Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): The Disease & Its Spread (Per Se)

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
2,720
Points
159
Has any one here who follows the actual hard science reporting any report on what "much more contagious" means? I don't understand from a data point of view. The best I can come up with is that because it is easier for the particular variant of the virus to infect a cell, it takes a smaller viral load to infect a patient, so that the six feet now becomes 12 feet, just as an example. Is there any more specific information out there?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,715
Reaction score
31,000
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Here's one explanation ...

The mutations on the viruses’ spike protein work together to make the virus more infectious, according to recent research by Rafael Najmanovich, PhD, a professor of systems and structural biology at the University of Montreal.

The spike proteins on the virus rotate between “open” and “closed” positions. They can attach to doors on our cells called ACE2 receptors only when they are in their open positions.

Najmanovich’s modeling shows new gene changes allow the spike proteins to stay open about 40% longer than the older versions of the virus, which means that each individual particle of virus is more likely to be able to infect our cells when we come into contact with it.

In theory, that means fewer copies of the virus -- a smaller dose -- is needed to make a person sick, though Najmanovich says this still needs to be proved in an experiment.
SOURCE: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210107/new-covid-super-strains-could-disrupt-life-again
 

Min Bannister

Possessed dog
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
7,233
Points
309
Radio 4s More or Less has lots of lovely facts and statistics.

Here are some that should give "it's just flu" people pause for thought.

Hospital admissions in England for flu over 2017-2018 were 10, 000 over a 28 week period. Recently 10,000 were admitted in 3 days for covid.

Intensive care admissions for 2017-2018 over 28 weeks = 3500

Intensive care admissions for covid recently over 3 weeks = 4000

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p093zrmb

Those stats are from about 3 mins 15s in.

Arguing only about death figures ignores this all completely. :dunno:
 
Last edited:

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,587
Reaction score
9,093
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
It is very unrepresentative though to only select data from one year, and over one period (which 28 weeks were they looking at?) for showing a comparison.
I picked 2015-2016 at random to look at NHS figures for all hospital admissions, and see that for influenza and pneumonia, all admissions to Hospitals in England were 248,916.
Other Acute Upper Respiratory Infections were 155,594.
Other Acute Lower Respiratory Infections were 155,314.
So that's a total of 559,824.
Then there are;
Other diseases of upper respiratory tract 109,289.
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 218,689.

I would expect that if I were to be bothered to go through the years since 2000 the annual figures would be roughly in the same ball-park, some years a bit more, some a bit less (we already know that there have been 3 separate years in which we had particularly bad 'flu seasons').
The figures go from March to March so the data for 2020-2021 is not available yet.
It will be interesting to see what totals the same set of metrics provide.

I have seen plenty of datasets over the past few months which indicate that Influenza and Pneumonia is barely showing its face in data/reports/figures, and the ONS decided back in October that it will not be producing a separate report for C19 and 'flu/pneumonia, instead opting to combine the reporting.

I'm not one of those saying "it's just flu", cos clearly it isn't, but we have to ask the sensible question (the 'elephant in the room' if you will) which is, "Where have all the flu/pneumonia cases gone?".

Is it the case that C19 is getting the people vulnerable to flu/pneumonia first?

I'm hoping to see an analysis of the figures sometime this summer.
 

Min Bannister

Possessed dog
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
7,233
Points
309
It is very unrepresentative though to only select data from one year, and over one period (which 28 weeks were they looking at?) for showing a comparison.
They picked it as it was a recent year with quite high excess winter deaths. They were looking at winter 2017-2018.

Where did you get those numbers from?

So many hospital staff are all saying the same thing. That they have never seen anything like this. They are the ones who know best.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,715
Reaction score
31,000
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Thanks so it does sound lie virus load and fewer viruses can infect.
My (admittedly vague ... ) understanding is that the variants are capable of transacting with the cell for a longer period of 'link-up' (i.e., both the 'open' and 'closed' phases), and this increases the odds of an infecting interaction for however long the virus remains 'docked'.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
2,720
Points
159
It is very unrepresentative though to only select data from one year, and over one period (which 28 weeks were they looking at?) for showing a comparison.
I picked 2015-2016 at random to look at NHS figures for all hospital admissions, and see that for influenza and pneumonia, all admissions to Hospitals in England were 248,916.
Other Acute Upper Respiratory Infections were 155,594.
Other Acute Lower Respiratory Infections were 155,314.
So that's a total of 559,824.
Then there are;
Other diseases of upper respiratory tract 109,289.
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 218,689.

I would expect that if I were to be bothered to go through the years since 2000 the annual figures would be roughly in the same ball-park, some years a bit more, some a bit less (we already know that there have been 3 separate years in which we had particularly bad 'flu seasons').
The figures go from March to March so the data for 2020-2021 is not available yet.
It will be interesting to see what totals the same set of metrics provide.

I have seen plenty of datasets over the past few months which indicate that Influenza and Pneumonia is barely showing its face in data/reports/figures, and the ONS decided back in October that it will not be producing a separate report for C19 and 'flu/pneumonia, instead opting to combine the reporting.

I'm not one of those saying "it's just flu", cos clearly it isn't, but we have to ask the sensible question (the 'elephant in the room' if you will) which is, "Where have all the flu/pneumonia cases gone?".

Is it the case that C19 is getting the people vulnerable to flu/pneumonia first?

