FNCP #36 cont.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

continuation of: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/friday_night_covid_plotting_36-...

> You are back onto the effectiveness of a mask to protect the wearer, often used in a medical context, where it's not possible to social distance. Near 100% protection is needed  such circumstances.

No, I'm not. I was going to point you to the same paper as the one I think you're referring to:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744731.2021.1944665

> I'm not wrong. The reported effectiveness of masks was for prevention of spread.

Funny how we've both come to such different conclusions from that same paper. Here's the excerpt that sticks with me:
"The addition of knit cotton masks for all classroom occupants yielded a modest 15% reduction in aerosol conditional infection probability compared to the baseline with no masks. In comparison, the protective measure of increasing the ventilation rate from 1.34 ACH to 5.0 ACH resulted in almost a factor of two (1.87× ) reduction, regardless of mask worn. If a fitter is added to help seal the knit cotton mask to the user’s face, the conditional probability of infection is reduced by almost a factor of 2 (1.81×) relative to the no mask baseline. This reduction is similar to increasing the ventilation rate from 1.34 to 5.0 ACH, indicating that well fit cloth masks can play a significant role in reducing infection probability for aerosol transmission."

so any old mask, ~15%. Ventilation ~factor 2. Well fitted mask, with a mask fitter (little clip thing on the nose) is about as good as ventilating properly. How many people have you seen today with a mask fitter? Do you wear one?

> Of course being outside or self isolating at home is a better protection but its not possible for everyone to avoid public indoor spaces and that's where the virus is spreading.

Agree with this too, but it's not fair to say the best control is covering your face and not mention that staying the f*** outside is actually the best control by a country mile. That's where I take issue.

> Even less than ideal face coverings make a useful difference.

Yeah, they do, but it's because they're the lowest hanging fruit, not the biggest fruit. In fact they're one of the smallest fruit. I maintain that by relying on them in any way whatsoever, and especially encouraging/reassuring others to do so in the form worn by the general public day to day, to replace any other mitigation, is harmful.
I'd go even further and say that spreading the word that
> the standard cheap masks  (not medical grade ones) have been found to be the equal top preventative covid measure, almost as effective as vaccines.
is right up there in the misinformation charts, and is f***ing irresponsible.

Edit because loads of typos and cut/paste problems.

Post edited at 15:01
 Offwidth 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Getting angry seems to me to be the irresponsible behaviour here.

The statement of being the close second best factor after vaccines came from one of bruxist's links and was clearly talking about the biggest protective measures indoors (as I said on the old thread, and because that's where protective measures matter). I'm happy to trust the links I've seen rather than one paper from you.  The mask benefits apply more strongly to droplets (where viral load is higher) than aerosol. Masks are cheap, simple and they work very well indoors to cut risk. 

I've always supported good ventilation on these threads as another major factor in reducing risk indoors but that can be trickier and a lot more expensive if you need to fit systems.  A smaller effect is the focus on cleaning and hand-washing and yet we have way more public emphasis placed overall on hands than on good ventilation.

4
In reply to Offwidth:

Not angry, just a bit surprised that you'd push that line and I feel the need to shine a light on it because if taken as true it could easily encourage some very deleterious behaviour.

The paper I linked is the one linked by bruxist in the thread that you said bruxist had linked a paper in. So I think that's the paper you're on about?? I linked it so we're not both waving our arms and saying "studies have shown..." with no backup.
I can't find a line about the second best factor in there. I suspect that's been taken massively out of context if it's from that paper.
 

 Si dH 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> No, I'm not. I was going to point you to the same paper as the one I think you're referring to:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744731.2021.1944665

> Funny how we've both come to such different conclusions from that same paper. Here's the excerpt that sticks with me:

> "The addition of knit cotton masks for all classroom occupants yielded a modest 15% reduction in aerosol conditional infection probability compared to the baseline with no masks. In comparison, the protective measure of increasing the ventilation rate from 1.34 ACH to 5.0 ACH resulted in almost a factor of two (1.87× ) reduction, regardless of mask worn. If a fitter is added to help seal the knit cotton mask to the user’s face, the conditional probability of infection is reduced by almost a factor of 2 (1.81×) relative to the no mask baseline. This reduction is similar to increasing the ventilation rate from 1.34 to 5.0 ACH, indicating that well fit cloth masks can play a significant role in reducing infection probability for aerosol transmission."

> so any old mask, ~15%. Ventilation ~factor 2. Well fitted mask, with a mask fitter (little clip thing on the nose) is about as good as ventilating properly. How many people have you seen today with a mask fitter? Do you wear one?

This seems a spurious argument? You could just as easily create a study using FFP3 masks and increased ventilation rate from 1.34 to 1.50, and then claim that any old ventilation ~ small, masks ~ big. Both that conclusion and the one you've written above are equally bad. The only sensible position is that both masks and ventilation help and we should do one or both when it's reasonable to do so. What's reasonable depends entirely on the circumstances.

Anyway, bigger picture - case rates have definitely flattened. At the leading edge the East Midlands and South West case rates are now just about rising, the North West and West Midlands are flat, other English regions (and England overall) are still falling but only marginally.

I'm using the leading edge provisional data right up to yesterday, but if you use the "Daily change in reported cases by specimen date" graphs (like below for south west) and some intelligent interpretation, you can see with good confidence where rates are going. I've found this quite reliable.

Post edited at 16:42

In reply to Si dH:

> This seems a spurious argument? You could just as easily create a study using FFP3 masks and increased ventilation rate from 1.34 to 1.50, and then claim that any old ventilation ~ small, masks ~ big.

I think the build up might be important to this one. The point I took issue with is

> "the standard cheap masks  (not medical grade ones) have been found to be the equal top preventative covid measure, almost as effective as vaccines."

with a "studies have shown" thrown in. I can't find any what you'd call good science on the effectiveness of masks. I've been looking pretty hard too, to be fair.
Offwidth referred to a paper linked by brxuist in another thread. I went digging and found that one, which I had found independently, and I don't think is great, but its conclusions are very much not that masks are as effective as vaccines. Quite the opposite.

> Both that conclusion and the one you've written above are equally bad.

Are they? if you read the paper, they're using knit cotton mask as the representative of the sort of thing we'd call a 'face covering' (or any old mask in my words). I'm not saying it's a great paper or by any means definitive, it's not, but the paragraph I pasted in is the one that stuck with me. Take your own conclusions from it but there's no way I can read it that makes me think your everyday face covering is nearly as good as a vaccination.

> The only sensible position is that both masks and ventilation help and we should do one or both when it's reasonable to do so. What's reasonable depends entirely on the circumstances.

Yes, but we should not tell people that masks are almost as effective as vaccination. I mean....??!?!?!

Post edited at 16:55
 Si dH 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Ok, fair enough. I gave up reading the last 50 posts or so on the other thread, it appeared to be full of bs (not meaning you or Offwidth.)

I still think the only sensible approach is what I said above, although it appears to becoming academic as people gradually remove these types of control measures anyway.

In reply to Si dH:

> Ok, fair enough. I gave up reading the last 50 posts or so on the other thread, it appeared to be full of bs (not meaning you or Offwidth.)

> I still think the only sensible approach is what I said above, although it appears to becoming academic as people gradually remove these types of control measures anyway.

We fully agree on this bit. I went to a lot of trouble in the last post on t'other thread to make it clear I'm not on an anti-mask rant. They help, for sure, absolutely. But nearly everything else we've been doing helps more, so I really couldn't let that line about them being the most effective thing stand.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> The addition of knit cotton masks for all classroom occupants yielded a modest 15%

Knit cotton is rather different to a simple surgical mask, isnt it? What thread count did they use? 85tpi? 600tpi?

The simple surgical masks I've been using (supplied by my employer) are non-woven, and must include a synthetic element, as they use a welded construction.

Post edited at 17:38
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Knit cotton is rather different to a simple surgical mask, isnt it?

Once again, they're using kint cotton as a representative of your everyday one you see people in. Nevertheless, not different enough to make what Offwidth said reasonable.

> What thread count did they use? 85tpi? 600tpi?

Probably tells you in the paper, which also tested a surgical mask, and discusses the results. You don't have to ask me what it says, you can freely read it.

I didn't set out to start a debate on which mask is best. It doesn't need saying that shit ones are shit, and it's shown in that paper that all of them are far shitter than you would hope unless you fit them incredibly carefully.  (How many people are doing that??). But they help and aren't that inconvenient, so they're a net win. So wear one. But don't wear one because you need to STAY OUTSIDE. But wear one if you have to go inside. But DON'T GO INSIDE. But wear one if you have to. But DON'T.

What I took issue with was the post that equated their effectiveness to vaccines. I think that belongs in the misinformation bag.

Post edited at 17:52
 wintertree 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> This seems a spurious argument? You could just as easily create a study using FFP3 masks and increased ventilation rate from 1.34 to 1.50, and then claim that any old ventilation ~ small, masks ~ big. Both that conclusion and the one you've written above are equally bad.

It's the new airplane on a treadmill.  Given our observations getting out and about a lot more this week, it's largely academic as 80%+ of people have abandoned masks completely.

> Anyway, bigger picture - case rates have definitely flattened. At the leading edge the East Midlands and South West case rates are now just about rising, the North West and West Midlands are flat, other English regions (and England overall) are still falling but only marginally.

The week-on-week analysis of non provisional PCR rate shows another day of fall.  The provisional data you've posted doesn't convince me it has to turn to rise, doing a 7-day comparison but the decay is slowing down at least ono its way to faltering.  I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if Freedom Day does't manifest as a return to rise; a lot of immunity developing after the football spike infections kicking in...?

One thing is certain with this process - nothing is ever certain!


 Offwidth 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I've emailed bruxist. He linked quite a few papers in the last month and no, that wasn't the one I was referring to. 

Mask use should still be compulsory in public indoor spaces (for those without medical exemption) at current case levels. It's one of the few low cost interventions we can make immediately to signiifcantly reduce risk in all such spaces.

The worries that some behavioural scientists had about people over-trusting masks and engaging in more risky behaviour never really materialised. No one is claiming anywhere that cheap masks reduce infection risk to zero. Vaccines reduce transmission risks even more but also don't reduce them to zero.  I can't see any real downside to what I said, let alone why you would say the views I was repeating (from someone else) were anything like irresponsible. In stark contrast mask denial has always been a very big problem and that denial too often (unsurprisingly) sat alongside ignorant risky behaviour. Your views on just aerosol transmission, ignoring the bigger benefits for blocking higher viral load droplets (from an infectious mask wearer and even to a mask wearer) isn't helpful.

