Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
NGee said:
Exactly, so by that logic, if we continued the lockdown then R0 would continue dropping.
I thought the object was to get R0 to zero, not just to below 1.
I don't understand what difference it makes how many people have the virus. Let's face it, it only took one to start it all in the first place.
I am no expert - R0 below 1 was one of the indicators. As long as it is below 1 the cases will continue to fall. I thought the object was to get R0 to zero, not just to below 1.
I don't understand what difference it makes how many people have the virus. Let's face it, it only took one to start it all in the first place.
The lockdown we imposed still had people out and about for work, exercise shopping etc. It's easy to see, from that graph that it produced an R of about 0.4-0.7. To get it down further would mean a stricter lockdown. That got the cases down pretty quickly. Now it has crept back up they are falling more slowly but, crucially, they are still just about falling.
It was important to get the numbers of new cases down so the impact of them was less, especially if R(0) climbs further. R(0) of 1.1 on 500 new cases would make that 550 in 5 days or so and the 70 deaths shortly thereafter becomes 77. We have time to react without such terrible human cost.
If we start with 5000 cases and 800 deaths then that is obviously even more catastrophic. There are significant negative consequences of lockdown so it needs to be proportionate. The measures justified to get 50 daily deaths down to 40 is, callously, not the same as getting 1000 down to 800; even though, in theory, they require the same measures. Hence masks when shopping and public transport instead of lockdown.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th July 17:03
Graveworm said:
I am no expert - R0 below 1 was one of the indicators. As long as it is below 1 the cases will continue to fall.
The lockdown we imposed still had people out and about for work, exercise shopping etc. It's easy to see, from that graph that it produced an R of about 0.4-0.7. To get it down further would mean a stricter lockdown. That got the cases down pretty quickly. Now it has crept back up they are falling more slowly but, crucially, they are still just about falling.
It was important to get the numbers of new cases down so the impact of them was less, especially if R(0) climbs further. R(0) of 1.1 on 500 new cases would make that 550 in 5 days or so and the 70 deaths shortly thereafter becomes 77. We have time to react without such terrible human cost.
If we start with 5000 cases and 800 deaths then that is obviously even more catastrophic. There are significant negative consequences of lockdown so it needs to be proportionate. The measures justified to get 50 daily deaths down to 40 is, callously, not the same as getting 1000 down to 800; even though, in theory, they require the same measures. Hence masks when shopping and public transport instead of lockdown.
You are no expert. You are referring to the graph you posted earlier as if it provides evidence of what lockdown has achieved. The lockdown we imposed still had people out and about for work, exercise shopping etc. It's easy to see, from that graph that it produced an R of about 0.4-0.7. To get it down further would mean a stricter lockdown. That got the cases down pretty quickly. Now it has crept back up they are falling more slowly but, crucially, they are still just about falling.
It was important to get the numbers of new cases down so the impact of them was less, especially if R(0) climbs further. R(0) of 1.1 on 500 new cases would make that 550 in 5 days or so and the 70 deaths shortly thereafter becomes 77. We have time to react without such terrible human cost.
If we start with 5000 cases and 800 deaths then that is obviously even more catastrophic. There are significant negative consequences of lockdown so it needs to be proportionate. The measures justified to get 50 daily deaths down to 40 is, callously, not the same as getting 1000 down to 800; even though, in theory, they require the same measures. Hence masks when shopping and public transport instead of lockdown.
It does not.
R0 is a fixed value that does not change. It is the rate at which a virus will spread in a pool of entirely susceptible individuals. That is not applicable to any real world situation, so epidemiologists consider the effective rate of transmission. That is what the Govt has talked about keeping below 1.
The effective R number cannot be directly measured. It is currently back calculated using modelling from available data on cases, deaths and hospitalisations. The graph you posted is a construct of such a model. It is a theory and not evidence of anything. Just as the effective R number is theoretical and unproven.
Your suggestion that a 10% increase in cases might directly translate to a 10% increase in deaths absurdly simplistic.
You are completely ignoring changes in the approach to and capacity for testing and the massive variability in the fatality rate depending on the age of the person or ‘case’.
