Coronavirus outbreak

[mjr]

No, you have misunderstood my post. Maybe that is my fault, I do not know. Please see the 9 words that I highlighted in bold.

I see no bold highlight. I probably should have questioned that. It would be good if you trimmed the quote and/or repeat the relevant excerpt, rather than relying on bold in future. This site seems only to show the first few lines of a quote.

 

[matticus]

I see no bold highlight. I probably should have questioned that. It would be good if you trimmed the quote and/or repeat the relevant excerpt, rather than relying on bold in future. This site seems only to show the first few lines of a quote.

Fair point.
I did trim the quote so that it all displayed in the PREVIEW window...

 

[Ajax Bay]

The huge spike in second half of September is surely due to students travelling to multiple occupancy residences/halls from across the UK, combined with readily available testing (uni organised).
Rt is more difficult to calculate with useful accuracy when cases are very low (July and August). It's probably partly why SAGE have not agreed an estimate for the current Rt.

 

[Ajax Bay]

UCL/UCLH paper published 12 Apr 2021
Looks at patients in hospital Nov-Dec 2020 with SARS-CoV-2; 2/3rds with the B.1.1.7 variant, 1/3 with the 'old' variant. Examines any difference in severity and/or mortality (to patients already in hospital). Notes viral loads (from PCR test data: cycle threshold value).
SIAL: Once hospitalised, no difference. VoC-infected patients had greater viral load: proxy for increased transmissibility.
"Emerging evidence exists of increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7, and we found increased virus load by proxy for B.1.1.7 in our data."
"Our data . . . provide initial reassurance that severity in hospitalised patients with B.1.1.7 is not markedly different from severity in those with [old variant], [useful method] as we move into an era of emerging variants."
NERVTAG have taken evidence: PHE: "an updated matched cohort analysis has reported a death risk ratio for B.1.1.7-infected individuals compared to non-VoC of 1.65 (95%CI 1.21-2.25)" NB Infected individuals not (yet) hospitalised.

 

[Wobblers]

Interesting correlation - but as we know, correrlation and causation are not the same thing.

This international comparison over the time frame you consider shows a similar pattern across a number of neighbouring EU countries. The UK data on deaths over the period does not stand out as unusual.

Does that not imply a separate common factor?


View attachment 583685

"Correlation isn't causation" isn't an argument. I made a prediction based on the observed behaviour of the virus. The data supports that prediction.Ii also suggested a causal mechanism - which after all was exactly how I was able to make that prediction. You'll need to demonstrate that the mechanism proposed isn't reasonable, or that the data doesn't support the conclusions. You've failed to do either.

Your graph does not support your claim that other countries showed similar patterns. We're dealing with exponential growth - the derivative of an exponent is also an exponential function. Your graph is a linear plot: almost all the growth visible appears in the last two doubling periods. Early growth on a linear scale appears flat - whch is unfortunate, as that is where the most important information lies. This is why we use log plots for such data. Despite that,it's quite apparent that the doubling period for each country is visibly different in the last weeks - this indicates differing growth rates. That certainly is NOT consistent with the idea that these countries were experiencing similar growth patterns.

 

[Wobblers]

Muddled reasoning.

The eat outers were not lab rats in a controlled environment.

In the subsequent weeks after their allegedly fatal meals a great deal was happening in terms of differing restrictions, different travel patterns, different levels of compliance, and new strains - to mention a just a few.

Nor do we have any idea how many people ate out to help out.

Judging their fates in isolation is impossible.

The timespan from infection to death also seems to vary wildly, so if some eat outers subsequently died, which is almost certainly true, we can have no idea how and when they caught Covid.

Oh, and the one eat out meal I had - an annual family celebration which fell by chance in the period - was appropriately socially distanced, so it's unlikely any of us caught Covid from it.

You need to understand that social distancing does not prevent transmission, it merely reduces the probability of transmission. Someone who's infected will expel tens of thousands of viruses with every sneeze, and they'll travel considerably further than 2 metres. Being outdoors will be to little benefit should you be unlucky enough to be in the firing line of such a sneeze. Indoors, there is also the additional risk of aerosol transmission.

While the probability of infection would have been low for any one individual meal (though rather higher than most people realise) we're talking about many tens of millions of meals. That's rolling the dice tens of millions of times. It's inconceivably improbable that there were no extra infections brought about from Eat Out to Help Out.

The dominant variant in the UK at the time was the wild type (original Wuhan) one. Of course there were other factors at work: genotyping showed that there were quite a few variants of wild type Covid imported from abroad by people going on holiday in August. At the same time that government policy was encouraging mixing for what is actually a high risk activity for transmission. Increased mixing when case numbers are increasing is not a good combination. Eat Out was ill timed: the appropriate time for it is this summer, when most people have had at least one vaccine dose. I don't have any objections to Eat Out: actually, I think it's a reasonable way to boost the economy and aid the hospitality sector.

 

[PK99]

"Correlation isn't causation" isn't an argument. I made a prediction based on the observed behaviour of the virus. The data supports that prediction.Ii also suggested a causal mechanism - which after all was exactly how I was able to make that prediction. You'll need to demonstrate that the mechanism proposed isn't reasonable, or that the data doesn't support the conclusions. You've failed to do either.

Your graph does not support your claim that other countries showed similar patterns. We're dealing with exponential growth - the derivative of an exponent is also an exponential function. Your graph is a linear plot: almost all the growth visible appears in the last two doubling periods. Early growth on a linear scale appears flat - whch is unfortunate, as that is where the most important information lies. This is why we use log plots for such data. Despite that,it's quite apparent that the doubling period for each country is visibly different in the last weeks - this indicates differing growth rates. That certainly is NOT consistent with the idea that these countries were experiencing similar growth patterns.

Ok.

It's decades snce I used to be familiar with such things. So excuse me if I'm a little slow ...

Here is the same data in log plot form.

There does not seem to be anything distinctly different about the UK data over this period

 

[Ajax Bay]

I have replied to this here (from the vaccine thread).

I "decried" setting dates up to June back in February, not the "not earlier than". I just doubt the "not earlier than" is real. As you know, I do not share your confidence in this government.
. . . I think it's rather poor form to use "good" to describe the level of infection that 18-29s have been subjected to.
That's unproven surge testing, which experts say is "not yet clear whether the testing of hundreds of thousands of people in the capital will stop a cluster of dozens of cases growing."
. . . I feel the final restrictions should not be lifted until the number of cases is within the capacity of test and trace, as well as vaccination being generally available, but it's looking like test and trace is still not working. The vaccination programme seeming to work fairly well . . . we need both.
I think everyone knows that you'd rather not see any criticism of your glorious leader... but it ain't irrelevant: it's Boris who stood at the lectern and set out dates, not data, for unlocking which seem to be being followed slavishly with little regard for the vaccination programme. The desire to be seen as the nice guy handing out unlocking sweeties is a risk.

The plan "not earlier than" is 'real' so far.
18-29s I agree with @PK99, it's not a passive thing. The level of previous infection in the 18-29s is high because of that cohort's behaviour, influenced by their wish to be sociable and the failure to comprehend that while the threat to them individually is very, very low, if infected their part in the transmission path of the virus and its spread to more vulnerable friends and relatives (say) can (and has) caused the latter's serious illness and in extremis deaths. Such criticism will not apply to sets within that cohort, for example: the sensible ones who were inevitably exposed to risk at the start of the university year, and the younger element of care and health workers who society needed to keep working.
Surge testing Do you think it's a good idea to address VoC (eg B.1.351) with specific area surge testing? If not, what do you suggest?
Capacity of test and trace What level of cases do you think is "within the capacity of test and trace"? Currently there are less than 20k cases per week. I hope that the T&T effort (and resources) will revert to regional/local Public Health led effort rather than the national approach which seems to have been less successful than hoped.
Leadership The Prime Minister and the Queen are both leaders of the United Kingdom: your leaders. Your Government has (for England) set out a plan, the putative dates of which depend on 4 clearly articulated tests, which I'll share with you again:
The UK Government's 4 tests for whether it is safe to reduce restrictions, "no earlier than" the dates quoted are:

• "the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
• "evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
• "infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
• "our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern"

24 Mar: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/coronavirus-outbreak.256913/page-1158#post-6358608

 

[mjr]

The plan "not earlier than" is 'real' so far.

So what has happened later than the specified date?

18-29s I agree with @PK99, it's not a passive thing. The level of previous infection in the 18-29s is high because of that cohort's behaviour, influenced by their wish to be sociable and the failure to comprehend [...]

That sounds a lot like victim-blaming mixed with collective punishment. Would you say road casualty rates among cyclists are only as high as they are because of cyclist behaviour, influenced by their wish to be mobile and the failure to comprehend their part in the system?

Surge testing Do you think it's a good idea to address VoC (eg B.1.351) with specific area surge testing? If not, what do you suggest?

I think surge testing is part of it — but it needs to be real surge testing, not the reported 700/day in a ward of 17,000 — but I suggest (taking from iSAGE members) they also start ring vaccination and short (10-14 day) strict local lockdowns.

Capacity of test and trace What level of cases do you think is "within the capacity of test and trace"? Currently there are less than 20k cases per week. I hope that the T&T effort (and resources) will revert to regional/local Public Health led effort rather than the national approach which seems to have been less successful than hoped.

I don't know. We're currently comfortably inside testing capacity (about 655,000/day) but tracing capacity is still not published, as far as I could see.

I share your hope that T&T returns to local areas, as it has already for Norfolk and Suffolk. As I expect you know, we're sending Dido Harding over £350m a week: let's fund our NHS instead, eh?

Leadership The Prime Minister and the Queen are both leaders of the United Kingdom: your leaders.

I don't recognise either of them as leading me. They just happen to rule over me for now due primarily to accidents of birth and geography.

 

[Ajax Bay]

@mjr: So what has happened later than the specified date? Nothing aiui.
So the "real" plan is what's being followed.
@mjr: That sounds a lot like victim-blaming mixed with collective punishment. Would you say road casualty rates among cyclists are only as high as they are because of cyclist behaviour, influenced by their wish to be mobile and the failure to comprehend their part in the system? Infection in that 18-29 cohort is higher than the population average. I offered possible reasons why that was so. No. Road casualty rates among cyclists are dependent on the number of cycling hours: more of those = higher casualty rates. Establishing a causality between riding style with casualty rates, even when a proportion wear effective protection, is probably impossible. For individuals, time on the road is beneficial to their health, notwithstanding the low risk of incident involved. If a beer is involved, that enhances the benefit.

 

[Deleted User]

I think you lads need to get out for a Pint!

 

[mjr]

Infection in that 18-29 cohort is higher than the population average. I offered possible reasons why that was so.

OK, "possible reasons". What you wrote before looked like certainty. While your interpretation is possible, the evidence for it is not great. And there's still the problem of the anti-18-29 attitude seeming like collective punishment.

No. Road casualty rates among cyclists are dependent on the number of cycling hours: more of those = higher casualty rates. Establishing a causality between riding style with casualty rates, even when a proportion wear effective protection, is probably impossible. For individuals, time on the road is beneficial to their health, notwithstanding the low risk of incident involved. If a beer is involved, that enhances the benefit.

I hope others will agree with me that the above ignores a rather large four-wheeled factor in cycling casualty rates... rather similar to how its author downplays a certain rather large factor in the UK coronavirus outbreak.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've some beer on click and collect!

 

[Ajax Bay]

I think you lads need to get out for a Pint!

Ride to the pub (small group) was yesterday evening, @shep. Brilliant sunset looking out towards Dartmoor. I fear it was a 'des' rather than an 'un'. The marquee was just warm enough but a bit colder on the 75 minute ride home. Some in the group are suckers for (@mjr's) soi-disant "collective punishment". Others are just wheel suckers.

 

[PK99]

Things are looking better over the Channel.

Clearly past the inflection point and close to peak in most cases.

No sign of any change in the downward UK trend.



View attachment 582126

An update on this comparison plot:

A couple of weeks ago, the data suggested that a peak had been reached.

This updated plot shows that there has been a further uptick in the EU, while the UK downward trend continues (despite the opening of schools)

 

[Wobblers]

Ok.

It's decades snce I used to be familiar with such things. So excuse me if I'm a little slow ...

Here is the same data in log plot form.

There does not seem to be anything distinctly different about the UK data over this period
View attachment 583924

Thanks.

So... the exponent for the UK, France , Germany and the Netherlands was similar in October, so I was wrong to say that the doubling periods were different for those countries. An excellent lesson on how linear plots can easily mislead when it comes to exponential growth! But Belgium is clearly different, so something different was going on in both those cases.

We can look at the inflexion point, where steady or falling death rates change to increasing rates. In August and early September, the data is noisy. However, it looks like Germany and Britain both showed an uptick in early September, while increases in the Netherlands and Belgium were significantly later. France also has a surge in deaths around this time.

Given that deaths are a reflection of infection rates 4 weeks earlier, I think it's reasonable to conclude from this that infection rates were being influenced by local conditions (degree of mixing and restrictions) in August. There are differences between countries, as you'd expect. The timing of the uptick in the UK fatality rate is certainly consistent with Eat Out to Help Out (rise in infection rates in August).

However, all countries show an increase in that time frame, and that's unlikely to be a coincidence. Given that we know that many Covid cases were essentially imported into the UK by returning holidaymakers, I think it's likely that the same thing was happening on the continent - that would certainly account for the closeness of the timing. This was likely the main driver for the increases we saw at the end of August. Eat Out may well have accelerated the process, as it was a significant change in conditions between July and August, but ultimately is unlikely that have been the principal driver for the autumn surge.