Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[Class 33]

14,162 cases today. Are these actually today's cases? Or is this figure still including the backlog of thousands of recent cases that weren't originally reported?

 

[Domh245]

14,162 cases today. Are these actually today's cases? Or is this figure still including the backlog of thousands of recent cases that weren't originally reported?

They're 'Todays' positive tests* - 90% of those announced today were since Saturday, with 6031 (52%) from Monday. Fairly normal distribution of cases compared to since I've been tracking it - the thicker blue line being today's distribution. The Orange line was the Saturday when they added the lost cases



*english test results only

 

[45107]

14,162 cases today. Are these actually today's cases? Or is this figure still including the backlog of thousands of recent cases that weren't originally reported?

I’d have thought you would be celebrating the fall of 380 cases since yesterday.

 

[bramling]

As I'm sure you know it's a lot more complex than a simple figure of herd immunity being reached. The opening of schools and universities has completely changed the networks of people who are meeting and spreading the disease, and the students in question may well be from less-affected areas, and often from the kinds of middle class families which were less likely to be exposed in the initial outbreak. At a fundamental level these kinds of movements should only be a short term factor, and once the disease has worked its way through these new networks we should see a fall back to lower levels. It's exactly the same as reasons why dozens of viruses spread massively every year during September and October even though the weather has barely turned.

In terms of peaks in the North-West, the fact that the peaks were later is significant, because there will have been more testing and awareness leading to higher levels of diagnosis, and you are reaching a stage where the disease was running rampant through care homes, so the cases in the North-West may have been heavily focused on that rather closed network.

That’s an interesting point about the networks changing. From March to August there probably would have been quite a bit of de-facto bubbling, in most cases natural rather than planned. Even the pubs opening probably wouldn’t have changed this massively (though something like a night club might be a different story).

Then schools going back will have shoved a rocked up all this, followed by universities even more so.

 

[Jamiescott1]

This is from the pizza express website https://www.pizzaexpress.com/covid-19/faq

"All team members and customers must wear face coverings. Customers may remove only at their table when about to eat or drink."

Implying you have to wear masks when sat but not eating or drinking.

(Mods. Sorry if I didn't follow the correct t format for quoting a website. Im not sure how to)

 

[adc82140]

This is from the pizza express website https://www.pizzaexpress.com/covid-19/faq

"All team members and customers must wear face coverings. Customers may remove only at their table when about to eat or drink."

Implying you have to wear masks when sat but not eating or drinking.

(Mods. Sorry if I didn't follow the correct t format for quoting a website. Im not sure how to)

The quality of English in that FAQ leads me to believe that this is an office junior who has drafted the paragraph, and not anyone from the proper communications team. Therefore I'd take it with a pinch of salt (pun not intended)

 

[Jamiescott1]

Could anyone point me towards a link that shows Percentage of tests that have returned a positive result and how this has changed over time?

 

[kristiang85]

Could anyone point me towards a link that shows Percentage of tests that have returned a positive result and how this has changed over time?

This is from 3 days ago, but somewhere on the government website might have more recent data? Though I find that a nightmare to navigate.

https://twitter.com/cathyby/status/1313024567137439745?s=09

(click the link for the picture)

 

[Domh245]

Could anyone point me towards a link that shows Percentage of tests that have returned a positive result and how this has changed over time?

There's no officially produced statistic, but a few people calculate it themselves. Here's my effort, going back to the first available tests data in late April

 

[initiation]

The ONS reporting 86% of positive tests had none of the core covid19 symptoms

Covid: more than 80% of positive UK cases in study had no core symptoms

ONS survey said 86.1% of people between April and June had none of the virus’ main symptoms

www.theguardian.com

ONS survey said 86.1% of people between April and June had none of the main symptoms of coronavirus

More than 80% of people who tested positive in a national coronavirus survey had none of the core symptoms of the disease the day they took the test, scientists say.
The finding has prompted fears that future Covid-19 outbreaks will be hard to control without more widespread testing in the community to pick up “silent transmission”, particularly in universities and high-risk workplaces such as meat processing facilities.

Face palm moment when they say it takes it harder to control rather than the logical conclusion of it is a less serious virus.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The ONS reporting 86% of positive tests had none of the core covid19 symptoms

Covid: more than 80% of positive UK cases in study had no core symptoms

ONS survey said 86.1% of people between April and June had none of the virus’ main symptoms

www.theguardian.com

Face palm moment when they say it takes it harder to control rather than the logical conclusion of it is a less serious virus.

Which does make one wonder- why are these people getting tested in the first place if they have no symptoms?

I thought NHS / Government advice was only to get tested if you had symptoms? If you have no symptoms, why get tested?

A bit like the Northumbria University figures where circa 700 students tested positive "but only 78 were showing symptoms".

 

[takno]

Which does make one wonder- why are these people getting tested in the first place if they have no symptoms?

I thought NHS / Government advice was only to get tested if you had symptoms? If you have no symptoms, why get tested?

A bit like the Northumbria University figures where circa 700 students tested positive "but only 78 were showing symptoms".

The ONS survey is a random survey of the population to gather stats rather than an attempt to test sick people. It's designed precisely so that you can measure this sort of thing

 

[nlogax]

I thought NHS / Government advice was only to get tested if you had symptoms? If you have no symptoms, why get tested?

A bit like the Northumbria University figures where circa 700 students tested positive "but only 78 were showing symptoms".

I believe there was some campus-wide testing scheme, similar to other universities. There certainly are benefits to knowing you have it but outside of establishments like these being able to get tested while not displaying any symptoms definitely isn't the norm.

Edit - found it

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/university-coronavirus-testing

A raft of UK universities have established their own Covid-19 testing schemes amid fears the return of students could lead to a spike in infections.
The Universities of Cambridge, Nottingham, Leicester and Cardiff are among those preparing to offer testing to staff and students in a bid to prevent a surge in coronavirus cases when they reopen next month.

It comes after a recent report published by the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) warned the return of students posed a "critical risk" which could "amplify local and national transmission".

The schemes, which are being funded from university budgets, include a mixture of in-house testing and partnerships with commercial providers which offer rapid saliva-based tests.

 

[Jamesrob637]

14,162 cases today. Are these actually today's cases? Or is this figure still including the backlog of thousands of recent cases that weren't originally reported?

Still a backlog I think. But case to death ratio is much much more favourable than back in the spring. Deaths haven't exceeded 75 even on "Twitty Tuesday" (Twitty being a euphemism as the 'I' should be 'a')

 

[al78]

There is one thing I don't understand regarding vaccines.

If someone is vaccinated against COVID (or any other contageous virus), if the virus makes it into their body, is their immune system capable of killing it before the virus is able to propagate and spread to others through the person sneezing? If a person is vaccinated but it takes a finite time for the immune system to get rid of it, wouldn't that mean there is a small window of opportunity for that person to spread the virus, although a much smaller chance of doing so than if the person wasn't vaccinated?

 

[Howardh]

Which does make one wonder- why are these people getting tested in the first place if they have no symptoms?

I thought NHS / Government advice was only to get tested if you had symptoms? If you have no symptoms, why get tested?

A bit like the Northumbria University figures where circa 700 students tested positive "but only 78 were showing symptoms".

I was invited to get tested as my local had an infection and I was alerted. I showed no symptoms and was negative.

 

[Kingspanner]

There is one thing I don't understand regarding vaccines.

If someone is vaccinated against COVID (or any other contageous virus), if the virus makes it into their body, is their immune system capable of killing it before the virus is able to propagate and spread to others through the person sneezing? If a person is vaccinated but it takes a finite time for the immune system to get rid of it, wouldn't that mean there is a small window of opportunity for that person to spread the virus, although a much smaller chance of doing so than if the person wasn't vaccinated?

The Lancet addresses this question here https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31976-0/fulltext. I quote

" These observations suggest that we cannot assume COVID-19 vaccines, even if shown to be effective in reducing severity of disease, will reduce virus transmission to a comparable degree. The notion that COVID-19-vaccine-induced population immunity will allow a return to pre-COVID-19 “normalcy” might be based on illusory assumptions"

. In short, no one knows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is one thing I don't understand regarding vaccines.

If someone is vaccinated against COVID (or any other contageous virus), if the virus makes it into their body, is their immune system capable of killing it before the virus is able to propagate and spread to others through the person sneezing? If a person is vaccinated but it takes a finite time for the immune system to get rid of it, wouldn't that mean there is a small window of opportunity for that person to spread the virus, although a much smaller chance of doing so than if the person wasn't vaccinated?

The answer is "maybe", as it depends on precisely what degree of immunity the vaccine can bring and on how the virus spreads.

 

[yorksrob]

The Lancet addresses this question here https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31976-0/fulltext. I quote " These observations suggest that we cannot assume COVID-19 vaccines, even if shown to be effective in reducing severity of disease, will reduce virus transmission to a comparable degree. The notion that COVID-19-vaccine-induced population immunity will allow a return to pre-COVID-19 “normalcy” might be based on illusory assumptions". In short, no one knows.

Surely if it reduces the severity of the disease enough, it will mean that a high transmission rate won't matter anyway, so it will be a return to normal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely if it reduces the severity of the disease enough, it will mean that a high transmission rate won't matter anyway, so it will be a return to normal.

Theoretically yes. But a true scientist won't use that sort of conjecture; they will only say what is proven, i.e. they are by nature ultra-cautious. And that's precisely how they should work.

 

[Kingspanner]

Surely if it reduces the severity of the disease enough, it will mean that a high transmission rate won't matter anyway, so it will be a return to normal.

In turn the Lancet addresses that question too here (I've posted this in a related thread also)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext
I quote

" The other scenarios are more tricky propositions and illustrate that political optimism can be genuinely dangerous. If we use the scenario 3 vaccine as our example, this might eliminate severe and potentially deadly disease in those able to receive the vaccine, but the virus would still be able to spread through the population unhindered. So those unable to receive the vaccine, a group which overlaps with many groups current measures are protecting, would be unprotected".

Essentially the scenario 3 virus reduces the severity of symptoms but only the healthy can risk that vaccination. The "return to normal" would be catastrophic for vulnerable groups.
It is a problem for some versions of the "alternative strategy" of healthy people acting normally while vulnerable people are protected.

 

[yorksrob]

In turn the Lancet addresses that question too here (I've posted this in a related thread also)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext
I quote " The other scenarios are more tricky propositions and illustrate that political optimism can be genuinely dangerous. If we use the scenario 3 vaccine as our example, this might eliminate severe and potentially deadly disease in those able to receive the vaccine, but the virus would still be able to spread through the population unhindered. So those unable to receive the vaccine, a group which overlaps with many groups current measures are protecting, would be unprotected".
Essentially the scenario 3 virus reduces the severity of symptoms but only the healthy can risk that vaccination. The "return to normal" would be catastrophic for vulnerable groups.
It is a problem for some versions of the "alternative strategy" of healthy people acting normally while vulnerable people are protected.

That's an interesting point.

That aside, I would hope that we're talking about a menu of potential vaccines and treatments, rather than a dependance on one single vaccine, so such a scenario might be unlikely.

In turn the Lancet addresses that question too here (I've posted this in a related thread also)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext
I quote " The other scenarios are more tricky propositions and illustrate that political optimism can be genuinely dangerous. If we use the scenario 3 vaccine as our example, this might eliminate severe and potentially deadly disease in those able to receive the vaccine, but the virus would still be able to spread through the population unhindered. So those unable to receive the vaccine, a group which overlaps with many groups current measures are protecting, would be unprotected".
Essentially the scenario 3 virus reduces the severity of symptoms but only the healthy can risk that vaccination. The "return to normal" would be catastrophic for vulnerable groups.
It is a problem for some versions of the "alternative strategy" of healthy people acting normally while vulnerable people are protected.

That's an interesting point.

That aside, I would hope that we're talking about a menu of potential vaccines and treatments, rather than a dependance on one single vaccine, so such a scenario might be unlikely.

 

[Kingspanner]

Undoubtedly we would like a menu of vaccines, but they will fall into categories beyond our control. The classes of vaccine described by the lancet offer varying protection. I suspect the scenario 3 vaccine may be the easiest and most likely and soonest to be made. The magic bullet of scenario 1 may be out of reach.
Again I quote (for scenario fans) from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext

" a vaccine that prevents nearly all person-to-person spread (presumably also halting illness; scenario 1), one that prevents some spread and reduces severe illness and death (scenario 2), and one that does not prevent spread but reduces severe illness and death (scenario 3)

 

[yorksrob]

Undoubtedly we would like a menu of vaccines, but they will fall into categories beyond our control. The classes of vaccine described by the lancet offer varying protection. I suspect the scenario 3 vaccine may be the easiest and most likely and soonest to be made. The magic bullet of scenario 1 may be out of reach.
Again I quote (for scenario fans) from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext
" a vaccine that prevents nearly all person-to-person spread (presumably also halting illness; scenario 1), one that prevents some spread and reduces severe illness and death (scenario 2), and one that does not prevent spread but reduces severe illness and death (scenario 3)

And treatments.

Treatments will likely be a part of any solution.

 

[Kingspanner]

True of course. For those with time to spare this is an accessible list of approaches and current progress on treatments from the Pharmaceutical Journal. https://www.pharmaceutical-journal....erapy-trials/20208126.article?firstPass=false
I've only skimmed it but nothing jumped out except warnings about hydroxychloroquine side effects and a lack of apparent efficacy despite being Donald Trump's favourite. (After drinking bleach).

 

[brad465]

13,864 infections today which is much lower than the previous 3 days, it'll be interesting to see if the weekend values remain below the peak yesterday ahead of these planned restrictions on Monday.

 

[jtuk]

13,864 infections today which is much lower than the previous 3 days, it'll be interesting to see if the weekend values remain below the peak yesterday ahead of these planned restrictions on Monday.

Everyone needs to stop posting any of these stats. Don't post anything unless it's by specimen date, and then not until at least three days after to account for most processing lag. It's not helpful (much like the concept of testing as done currently in itself)

 

[AM9]

13,864 infections today which is much lower than the previous 3 days, it'll be interesting to see if the weekend values remain below the peak yesterday ahead of these planned restrictions on Monday.

Any planned restrictions introduced next week are likely to be based on the rising trend of infections rather than a single day's spike or dip. That's why the rolling weekly figure is quoted. We may even be getting to the point where constraints on the number of tests processed depressing the amount of positives arising.

 

[hwl]

The ONS reporting 86% of positive tests had none of the core covid19 symptoms

Covid: more than 80% of positive UK cases in study had no core symptoms

ONS survey said 86.1% of people between April and June had none of the virus’ main symptoms

www.theguardian.com

Face palm moment when they say it takes it harder to control rather than the logical conclusion of it is a less serious virus.

As the article says:

More than 80% of people who tested positive in a national coronavirus survey had none of the core symptoms of the disease the day they took the test

Quite often with virus the symptom really start to kick when the virus has been multiplying rapidly but the immmune response or symptoms is only starting to ramp up fully.
The article is quite poor in that it doesn't say that the ONS work is based on the Pillar 4 average daily ~4k surveillance tests.
It does not included analysis of the 80-83k of the daily tests in pillar 1 for medical staff tests who get weekly testing or the Pillar 2 community requested testing 150-160k tests (on a good day).

 

[Domh245]

Quite often with virus the symptom really start to kick when the virus has been multiplying rapidly but the immmune response or symptoms is only starting to ramp up fully.
The article is quite poor in that it doesn't say that the ONS work is based on the Pillar 4 average daily ~4k surveillance tests.
It does not included analysis of the 80-83k of the daily tests in pillar 1 for medical staff tests who get weekly testing or the Pillar 2 community requested testing 150-160k tests (on a good day).

Do they need to state that it's from the pillar 4 tests though - they do mention that it is from the ONS surveillance testing which is of course the same thing, and means more to the average reader than "pillar 4" will. Working from Pillar 1 and 2 tests is a bit pointless in this context as almost all cases detected through it should be symptomatic - working from the surveillance testing gives a far more useful statistic - 86% of people have it and don't have symptoms at that point. If asymptomatic spread is still a worry in terms then this indicates how much of an issue it - most people who have it don't even realise for several days, if at all.