Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Covid19 [C19] Infection Rates...?
46 Answers
Can anyone help me here? I'm trying to understand why 'lockdown' has been imposed on the North West of England. I read in the media that infection rates have increased there but I can't seem to get any info on what this means.
As the number of detected infected people goes up, is this just the result of more and better testing? It stands to reason that the more you test, the more you'll find in a pandemic scenario with most people being either asymptomatic or moderately unwell.
Are hospitals in the NW seeing more seriously ill C19 patients?
If it's the former (more people being detected but showing no or mild symptoms) then surely this is a good thing? It demonstrates that herd immunity is kicking in doesn't it? If it's the latter (a spike in critical C19 hospitalisations) then that's a real problem.
But which is it?
As the number of detected infected people goes up, is this just the result of more and better testing? It stands to reason that the more you test, the more you'll find in a pandemic scenario with most people being either asymptomatic or moderately unwell.
Are hospitals in the NW seeing more seriously ill C19 patients?
If it's the former (more people being detected but showing no or mild symptoms) then surely this is a good thing? It demonstrates that herd immunity is kicking in doesn't it? If it's the latter (a spike in critical C19 hospitalisations) then that's a real problem.
But which is it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's the deaths we should be concerned about, if infections are up but deaths are fairly manageable then we should I'm afraid accept those deaths as a fact of life, we can't save everybody. The well being of the nation as a whole regarding people's lively hoods ie having a job, pay the bills, mortgage etc is just as important, if not more so. Harsh but there you are.
Dave50: Your view of the necessity to balance the good of the many with the cost to a few depends on the rate of deaths remaining 'manageable', as you put it. This is where we were with Seasonal Influenza before C19, and where, I believe, we will end up so far as C19 is concerned: i.e. vaccine(s) exist and are partially effective, but significant numbers of vulnerable people still die each year.
When, however, the hospitals are overwhelmed and people are dying not only from C19 but also from other causes which can't be treated because of C19, the death rate is most definitely not manageable and active measures must be taken, at the cost of the many. Those active measures must have the effect of stopping the transmission of the disease. If you can come up with a practicable way of stopping C19 transmission without affecting the economy, the world of Public Health, and at large, would be eternally grateful to you.
When, however, the hospitals are overwhelmed and people are dying not only from C19 but also from other causes which can't be treated because of C19, the death rate is most definitely not manageable and active measures must be taken, at the cost of the many. Those active measures must have the effect of stopping the transmission of the disease. If you can come up with a practicable way of stopping C19 transmission without affecting the economy, the world of Public Health, and at large, would be eternally grateful to you.
Gromit - It would indeed give a better picture if the figures for actual tests were made available, but they're not, possibly because they would be politically embarrassing. The one thing we can be sure of is that the rate of testing is not increasing at anything like the rate of confirmed infections. (See buenchico's post at 00:57 this morning.)
I think this is a very good question.
There was a discussion about this in Newsnight. The only person who seemed to be making sense was the lady from Alternative Sage authority, pointing out that the testing results HAVE dramatically increased and that there are a lot of other stats which need to be analysed and looked at in the round. A lot more people are now being tested who are not either hospital cases or indeed showing any symptoms.
Plainly there isn’t a spike in critical cases.
And in Spain, the increase in cases is among younger people it would seem.
None of this seems particularly surprising. Cases are bound to rise once you ease restrictions - and do more testing.
I believe at all costs the call by some for an attempt to stifle any spread of the disease by imposing a new strict lockdown must be restricted.
There was a discussion about this in Newsnight. The only person who seemed to be making sense was the lady from Alternative Sage authority, pointing out that the testing results HAVE dramatically increased and that there are a lot of other stats which need to be analysed and looked at in the round. A lot more people are now being tested who are not either hospital cases or indeed showing any symptoms.
Plainly there isn’t a spike in critical cases.
And in Spain, the increase in cases is among younger people it would seem.
None of this seems particularly surprising. Cases are bound to rise once you ease restrictions - and do more testing.
I believe at all costs the call by some for an attempt to stifle any spread of the disease by imposing a new strict lockdown must be restricted.
It demonstrates that herd immunity is kicking in doesn't it?
nope
miles away - even in the mega heavy infected areas the antibody rate is showing 5%
and you need around 60%
surprising - related to the Ro number - if the Ro is 2 ( for covid) - how many hits do you need to fail and bring it down to an R of 1?
Well about half - if half the hits dont get it, wivva R of 2 then it is around 1 and the epidemic decreases ( magic number now below one)
which is near the published rate of 60%
nope
miles away - even in the mega heavy infected areas the antibody rate is showing 5%
and you need around 60%
surprising - related to the Ro number - if the Ro is 2 ( for covid) - how many hits do you need to fail and bring it down to an R of 1?
Well about half - if half the hits dont get it, wivva R of 2 then it is around 1 and the epidemic decreases ( magic number now below one)
which is near the published rate of 60%
Even if the death rates start to rise, going for a full lock down again would be economic suicide and a complete non starter and I do believe there could be social unrest if that were to happen. As I said before, we are going to have to get used to this being ongoing and accept there will be deaths just as with the flu virus.
birdie1971 at 02.05; No, it is not unreasonable to want reliable information to allow you to understand what is happening. One thing is for certain, unlike what Donald believes, testing for Covid does not infect anyone with Covid. Another one is that the number of positives serves as a warning but deaths are what makes this disease worrisome. Given the present state of knowledge, preventing death is only reliably achieved by reducing the spread of the disease. Rapid spread of the disease will inevitably lead to more deaths, test or no test, and saving lives ultimately is down to how well the healthcare performs.
Ever since the start of the pandemic in the UK/Europe I have been trying to find information describing the different facets of this issue but initially I found getting detailed UK specific information almost impossible and for the longest while I was better informed about the UK by international data sources - which presumably were getting "privileged" information the rest of us could not be trusted with, as if right out of Sir Humphrey's rule book in Yes Minister. Things have admittedly got better but I am still finding the UK a difficult country while from/for elsewhere I get more detail - in a few cases the fullest of detail since the end of February/beginning of March. Most recently, I have been trying to get data for the total number of Covid positive deaths in hospital and the total number of Covid positive hospital patients. First I approached the ONS who then pointed me to the NHS who pointed me to PHE who in turn pointed me to the NHS.....
To be fair, one should perhaps expect this because unlike at least some other countries, the UK is clearly all at sea when it comes to record keeping and/or gathering the statistics, as can also be read from posts on this thread. Still, the UK has come out of this crisis looking very poor indeed and mostly, it would appear, from ineptitude rather than inherent inability. It is natural that this outcome should bring about severe discomfort - the authorities feel a need to deny the crushing fiasco and the public feel a sense of hurt pride and sadness. Nobody wants to own the conclusion of failure or belong to it and the authorities (and some of the public) have been devising ever changing ways to cast doubt on the increasingly obvious fact that the UK has come out very badly - how to count and what to count to reduce the size of the black cloud became a serious preoccupation. The last straw went in the past days when even the "excess deaths" device proves what had for quite a while been suggested: The UK is certainly among the very worst by absolutely every measure. No doubt some are still saying that admitting that is treasonous. Meanwhile I keep wondering if the NHS lost a higher proportion of lives in their care than other health systems, for me that would be the final national indicator - the fact that the figures are "not available" fills me with dread.
Ever since the start of the pandemic in the UK/Europe I have been trying to find information describing the different facets of this issue but initially I found getting detailed UK specific information almost impossible and for the longest while I was better informed about the UK by international data sources - which presumably were getting "privileged" information the rest of us could not be trusted with, as if right out of Sir Humphrey's rule book in Yes Minister. Things have admittedly got better but I am still finding the UK a difficult country while from/for elsewhere I get more detail - in a few cases the fullest of detail since the end of February/beginning of March. Most recently, I have been trying to get data for the total number of Covid positive deaths in hospital and the total number of Covid positive hospital patients. First I approached the ONS who then pointed me to the NHS who pointed me to PHE who in turn pointed me to the NHS.....
To be fair, one should perhaps expect this because unlike at least some other countries, the UK is clearly all at sea when it comes to record keeping and/or gathering the statistics, as can also be read from posts on this thread. Still, the UK has come out of this crisis looking very poor indeed and mostly, it would appear, from ineptitude rather than inherent inability. It is natural that this outcome should bring about severe discomfort - the authorities feel a need to deny the crushing fiasco and the public feel a sense of hurt pride and sadness. Nobody wants to own the conclusion of failure or belong to it and the authorities (and some of the public) have been devising ever changing ways to cast doubt on the increasingly obvious fact that the UK has come out very badly - how to count and what to count to reduce the size of the black cloud became a serious preoccupation. The last straw went in the past days when even the "excess deaths" device proves what had for quite a while been suggested: The UK is certainly among the very worst by absolutely every measure. No doubt some are still saying that admitting that is treasonous. Meanwhile I keep wondering if the NHS lost a higher proportion of lives in their care than other health systems, for me that would be the final national indicator - the fact that the figures are "not available" fills me with dread.
Gromit at 02:29 Sat 01st Aug. bizarre!
I’m as flummoxed by all of this as Birdie appears to be. Infection rates in double figures per 100,000 doesn’t sound like ‘pandemic’ proportions to me - and bear in mind that's infection rates, not death rates. That said, the government is between the devil and the deep blue sea. If it imposes stricter measures there’s an outcry - if it doesn’t it will be accused of abdicating its duty of care. Whatever it does it’s never going to please everyone.
I’m as flummoxed by all of this as Birdie appears to be. Infection rates in double figures per 100,000 doesn’t sound like ‘pandemic’ proportions to me - and bear in mind that's infection rates, not death rates. That said, the government is between the devil and the deep blue sea. If it imposes stricter measures there’s an outcry - if it doesn’t it will be accused of abdicating its duty of care. Whatever it does it’s never going to please everyone.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Crosswords39 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.