Just in tiers with it all now ....

[dancemom]

New Thread, same old situation....

Just listening to Jason Leitch on Off the Ball.

Quite interesting; he said that the WHO don't consider infections to be under control until cases are less than 50 per 100k people. I'd never heard that before. Then the next stage or goal (of maximum suppression I guess) is under 20 per 100k.

So we need cases to half from where we are now to be considered 'under control' by that measure. I suppose that ties in with why we still have such tough restrictions.

@WannaCapybara that's really interesting! I think they should be pushing that info. It gives people something to aim for.

And a bit more understanding

That sounds a good interview re Leon not, as of business owners don't care about their staff or their families.

The problem with using the cases per 100k is that it's easily manipulated or distorted by testing strategies and size. So you could easily start testing people you are pretty sure don't have it to bring the percent rate down or make testing "unavailable" for symptomatic cases.

I'm not saying that's what has been done, just saying that you could accidentally or deliberately manipulate the figures and it's easier for them to be distorted the smaller numbers you have. So when you look at local figures, my area can be about 200per 100k just because one family tests positive.

This is when we come back again to the numbers in hospital ill because of covid rather than just being positive, and the numbers who have died because of covid would have been the numbers to record and track but that ship sailed - again that is not just Scotland.

I agree though that giving people the actual information would be useful but as long as they actually stick to it unlike the tiers info.

Yes I agree Wax, our town has less than 4000 people and the most cases we've ever had at once has been 13, which pushed us into The Mad Purple Zone.

Just thought I'd share it as it's a piece of info I've never heard before, and it gives me an idea of the levels they're looking at achieving before anything meaningful will change.

I know, it's just disappointing that people's lives and livelihoods are being controlled based on statistics that aren't properly defined and are so easily corruptible or can be so easily affected by other matters or decisions or testing strategies etc.

That's not politically biased as clearly it's similar across the world but just very disappointing in a geeky analysis way - though I am no expert. It's just that in my work I have to look at a lot of MI and try to work out what it is saying and whether it is based on the actual reality. Not political stuff. As they say, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

@WannaCapybara

Just listening to Jason Leitch on Off the Ball.

Quite interesting; he said that the WHO don't consider infections to be under control until cases are less than 50 per 100k people. I'd never heard that before. Then the next stage or goal (of maximum suppression I guess) is under 20 per 100k.

So we need cases to half from where we are now to be considered 'under control' by that measure. I suppose that ties in with why we still have such tough restrictions.

I thought it was 5% the WHO was aiming at? But that could just be 5% of all tests being positive, rather than 5% of the entire population having it which is different. And as wax says, if it is just the test positivity results they are looking at, that could easily be "gamed" by testing more people without symptoms.

Symptomatic testing is working out at about 100 per 100k Scotland-wide at the moment (about 0.1% of the entire population). But obviously that doesn't include people who aren't tested because they are asymptomatic, or don't have typical symptoms, or who can't afford to be tested and risk being positive or whatever. So the actual number of cases is higher - the ONS tests a random sample, and yesterday that was reported as being 1 case per 180 people in Scotland (about 0.55% of the population, so around 30,000 out of 5.4 million or about 500 per 100k(?).

So 50 per 100k is very low for the entire population. It would be (I think) 1 case per 2,000 people - so more than 10x higher than we are at the moment population wide.

I am very prepared for my maths to be pulled apart cos I'm not entirely convinced I've got the right end of the stick or I'm not orders of magnitude out.

The way Scotland counts though is apparently not how the WHO do it? Did he mention that? Our way of counting means more cases, I saw

I am in no position to pull your maths apart so I belief everything you said.

He didn't say any more on that point; I think it was in response to a question where someone said, is it great that we've the lowest rate in the UK? His response was not really, it's meaningless, and this is the measurement the WHO would use to determine how successful countries are.

I think the WHO 5% is based on more luje the ons random sample testing. I'll try to find it

Belief? Believe!

More like the ONS. Bloody phone

Anyway, here's the link to the WHO doc which has been noted as defining the test positivity rate with regards to sentinel sites. My understanding is these are not what we have - the ONS stats based on their random survey would be more in line with this

The definition is in a table towards the end

www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/considerations-in-adjusting-public-health-and-social-measures-in-the-context-of-covid-19-interim-guidance

I was saying this to DH the other night. Surely if they tested the entire Scottish population- every man, woman and child, the % positive would be minuscule. Yes some people would text positive that didn't expect it but in general most people who go for a test have symptoms or are contacts. So the under 5% means the virus is under control thing is flawed. Places that have done LOADS of asymptomatic testing (S Korea? Germany?) will inevitably have a far lower % positive.

Or have I completely misunderstood the whole thing? (Wouldn't be the first time...)

No I think what you say makes absolute sense @icanboogieboogiewoogie but I wonder if they've built that reckoning into their calculations? Because we are largely still only testing symptomatic folk you would hope that was taken into account and adjustments made. I genuinely don't have a clue though but I would hope if we've thought of it then they have!

If you can, read Neil Oliver’s excellent column in the ST today, it just says everything. He’s been called ‘brave’ in the comments, which probably upsets me more than what he writes about.
What a mess we’re in. I do hope we can see more ‘brave’ people speaking out in the coming weeks.

What's brave about writing a column about your dislike of the government? It actually is a free country, although I see it makes his column more attractive to claim that it isn't.

This is what the majority of people on Scotsnet say all the time, it's nothing new.

The subsequent abuse he’ll recieve on social media for starters.
We hide behind user names on here, so it’s easy to express our feelings without outing ourselves to friends, family, colleagues. The reality is, that anonymity is a safer mechanism for free speech in modern Scotland. How sad, but true, IMO.

@WannaCapybara

What's brave about writing a column about your dislike of the government? It actually is a free country, although I see it makes his column more attractive to claim that it isn't.

This is what the majority of people on Scotsnet say all the time, it's nothing new.

The majority of Scotsnet aren't public figures who get abused in the street or on social media for their opinions. Or who are forced to step down as Chair of the National Trust for Scotland because of them.

Yeah...but I think the implication is that it's some dangerous to speak out against the SNP? I think that's overstated.

There are countries where he'd be in jail right now, having been bundled away during the night.

This isn't one of them. I'm sure he can cope with tweets from twats.

Oh I feel like that's a good name for something

If he'd not spoken out about nationalism, he'd still be in a job. Devi and her anti Scottish tweet (sorry she forgot a word) and his failing to take down a tweet about Starkey for a few days after that storm kicked off were about equivalent scandals.

Is Devi still in post? Yes maybe we aren't yet China, what a claim.

What job did he lose?

He's got an opinion he's published it meh🤷🏻‍♀️ I don't think it's particularly brave. RD publishes anti Scottish Government stuff every week in her column. It's to be expected surely.

I don't agree with mobs pressuring orgs to do anything. I don't know how sensible it was in the first place to give a prominent job in Scottish society to someone who says that what at least half of us believe about the future of our nation (according to lots of polls now) is cancerous.

He was President of the National Trust for Scotland, briefly