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

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
28,890
Reaction score
33,548
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I learned both at school - same with money, etc - and I can easily visualise a M but not a KM. That's still miles, for me. Everything else - I think metric makes much more sense. Esp the money. That was batshit. I never understood crowns and half crowns.

I can switch between m and yards (prefer m) but the km thing - nope. My other weird one is temperature - F still makes more sense to my than C. Weights, I can think in both oz and g but prefer g. I was in infant school when the changes came in so at the precise age where they had to teach us both, equally as we still had to know old money and measures for a bit even though new was on the horizon.
Money is arbitrary. If you had grown up pre-decimalisation, you'd probably think that 'new money' was batshit as the associations of coins with prices for goods and services that had been built up throughout your lifetime would have been sundered (although you might appreciate the simplified arithmetic).

Old measurements, however, are a different kettle of fish. As I've probably droned on about upthread, the links with the proportions and actions of a human body are quite strong and very functional in a non-scientific setting.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
4,066
Reaction score
6,404
Points
209
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Old measurements, however, are a different kettle of fish. As I've probably droned on about upthread, the links with the proportions and actions of a human body are quite strong and very functional in a non-scientific setting.
Just measured it out of curiosity and my UK size 12/13 (European size 47) foot is almost exactly a foot in length.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
3,560
Points
169
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
.....A man without a face mask had a coughing fit, whilst visiting the deli counter......
Poor bloke had probably just seen the price of their parmesan

That's reassuring. I have a lot of trouble believing or accepting any official figures which is a sticking point. It seems odd they are lifting restrictions here so soon when other countries seem to have this way more controlled and have handled it far better, and are only just now thinking of it... Is the key figure the number of new cases, as opposed to the number of deaths? And is that falling?
Well, both are somewhat linked, to be fair.
As the ratio of cases that have an outcome of 'death vs recovery' in a hospitalised situation it remains steady at about (I believe) roughly 20/80, we can infer that an increase in cases will lead to an increase in deaths, and the opposite would follow too.
However if the numbers being tested stayed at exactly the same amount every day then the number of new positive tests daily is falling, but as we have increased the testing the number of new positive tests is dropping at a slower rate than you would expect to see, however as a ratio [of new positive tests / numbers of tests] it is falling quite quickly now.

Hope that helps.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
11,734
Reaction score
13,106
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
Old measurements, however, are a different kettle of fish. As I've probably droned on about upthread, the links with the proportions and actions of a human body are quite strong and very functional in a non-scientific setting.
I'm tall and strong. My ell, hand, foot and so on are markedly small than my male husband's - same height, stronger.

A sensible "natural" system doesn't really work if maybe half of the population don't fit?
 

Lb8535

Very charming snow person
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
833
Reaction score
1,541
Points
134
Location
EST
LOL that's Hamburg though. We can extrapolate nothing from their experience. Here, there have been so many more deaths than Germany and the whole thing has been handled with utter incompetence. Merkel is a scientist, and that seems to have been to their advantage in this situation. In countries where the most important politicians are "people off the telly"... worst death rates in the world. That's no coincidence. There's definitely a political agenda in minimising it which we can't go into here, but is evident.

On another note, we seem to have a prevalence of the 'long tail version' as well so even those who haven't been killed by it, in some cases, are still very ill, weeks on.

I'm in week 10 here - GP now fairly sure I've had it - and still having new and fascinating, really debilitating symptoms on top of the old favourites from weeks 1 and 2 which are having a bit of an encore - and it seems that is thousands of people's experiences. This is different to the original Wuhan strain and if you get a moderate case of it, it's not a bit of a cough and two weeks later you're recovered. Not that it ever was like that but still it is many people's perception of covid. There was a piece in the BMJ last week by a professor of epidemiology who has also been ill a couple of months with it and he is saying - and he's not the only one - that those of us who have been ill a good couple of months, it's not a post viral syndrome but still the actual virus, at work. So even for those who didn't drop dead around day 14-20... it's a pretty serious illness. And tbh, I don't think this virus gives two shiny shits whether you were fit to start off with or not. (Wasn't patient zero in Italy a total fitness bunny with no underlying conditions? Last I heard he'd been on a vent for weeks. I dunno if he is still alive?)

ETA: He's still alive!

