COVID-19

Covid-19 discussion, bring your own statistics
Post Reply
User avatar
shpalman
After Pie
Posts: 2217
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19

Post by shpalman » Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:12 pm

KAJ wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:29 pm
raven wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:10 pm
So. They're about to change the UK data dashboard again.

The new version, which is here, doesn't seem much different. But the new interactive map is. You can still drill down to the same small areas (well, in England anyway), the colour coding is much better, and clicking on an area opens up a nice clear pop-up box of stats with a comparison to the national average. Might be slightly confusing to have straight daily cases numbers and a rolling 7-day average per 100,000, but otherwise the new map might actually be an improvement on the previous one.

I'm almost pleasantly surprised.
Something funny about today's update of the Cases by Specimen date UK Total link.
By nation looks OK.
You mean that the new version of the dashboard doesn't show the totals since ever but only the past week?

ETA ah no you mean the graph
molto tricky

KAJ
Stargoon
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: COVID-19

Post by KAJ » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:07 pm

shpalman wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:12 pm
KAJ wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:29 pm
Something funny about today's update of the Cases by Specimen date UK Total link.
By nation looks OK.
You mean that the new version of the dashboard doesn't show the totals since ever but only the past week?

ETA ah no you mean the graph
And the underlying data; in "Cases by specimen date" click "By nation" or "UK total" then "Data". It looks as if "UK total" is zero if any nation is zero.

I can understand that they don't want to report a UK total if not all four nations have values. But they can't have used zero as a missing value indicator, for input and for output. Can they? Surely not. :shock: :shock: :shock:

KAJ
Stargoon
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: COVID-19

Post by KAJ » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:24 pm

KAJ wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:07 pm
shpalman wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:12 pm
KAJ wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:29 pm
Something funny about today's update of the Cases by Specimen date UK Total link.
By nation looks OK.
You mean that the new version of the dashboard doesn't show the totals since ever but only the past week?

ETA ah no you mean the graph
And the underlying data; in "Cases by specimen date" click "By nation" or "UK total" then "Data". It looks as if "UK total" is zero if any nation is zero.

I can understand that they don't want to report a UK total if not all four nations have values. But they can't have used zero as a missing value indicator, for input and for output. Can they? Surely not. :shock: :shock: :shock:
Hmmm. In some rows ("By nation", earlier than 01-06-2020) they use N/A as a missing value indicator.
The bottom row in that data is 19-10-2020 and is out of sequence (the preceding row is 30-01-2020), and has N/A for all except Wales. That date doesn't seem to appear in the "UK total" data.

User avatar
sTeamTraen
Dorkwood
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: COVID-19

Post by sTeamTraen » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:55 pm

I get the impression that until recently, Wales was only reporting weekly (or a bit more often), and that before June it either didn't report at all - maybe integrated with England?

Anyway, that table is a mess. Right now, there is an entry for 19/10/2020, with only Wales having a non-zero number (625 cases), and it's right at the bottom of the table, which is otherwise sorted by descending date.
Something something hammer something something nail

User avatar
jimbob
After Pie
Posts: 1809
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: COVID-19

Post by jimbob » Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:03 am

Good bit of reportage from Byline Times

An Italian's view of the UK in COVID.


https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/19/coro ... s-italian/
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by discovolante » Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:18 am

jimbob wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:03 am
Good bit of reportage from Byline Times

An Italian's view of the UK in COVID.


https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/19/coro ... s-italian/
Well that cheered me up no end :P
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

User avatar
lpm
After Pie
Posts: 2116
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: COUNT THE VOTE. STOP THE COUNT.

Re: COVID-19

Post by lpm » Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:45 am

The negotiations with the coronavirus in Manchester are going to the wire. Johnson has set the virus a midday deadline to agree terms, otherwise it's No Deal.
I'll miss him after he's fled to Riyadh

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: COVID-19

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am

Got into a stupid argument with some colleagues on Yammer about whether the rise in cases/hospitalisations/deaths is exponential or linear.

On my side, I have the following evidence:
- It's obviously f.cking exponential
- It looks exponential
- An exponential fit has an almost perfect R2
- An exponential rise also matches the general way pandemic numbers work
- Plus it's what happened last time
- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)

On their side, they have the following:
- A linear fit isn't bad
- It has to be linear, because we couldn't possibly need to lock down more.

I'll leave it up to you to decide.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: COVID-19

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:29 am

Oh, and just to mention, the doubling rate of hospitalisations (which is mildly more interesting than deaths, just because that's the thing that should be scaring the sh.t out of everyone) is around 13.2 days at the moment. I wish I could see this more locally, as a proportion of available capacity though.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by Sciolus » Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am
- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)
Yet. It will, though, and sooner than you think.

But your first bullet pretty much captures it.

Meanwhile, I've just been listening to a bunch of tw.ts on the radio bickering about whether or not it's legal to have a business lunch with 10 people in a restaurant. What the f.ck is in these people's heads? Why the f.ck does anyone think having a face-to-face verbal meeting with any number of people is anything other than fuckwittedly dangerous?

User avatar
bob sterman
Fuzzable
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by bob sterman » Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am
- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)
Yet. It will, though, and sooner than you think.
Not the balance of my savings account!

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by discovolante » Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:02 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am
- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)
Yet. It will, though, and sooner than you think.
Not the balance of my savings account!
WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH A SAVINGS ACCOUNT YOU SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTING YOUR INVESTMENTS AND CHANGING THEIR CURRENCY ON A TWICE DAILY BASIS, YOU ARE LOSING OUT ON AT LEAST TWELVE POUNDS PER YEAR DUE TO SUCH CARELESS FINANCIAL PLANNING
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

User avatar
sTeamTraen
Dorkwood
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: COVID-19

Post by sTeamTraen » Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm
Meanwhile, I've just been listening to a bunch of tw.ts on the radio bickering about whether or not it's legal to have a business lunch with 10 people in a restaurant. What the f.ck is in these people's heads? Why the f.ck does anyone think having a face-to-face verbal meeting with any number of people is anything other than fuckwittedly dangerous?
Oh god, this, and the people on Facebook asking if they can have 10 or 15 people round for a party this weekend. How about zero? Zero people coming to your party sounds good to me.

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").
Something something hammer something something nail

User avatar
shpalman
After Pie
Posts: 2217
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19

Post by shpalman » Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:28 pm

sTeamTraen wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm
Meanwhile, I've just been listening to a bunch of tw.ts on the radio bickering about whether or not it's legal to have a business lunch with 10 people in a restaurant. What the f.ck is in these people's heads? Why the f.ck does anyone think having a face-to-face verbal meeting with any number of people is anything other than fuckwittedly dangerous?
Oh god, this, and the people on Facebook asking if they can have 10 or 15 people round for a party this weekend. How about zero? Zero people coming to your party sounds good to me.

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").
Well of course "no more that six people" means "six people all the time and preferably a different six people every day"
molto tricky

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by discovolante » Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:54 pm

lpm wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:45 am
The negotiations with the coronavirus in Manchester are going to the wire. Johnson has set the virus a midday deadline to agree terms, otherwise it's No Deal.
Are we about to see the unification of Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, who will seek to secede from the rest of England on the basis that they've won more Olympic gold medals than anyone else in the country put together - shortly followed by the North East asking to join an independent Scotland? What then for the unified North?
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

User avatar
Little waster
Dorkwood
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: COVID-19

Post by Little waster » Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:18 pm

So the US is being swept by its third wave.


How many waves does it take before you stop counting them and accept you are probably now in the sea for good?
People who use Godwin's Law are worse than Hitler.

User avatar
Opti
Snowbonk
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: Got a home right by the sea.

Re: COVID-19

Post by Opti » Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:40 pm

sTeamTraen wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").
Round your new manor, 50mg is the limit. Better just have the one, then. ;)
He cannot be killed by conventional weapons. True. He and Mrs Opti are wicked cool.

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by Sciolus » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:54 pm

sTeamTraen wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:42 pm
Meanwhile, I've just been listening to a bunch of tw.ts on the radio bickering about whether or not it's legal to have a business lunch with 10 people in a restaurant. What the f.ck is in these people's heads? Why the f.ck does anyone think having a face-to-face verbal meeting with any number of people is anything other than fuckwittedly dangerous?
Oh god, this, and the people on Facebook asking if they can have 10 or 15 people round for a party this weekend. How about zero? Zero people coming to your party sounds good to me.

