sense for the councils to coordinate
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 pm
by sTeamTraen
40% of ICU beds in the Paris area are now occupied by COVID-19 patients.
French ICUs normally run at between 90% and 95% occupation (
source [PDF]), which makes me wonder who the 30% (40% COVID minus 10% free) are and what they aren't getting intensive care for.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:31 am
by PeteB
lpm wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:27 am
Yep. Many of these things have been truly terrible. There was the one that claimed cases had halved when confirmed actuals had doubled, another had claimed for weeks that R=1 when cases were rising week after week.
In this case it's perfectly obvious R was never 1.7, nationally.
R=1.7 corresponds to approx 10% growth per day, a doubling in about 7 days. R=1.3 corresponds to approx 5% per day, around 1.4x in a week, doubling in about 14 days.
James Annan's twitter has a very simple chart that plots each day's cases as a multiple of the number a week previously. If cases were doubling every week, then the plots would be clustering around the 2.0x mark. If cases were static at R=1 then they would be cluster at 1.0x.
A brief eyeballing of the chart shows each day tends to average at 1.4x the previous week's figure, with the usual statistical noise around this. Most noticeably, it never reached the 2.0x level except for a single outlier. The coloured lines show it's never diverged from the 1.4x per week, 5% per day, approx R=1.3.
Ah those heady days of R=1.1, seems so long ago. There has been some very poor statistical analysis around this
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:45 am
by PeteB
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 am
by sTeamTraen
PeteB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:31 am
Yep. Many of these things have been truly terrible. There was the one that claimed cases had halved when co
Ah those heady days of R=1.1, seems so long ago. There has been some very poor statistical analysis around this
I wish the media would stop wanging on about the R number. It's hard to calculate, and meaningless in real time because it describes how many people an infected person goes on to infect in total, regardless of the time period. Obviously other measures also have limitations, but over the span of a week or so the doubling rate of cases is easy to calculate and probably less unreliable than most other measures.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:55 am
by jimbob
sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 am
PeteB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:31 am
Yep. Many of these things have been truly terrible. There was the one that claimed cases had halved when co
Ah those heady days of R=1.1, seems so long ago. There has been some very poor statistical analysis around this
I wish the media would stop wanging on about the R number. It's hard to calculate, and meaningless in real time because it describes how many people an infected person goes on to infect in total, regardless of the time period. Obviously other measures also have limitations, but over the span of a week or so the doubling rate of cases is easy to calculate and probably less unreliable than most other measures.
Exactly. What's important is what the rate of rise/fall is. With the current levels of infection, exponentials are still adequate for anything beyond complex models - where R itself is pretty poor as we know that superspreading events are important and most people *don't* infect others.
And an R of 1.5 but an infectious period of a week is worse than an R of 5 but an infectious period of 6-months.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:57 am
by Sciolus
I just wish people would say whether the numbers they are quoting are new cases in a particular day, new cases in a particular week, rolling average cases per day, total currently infected cases, cumulative cases, or what. All of these seem to be flying about, with the extra complication that some are totals and some are rates per 100,000 population, and it's impossible to keep track of what numbers can be compared with what, and what's a high number and what's a low number.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:04 am
by lpm
jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:55 am
sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 am
PeteB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:31 am
Yep. Many of these things have been truly terrible. There was the one that claimed cases had halved when co
Ah those heady days of R=1.1, seems so long ago. There has been some very poor statistical analysis around this
I wish the media would stop wanging on about the R number. It's hard to calculate, and meaningless in real time because it describes how many people an infected person goes on to infect in total, regardless of the time period. Obviously other measures also have limitations, but over the span of a week or so the doubling rate of cases is easy to calculate and probably less unreliable than most other measures.
Exactly. What's important is what the rate of rise/fall is. With the current levels of infection, exponentials are still adequate for anything beyond complex models - where R itself is pretty poor as we know that superspreading events are important and most people *don't* infect others.
And an R of 1.5 but an infectious period of a week is worse than an R of 5 but an infectious period of 6-months.
We're not comparing different viruses so R is good. There's no change to the infectious period of SARS-CoV-2.
R shows how badly we are adrift of R<1. All the details of complex calculations of R don't matter compared to the fact that current lockdown measures are nowhere near enough to get R<1. If the figure is 1.4, 1.5, who cares, we need it 0.7.
Personally I'm shocked that closing pubs at 10 pm didn't do the trick. Utterly shocked and bemused.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:07 am
by Bird on a Fire
sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 am
PeteB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:31 am
Yep. Many of these things have been truly terrible. There was the one that claimed cases had halved when co
Ah those heady days of R=1.1, seems so long ago. There has been some very poor statistical analysis around this
I wish the media would stop wanging on about the R number. It's hard to calculate, and meaningless in real time because it describes how many people an infected person goes on to infect in total, regardless of the time period. Obviously other measures also have limitations, but over the span of a week or so the doubling rate of cases is easy to calculate and probably less unreliable than most other measures.
There was a decent piece in the Atlantic about this recently. I've been more concerned about the fact that testing (in the UK) isn't really adequate to measure it accurately, but they add the point that R is essentially a mean being presented without any measure of dispersion. Annoyingly they kind of frame it around a different one-variable-to-rule-them-all instead of a more sensible nuanced approach.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ic/616548/
Nice to see that they media still can't do basic science properly when lives literally depend on it.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:17 am
by jimbob
lpm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:04 am
jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:55 am
sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 am
I wish the media would stop wanging on about the R number. It's hard to calculate, and meaningless in real time because it describes how many people an infected person goes on to infect in total, regardless of the time period. Obviously other measures also have limitations, but over the span of a week or so the doubling rate of cases is easy to calculate and probably less unreliable than most other measures.
