Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 9

975 replies

Barracker · 23/05/2020 10:40

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.Flowers

OP posts:
Thread gallery
78
Quarantino · 06/06/2020 09:18

patriciaholm

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.

You mean, the 71% did not have any symptoms...
It is worrying to me that potentially high numbers of school age children are asymptomatic carriers, as they're going back to school... Even low numbers would be worrying i think.

NeurotrashWarrior · 06/06/2020 09:32

Thanks chocco

NeurotrashWarrior · 06/06/2020 09:33

Nquartz, I've unfollowed. Actually a bit concerned about her though as I feel she changed when she met her current partner. And has a child.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 10:35

Just looking at the US numbers

www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

Red States:

  1. Louisiana 62 per 100k
  2. Indiana 33
  3. Mississippi 27
  4. Georgia 20
  5. Iowa 18

Swing States

  1. Michigan 56
  2. Pennsylvania 46
  3. Colorado 26
  4. Ohio 20
  5. New Hampshire 20

Blue States

  1. New York 155
  2. New Jersey 135
  3. Connecticut 112
  4. Massachusetts 104
  5. Rhode Island 71
  6. DC 67
  7. Illinois 45
  8. Maryland 44
  9. Delaware 40
10. Minnesota 20

In terms of raw numbers:

  1. New York 30.2k
  2. NJ 12.0k
  3. Mass 7.2k
  4. Penn 5.9k
  5. Illinois 5.8k
  6. Michigan 5.6k
  7. California 4.5k
  8. Connecticut 4.0k
  9. Louisiana 2.9k
10. Maryland 2.7k 11. Florida 2.7k 12. Ohio 2.4k 13. Indiana 2.3k 14. Georgia 2.2k 15. Texas 1.8k 16. Virginia 1.5k 17. Colorado 1.5k 18. Minnesota 1.2k 19. Washington 1.1k 20. North Carolina 1.0k 21. Arizona 1.0k

The most populous 'bright red' state, Texas, with 30 million people, has a death rate half of California. Florida, nominally a swing state but governed by the GOP for two decades, despite 'spring break', etc. has a tiny death rate.

Geographically it really is quite similar to Italy - centred on the NE.

This is not to praise one party or another, but it seems clear a large part of this is luck. The New York metro area has had a disastrous pandemic, while, say, Portland, is untouched.

A large part of it depends on the politics of the observer. The global right has tended to want to get back to work from the beginning, while the global left is more cautious. So the Tories in the UK can be criticised from the left, because our outcomes have been disastrous, while the Democratic NE of the USA will shift the blame to Trump.

But mostly it's luck, in that while say Sweden's (which has a centre-left government, as it happens) covid-19 death toll is relatively bad, it's not absolutely terrible. Clearly it could have been, but mostly the deaths are a tool to play politics with. The UK government seems to have made an error despite claiming to be 'scientific' in firstly failing to scale testing, secondly in allowing the virus to rampage uncontrolled rather than just shutting it down, and thirdly in the implicit 'harvesting' policy of care home slaughter.

But for much of the world, the Trump approach of doing fairly little might have been the best approach.

sleepwhenidie · 06/06/2020 10:42

I am feeling that the media is so confusing at the moment, messages are so opposing from different outlets and then adding the data into the mix makes me not know what to think...cases will be down to zero by end of June/R is up above 1 in some regions and scientists and shouting warnings/track and trace (clearly) not working yet, deaths are coming down slowly but hospital admissions over the last week are not reassuring...it very much feels like this could go either very badly or that the (huge gamble) of easing lockdown at this point might actually come off. What are other people’s thoughts?

ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 10:47

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.

From what I've seen mask-wearing doesn't work very well in populations where it is not normal. If you have cops who will crack skulls for not wearing masks, then fine. In some places this is already normal. But those countries tend not to allow protests!

In countries with less, shall we say, discipline, this doesn't seem to work.

Very few of the men here are wearing masks

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52868465

One arsehole is wearing an NHS t-shirt.

Here almost nobody is wearing masks

i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PRI_153523454-3.jpg

The BBC claims 'protesters don masks' in Australia

www.bbc.com/news/live/world-52947598

and has a large banner of people wearing masks.

But there are several men with their masks around their chins.

They are also massed in extremely close proximity.

Mask-wearing in Asian countries is effective against pollution and that's why it's common. If you wear a mask you WILL reduce the PM10s and PM2.5s polluting your lungs. Even if it's sitting round your chin some of the time, at least the total exposure will be dramatically reduced while it's on.

It's intuitive that masks may reduce transmission at mass gatherings, but they aren't going to eliminate the transmission caused solely by those gatherings.

BigChocFrenzy · 06/06/2020 11:40

As posted, imo it is not acceptable in a democracy to prolong a ban on peaceful demonstrations any longer,
especially as they are predominantly by an age group at v low risk.

I prioritise retaining democratic rights as much as retaining a functioning economy - they go together

BigChocFrenzy · 06/06/2020 12:05

In the US, like the UK, the "left" (US Democrats would be considered Tory here !) dominate in cities,
whereas the support of the right is concentrated more rurally

A pandemic was always going to hit first and hardest in "world cities" like London and NYC,
with huge populations and constant international connections

The Scandi / Nordic countries all had v low deaths

  • from serology studies, this is probably mainly because of relatively low infection rates due to low population density and lack of events with large crowds.