A 90 year old is more than 100 times more likely to die if infected that a 20 year old. Not all cases are equal.
In the UK our initial tests were almost entirely limited to very sick people turning up at hospital. We now have vast testing capacity and are carrying out widespread tests of people who feel entirely well and are symptom free.
The number of deaths per case (case fatality ratio) is not fixed and it is massively decreasing as we identity younger, healthier cases who are very very unlikely to die from this virus.
Our discovery of cases has always been limited by testing capacity. As such we have never seen the full scale of the infection. If you test more, you find more. That doesn’t mean that the level of infection has changed. Just that we have peeled back a little more of the curtain and can see a bit more of the big picture.
I am afraid that you are unintentionally spreading disinformation.
I accept that an increase in cases might not linearly relate to the same increase in deaths compared to the previous IFR. but it did pretty much along the curve. Twice as many actual cases with the same IFR is twice as many deaths. Our testing has pretty much plateaued it definitely only captured the very sick at first. The modelling used survey data as well as tests and IFR it could be wrong but it is the best we have.
Graveworm said:
I accept that an increase in cases might not linearly relate to the same increase in deaths compared to the previous IFR. but it did pretty much along the curve. Twice as many actual cases with the same IFR is twice as many deaths. Our testing has pretty much plateaued it definitely only captured the very sick at first. The modelling used survey data as well as tests and IFR it could be wrong but it is the best we have.
No you still have this wrong. The IFR is the infection fatality rate, based on the number of people infected. Our modelling suggests that the number of infected is somewhere between 4 and 5 million. However, that is the subject of extensive debate and it is plausible that it could be two or even three times higher.
The CFR is the case fatality rate, based on the number of infected people positively identified through PCR tests. We have less than 300k known cases at this point.
The number of cases does not tell you directly how widespread the infection is. It only tells you how much of it you have detected. Twice as many cases does not mean twice as many deaths, because those new cases are not necessarily new infections.
The relationship you think you have seen between increasing cases and deaths is false. We know that the infection peaked in Mid March around three weeks prior to deaths which peaked on the 8th April. Cases grew significantly after the peak of infection because testing increase significantly.
The IFR is also believed to be massively variable depending on age.
1000 infections (or cases) under 40 would be likely to result in fewer fatalities than 10 infections (or cases) over 90.
Edited by Elysium on Saturday 18th July 11:27
Elysium said:
No you still have this wrong.
The IFR is the infection fatality rate, based on the number of people infected. Our modelling suggests that the number of infected is somewhere between 4 and 5 million. However, that is the subject of extensive debate and it is plausible that it could be two or even three times higher.
The CFR is the case fatality rate, based on the number of infected people positively identified through PCR tests. We have less than 300k known cases at this point.
The number of cases does not tell you directly how widespread the infection is. It only tells you how much of it you have detected. Twice as many cases does not mean twice as many deaths, because those new cases are not necessarily new infections.
The relationship you think you have seen between increasing cases and deaths is false. We know that the infection peaked in Mid March around three weeks prior to deaths which peaked on the 8th April. Cases grew significantly after the peak of infection because testing increase significantly.
The IFR is also believed to be massively variable depending on age.
1000 infections (or cases) under 40 would be likely to result in fewer fatalities than 10 infections (or cases) over 90.
I did understand. I think we are saying the same thing. The IFR will vary according to who is infected and other factors. It's a simple mathematical ratio, if it's wrong because the numbers are wrong if we knew all the infections then it would be the same as the CFR. The IFR is the infection fatality rate, based on the number of people infected. Our modelling suggests that the number of infected is somewhere between 4 and 5 million. However, that is the subject of extensive debate and it is plausible that it could be two or even three times higher.
The CFR is the case fatality rate, based on the number of infected people positively identified through PCR tests. We have less than 300k known cases at this point.
The number of cases does not tell you directly how widespread the infection is. It only tells you how much of it you have detected. Twice as many cases does not mean twice as many deaths, because those new cases are not necessarily new infections.
The relationship you think you have seen between increasing cases and deaths is false. We know that the infection peaked in Mid March around three weeks prior to deaths which peaked on the 8th April. Cases grew significantly after the peak of infection because testing increase significantly.
