Coronavirus: COVID-19

[CBJ]

Look at the data, look at how many are getting infected daily and how it is rising...

I am looking at the data; it isn't rising. The number of recorded cases in the government figures is going up slightly, but roughly in proportion with the increase in the number of people being tested. As a proportion of the total population it's pretty steady, and that's borne out by the ONS figures in the article I linked.

Those guys did thousands of random swab tests, but where did they do them, what kind of results would they have got if they did them in Manchester, Burnley, Birmingham and Swindon all hot spots, do you think they would have got the same results, random testing is a piss poor way to tell how something is happening.

Arguing that if you did more tests in hot-spots you'd get more positive results is just silly. Of course you would, but you wouldn't be getting a balanced picture of the overall situation. For every hot-spot there are lots of "cold" ones, but in total the number infected seems to be remaining pretty constant. As new hot-spots emerge, other ones fizzle out. Random testing nationally obviously isn't a good way of looking at local situations in particular places, but it's a good way of looking at the national picture.

There's every possibility that the situation will get worse over the next few months, but yelling "it's getting worse, we're all doomed!" when the data says otherwise isn't helping anyone.

[RegisterMe]

Look at the data, look at how many are getting infected daily and how it is rising...

I am looking at the data; it isn't rising. The number of recorded cases in the government figures is going up slightly, but roughly in proportion with the increase in the number of people being tested. As a proportion of the total population it's pretty steady, and that's borne out by the ONS figures in the article I linked.

Those guys did thousands of random swab tests, but where did they do them, what kind of results would they have got if they did them in Manchester, Burnley, Birmingham and Swindon all hot spots, do you think they would have got the same results, random testing is a piss poor way to tell how something is happening.

Arguing that if you did more tests in hot-spots you'd get more positive results is just silly. Of course you would, but you wouldn't be getting a balanced picture of the overall situation. For every hot-spot there are lots of "cold" ones, but in total the number infected seems to be remaining pretty constant. As new hot-spots emerge, other ones fizzle out. Random testing nationally obviously isn't a good way of looking at local situations in particular places, but it's a good way of looking at the national picture.

There's every possibility that the situation will get worse over the next few months, but yelling "it's getting worse, we're all doomed!" when the data says otherwise isn't helping anyone.

+1

[felter]

I am looking at the data; it isn't rising. The number of recorded cases in the government figures is going up slightly,

That is as dumb as it comes, it isn't rising but it's going up.

Anyway I did a chart on America a while back, so how about one for the UK. It is using the weekly accumulated infected number for the past 8 weeks, from when the UK Government removed thousands from their count.



And you think that doubling the amount of infections is going up slightly.

And thank you for making the point about testing, as it goes both ways, you test in a lower infected area you will get less positive tests back, which is exactly what I was saying and what they are doing and have been doing that right from the start. They have been saying the exact same thing every week, even in between days when the news headlines were the number is going up, their numbers and what they say cannot be trusted. The Americans give pollsters a grade on how good their polls are, an A being good, I think the worst is a D, I would give those guys that you linked a C at best.

[CBJ]

That is as dumb as it comes, it isn't rising but it's going up.

If you cut off a sentence half way through, you can make pretty much anything sound "dumb". Now read the rest of it.

As for your numbers, you do realise that those aren't the actual numbers of people infected across the country, right? Those are the numbers of people who have been tested and whose tests have come back positive. Those numbers give a partial picture because a) they depend on the number of people tested and b) they depend on WHO is getting tested. Most people around the country aren't just getting up one morning and saying "I know, I'll get tested today"; there are various groups of people getting tested, including those working in healthcare and social care, those who have been in contact with others who have tested positive, and those who are at high risk, but it's not the "general public". It's a self-selecting group, and while some sub-groups of those people will be fairly representative of the population as a whole, the majority will not. As a result the number of positive results will be higher as a proportion of tests taken than in, say, the ONS tests, which tests people at random. The number of positive results will also be very sensitive to the number of tests performed, which in the early stages of the pandemic was in turn heavily dependent on the testing capacity, but is less so now.

So, what your graph shows is not the number of cases in the UK, but the number of people who have chosen to or been required to be tested, because of their circumstances who have come back positive, which is great for telling us how good we are at catching cases in people in those categories, but very poor at telling us how many cases there actually are out there "in the wild". You really don't need to take my word for this; just look at the government numbers from March, and then think about how many cases there must have been in reality to have resulted in all those deaths, but that we didn't have the capacity to test for and count.

The ONS tests aren't perfect by any means, mainly because the sample size is a bit small and the margin of error therefore correspondingly a bit high, but they give a much better picture of the country as a whole. They tell you the approximate proportion of the population as a whole that is infected, and right now, that number is holding pretty steady. Yes, there are hot-spots, but there are also huge swathes of the country where the numbers of reported cases each week are in single digits.

Don't get me wrong; this is by no means over, and things are almost certainly going to get worse during the coming autumn and winter, but that's not happened yet according to the figures. All you're doing, taking numbers that clearly show that we're still on a flat part of the curve and insisting that they say something else, is contributing to the flood of nonsense and mis-information that has characterised this pandemic from the start. Relax, chill, make the most of the lull. There will be plenty of time for worry, anger, outrage, and all the rest when, as seems almost inevitable, the numbers do rise again and the government makes a pig's ear of dealing with it.

[felter]

I'm a bit late and yes what you said is as dumb as it comes no matter how you want to put it it is still dumb you cannot have both going up and not going up, but anyway you think because I cut it short to make it look dumb so here you go:

I am looking at the data; it isn't rising. The number of recorded cases in the government figures is going up slightly, but roughly in proportion with the increase in the number of people being tested. As a proportion of the total population it's pretty steady, and that's borne out by the ONS figures in the article I linked

And it is still as dumb as it comes. It's either going up or its not, you cannot have it both ways.

As for the testing you are using the exact same excuses that Trump has used and is crapped on for doing so. Anyway those same guys this weekend said no changes, it's the exact same as last week but guess what, I'm going to use my chart for last week again and lets see if there is any kind of change shall we. And by the way it would be the same people being tested that you say are being tested, the exact same groups and look it's on the rise again. OH and yeah this doesn't include those numbers from the last 2 days, what were they again, 2,988 and 2,948, nearly 6 thousands in 48 hours. Nothing to see here, there not going up my arse.



Do you honestly think it is just some magical group that is being used for testing, that is not as reliable as a random phone call or knock at some random door, that it isn't real normal people being tested. You never even mention that it is mainly younger people who are testing positive and most of them do not come near to the categories you did mention. Also what about all of the places of concern or lockdowns is that just fro those magical few on you list. Talking about them they are up again thins week and one of them is the whole of Norfolk that in itself is 9 Counties. Let me link to that as it's on the BBC also even though it is only a few hours old it is already out of date as there are already new lockdown in place mainly in Wales and it doesn't include Scotland which has also introduced new areas of concern in western Scotland. Also the amount of testing being done is pretty steady they are not suddenly doing thousands of extra test a day as they are basically at max testing capacity as it is.

One other thing what are the government medical advisors saying about it all, are they also saying everything is hunky dory and no change, or are they saying this is starting to get out of control.

[CBJ]

It is perfectly possible for the raw number of test results coming back positive to be going up, but for them not to be going up as a proportion of the number of tests conducted, which was what I said, and was the case when I made that post. It is also possible for the number of positive test results in the government dataset to be going up without the actual number of cases in the population as a whole to be going up, which is what the ONS figures suggested was happening last week. Failing to understand this is exactly why people like Trump are able to make ridiculous statements and mislead the gullible. It's also exactly the problem I warned about near the beginning of this thread, when people started trying to get their heads around how to interpret the raw data we were all being fed.

At the peak at the end of March, there were an estimated 100,000 cases a day (the official figures only show a fraction of these because of the problem mentioned above - testing was more or less limited to hospitals).

That's 700,000 cases per week. Please put that on your graph to give it some perspective.

If you want to sit there and scare yourself with your graph then I can't stop you, but I will flag up where data is being claimed to be showing something it isn't, because the amount of misinformation, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of data flying around is almost as disturbing as the virus itself. To be fair, there's a lot more misinformation and bad science coming from people who don't want to believe that the the virus is a problem than from those who do, but scaremongering isn't helpful either because it just ends up with people sticking their fingers in their ears and not dealing with the things they really do need to do to stop things getting worse.

As I said in the last post, things will almost certainly get worse before they get better, and the signs since last week are indeed that that's starting to happen. I'll wait for the ONS figures to see whether that's confirmed across the broader population, but I suspect that it too will now show the beginning of an upturn, especially with schools having started and many people behaving as though the problem has magically gone away.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

The number of confirmed cases rising is "normal", because (in Italy) recently they are testing specific people coming back from holidays in high-risk environments (social gatherings and much less precautions than needed, imho).
As CBJ said, it's possible that school opening is going to increase the number of cases even more.

[RegisterMe]

As CBJ said, I don't believe that the data available to felter on the 28th August supported the conclusions he reached. It's now the 8th September, the data is different, and the conclusions we can reach are different. Given that much of the recent rise (in the UK) seems to be down to 17-21 year olds, at the moment I'm more concerned about students going / returning to university than I am children returning to school.

Hopefully increased mask wearing, re-adherence to social distancing guidelines, and better track and trace will limit the rate of the rise enough for there not to be another general lockdown.

[Y-llian]

One of the things that's struck me during the pandemic is that we've all become armchair epidemiologists. This is also further complicated by the fact epidemiologists sometimes disagree with each other and can lead to a low-level suspicion that the science, 'is getting it right'.

What often gets overlooked in these situations is that it's normal for scientists to disagree. Any field of study, particularly something as complex as epidemiology, will have competing strategies and during a pandemic, the idea is to follow a strategy where the preponderance of evidence, and associated theory, will lead to an optimal outcome among competing methodologies. Obviously, diseases are not static entities especially, where we're dealing with the new diseases and there's little in the way of a epidemiological profile. No matter how good the science, we will never get things 100% right and that's scary. We humans like to believe we've "conquered" the Earth, and situations like these reminds us of how much we still need to learn and discover, and our mortality in a very real way.

Now, for those of us lucky to live in democratic societies, it's perfectly legitimate to question things and we should. But we need to do so in a balanced way and with the recognition that the vast majority of us are not disease experts and we should temper our views accordingly. If you look on social media there's no amount of homemade graphs, trackers and so-called "expert" analysis despite largely, being made in the vacuum of adequate training. The end result is a lot of misinformation which is dangerous and in the extreme, can lead to our fellow citizens putting their lives at risk.

So what can we do?

First, always check your sources and ensure that your data is coming from reputable sources such as the WHO, public health authorities etc. Just because someone's made a lovely flashy graph, with bells, whistles and time-lapse animation, it doesn't mean a thing unless they know what they're talking about it. The same goes for blogs, make sure when you read them they're from reputable authors and if they are, satisfy yourself that the author has the necessary qualifications in the correct field of study. A physicist, chemist, statistician, no matter how well regarded, might have interesting things to say but it won't be as informed as a medical professional or epidemiologist - same applies to vloggers, YouTube influencers and so forth. Second, and I know this is really difficult, start to accept that even the best advice might change tomorrow as we learn more. Finally, listen to your health providers, follow the rules, stay engaged. And don't forget to do the things you enjoy - don't let Covid be the only thing you think about.

[Ketraar]

One of the things that's struck me during the pandemic is that we've all become armchair epidemiologists. This is also further complicated by the fact epidemiologists sometimes disagree with each other and can lead to a low-level suspicion that the science, 'is getting it right'.

Thats a general misconception about science and frankly one of the bigger failures of education in 2020. People expecting absolute or final truths about anything is what is wrong. Any healthy scientific discussion would include enough room to be "wrong", that's just how it is. We mostly dont know things and as info is gathered, discussions about interpretation, validation, ect take place until we reach point of consensus, where we say OK for now this is what we consider to be "the truth", but even then the next day can bring information that forces us to reevaluate yesterdays conclusions and if needed adjust.

This does not help people in search for calming answers, which is why many prefer some one just tell them what they want to hear instead of facts, nvm truth.

MFG

Ketraar

[Y-llian]

One of the things that's struck me during the pandemic is that we've all become armchair epidemiologists. This is also further complicated by the fact epidemiologists sometimes disagree with each other and can lead to a low-level suspicion that the science, 'is getting it right'.

Thats a general misconception about science and frankly one of the bigger failures of education in 2020. People expecting absolute or final truths about anything is what is wrong. Any healthy scientific discussion would include enough room to be "wrong", that's just how it is. We mostly dont know things and as info is gathered, discussions about interpretation, validation, ect take place until we reach point of consensus, where we say OK for now this is what we consider to be "the truth", but even then the next day can bring information that forces us to reevaluate yesterdays conclusions and if needed adjust.

This does not help people in search for calming answers, which is why many prefer some one just tell them what they want to hear instead of facts, nvm truth.

MFG

Ketraar

Agreed. We seem to increasingly live in a society where everything, including science, is filtered through a binary lens - something is either one way or another - it can't be both. Well actually, it more than often is both - the world is massively complex. I teach in academia and one of the things I always try to encourage my students to do is not to expect simplistic answers. The very fact that they're sitting in a classroom attests to the fact that we're all on a search for answers. That doesn't mean we don't have accepted and trusted answers for things - we do, but not everything is always as clear cut as it might seem. You're right though, that doesn't help calm nerves which is why, I'd posit, there's such a huge outpouring of home analysis in response. The irony is that it likely does more harm than good.

[CBJ]

I agree with both of you. Sadly, though, it's not just that people don't understand; it's also that their lack of understanding is being ruthlessly exploited by people whose aim is to sow discord and further their own agendas. There is so much deliberate misinformation flying around, mixed in with the misunderstandings and misinterpretations, that people no longer know what to believe. That some people's response to the pandemic is driven almost entirely by their political beliefs shows how widespread the problem is.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not in any way suggesting that felter falls into the above category. Like all of us, he's taking the information we're given (in this case by our own government) and doing his best to understand what it means for him. Being in one of the more vulnerable categories, he's naturally very concerned, and no doubt unhappy that so many other people aren't taking it as seriously as they should be. My only intention with picking up on his graphs is to ensure that some of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations that come along with that don't spread further.

[Y-llian]

I agree with both of you. Sadly, though, it's not just that people don't understand; it's also that their lack of understanding is being ruthlessly exploited by people whose aim is to sow discord and further their own agendas. There is so much deliberate misinformation flying around, mixed in with the misunderstandings and misinterpretations, that people no longer know what to believe. That some people's response to the pandemic is driven almost entirely by their political beliefs shows how widespread the problem is.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not in any way suggesting that felter falls into the above category. Like all of us, he's taking the information we're given (in this case by our own government) and doing his best to understand what it means for him. Being in one of the more vulnerable categories, he's naturally very concerned, and no doubt unhappy that so many other people aren't taking it as seriously as they should be. My only intention with picking up on his graphs is to ensure that some of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations that come along with that don't spread further.

I hope my post didn't come across as finger pointing CBJ - that wasn't my intention - apologies if it did. I think everyone can see that the discussion between you and felter is being conducted in good faith by both parties.

[CBJ]

Not at all. I was more concerned that felter might misunderstand me.

[Mightysword]

Thats a general misconception about science and frankly one of the bigger failures of education in 2020. People expecting absolute or final truths about anything is what is wrong. Any healthy scientific discussion would include enough room to be "wrong", that's just how it is. We mostly dont know things and as info is gathered, discussions about interpretation, validation, ect take place until we reach point of consensus, where we say OK for now this is what we consider to be "the truth", but even then the next day can bring information that forces us to reevaluate yesterdays conclusions and if needed adjust.

I disagree that's 'failure of education' should take the lion share of the blame here, I would put that on the failure of modern culture, especially on the news circle. It used to be the case that studies and researches (that process I highlighted in your post) are done mostly internally , and only once a reasonable 'consensus' is reached among the science community, it would then released to the public. The problem is during this pandemic is every bit and pieces of incomplete (and possibly incorrect) information are being blasted to the general public in a headline/breaking news style. The public can't be blamed for being confused when all of these conflicted-incomplete information are thrust into their faces. Unless you want to hold the fact not everyone is a scientist as a 'failure of education' (which I believe unreasonable), this fault lie mostly with the science community and the media, with or without the assumption of malice.

An example is the 're-infection' cases. It was infuriating for me over the summer because of spontaneous "breaking news" here and there about someone getting re-infected, only usually followed by 'it may be a false positive', things like bad test, test that can't identify dead or active virus, or the person in question had a false negative before being released ...etc... Worse, I can't recall any of these cases have a follow up at a later date. I felt like there is a journalist camping outside a hospital and as soon as the first result coming of a possible of re-infection, immediately push the headline "BREAKING NEWS: LONG TERM IMMUNITY DOESN'T EXIST WITH COVID-19". Even now, the information is still patchy and sketchy at best, afaik the role of how various antibodies work on the virus is still being studied, and it's not rare to run into different/conflict 'opinion' out there, all coming from the science community itself. Sure, that's part of the process, but how about wait until having something conclusive before exposing all of the different opinion to the laymen?

Sure, you can say given the situation it's better to be safe than sorry. But there is a line when too many "better to be safe than sorry" becomes "the boy who cries wolf" problem. I would argue that even the truth of the content is second to the level of 'trust' invested in the messengers. Again, without the assumption of malice than what someone like felter is doing is mostly like rooted in mistrust. As a statistician, I do a lot of statistical calculation and analysis whenever I have to study something, but in the write-up, it's also my job to write a report that makes sense even to people who doesn't have statistical training. The last part of your post (underscore) I somewhat disagree with, not because it's not true but because I don't feel that's the correct take. I feel it would be equivalent to me saying "here is my raw report, people just have to smart enough to understand it". And I don't believe that's the right assumption to have in public communication.

[CBJ]

I don't disagree about the media's role, but whenever we criticise the media it's worth remembering that they're largely driven by what the public wants to see and hear. If people weren't so eager to consume garbage, the media organisations wouldn't produce it.

The respectable media is in a bit of a no-win situation with the pandemic. If they don't provide stories then people will flock to whatever rubbish the less-respectable media comes up with. If they do then they either report cautiously as you suggest, in which case people lose interest and go back to the rubbish because scientists saying "sorry, we don't know yet" doesn't satisfy them, or they report on the work-in-progress science and people then fail to understand that it's incomplete and subject to change.

So ultimately it does boil down to education. You don't have to actually be a scientist to understand that science takes time and that its advice can and will change. If an education system doesn't teach you basics, such as that complex problems don't always have simple solutions, that not understanding something doesn't make that thing wrong, and that there's a difference between opinion and evidence, then that education system is failing.

[Santi]

Easy, the media could make it an option, that will solve all the problems.

[Mightysword]

I don't disagree about the media's role, but whenever we criticise the media it's worth remembering that they're largely driven by what the public wants to see and hear. If people weren't so eager to consume garbage, the media organisations wouldn't produce it.

The respectable media is in a bit of a no-win situation with the pandemic. If they don't provide stories then people will flock to whatever rubbish the less-respectable media comes up with. If they do then they either report cautiously as you suggest, in which case people lose interest and go back to the rubbish because scientists saying "sorry, we don't know yet" doesn't satisfy them, or they report on the work-in-progress science and people then fail to understand that it's incomplete and subject to change.

I don't disagree with what you say here, but to me those are more of a modern culture problem than an 'education' problem. I would point out the described problem here does not seem to have a limit in term of demographic: it happens to people who graduated last year and it happens to someone who received their education 50 years ago. It happens to people living in poverty to people in the higher percentile of the income scale. It happens to people living in both in east and west with very different educational standard and structure ...etc... so unless there is a very clear/obvious universal failure in all of those education systems I don't believe it's a correct place to lay the blame. What is clear "to me" is that across all different types of border, one thing that remain (or had become) a constant since the turn of the century is our societies as a whole had been conditioned to a 24/7 news cycle. We want tomorrow news, and we want them yesterday. Another point I can bring up as in favor of my argument is this "phenomenon" is hardly limit to just matters under the sphere of science, but you see it in pretty much every other aspects as well.

Maybe it's an equal blame, trying to pin the blame on one party over another (viewership vs media) is probably a "chicken and egg" argument, and this also includes the professionals. Maybe they feel the 'pressure to comply' because of this new culture, but the fact remain I believe there is a need to be more 'discipline' in messaging from the sciene community. I don't believe it's a priority for scientists to constantly 'satisfy' the thirst and hunger of the public. If people want to gossip in between official statements, that can't be help and I don't believe it's wise to dilute the official message to keep up with that. The point is when an official message come out, it should be as conclusive as possible with all the checks that entail.

The main point is still I don't believe this is a failure of education. After all, the people who drink and drive, text and drive are probably told/taught a bunch of times to NOT do those things before they get into an accident. The fact that those people eventually still get into accidents on those same reasons can't be attributed to the lack of prior warning, right?

[RegisterMe]

@felter this may be of interest (testing etc in the UK and how it's reflected in the numbers):-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54064347

[CBJ]

The main point is still I don't believe this is a failure of education. After all, the people who drink and drive, text and drive are probably told/taught a bunch of times to NOT do those things before they get into an accident. The fact that those people eventually still get into accidents on those same reasons can't be attributed to the lack of prior warning, right?

Yes, but also no! People who do those things usually do know the potential consequences, yes, but they are too selfish to consider the impact their actions could have on others. Selfishness is a basic human trait, and not one we're likely to be able to educate out of people completely, but there is a tendency in society now (particularly in certain countries) to conflate freedom (being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else) with selfishness (being able to do what you want, regardless of the harm it does to others). As long as we (whether through the education system itself, through parental guidance, or society as a whole) fail to teach people the difference, we are encouraging their selfishness, even venerating it, rather than trying to minimise it.

Anyway, I think this has turned a little too political, and drifted away from the subject in hand. So, back to the pandemic!