I'm hoping to see an analysis of the figures sometime this summer.
This is very complex data that interacts. In the US it appears that a much larger proportion of adults took the flu shot for the 2020-2021 winter (which is of course not yet over) and the flu that is out there is a milder form than the prior year. Pneumonia is a description of a physical state of the lungs, and since the vaccines began being taken widely is I'm guessing more a secondary infection here. And then there's the damage to lungs with covid being described by physicians as pneumonia. Regardless, in year over year comparisons, the first criterion should be comparing the same beginning and ending span.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,587
Reaction score
9,093
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Where did you get those numbers from?
The NHS website has links to all of their data sets for all sorts of things.
This is the one I chose.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-inf...spital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2015-16

If you look at the 3rd set of resources titled "Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2015-16: Diagnosis" it opens a file of the excel spreadsheet containing all the data.

(I tend to prefer to look at the actual official data rather than the info provided by a radio station TBH)
 

Min Bannister

Possessed dog
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
7,233
Points
309
The NHS website has links to all of their data sets for all sorts of things.
This is the one I chose.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-inf...spital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2015-16

If you look at the 3rd set of resources titled "Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2015-16: Diagnosis" it opens a file of the excel spreadsheet containing all the data.

(I tend to prefer to look at the actual official data rather than the info provided by a radio station TBH)
That actual official data showed that total flu admissions for those 12 months were 18, 292 BTW.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
5,684
Reaction score
9,833
Points
284
Location
Wessex and Mercia
My wife just had a phone call from a friend, whose daughter is a frontline healthcare worker with the elderly.
She received her Pfizer Covid vaccination last week and had a moderately nasty reaction to it. Severe headaches, fever and chills obliged her to take 3 days off work.
Thankfully, she's over it now and, hopefully, will have a degree of immunity. She had heard that younger people (she's mid 30s) are more likely to react badly to the vaccine.
 

Ogdred Weary

Very Naughty Boy
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
5,414
Reaction score
9,947
Points
284
I'm not one of those saying "it's just flu", cos clearly it isn't, but we have to ask the sensible question (the 'elephant in the room' if you will) which is, "Where have all the flu/pneumonia cases gone?".

Is it the case that C19 is getting the people vulnerable to flu/pneumonia first?

I'm hoping to see an analysis of the figures sometime this summer.
Perhaps it is something like that, I think I recall reading that flu had decreased last year mostly down to people not mixing. I haven't had a cold or something similar for almost two years, which is unprecedented. Obviously approximately half that time was pre-lockdown, a couple of friends have made similar comments about not being ill at all during 2020.
 

Schrodinger's Zebra

I tried to warn you...
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
3,164
Reaction score
6,659
Points
204
With regards to the lack of flu numbers, there was something about that in a video I posted a few days ago - https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...-disease-its-spread-per-se.66968/post-2024760 (which I guess no one noticed ;))

Basically it proposes (skip to about 25min 40s if you don't want to watch the whole thing) that covid-19 has effectively eradicated the flu this year because it's a more dominant virus. Interesting possibility.

Personally I find it hard to believe that "social distancing" and wearing masks are the reason for lack of flu/colds, while at the same time covid-19 is still running rife. There's also the problem of the PCR test not being wholly accurate of course, and the symptoms of flu/colds/covid-19 all being very similar. Make of that what you will. :)
 

Ghost In The Machine

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
4,766
Points
159
Location
Yorkshire
It is very unrepresentative though to only select data from one year, and over one period (which 28 weeks were they looking at?) for showing a comparison.
I picked 2015-2016 at random to look at NHS figures for all hospital admissions, and see that for influenza and pneumonia, all admissions to Hospitals in England were 248,916.
Other Acute Upper Respiratory Infections were 155,594.
Other Acute Lower Respiratory Infections were 155,314.
So that's a total of 559,824.
Then there are;
Other diseases of upper respiratory tract 109,289.
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 218,689.

I would expect that if I were to be bothered to go through the years since 2000 the annual figures would be roughly in the same ball-park, some years a bit more, some a bit less (we already know that there have been 3 separate years in which we had particularly bad 'flu seasons').
The figures go from March to March so the data for 2020-2021 is not available yet.
It will be interesting to see what totals the same set of metrics provide.

I have seen plenty of datasets over the past few months which indicate that Influenza and Pneumonia is barely showing its face in data/reports/figures, and the ONS decided back in October that it will not be producing a separate report for C19 and 'flu/pneumonia, instead opting to combine the reporting.

I'm not one of those saying "it's just flu", cos clearly it isn't, but we have to ask the sensible question (the 'elephant in the room' if you will) which is, "Where have all the flu/pneumonia cases gone?".

Is it the case that C19 is getting the people vulnerable to flu/pneumonia first?

I'm hoping to see an analysis of the figures sometime this summer.
I guess the flu infections are massively down because most people are having to wear masks in supermarkets - and that kind of place was probably where we were all picking up flu, in the past. I said a few months ago to husband that I'd bet anything there'd be hardly any flu this year...

Less people around also lots of hand-washing...

