CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 19 minutes ago, bickster said: This is just false, it doesn't need exponential growth to get NHS staff catching it, they are on the frontline, hospital admissions are rising, they are working in the epicenter of Covid. Hospital staff will still be contracting covid regardless of the growth curve, even if the growth curve is flat It needs cases rising to have an increasing amount of NHS staff off work. If they aren't it will be a relatively constant number off work. Also staff off work due to Covid is not unique to this wave. Also NHS staff will have had their boosters and the impact of that should be kicking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 21, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, CVByrne said: It needs cases rising to have an increasing amount of NHS staff off work No, it doesn't. You can't use models of community transmission and apply them to staff in hospitals, the world just doesn't work like that 4 minutes ago, CVByrne said: Also NHS staff will have had their boosters and the impact of that should be kicking in. The booster does not prevent you contracting COVID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 21, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2021 34 minutes ago, CVByrne said: When people say "science" what they mean is modelling If they do, they’re wrong. Modelling projections are part of the science, but far from the only part. Of course lots of people want to know or try and understand “what is/might happen next” both in terms of the virus, and in terms of what actions are recommended. But perhaps as important is a whole bunch of science and analysis around “where are we now”. So, “this variant of concern- how many cases have been detected via uk pcr tests”… this medical treatment, how effective is it, how fast can we produce it…what is the current level of oxygen supplies…what length of time do people typically spend in ICU….how has the use of this experimental treatment affected the severity….what is the impact of colder weather….how transmissible is that variant…where are the cases….are the victims vaccinated….with which vaccine….how many doses….what are the efficacies of the different kinds of vaccine…what is the current rate of sickness amongst NHS front line staff….what is the R rate…how are different ethnic groups affected….why…..effects on children… And that’s a fraction of it. People talking about the science probably don’t actually have any kind of understanding, beyond labs and test tubes and Bunsen burners hazily recalled from school days. And perhaps you’re right that they think some physics teacher types are making pessimistic guesses of outcomes using worst case scenarios and a ropy computer program to scare us all into hiding and lockdowns, or conspiracy theories. But they’d be wrong. some of the behavioural science, epidemiology- that’s an area where your assertion has a stronger tie in, but like I said, there are a whole bunch of other areas of science around covid that are not modelling at all, though the understanding gained can of course help make projections more reliable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted December 21, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted December 21, 2021 39 minutes ago, CVByrne said: If there was continued exponential growth of cases that would hold true. But as cases appear to have peaked in London those returning will be recovered and immune now. Where is this from please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 Just now, blandy said: If they do, they’re wrong. Modelling projections are part of the science, but far from the only part. Of course lots of people want to know or try and understand “what is/might happen next” both in terms of the virus, and in terms of what actions are recommended. But perhaps as important is a whole bunch of science and analysis around “where are we now”. So, “this variant of concern- how many cases have been detected via uk pcr tests”… this medical treatment, how effective is it, how fast can we produce it…what is the current level of oxygen supplies…what length of time do people typically spend in ICU….how has the use of this experimental treatment affected the severity….what is the impact of colder weather….how transmissible is that variant…where are the cases….are the victims vaccinated….with which vaccine….how many doses….what are the efficacies of the different kinds of vaccine…what is the current rate of sickness amongst NHS front line staff….what is the R rate…how are different ethnic groups affected….why…..effects on children… And that’s a fraction of it. People talking about the science probably don’t actually have any kind of understanding, beyond labs and test tubes and Bunsen burners hazily recalled from school days. And perhaps you’re right that they think some physics teacher types are making pessimistic guesses of outcomes using worst case scenarios and a ropy computer program to scare us all into hiding and lockdowns, or conspiracy theories. But they’d be wrong. some of the behavioural science, epidemiology- that’s an area where your assertion has a stronger tie in, but like I said, there are a whole bunch of other areas of science around covid that are not modelling at all, though the understanding gained can of course help make projections more reliable. Yes they are all factors in the modelling. But the massive issue right now with Omicron in relation to the modelling and the two key input parameters aren't known. The rapid growth and sudden stop is a nightmare to model. Also we don't have data around how severe the disease is, so what % of cases result in hospitalisation and what % need ICU and what % die. That data was available and reliable for last winter wave. I'm no expert in medicine. But I am in mathematical modelling (albeit in a different field). When the two