Coronavirus - Data Analysis Thread
Discussion
CarlosFandango11 said:
RSTurboPaul said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
RSTurboPaul said:
W124Bob said:
Purely academic but something my idle mind has just pondered, I wonder what has happened to the birth rate since about September last year. I use Sept as that is the 9 month point, babies born before that would be conceived pre lockdown1. I know it's not really important but it has crossed my mind, excess deaths versus a plus or minus birthrate?
The data will be on the ONS website but IIRC:- birth rates are down
- death rates are up (obvs)
- the net result of this 'world ending' virus is that the population has grown in the UK this past year
You’re the first person to make this claim that I’m aware of.
CarlosFandango11 said:
Elysium said:
panholio said:
Cases do seem to be showing a slight uptick based on today’s data catching up the lag.
Probably to be expected.
I think we should expect an increase in the coming weeks, but I’m not seeing it yet:Probably to be expected.
Also, have you tried do download any death or new case data from the government coronavirus site that’s split by age demographic? The files that I get when I try turns out to be empty. I was curious to see if there had been a change in the age demographics of new cases following the vaccine rollout.
I have never got to grips with the formatting of the PHE age data and you are right that the deaths download is currently blank.
I have looked at the ONS weekly deaths data by age and noticed how similar the age banding was for the 1st and 2nd waves:
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7N0Lb/5/
I reasoned that, if you looked at the variance between deaths in waves 1 and 2 you might be able to see a pattern. On the following graph a positive number means wave 2 was bigger and a negative means it was smaller. A downward slope indicates wave 2 fell more quickly than 1 for that age group. This does suggest that deaths started to reduce more quickly in age bands that had been vaccinated.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jSwB6/4/
Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 12th May 18:34
A quick update on todays numbers:
1. Cases and Tests. Firstly the whole pandemic:
As its getting tricky to see the detail I have zoomed in on the period from the 1st March, which is when LFD ramped up and cases diverged from the 18 day halving line. This makes the fall in cases more apparent and also shows the relationship with variation in testing:
2. Cases per 100k Tests. I have also zoomed in on this graph to show the period from the 1st March. Whats interesting is that Cases per 100k Tests and the Case Fatality Rate have each fallen broadly in line with an 18 day halving:
3. Finally, this graph shows Cases per 100k tests, admissions and deaths since 1st Jan 2021. A slow convergence to all levels for each metric:
1. Cases and Tests. Firstly the whole pandemic:
As its getting tricky to see the detail I have zoomed in on the period from the 1st March, which is when LFD ramped up and cases diverged from the 18 day halving line. This makes the fall in cases more apparent and also shows the relationship with variation in testing:
2. Cases per 100k Tests. I have also zoomed in on this graph to show the period from the 1st March. Whats interesting is that Cases per 100k Tests and the Case Fatality Rate have each fallen broadly in line with an 18 day halving:
3. Finally, this graph shows Cases per 100k tests, admissions and deaths since 1st Jan 2021. A slow convergence to all levels for each metric:
There's some signs of things showing in the data on hospital admissions. The latest figure is 103 admissions on the 11th of May. If we take the 18 day half life that Elysium has consistently shown, then for 23rd April we'd expect about 206 admissions, instead it was 154. We have to go back to the eighth of April to get there, so about 34 days to half and not 18, and that's happening despite the numbers that have been jabbed. Part of that is that restrictions are being relaxed and part of that could be due to variants. I don't have access to the data to work how much of this effect is due to which cause, and even if I did have access, levels are still so low that I really can't be arsed.
Assuming we can continue to get vaccines into arms at a reasonable rate then we'll be fine.
Half life for ICU is 22 days, so still dropping at a reasonable rate and as of the 14th, which is the latest data then it was down to only 124, with less than 1000 in hospital across the UK, 991 on the 13th.
Assuming we can continue to get vaccines into arms at a reasonable rate then we'll be fine.
Half life for ICU is 22 days, so still dropping at a reasonable rate and as of the 14th, which is the latest data then it was down to only 124, with less than 1000 in hospital across the UK, 991 on the 13th.
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting 
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
It's not that interesting. It's very clearly anti-restriction propaganda, intended to make you question the need for restrictions by presenting partial facts and taking advantage of misconceptions.https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
The UK mask mandate, for instance, was a risk mitigation measure introduced around the time that our economy re-opened. Masks weren't introduced to bring infection rates down, they were used to reduce the likelihood of virus spread when we were allowed to go back to non-essential shops and restaurants. So naturally the data doesn't show that masks brought rates down. It does show that rates didn't immediately spike once the economy reopened though, which given the high transmissibility of Covid might suggest that masks were effective.
Similarly the "which US states introduced strict lockdowns" doesn't account for factors such as population density and distribution.