The IFR is also believed to be massively variable depending on age.
1000 infections (or cases) under 40 would be likely to result in fewer fatalities than 10 infections (or cases) over 90.
Edited by Elysium on Saturday 18th July 11:27
As we have more testing, more survey and more control data they are becoming more and more accurate the studies are converging.
But if the IFR is 1 percent then twice as many cases is twice as many deaths. If twice as many infections is not twice as many deaths then the IFR has changed, which it can, of course, age being one key factor, otherwise we could take the Diamond Princess and use that.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 18th July 13:53
Jasandjules said:
Yesterday’s news. However, there’s no hiding the excess deaths figure unless you’re going to pretend that either these deaths didn’t happen, or that it’s just a coincidence. Graveworm said:
Elysium said:
No you still have this wrong.
The IFR is the infection fatality rate, based on the number of people infected. Our modelling suggests that the number of infected is somewhere between 4 and 5 million. However, that is the subject of extensive debate and it is plausible that it could be two or even three times higher.
The CFR is the case fatality rate, based on the number of infected people positively identified through PCR tests. We have less than 300k known cases at this point.
The number of cases does not tell you directly how widespread the infection is. It only tells you how much of it you have detected. Twice as many cases does not mean twice as many deaths, because those new cases are not necessarily new infections.
The relationship you think you have seen between increasing cases and deaths is false. We know that the infection peaked in Mid March around three weeks prior to deaths which peaked on the 8th April. Cases grew significantly after the peak of infection because testing increase significantly.
The IFR is also believed to be massively variable depending on age.
1000 infections (or cases) under 40 would be likely to result in fewer fatalities than 10 infections (or cases) over 90.
I did understand. I think we are saying the same thing. The IFR will vary according to who is infected and other factors. It's a simple mathematical ratio, if it's wrong because the numbers are wrong if we knew all the infections then it would be the same as the CFR. The IFR is the infection fatality rate, based on the number of people infected. Our modelling suggests that the number of infected is somewhere between 4 and 5 million. However, that is the subject of extensive debate and it is plausible that it could be two or even three times higher.
The CFR is the case fatality rate, based on the number of infected people positively identified through PCR tests. We have less than 300k known cases at this point.
The number of cases does not tell you directly how widespread the infection is. It only tells you how much of it you have detected. Twice as many cases does not mean twice as many deaths, because those new cases are not necessarily new infections.
The relationship you think you have seen between increasing cases and deaths is false. We know that the infection peaked in Mid March around three weeks prior to deaths which peaked on the 8th April. Cases grew significantly after the peak of infection because testing increase significantly.
The IFR is also believed to be massively variable depending on age.
1000 infections (or cases) under 40 would be likely to result in fewer fatalities than 10 infections (or cases) over 90.
Edited by Elysium on Saturday 18th July 11:27
As we have more testing, more survey and more control data they are becoming more and more accurate the studies are converging.
But if the IFR is 1 percent then twice as many cases is twice as many deaths. If twice as many infections is not twice as many deaths then the IFR has changed, which it can, of course, age being one key factor, otherwise we could take the Diamond Princess and use that.
Twice as many infections could mean twice as many deaths, although that is unlikely as this has already burned through our care homes affecting a great many of the most vulnerable.
Cases are people who test positive. The deaths we see are linked to the total infection, not just the cases we find.
By increasing testing you could find ten times as many cases as before, but none of this would tell you that the infection is increasing. It just means you are seeing more of it.
PHE are not looking at crude case counts to find hotspots. They are identifying areas where the percentage of positive tests diverges from the norm, suggesting a larger proportion of the population may be affected.
It is a sampling approach.
Elysium said:
You again make the error saying twice as many cases means twice as many deaths.
Twice as many infections could mean twice as many deaths, although that is unlikely as this has already burned through our care homes affecting a great many of the most vulnerable.
Cases are people who test positive. The deaths we see are linked to the total infection, not just the cases we find.
By increasing testing you could find ten times as many cases as before, but none of this would tell you that the infection is increasing. It just means you are seeing more of it.