Current lockdown will have a big impact on that, as well. Also are uptake of flu vaccine? My Gp's were rationing it, it was so popular this year and I have a friend about same age as me (50s) who went for one last week and said at her dr's they were queuing round the carpark for it. My husband was told he couldn't have it, even though the NHS ads said it was for everyone over 50 (he's in his early 60s). I got it because of long covid which has done scary things to the lungs but he didn't get it til a few weeks after me. He normally has no problem at all getting it. Our GPs said they were only giving the flu vaccine to people over 65, despite what government were claiming that anybody over 50 could have it... Because they'd run out.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,587
Reaction score
9,093
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Well, Influenza virus particles are approx 80-120nm in size, which is smaller than SARS-CoV-2 particles at 150-200nm, and the filtration capacity of the best tested mask is rated down to 300nm (so anything smaller will pass straight through it), so 'mask wearing' of any sort (unless laboratory standard hermetically sealed and positively ventilated) will do nothing to stop the passage of a virus particle, other than those contained within a larger droplet, and that's assuming the mask being used does not have any gaps around the sides.
(This has been covered at length, from all sides, elsewhere previously)

The fact that people are being generally more conscious of personal hygiene is a much more likely candidate, but that would have an equal effect on both SARS-CoV-2 and 'flu particles.

'The jury is out' really, until more detailed statistical analysis can be done over the coming months.
 

charliebrown

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
541
Reaction score
669
Points
93
Location
Earth
The American Center for Disease Control announced two disturbing items.

The world has hit the 2 million mark for people who have died from COVID.

The CDC is extremely worried that the British strain will take over and run throughout America, in fact giving March 2021 as the time line for infection.

So far, almost 400,000 Americans have died.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
2,720
Points
159
Well, Influenza virus particles are approx 80-120nm in size, which is smaller than SARS-CoV-2 particles at 150-200nm, and the filtration capacity of the best tested mask is rated down to 300nm (so anything smaller will pass straight through it), so 'mask wearing' of any sort (unless laboratory standard hermetically sealed and positively ventilated) will do nothing to stop the passage of a virus particle, other than those contained within a larger droplet, and that's assuming the mask being used does not have any gaps around the sides.Well not exactly/
(This has been covered at length, from all sides, elsewhere previously)

The fact that people are being generally more conscious of personal hygiene is a much more likely candidate, but that would have an equal effect on both SARS-CoV-2 and 'flu particles.

'The jury is out' really, until more detailed statistical analysis can be done over the coming months.
Well, no. Infection rates in the US appear to vary inversely to mask-wearing. This is subjective ("mask-wearing") but when mask mandates in shops and assemblies are installed, infections go down. When people ignore them and stand around getting drunk without masks in groups, infections go up. Many of the viruses are in fact enclosed in droplets that are stopped. They don't travel on their own. And none of this stuff (drops, droplets, aerosol really tiny droplets) are thinking and dodging. They go straight or with the air current. If you can catch the ones you are sending straight out and/or are coming straight at you then at least you've stopped those. We as a species are having trouble dealing with an effect that is not governed by an on/off switch. Masks help, they don't cure. A big part of the project is pushing down on probability. I think, again in the US where there is no shortage, that lower flu is also due to much higher proportion of inoculation this year, as well as distancing (not to mention isolation) and also the hand-washing.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,587
Reaction score
9,093
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
For the week ending Friday January 15th 2021, here is a review of the daily reported NHS England figures on SARS-Cov-2 (Covid 19) 'new' deaths.
All statistics taken from NHS England official reporting available online here, (along with a number of other statistical reports on various NHS activities);
Also now including an update on recent 'new cases' figures from the governments own 'coronavirus dashboard'.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.58498792.313126479.1601306538-867402.1589210068

(Numbers of 'new' deaths in the regions other than England are recorded separately so are NOT represented here, nor are deaths in 'other settings' such as Care Homes.
Figures released by the ONS at a later date will include these additional statistics - it has been accountable for roughly an additional 30% - 40% on top of the NHS England numbers)
(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March 2020 when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the previous 24 hours)

DATA COLLECTION BY NHS ENGLAND ON DEATHS - CLARIFICATIONS.
Clarification #1
"The total announced file is updated daily and contains information on the deaths of patients
who have died in hospitals in England and either tested positive for COVID-19,
or where no positive test result was received for COVID-19, but COVID-19 was mentioned on their death certificate"
So the data includes deaths as.... 'with C19'.... even if no positive test has been done!
Clarification #2
It was officially confirmed months ago that NHS England figures had been over-reported due to the fact that a significant number of people were being recorded as dying from SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19),
when in fact they had died of some other unrelated ailment, but their death happened some time after they had tested positive but recovered.
This explains why we had seen deaths from weeks and weeks beforehand appearing in the figures released daily.
It was reported that an adjustment was made to the figures to account for the mis-recorded deaths,
(adjusted down by 5340 using a 28 day cut-off period, which brought the existing total down to around 37,000 deaths at the time - the government were advised to use a 21 day cut-off but decided on 28 days)
We are, however, still seeing deaths included in the daily reports which come from longer than 28 days ago.
Clarification #3
It has been reported that a significant number of cases of infection, and deaths attributed to Covid-19, particularly in the earlier (peak) stages of the pandemic in the UK, were 'double-reported'.
This occurred in cases in which someone had received a positive test whilst 'in the community', and then went to hospital where they again received a positive test.
Not only was their test double-counted, if they also died then their death was double counted.
It was apparently thought to be correct procedure at the time.
I have not seen yet whether there is a plan to make an adjustment for these double-counts.

So even the NHS reporting is not as accurate as it could/should be.
(the historical numbers I show on this update have not been adjusted - assume that reported deaths on dates up to the August 15th are approximately 10% less)

CASES/TESTING INFORMATION;

A documentary on TV in November exposed the failings in the current testing labs whereby cross contamination of samples was common.
(Which was further confirmed as many staff at the Lighthouse Lab in Milton Keynes were having to self-isolate during December due to infection, including 20 of the 70 testing staff)
These cross contaminations lead to more false positive results than would otherwise be the case for those test methods, so this is inflating the count.
It has been confirmed that a significant proportion of the testing being carried out is 'repeat testing' of individuals, either that have previously tested positive (done to see how long it lasts), or those working in
care situations (to establish infection free status), so this is inflating the count.
Testing continues to increase week-on-week, and unfortunately MORE TESTS = MORE CASES, with the following results;
Yesterdays 'new cases' number, 55,761
(Last weeks update gave the previous day figure as 68,053)
The 55,761 came by way of 695,148 tests being carried out.
Which equates to 8% of tests giving a positive result, so a decrease in real terms over previous weeks (last week was 10.9%), and in fact a big drop compared to the 3 weeks immediately before Christmas when the percentage was nearing 15%!
As has been addressed elsewhere though, the current 'PCR' testing is also producing many 'false positives'.
"The Lancet" shows research establishing a False Positive Rate (FPR) of around 4%, so if 4% of 700,000 are false positives then that is 28,000.
A significant proportion of the reported 'new cases' then (around half currently).
Bear this in mind when looking at the figure of reported 'new cases' (as above).

'Tiered' restrictions came into force on Monday Sept 14th, followed by a new 'Lockdown 2' from November 5th, and then returning to stricter 'tiered' areas.
These restrictions all came about due to advice from SAGE group, however, the advice has been proven to be based on out-of-date data, has been 'worst case scenario', and has not been reacted to with any reference to the economic and other health effects being created.
Whitty and Vallance went on TV on Monday 21/9 (no questions allowed afterwards).
At that time they suggested cases would be doubling weekly, leading to 50,000 cases daily by the middle of October (leading to 4,000 deaths per day!)
On that day the reported number of 'new cases' was 3899 (but since then recalculated to show just over 4000), so using their estimation we should be seeing nearly 512 million daily cases in the UK by now!!!!!!!
Which was clearly just preposterous.
That would basically mean the whole of the UK would have been infected 8 times over by now.
As a result of the continued pressure from SAGE and other advisers, Boris Johnson announced on Saturday 31/10 that we would be subjected to a 2nd 'lockdown' period, lasting 4 weeks, from November 5th to December 2nd, even though, as we can see from the official figures, numbers of deaths and cases peaked, levelled off, and began to drop, before the 31/10 in some areas.
During the accompanying televised briefing, charts and data were presented which WITHIN HOURS were shown to be data which was 3 weeks old, and incorrect, and misleading, forcing clarifications and corrections to be made the following day, and Whitty and Vallance being called to present information to the 'select committee' on Tuesday Nov 3rd.
However this did not prevent the government vote which was held on Wednesday Nov 4th from going against the lockdown, which went ahead the following day.
A further vote happened in the House of Commons, on December 2nd, in relation to the introduction of a new set of 'tiered' restrictions to be brought in the following day.
It was reported that up to 100 (ish) MPs would vote against, including tory backbenchers which have formed the Covid Recovery Group (CRG) after demanding a cost/benefit analysis to be produced beforehand.
Ultimately only 50+ voted against (not enough to stop the new restrictions from coming into force), but there were debates held in the House of Commons beforehand with many strong arguments against.
Sir Kier Starmer instructed Labour MPs to abstain.
This was reviewed on December 16th with more areas moved into stricter restrictions.
A 'Tier 4' was created and introduced during the Christmas Week for many areas, with no apparent end in sight.
England was put into another 'Lockdown' period on Jan 6th which has been 'pencilled in' to last until March 31st (although the government advise that some restrictions are likely to be lifted earlier than that).
However, this Lockdown was brought in before parliament was given the opportunity to scrutinise, debate, or vote on it. Ultimately only a handful of MPs voted against it.

It has now also come to light that, yet again, the previously disgraced Professor Neil Ferguson has been advising the government with speculative 'models' which are exaggerated.

My concern is that the numbers of new deaths are now including seasonal flu as C19.
It came to my attention that the ONS included information in a report in early October that it would no longer be producing separate reports for C19 and Influenza.
There was no further information to indicate whether or not this meant that the C19 deaths and 'Flu deaths would be combined into one figure, or if the separate reports would be merged into one report but keeping the totals separate?
If the figures for C19 and 'Flu are going to be combined into one total then that renders all future comparisons void as we will no longer be 'comparing apples with apples'.
My concern now is that this might have already been introduced and is therefore artificially inflating the statistics as we are NOT seeing hardly any seasonal 'flu deaths now, when typically at this time of year they increase rapidly!
(The NHS produces an annual report that covers the preceding March - March period, giving details of all sorts of data sets. One of these data sets is Hospital Admissions and Diagnosis. It will be interesting to see that report analysed later this year.)

Additionally, the ambition to vaccinate 22 million people by Easter was stated (which was amended later to say 13.5m by 'mid-February', but we'll stick with 22m by Easter).
That being the case, and with the number already vaccinated as of Thursday 14th Jan being stated as 3.2 million, the following would need to happen;
22m - 3.2m = 18.8m left to vaccinate.
Days left until Easter Sunday = 78.
18.8m divided by 78 = 241,025 (and a bit).
So over 240,000 people will need to be vaccinated every day to achieve that number.
And each day that quantity is NOT achieved, the number needed during each following day increases.
In my opinion that is totally unachieveable.