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
I think that’s an interesting way to challenge preconceptions about masks. https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
Carl Heneghan of CEBM made a great point in a recent interview, noting that the strong differences of opinion on masks essentially tells us that we don’t have enough evidence that they achieve anything.
spikyone said:
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
It's not that interesting. It's very clearly anti-restriction propaganda, intended to make you question the need for restrictions by presenting partial facts and taking advantage of misconceptions.https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
The UK mask mandate, for instance, was a risk mitigation measure introduced around the time that our economy re-opened. Masks weren't introduced to bring infection rates down, they were used to reduce the likelihood of virus spread when we were allowed to go back to non-essential shops and restaurants. So naturally the data doesn't show that masks brought rates down. It does show that rates didn't immediately spike once the economy reopened though, which given the high transmissibility of Covid might suggest that masks were effective.
Similarly the "which US states introduced strict lockdowns" doesn't account for factors such as population density and distribution.
And lockdowns alone can't account for changes in the graphs?
But I thought masks and lockdowns definitely worked full-stop?
RSTurboPaul said:
spikyone said:
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
It's not that interesting. It's very clearly anti-restriction propaganda, intended to make you question the need for restrictions by presenting partial facts and taking advantage of misconceptions.https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
The UK mask mandate, for instance, was a risk mitigation measure introduced around the time that our economy re-opened. Masks weren't introduced to bring infection rates down, they were used to reduce the likelihood of virus spread when we were allowed to go back to non-essential shops and restaurants. So naturally the data doesn't show that masks brought rates down. It does show that rates didn't immediately spike once the economy reopened though, which given the high transmissibility of Covid might suggest that masks were effective.
Similarly the "which US states introduced strict lockdowns" doesn't account for factors such as population density and distribution.
And lockdowns alone can't account for changes in the graphs?
But I thought masks and lockdowns definitely worked full-stop?
A graph without context, as shown in that quiz, is utterly pointless and you can't infer anything from it. The creators of the quiz are deliberately misleading participants by providing partial data with no context, and it proves nothing other than that many people have no clue when they're being shown partial data with no context.
spikyone said:
RSTurboPaul said:
spikyone said:
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
It's not that interesting. It's very clearly anti-restriction propaganda, intended to make you question the need for restrictions by presenting partial facts and taking advantage of misconceptions.https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
The UK mask mandate, for instance, was a risk mitigation measure introduced around the time that our economy re-opened. Masks weren't introduced to bring infection rates down, they were used to reduce the likelihood of virus spread when we were allowed to go back to non-essential shops and restaurants. So naturally the data doesn't show that masks brought rates down. It does show that rates didn't immediately spike once the economy reopened though, which given the high transmissibility of Covid might suggest that masks were effective.
Similarly the "which US states introduced strict lockdowns" doesn't account for factors such as population density and distribution.
And lockdowns alone can't account for changes in the graphs?
But I thought masks and lockdowns definitely worked full-stop?
A graph without context, as shown in that quiz, is utterly pointless and you can't infer anything from it. The creators of the quiz are deliberately misleading participants by providing partial data with no context, and it proves nothing other than that many people have no clue when they're being shown partial data with no context.
The lockdown and mask advocates insist that 'they work', with no caveats whatsoever, so surely no additional context is needed when looking at such graphs because the effects of the interventions would be so obviously clear?
That the effects are not obviously clear merely reinforces the point that masks and lockdown make no difference in the real world, and that as you say, there are other aspects that are likely influencing the graphs seen.
So I think we are both agreeing with each other.
Elysium said:
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
I think that’s an interesting way to challenge preconceptions about masks. https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
Carl Heneghan of CEBM made a great point in a recent interview, noting that the strong differences of opinion on masks essentially tells us that we don’t have enough evidence that they achieve anything.
Jut because there are strong differences of opinion, doesn't make each opinion equally valid. Take anti-vaxxers vs medical professionals, for example. There is a gulf between them, but which do you think has the more solid basis for their argument?
Masks are an emotive issue (they are a representation of state control/repression of the individual, to some), and they've suffered from the usual social-media s
t-stirring that everything gets nowadays. But the science is crystal clear - worn properly*, masks contribute a significant reduction in the propensity to spread viruses and bacteria. I personally think they'd be a great permanent addition to (in particular) the London Underground, buses/trains and shops.* And that is the problem - too many idiots / those deliberately playing games.
spikyone said:
Neither of those things are what I said.
A graph without context, as shown in that quiz, is utterly pointless and you can't infer anything from it. The creators of the quiz are deliberately misleading participants by providing partial data with no context, and it proves nothing other than that many people have no clue when they're being shown partial data with no context.