PHE are not looking at crude case counts to find hotspots. They are identifying areas where the percentage of positive tests diverges from the norm, suggesting a larger proportion of the population may be affected.
It is a sampling approach.
Twice as many infections FOR THE SAME IFR is twice as many deaths which, if you read is what I said from the outset. You are repeating something I didn't say and telling me it's wrong. If the IFR is 1 percent and double the number of infections doesn't lead to double the number of infections then it's no longer 1 percent. Twice as many infections could mean twice as many deaths, although that is unlikely as this has already burned through our care homes affecting a great many of the most vulnerable.
Cases are people who test positive. The deaths we see are linked to the total infection, not just the cases we find.
By increasing testing you could find ten times as many cases as before, but none of this would tell you that the infection is increasing. It just means you are seeing more of it.
PHE are not looking at crude case counts to find hotspots. They are identifying areas where the percentage of positive tests diverges from the norm, suggesting a larger proportion of the population may be affected.
It is a sampling approach.
I also said that doubling the infections might not mean the IFR remains constant for all the reasons we both know.
I am not sure that the we are running out of the old and vulnerable makes much sense as the latest figures show that the highest infection rates were the least vulnerable young adults and children.
Finding more infections doesn't change the actual IFR it should mean our measuring of it is more accurate. It may change the CFR.
As it happens, around the world, the IFR from the various methodologies is converging so we may well get something reliable at some point for the lifetime of the pandemic.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 18th July 18:27
Graveworm said:
Twice as many infections FOR THE SAME IFR is twice as many deaths which, if you read is what I said from the outset. You are repeating something I didn't say and telling me it's wrong.
No I am not. This is what you said: Graveworm said:
But if the IFR is 1 percent then twice as many cases is twice as many deaths.
Cases are simply detected infection. Double the cases means higher detection rates. It does not mean more infection or more deaths. I am glad you have clarified your position. People are worried when they hear about increases in cases.
Elysium said:
Graveworm said:
Twice as many infections FOR THE SAME IFR is twice as many deaths which, if you read is what I said from the outset. You are repeating something I didn't say and telling me it's wrong.
No I am not. This is what you said: Graveworm said:
But if the IFR is 1 percent then twice as many cases is twice as many deaths.
Cases are simply detected infection. Double the cases means higher detection rates. It does not mean more infection or more deaths. I am glad you have clarified your position. People are worried when they hear about increases in cases.
The question is going to be whether in due course the "Covid" deaths are reduced dramatically with more accurate reporting. This will evidence an overstatement of the fatality rate. This is what I am expecting to happen in due course with Mr Hancock then blaming PHE (despite the clear guidance to PHE to record any death even remotely possible as Covid) thus enabling a more normal return to life with it all being the "fault" of PHE. In short, I suspect the Govt is now scrambling for a get out clause to get the economy back on some sort of track. We will see of course.
Can you take your stats discussions to the corona thread and leave this one for legislation please?
I take it the legislation giving councils the power to effect local lockdowns hasn't emerged yet? I have been quite comfortable with the various powers used by government, but am a bit more apprehensive about our mostly useless councillors being given anything.
I take it the legislation giving councils the power to effect local lockdowns hasn't emerged yet? I have been quite comfortable with the various powers used by government, but am a bit more apprehensive about our mostly useless councillors being given anything.
unident said:
Jasandjules said:
If their customers all have germs clearly they won't want them in the shop - Problem solved.
And your ignorance continues. Asymptomatic people are the issue for spread, but you know that, you just want to carry on spouting your nonsense The irony of accusing others of "ignorance" in a post where you display ignorance yourself.
markyb_lcy said:
Is every single non-mask-wearer an asymptomatic carrier spreading their "germs" (as this message suggests)?
The irony of accusing others of "ignorance" in a post where you display ignorance yourself.
Obviously not, maybe they should have got a solicitor to write up a full legal document and written that on the window instead. Even then you and your fellow naysayers would complain because it’s involving legal process and you object to all forms of that as we’ve seen on the contrarian thread.The irony of accusing others of "ignorance" in a post where you display ignorance yourself.
Not everyone crashes their car, so why should everyone have to wear a seatbelt?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff