Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 9

[Barracker]

Welcome to thread 9 of the daily updates.

Resource links:
Worldometer UK page
Financial Times Daily updates and graphs
HSJ Coronavirus updates
Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre
NHS England stats, including breakdown by Hospital Trust
Covidly.com to filter graphs using selected data filters
ONS statistics for CV related deaths outside hospitals, released weekly each Tuesday

Thank you to all contributors for their factual, data driven, and civil discussions.

Thank whats. Whoa that's scary.

It'll still be bullshit according to them... obvs. Honestly, I have saner discussions with my 7 yr old.

Although I am surprised by some of figures- more drownings than conflict and maybe Parkinson’s covers all neuro degenerative diseases.

demonstrations will be blamed regardless of truth - after all if you can drive 260 miles looking for childcare you can travel to a demonstration.

the problem is not the travel, the problem is the demonstration.

the problem with Cummings travelling 260 miles was largely that if everyone did that then it might spread the virus. However the single incident could not possibly cause mass infection, it's more that he didn't give a fuck about the rules, which should apply to everyone.

We know that mass gatherings cause thousands of infections. From a single gathering. This was known in March. www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-detects-five-generations-of-covid-19-cases-linked-to-mosque-cluster

There was never any possible risk of mass infection from people walking on moors in Derbyshire, but the police went Robocop with military technology.

It's possible that the mass protests are ok because they are brief, socially distanced, or outside. But it seems much more reasonable to believe that they will infect people, people will die as a result, and the virus will spread for longer and our country will be slightly more fucked up as a result, and for slightly longer.

It follows that if the demonstrations break the coronavirus regulations, the police should be taking all possible efforts to STOP them, since the purpose of the coronavirus regulation is to restrict the prevent of coronavirus.

I know it can be argued that the events in America are applicable to the UK, but it seems insufficient justification for mass protests under these circumstances, now.

India have linked thousands of covid-19 cases to mass gatherings, and homicide charges have been laid against the organisers. It would perhaps be a good idea to do similar in the UK.

www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/04/16/india-charges-tabligh-chief-with-culpable-homicide-for-virus-surge/

There is plainly limited social distancing here.

news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-death-violence-against-police-detracted-from-black-lives-matter-message-says-london-mayor-12000938

I would expect people going to the beach or whatever to be doing so in much more separate ways than protestors, who will as a matter of public safety be subject to 'kettling' and other police tactics.

There needs to be serious debate about civil liberties when it comes to banning peaceful political demonstrations.
In Germany a few weeks ago, it was thought that even the AfD Nazis and anti-vax fuckwits should be allowed to demonstrate, just the violent ones were arrested

It also becomes a matter of whether draconian laws in the UK will continue to have public consent:

The young are at almost no danger from this virus - and they are the ones most likely to be demonstrating.
At some stage, they may decide to just refuse having their education and their futures damaged to protect others,
especially if now their right to protest on a very emotional issue is curtailed

Also, some BAME people 40+ may be at significant risk of COVID,
but over past and future decades, discrimination and - in the USA - police murders, will kill far more of them

I agree, it is a massive slippery slope when you take away the democratic right to peacefully protest.

From the start of lockdown, the idea that political demonstrations could be banned has worried me much more than even several weeks lost school

The freedom to protest is essential and fundamental in a democracy
Personally, I would not agree to that being given up, even for causes where I disagree.

Demonstrations have been curtailed for quite some time.

The police have already fined and shut down previous (non-BLM) demonstrate

news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-anti-lockdown-protest-broken-up-by-police-in-london-11985737

Shutting down a 40 person demonstration is somewhat different to trying to shut down something that attracts many thousands, though.

Technically, yes, demonstrations are not permitted. Realistically, there is no way a BLM demo of several thousand can be stopped.

Even those 5G idiots should have been allowed to protest
Being fined is likely to have hardened their belief in a conspiracy by the state

When peaceful protests, however daft the views, are not allowed against the state, what other avenues are left ?

Those 40 idiots were far less of an infection risk, but neither demonstration should be banned imo.

Demonstrations should require permits and commitments to wearing masks (sounds strange !)
Only those who refuse to wear masks, or spit etc, or are violent, should be penalised.

cathyandclaire

I missed your post earlier but I had to re-read it in the report:

Very high rates of asymptomatic cases from that ONS data:

While those who have symptoms are more likely to test positive than those without symptoms, out of those within our study who have ever tested positive for COVID-19, 29% reported any evidence of symptoms at the time of the visit or at either the preceding or following visit

From here www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/5june2020

I didn't quite understand this, as it sounds like it's saying 71% of positive-testing people don't have symptoms. The relevant section is Figure 8 of the report and the text underneath.

"Additional analysis we have considered looks at whether people who tested positive also reported symptoms. While those with symptoms are more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those without symptoms, this analysis shows that out of those who have ever tested positive, the percentage who reported having symptoms at the time of the test was relatively low."

"Out of those people that tested positive for COVID-19 over the study period, only 22% (95% confidence interval: 14% to 32%) reported experiencing one or more of the various symptoms at the time of their test. Out of those who reported testing positive, 29% (95% confidence interval: 19% to 40%) reported experiencing symptoms at any point in the period around testing positive. This was at the time of the visit or at either the preceding or following visits.

This analysis is based on 88 individuals in the sample who tested positive for COVID-19. This is a very small denominator, meaning the confidence intervals are wide. Additionally, with such a small number of cases included in this analysis, if any of these are false-positives this would have a large effect on the results."

"Notes for: Characteristics of people testing positive for COVID-19"

<span class="italic">We asked individuals to self-report whether they worked in patient-facing healthcare or resident-facing social care roles; where that information was missing or uncertain, we used the other information they gave us about their occupation.</span>
<span class="italic">The symptoms respondents were asked to report were: fever, muscle ache (myalgia), fatigue (weakness or tiredness), sore throat, cough, shortness of breath, headache, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and loss of taste or loss of smell.</span>

Here we compare symptoms from the first time a person tested positive or, if they have never tested positive in the study, from their most recent test."

I go back to my many previous posts asking why are we only testing people who report symptoms? Lack of testing capacity? Surely we can target testing better than this?

We would need to see the age breakdown - but a sample of only 88 people would have huge standard deviation anyway

Yes, it's frustrating it's so low.

iirc, PHE started sample testing around the country

and that report referred to "swab tests"
We need serology tests, for both antibody and T-cell likely immunity, in London and in representative (age, sex, race) samples around the country

Even the above sewage tests would give us more imformation

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51768274

Deaths with a positive test result: 40,261
increase = 357

Deaths with COVID-19 mentioned on death certificate: 48,106
Excess mortality above the historical average : 61,895

Confirmed cases: 288,311
increase = 1,650

The latest stats from the PHE that there are some 39,000 new infections a week do indeed come from a community survey, of 19,273 users in the last survey - a representative sample of the population, intended to uncover the community prevalence of infections regardless of whether you seek testing.

The latest survey does indeed say that 71% of those in their sample who tested positive reported any symptoms at any point around the time of testing positive. It is a very small sample though.

This is the age breakdown of that 88. As BigChoc observed, very wide confidence intervals. You can't say from this that there is any statistical difference between groups.

Re sickle cell trait:

On thread 5 I posted this under previous username:

17/04/2020 23:26123bananas

Just a thought that popped into my head this evening re: BAME cases and deaths.

My DH is black and has sickle cell trait, under certain conditions such as low oxygen environments (high altitude), increased pressure (diving) and dehydration rarely people with the trait can have crises like that of sickle cell disease. As many as 3 million people in the USA have SCT and many are unaware that they carry the gene.

This paper seems to say that blood flow in sickle cell trait is oxygen dependent and viscosity becomes higher impairing blood flow in lower oxygen conditions.

I wonder if some of the BAME cases are undiagnosed SCT, severely impacted by low oxygen due to breathing difficulties associated with Covid-19.

18/04/2020 14:24123bananas

More on sickle cell trait for those interested:

Anyone can have sickle cell trait but it is most common in people whose family origin is Black African, Black Caribbean or Black British. It also occurs in people who originate from the Middle East, India and Eastern Mediterranean areas. In other populations, sickle cell trait is unusual but can occur. Around 240,000 people in the UK estimated to carry the gene (SCT) ref.

Gender differences in sickle cell disease, males more likely to have crises post puberty due to possible protective effect of oestrogen and differences in nitric oxide production (dilates blood vessels).

Sickle cell trait worsens symptoms of type 2 diabetes

@NeurotrashWarrior i have one of those on facebook, luckily we don't live close anymore. She also thinks it's caused by 5G

demonstrations were often by people wearing face masks and trying to keep their distance, a photo of a small number who didnt doesnt change that. They are also in places heavily impacted by the virus already so the disproportionately younger people attending may well have had it already. It's also unlikely that many of them travelled far to get there. They were foolish holding the demos now but to suggest prosecuting them for an outdoor demonstration is ridiculous.

A selfish covidiot driving 260 miles (and likely to have stopped along the way but wasnt seen so not admitting it) has probably influenced many across the country to think why should I care about my civic duty? The mad rush to the beaches (seen the kettling in photos of Durdle Door news.sky.com/story/dorset-three-seriously-injured-cliff-jumping-at-durdle-door-11997715 ), sometimes in places with previously low rate of infections (like the south west) will have an impact.

My point was that truth is alien to this government.

Nquarts, I did laugh when the bbc app both announced face masks in all
Hospitals for everyone and then the WHO saying to wear them, not long after all the twisting and lying and proclaiming of being controlled.

But apparently it's all bill gates as he's given a lot of money to the WHO.

Something's coming apparently. No one could define what. - Yes, worldwide poverty and a potentially second wave, worse if idiots follow stupid ideas like that.

@NeurotrashWarrior i can't be bothered to argue with her so I've just blocked her! Apparently lock down is about control but she can't explain why every other country has done the same but it's our government who are up to no good. Can't argue with stupid as they say!