• Current Donation Goals

JaneB

Coronavirus COVID-19

Recommended Posts

Quote

Public Health England told ITV News: "The number of flu cases and deaths due to flu-related complications varies each flu season.

"The average number of deaths in England for the last five seasons, 2014/15 to 2018/19, was 17,000 deaths annually.

"This ranged from 1,692 deaths last season, 2018/19, to 28,330 deaths in 2014/15."

3 minutes ago, Jasonb said:

If you are doing testing you need to identify a sampling strategy.

Random testing might suggest testing people in the supermarket yet that might be misleading as they are the healthier ones with the ill ones back home.

Then you might decide to test a street and all the occupants or using a stratified testing method say every tenth house, that might be better than the first point yet there is another to consider and that is what is the likely infection rate for people living in flats. 

Sampling strategies to understand the likely true situation need some thought.

 

A point of interest, in the last couple of years over 1,400 people died in England & Wales daily yet flu is not listed as a cause.

 

Not daily.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

Not daily.

I think he means that 1400 die every day, but that only 17000/365=47 of them die of flu.
1400 a day or 500k a year sounds about right.

The relevant point is that while we are talking about Covid-19 deaths as if they are surprise deaths, many of them will only be advancing death by a few months.
I've not seen any analysis on the basis of QALYs of the kind that big budget health decisions are usually made.  But I suspect they are being discussed behind the scenes.  The language of QALYs though is perhaps too brutal for public figures to use. 

1 hour ago, Jasonb said:

If you are doing testing you need to identify a sampling strategy......

Sampling strategies to understand the likely true situation need some thought..

More than a bit of thought - a massive budget too as you will be testing far more healthy people than they test sick people now, by a factor of 10 or more.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasonb   
11 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

I think he means that 1400 die every day, but that only 17000/365=47 of them die of flu.
1400 a day or 500k a year sounds about right.

Yes I do,  1400+ a day die of general causes yet flu is not a current characterisation for death and unless it is going to be measured going forward in a years time we will be none the wiser unless this daily average figure increases statistically.

 

11 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

More than a bit of thought - a massive budget too as you will be testing far more healthy people than they test sick people now, by a factor of 10 or more.

Yes I don't think it will happen, too many resources and what if the testers contract it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

It might be nice if those who have had it and recovered could indicate so. However, as Jasonb says, testing is expensive in many ways. Some have suggested a web site where people can register that they had the disease giving dates might be useful, but self- reporting is unreliable. It also may not necessarily be helpful. I have a feeling that the actual numbers of cases in the UK are significantly larger (by two or three factors) than expected. If I am wrong I could argue that is good because it means we are limiting the spread. If I am right, then I might say this is good as the morbidity rate is lower than we thought. Of course, I could have suggested that low numbers indicate higher morbidity rate and high numbers that we are not controlling the spread. I suppose it would depend on which newspaper or audience I am writing for.

I did think earlier that there was no chance of completing the football season. Now I am not so sure. My change of mind is that people need things to distract them in times of difficulty. There are only so many times one can clean the cupboards or vacuum the floor. It would not be in front of crowds, though. Maybe we could add sound effects.

Edited by Sciatika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jasonb said:

Yes I don't think it will happen, too many resources and what if the testers contract it. 

3 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

It might be nice if those who have had it and recovered could indicate so. However, as Jasonb says, testing is expensive in many ways. Some have suggested a web site where people can register that they had the disease giving dates might be useful, but self- reporting is unreliable. It also may not necessarily be helpful. I have a feeling that the actual numbers of cases in the UK are significantly larger (by two or three factors) than expected

Boris was talking about a new test for the anti-body to covid-19 which would tell us who has had the virus already and been cured.  Simple self-administered test like a pregnancy test.
He seems to be claiming that a cured person is neither going to get it again or infect anyone again, though I doubt anyone knows that for sure.
But a proper knowledge of how many have had it in the past is vital because the whole "suprress the virus or suppress the economy" discussion is based on this data which we don't yet have.
The test - if feasible - is a gamechanger (but when?)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Droy was my hero said:

Boris was talking about a new test for the anti-body to covid-19 which would tell us who has had the virus already and been cured.  Simple self-administered test like a pregnancy test.
He seems to be claiming that a cured person is neither going to get it again or infect anyone again, though I doubt anyone knows that for sure.
But a proper knowledge of how many have had it in the past is vital because the whole "suprress the virus or suppress the economy" discussion is based on this data which we don't yet have.
The test - if feasible - is a gamechanger (but when?)

 

There have already been reports from the Far East of people being struck down a second time. Which could be due to the virus mutating ( which happens with flu), or maybe it lingers longer in the body that other viruses. Originally they seemed to think a person  would no longer be infectious after 7 days, but it could be 14.

Experts like Fauci said it would be practically unique if having the virus did not make you immune from re-infection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an epidemiologist:

Quote

How will we know when we’re through this?



The world is not going to begin to look normal until three things have happened. One, we figure out whether the distribution of this virus looks like an iceberg, which is one-seventh above the water, or a pyramid, where we see everything. If we're only seeing right now one-seventh of the actual disease because we're not testing enough, and we're just blind to it, then we're in a world of hurt. Two, we have a treatment that works, a vaccine or antiviral. And three, maybe most important, we begin to see large numbers of people—in particular nurses, home health care providers, doctors, policemen, firemen, and teachers who have had the disease—are immune, and we have tested them to know that they are not infectious any longer. And we have a system that identifies them, either a concert wristband or a card with their photograph and some kind of a stamp on it. Then we can be comfortable sending our children back to school, because we know the teacher is not infectious

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

From an epidemiologist:

Quote

Then we can be comfortable sending our children back to school, because we know the teacher is not infectious

 

Great quote except the last line.  Children may be killing teachers with Covid-19, it is certainly not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stim   

My country releases results once a day 

image.thumb.png.ae568c57fb1eb8bdff86d7afb0a28f72.png

 

I am not sure what this say about the spread of the virus or the quality of the tests. At the moment they are testing people with symptoms who have been to high risk countries and people who have had direct contact with infected individuals. (red line is positive result, blue line is negative result)

Edited by Stim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now