 Offwidth 29 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I don't see anything like an 80% reduction in mask use in Nottingham (or West Yorkshire last weekend) and in quite a few important places it's still compulsory (eg TfL and a lot of workplaces). Do you think this might be a NE thing?

 wintertree 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Do you think this might be a NE thing?

It's really variable in different areas and the type of activity they serve.  I think the places we've been this week are more towards the 0% end of the spectrum; I expect when I'm back at Wintertree Orbiting HQ next week it'll be close to 100%.

 Bottom Clinger 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Genuinely thought this thread was going to be about the Fixed Notice Penalty Charge problem. 

In reply to Offwidth:

> Your views on just aerosol transmission, ignoring the bigger benefits for blocking higher viral load droplets (from an infectious mask wearer and even to a mask wearer) isn't helpful.

Not ignoring them at all. I don't understand why you think I am.
If you're staying any distance from other people (please tell me you don't think it's ok to stop doing that if you have a mask on) the big droplets are largely moot and it's all about the aerosol. And if you're getting close enough to people for them to matter then all the arguments about leakage apply to droplets too, so you're back to the fitment being the dominant factor.
I'm still looking for papers on this and I'll keep reading. I'm struggling to find any papers that reassure me to the level you seem to be at.

 Offwidth 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I see that post just got deleted before my reply. I'll include it anyway.....

Well the stuff you quoted from that paper was all aerosol transmission. Given droplets and larger aerosol sizes are both the higher infection risk and more likely to be blocked by cheap masks ( plus this being a public discussion with some deniers about), it might have been wise to state that aerosol reduction data on its own will be an unreliably low measure of risk reduction from mask use.

Edit (to deal with the change). Of course I'd advise keeping as far apart as possible but that can be difficult. Droplets from a cough easily travel 2m.

Post edited at 18:21
In reply to Offwidth:

> I see that post just got deleted before my reply. I'll include it anyway.....

> Well the stuff you quoted from that paper was all aerosol transmission. Given droplets and larger aerosol sizes are both the higher infection risk and more likely to be blocked by cheap masks ( plus this being a public discussion with some deniers about), it might have been wise to state that aerosol reduction data on its own will be an unreliably low measure of risk reduction from mask use.

Just put it back, sorry. Wanted to check something quickly.
yeah, still not finding anything that makes me doubt the analogy between aerosol up to ~5um and droplets that are ~8ish um. I don't doubt that they can behave differently but I'm not finding anything that would immediately debunk the assumption that there are plenty of them in the stuff that steams up your glasses too.

Post edited at 18:20
 Bottom Clinger 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

See the graph - where is it on the dashboard? (I’m being thicker than normal today).  

 Offwidth 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Found two relevant posts from Bruxist but not the one I wanted:

"SPI-M assessment of face covering effectiveness on transmission:

50-90% for smaller aerosols and greater for large droplets with 'good quality' face coverings (presumably FFP2/KN95/KF94).

6-15% range but potentially up to 45% for other less efficacious face coverings.

Even that lowball 6% for the least effective face covering is huge.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...  "

"> Basically they don't know, nobody has measured them.

A confidence interval does not mean "they don't know". Quite the opposite.

The confidence interval stated comes from the many studies measuring effectiveness, listed here in sections 28-36: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/... 1

In the briefing paper I linked to, face coverings are identified as the single most effective transmission mitigation measure under current conditions, and by far the most effective measure under theoretically ideal conditions, based on the above-mentioned evidence which already takes into account issues such as quality and compliance."

2
In reply to Offwidth:

> Found two relevant posts from Bruxist but not the one I wanted:

> "SPI-M assessment of face covering effectiveness on transmission:

> 50-90% for smaller aerosols and greater for large droplets with 'good quality' face coverings (presumably FFP2/KN95/KF94).

> 6-15% range but potentially up to 45% for other less efficacious face coverings.

> Even that lowball 6% for the least effective face covering is huge.

I'm looking in there. I'm seeing "Good ventilation can reduce airborne risks by up to 70% compared to poor ventilation"
in the same table as
"Face Coverings: Effectiveness is hard to measure, but a number of large-scale studies and reviews from data in other countries suggest  impacts on transmission typically in 6-15% range, but potentially up to 45%"

> The confidence interval stated comes from the many studies measuring effectiveness, listed here in sections 28-36: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/... 1

This is from Jan 2020. And also says "7-45%". Hopefully there's some post-covid arrival stuff somewhere.

> In the briefing paper I linked to, face coverings are identified as the single most effective transmission mitigation measure under current conditions, and by far the most effective measure under theoretically ideal conditions, based on the above-mentioned evidence which already takes into account issues such as quality and compliance."

Where does it say this?!??! I always thought 70 was more than 6-15 potentially 45.

 Offwidth 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

As they are two direct 'cut & pastes' maybe better take it up with bruxist.

Latest ONS data was out today

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/con...

In reply to Offwidth:

This is interesting. Disappointing but interesting. Largely confirms that there's a knowledge gap.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-face-mask...
And weakly implies they're not as great as we would all love them to be.

Edit: But they help and aren't that inconvenient, so they're a net win. So wear one. But don't wear one because you need to STAY OUTSIDE. But wear one if you have to go inside. But DON'T GO INSIDE. But wear one if you have to. But DON'T.

Post edited at 19:06
In reply to Offwidth:

> Latest ONS data was out today

Thanks for this!
I got all excited when I saw the % with antobodies, until I saw the "over 16" caveat in the caption. :-/

 Si dH 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> See the graph - where is it on the dashboard? (I’m being thicker than normal today).  

Go to cases and then either England or one of the English regions. They've annoyingly stopped including it for local authorities.

 Si dH 29 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > The addition of knit cotton masks for all classroom occupants yielded a modest 15%

> Knit cotton is rather different to a simple surgical mask, isnt it? What thread count did they use? 85tpi? 600tpi?

> The simple surgical masks I've been using (supplied by my employer) are non-woven, and must include a synthetic element, as they use a welded construction.

I thought the theory was that most cotton masks provided better physical coverage, especially for other people, because the standard size surgical ones tend to leave huge gaps by your cheeks and everything you breathe just goes out sideways, but that the surgical ones are a bit better at filtering out small particles, so a recommended way of wearing them is to wear a surgical mask underneath with a cotton one on top. I did think about doing this for a trip to the wall but decided it would be too unpleasant.

Anyway like Wintertree my observation is that compliance has fallen off a cliff anyway. There were already almost none being worn in the wall, there are now also almost none being worn in shops or cafes - and even fewer amongst staff than customers. There were even none being worn by the four staff I saw over the age of 60 in the local post office. The only staff member I've seen wearing a mask in the last week was in the local Tesco. Chain places with modern buildings and good aircon have higher compliance.

Post edited at 19:17
In reply to Si dH:

I feel slightly qualified to chime in thanks to all my recent tedious reading on this, but feel free to ignore...
Seems they're all pretty disappointing unless you can get them to fit round the nose. So the ones with the bendy metal bit, or the addition of a clip-on thing, are what you need to get the effectiveness up to anywhere near what you'd hope for. Applies to some degree both to coming in and going out.

 RobAJones 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH

> Anyway like Wintertree my observation is that compliance has fallen off a cliff anyway. 

My (limited) experience is very difficult. Post climb pint involved putting mask on to go through the pub to get to the beer garden, where the staff were wearing masks to serve customers outside. Then supermarket shop where everyone, customers (it wasn't busy) and staff had masks on.

Probably illustrates that, as usual, Cumbria is a little slow to catch up with rest of country? 

 Si dH 29 Jul 2021
In reply to RobAJones:

I'm sure it's very variable around different bits of the country.

 wintertree 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth & Longsufferingropeholder:

Seems to me you two might sort this mask business out better in a video call.  We should find someone to mediate, I wonder what that role could be called?

The parameter space covering masks and ventilation must be 5 dimensional at the least, so there's infinite room for ambiguity and confusion.

My take remains that anything taking a chunk out of the spread of cases helps, and that there's only so complex the messaging and advice can be without loosing people.  I take the point that if somewhere isn't safe without masks, it's not massively safer with with, but a lot of people don't have the practical choice that some of us enjoy.  

1
 bruxist 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder and Offwidth:

Hello both of you, and sorry for the belated reply - been out all day doing what we're all better off doing, i.e. extreme social distancing in the hills...

Those two links are indeed the docs Offwidth was referring to. The EMG paper is from Jan 2021 - "2020" is a typo (I think this is pretty clear from the contents but in case you doubt me, here's the summary page on Gov.uk that links to it, using the correct date: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emg-application-of-physical-dist...).

That paper formed part of the basis for the second joint paper 'EMG, SPI-M and SPI-B: Considerations in implementing long-term ‘baseline’ NPIs', which dates from early April 2021. That paper was then discussed at SAGE 87, later in April.

Longsufferingropeholder is totally right on the face of it: 70 is unquestionably more than 6-15, potentially 45. But that's not the final conclusion on the relative efficacy of the two mitigations that EMG, SPI-M and SPI-B reached. For their conclusions about relative efficacy in real-world circs, you have to look at Annex A, Table 3.

Broadly, SAGE assessed both the potential and the current effectiveness of ventilation as lower than the effectiveness of masks, for reasons that have nothing to do with their effectiveness taken in isolation, but to do with other factors (principally, that masks work against all transmission vectors whereas ventilation works only against airborne transmission; lack of evidence about airborne transmission; and what I take as a nod towards a general inferiority of ventilation and knowledge about how to achieve it in UK buildings).

I don't know if their conclusions are correct. But this is the evidence fed into SAGE and which then informed UK Gov policy at the time, or should have - worth noting that many of the more explicit recommendations never materialized as Gov policy initiatives.

In reply to bruxist:

Cheers, appreciate the clarification and hope you had a good day out. Maybe it'll stop pissing down here one day and I'll get to do something else for a bit too.

 bruxist 29 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Oh, it pissed it down all right! But you know how it is - once you're out and already soaked it stops mattering...