Leave it - RS Paul has always been very 'anti-' on this thread. Not anti- anything specific, just anti the whole damn situation, clearly wanting to pretend to himself it's all a hoax and all these actions we're being told to take are just government control-freakery.A graph without context, as shown in that quiz, is utterly pointless and you can't infer anything from it. The creators of the quiz are deliberately misleading participants by providing partial data with no context, and it proves nothing other than that many people have no clue when they're being shown partial data with no context.
havoc said:
spikyone said:
Neither of those things are what I said.
A graph without context, as shown in that quiz, is utterly pointless and you can't infer anything from it. The creators of the quiz are deliberately misleading participants by providing partial data with no context, and it proves nothing other than that many people have no clue when they're being shown partial data with no context.
Leave it - RS Paul has always been very 'anti-' on this thread. Not anti- anything specific, just anti the whole damn situation, clearly wanting to pretend to himself it's all a hoax and all these actions we're being told to take are just government control-freakery.A graph without context, as shown in that quiz, is utterly pointless and you can't infer anything from it. The creators of the quiz are deliberately misleading participants by providing partial data with no context, and it proves nothing other than that many people have no clue when they're being shown partial data with no context.
Although if you can't see how a Vaccine Passport system won't increase Governmental control, I would suggest some more thought is needed.
havoc said:
Elysium said:
RSTurboPaul said:
No specific data analysis, but a small quiz about some charts that is interesting
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
I think that’s an interesting way to challenge preconceptions about masks. https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
Carl Heneghan of CEBM made a great point in a recent interview, noting that the strong differences of opinion on masks essentially tells us that we don’t have enough evidence that they achieve anything.
Jut because there are strong differences of opinion, doesn't make each opinion equally valid. Take anti-vaxxers vs medical professionals, for example. There is a gulf between them, but which do you think has the more solid basis for their argument?
Masks are an emotive issue (they are a representation of state control/repression of the individual, to some), and they've suffered from the usual social-media s
t-stirring that everything gets nowadays. But the science is crystal clear - worn properly*, masks contribute a significant reduction in the propensity to spread viruses and bacteria. I personally think they'd be a great permanent addition to (in particular) the London Underground, buses/trains and shops.* And that is the problem - too many idiots / those deliberately playing games.
havoc said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Citation needed?
Why? You've not provided links to any of your comments, you've just expected us to take them as fact or do our own research to disprove you.I was taking it as read that masks not doing anything was common knowledge.
RSTurboPaul said:
What context is missing?
The lockdown and mask advocates insist that 'they work', with no caveats whatsoever, so surely no additional context is needed when looking at such graphs because the effects of the interventions would be so obviously clear?
That the effects are not obviously clear merely reinforces the point that masks and lockdown make no difference in the real world, and that as you say, there are other aspects that are likely influencing the graphs seen.
So I think we are both agreeing with each other.
I am not agreeing with you in the slightest. This is not some controlled laboratory experiment, where you can change one variable in isolation, or where you have a control sample to compare against. It's a complex system that has many variables that affect the outcome, and which is constantly changing. The "context" is all of the other variables that can influence the outcome. Failing to take those other variables into account, and trying to draw a conclusion from a simplistic graph, is scientific ignorance.The lockdown and mask advocates insist that 'they work', with no caveats whatsoever, so surely no additional context is needed when looking at such graphs because the effects of the interventions would be so obviously clear?
That the effects are not obviously clear merely reinforces the point that masks and lockdown make no difference in the real world, and that as you say, there are other aspects that are likely influencing the graphs seen.
So I think we are both agreeing with each other.
spikyone said:
RSTurboPaul said:
What context is missing?
The lockdown and mask advocates insist that 'they work', with no caveats whatsoever, so surely no additional context is needed when looking at such graphs because the effects of the interventions would be so obviously clear?
That the effects are not obviously clear merely reinforces the point that masks and lockdown make no difference in the real world, and that as you say, there are other aspects that are likely influencing the graphs seen.
So I think we are both agreeing with each other.
I am not agreeing with you in the slightest. This is not some controlled laboratory experiment, where you can change one variable in isolation, or where you have a control sample to compare against. It's a complex system that has many variables that affect the outcome, and which is constantly changing. The "context" is all of the other variables that can influence the outcome. Failing to take those other variables into account, and trying to draw a conclusion from a simplistic graph, is scientific ignorance.The lockdown and mask advocates insist that 'they work', with no caveats whatsoever, so surely no additional context is needed when looking at such graphs because the effects of the interventions would be so obviously clear?
That the effects are not obviously clear merely reinforces the point that masks and lockdown make no difference in the real world, and that as you say, there are other aspects that are likely influencing the graphs seen.
So I think we are both agreeing with each other.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff