Coronavirus - Data Analysis Thread
Discussion
Ashfordian said:
the-photographer said:
Elysium said:
Everybody is at some risk of COVID.
The best way I have seen this explained is that an individuals risk of dying from COVID is broadly similar to their risk of dying from anything else in a given year. COVID deaths and non-COVID deaths follow a very similar pattern:
62% of the population are under 50 and they account for just 5% of COVID deaths
The idea that a very large proportion of people under 50 are at serious risk from this disease just does not stack up.
The proportion of confirmed cases aged under 50 who have died from COVID is around 18 per 10,000 (0.18%)
Under 25 its 1 in 10,000
Over 75 its 247 in 10,000
Of course death is not the only issue. But the risk of hospitalisation and death move in tandem.
He know that the risk of death in under 50's is low and that this will be focused in the people who have the most significant vulnerabilities. We know it begins to increase around 50 and that it is dramatically higher for the elderly.
A 20 year old infected with SARS-CoV-2 is 2,000 times less likely to die than an 80 year old.
All agreed, but you would want to avoid the long symptoms if at all possible (which some reports claim can be as high as 1/5)The best way I have seen this explained is that an individuals risk of dying from COVID is broadly similar to their risk of dying from anything else in a given year. COVID deaths and non-COVID deaths follow a very similar pattern:
62% of the population are under 50 and they account for just 5% of COVID deaths
The idea that a very large proportion of people under 50 are at serious risk from this disease just does not stack up.
The proportion of confirmed cases aged under 50 who have died from COVID is around 18 per 10,000 (0.18%)
Under 25 its 1 in 10,000
Over 75 its 247 in 10,000
Of course death is not the only issue. But the risk of hospitalisation and death move in tandem.
He know that the risk of death in under 50's is low and that this will be focused in the people who have the most significant vulnerabilities. We know it begins to increase around 50 and that it is dramatically higher for the elderly.
A 20 year old infected with SARS-CoV-2 is 2,000 times less likely to die than an 80 year old.
Feels like the same manipulation to me which based on history will be massively downgraded, but ignored in the media reporting, when it suits...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01433-3
havoc said:
Elysium said:
Everybody is at some risk of COVID.
The best way I have seen this explained is that an individuals risk of dying from COVID is broadly similar to their risk of dying from anything else in a given year. COVID deaths and non-COVID deaths follow a very similar pattern:
62% of the population are under 50 and they account for just 5% of COVID deaths
The idea that a very large proportion of people under 50 are at serious risk from this disease just does not stack up.
The proportion of confirmed cases aged under 50 who have died from COVID is around 18 per 10,000 (0.18%)
Under 25 its 1 in 10,000
Over 75 its 247 in 10,000
Of course death is not the only issue. But the risk of hospitalisation and death move in tandem.
He know that the risk of death in under 50's is low and that this will be focused in the people who have the most significant vulnerabilities. We know it begins to increase around 50 and that it is dramatically higher for the elderly.
A 20 year old infected with SARS-CoV-2 is 2,000 times less likely to die than an 80 year old.
The best way I have seen this explained is that an individuals risk of dying from COVID is broadly similar to their risk of dying from anything else in a given year. COVID deaths and non-COVID deaths follow a very similar pattern:
62% of the population are under 50 and they account for just 5% of COVID deaths
The idea that a very large proportion of people under 50 are at serious risk from this disease just does not stack up.
The proportion of confirmed cases aged under 50 who have died from COVID is around 18 per 10,000 (0.18%)
Under 25 its 1 in 10,000
Over 75 its 247 in 10,000
Of course death is not the only issue. But the risk of hospitalisation and death move in tandem.
He know that the risk of death in under 50's is low and that this will be focused in the people who have the most significant vulnerabilities. We know it begins to increase around 50 and that it is dramatically higher for the elderly.
A 20 year old infected with SARS-CoV-2 is 2,000 times less likely to die than an 80 year old.
Agreed.
I think my main challenge was at those, mainly on social media and on here, who claimed that effectively "no-one under 40 needed to worry" (statistics can lead to some rather nasty simplifications), and that age group should just carry on with their lives* (inaccurate due to the highly-infectious nature of Covid, as we've seen repeatedly).
My wife and I are generally healthy (can't remember the last sick-day either of us took, despite two young kids at home), BUT we both have one risk-factor/co-morbidity which puts us at increased risk from Covid (but interestingly not from many other diseases/conditions, at least in my case).
...now that's almost certainly not enough for Covid to kill either of us, but a hospital stay really didn't appeal, while having young kids, with little ready support around to care for them if we were both hospitalised, focused the mind somewhat last year.
Statistically it appears we aren't even outliers for our age group, and you certainly wouldn't tell from looking at us (IYSWIM). But being told you "don't matter" statistically (my bold above - everyone is focused on deaths and ignoring Long-Covid risks and intense hospitalisation), and that you should accept such a risk so everyone else can go back to the pub is frankly rather offensive...
* And indeed we're seeing many many people from all age groups (but especially younger and near-middle-age) now doing just that...hence the infection/hospital stats.
It isn't zero for the under 50's, but it is lower than most will imagine. The additional risk associated with co-morbidities is also lower.
Similarly, the over 70's generally underestimate their risk.
I remain of the view that most people under 50 could have continued to live a largely normal life whilst we focused resources on the protection of the most vulnerable. I support and have signed the Great Barrington Declaration which promoted this idea.
This is a useful tool to get a rough idea of risk for a particular situation:
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
At the beginning of the crisis it was estimated that the hospitalisation rate for my age group was around 4%.
If you think about all of the people of your age and line them up in order of the healthiest to the most vulnerable, then those 4% will largely be drawn from the vulnerable end of that spectrum.
Elysium said:
I remain of the view that most people under 50 could have continued to live a largely normal life whilst we focused resources on the protection of the most vulnerable. I support and have signed the Great Barrington Declaration which promoted this idea.
This is a useful tool to get a rough idea of risk for a particular situation:
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
At the beginning of the crisis it was estimated that the hospitalisation rate for my age group was around 4%.
If you think about all of the people of your age and line them up in order of the healthiest to the most vulnerable, then those 4% will largely be drawn from the vulnerable end of that spectrum.
That's all great, BUT...This is a useful tool to get a rough idea of risk for a particular situation:
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
At the beginning of the crisis it was estimated that the hospitalisation rate for my age group was around 4%.
If you think about all of the people of your age and line them up in order of the healthiest to the most vulnerable, then those 4% will largely be drawn from the vulnerable end of that spectrum.
- Exactly how would the vulnerable have lived if they had to assume that everyone else was potentially infected (which IS what you're saying)?
- What sort of life would that have been - virtual imprisonment? Worried every time you go out in case a "normal" got too close to you, or you saw someone coughing?
- HOW would those vulnerable have been protected, WITHOUT forcing them into far greater restrictions and privations than everyone else had, and exactly how is that equitable?
- What would have happened WHEN (not IF, definitely WHEN...name me ONE government initiative that has worked right first time, on time?) there was a failure in the protection mechanism and a significant number of the vulnerable fell ill?
- What about all those people who didn't / don't know they should be classed as vulnerable? Undiagnosed conditions, or those who have a comparatively mild condition but have been living with it for so long they don't consider it a problem...
- What about those who suddenly find they've been told not to worry and end up in ITU? Or worse? "Sorry, your Mum was a statistical anomaly"
As for the link
1) As with all such things, there's the risk of crap-in / crap-out. Who has populated it / what were their biases / what initial conditions/assumptions did they make / what did they ignore or completely forget about?
For me, it misses some key data points*...most specifically autoimmune conditions (i.e. where an otherwise healthy immune system is or has previously gone into overdrive and attacked the body in some way). There are strongly suspected links between that and Long Covid, and question marks over how effective the body's immune system would be vs an external threat when it's throwing resources vs a wrongly-perceived internal threat.
2) It's statistics again. Treating everyone as a homogenous whole and leaving the outliers to it. Governments have (largely) never worked this way, and there would be uproar if they started.
* Also throw in body fat % (BMI is a blunt and often inaccurate tool...can't believe they've used that), fitness level (i've known some really unfit, unhealthy skinny people, and I know two marathon runners who you'd never believe were), blood pressure / hypertension, and probably more I can't think of off the top of my head.
Terminator X said:
^^ Just out of interest when will it be "over" for you and you can get back to living exactly as you did pre Covid?
TX.
Fair question. I couldn't care less about the pub but I really want to get back to going to gigs, events, motorsport, etc.TX.
I'm fully vaccinated, my wife is getting her second next month. At which point I'd like to carry on 90% as before / as normal...with a few concessions to not putting myself at excessive risk* / keeping an eye on how long vaccine protection lasts / keeping an eye on if some new vaccine-evading variant pops up.
And I'm on the fence whether last week's extension of restrictions was necessary or not...I'm not convinced it was, and think it was more a political than medical act (proven by them allowing the Euros match at Wembley to go ahead with 60k people, when many other smaller events haven't been permitted).
To be fair, a lot of the comments in my post above are almost historic, and aimed at those who think/thought lockdown was the wrong answer** and we should have aimed for the fabled 'herd immunity'.
...but the last year or so HAS shown how selfish and short-sighted the average Brit can be, and doubly so for our politicians. So I have a trust issue right now...this thing could flare-up again, and I don't trust that the right actions will be taken at the right time if it does.
* That's the thing about risk - people want to be free to choose their own risk levels, not have them imposed on them. That applies equally to those who didn't want any restrictions and those who wanted strict controls...and arguably neither group is very happy right now...
** IMHO if the goverment had taken appropriate border controls and other internal actions promptly in March 2020, it could have been unnecessary as we'd have had a much lower case-load and a clear way of dealing with those outbreaks we did have (q.f. New Zealand, Taiwan, S. Korea...)
,...but their dithering and incompetence and failure to control our borders (ironic given that was one of the key tenets of Brexit!) left us no choice...and again the f
k-up over Indian flights a few months back.havoc said:
** IMHO if the goverment had taken appropriate border controls and other internal actions promptly in March 2020, it could have been unnecessary as we'd have had a much lower case-load and a clear way of dealing with those outbreaks we did have (q.f. New Zealand, Taiwan, S. Korea...)
,...but their dithering and incompetence and failure to control our borders (ironic given that was one of the key tenets of Brexit!) left us no choice...and again the fk-up over Indian flights a few months back.
Do you think this was really feasible for us? We've spent so long removing borders...We are not remotely like NZ in that sense.,...but their dithering and incompetence and failure to control our borders (ironic given that was one of the key tenets of Brexit!) left us no choice...and again the f
k-up over Indian flights a few months back.NerveAgent said:
havoc said:
** IMHO if the goverment had taken appropriate border controls and other internal actions promptly in March 2020, it could have been unnecessary as we'd have had a much lower case-load and a clear way of dealing with those outbreaks we did have (q.f. New Zealand, Taiwan, S. Korea...)
,...but their dithering and incompetence and failure to control our borders (ironic given that was one of the key tenets of Brexit!) left us no choice...and again the fk-up over Indian flights a few months back.
Do you think this was really feasible for us? We've spent so long removing borders...We are not remotely like NZ in that sense.,...but their dithering and incompetence and failure to control our borders (ironic given that was one of the key tenets of Brexit!) left us no choice...and again the f
k-up over Indian flights a few months back.UK is Kings Cross / Liverpool Street.
NerveAgent said:
Do you think this was really feasible for us? We've spent so long removing borders...We are not remotely like NZ in that sense.
It was deamed feasible to shut down entire sectors of the economy for months on end.Why not feasible to say "no holidays and if returning for work 2 week in confinement*?
There seems little doubt that if we had shut down to India a few weeks open we'd be fully open now.
JeffreyD said:
NerveAgent said:
Do you think this was really feasible for us? We've spent so long removing borders...We are not remotely like NZ in that sense.
It was deamed feasible to shut down entire sectors of the economy for months on end.Why not feasible to say "no holidays and if returning for work 2 week in confinement*?
There seems little doubt that if we had shut down to India a few weeks open we'd be fully open now.
/edit: and I was referring to march 2020 as in the post I quoted, not india.
JeffreyD said:
NerveAgent said:
Do you think this was really feasible for us? We've spent so long removing borders...We are not remotely like NZ in that sense.
It was deamed feasible to shut down entire sectors of the economy for months on end.Why not feasible to say "no holidays and if returning for work 2 week in confinement*?
There seems little doubt that if we had shut down to India a few weeks open we'd be fully open now.
It also precludes the fact that variants are developing the same/similar mutations in different locations at the same time.
JeffreyD said:
NerveAgent said:
Yeh, because the UK border is just holibobs, right.
No it's work as well.I wasn't allowed to open up for absolutely months as were loads of other sectors
Why is that feasible but making life difficult for some international workers isn't?
I don't think entire industries should have been shut down either...my livelihood got put on pause for 6 months for lockdown bulls
t.RSTurboPaul said:
Given that the 'delta' / indian variant is in Australia now, with the harshest border controls anywhere, pretty much, I'm not sure how closing travel from India would have stopped it getting in here?
It also precludes the fact that variants are developing the same/similar mutations in different locations at the same time.
We didn't need to stop it just minimize it.It also precludes the fact that variants are developing the same/similar mutations in different locations at the same time.
Had we shut down India at the same time as the surrounding countries we would have had a massive headstart.
If they had kept focussed and maximised vaccine take up we'd have been done now. Unless vaccines don't work in which case we are f
ked anyway.And I still don't really know why it's ok to shut every pub office and shop in the country but it's somehow impossible to stop people coming in from abroad, especially as we are an island.
havoc said:
Elysium said:
I remain of the view that most people under 50 could have continued to live a largely normal life whilst we focused resources on the protection of the most vulnerable. I support and have signed the Great Barrington Declaration which promoted this idea.
This is a useful tool to get a rough idea of risk for a particular situation:
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
At the beginning of the crisis it was estimated that the hospitalisation rate for my age group was around 4%.
If you think about all of the people of your age and line them up in order of the healthiest to the most vulnerable, then those 4% will largely be drawn from the vulnerable end of that spectrum.
That's all great, BUT...This is a useful tool to get a rough idea of risk for a particular situation:
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
At the beginning of the crisis it was estimated that the hospitalisation rate for my age group was around 4%.
If you think about all of the people of your age and line them up in order of the healthiest to the most vulnerable, then those 4% will largely be drawn from the vulnerable end of that spectrum.
- Exactly how would the vulnerable have lived if they had to assume that everyone else was potentially infected (which IS what you're saying)?
- What sort of life would that have been - virtual imprisonment? Worried every time you go out in case a "normal" got too close to you, or you saw someone coughing?
- HOW would those vulnerable have been protected, WITHOUT forcing them into far greater restrictions and privations than everyone else had, and exactly how is that equitable?
- What would have happened WHEN (not IF, definitely WHEN...name me ONE government initiative that has worked right first time, on time?) there was a failure in the protection mechanism and a significant number of the vulnerable fell ill?
- What about all those people who didn't / don't know they should be classed as vulnerable? Undiagnosed conditions, or those who have a comparatively mild condition but have been living with it for so long they don't consider it a problem...
- What about those who suddenly find they've been told not to worry and end up in ITU? Or worse? "Sorry, your Mum was a statistical anomaly"
As for the link
1) As with all such things, there's the risk of crap-in / crap-out. Who has populated it / what were their biases / what initial conditions/assumptions did they make / what did they ignore or completely forget about?
For me, it misses some key data points*...most specifically autoimmune conditions (i.e. where an otherwise healthy immune system is or has previously gone into overdrive and attacked the body in some way). There are strongly suspected links between that and Long Covid, and question marks over how effective the body's immune system would be vs an external threat when it's throwing resources vs a wrongly-perceived internal threat.