THIS WEEKS FIGURES, NOTABLE STATISTICS AND RELATED INFORMATION/REMARKS;
5072
reported 'new' deaths this past week.
Last weeks update total was 3777, so this week is an increase of 1295 on the previous weekly total, which is a 34.3% increase (a smaller % increase than last weeks, which was 50%).
Also, bear in mind, that there is still an effect from 'reporting lag' from over the Christmas and New Year period.

There were no days during this past week in which the report released for that day recorded ZERO deaths during the previous 24 hour period.
(During the time before this winter increase there had been 22 separate days in which, during the preceding 24 or 48 hours, there had been zero deaths reported)

The most reported 'new' deaths in one day, from one site, during this past week was 50.
This was achieved by MAIDSTONE AND TUNBRIDGE WELLS NHS TRUST in the data released on January 15th.

The oldest reported 'new' death during this past week is from May 8th 2020 (over 8 months ago! - well beyond the '28 days' cut off period, and yet being reported as a 'new death'!)
This was reported by "The London Clinic - 20 Devonshire Place" (a private establishment?) in the data released on January 13th

The last day previously which recorded more than 50 total deaths was June 24th, for which the total stands at 54.
The highest daily total of 'new deaths' recently is now 672 on Monday January 11th
The day with the lowest total of deaths since April is Saturday August 29th, for which the total is 2.

Thursday this past week reporting 108 'new' deaths for the whole of England, however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.
Totals of deaths by age group for this past weeks released data;
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 38
40-59 = 340
60-78 = 1888
80+ = 2806
(92.55% of the total number of 'new' deaths are now 'over 60', a slight decrease on last weeks %, which was 92.96%)
(55.3% of the total were over 80, a slight decrease on last weeks which was 57.3%)
NOTE: Now that the vaccination programme has been underway since December 7th, and the groups being prioritised have been the 80+ and carers, we should see a noticeable, and significant, drop in the numbers of deaths in the 80+ age group - at time of writing this note (Jan 9th) the percentage of 80+ deaths stands at 57.3%. If we DO NOT see a drop in that percentage, then it can only mean that the vaccines are not effective.

Below are the running totals for 'existing' + 'new' = new total - where no new figures have been reported for a day then no calculation has been entered.
(This weekly update shows the additions from all the reports published during this preceding week, in which the deaths fall within the period since
Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released)

Sorry that this is now quite a long list of dates and numbers - please scroll to the bottom for the most recent statistics.
(As the data prior to the lowest recorded figures during early August rarely changes now, I have removed that from this weekly report.
The 'highest' figure during the early weeks of the pandemic was on April 4th, with 1,111.)

S 5 (August 1st)
S 14
M 11
T 8
W 5
T 7
F 6
S 7 (August 8th)
S 6
M 8
T 11
W 4
T 4
F 5
S 11 (August 15th)
S 3
M 10
T 8
W 3
T 3
F 6
S 5 (August 22nd)
S 10
M 5
T 10
W 10
T 7
F 5
S 2 (August 29th)
S 4
M 7
T 3
W 9
T 4
F 6
S 8 (Sept 5th)
S 7
M 9
T 11
W 7
T 9
F 7
S 8 (Sept 12th)
S 14
M 11
T 12
W 16
T 20
F 19
S 11 (Sept 19th)
S 24
M 16
T 25
W 38
T 24
F 22
S 30 (Sept 26th)
S 34
M 39
T 35
W 41
T 43
F 48
S 38 (Oct 3rd)
S 38
M 40
T 50
W 58
T 57
F 50
S 61 (Oct 10th)
S 76
M 72
T 71
W 81
T 91
F 91
S 130 (Oct 17th)
S 91
M 116
T 131
W 198
T 145
F 144
S 133 (Oct 24th)
S 164
M 170
T 168
W 178
T 209
F 206
S 215 (Oct 31st)
S 222
M 222
T 208
W 235
T 217
F 232
S 272 (Nov 7th)
S 255
M 311
T 267
W 237
T 272
F 262
S 291 (Nov 14th)
S 295+1=296
M 270
T 293
W 325+1=326
T 294
F 301
S 266 (Nov 21st)
S 319
M 295+1+1=297
T 311
W 323+1+1=325
T 283+1+1=285
F 285
S 308+3+1=312 (Nov 28th)
S 312+1=313
M 264+1+1+1=267
T 268+1+1+1=271
W 265+1+1=267
T 298+1=299
F 287+1+1+1=290
S 252+3+1+2=258 (Dec 5th)
S 267+6+2=275
M 249+1=250
T 286+1+1+1+1=290
W 267+1+1=269
T 289+2+2+2=295
F 283+1+1+2=287
S 291+2+1+1+1=296 (Dec 12th)
S 279+1+2+1=283
M 295+1+2+1=299
T 303+1+2+5+2=313
W 264+2+1+1+1=269
T 322+2+3+1+1+1=330
F 310+4+3+2+1+2=322
S 287+4+6+1+4+2=304 (Dec 19th)
S 315+7+2+1+1+2+1=329
M 352+2+5+7+2=368
T 341+1+2+1+8+4+1=358
W 344+2+14+4+1=365
T 337+1+1+2+10+3+3=357
F 397+1+1+6+2+1=408
S 414+2+4+1+3+5=429 (Dec 26th - Boxing Day)
S 433+2+1+8+6+3=453
M 411+3+2+3+4+2=425
T 419+2+1+2+1+6+4=435
W 437+1+1+4+9=452
T 453+9+7+10+9+4=492
F 440+6+10+1+3+8+8=476
S 431+14+13+2+2+1+3+13=479 (Jan 2nd)
S 417+13+10+1+2+2+2+4=451
M 491+15+21+1+4+5+1+11=549
T 493+43+11+4+4+13+3+12=583
W 391+105+40+18+5+27+4+5=595
T 89+291+117+24+35+24+19+11=610
F 89+208+113+87+70+34+14=615
S 39+255+156+94+57+16=617 (Jan 9th)
S 54+319+171+68+23=635
M 103+362+160+47=672
T 126+368+138=632
W 98+361=459
T 108
 

Schrodinger's Zebra

I tried to warn you...
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
3,164
Reaction score
6,659
Points
204
For the week ending Friday January 15th 2021, here is a review of the daily reported NHS England figures on SARS-Cov-2 (Covid 19) 'new' deaths.
All statistics taken from NHS England official reporting available online here, (along with a number of other statistical reports on various NHS activities);
Also now including an update on recent 'new cases' figures from the governments own 'coronavirus dashboard'.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.58498792.313126479.1601306538-867402.1589210068

(Numbers of 'new' deaths in the regions other than England are recorded separately so are NOT represented here, nor are deaths in 'other settings' such as Care Homes.
Figures released by the ONS at a later date will include these additional statistics - it has been accountable for roughly an additional 30% - 40% on top of the NHS England numbers)
(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March 2020 when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the previous 24 hours)

DATA COLLECTION BY NHS ENGLAND ON DEATHS - CLARIFICATIONS.
Clarification #1
"The total announced file is updated daily and contains information on the deaths of patients
who have died in hospitals in England and either tested positive for COVID-19,
or where no positive test result was received for COVID-19, but COVID-19 was mentioned on their death certificate"
So the data includes deaths as.... 'with C19'.... even if no positive test has been done!
Clarification #2
It was officially confirmed months ago that NHS England figures had been over-reported due to the fact that a significant number of people were being recorded as dying from SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19),
when in fact they had died of some other unrelated ailment, but their death happened some time after they had tested positive but recovered.
This explains why we had seen deaths from weeks and weeks beforehand appearing in the figures released daily.
It was reported that an adjustment was made to the figures to account for the mis-recorded deaths,
(adjusted down by 5340 using a 28 day cut-off period, which brought the existing total down to around 37,000 deaths at the time - the government were advised to use a 21 day cut-off but decided on 28 days)
We are, however, still seeing deaths included in the daily reports which come from longer than 28 days ago.
Clarification #3
It has been reported that a significant number of cases of infection, and deaths attributed to Covid-19, particularly in the earlier (peak) stages of the pandemic in the UK, were 'double-reported'.
This occurred in cases in which someone had received a positive test whilst 'in the community', and then went to hospital where they again received a positive test.
Not only was their test double-counted, if they also died then their death was double counted.
It was apparently thought to be correct procedure at the time.
I have not seen yet whether there is a plan to make an adjustment for these double-counts.

So even the NHS reporting is not as accurate as it could/should be.
(the historical numbers I show on this update have not been adjusted - assume that reported deaths on dates up to the August 15th are approximately 10% less)

CASES/TESTING INFORMATION;

A documentary on TV in November exposed the failings in the current testing labs whereby cross contamination of samples was common.
(Which was further confirmed as many staff at the Lighthouse Lab in Milton Keynes were having to self-isolate during December due to infection, including 20 of the 70 testing staff)
These cross contaminations lead to more false positive results than would otherwise be the case for those test methods, so this is inflating the count.
It has been confirmed that a significant proportion of the testing being carried out is 'repeat testing' of individuals, either that have previously tested positive (done to see how long it lasts), or those working in
care situations (to establish infection free status), so this is inflating the count.
Testing continues to increase week-on-week, and unfortunately MORE TESTS = MORE CASES, with the following results;
Yesterdays 'new cases' number, 55,761
(Last weeks update gave the previous day figure as 68,053)
The 55,761 came by way of 695,148 tests being carried out.
Which equates to 8% of tests giving a positive result, so a decrease in real terms over previous weeks (last week was 10.9%), and in fact a big drop compared to the 3 weeks immediately before Christmas when the percentage was nearing 15%!
As has been addressed elsewhere though, the current 'PCR' testing is also producing many 'false positives'.
"The Lancet" shows research establishing a False Positive Rate (FPR) of around 4%, so if 4% of 700,000 are false positives then that is 28,000.
A significant proportion of the reported 'new cases' then (around half currently).
Bear this in mind when looking at the figure of reported 'new cases' (as above).