Exactly. What's important is what the rate of rise/fall is. With the current levels of infection, exponentials are still adequate for anything beyond complex models - where R itself is pretty poor as we know that superspreading events are important and most people *don't* infect others.
And an R of 1.5 but an infectious period of a week is worse than an R of 5 but an infectious period of 6-months.
We're not comparing different viruses so R is good. There's no change to the infectious period of SARS-CoV-2.
R shows how badly we are adrift of R<1. All the details of complex calculations of R don't matter compared to the fact that current lockdown measures are nowhere near enough to get R<1. If the figure is 1.4, 1.5, who cares, we need it 0.7.
Personally I'm shocked that closing pubs at 10 pm didn't do the trick. Utterly shocked and bemused.
I suppose it is easier to say "We want R to be 0.7" rather than "we want cases to be falling at 30% over 3-weeks" or whatever that equates to
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:19 pm
by sTeamTraen
jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:17 am
I suppose it is easier to say "We want R to be 0.7" rather than "we want cases to be falling at 30% over 3-weeks" or whatever that equates to
Over 3 weeks or so and with a decent percentage of infected people being tested, the logarithm of the case multiplication rate is going to be close to R anyway. I think they are only using R because that's the standard virology/epidemiology measure, which is useful for comparing between pathogens. It reminds me a bit of the use of BMI as a diagnostic criterion for individuals.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:45 pm
by discovolante
I'm a bit struck that the news coverage of the new temp restrictions tend to mention only that hospitality business are going to be closed and barely a dicky bird about the £40 million fund that is going to support them.
I have absolutely no idea if £40million is enough, if the short notice given is enough to implement it, how honest the SNP are being that they are restricted in offering more due to limited powers/funds etc, but I'm not sure how we can have that conversation if everyone is just suddenly convinced that they're all being hung out to dry.
It's only an hour or so since the announcement, granted, but an hour is a long time in politics these days...
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:12 pm
by shpalman
sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:19 pm
jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:17 am
I suppose it is easier to say "We want R to be 0.7" rather than "we want cases to be falling at 30% over 3-weeks" or whatever that equates to
Over 3 weeks or so and with a decent percentage of infected people being tested, the logarithm of the case multiplication rate is going to be close to R anyway. I think they are only using R because that's the standard virology/epidemiology measure, which is useful for comparing between pathogens. It reminds me a bit of the use of BMI as a diagnostic criterion for individuals.
You basically know if R < 1 or R > 1 by whether cases or falling or rising; to get the R from the exponential time constant requires you make an assumption about how long a subject is infectious for. But talking in terms of doubling time or whatever is better because it avoids that assumption.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:03 pm
by nezumi
Yeah, I'm ready, bollocks to all this mishandling, I'm going back into isolation indefinitely and I will dettol everything that comes through my front door liberally and with menace. I'm still in a struggle with tobacco, and my lungs can't take covid, acute or long. I will continue to work on quitting, in the meantime, I intend to post a thread about the positives of lockdowns shortly because if I don't at least try to look on the bright side I am in danger of insanity.
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:20 am
by Bird on a Fire
discovolante wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:45 pm
barely a dicky bird
I will not have this divisive language, you do-gooder lawyer activist!
As an ornithologist, I feel professionallly obliged to point out that, while many birds may be bally - for instance, the Hazel Grouse, Maribou Stork or Magnificent Frigatebird, focussing merely on the neck area - few if any birds can be accurately described as dicky (myself notwithstanding).
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:15 am
by Squeak
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:20 am
discovolante wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:45 pm
barely a dicky bird
I will not have this divisive language, you do-gooder lawyer activist!
As an ornithologist, I feel professionallly obliged to point out that, while many birds may be bally - for instance, the Hazel Grouse, Maribou Stork or Magnificent Frigatebird, focussing merely on the neck area - few if any birds can be accurately described as dicky (myself notwithstanding).
What about drakes?
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:04 am
by bob sterman
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:20 am
few if any birds can be accurately described as dicky (myself notwithstanding).
One more...
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:34 am
by Little waster
bob sterman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:04 am
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:20 am
few if any birds can be accurately described as dicky (myself notwithstanding).
One more...
Fun fact: Dickie Bird was actually trained as an elephant proctologist.
The cricket prevented him doing it full time, but he still liked to keep his hand in ...
Re: COVID-19
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:29 am
by jimbob
shpalman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:12 pm
sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:19 pm
jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:17 am
I suppose it is easier to say "We want R to be 0.7" rather than "we want cases to be falling at 30% over 3-weeks" or whatever that equates to
Over 3 weeks or so and with a decent percentage of infected people being tested, the logarithm of the case multiplication rate is going to be close to R anyway. I think they are only using R because that's the standard virology/epidemiology measure, which is useful for comparing between pathogens. It reminds me a bit of the use of BMI as a diagnostic criterion for individuals.
You basically know if R < 1 or R > 1 by whether cases or falling or rising; to get the R from the exponential time constant requires you make an assumption about how long a subject is infectious for. But talking in terms of doubling time or whatever is better because it avoids that assumption.
Exactly - talking about R gives the illusion of knowing more than we do about this epidemic. And it's not going to be useful in a proper model as we know that superspreading events are highly significant.