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...atient-one-family-coronavirus-covid19/610039/

ETA2: Is it just me that has, from the start of this shitshow, been horrified by the implication in some politicians' and other folks' words, that somehow it's OK to talk this down because it "only" kills old people or people with underlying illnesses? Like... why is that fine? Why wouldn't that make them more determined to do something proactive to stop its spread? I resisted that vile narrative right at the start, when there were so few deaths they were still doing news pieces about individuals and naming them, and interviewing their families etc... that they always qualified the 'dead' bit with 'they had an underlying condition'. Were we meant to be going "Phew! Bullet dodged!"?
Thanks thats what I'm gathering from reading as well
It's a disease to be strongly avoided.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
3,560
Points
169
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Todays (12/5/20) NHS England 'new deaths' figures released.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

There are some interesting statistical points as 'new' deaths being reported continues to drop significantly;

There are now multiple days, and multiple trusts, in which ZERO 'new deaths' are being reported.
Day-on-day totals (for those days with complete figures) are dropping by approx 10%.
We are still often seeing deaths which occurred several weeks ago only just now being reported.

Of the 350 reported 'new deaths' today;
111 of the 202 trusts today reported 0 new deaths (That's 55%)
18 of the 'new' deaths reported today came from East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust and the oldest of these was from April 10th (over a month ago)
101 of the total 'new' deaths are reports which are over a week old.
The oldest reported 'new' death is from Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust from March 17th (many weeks ago - not sure how that is classified as 'new'?)
5 trusts reported 10 or more 'new' deaths, accounting for 66 of todays total (that's 2.47% of the trusts accounting for 18.8% of the total)

Below I show my running totals for
existing deaths + new deaths = new totals since Thursday April 2nd (the date I started logging the numbers officially released).

T 811+0=811
F 614+1=615
S 1105+0=1105 (Saturday April 4th)
S 1090+1=1091
M 939+0=939
T 807+1=808
W 886+1=887
T 774+3=777
F 730+1=731
S 768+1=769 (April 11th)
S 710+2=712
M 685+3=688
T 637+3=640
W 679+2=681
T 625+2=627
F 599+4=603
S 561+2=563 (April 18th)
S 514+2=516
M 549+3=552
T 474+3=477
W 475+7=482
T 440+1=441
F 422+2=424
S 379+2=381 (April 25th)
S 364+5=369
M 332+4=336
T 330+6=336
W 309+6=315
T 292+6=298
F 282+6=288
S 253+5=258 (May 2nd)
S 235+2=237
M 239+4=243
T 234+4=238
W 220+13=233
T 190+32=222
F 151+26=177
S 109+44=153
S 45+90=135
M------------44

With the continued decrease in numbers it is now clear that the peak of deaths was Saturday April 4th (currently showing a total of 1105. I consider it unlikely that we will see more than a handful of extra deaths to add to this number in total over the coming weeks).
As previously mentioned though, there appears to have been an inconsistency with some of the reported figures before April 8th so there is equal validity for the 8th as being the 'peak deaths' date. Either way, we are indeed well past the peak.
Monday this week (yesterday) showing 44 - however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
28,890
Reaction score
33,548
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I'm tall and strong. My ell, hand, foot and so on are markedly small than my male husband's - same height, stronger.

A sensible "natural" system doesn't really work if maybe half of the population don't fit?
The point is not to obtain scientifically precise measurements for the whole of society.

Measurements were largely for commerce, manufacturing and travel, which were male-dominated spheres for most of recorded history.

Your outstretched arms might not measure a full fæthm, but those of a boatman or a sailor likely would--within a tolerable margin; a thousand of your paces might not make a full mille, but those of a Roman soldier probably would. If you (a 'you' of either sex) were in a position to need to know either, you would no doubt have your own rule of thumb to convert the standard to meet your own dimensions. Conversely, although I know nothing of the subject, I feel confident that industries traditionally dominated by women will have (or have had) their own peculiarities of measurement that mirror the physique of the workforce. Weaving?

Besides all that, if there were two-systems: one that worked naturally for somewhere a bit under half of the adult population and one that worked naturally for nobody, the former would be preferable, would it not?
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
3,560
Points
169
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
industries traditionally dominated by women
Something not so much an industry traditionally dominated by women but which came to mind to me is, back in the day, cooking.
Kitchen staff in most big houses would have been managed by 'the cook' who I expect used her own recipes for everything, and if not, then recipes from others, wherein measurements were used such as 'cup' and 'table spoon', or a 'pinch' of this, and a 'drop' of that.
These measurements (until standardised) were all a little bit ambiguous as it relied on what size of cup/spoon etc you had, and how big you pinched something, or how much of a drop you dropped. But for the purposes of a recipe, if the ratio was kept the same in relation to the other ingredients it wasn't much of a problem. And a lot of these measurements would have been like a foreign language to anyone who wasn't 'in the know'.
 