We can see that the gradient of their early curves was much lower than in other European countries

However, Sweden had multiples of the death rate of its neighbours who locked down
and the UK, France, Spain were all on the Italy curves, not the Nordic ones.

WIth a "novel" Coronavirus and the carnage in N Italy, it was reasonable for responsible governments, especially of larger populations,
to consider the "reasonable worst case" (e.g. Whitty, Vallance)
and press the pause button of lockdown:

. to learn more about the virus
. who it kills, especially how many under 65
. how to treat it
. how many need hospital and especially ICU resources
. to build up hospital resources
. to build up public health resources for mass contact tracking

Now scientists know far more and barring exponential growth getting completely out of control somewhere,
it is unlikely that even a 2nd wave, if it happens, would cause a full lockdown.
Probably the strategy then would be somewhere between this and Sweden.

In the absence of a 2nd wave - which e.g. German virologists think we may avoid -
the strategy is to keep the ban on large crowds,
keep some social distancing
and lockdown new outbreaks very locally only
This requires reliable contact tracing and isolation for all these clusters.

This strategy has been successful on the continent,
so it is difficult for the UK govt to justify delaying much longer in restarting schools and the economy.

They have wasted a lot of the lockdown pause time, e.g. reportedly contact tracking won't be working properly before September / October.
However, time has run out:
the political idiocy and rule-breaking at the top has only increased impatience & frustration at lockdown.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 13:02

That wasn't really the point I was making.

Aside from very small states, cities will constitute most of the population of most states.

E.g. Texas has 4 of the 11 cities in the US with one million+ population. It's true that even in Texas, the cities will be more Democratic and rural areas overwhelmingly Republican.

Miami has more international visitors than Milan.

Paris more than NY. The diabolically bad performance of NE US and NE Italy may have required the international flights, but it wasn't inevitable simply because of that.

I imagine mass transit systems in cities such as NY and London have made things worse than on say Miami, but they are not unique to these cities.

It's not really a specific point, more that there is no right answer to this, but people will largely seek to reinforce their pre-existing beliefs using whichever facts they choose.

E.g. Trump supporters will blame the Democratic government of their states, and vice versa. And people who were already sympathetic to Jacinda Arden will praise her, even where the deaths are essentially identical to Australia (an insignificant number)

Of course as you say, we have learned things and can respond better than before to such a pandemic, but the politics is just the same old point scoring, my team Vs your team playground stuff.

And your opinion might be that protests are important, whereas in the US some people believe they have an absolute right to continue trading. And if the government doesn't pay them to close that's an understandable position. There aren't really any correct answers...

I don't think it's true btw that the Democrats are basically Tories. There are lots of positions that are fairly mainstream there on things such as immigration, transgender rights , etc. That wouldn't fly in UK Labour let alone the Tories.

Economically the US is much more laissez-faire and perhaps that reflects in the NE US covid-19 disaster, but it's not really a universal truth.

I don't agree that protests are more important than, say, walking your dog, which is something that the police were restricting. Unless you are going to make *everything" just guidelines and no law, then mass protests fail any purposive construction of law, and the law does not seem to have been calculated to stop protests as a goal, but are a necessary part of the legitimate purpose of stopping the viral spread.

That might be different in say HK where covid-19 is a good excuse to stop existing protests. Even in India, where the majority are Hindu, the mass spread of covid-19 by Muslim proselytizers can either be seen as 'bad Muslims spreading virus' or 'Islamophobic India persecuting Muslims'.

However when you have a global economic catastrophe laying waste to everything, and know that covid-19 WILL end, so it's not a permanent restriction, it's hard to say that restrictions on mass gatherings, which are more catastrophic in spread terms, the larger they get, could be unjustifiable.

BigChocFrenzy · 06/06/2020 13:37

I feel we have reached the stage where regaining the right to protest takes precedence

Particularly as those who demonstrate tend to be at v little risk of COVID themselves,
but have less electoral power, because of demographics, than those they are being forced to protect at great cost to their own present and future.

This would be of particular relevance and importance wrt protests over lockdown, or over other government policies, rather than events in the USA

The danger from COVID will remain until we have a vaccine, but we cannot require effective political campaigning to stop until then,
any more than schools and the economy should stop

imo, it's time to accept some risks and particularly to release the young and even middle-aged who are at v little risk

BigChocFrenzy · 06/06/2020 13:38

The longterm consequences of banning demonstrations could be significant even in secure democracies,
let alone countries like Hungary or open dictatorships

ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 14:23

the problem with releasing groups, is that they are virus vectors for others. It's necessary to release some or all of the population where that is proportionate. For example, it might be proportionate to open schools and universities as the educational needs of those outweighs the virus vector spread.

It's not clear how protests fit into that. An anti-lockdown protest is at least timely.