'Tiered' restrictions came into force on Monday Sept 14th, followed by a new 'Lockdown 2' from November 5th, and then returning to stricter 'tiered' areas.
These restrictions all came about due to advice from SAGE group, however, the advice has been proven to be based on out-of-date data, has been 'worst case scenario', and has not been reacted to with any reference to the economic and other health effects being created.
Whitty and Vallance went on TV on Monday 21/9 (no questions allowed afterwards).
At that time they suggested cases would be doubling weekly, leading to 50,000 cases daily by the middle of October (leading to 4,000 deaths per day!)
On that day the reported number of 'new cases' was 3899 (but since then recalculated to show just over 4000), so using their estimation we should be seeing nearly 512 million daily cases in the UK by now!!!!!!!
Which was clearly just preposterous.
That would basically mean the whole of the UK would have been infected 8 times over by now.
As a result of the continued pressure from SAGE and other advisers, Boris Johnson announced on Saturday 31/10 that we would be subjected to a 2nd 'lockdown' period, lasting 4 weeks, from November 5th to December 2nd, even though, as we can see from the official figures, numbers of deaths and cases peaked, levelled off, and began to drop, before the 31/10 in some areas.
During the accompanying televised briefing, charts and data were presented which WITHIN HOURS were shown to be data which was 3 weeks old, and incorrect, and misleading, forcing clarifications and corrections to be made the following day, and Whitty and Vallance being called to present information to the 'select committee' on Tuesday Nov 3rd.
However this did not prevent the government vote which was held on Wednesday Nov 4th from going against the lockdown, which went ahead the following day.
A further vote happened in the House of Commons, on December 2nd, in relation to the introduction of a new set of 'tiered' restrictions to be brought in the following day.
It was reported that up to 100 (ish) MPs would vote against, including tory backbenchers which have formed the Covid Recovery Group (CRG) after demanding a cost/benefit analysis to be produced beforehand.
Ultimately only 50+ voted against (not enough to stop the new restrictions from coming into force), but there were debates held in the House of Commons beforehand with many strong arguments against.
Sir Kier Starmer instructed Labour MPs to abstain.
This was reviewed on December 16th with more areas moved into stricter restrictions.
A 'Tier 4' was created and introduced during the Christmas Week for many areas, with no apparent end in sight.
England was put into another 'Lockdown' period on Jan 6th which has been 'pencilled in' to last until March 31st (although the government advise that some restrictions are likely to be lifted earlier than that).
However, this Lockdown was brought in before parliament was given the opportunity to scrutinise, debate, or vote on it. Ultimately only a handful of MPs voted against it.

It has now also come to light that, yet again, the previously disgraced Professor Neil Ferguson has been advising the government with speculative 'models' which are exaggerated.

My concern is that the numbers of new deaths are now including seasonal flu as C19.
It came to my attention that the ONS included information in a report in early October that it would no longer be producing separate reports for C19 and Influenza.
There was no further information to indicate whether or not this meant that the C19 deaths and 'Flu deaths would be combined into one figure, or if the separate reports would be merged into one report but keeping the totals separate?
If the figures for C19 and 'Flu are going to be combined into one total then that renders all future comparisons void as we will no longer be 'comparing apples with apples'.
My concern now is that this might have already been introduced and is therefore artificially inflating the statistics as we are NOT seeing hardly any seasonal 'flu deaths now, when typically at this time of year they increase rapidly!
(The NHS produces an annual report that covers the preceding March - March period, giving details of all sorts of data sets. One of these data sets is Hospital Admissions and Diagnosis. It will be interesting to see that report analysed later this year.)

Additionally, the ambition to vaccinate 22 million people by Easter was stated (which was amended later to say 13.5m by 'mid-February', but we'll stick with 22m by Easter).
That being the case, and with the number already vaccinated as of Thursday 14th Jan being stated as 3.2 million, the following would need to happen;
22m - 3.2m = 18.8m left to vaccinate.
Days left until Easter Sunday = 78.
18.8m divided by 78 = 241,025 (and a bit).
So over 240,000 people will need to be vaccinated every day to achieve that number.
And each day that quantity is NOT achieved, the number needed during each following day increases.
In my opinion that is totally unachieveable.


THIS WEEKS FIGURES, NOTABLE STATISTICS AND RELATED INFORMATION/REMARKS;
5072
reported 'new' deaths this past week.
Last weeks update total was 3777, so this week is an increase of 1295 on the previous weekly total, which is a 34.3% increase (a smaller % increase than last weeks, which was 50%).
Also, bear in mind, that there is still an effect from 'reporting lag' from over the Christmas and New Year period.

There were no days during this past week in which the report released for that day recorded ZERO deaths during the previous 24 hour period.
(During the time before this winter increase there had been 22 separate days in which, during the preceding 24 or 48 hours, there had been zero deaths reported)

The most reported 'new' deaths in one day, from one site, during this past week was 50.
This was achieved by MAIDSTONE AND TUNBRIDGE WELLS NHS TRUST in the data released on January 15th.

The oldest reported 'new' death during this past week is from May 8th 2020 (over 8 months ago! - well beyond the '28 days' cut off period, and yet being reported as a 'new death'!)
This was reported by "The London Clinic - 20 Devonshire Place" (a private establishment?) in the data released on January 13th

The last day previously which recorded more than 50 total deaths was June 24th, for which the total stands at 54.
The highest daily total of 'new deaths' recently is now 672 on Monday January 11th
The day with the lowest total of deaths since April is Saturday August 29th, for which the total is 2.

Thursday this past week reporting 108 'new' deaths for the whole of England, however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.
Totals of deaths by age group for this past weeks released data;
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 38
40-59 = 340
60-78 = 1888
80+ = 2806
(92.55% of the total number of 'new' deaths are now 'over 60', a slight decrease on last weeks %, which was 92.96%)
(55.3% of the total were over 80, a slight decrease on last weeks which was 57.3%)
NOTE: Now that the vaccination programme has been underway since December 7th, and the groups being prioritised have been the 80+ and carers, we should see a noticeable, and significant, drop in the numbers of deaths in the 80+ age group - at time of writing this note (Jan 9th) the percentage of 80+ deaths stands at 57.3%. If we DO NOT see a drop in that percentage, then it can only mean that the vaccines are not effective.

Below are the running totals for 'existing' + 'new' = new total - where no new figures have been reported for a day then no calculation has been entered.
(This weekly update shows the additions from all the reports published during this preceding week, in which the deaths fall within the period since
Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released)

Sorry that this is now quite a long list of dates and numbers - please scroll to the bottom for the most recent statistics.
(As the data prior to the lowest recorded figures during early August rarely changes now, I have removed that from this weekly report.
The 'highest' figure during the early weeks of the pandemic was on April 4th, with 1,111.)

S 5 (August 1st)
S 14
M 11
T 8
W 5
T 7
F 6
S 7 (August 8th)
S 6
M 8
T 11
W 4
T 4
F 5
S 11 (August 15th)
S 3
M 10
T 8
W 3
T 3
F 6
S 5 (August 22nd)
S 10
M 5
T 10
W 10
T 7
F 5
S 2 (August 29th)
S 4
M 7
T 3
W 9
T 4
F 6
S 8 (Sept 5th)
S 7
M 9
T 11
W 7
T 9
F 7
S 8 (Sept 12th)
S 14
M 11
T 12
W 16
T 20
F 19
S 11 (Sept 19th)
S 24
M 16
T 25
W 38
T 24
F 22
S 30 (Sept 26th)
S 34
M 39
T 35
W 41
T 43
F 48
S 38 (Oct 3rd)
S 38
M 40
T 50
W 58
T 57
F 50
S 61 (Oct 10th)
S 76
M 72
T 71
W 81
T 91
F 91
S 130 (Oct 17th)
S 91
M 116
T 131
W 198
T 145
F 144
S 133 (Oct 24th)
S 164
M 170
T 168
W 178
T 209
F 206
S 215 (Oct 31st)
S 222
M 222
T 208
W 235
T 217
F 232
S 272 (Nov 7th)
S 255
M 311
T 267
W 237
T 272
F 262
S 291 (Nov 14th)
S 295+1=296
M 270
T 293
W 325+1=326
T 294
F 301
S 266 (Nov 21st)
S 319
M 295+1+1=297
T 311
W 323+1+1=325
T 283+1+1=285
F 285
S 308+3+1=312 (Nov 28th)
S 312+1=313
M 264+1+1+1=267
T 268+1+1+1=271
W 265+1+1=267
T 298+1=299
F 287+1+1+1=290
S 252+3+1+2=258 (Dec 5th)
S 267+6+2=275
M 249+1=250
T 286+1+1+1+1=290
W 267+1+1=269
T 289+2+2+2=295
F 283+1+1+2=287
S 291+2+1+1+1=296 (Dec 12th)
S 279+1+2+1=283
M 295+1+2+1=299
T 303+1+2+5+2=313
W 264+2+1+1+1=269
T 322+2+3+1+1+1=330
F 310+4+3+2+1+2=322
S 287+4+6+1+4+2=304 (Dec 19th)
S 315+7+2+1+1+2+1=329
M 352+2+5+7+2=368
T 341+1+2+1+8+4+1=358
W 344+2+14+4+1=365
T 337+1+1+2+10+3+3=357
F 397+1+1+6+2+1=408
S 414+2+4+1+3+5=429 (Dec 26th - Boxing Day)
S 433+2+1+8+6+3=453
M 411+3+2+3+4+2=425
T 419+2+1+2+1+6+4=435
W 437+1+1+4+9=452
T 453+9+7+10+9+4=492
F 440+6+10+1+3+8+8=476
S 431+14+13+2+2+1+3+13=479 (Jan 2nd)
S 417+13+10+1+2+2+2+4=451
M 491+15+21+1+4+5+1+11=549
T 493+43+11+4+4+13+3+12=583
W 391+105+40+18+5+27+4+5=595
T 89+291+117+24+35+24+19+11=610
F 89+208+113+87+70+34+14=615
S 39+255+156+94+57+16=617 (Jan 9th)
S 54+319+171+68+23=635
M 103+362+160+47=672
T 126+368+138=632
W 98+361=459
T 108
Thanks very much for all the effort you put into providing these updates.

I've long ago given up being shocked at the tactics and misinformation being used by the government/advisors when reporting these figures, and as for Neil Ferguson still being part of this... it beggars belief.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
2,720
Points
159

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,715
Reaction score
31,000
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds

charliebrown

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
541
Reaction score
669
Points
93
Location
Earth
American states are in disbelief as horror sets in that the U.S. government has run of vaccine to ship to states.

The reserve has been used and there is nothing left.

The British strain has in “hyper speed” spread to 19 states in a few days.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,587
Reaction score
11,523
Points
294
Thanks very much for all the effort you put into providing these updates.

I've long ago given up being shocked at the tactics and misinformation being used by the government/advisors when reporting these figures, and as for Neil Ferguson still being part of this... it beggars belief.

Why would an elected government and their public health scientists lie to you?
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
2,720
Points
159
American states are in disbelief as horror sets in that the U.S. government has run of vaccine to ship to states.

The reserve has been used and there is nothing left.

The British strain has in “hyper speed” spread to 19 states in a few days.
Not really There was complete miscommunication on what the deal was with the 2nd doses. Some states thought the feds were holding on to them and would ship at the right time, which sounds pretty complicated for the federal government to get its arms around. Also my understanding is you can't store this stuff for long. The manufacturers say they are hipping on schedule, and the vaccines are proportioned to the states. The states just have to make their own calculations as to 2nd doses.
 
Top