Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Corona / Covid-19 Virus - General Discussion (politics go to the Off Topic / Politics thread)

Contact tracing yields pretty obvious results when a load of people get ill in one location.

Yes, November 2019 is quite possible.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

The Big Q is why the numbers are decreasing so slowly despite the lockdown. This is the UK

I apologise for picking up on one point, but I do so because this was exactly my concern.

However, again, when you think about it, if you up the testing rate to the huge extent we have, then it is hardly surprising – isnt it? I suspect vast numbers of people were infected, but not tested, so not in the results. Now, tens of thousands of more people are tested, so of course the apparent numbers go up, and the graph doesnt go down as quickly as you would expect.

Worse, it is total misinformation, because this is barely mentioned. In any other scenario, if you wanted to manipulate the numbers to scare people, this is exactly how you would go about it.

Also the Government says that you should only be tested if you think you are infected AND only if you are from a high risk sector. Clearly, a lot of the people tested will therefore have been infected.

It is a bit like ask a sample of pilots who regularly fly to Barton, if they have ever infringed CAS – the sample isnt representative and you will not be too surprised if you know what is happening they have all be done!

It is hardly surprising the numbers arent going down as quickly as you would expect.

I can only assume (fervently hope) that the statisticians adjust as best they can for all the distortions to the graphs we are seeing – but in the mean time the way the population is beign deceived I find truly appalling – simply because when you appreciate the IQ of the average person (and I really dont mean to run anyone down) they simply do not understand this stuff. I have two family members both teachers, and it makes you all to aware, that most peoples’ grasp of maths., never mind stats., is not well formed. Of course I inevitably blame the teachers.

I was referring to the numbers in hospital, and equally to the deaths.

The “numbers infected” is almost complete garbage because as you test more and more, you are bound to dig up more and more infected people.

What surprises me is that the numbers I mention earlier, which are concrete quantities, driven by actual illness (you don’t get into hospital unless you are pretty ill) are not going down faster, given the lockdown. As I said above, there must be continuous infections going on all over the place.

OTOH I heard today that the bulk of the deaths are in care homes, which is not really a “population social distancing” issue but really to do with care home internal procedures.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

What surprises me is that the numbers I mention earlier, which are concrete quantities, driven by actual illness (you don’t get into hospital unless you are pretty ill) are not going down faster, given the lockdown. As I said above, there must be continuous infections going on all over the place.

Ah, my apologies, I some how knew you wouldnt make the assumption I was referring to.

On that point I agree. Again, it is a great shame the data isnt more granular, which might provide an explanation. I could surmise that there are many more rest home / nursing home patients going to hopsital. I was told a few weeks ago by a rest home owner that when they had called for an amubulance on several occasions to take patients, the ambulance service point blank refused, and told them to deal with it within the home. It sounds unbelievable, but they were on the local news with the same story, local MP involved, the whole thing, and I know the owners very well, so it is creditable. I understand, now, they are being taken to hospital.

Whether this is enough of an explantion, I dont know.

I do think rest homes and nursing homes are as big a problem as we are hearing. I have anecdotal information that many memebers of staff at homes also work eleswhere, including super markets, and one super market has had a number of workers infected, they think from just this source of cross infection. Why a supermarket wouldnt screen employees `i find hard to believe, but it is doubtless possible in a relatively fast evolving picture, where there isnt yet a full risk assessment in place as to acceptable and unacceptable best practice. Cynical maybe, but we have become very good and unthinkingly following risk assessments that have been set in place over time, but our response to the virus requires everyone to think on their feet – a whole lot less challenging.

Perhaps as they learn more about treating Covid-19 (the silent O2 sat reduction, etc) they are getting keener to get people into hospital sooner?

So where before you only went in if you couldn’t breathe, now you go in if you test positive and feel crappy. This would equal more going in.

EGLM & EGTN

I have anecdotal information that many memebers of staff at homes also work eleswhere, including super markets, and one super market has had a number of workers infected, they think from just this source of cross infection

Yes exactly. I posted this a while ago. These workers are mostly on the bottom of the social ladder, doing multiple jobs, multiple care homes, and working elsewhere. If a care home is well infected they will pick it up there and spread it.

It’s an awful situation, with no good solutions, and the whole world is getting hit.

Perhaps as they learn more about treating Covid-19 (the silent O2 sat reduction, etc) they are getting keener to get people into hospital sooner?

Could well be, since this has been known for weeks.

Just heard of some numbers from Germany, where infections are rising rapidly again… and this is the most organised country!

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As for how many people have REALLY been infected… among my small (~25) extended family, we are now up to 9. Just discovered that my grandson very likely had a very mild case in late March. I for sure had it in December, picked up on a flight from Hong Kong to Tokyo. The thing that took me from “probably” to “for sure” was when I learned from my ophthalmologist that conjunctivitis – which I had quite badly, and for the first time in maybe 55 years – is a strong indication. Of course all these anecdotal, untested cases can be disputed, but they can’t ALL be wishful thinking.

9 fairly definite cases out of 25 means that almost certainly all 25 have been exposed and are either now immune or their innate immune system dealt with it.

LFMD, France

Germany I think are suggesting the R is now at 1.1.

I suggested earlier that the danger is the rate of growth if the numbers get over 1 grow very quickly, as it rises even slightly. There is also an inevitable lag even with the best testing to spot the trend.

The challenge for the UK will be to react quickly enough. For that reason Johnson would appear to be easing the lock down much less than Germany, which maybe is enough to keep R down. The signs though arent good that as you open things up more (than Johnston) it can be constrained to a lower level.

At the moment, if I could have one wish, (leaving aside the obvious, but it is too soon yet) it is that the rate of infection is already much higher than we think, (and I think that is possible). The anecdotal evidence of the number of people who think they have been infected are grounds for that possibility it seems to me.

I do hope we see some accurate population wide testing results soon.

This is interesting from the CEBM very recently. Again, it highlights that we still dont seem to have a very good handle on the reproduction rate – the ranges given are pretty vast if you are aiming to keep below 1.

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 10 May 20:59

Indeed, and a village might have R=0.1 while on a London tube train it might be 20.

In the countryside, with food delivery, and basic disinfection procedures for deliveries, it is pretty easy to achieve R very close to zero while doing all the walks, bike rides, etc, that you want.

This is a difficult thing for a govt to deal with because they could unlock just about all the villages, or cities in the middle of nowhere (like Norwich ) but politically this is hard. Also you would get an exodus to the countryside, by anyone who has the option.

But IMHO the whole idea is also too complex for most of the population to get. You have to get some level of compliance even from the totally thick.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top