BigChocFrenzy · 06/06/2020 15:02

imo, the need to retain democratic rights outweighs the spread of the virus
even more so than reopening schools

I tolerated the suspension of these rights only when it was for the absolute minimum period.

However, we seem to be into mission creep now,
with many people - mostly those in comfortable circumstances with secure finances -
wanting to continue curtailing significant freedoms of others until there is a vaccine,
i.e. indefinitely, for years

Wearing masks and being limited in entertainment are not too significant infringements;
cutting education and causing the loss of jobs and income are grim
and banning demonstrations against these has potentially very serious consequences for democracy

I have always been concerned about the political implications of lockdown,
with the suffering born by those at very little risk from the virus,
as well as the disproportionate economic effects on those less well off

Lockdown needs to have overwhelming consent from those making the sacrifices, not just those benefitting from them
and imo that consent is rapidly disappearing.
We might even see mass demonstrations against lockdown soon

LivinLaVidaLoki · 06/06/2020 15:25

@BigChocFrenzy

imo, the need to retain democratic rights outweighs the spread of the virus even more so than reopening schools

I tolerated the suspension of these rights only when it was for the absolute minimum period.

However, we seem to be into mission creep now,
with many people - mostly those in comfortable circumstances with secure finances -
wanting to continue curtailing significant freedoms of others until there is a vaccine,
i.e. indefinitely, for years

Wearing masks and being limited in entertainment are not too significant infringements;
cutting education and causing the loss of jobs and income are grim
and banning demonstrations against these has potentially very serious consequences for democracy

I have always been concerned about the political implications of lockdown,
with the suffering born by those at very little risk from the virus,
as well as the disproportionate economic effects on those less well off

Lockdown needs to have overwhelming consent from those making the sacrifices, not just those benefitting from them
and imo that consent is rapidly disappearing.
We might even see mass demonstrations against lockdown soon

Agree. 100%
Laniakea · 06/06/2020 15:42

“ the suffering born by those at very little risk from the virus,
as well as the disproportionate economic effects on those less well off“

Yes, absolutely.

Quarantino · 06/06/2020 15:57

Lockdown needs to have overwhelming consent from those making the sacrifices

While I do completely agree with this, in order to make informed consent people need to be accurately informed! In ways they can understand. I hardly know of anyone (myself very much included) who feels they have a 'full' picture or understanding of the data and how to interpret it, what it means, and what actual strategies can be put in place, to weigh up pros/cons of the risk.

nellodee · 06/06/2020 16:13

BigChocFrenzy, I am concerned that the ineffectiveness of test and trace in this country will compromise our efforts to come out of lockdown without triggering a second wave. We have higher cases (is there a threshold at which test and trace fails to work?) and much more incompetence to deal with, sadly, than many of our European neighbours. I very much hope that we have their success, but I do not think that it is by any means a foregone conclusion.

alreadytaken · 06/06/2020 16:59

people should stop claiming that the "suffering" is born by those who wont get the virus. Some people have been happy enough being furloughed or working from home. Some of the elderly staying in and disrupting their normal lives so the NHS is not overwhelmed would be considerably happier taking their risks with the virus - but understand civic duty.

Most people are finding this unpleasant in some way - some suffer financially more than others, some have more fear of death, some miss social contacts more than others.

Now does anyone know if data will be published at weekends, since we wont get the press conferences?

LivinLaVidaLoki · 06/06/2020 17:02

@alreadytaken

Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 9
ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 17:03

"as well as the disproportionate economic effects on those less well off“

erm. not sure about this.

Lots of people on lower incomes better off due to the lockdown.

It's normal to express spending decisions or tax cuts in terms of which percentiles they benefit most.

During covid-19 we have had:

  • a massive increase of LHA so that UC/HB covers actual rents, not rents of 10 years ago
  • an increase in WTC/UC income disregard
  • a payment of 80% of wages up to £2500 a month, which has left many better off

Meanwhile the richest have suffered millions in losses, which the government is not insuring (and quite rightly so).

It's true that in many countries the lockdown does hurt the worst off very much - if you are in India or somewhere and are poor then you might be totally fucked if you can't earn. But that's not the same as the UK, where we have the world's most generous response to the lockdown.

It's clear that the economic impact has been born overwhelmingly by the better off.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 17:03

borne

ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 17:06

There was also a £1k bonus to Universal Credit, and an end to the 5-year benefits freeze.

Meanwhile if you had a business earning hundreds of thousands of pounds that shut down because of covid-19, that's something the government is NOT going to replace. It's a permanent loss of income.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves · 06/06/2020 17:08

the 80% being better off since for example, while 80% is less than 100%, it was 80% to sit a home, with no commuting expenses, and because of no socialising, travel, etc., whether people wanted to or not, their expenses went down.

clearly some poor people will have suffered, but as far as we measure impacts, the financial impact is overwhelmingly with the richest deciles of societies.

alreadytaken · 06/06/2020 17:09

Thanks - I knew the death figures but I want to know hospital admissions and bed use, normally see them in the briefing slides.

Nihiloxica · 06/06/2020 17:12

It's clear that the economic impact has been born overwhelmingly by the better off.

So far.

The UC changes are temporary, although it might prove politically difficult to reverse them.