Cochise

Never give up, never surrender
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,656
Reaction score
6,391
Points
284
My dad's recipe book is like that. As I have mentioned before, after being a bare knuckle fighter he became an Escoffier trained chef. My brother has his certificates.
 

Ogdred Weary

Resurrectionist
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
3,695
Reaction score
6,404
Points
209
The point is not to obtain scientifically precise measurements for the whole of society.

Measurements were largely for commerce, manufacturing and travel, which were male-dominated spheres for most of recorded history.

Your outstretched arms might not measure a full fæthm, but those of a boatman or a sailor likely would--within a tolerable margin; a thousand of your paces might not make a full mille, but those of a Roman soldier probably would. If you (a 'you' of either sex) were in a position to need to know either, you would no doubt have your own rule of thumb to convert the standard to meet your own dimensions. Conversely, although I know nothing of the subject, I feel confident that industries traditionally dominated by women will have (or have had) their own peculiarities of measurement that mirror the physique of the workforce. Weaving?

Besides all that, there were two-systems: one that worked naturally for somewhere a bit under half of the adult population and one that worked naturally for nobody, the former would be preferable, would it not?
So we should measure the height of a horse in hooves?
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,346
Reaction score
12,545
Points
309
Just measured it out of curiosity and my UK size 12/13 (European size 47) foot is almost exactly a foot in length.
My size 10½ AirWair boot was almost exactly 1 foot long. lt was very useful in measuring the scenes of Road Traffic Accidents for sketch plans.

maximus otter
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,346
Reaction score
12,545
Points
309
The Chinese coronavirus is no longer at epidemic levels in the United Kingdom as the rate of community transmission has fallen, a team of Oxford University experts claim.

A study conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in conjunction with Oxford University, Manchester University, and Public Health England (PHE), found that an estimated 136,000 people — 0.24 per cent of adults — are currently infected with the virus.

A surveillance rate of over 40 infected people per 10,000 is required for a disease to be declared an epidemic. The figures from the ONS place the current rate at 24 in 10,000, while a separate study from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) found that the rate could be as low as 3 in 10,000.

Professor Carl Heneghan of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford said that the current rate of infection “suggests that, at peak, we had loads more cases than we realised,” meaning that the virus is likely less deadly than initially believed.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...demic-levels-claim-oxford-university-experts/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...9infectionsurvey/england10may2020#main-points

maximus otter
 

Cochise

Never give up, never surrender
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,656
Reaction score
6,391
Points
284
The Chinese coronavirus is no longer at epidemic levels in the United Kingdom as the rate of community transmission has fallen, a team of Oxford University experts claim.

A study conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in conjunction with Oxford University, Manchester University, and Public Health England (PHE), found that an estimated 136,000 people — 0.24 per cent of adults — are currently infected with the virus.

A surveillance rate of over 40 infected people per 10,000 is required for a disease to be declared an epidemic. The figures from the ONS place the current rate at 24 in 10,000, while a separate study from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) found that the rate could be as low as 3 in 10,000.

Professor Carl Heneghan of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford said that the current rate of infection “suggests that, at peak, we had loads more cases than we realised,” meaning that the virus is likely less deadly than initially believed.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...demic-levels-claim-oxford-university-experts/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...9infectionsurvey/england10may2020#main-points

maximus otter
It was covered in the Telegraph as well.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...epidemic-uk-oxford-study-finds-cases-falling/

But its paywalled :-(
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,346
Reaction score
12,545
Points
309
"Coronavirus is not at epidemic levels in Britain, experts at Oxford University have said, with new figures showing that only a tiny proportion of the population is currently infected.

The latest data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggests that just 0.24 per cent of adults – approximately 136,000 people – have the virus. Separate surveillance by the Royal College of GPs indicates it may be even less.

Figures released last week showed just 0.037 per cent of people have the virus, although this is likely to be lower than the actual number because few people are visiting doctors with symptoms.

An epidemic is declared if the surveillance rate exceeds 40 per 10,000, but the new figures suggest it is between 24 and three in 10,000."

maximus otter
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
8,398
Points
279
Location
Phone
What do we make of this?

50,000 deaths in the UK’s coronavirus epidemic

Source: BBC News
Date: 12 May, 2020

Coronavirus: How many people have died in the UK?

By Robert Cuffe, Head of statistics

The number of people who have died because of Covid-19 is nearly twice as high as the figure we hear announced every day.

By 1 May, the number of coronavirus deaths announced by the UK government was just over 28,000.

Looking back at death registrations filed then, the figure is higher: just over 36,000 death certificates mentioned Covid-19.

The measure preferred by statisticians, counting all deaths above what would be expected, was even higher: more than 50,000.

Each measure answers different questions.