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> I feel slightly qualified to chime in thanks to all my recent tedious reading on this

I was being lazy earlier, and hoping that after your recent tedious reading, you would have the cotton tpi figures and surgical mask figures at your fingertips...

My surgical masks do have the bendy metal strip. First thing I do is shape that to my nose, and open the concertina. I get a pretty good fit.

I'm not arguing, either; I'm just discussing.

My observation in shops is that mask compliance near me is still really quite high; possibly even 80%.

I'm not meeting anyone, outside or inside, and only making quick trips to the shops, where I keep my distance, just as I have throughout.

Despite this, I have somehow managed to pick up a summer cold. How the hell did that happen...? And, yes, I have done an LFT, just in case...

 wintertree 29 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Despite this, I have somehow managed to pick up a summer cold. How the hell did that happen...?

We all got stinking colds in the house about a month in to the first lockdown; at that point I was still treating this as basically "Airborne Ebola" in terms of household quarantine whilst waiting for the dust to settle.

There's going to be some fascinating stuff learnt about the transmission of other diseases as a result of all this.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yeah, I wasn't paying that much attention to the quality of cotton tbh. They tested 4 types of mask. I'm on my phone now having shut big screen down for the day so not reading any more on it. The tl;dr is that everything goes out the top and around the sides unless you really make some effort. You're probably doing the world a favour with yours, and you'll be in the teensy top end tail of the distribution of effectiveness, with the 'hanging off the chin' crew at the other end.

I know a few people who've got colds recently. Weird, but probably only noteworthy because of the situation and might actually still be a tiny fraction of the number that normally would.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> You're probably doing the world a favour with yours

Considering the exposure time and places, probably making bugger all difference...

No pubs or restaurants, not in work, shopping is a quick spin around large supermarket at off-peak times, not stopping, and not getting anywhere near anybody for a few seconds, never mind 'fifteen minutes'. Actually, I was in work June-November, but in a very low density office with HEPA filtered HVAC, with masks and significant separation and other measures.

I was a late mask adopter, because I took the above measures from the outset, using 'space' as the primary protection mechanism. It rapidly became clear it wasn't a true airborne (as in persitent, free-floating) infection, but relied on short distance aerosol particulates.

 jkarran 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> Anyway like Wintertree my observation is that compliance has fallen off a cliff anyway. There were already almost none being worn in the wall, there are now also almost none being worn in shops or cafes - and even fewer amongst staff than customers.

I'm on the Isle of man at the moment, it's in the midst of an explosive outbreak having vaccine derived immunity much like the uk but zero natural immunity in poorly vaccinated groups and basically zero non-vaccine mitigation beyond cancelling some sport: almost no masks or distancing or ventilation, tests in short supply, muddled isolation rules, insanely optimistic projections by 'Bob from down the pub' making headlines, they're just not used to it, it's wonderland! Odds on I get covid this week.

Jk

Post edited at 00:19
 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I guess I'm frustrated as masks to me are a 'no-brainer' clear benefit right now and yet many good intelligent people are undermining the case. On the other channel someone described masks as unworkable in an open society and  are pissing in the wind even where compulsion remains. I think this is muddling where we are with where we could have been without the mixed messaging from government. The large majority of people did comply with compulsion despite mass misinformation on social media and I'm sure would do again if this part of this ridiculous government gambling, in the face of science, doesn't pay off. So I agree totally with your last paragraph but would strengthen the last part: there are those who cant choose but more importantly the country would collapse if key workers couldn't mix indoors (transport to or at work). For them, for now, masks should be a standard H&S requirement alongside ventilation assessment and improvements

Five dimensions might not be enough, we could need something more akin to string theory complexity. There are some pretty weird outcomes where masks seem to have been incredibly effective but isolating all the possible factors that led to such results would be impossible. Like the oft quoted hair salon and the Theodore Roosevelt.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

1
In reply to captain paranoia:

Same here really; I possibly see it less than most because I haven't been in a pub, shop, train or anything, really, for 18 months. And at work anyone in the same room is wearing one but is ALL THE WAY OVER THERE, NO, FURTHER, BY THE WINDOW, NO YOU CAN'T CLOSE IT, I DON'T CARE, YOU'LL DRY OUT WHEN IT STOPS RAINING. 

I get the argument that some people can't space out or ventilate properly, but can't is a spectrum. What it more likely means in the majority is one can, but the relative cost makes the choice for you. I suspect more people and employers could have shifted the balance and accepted a greater cost than they did to let people stay away from each other. But throwing them a mask is a cheap way to say "get back to work". Even cheaper if you don't take the time to say "put it on properly".

Post edited at 07:17
 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

"throwing them a mask is a cheap way to say "get back to work"."

It's usually not, certainly not in places like the NHS. Irrespective, it remains a sensible precaution if people have to be indoors together at work.

I guess I'm much less  risk averse than you. I've been in a few well ventilated pubs when quiet, served by masked staff. I've been on a return train journey a couple of weeks back and won't do so again for a while after seeing the behaviour of some drunk people on the return journey (luckily at the other end if the carriage). The shops I've been to are lower risk as  they have been well ventilated and because I can stay well away from people without masks.