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").
Frankly I have more sympathy with the party people because at least there is value in face-to-face gatherings in a social context -- you know, fun and that sort of thing (sorry, I can't remember the details). But for business? f.ck off, do it on Teams, you aren't losing anything except your dodgy expenses claims.

User avatar
Grumble
Dorkwood
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by Grumble » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:57 pm

discovolante wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:54 pm
lpm wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:45 am
The negotiations with the coronavirus in Manchester are going to the wire. Johnson has set the virus a midday deadline to agree terms, otherwise it's No Deal.
Are we about to see the unification of Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, who will seek to secede from the rest of England on the basis that they've won more Olympic gold medals than anyone else in the country put together - shortly followed by the North East asking to join an independent Scotland? What then for the unified North?
I mean, Edinburgh is in Northumberland.


My information may be a little behind current events
I know this is vitriol, no solution, spleen venting, but I feel better having screamed, don’t you?

User avatar
sTeamTraen
Dorkwood
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: COVID-19

Post by sTeamTraen » Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:19 pm

Opti wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:40 pm
sTeamTraen wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:09 pm

I think these are the same people who regularly have two pints and drive home ("You can, you know, that's below the 80mg limit").
Round your new manor, 50mg is the limit. Better just have the one, then. ;)
It's been 50mg round every manor I've been in since I passed my test in 1984. :)
Something something hammer something something nail

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by discovolante » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:58 pm

Eek

https://twitter.com/TomSwarbrick1/statu ... 51822?s=20

I'm torn about this tbh. I mean, obviously Andy Burnham really should have consulted me before going on about resisting lockdown restrictions after I'd spent all that time defending him on here. And the virus-related (as opposed to economic) reasons for resisting tier 3 lockdown didn't seem particularly strong. I mean I am pretty pro lockdown and I think if it had been a Tory banging on about it not being necessary I would have been raging. I would also probably be more pissed off with Andy Burnham if I really felt like the restrictions the government is putting in place are going to make a huge difference. They might though, I suppose, and we'll see in time.

On the other hand, I also think the government needs to cough up now and worry about the cost later. I admit I'm not the most economically literate person in the world, or even in my house, or even in this room where I am currently alone apart from a few spiders and a rubber plant, but there seem to be a lot of reasons for helping to stop people falling into destitution during a pandemic, and I don't know what other leverage Andy Burnham had, even though it wasn't much to begin with and he lost anyway.

And at the end of it all if the government hadn't basically spaffed all our money up the wall at the beginning of the year there might be more to go around now. I know that's not really how it works, but it's hard for me not to feel a bit resentful about that on top of this.

And of course being a northerner by blood and birth tends to skew things a bit for me as well.
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

User avatar
jimbob
After Pie
Posts: 1809
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: COVID-19

Post by jimbob » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:38 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:27 am
Got into a stupid argument with some colleagues on Yammer about whether the rise in cases/hospitalisations/deaths is exponential or linear.

On my side, I have the following evidence:
- It's obviously f.cking exponential
- It looks exponential
- An exponential fit has an almost perfect R2
- An exponential rise also matches the general way pandemic numbers work
- Plus it's what happened last time
- Oh and just because something has exponential dynamics, doesn't mean it rises fast. (cf More or Less, compound interest, etc)

On their side, they have the following:
- A linear fit isn't bad
- It has to be linear, because we couldn't possibly need to lock down more.

I'll leave it up to you to decide.
Yup: UK deaths 4 days ago:
Image

Ireland hospitalisations

Image
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by Sciolus » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:48 pm

discovolante wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:58 pm
Eek

https://twitter.com/TomSwarbrick1/statu ... 51822?s=20

I'm torn about this tbh. I mean, obviously Andy Burnham really should have consulted me before going on about resisting lockdown restrictions after I'd spent all that time defending him on here. And the virus-related (as opposed to economic) reasons for resisting tier 3 lockdown didn't seem particularly strong. I mean I am pretty pro lockdown and I think if it had been a Tory banging on about it not being necessary I would have been raging. I would also probably be more pissed off with Andy Burnham if I really felt like the restrictions the government is putting in place are going to make a huge difference. They might though, I suppose, and we'll see in time.

On the other hand, I also think the government needs to cough up now and worry about the cost later. I admit I'm not the most economically literate person in the world, or even in my house, or even in this room where I am currently alone apart from a few spiders and a rubber plant, but there seem to be a lot of reasons for helping to stop people falling into destitution during a pandemic, and I don't know what other leverage Andy Burnham had, even though it wasn't much to begin with and he lost anyway.

And at the end of it all if the government hadn't basically spaffed all our money up the wall at the beginning of the year there might be more to go around now. I know that's not really how it works, but it's hard for me not to feel a bit resentful about that on top of this.

And of course being a northerner by blood and birth tends to skew things a bit for me as well.
There is a real issue with support for the low-paid. Clearly the original furlough scheme can't continue, but 67% of minimum wage is just wasting everyone's time. There is a good correlation between low paid jobs and jobs that involve mixing with a lot of people and potentially spreading the virus around, as opposed to the relatively well off working fro home, so it's a false economy not to take that into account. Whether money is better spent supporting businesses or individuals I don't know, but I don't have a particular problem letting small businesses close that will reopen again when the time comes, as long as individuals are supported properly. That may mean increasing dole rates.

User avatar
Woodchopper
After Pie
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:59 pm

241 UK deaths announced today. Probably included some from the weekend, but still it’s a bad number.

If it keeps up its just over two doublings to get to 1000 per day.

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by discovolante » Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:11 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:48 pm
discovolante wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:58 pm
Eek

https://twitter.com/TomSwarbrick1/statu ... 51822?s=20

I'm torn about this tbh. I mean, obviously Andy Burnham really should have consulted me before going on about resisting lockdown restrictions after I'd spent all that time defending him on here. And the virus-related (as opposed to economic) reasons for resisting tier 3 lockdown didn't seem particularly strong. I mean I am pretty pro lockdown and I think if it had been a Tory banging on about it not being necessary I would have been raging. I would also probably be more pissed off with Andy Burnham if I really felt like the restrictions the government is putting in place are going to make a huge difference. They might though, I suppose, and we'll see in time.

On the other hand, I also think the government needs to cough up now and worry about the cost later. I admit I'm not the most economically literate person in the world, or even in my house, or even in this room where I am currently alone apart from a few spiders and a rubber plant, but there seem to be a lot of reasons for helping to stop people falling into destitution during a pandemic, and I don't know what other leverage Andy Burnham had, even though it wasn't much to begin with and he lost anyway.

And at the end of it all if the government hadn't basically spaffed all our money up the wall at the beginning of the year there might be more to go around now. I know that's not really how it works, but it's hard for me not to feel a bit resentful about that on top of this.

And of course being a northerner by blood and birth tends to skew things a bit for me as well.
There is a real issue with support for the low-paid. Clearly the original furlough scheme can't continue, but 67% of minimum wage is just wasting everyone's time. There is a good correlation between low paid jobs and jobs that involve mixing with a lot of people and potentially spreading the virus around, as opposed to the relatively well off working fro home, so it's a false economy not to take that into account. Whether money is better spent supporting businesses or individuals I don't know, but I don't have a particular problem letting small businesses close that will reopen again when the time comes, as long as individuals are supported properly. That may mean increasing dole rates.
Universal Credit was increased at the beginning of lockdown, by a whopping £80 per month (give or take). Of course the benefit cap still applies and if you are in private rented accommodation below the local housing allowance you are still screwed, as far as I'm aware.

I would massively prefer people who want to stay in work to be supported through that as much as possible. There's no guarantee that if you have casual work that if the business you work for reopens or re-expands again that you will be offered anything.

Question, if lockdown restrictions in some sectors are effectively the same as March/April (i.e. total shutdown), with regular reviews, why can't the furlough scheme continue in those specific areas? Compared to prolonging the agony of semi-shutdowns, people deciding that risking a fine that will take months if not years to pay off is better than staying at home, etc.

Even a furlough scheme along those lines wouldn't cover all risk because of course no shop, cafe, bar etc operates in a vacuum, economically. Even my work was pretty severely affected by non-essential businesses closing (and I am on a fixed term contract which expires next year, good-o). Lots of people were furloughed; if you only furloughed places that were directly ordered to close that still wouldn't cover everyone affected. So it's still a fairly modest ask in the grand scheme of things.
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

Post Reply