Why should I not rely on the government's daily figure?

Every day the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) reports on the number of coronavirus deaths that have been reported to it across the UK.

This is the figure read out at the daily press conference, and the figure used on most international comparison sites.

But it only includes deaths of people who test positive for coronavirus.

That is fine for scientists who want to monitor patterns in the growth of the epidemic precisely: the rate of increase and time spent at the peak are useful measures, says Prof Sylvia Richardson, who is president-elect of the Royal Statistical Society and based at the University of Cambridge.

But it's a poor measure of the overall death toll because it misses people who never had a test.

[...]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52623141
 

Cochise

Never give up, never surrender
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,656
Reaction score
6,391
Points
284
What do we make of this?

50,000 deaths in the UK’s coronavirus epidemic

Source: BBC News
Date: 12 May, 2020

Coronavirus: How many people have died in the UK?

By Robert Cuffe, Head of statistics

The number of people who have died because of Covid-19 is nearly twice as high as the figure we hear announced every day.

By 1 May, the number of coronavirus deaths announced by the UK government was just over 28,000.

Looking back at death registrations filed then, the figure is higher: just over 36,000 death certificates mentioned Covid-19.

The measure preferred by statisticians, counting all deaths above what would be expected, was even higher: more than 50,000.

Each measure answers different questions.

Why should I not rely on the government's daily figure?

Every day the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) reports on the number of coronavirus deaths that have been reported to it across the UK.

This is the figure read out at the daily press conference, and the figure used on most international comparison sites.

But it only includes deaths of people who test positive for coronavirus.

That is fine for scientists who want to monitor patterns in the growth of the epidemic precisely: the rate of increase and time spent at the peak are useful measures, says Prof Sylvia Richardson, who is president-elect of the Royal Statistical Society and based at the University of Cambridge.

But it's a poor measure of the overall death toll because it misses people who never had a test.

[...]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52623141
I've never been sure exactly what it is measuring. But the daily figure (as broken down by Trev) is probably the best guide we have. On the one hand its possible some people who died 'from' coronavirus have been missed if they died out of hospital, but on the other hand it includes people who died 'with' coronavirus who might have died anyway. So with a bit of luck it is somewhere about right.

Excess deaths are not necessarily of people infected with coronavirus - hard though it is to recall after these weeks of sunshine it was an unusually warm damp season which tend to result in higher than average deaths anyway. And that's without getting into the possibly that the lockdown itself may have caused some premature deaths
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
3,560
Points
169
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
But the daily figure (as broken down by Trev) is probably the best guide we have
Thank you for the recognition. I will just, once again, add this caveat (before someone else points it out anyway!) that the figures I show a break-down of every day are only for NHS England Hospital Trusts deaths, giving the date of death, not the date of the report.

Which is an unchanging set of reporting sources and hence a very useful guide to track the progress of the virus through the population in England. (It does not include figures from other UK countries, or figures 'in other settings'.)
However, and interestingly, the curve produced on a graph using those figures of deaths is pretty much identical to the curve produced on a graph using figures for original infections (albeit 3-5 weeks earlier), and/or the curve produced in other countries, and for those countries that did or didn't impose lockdowns or other measures.
An initial steep increase up to a peak, followed by a gradual decrease, tailing off eventually, over a period of about 72 days.
 

Cochise

Never give up, never surrender
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,656
Reaction score
6,391
Points
284
Thank you for the recognition. I will just, once again, add this caveat (before someone else points it out anyway!) that the figures I show a break-down of every day are only for NHS England Hospital Trusts deaths, giving the date of death, not the date of the report.

Which is an unchanging set of reporting sources and hence a very useful guide to track the progress of the virus through the population in England. (It does not include figures from other UK countries, or figures 'in other settings'.)
However, and interestingly, the curve produced on a graph using those figures of deaths is pretty much identical to the curve produced on a graph using figures for original infections (albeit 3-5 weeks earlier), and/or the curve produced in other countries, and for those countries that did or didn't impose lockdowns or other measures.
An initial steep increase up to a peak, followed by a gradual decrease, tailing off eventually, over a period of about 72 days.
I think it is the effort you've put in to assigning the deaths to the actual day of death which makes your information a better guide to the progress of the disease. All the graphs in newspapers (that I have seen) have assumed the daily figure released is deaths in the last 24 hours. Which a few minutes reflection should tell them they can't possibly be, due to the time necessary to register deaths etc.

The figures we are getting from different countries and different sources are of course useful to a degree, but the NHS figure has the advantage of being a closely defined metric. People are comparing countries willy-nilly without knowing on what basis the figures are collected.
 
Top