Post edited at 07:22
In reply to Offwidth:

Point is that that's not usually. That's one of the few examples where it would be extremely expensive to space people out. A lot more working patterns and workplace layouts could have been changed than have been. Masks are a small % gain on top of all the effective stuff we should have done ages ago.

> it remains a sensible precaution if people have to be indoors together at work.

But so many people are saying they "have to be indoors together", and that's where I'm calling bullshit. If we carried on chipping away, a sizeable percentage of those could not be. It's not a have to/don't have to binary choice. It's a how expensive would it be to fix it question. Which is becoming moot now we're opening up again.

And, once again, none of what I'm saying is supposed to mean don't wear one. Do wear one. But go to more trouble to avoid doing things that take you where you need one.

Post edited at 07:26
In reply to wintertree:

CDC is saying Delta variant is as transimssable as chickenpox and has changed its guidance on masks.  It now says vaccinated people should wear masks indoors.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/29/politics/cdc-masks-covid-19-infections/i...

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I guess we will end up in disagreement about what constitutes usual. I'm an engineer, I've heard about a lot of manufacturing employers who did a good job based on good advice. Lots of employers have been incredibly sensible about office staff working from home.  The NHS is the biggest employer in the UK.

There are way too many bad workplaces but the fact there has been almost zero action on blatant covid breaches, despite tens of thousands of complaints, was part of that (companies would have behaved better if facing fines and public exposure).

Post edited at 07:32
In reply to Offwidth:

> I guess I'm much less  risk averse than you.

Differently risk averse.

> I can stay well away from people without masks.

It's when you say stuff like this that our views part. At work, I stay way way further (as in not in the same room as) from the people with kids whose nursery closed for an outbreak. Or the people who have kept going to the pub throughout.

I don't give any virus stopping credit to a poorly perched bit of cloth diverting someone's breath up their glasses. Nor a properly fitted surgical mask, even though I know it does help. I stay away from everyone regardless of quality of mask as if they're breathing out just the same. 

The mask tells you nothing about whether the person had been shielding for a year or just picked their kids up from bannister licking class. I don't see it as an indicator for who to avoid.

Post edited at 07:38
 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm quite surprised by some of that. R at 8 seems very high and given the US vaccine position in some states you would expect a much worse situation than current numbers show. The article doesn't help by having statements that seem  to contradict each other (likelihood of spread if vaccinated).

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/united-states

 Ridge 30 Jul 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> CDC is saying Delta variant is as transimssable as chickenpox and has changed its guidance on masks.  It now says vaccinated people should wear masks indoors.

That is worrying.

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh & others:

Ars have a write up of this as well - https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/cdc-mask-reversal-vaccinated-should...

It doesn’t seem to fit well with developments in the UK, but I think that just goes to show how much isn’t understood about any of this.

I did wonder if there’s an “optics” aspect to this; under Trump the CDC had its independence and scientific focus badly damaged and was quick to drop mask guidance indeed.  A simple about-face is hard to do, but with opportunistic reasons….? 

Or this variant could be really bad news.  We’ve never had a virus with us kind of R number in endemic circulation before, that’s the endpoint almost every nation is aiming at.  There’s a non zero chance “learning to live with the virus” is going to teach us that we have to eliminate it.  

I’ve not seen much news coverage on updated vaccines; that seems like it’s rising in urgency. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> CDC is saying Delta variant is as transimssable as chickenpox and has changed its guidance on masks.  It now says vaccinated people should wear masks indoors.

That article has a few things that make you go hmmm
"And if vaccinated people get infected anyway, they have as much virus in their bodies as unvaccinated people. That means they're as likely to infect someone else as unvaccinated people who get infected."
Um..... not sure about that CNN. Pretty sure I've heard otherwise. You might be right, but you probably aren't, and a citation wouldn't hurt.

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Cheers, that's a much more sensible link. Those vaccinated with a breakthrough infection have a similar viral load to the unvaccinated but the chances of infection are reduced.

I still can't see R being 8 or more as  being consistent with current spread in the US or elsewhere. Even at the current observed growth, especially in the SE and midwest, it's bad news for Republicans given the huge party dividing lines on views on vaccines, masks and social distancing. Trump's covid legacy could kill another hundred thousand yet and leave millions with long covid.

In reply to Offwidth:

On that....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/07/29/world/europe/europe-us-vacci...
Scroll to "Vaccination rates in U.S. states and E.U. countries" and get your red and blue crayons out.
For extra irony, look at where Florida is.

Some noise in the press this week on the 'with, not of' topic (visited in #34).
They're talking about beds. We were talking about deaths. Case rates are different now, as are demographics, but sounds like our conclusions then weren't a million miles off.

Edit: the press have outdone themselves again by going to town on this with cries of misinformation and fact-hiding, when it was in fact a bloody obvious mathematical inevitability
Edit again: actually looks like just the telegraph.

Post edited at 10:07
In reply to Offwidth:

> The large majority of people did comply with compulsion despite mass misinformation on social media and I'm sure would do again if this part of this ridiculous government gambling, in the face of science, doesn't pay off. 

The government are still urging us to wear masks, in their adverts on Facebook and digìral advertising signs in town. The disconnect between this urging and the removal of compulsion is schizophrenic...

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

Oh sure. The civil service output of government is very different from what comes from listening to Boris and his cabinet and even they toned the politics down as the third wave grew. By far the most effective way masks will benefit the population is with continued compulsion and I'm pretty sure the civil service would have wanted that. SAGE clearly did.

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

That'll be built on what I reported Heneghan said in the Telegraph on Saturday. The idea it's significant is complete bollocks. If there was a mass conspiracy of people being hospitalised with something else and being unfairly labelled as being hospitalised with covid it would be obvious in every hospital. Professor in evidenced based medicine my arse. 

Post edited at 10:54
In reply to Offwidth:

It would also be inconsequential to any decisions, since all the numbers still go up together, so doesn't matter at all in any of the ways they claim.

 elsewhere 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I do not think R is 8 now but R0 might be.

R of 8 may be an estimate of what R0 would have been for delta in very different world of summer 2019 without vaccination, WFH and other precautions.

 Bottom Clinger 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Thanks. Wouldn’t open on iPhone,  but good on laptop. 

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

Sure. I meant I don't think it makes sense that R0 is as high as 8.  The US has a lot of unvaccinated people who don't wear masks or social distance properly thanks to the idiots associated with Trump. R0 at 8 is chicken pox levels and would be really serious in any community links like that. I used to run a course with a big overseas direct entry and for 3 of the years that it ran we had a major chicken pox outbreak on arrival, that was almost certainly spread on the flight to Heathrow.

In reply to Offwidth:

But a lot of the "people who don't wear masks or social distance properly thanks to the idiots associated with Trump" have had the live-unattenuated vaccine, so there will be a level of immunity there. R0 of ~7 is what regularly gets thrown around for delta. Wherever you see 85% HIT, that's the other simplistic way of quoting the same number.

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I agree totally with your mechanism but I'm not convinced it happened on a large enough scale. Infection numbers just looked too low in some republican states until recently. Its unlikely cases were being hidden by lack of engagement as it would have led to death spikes. It might be because a lot of these communities are well spread out and often pretty insular.  I do see infection acquired immunity being a much bigger factor in city based  ethnic minority democrats with vaccine hesitancy ( due to some of the shitty history that still resonates in some communities). I guess we would need an ONS antibody survey equivalent, if anyone knows of one.

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Cheers, that's a much more sensible link. Those vaccinated with a breakthrough infection have a similar viral load to the unvaccinated but the chances of infection are reduced.

Follow up from Ars

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/this-900-person-delta-cluster-in-ma...

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to thread:

A few days back I posted on the original thread that perhaps hospitalisations and deaths were levelling off for England [1]. There was some discussion about how much was noise, and how much was down to weekend effects in the admissions data.

The trends to levelling off continues in both plots; if anything deaths seems to lead hospitalisations - perhaps relating to demographic changes in the distribution of cases?  Hard to say for sure with the different demographic bins for admissions and deaths (aside: this really needs fixing to help people producing analysis and modelling as feeders for policy; it's mad having incompatible bins).  The deaths data is low number statistics so it is very noise - and by extension so is the location of the turning point, certainly now before the point is well passed.

[1] https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/friday_night_covid_plotting_36-...


 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

It still doesn't seem to fit with the wider US population data or the UK data. Maybe it could have been distorted by some big unmasked super-spreader events indoors? The fully vaccinated can catch covid, probably with more risk of that at high viral dose levels.

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Latest ONS infection survey to the week ending July 24th. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/con...

 Si dH 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> A few days back I posted on the original thread that perhaps hospitalisations and deaths were levelling off for England [1]. There was some discussion about how much was noise, and how much was down to weekend effects in the admissions data.

If the admissions continues to follow a smooth turn from the end of your graph then it'll peak and start to fall almost a fortnight after cases did according to the dashboard, so that seems reasonable. I still think the deaths must be down to noise, a blip, whatever we call it. There are previous blips in your plot 8e data that are just as big and the fall in cases can't possibly be translating into deaths yet. Happy to place a virtual wager it will be rising again in a few days although, of course, it would be nice if it didn't!

In reply to Offwidth:

Yellow card summary updated too:

"This safety update report is based on detailed analysis of data up to 21 July 2021. At this date, an estimated 20.4 million first doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 24.7 million first doses of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca had been administered, and around 12.9 million and 23.2 million second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca respectively. An approximate 1.3 million first doses and approximately 0.3 million second doses of the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna have also now been administered."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adv...

 Offwidth 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Indie Sage data presentation very good this week except a few predictions at the very end that seem not quite justified as yet.

youtube.com/watch?v=kQJ9Abs6AuE&

1
 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> It still doesn't seem to fit with the wider US population data or the UK data. Maybe it could have been distorted by some big unmasked super-spreader events indoors?

Yes, it seems increasingly at odds to what we're seeing here.  Once again underscores how many unknowns there are perhaps.  

> The fully vaccinated can catch covid, probably with more risk of that at high viral dose levels.

Although, so long as they're not getting ill and not going to hospital or dying, it's not in the same league as unvaccinated catching Covid, and this still holds in the incident they report on.  Such a situation could be looking for the next pandoras box to open, but one step at a time...