2) It's statistics again. Treating everyone as a homogenous whole and leaving the outliers to it. Governments have (largely) never worked this way, and there would be uproar if they started.
* Also throw in body fat % (BMI is a blunt and often inaccurate tool...can't believe they've used that), fitness level (i've known some really unfit, unhealthy skinny people, and I know two marathon runners who you'd never believe were), blood pressure / hypertension, and probably more I can't think of off the top of my head.
I also think it would have been far more equitable because the people being protected would be directly supported and the protection they receive would be in their own best interests.
I find it frankly baffling that people are so quick to argue that focused protection is impossible rather than confront the obvious reality that national lockdowns are far more complex, expensive and unfair.
To your second point, the calculator page I linked to includes very transparent answers to most of your questions. It was developed by Oxford University and they have a detailed FAQ here:
https://www.qcovid.org/Home/FrequentlyAskedQuestio...
JeffreyD said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Given that the 'delta' / indian variant is in Australia now, with the harshest border controls anywhere, pretty much, I'm not sure how closing travel from India would have stopped it getting in here?
It also precludes the fact that variants are developing the same/similar mutations in different locations at the same time.
We didn't need to stop it just minimize it.It also precludes the fact that variants are developing the same/similar mutations in different locations at the same time.
Had we shut down India at the same time as the surrounding countries we would have had a massive headstart.
If they had kept focussed and maximised vaccine take up we'd have been done now. Unless vaccines don't work in which case we are f
ked anyway.And I still don't really know why it's ok to shut every pub office and shop in the country but it's somehow impossible to stop people coming in from abroad, especially as we are an island.
Find a map of the flights to/from NZ.
The UK is a world of difference to NZ and is in no way comparable.
JeffreyD said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Find a map of the flights to/from the UK.
Find a map of the flights to/from NZ.
The UK is a world of difference to NZ and is in no way comparable.
I've not once mentioned New Zealand, so I don't see why I need to do that.Find a map of the flights to/from NZ.
The UK is a world of difference to NZ and is in no way comparable.
lolNerveAgent said:
JeffreyD said:
NerveAgent said:
Do you think this was really feasible for us? We've spent so long removing borders...We are not remotely like NZ in that sense.
It was deamed feasible to shut down entire sectors of the economy for months on end.Why not feasible to say "no holidays and if returning for work 2 week in confinement*?
There seems little doubt that if we had shut down to India a few weeks open we'd be fully open now.
/edit: and I was referring to march 2020 as in the post I quoted, not india.
It was a stupid political decision made by people who want to be seen to be 'world statesmen', rather than being bothered about doing the right thing for the citizens of their country.
IF we had done it, we would have massively reduced the initial viral load present in the country, given the NHS a much easier start, and made it a lot easier to control the spread before it got out of control. It would literally have saved this country billions upon billions of pounds and tens of thousands of lives.
JeffreyD said:
We didn't need to stop it just minimize it.
Had we shut down India at the same time as the surrounding countries we would have had a massive headstart.
If they had kept focussed and maximised vaccine take up we'd have been done now. Unless vaccines don't work in which case we are fked anyway.
And I still don't really know why it's ok to shut every pub office and shop in the country but it's somehow impossible to stop people coming in from abroad, especially as we are an island.
This.Had we shut down India at the same time as the surrounding countries we would have had a massive headstart.
If they had kept focussed and maximised vaccine take up we'd have been done now. Unless vaccines don't work in which case we are f
ked anyway.And I still don't really know why it's ok to shut every pub office and shop in the country but it's somehow impossible to stop people coming in from abroad, especially as we are an island.
Is there any information on a cause of the sudden spike over the last 2 days? The last few days new cases here in Wakefield have been 53, 57,61, 68, 80, 135, 140. The national figures seem to reflect this to a greater or lesser extent, but not much mention in the press. I guess they won't notice until the 5-day delay filters through.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff