Coping With Covid

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4057
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1240

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by bobins »

white exec wrote:
02 May 2020, 10:33

International comparisons, as said, are problematic, with the only crude figure which might mean something being 'deaths per 100,000 population'. But even this is a poor comparison, because of all the geographical and social factors that affect infection spread. David Spiegelhalter's article has been widely praised for describing the difficulty, and is worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -countries.
<Sarcasm ON> Outrageous political bias in that article. It mentions the Labour leader by name, but it wouldn't lower itself to mention Boris by name. <Sarcasm OFF> :roll:

Gibbo2286
Donor 2020
Posts: 5200
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 18:04
x 1059

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by Gibbo2286 »

Is Mike (Michel) ok? That's the second time in the last few weeks that he's had a hissy fit and stormed out.

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6957
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1254

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by white exec »

Moderation note, re recent posts above:

This hasn't been the easiest of threads to moderate (i.e. keep within well-understood Forum rules), but, being highly topical and affecting us all, I have tried to preserve it largely intact.

Most of the posts have discussed the practicalities of the restrictions, both in practical terms and with our usual humour. Other posts have laid out a take on the extent of the infection, and how authorities are coping. With only a few exceptions, this has been done in a non-political, non-partisan way, with a focus on the facts, such as we have them. The link above to a respected statistician's article (which received 'must read' praise from one of the government's experts on a Daily Briefing this week) was also intended to throw light on the numbers.

There will be reports, statements, questions and opinions from the public domain that some members might find not to their liking. That's fine, but we need to at least write respectfully of others' standpoints, and the comment above really doesn't measure up.

As said, I do not want to pull this thread in its entirety, but will do so rapidly if needed.
I also don't want to get in a position where I need to pull individual posts 'on both sides' of the political divide, in order to be seen to maintain some sort of balance.
So, please, everyone, take note.

Gibbo2286
Donor 2020
Posts: 5200
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 18:04
x 1059

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by Gibbo2286 »

If you are talking about my last post "the comment above really doesn't measure up." I was simply enquiring about the well being of a regular poster.

Hell Razor5543
Donor 2021
Posts: 11636
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
x 1361

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by Hell Razor5543 »

The problem I am experiencing is not that my spreadsheet is not working properly (it is, as far as I can tell); it is, rather, that the freely available information I am giving it to work with is suspect. I cannot honestly believe that (in the UK) only 344 patients have recovered from COVID 19. However, until there is more meaningful data provided that is all I have to go on.

The formulae I have set up are very simple to follow. The one that calculates the number of survivors takes the total number of cases (177,454) and then subtracts the sum of total deaths plus the active cases (27,510 plus 149,600, which results in 177,110), giving the final result of 344. The formulae that calculates the mortality rates have a conditional function built in; if a country has no reported deaths then a percentage value of zero is reported (this conditional function was created to eliminate a divide by zero error). The formula for mortality rate against total cases (ignoring the conditional function) takes 100 and divides it by (total number of cases divided by total number of deaths). 100 divided by (177,454 divided by 27,510) gives a result of 15.5%. 15.5% of the UK population (which is reported at 67,886,011) is 10,522,332 (so if everybody in the UK contracted COVID 19 over 10 million people will die). The formula to calculate the number of closed cases is simple; merely total number of deaths plus total number of survivors (27,854). It is the final formula result that terrifies me. Again, ignoring the conditional function, it is 100 divided by (number of closed cases divided by total number of deaths), and this gives the result of 98.76%. Simply put, if 10,000 people in the UK contract COVID 19 (and this last formula result were correct) 124 people will survive (so there would only be a total of 841,787 survivors in the UK if everybody were to contract COVID 19).

While the bureaucraps and polishitians may want us to be worried and social shielding, they also have a responsibility to ensure we have good reasons for carrying on. A mortality rate of 98.76% is not a good reason; it is the UK going back to the Stone Age (metaphorically speaking). What is the point of carrying on if, statistically speaking, COVID 19 is unsurvivable?

If any Moderator wants a copy of my spreadsheet so they can check it (and, if need be, correct it) I am more than willing to PM it to them (if the PM system will accept an Excel 2007 spreadsheet).

The figures/statistics given in THIS post are accurate as of 16:00 02/05/2020.
Last edited by Hell Razor5543 on 02 May 2020, 16:27, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6957
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1254

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by white exec »

Gibbo2286 wrote:
02 May 2020, 13:25
If you are talking about my last post "the comment above really doesn't measure up." I was simply enquiring about the well being of a regular poster.
It's ok, Gibbo — it was bobins' post I was chiefly referring to.

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6957
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1254

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by white exec »

James,
Are you essentially saying "garbage in, garbage out"? This must be true of spreadsheets, too.
You obviously put a lot of effort into your calculations, but I do find them a tad indigestible. You need to master the art of summary and précis. I think I get the gist, but it is hard work.

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4057
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1240

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by bobins »

I'm not sure that establishing the survival rate from hospital admissions is a worthwhile statistic. It contains too many variables to be statistically valid. It's easy to calculate hospital deaths as that's a binary function - you either died in hospital, or you didn't. The hospital survival statistic is only relevant to people admitted to hospital, and that - where C-19 is concerned - is a very varied metric. One hospital's admission is another hospital's 'go home and come back if it gets worse'. A chap I know* has contracted C-19 and has recovered. He was offered a hospital bed but declined - he didn't even set foot in a hospital. He wouldn't have featured in your statistics, but could have if he wanted to. How many thousands of times has that been repeated over the UK ? How many people with C-19 symptoms have flatly refused to go into hospital as they suspect that's a dangerous place right now ? You can see why the 'hospital admission but recovered' statistic can incredibly quickly become unreliable and not greatly helpful.
*- He's the only person I personally know who has contracted C-19. He could have gone to hospital, but declined. By my reckoning that makes it a 100% survival rate of people I know declining to go to hospital and recovering. Ain't statistics wonderful :)

User avatar
mickthemaverick
Donor 2019
Posts: 6507
Joined: 11 May 2019, 17:56
x 1770

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by mickthemaverick »

As you say Bobins stats can be quoted, massaged and selected to suit the author's needs, so to answer James' point :

"What is the point of carrying on if, statistically speaking, COVID 19 is unsurvivable?"

Approximating James' numbers total cases at this point 177***, Population at this point 66****** therefore percentage of people affected is approximately 0.26%
Of those 15.5% died so approx 0.05% of population are deaths. So survival rate at this point 99.95%. That is the point of carrying on!!
Where's your stiff upper lip man? :-D

Hell Razor5543
Donor 2021
Posts: 11636
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
x 1361

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by Hell Razor5543 »

Chris,

I have to hope that the information provided on the Worldometer website is in error (but I have no way to prove/disprove this). If it is not, my spreadsheet is accurate. Basically, using the statistics provided on the website I have linked to earlier, where the United Kingdom is concerned COVID 19 has an exceptional mortality rate. Simply put, if the mortality rate versus TOTAL cases calculation is correct, if 10,000 people in the UK were to contract COVID 19 1,550 people will die from it (leaving 8,450 survivors). However, if the mortality rate versus CLOSED cases calculation is right, if 10,000 people in the UK were to contract COVID 19 9876 people will die of it (leaving 124 survivors).

I know and understand the GIGO concept. However, until it can be proved that data provided by a source that apparently is widely regarded to be trustworthy is actually in error I would have to assume it is correct.

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4057
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1240

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by bobins »

white exec wrote:
02 May 2020, 16:22
Gibbo2286 wrote:
02 May 2020, 13:25
If you are talking about my last post "the comment above really doesn't measure up." I was simply enquiring about the well being of a regular poster.
It's ok, Gibbo — it was bobins' post I was chiefly referring to.
Perhaps I should have been clearer in my post, to which I apologise. I was attempting to highlight the fact that people will find political bias in just about anything they want to if they want to, and therefore it makes comments about political bias more or less pointless in this thread - in the end they are just viewpoints, not fact. To infer that Party 'A' have all the answers, or that Party 'B' are all a bunch of idiots is to fall in to the trap that one Party is better than the other.
To quote Mr W Churchill : "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6957
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1254

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by white exec »

OK, James, with you on that.

The weakness in the 'public' figures is we just don't know how many folk have it, have had it, or for that matter are asymptomatic carriers.

We do know about hospital admissions (those who stay, that is), and whether they die or not while they are there. We don't seem to know, necessarily clearly, about those folk who are admitted to hospital suffering, get discharged into the community (or back to a care home), and then die. Are they counted as survivors, or deaths? Probably just a detail (statistically), if we just look at 'deaths in all places'. It's taken a long time to get to this figure.

It took far too long to get ONS* fully involved in the UK figures. Got the distinct impression they were initially being kept out, for fear of seeing larger numbers.

* These guys are the very best when it comes to producing reliable statistics, having honed their skills since the end of WW2 (when they were created to catalogue the availability of blankets, no less), and went on to become the Government Social Survey and later OPCS (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys), and now ONS (Office for National Statistics).
I have a personal link to OPCS, as my then wife worked for them until the early '00s, eventually as a principal officer. Her one-time boss, the extraordinary Amelia Harris, was there when it all started in 1945, and was a force to be reckoned with.

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4057
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1240

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by bobins »

mickthemaverick wrote:
02 May 2020, 16:42
As you say Bobins stats can be quoted, massaged and selected to suit the author's needs, so to answer James' point :
I should know, Mick, as I have an 'O' Level in statistics. :-D
Wonder how many others on FCF can say that ? :rofl2: I think it's been the most underused qualification I've ever got..... by a factor of 32 :lol:

User avatar
mickthemaverick
Donor 2019
Posts: 6507
Joined: 11 May 2019, 17:56
x 1770

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by mickthemaverick »

bobins wrote:
02 May 2020, 17:10
mickthemaverick wrote:
02 May 2020, 16:42
As you say Bobins stats can be quoted, massaged and selected to suit the author's needs, so to answer James' point :
I should know, Mick, as I have an 'O' Level in statistics. :-D
Wonder how many others on FCF can say that ? :rofl2: I think it's been the most underused qualification I've ever got..... by a factor of 32 :lol:
No doubt you were expecting to deal with standard deviations rather than mean deviants! :-D

PS, No O Level but it was 1/6th of my maths degree profile!! :)

Hell Razor5543
Donor 2021
Posts: 11636
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
x 1361

Re: Coping With Covid

Post by Hell Razor5543 »

Something to consider is that, until there is a viable vaccine, everybody (who has not contracted and survived COVID 19) is vulnerable to it. We don't know how many peaks there may be. Yes, considerably less than 1% of the UK population have contracted COVID 19 in THIS episode, but how many more episodes will there be?

I apologise if this sounds pessimistic, but I feel it is more a realistic view. I did say UNTIL there is a viable vaccine, and not IF there is a viable vaccine, so there is optimism there. Bill Gates feels it will take 18 months to get a vaccine, and that will be by bypassing some safeguards (if you want to see if there are side effects two years down the line you have to wait for two years, but we may not have that long). The various laboratories will have to follow different paths of research, as there are no guarantees that one line of research will be more effective than a different line.

Some patients who have survived COVID 19 have donated blood plasma (according to the BBC Breakfast News the NHS now has enough to treat 148 severe cases). An Oxford laboratory have a vaccine base that is harmless to humans and is useful against Coronavirus strains (although it needs tailoring to each specific strain). This lab has developed a COVID 19 vaccine that has been used on Rhesus monkeys (which, in the medical world, is as close to human as you can get without actually using humans) who have then been exposed to COVID 19 for a month and have not been affected. This vaccine still needs to be checked in human trials before general release (as it is possible that the modifications could result in adverse effects to humans).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52510865
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/worl ... xford.html

As far as I can tell, the Worldometer website is only showing data for those people who have tested positive for COVID 19. Until a person HAS been tested they are an unknown factor. Yes, they could be asymptomatic, but they might also have a negative test result. For example, if I were to have influenza with a nasty cough, sneezes and a temperature I could believe I had COVID 19, but until I were tested I would have no way to prove it.
Last edited by Hell Razor5543 on 02 May 2020, 17:41, edited 1 time in total.