Data and Analysis Thread, started Oct 29

[PatriciaHolm]

With a link to the previous header for all the great links to data -

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4057030-Pure-data-thread-1-Daily-numbers-graphs-focused-analyses?

And with a polite plea to keep the focus on data and analysis if you please.

thanks all

@TheSunIsStillShining the elderly will get it quickly because the virus disproportionately affects older people. If the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated it doesn’t matter so much if they rest of us are or not. There are lots of workers who can’t socially distance at work, (factory workers for example) it would be a bad idea to vaccinated all of them as priority over the elderly as there are so many of them. We need to prioritise those who are the worst effected first.

Another Monday and another low number of tests processed

Is this possibly because they're now well below capacity, so the fact they don't have as many posted samples (no collections on a sunday lots of places) they simply don't have as many samples in the labs?

You’re not @Regulus.

I will have to read again later when I’ve actually got time but I did think they were declaring effectiveness on low number of confirmed cases for comparison. That said, I don’t know anything about medical trials or their parameters.

Yes I know what you mean @Regulus . Also that approx 93 people getting it from the placebo group and 7 getting it from the vaccine group is a bit of a small group to base all of this shouting from the rooftops on.

But of course I know the scientists wouldn't be announcing this if it didn't meet carefully calculated thresholds. I have a friend who used to work in pharma Regulatory Affairs and know it's such detailed stuff.

TheSunIsStillShining, I think you’re overestimating how easy it is for elderly people to shield. If you’re old and have complex health needs you need lots of contacts with hcps for different reasons- my dad is always having to go for blood tests, my mum has to have her hearing aids sorted out. Then there’s the day to day stuff-they can’t change light bulbs any more, to give one example of a simple domestic task somebody has to go in their home to help with. And that’s at the older more decrepit end. Fitter elderly people might be relied on for childcare or have other elderly people relying on them to run errands. I have one friend in her 70s who basically spends every morning picking up prescriptions and shopping for the other residents in her flats.

Some links to various vaccine % and breakdown of those taking part in testing for C19 vaccine

vaxopedia.org/2016/10/09/effectiveness-rates-of-vaccines/

digital.nhs.uk/dashboards/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-studies-volunteers-dashboard-uk

.

But of course I know the scientists wouldn't be announcing this if it didn't meet carefully calculated thresholds. I have a friend who used to work in pharma Regulatory Affairs and know it's such detailed stuff

I'm not convinced it was the scientists that were behind the press release. It's not been peer reviewed, the latest trial isn't finished. It has however done wonders for pharmaceutical share prices and stock markets in general.

Do we know what percentage of people currently in hospital or have sadly died are care home residents, staff and health care workers and elderly. If we have that data it would surely drive who gets the vaccine.
Though as an aside I am not sure that is going to help the economy - if only health care workers and care hone staff and elderly people are vaccinated.
Or help education or those who rely on education, due to number of staff and pupils constantly off.

[quote Racoonworld]@TheSunIsStillShining the elderly will get it quickly because the virus disproportionately affects older people. If the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated it doesn’t matter so much if they rest of us are or not. There are lots of workers who can’t socially distance at work, (factory workers for example) it would be a bad idea to vaccinated all of them as priority over the elderly as there are so many of them. We need to prioritise those who are the worst effected first.[/quote]
But atm it's only about elderly.... and the vulnerable are thrown under the bus. Also I am waiting eagerly for peer review and how many of the volunteers had different underlying issues (particularly gastro stuff).

I do feel it's a bit too hurray-optimistic to look at this as a saviour.

Why is it by default that the really elderly (70-100) will be in the first batch? They are the least likely to be mobile, they don't contribute to the economy and it's easier for them to shield (eg no school aged children). I'm not sure Joe Biden has a carer, he seems pretty mobile, I'm not sure if President Elect means he contributes to the economy.

There's an interesting thread on twitter where someone has made estimates of the actual number of the 94 Covid cases in the Pfizer trial that must have been in the vaccinated group to produce 95% certainly that the vaccine is so least 90% effective. They're suggesting the answer is 2 (or less) of the 94. Which means, if correct, that the vaccine is probably more like 97-98% effective. Does this sound right to people? If it is, it's very good.

Sirfred good point, I hadn't considered postal tests not being collected on a Sunday.

But atm it's only about elderly.... and the vulnerable are thrown under the bus

I don’t think that’s quite accurate. I think it’s based mostly on which group is putting the most pressure on the NHS. In this case it’s the elderly.

Have I missed today’s data release on deaths, cases and test numbers or is it extremely late?

@RedRedRobinBobbin no it's been out for a while ok the gov website

21350 cases

194 deaths

@ancientgran :) fair enough
I understand the cons but it still feels off...
If I'm being pessimistic I'd say that once there is a vaccine for the most vulnerable (=elderly) everyone will be ushered back to normal and although death won't, but cases will soar. If I'm even more pessimistic than I'd say that if it wears off in 3 months than this gov will never be able to secure enough doses for society (pissup in a brewery come to mind). And on the paranoid side: once there is a vaccine and those most at risk will be safe(ish) they will stop testing and counting, so we won't even know what's going on.

And another worry would be the long term effects that might just be visible in 10-20 years. There is a potential for the next shipwreck event there.
(sorry, not really feeling the happy vibe that's going around today)

@TheSunIsStillShining

In the nicest possible way, what should we do then? Hold off on the vaccine for 20 years to be on the safe side?

My understanding is that long term complications from vaccines aren't generally considered to be a significant issue. Side effects from vaccines when they do occur tend to occur quickly.

The reality is that vaccine or no vaccine people will not SD for years and years. They just won't. You can already see people adjusting and accepting the higher levels of risk. Last lockdown people were frightened, this lockdown everyone rushed out for dinner/to the pub in the last days before things closed.

If the vaccine can reduce the impact of covid on the NHS to acceptable levels then it will be a resounding success in my view. I'm hopeful it will ultimately achieve a lot more, but a functional health system is the main goal.

I'm feeling quite optimistic about it. Hopefully with this one, and the Oxford one we can begin to look forward.

Zoe app is going down in numbers, and we're definitely seeing levelling off (although today was quite high for a Monday).

2nd November is really high though. I'd reckon that's people who put off testing over half term though (and a few asymptomatic children who thought they'd try and skive and discovered they were actually positive ), so maybe they should have been in the previous week.

@Sunshinegirl82
in the nicest possible way: no :)
I think a vaccine is great, even if you have to get it every 3 months until they do a better one.
My main priority is less the NHS, albeit from a societal pov I highly agree that that should be gov's goal, but personally I'd like it i I was safe(r). Or can do reasonable measures to be safe because others are doing as well.
I have an autoimmune condition. This does not mean that I want everyone locked down all the time so I can do normal stuff. I am the outlier, and I'm fine with that, truly. But...not really having options for my son other than (eg. school) go in bugs me.

I think that people - as long as they can follow a few simple steps to be safe - should be out doing their stuff. There should be a limit on mass gatherings (church, sport, school) and then everyone could mostly get on. Even those who are more compromised.

On the long term illness part. I was referring to long-covid, not from vaccination. I don't think everyone should stay home for the next 20 years. If I have to chose to be home/wear a mask always/etc and "do nothing as it's a one off contagion"... then I think given the warning examples out there we should take it more seriously.

There are risk levels and in my opinion the risks with current measures (which are a joke) are too high personally. The problem is that leaving it up to the individual means that 1.4m ppl in the UK are selfish (or stupid) enough to fly on a holiday in August and bring back some more, slightly different strains of the virus because they cannot fathom the consequences of their actions. We (society) should not be expecting individuals to make the right and informed calls. They can't. Their selfish, momentary needs will dominate. (and yes I'm no different in principle, just my selfish needs actually don't potentially hurt anyone as it is mostly to stay home or go where there are not too many ppl). And individuals have varying levels of intellect and knowledge or need for knowledge.

No idea, but let's assume 70+ people and 1 carer for every 10 ppl Surely there would be more than 1 carer for every 10 people, home where I do admin have 2 carers on shift for every 10 residents and you have 3 shifts a day 7 days a week. So by my reckoning if staff all doing 5 shifts a week that is just over 4 carers for every 10 residents.

Sorry if I've misunderstood.

@ancientgran
thanks! Never been to a care home in this country.
That makes it an additional 200k people to factor in.

I think the reality is that the restrictions are contrary to human nature and so people won't stick with them for anything other than the absolute minimum and even that is questionable.

I don't think people struggle to stick with them because they are innately selfish (although some are!) but because they are really hard. It's always been my view that we might get some level of compliance through the winter but that come Spring you would really struggle to keep people engaged. I'm hoping this will give people the push they need to get through the next few months and the vaccine can do the heavy lifting after that.

I'd support the suspension of fines for those who want their children to be home schooled for this school year to give people more options.

@sunshinegirl There's no fines for taking your kids out of school to home ed them. Though some parents are reluctant because they'd lose the school place (if the school is full in their year/has a waiting list) You could let schools hold places, just for this year if their parents want to home ed just during Covid. That would be very reasonable.

Taking kids out of school and not home educating them would result in a fine, but I'm not sure parents should be doing that, certainly not for long lengths of time.