most significant parameters in the model are as unknown as they are for Omicron we need to back test the model with real data. We don't have that data right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted December 21, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted December 21, 2021 Again, everyone getting their knickers in a twist that big bad Government is going to want to hang onto lockdown as a way of controlling the population when the government has shown the last bloody thing they want to do is lockdown and indeed Boris could potentially lose his job if he suggests another. I just can't square this attitude of big bad Government wanting to control us and the current situation where they seem to be going against everything science tells them and refuse to lockdown So much misplaced paranoia it's laughable. Is it time for the real patriots to storm Parliament to fight for truth and freedom yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, sidcow said: Where is this from please? Government coronavirus dashboard. Region focus on London. You can download all the data in csv files too for your own analysis too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, bickster said: No, it doesn't. You can't use models of community transmission and apply them to staff in hospitals, the world just doesn't work like that The booster does not prevent you contracting COVID It does help in reduction infection. I think you are looking at the analysis that showed the booster prevents 70-75% symptomatic cases. What can't be calculated for Omicron is how the immune system fights off the virus preventing infection. Edited December 21, 2021 by CVByrne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 21, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, CVByrne said: the massive issue right now with Omicron in relation to the modelling and the two key input parameters aren't known. The rapid growth and sudden stop is a nightmare to model. Also we don't have data around how severe the disease is, so what % of cases result in hospitalisation and what % need ICU and what % die. That data was available and reliable for last winter wave. I'm no expert in medicine. But I am in mathematical modelling (albeit in a different field). When the two most significant parameters in the model are as unknown as they are for Omicron we need to back test the model with real data. We don't have that data right now. Indeed, the fidelity of some of the key parameters is low, so the range of outcomes is wide and the accuracy relatively uncertain and this is reflected in the wider discussions and debates both amongst the scientists and also into the wider political and general public spheres. As we get more real world, UK data, understanding will improve and modelling projections will be more accurate. Rubbish in, rubbish out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 Just now, blandy said: Indeed, the fidelity of some of the key parameters is low, so the range of outcomes is wide and the accuracy relatively uncertain and this is reflected in the wider discussions and debates both amongst the scientists and also into the wider political and general public spheres. As we get more real world, UK data, understanding will improve and modelling projections will be more accurate. Rubbish in, rubbish out. Exactly. So at the moment there is lockdown "just in case" or "wait and see" as the only options available to Governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 21, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2021 1 minute ago, CVByrne said: Exactly. So at the moment there is lockdown "just in case" or "wait and see" as the only options available to Governments. There are more than those 2 options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 21, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2021 1 minute ago, CVByrne said: It does. I think you are looking at the analysis that showed the booster prevents 70-75% symptomatic cases. What can't be calculated for Omicron is how the immune system fights off the virus preventing infection. You've literally written that it does prevent you contracting covid, then immediately quoted at statistic that says it doesn't Someone with non-symptomatic COVID (which the booster does not prevent) is still capable of spreading the virus (at a much reduced rate) If something prevents 70-75% of symptomatic cases that means that it doesn't prevent 25-30% So you are incorrect in saying that it does prevent you contracting Covid, when quite clearly it doesn't. It gives you a better chance of having milder symptoms, thats it. No prevention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 Just now, bickster said: You've literally written that it does prevent you contracting covid, then immediately quoted at statistic that says it doesn't Someone with non-symptomatic COVID (which the booster does not prevent) is still capable of spreading the virus (at a much reduced rate) If something prevents 70-75% of symptomatic cases that means that it doesn't prevent 25-30% So you are incorrect in saying that it does prevent you contracting Covid, when quite clearly it doesn't. It gives you a better chance of having milder symptoms, thats it. No prevention I wonder, is there no further prevention in terms of catching it following a booster? Is there any data on this? It certainly seems like people are catching it following a booster, but is there actual data into how much less likely they are compared to 2 doses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, sidcow said: So much misplaced paranoia it's laughable. There's a difference between a situation being exploited and a situation being manufactured. That said the online idiocy amplifiers controlled by Beijing and Moscow to the East are pumping out Covid disinformation. It worked for the Kochs and Mercers to the West that persuaded many to vote Trump/Brexit. Everyone needs to get savvy to this shit. They're getting us cutting our own throats. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted December 21, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted December 21, 2021 (edited) 28 minutes ago, CVByrne said: Government coronavirus dashboard. Region focus on London. You can download all the data in csv files too for your own analysis too. I can't see those figures there, not to make any sense of with my admittedly poor maths anyway. However this from the Mayor of London site doesn't sound like it's slowing down https://www.london.gov.uk/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid-19-numbers-london Quote On 20 December 2021 the daily number of new people tested positive for COVID-19 in London was reported as 22,750. The total number of COVID-19 cases reported up to 20 December 2021 in London is 1,544,981. In the most recent week of complete data, 09 December 2021 - 15 December 2021, 114,144 people tested positive in London, a rate of 1268 cases per 100,000 population. This compares with 48,725 cases and a rate of 541 for the previous week. For England as a whole there were 736 cases per 100,000 population for the week ending 15 December 2021. On 20 December 2021 there were 1,819 COVID-19 patients in London hospitals. This compares with 1,360 patients on 13 December 2021. On 20 December 2021 there were 206 COVID-19 patients in mechanical ventilation beds in London hospitals. This compares with 203 patients on 13 December 2021. On 20 December 2021 it was announced that 0 people had died in London hospitals following a positive test for COVID-19. The total number of people who have died following a positive test for COVID-19 in London hospitals up to 20 December 2021 is 16,547. If there were 22,750 cases yesterday that's a lot higher than the average for the last complete week which was 114,144 / 7 = 16,306 per day. Now maybe the week started at £8k a day and ended at £30k per day or something, I don't know but yesterdays figure was certainly a lot higher than the weekly average. Maybe see what tomorrow holds. Edited December 21, 2021 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted December 21, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted December 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, Xann said: There's a difference between a situation being exploited and a situation being manufactured. That said the online idiocy amplifiers controlled by Beijing and Moscow to the East are pumping out Covid disinformation. It worked for the Kochs and Mercers to the West that persuaded many to vote Trump/Brexit. Everyone needs to get savvy to this shit. They're getting us cutting our own throats. Well nothing seems to be being either exploited or manufactured. Not even sure what you mean about cutting our own throats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, sidcow said: I can't see those figures there, not to make any sense of with my admittedly poor maths anyway. However this from the Mayor of London site doesn't sound like it's slowing down https://www.london.gov.uk/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid-19-numbers-london If there were 22,750 cases yesterday that's a lot higher than the average for the last complete week which was 114,144 / 7 = 16,306 per day. Now maybe the week started at £8k a day and ended at £30k per day or something, I don't know but yesterdays figure was certainly a lot higher than the weekly average. Maybe see what tomorrow holds. coronavirus.data.gov will give you the data you need. We had 26,300, 27,357, 25,857 cases on 14th, 15th and 16th which appears to be the peak in London. 22,000 cases yesterday is a slight drop from the peak. The key is that it has stopped the massive growth based on the last 7 days data at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 21, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, CVByrne said: coronavirus.data.gov will give you the data you need. We had 26,300, 27,357, 25,857 cases on 14th, 15th and 16th which appears to be the peak in London. 22,000 cases yesterday is a slight drop from the peak. The key is that it has stopped the massive growth based on the last 7 days data at least I presume the data is subject to exactly the same reporting lag as the rest of the country. the case numbers for the last 5 days cannot yet be considered accurate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 24 minutes ago, bickster said: You've literally written that it does prevent you contracting covid, then immediately quoted at statistic that says it doesn't Someone with non-symptomatic COVID (which the booster does not prevent) is still capable of spreading the virus (at a much reduced rate) If something prevents 70-75% of symptomatic cases that means that it doesn't prevent 25-30% So you are incorrect in saying that it does prevent you contracting Covid, when quite clearly it doesn't. It gives you a better chance of having milder symptoms, thats it. No prevention No, I said it helps prevent infection. It also helps those who get infected to have no symptoms. The latter part is what was estimated at 70-75% because they can go look at those who have had booster, have caught covid and then what symptoms did they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 1 minute ago, bickster said: I presume the data is subject to exactly the same reporting lag as the rest of the country. the case numbers for the last 5 days cannot yet be considered accurate They turn the column blue when it is complete data and have it grey when incomplete. There is some variation between the reported cases that day and the official numbers a few days later. The variation is usually small though in % terms under 10-15%. So what we've seen from recent London case data is pointing to an R rate around 1 at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts