Covid

[mercian]

Dec 27, 2021 21:31:44 GMT Danny said:

Dec 27, 2021 20:08:43 GMT mercian said:

Danny
"I havent seen any evidence young people are generating a large proportion of covid hospital cases whether vaccinated or not, so its irrelevant whether they get vaccinated."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You make this sort of false inference a lot.

So you are agreeing with me, theres's no evidence this vast interruption of the world economy actually saved anyone? Thats the problem I have, you see. No evidence it helped. Whereas what I do see in the UK was the national plan for managing the epidemic was changed, but step by step the new plan failed.

Covid deaths in November 6.7% of total. Total deaths below the 5-year average.

So... excess deaths earlier in the epidemic were in fact people who would have died now anyway?

I had a look at the ONS link you gave, which included a table of main causes of death in November 2021, which placed covid as third. Talk about partial! For all the other causes they included a 5 year average, which was pretty similar to this November outcomes. The exception was they failed to include the covid 5 years average. Obviously over the last 5 years its a lot lower and would place it behind influenza. Ok..so its new, but do we honestly believe it is likey to ever again kill as many as in November 2021, so the long term average will sink. If it behaves more like other corona viruses rather than flu, it will end up killing rather few. In the long term its unlikely to be a significnt killer worth a special category.

Re first quote. I was attacking your logical process, not the specific question.  Firstly, the fact that you and I have not seen evidence for something does not mean that it does not exist. Secondly, if evidence for something does not exist, that is categorically NOT the same as saying that the something does not exist. Simple logic. Also, the example I used was to do with hospitalisations of young people, nothing whatever to do with the world economy.

Second quote: Your statement does not logically follow from mine.

You do make good points occasionally but your grasp of logic is so shaky that it undermines all your posts.  You are also obsessive about Covid and its handling.  Can't you just accept that all (maybe not Brazil) governments are doing the best they can to protect their populations and economy? I'm sure in hindsight they could all find things they could have done better and I'm also sure that there will be inquiries that go on for years afterwards. I suggest you save all your posts on the subject on here and the previous site and present them to any such inquiry. Or write a book.

[Deleted]

Repost of link for NHS England Covid Stats on 'Hospital Activity': www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

Instead of guessing, making stuff up or misrepresenting my/others posts then folks can read all the methodology info direct on that link (or not!)

The two issues WRT to what some consider 'over-reporting'[1] can be found in the latest updates (find and click on relevant file):

1/ 'With' v 'From' Covid. Primary Diagnosis Supplement 23 December 2021 (XLSX, 29KB) that shows the 'From' % dropping further to 70% (and likely to go lower as the less severe Omicron variant takes over[1] from Delta with a lag)

2/ Total reported admissions + diagnoses in hospital (table 1, used in published daily info) versus the lower Admission from Community (table 3) for which most recent 7day average is 78% of 'total'. That info is considered to give an idea of how many folks catch Covid in hospital although unclear if that partially overlaps with #1. See Daily Admissions and Beds 27 December 2021 (XLSX, 41KB)

Also periodic info on Admissions Analysis by Age Group Supplement – 09 December 2021 (XLSX, 37KB) which was relevant when some of the 'Zero Covid' fanatics made up a story about loads more children being admitted to hospital with Covid (and again, not 'from'). The % of 0-17yr olds has been fairly stable at around 6% of total  

[1] A little bit of 'fear' is not necessarily a bad thing as it should increase vaccination and booster take-up (and loads of data on how effective that is at reducing risk of severe disease (hospital admission) and death) but too much 'fear' is also a 'bad' thing if it leads to bad decision making by politicians. Saj seems to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and hasn't over reacted thankfully although it is too early to say with certainty if the 'voluntary' lockdown (aka 'behavioural adjustment' from gen.pub) was OTT but that will certainly have impacted Rt (ie reduced potential transmissions compared to a parallel universe where Harries, Whitty + co. based their comments totally on the facts relevant to Omicron variant). I'm inclined to avoid Captain Hindsight and didn't object to Plan B but as more real World data (for England) becomes available then I hope the 'fear' level drops and we can get through the Omicron wave asap.

[2] That info can be seen in Fig1. of assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043907/20211227_OS_Daily_Omicron_Overview_27_Dec_21.pdf

Where Omicron ranges from 83.2% in NE to 95.1% in London (read the methodology) with England average of 90.4%.

NB They've stopped posting the 'doubling' data as that was so obviously erroneous (and not just due to methodology or small sample sizes early on IMO). Quite why the 'doubling every 2days' stuff was ever believed and/or mistakenly used for the data that matters (hospital data) is unclear but it's very easy to check the actual data for oneself (although until Omicron became so dominant and we waited for the lag then it was unclear to what extent Delta and some waning immunity (pre boosters kicking in for the many) was causing some of the rise in hospital data - which was never doubling every 2days). I note some of the alarmist click-bait press are rowing back to 'doubling every week' (which is still wrong, unless you very carefully pick one specific date for London - for what purpose some folks do that or are too lazy to check for themselves I dunno).

[Deleted]

Link for Saj's comments (and also health and political comments which I'd largely agree with, although I'm personally increasingly optimistic the gamble Boris took has, like 'Freedom Day' will be the correct decision):

No new Covid rules in England before new year - Javid

www.bbc.com/news/uk-59804686

2c. IMO Saj has done an excellent job since taking over from Handcock. I wouldn't be opposed to him becoming next CON leader (and PM). Some big differences of opinion between R&W (net -2) and YG (net -23) on the Saj which seems beyond the 'usual' approval v favourable difference (approval is usually higher than favourable) 

docs.cdn.yougov.com/lzye7eucj7/Main_FavourabilityTracker_W.pdf

[Danny]

Dec 27, 2021 22:54:12 GMT mercian said:

Firstly, the fact that you and I have not seen evidence for something does not mean that it does not exist. Secondly, if evidence for something does not exist, that is categorically NOT the same as saying that the something does not exist. Simple logic.

Well...there is no evidence I am aware of that covid could have killed more people had we stuck with plan A, managed spread. The evidence I am aware of says that where people intervened less, outcomes were no worse. The Uk plan did call for first trying to keep it outt of the country like Australia etc, but that failed and I contend the reason why was covid started spreading around the world in last quarter of 2019. We have proof it did. And then the evidence that outcomes were so much milder in the pacific rim argues those regions of the world had pre existing immunity. More evidence it wasnt intervention but geography which succeeded there.

Your position is you are asserting this would have killed many more people absent intervention...without evidence. To justify creating such massive economic disruption there should have been evidence, and there wasnt. It isnt for me to prove covid would not have killed more people if handled with less intervention, it is for you to prove it would.

Can't you just accept that all (maybe not Brazil) governments are doing the best they can to protect their populations and economy?

I am not suggesting they have set out to maximise deaths or indeed to do anything to harm anyone. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A set of circumstances led to disastrous handling of this epidemic. However all politicians need to own up to their mistakes, whereas they keep compounding them.

I'm sure in hindsight they could all find things they could have done better

Why do i keep going on? because it isnt hindsight, its right now. Why was christmas cancelled? A whopping further mistake.

[Danny]

Dec 27, 2021 23:02:31 GMT @tw said:

1/ 'With' v 'From' Covid. Primary Diagnosis Supplement 23 December 2021 (XLSX, 29KB) that shows the 'From' % dropping further to 70% (and likely to go lower as the less severe Omicron variant takes over[1] from Delta with a lag)

ferguson published a paper just recently posted above, which sought to determine whether omicron is less dangerous in outcomes. what I noticed amongst his tabulated data was that as the first half of december progressed, the proportion of positive testing people admitted to hospital fell. Both for omicron and delta. That might indicate that when the government instructed the NHS to free up all beds to prepare for a new massive wave of infection, they did exactly that and tightend up their admissions criteria for covid. So they admitted fewer people with it. That would also presumably in due course lead to a rise in the percentage of same receiving intensive treatment or eventually dying (because fewer mildly ill people admitted). If you recall the NHS was criticised in the first wave for refusing to admit people with covid, so presumably it would have widened its admission criteria in response to this. In short- if the admissions criteria change, then admissions ceases to be a reliable measure of comparative severity.

The rubric says the distinction between patients admitted because they have covid or incidentally have covid isnt necessarily clear. We know people are more likely to become seriously ill with covid if they have certain other  diseases already. These stats do not comment on the general health of people considered to be primarily ill with covid.

These numbers must also include elderly people who have recovered from covid but have not been discharged . I mention this because we had a figure last month of 10,000 recovered but not discharged people in NHS hospitals who were bed blocking. I would imagine  that is quite likely to include people considered not able yet to cope alone, who are essentailly well but weak and cannot get care at home to help them because of the shortages of social care. These people should not still be in hospital.

2/ Total reported admissions + diagnoses in hospital (table 1, used in published daily info) versus the lower Admission from Community (table 3) for which most recent 7day average is 78% of 'total'. That info is considered to give an idea of how many folks catch Covid in hospital although unclear if that partially overlaps with #1. See Daily Admissions and Beds 27 December 2021 (XLSX, 41KB)

The actual statistical release in that link is terible. It contains several categories of figures with virtually identical explanations of what they are so its very hard to understand! Taking the 25 december figure for all England (which is provisional):
1) Total reported admissions to hospital of people who have covid in last 24 hours:  1281
Thats all admitted and internal discovered covid infections

2) Estimated new hospital cases 1252
Thats internal and externally diagnosed people who had not previously been admitted having covid. So 29 of the total were in for the second or more time. 2% reinfection and readmission rate (but not necessarily ill because of the covid infection either time).

3) Estimated new admissions to hospital from the community. 969
Thats people admitted with covid and diagnosed in hospital within 7 days of admission, for the first time. The inference is they caught it outside. So 312 caught it almost certainly inside the hospital. (about 1/4)

4) Estimated new hospital admissions with 3-7 days lagging: 836
Still both internal and external detected cases,  in hospital with covid for the first time, but this time including only those who tested positive within 48 hours of admission. So some 133 showed positive within a  week of admission but not in the first couple of days. I guess they are considered potential hospital infections as well as those in 3. Which would bring it up to about 1/3 hospital acquired.

5) Total reported admissions from a care home 36
Wenever diagnosed before or after admission but coming from a care home. Whether or not previously admitted with covid.

6) Total beds occupied by patients who have covid 7166

No comment upon whether ill with covid or incidental.

7) Mechanical ventialtion beds occupied by patients who have covid. 745

No comment upon whether ill with covid or incidental.

Erm.... this data set  mixes together everywhere those ill because of covid and those who happen to have it. All it differentiates really is the location of their diagnosis as infected, not at all its severity.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 27, 2021 19:37:15 GMT @tw said:

Dec 27, 2021 18:44:11 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Dix (and Torygraph) might have a bit of bias but the info has also been published in paywall free ES:

 

yes, cellular immunity (B cells, T cells etc.) has gone more mainstream now. At long last. Agreed of the need to take impact of other treatments into account. Do you know of any data on that, and possibly international comparisons? 

 

[mercian]

Dec 28, 2021 6:57:59 GMT Danny said:

Dec 27, 2021 22:54:12 GMT mercian said:

Firstly, the fact that you and I have not seen evidence for something does not mean that it does not exist. Secondly, if evidence for something does not exist, that is categorically NOT the same as saying that the something does not exist. Simple logic.

Your position is you are asserting this would have killed many more people absent intervention...without evidence. To justify creating such massive economic disruption there should have been evidence, and there wasnt. It isnt for me to prove covid would not have killed more people if handled with less intervention, it is for you to prove it would.

Can't you just accept that all (maybe not Brazil) governments are doing the best they can to protect their populations and economy?

I am not suggesting they have set out to maximise deaths or indeed to do anything to harm anyone. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A set of circumstances led to disastrous handling of this epidemic. However all politicians need to own up to their mistakes, whereas they keep compounding them.

I'm sure in hindsight they could all find things they could have done better

Why do i keep going on? because it isnt hindsight, its right now. Why was christmas cancelled? A whopping further mistake.

Again you are making logical leaps which do not make sense.  My position is not what you say.  I don't actually have a position on exactly what measures and timing were used. I am sure that a case can be made either way, though governments on the whole have followed scientific advice. Are they supposed to ignore that?  Also do you live outside England? Christmas certainly wasn't cancelled here, assuming you're talking about this year.

I am not interested in debating your theories. As I have said before you do make some good points, but the logic of your arguments is full of holes.  It is akin to me saying that because I have never seen the virus therefore it does not exist. Before you make a wrong deduction from that statement I am just using that as an example. I do of course believe that it exists.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2021 12:47:48 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Dec 27, 2021 19:37:15 GMT @tw said:

Dix (and Torygraph) might have a bit of bias but the info has also been published in paywall free ES:

 

yes, cellular immunity (B cells, T cells etc.) has gone more mainstream now. At long last. Agreed of the need to take impact of other treatments into account. Do you know of any data on that, and possibly international comparisons? 

 

There's lots of individual studies for individual drugs and news on when MHRA approved them and NHS started using[1] them but I haven't seen a detailed summary with international comparisons (eg others might be catching up - I hope they are). If you/anyone does spot one could you/they post it and if I spot one then I will.

[1] Some links posted a while back but for EG www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/molnupiravir-uk-grants-world-first-approval-covid-19-pill/

[Deleted]

Why the London 400 hospital admissions on Xmas Eve 'threshold'?

My 2c:
1/ London is the epicentre for Omicron in England (see (flawed) cases data[1], infection surveys, etc) so London would 'lead' rEngland
2/ London is also the 'refusenik' capital of England (see regional vaccination data and previous comments on how that will mean, even adjusted for a younger population, London will be hit harder than other regions) and we have plenty of data on how vaccines+boosters reduce the severity (risk of hospitalisation) of Omicron
3/ 400? Well if Omicron was doubling every 10days then any immediate change would 10days to have an impact (ie London would be at 800, which was similar to previous peaks, before a new lockdown would even have the chance to have an impact (and I'd question how much impact it would have)). London hospitals might have been overwhelmed but still time for rEngland (and NHS can move a bit of demand around)
4/ For #3 then some +ves specific to Omicron (less severe, etc) and -ves (decision time would have cost a few more days) that roughly net out

The data is of course still under review but IF #3 isn't quite yet a plateau then the '400' number can increase a bit (ie breaking that in the coming days doesn't mean panic stations if the doubling time has increased, due to both behavioural factors but also building 'population immunity' via previous infection of Omicron)

The decisions will continue to be based on actual data and actual facts about Omicron. Lockdown would definitely have a significant socio-economic impact and likely only achieve dragging out of the Omicron wave. Of course the lockdown fanatics won't accept that or acknowledge that vaccines and the less severe Omicron mean this wave is very different to the Alpha wave last Winter, but thankfully in England the lockdown fanatics are not in charge of decision making! Young Scots or Welsh might choose to celebrate New Year's Eve in England and if Sturgeon or Drakeford wish to stop that as well then they control their own side of UK internal borders so can set up Police blockades (so no 'blaming' UK HMG (for England policies) and the English please!)

[1] The heatmaps and simplistic split of Cases by specimen date age demographics - Above and below 60 show that although Omicron is most prevalent in younger age groups then the largely 2xvaccinated and boosted over 60s have been seeing cases rise for enough time to start to see that impact in NHS admissions. 
coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=region&areaName=London

[Deleted]

PS to last post. Just FWIW then the London issue can be seen in the actual data (fairly obviously but worth mentioning as I appreciate a lot of folks don't bother to look at the actual data)

Admissions and Patients in hospital 'with' Covid for London have been around 30% of England's numbers since mid Dec (when Omicron became dominant in London but before Plan B or behavioural adjustment would have had an impact on transmission and reducing Rt). 30%ish is roughly 2x the 'per capita' level (London population is 16% of England population). Source NHS England Covid stats.

Folks can do their own maths to see the 'refusenik' issue in London more than offsets the younger population of London using published studies on how effective vaccines+boosters are at reducing severity (take a conservative view and you'd still see that). Regional lockdowns don't seem to be being considered and there are pockets of 'refuseniks' in other regions as well but locking down the many (vaccinated) for the sake of refuseniks would be absurd (IMO - see also comments from Blair, Sphan, Biden, etc and note folks have had plenty of time to get vaccinated and it's been 2weeks+ (but not too long) since the most at risk have all had the chance of a booster). The risk of waning immunity in the most at risk from boosters is another reason to get 'population immunity' to Omicron asap and although 'shielding' is not being pushed as a policy (sadly IMO) then Care Homes and more at risk people are likely taking a lot more caution than in previous waves (ie some additional splitting of the herd beyond the vaccine %s by age group is also occurring)

[Danny]

Dec 28, 2021 18:45:19 GMT @tw said:

Admissions and Patients in hospital 'with' Covid for London have been around 30% of England's numbers since mid Dec (when Omicron became dominant in London but before Plan B or behavioural adjustment would have had an impact on transmission and reducing Rt). 30%ish is roughly 2x the 'per capita' level (London population is 16% of England population). Source NHS England Covid stats.

Folks can do their own maths to see the 'refusenik' issue in London more than offsets the younger population of London using published studies on how effective vaccines+boosters are at reducing severity (take a conservative view and you'd still see that). Regional lockdowns don't seem to be being considered and there are pockets of 'refuseniks' in other regions as well but locking down the many (vaccinated) for the sake of refuseniks would be absurd (IMO - see also comments from Blair, Sphan, Biden, etc and note folks have had plenty of time to get vaccinated and it's been 2weeks+ (but not too long) since the most at risk have all had the chance of a booster). The risk of waning immunity in the most at risk from boosters is another reason to get 'population immunity' to Omicron asap and although 'shielding' is not being pushed as a policy (sadly IMO) then Care Homes and more at risk people are likely taking a lot more caution than in previous waves (ie some additional splitting of the herd beyond the vaccine %s by age group is also occurring)

Omicron only officially started mid december,  but there was a more modest rise in 20-29 age group commencing third quarter of November. Testing which would have identified omicron seems patchy, so its possible it started mid or even early November to begin replacing delta. Which would have led to a fall in severity of cases as it started working through. So by the time it began to be apparent in total cases numbers (ie the total of omicron cases was becoming significant compared to the total of delta cases, it may already have been significant in reducing hospital case numbers in London where it seems to have started.

So in fact, we might already have been seeing a drop in hospitalisations caused by omicron even before we acknowledged it was here. Talk about crying wolf!  Trying to slow the spread of omicron may have caused additional deaths.

Omicron then was the vaccine science failed to create. Thats  not terribly surprising. Ther are two players in this game of prisoners dilemma, and the best outcome for both is mild infections which spread freely.

You are absolutely correct that since it is now three months since the start of the booster campaign, those who received it earliest will by now have had significant falls in antibody levels already and might expect to beccome infectable again.  Israel moved to a fourth round of vaccination precisey because this is what happened. But its quite pointless (except for drug company profits).

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Just one-fifth of new Covid hospital patients are true cases”

“Treat data with caution, say experts, as situation in hospitals during omicron wave is different to ‘horrific scenes’ of a year ago”

“Just one fifth of the weekly rise in Covid inpatients was caused by people admitted to hospital because of the virus, figures suggest.

The most up-to-date NHS data show that on December 21, there were 6,245 beds occupied by coronavirus patients in English hospitals - an increase of 259 from the previous week.

But within that increase, just 45 patients were admitted because of the virus, with the remaining 214 in hospital for other conditions but having also tested positive - so called “incidental Covid” admissions.”

Telegraph

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Catching omicron Covid variant may protect against delta”

“Researchers from the Africa Health Research Institute found that the blood plasma of people infected with omicron was able to control delta”

“Researchers discovered that the antibody response to omicron rose fourteenfold two weeks after an infection, but were surprised to find that neutralising antibodies against delta also increased more than fourfold.

They also showed that vaccinated participants were able to mount a better neutralising response against delta, while the response in unvaccinated participants was more variable.”

Telegraph

[Danny]

So...all this desperate panic to try to prevent omicron spreading simply results in more not less people dying. The faster it spreads, the better for everyone. Its highly likely the younger half of the population would be better off catchng omicron than getting a booster. The older ones possibly too. Its not simply about immunity right now but going forward to a time we will all be more susceptible than we are now as we age.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2021 21:01:24 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“Just one-fifth of new Covid hospital patients are true cases”

“Treat data with caution, say experts, as situation in hospitals during omicron wave is different to ‘horrific scenes’ of a year ago”

“Just one fifth of the weekly rise in Covid inpatients was caused by people admitted to hospital because of the virus, figures suggest.

The most up-to-date NHS data show that on December 21, there were 6,245 beds occupied by coronavirus patients in English hospitals - an increase of 259 from the previous week.

But within that increase, just 45 patients were admitted because of the virus, with the remaining 214 in hospital for other conditions but having also tested positive - so called “incidental Covid” admissions.”

Telegraph

Torygraph seem to be ignoring 'discharged' patients.

21Dec data (change from previous week)
Total Beds Occupied Covid: 6,245 (+259)
Primary Covid: 4,432 (+45)

So their beds occupied numbers are correct but they've ignored that new admission from community (table3) during the period were 4,968 which would mean a lot of folks were discharged (and sadly a small minority died - the 'bad' way to be R-emoved from S-usceptible pool in the SIR model)

Naughty! Just coz the lockdown fanatics have been using 'dodgy data' (eg taking Delta assumptions for Omicron, ignoring the low vaccine immunity during Alpha (Jan'21) or the (still unclear) view Omicron was doubling every two days (unless very naughty 'cherry picking' of dates was used). 

Sources: Primary Diagnosis Supplement 23 December 2021 (XLSX, 29KB) data up to 21Dec
and Daily Admissions and Beds 28 December 2021 (XLSX, 41KB) where folks could use Table 3. Estimated new admissions to hospital from the community

www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 28, 2021 23:36:55 GMT @tw said:

Dec 28, 2021 21:01:24 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“Just one-fifth of new Covid hospital patients are true cases”

“Treat data with caution, say experts, as situation in hospitals during omicron wave is different to ‘horrific scenes’ of a year ago”

“Just one fifth of the weekly rise in Covid inpatients was caused by people admitted to hospital because of the virus, figures suggest.

The most up-to-date NHS data show that on December 21, there were 6,245 beds occupied by coronavirus patients in English hospitals - an increase of 259 from the previous week.

But within that increase, just 45 patients were admitted because of the virus, with the remaining 214 in hospital for other conditions but having also tested positive - so called “incidental Covid” admissions.”

Telegraph

Torygraph seem to be ignoring 'discharged' patients.

21Dec data (change from previous week)
Total Beds Occupied Covid: 6,245 (+259)
Primary Covid: 4,432 (+45)

So their beds occupied numbers are correct but they've ignored that new admission from community (table3) during the period were 4,968 which would mean a lot of folks were discharged (and sadly a small minority died - the 'bad' way to be R-emoved from S-usceptible pool in the SIR model)

Naughty!

www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

they did include a graph in the article which plotted both total beds occupied confirmed Covid, and primary Covid. And go on to conclude that “Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers, which represents hospitals, said it was important not to over-interpret the recent rises in hospitalisations.

“What our guys are saying is that incidental cases are making around 25 to 30 per cent of cases that are arriving, but that will vary from place to place," he said.”

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Also

“We’re also seeing more incidentals than previous waves because people were scared to come in, so there were not so many patients around to also test positive.

“And when the prevalence of a virus with relatively mild symptoms is high in the community then you will see higher incidentals.”

They also go on to say how the extra admissions are causing pressure and cross-infection issues.

[Deleted]

Dec 23, 2021 15:57:46 GMT @tw said:

A good source of data led info from the twitter verse highlighting the drop in 'From' Covid % of folks in hospital (yet another sign Omicron is less severe and the full impact of that will drop the % even further as a lot of folks in hospital currently have Delta). Worth bearing in mind when folks talk about patients in hospital 'With' Covid.

 c-a-r-f-r-e-w see above. I have no issue with most of the Torygraph 'opinion' as a lot of it is based on fact but the comment that '“Just one-fifth of new Covid hospital patients are true cases” is clearly BS and by slipping such blatant misrepresentation of the data that it puts them in the same league as those who have misused data (or been too lazy to even bovver with data) in their demands for yet another lockdown. 

The actual data does not lie or seek to misrepresent and I have no time or tolerance for when it so blatantly misrepresented by those seeking an 'agenda' and the Torygraph appears to backed the full CRG faction of opinion and they have been 'dabbling' in at least selective if not outright misrepresentation of data to fit their 'agenda'

NB I'm very aware that the lockdown fanatics have been blatantly selective, misrepresenting or mis-applying data (eg using previous wave data for Omicron) to 'fit' their agenda but it is IMO important to call out all BS no matter it's origin.

 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

@tw

Yeah, as you know I am not overly enamoured with the mainstream and I post stuff to allow analysis and rebuttals etc.

They do indeed have quite a few headlines which seek to criticise lockdown etc.

(I almost edited out the headline when I posted, as it goes on to say that just a fifth of the weekly rise is new cases, but worth seeing how they sell it. They are talking about the weekly rise, the new people arriving in that time frame, as opposed to talking about total number in hospital regardless of when they arrived).

[Danny]

A point I noticed was that people catching covid in hospital are likely to be rather ill before they do so. We have the example of the cancer patient receiving treatment who catches covid and dies. Did the covid kill him or the cancer? If he hadnt been ill with cancer he would not have succumbed to covid, or indeed been in hospital to catch it. The death cert will likely say the covid killed him or was an equal contributor, but if he had each separately then the cancer was the real risk.

As i said above, the stats on who is ill with and because of covid are unsubstantiated by facts. The criteria for deciding are unexplained and expressly state they are based upon hospital's own subjective criteria. If your cancer patient just died would you prefer to blame it on covid?

It sounds like the Telegraph is relying upon the opinion of a doctor or doctors and not the official statistics. Its like the medic I heard interviewed last year who said the people dying in hospital were 'old, fat, men'. It was obvious if you just looked at the patients.

[Deleted]

The expected catch-up day for NHS England stats. As always folks can see those first and get the more useful numbers from the daily update:

Daily Admissions and Beds 29 December 2021 (XLSX, 41KB)

www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

All trusts are now reporting so the numbers should be accurate (they have the info on which trusts were not reporting on certain days in case anyone pretends that info was being ignored, when it wasn't). London 'total' admissions (table1) was 437 and although that has now broke 400 then see previous comments. The future is uncertain of course but due to shorter stays in hospital and the higher 'incidentals' (ie the 'with' - 'from') then London admissions could probably hit 1,000 per day before they break the previous peaks of genuine covid patients in hospital. Weekly change for London 45% (so nowhere near 'doubling' every two days or even every week). Elsewhere the highest % increase is SE (+85% on the week) but they are still way below previous peaks. 

Squeaky bum time of course and I fully expect the press will flip back to 'panic stations' click bait after a few days of 'New Year, New Hope' (that one from the Anti-Tory Mirror and most press similar theme)

www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-59814202

PS In relation previous post on Welsh and Scots being able to celebrate NYE in England then press picking up on that:

England facing NYE party ‘invasion’ as revellers in Scotland and Wales seek to avoid Covid curbs

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/england-new-years-eve-invasion-covid-rules-scotland-wales-newcastle-bristol-b974073.html

I'm sure English businesses will be happy to take the invaders money 

[Deleted]

Some reporting and methodology updates from UKHSA:

The last daily #OmicronVariant overview will be reported on Friday 31 December. As data has shown that Omicron cases now constitute more than 90% of all community COVID-19 cases in England, our daily dashboard will provide the most updated info on COVID-19 case figures.

The most recent daily report being:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044090/20211229_OS__Omicron_Daily_Overview.pdf

[Deleted]

Cases data is flawed but some good analysis (as always) from RP131:

London looks to be plateauing (so hospital admissions might well plateau soon as well)

Today's cases data was a lot of 'catching up', filling in the gaps. Lots of reasons the cases data is likely under reporting even more than previous waves and as a rough guess I'd go with 4 or 5x the stated 'reported cases' number for 'actual infections' (it might even be higher than that). The next ONS infection survey will be interesting. I'd guess 1 in 20 folks in England have Omicron and that will mean we're building up 'population immunity' fairly fast and probably at a level that stretches but does not break NHS (moderate confidence, cautiously optimistic). Omicron very likely to have a very high peak in infections but also fairly short peak (high confidence) with far less deaths than previous peaks (v.high confidence).

[Danny]

Dec 29, 2021 22:57:27 GMT alec said:

@davwell - your comment on vaccine efficacy and fourth boosters brought to mind an odd discovery I made today. I found my way to the Intensive Care NationalAudit & Research Centre (ICNARC) website and their recent covid data. [See www.icnarc.org/our-audit/audits/cmp/reports downloads to the right of the page].

Was that after I mentioned it yesterday, or do you watch the john Campbell daily utube updates where he mentioned it yesterday?

Chart 26 on their latest report (England only) showed rates of admission to intensive care (1st May 2021 - 15th Nov 2021) with covid by vaccination status, and showed the expected overwhelming bias toward unvaccinated patients. However, unusually this chart split the vaccinated cohorts into single and double jabbed, which were both low and remarkably similar. From the chart as published, it looked like the single jabbed were slightly less likely to be admitted, but the lines were so close I couldn't tell.

So I checked the spreadsheet data released by the ICNARC and this had the admission rates per 100,000 for double and single jabbed and unvaccinated. Across all age groups the single jabbed were less likely to require intensive care over the period than double jabbed, with the 18 - 29 cohort at 56% of the double jabbed rate, rising to just over 60% between 50 and 70 and 80% for the over 70s.

First off, at least most of these stats are not claiming people are in intensive care BECAUSE they have covid, but merely they are infected with it: might or might not be the cause of their admission to ICU. Some at least seem to have caught covid/tested positive after admission to ICU. The stats are collected over the course of the epidemic, so most are not specific to omicron.  I really can't find a number for how many are ill because of covid rather than simply
testing positive.

50% of those in intensive care with covid are categorised as clinically obese with BMI>30. Another 30% were classified as overweight BMI>25. When Johnson said, if you want to stay safe from covid lose weight, he really meant it. It has been argued before this has contributed to worse results in the Uk than thinner nations.

10% are classed as requiring assistance with daily living. There were about 60% more men than women. 20% of the women (aged 16-49) were pregnant or pregnant within the last 6 weeks. 5% were immunocompromised, with another 5-7% classed as having a very severe co-morbidity. 1% had received CPR within the last 24 hours before admission. Typical monthly numbers admitted to ICU are  300 heart attack, 125 stroke, 1100  trauma, 500 self harm, unidentified pneumonia 1500, with covid maybe about 3000 averaging over surges in 20 and 21. (So thats covid only twice as bad as normal mystery pneumonia?)

They divide admissions across three periods, the original spring 2020, autumn/winter 20/21 and this year. Its rather interesting that the spring and kent strains produced sudden surges of ICU cases, whereas the whole delta outbreak plus the initial autumn 2020 outbreak before Kent only produced a steady slow rate of new ICU cases. This implies there was a sudden susceptibility to original and Kent, but really not to delta or the second round of the original strain after schools were reopened.  This might be important, if omicron follows the delta pattern rather than kent. Peak numbers in ICU followed this same pattern, where delta had only 1/4 the peak total as Kent.

Twice as many cumulative ICU admissions per capita in London than in the SE generally. Although its possible this might reflect bed availability rather than level of illness. Its a truism who is occupying an intensive care bed depends on competition for that bed and number of said beds. Hospitals dont leave beds empty.  Being in such a bed doesnt require reaching a certain severity of illness, but depends on competition for it. There seems to be a new category of critical care for covid patients which is being conducted in designated areas but outside ICU, which has been in use all through the delta outbreak this year.

As of November 2021, they report approximately 85% of the UK population was double vaccinated and 5% single vaccinated, giving rise to 50% of critical care admissions with covid. Whereas 10% of the population not vaccinated was generating the other 50% of people with covid requiring critical care. The peak age group for admissions is 60-69, so in fact it is correct the majority of people requiring intensive care who are infected with covid are both old and unvaccinated. It remains the case relatively few young people get seriously ill with covid, whether vaccinated or not. Which begs the question why people are concentrating so much on vaccinating the young (as you say, see chart 26).

I'd also note that the preponderance of males over women to be ill with covid was observed in 2020. I notice however that males are significantly more likely not to be vaccinated than are women. It follows therefore that the unvaccinated group will show a higher rate of serious covid infections than the vaccinated one because it is disproportionately male.

The proportion of hospitalised covid cases in intensive care has varied between 10% and 25%. Lowest percentages coincide with peaks of total cases, and highest percentages with fewests total cases. This might imply while the average stay in ICU is 6 days, there is a small number staying rather a long time and utilising a disproportionate number of ICU bed days.

But to address possible odd behaviour of single dose vaccination, I could think of a couple of possible reasons. The first is to do with the fact vaccination protection fades quite quickly, within three months. What happened this year since vaccinations began last christmas was that immunity rose after injection, but then faded. Given second doses are given as soon as 1 month after first dose, the gap between them isnt long enough for that immunity to fade much. There wont be many people who have just had one vaccination and never get a second, so most of them are in the higher protection period when they happen to end up in intensive care. Whereas anyone who hasnt had a booster will probably now be much longer since their last injection so immunity will have faded. Depends over what period this data was collected, and also timining between 1 and 2 has been changed over the last year.

The second would be about what sort of people end up with 0,1,2,3 vaccination. The most likely to be  single vaccinated by policy are the young, who are least likely to get sick with covid. So few in this category would ever end up in intensive care for this reason.

But there is a consistent signal across all age cohorts that you are statistically less likely to have required intensive care treatment for covid if you had only received a single jab as opposed to full vaccination.

Statistical, yes. But once you start to break it down then it becomes evident other risk factors are increasing the specific risk of certain indviduals. My best guess would be vaccination is important for people who began as high risk. Most of those have now been vaccinated because we  concentrated on high risk individuals. But amongst those not vaccinated there is a mix of low risk people and some still high risk, who are disproportionately generating ICU cases. Its also likely the people in ICU who only incidentally have covid but it is not why they are there, are more likely to be the younger ones.

[Deleted]

Catch-up 2. This time NHS England daily deaths data. See files: COVID 19 daily announced deaths 25-30 December 2021 and COVID 19 total announced deaths 30 December 2021

Could still be some delays from non-NHS but for folks looking for trends then they can use the daily data to see there is no spike in deaths with fairly stable numbers. Also note some of the daily numbers are for date of death from quite a while ago. ONS have also published latest excess deaths data:

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending17december2021

A chunk of the most useful data should be released tomorrow (eg ONS infection survey and NHS England weekly updates)

One final nugget of data from ONS which is the main reason behind the London issue: Third-dose and booster vaccinations lowest among ethnic minorities

As of 12 December 2021, three-quarters of adults aged 50 years and over in England had received three vaccinations (74.7%).
The lowest third-dose and booster vaccination coverage was among Pakistani (42.2%), Black Caribbean (44.4%) and Black African (45.4%) ethnic groups.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights#vaccines

I had hoped the refusenik, anti-vaxxer view in some ethnic minorities would have eroded by now but sadly not. Any areas with high levels of those ethnic minorities (eg but not only London) are likely to see the most infections and stress on their local NHS hospitals given such a large % of them are refusing to be vaccinated+boosted. I doubt they'll listen to Boris 'Get Boosted Now' campaign and I hope local leaders, family, friends and anyone they might listen to make a bigger effort to 'encourage' those folks to get jabbed - although I'd certainly back more use of vaccine passports and mandatory vaccines in certain jobs as that seems to have worked in increasing uptake in other refusenik demographics (eg the French)

[Deleted]

Sensible precautions given the increasing numbers but lower severity with Omicron (ie high but short peak coming soon) that will further reduce the need for lockdown in England. 

'NHS staff have been working over Christmas on the plans to create 4,000 “super surge” beds across the health service..The new Nightingale facilities would take patients who, although not fit for discharge, need minimal support and monitoring while they recover from illness, freeing up regular ward beds to provide care for those with more intensive needs.

Patients may include those recovering from COVID-19 who are no longer infectious and do not need intensive oxygen therapy'

www.england.nhs.uk/2021/12/nhs-plans-new-nightingale-facilities-in-response-to-omicron/

[birdseye]

Dec 28, 2021 6:57:59 GMT Danny said:

<abbr title="Dec 28, 2021 6:57:59 GMT" class="o-timestamp time" data-timestamp="1640674679000">Dec 28, 2021 6:57:59 GMT</abbr> Danny said:Why do i keep going on? because it isnt hindsight, its right now. Why was christmas cancelled? A whopping further mistake.

Xmas wasnt cancelled - its nonsense to say that it was. We enjoyed the best Xmas for years

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2021 20:59:38 GMT birdseye said:

Dec 28, 2021 6:57:59 GMT Danny said:

Why was christmas cancelled? A whopping further mistake.

Xmas wasnt cancelled - its nonsense to say that it was. We enjoyed the best Xmas for years

It certainly wasn't 'officially' cancelled in England. There was some polling on 'behavioural adjustments' from after Plan B and just before Christmas, eg:

Splitting that out would be tricky (eg some companies cancelled Xmas parties (part of the 16%) and some/most? of the 'stopped going to work' (9%) was due to Plan B) but for the vast majority (69%) and in all of the specifics then the polling suggests some modest caution but it would indeed be fabricated nonsense to say Xmas was cancelled in England but who knows what happens on Planet DANNY?

PS R&W asked a simpler question but found similar %

[Danny]

Dec 30, 2021 20:47:00 GMT @tw said:

'NHS staff have been working over Christmas on the plans to create 4,000 “super surge” beds across the health service..'

Dont know exactly what they mean, but the ICNARC data shows hospitals started creating specialist wards for intensive care of covid patients maybe in 2020.

Our local hospital in Hastings had empty wards during the spring 2020 outbreak which has been set aside for the anticipated epidemic which never came.

Dec 30, 2021 16:46:58 GMT @tw said:

I had hoped the refusenik, anti-vaxxer view in some ethnic minorities would have eroded by now but sadly not. Any areas with high levels of those ethnic minorities (eg but not only London) are likely to see the most infections and stress on their local NHS hospitals given such a large % of them are refusing to be vaccinated+boosted.

Looking at some figures comparing early and late waves, although some groups did badly in early outbreaks, there was indication of rebound where they did better in later waves.  Perhaps because catching it more early on they had higher immunity for the next rounds.

[Danny]

Dec 31, 2021 0:05:31 GMT @tw said:

Dec 30, 2021 20:59:38 GMT birdseye said:

Xmas wasnt cancelled - its nonsense to say that it was. We enjoyed the best Xmas for years

It certainly wasn't 'officially' cancelled in England.

Tell that to all the businesses demanding compensation because of their losses when people cancelled their christmas parties.

Of course it was cancelled, government asked people to minimise all contacts.

Rather pointlessly as it turns out, because the best present any person susceptible to covid could get is the rest of us catching covid fast. A much better present would have been the safe half of the population catching covid spring 2020 and therefore avoiding the disruption at now two christmases.