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> If the admissions continues to follow a smooth turn from the end of your graph then it'll peak and start to fall almost a fortnight after cases did according to the dashboard, so that seems reasonable. I still think the deaths must be down to noise, a blip, whatever we call it.

I've to a hunch that its real, but I can't offer any support for that yet.  I'll hopefully get to dig through the demographics when preparing tomorrow's update, perhaps something will offer itself in support, or perhaps the data will change.  After all, the trendline is provisional on the right hand side of the plot. 

> There are previous blips in your plot 8e data that are just as big

Generally at lower absolute numbers though, where the statistical noise is higher.

> and the fall in cases can't possibly be translating into deaths yet.

Depends on what's happened with the demographics; one absolutely key piece of information we're missing to get much of a grasp on it these days is cases data by both age and vaccination status - if cases shifted towards vaccinated individuals a few weeks ago that could for example explain this, perhaps because the more vulnerable unvaccinated are not blind to the news reports covering health outcomes for people in their situation.

Still, harkening back to previous times, if we're trying to figure out where reality lies on a spectrum of "not growing very much" to "falling", at least we're not in exponential rise any longer - no bad thing.

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I just can't take these hour long talking head videos.  I've never been able to digest podcasts either.  It's a shame they don't put out a PDF of the slides and a transcript.   I'm not complaining as I appreciate it's a lot of work they put in, and transcripts are a lot of work, although some PDFs would be simple enough...

 Si dH 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Which predictions did you mean? Like WT I don't like hour long videos but I did watch that one, I thought it was pretty good. The thing that struck me most wasn't the data (similar interpretation of the fall to some of what has been discussed here, similar likely short term trends to come as I noted yesterday) but more some of the follow on discussion. What struck me most was Stephen Griffin described the immune response to the vaccines being far superior to that to natural infection, with a discussion of the virus doing things that damage our T-cell response and so on. That's really pretty concerning.

Thanks for sharing.

Post edited at 21:33
 Si dH 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Depends on what's happened with the demographics; one absolutely key piece of information we're missing to get much of a grasp on it these days is cases data by both age and vaccination status - if cases shifted towards vaccinated individuals a few weeks ago that could for example explain this, perhaps because the more vulnerable unvaccinated are not blind to the news reports covering health outcomes for people in their situation.

I was looking at it from the perspective that people are currently looking for evidence that the fall in cases over the last fortnight was real (perhaps a bit of tunnel vision), and thought you were putting forward the apparent trends in admissions and deaths as part of that discussion. I'm firmly of the view that the deaths curve can't react to the recent drop in cases for several more weeks. Of course though, you're right that something else could have changed a few weeks earlier and caused the death rate to moderate and the things you suggest seem reasonable.

Post edited at 21:34
 elsewhere 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> What struck me most was Stephen Griffin described the immune response to the vaccines being far superior to that to natural infection, with a discussion of the virus doing things that damage our T-cell response and so on. That's really pretty concerning.

That is really interesting. I never understood why vaccine immune response better than virus immune response but that makes sense.

 elsewhere 30 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Not tried it but to you can download transcripts from YouTube if it has captions.

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> What struck me most was Stephen Griffin described the immune response to the vaccines being far superior to that to natural infection, with a discussion of the virus doing things that damage our T-cell response and so on. That's really pretty concerning.

The immune evading behaviour of conventional coronaviruses came up early on in the pandemic as one of the worrying potentialities for this virus.  It's been touched on by the immunology and cellular biology crowd on here in brief a couple of times.  

This sort of stuff is going to come to the fore of discussions now we're looking at maybe getting to the next stage of managing this bloody virus.  The T-cell immunity is likely quite prominent in offering health protection (not necessarily protection against infection) against future variants; so people who're going with the "I've been infected I don't need vaccination" approach could be the canaries going forwards.  Hopefully vaccination will always remain on the table for them to choose.

> and thought you were putting forward the apparent trends in admissions and deaths as part of that discussion. I'm firmly of the view that the deaths curve can't react to the recent drop in cases for several more week

I think I'm somewhere between the two.  I don't think I really understand the behaviour of deaths now with the mixed vaccine/no vaccine split.  In general, deaths seems to have trended like occupancy in terms of rate constants - that makes an intuitive sense, as the more people there are in hospital, the more people will be dying.  I agree that it's too soon to expect to see a major change in deaths as confirmation of case rates falling.  

In reply to wintertree & Si dH:

I know this is well known, but it can't be said too often that the relationship between hospitalisations and deaths is a different one now, and lengths of stay and the time between hospitalisation and either outcome is not what it was. 

It's not *that* different though; I'm also not convinced we should be seeing all the signals yet. Will be interesting to keep a watch on the phase plots over the next weeks.

Edit: deaths tracking cases more closely would be a symptom of (amongst many other, more likely explanations) a greater proportion of with-not-of, wouldn't it? Which would follow cases moving up the ages. I don't see any indication that that's happened yet either, but another one to watch if data detail allows. There's an apparent move to more openness, not less, so there's hope.

Post edited at 22:38
 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to thread:

Finally; I might be able to pack up and go home - an article from the BBC that gives a clear explanation of the relationship between the daily case number and the ONS data, and the reasons the later lags the former, as well as noting the bit where the official R number is always out of date and discussing clearly how and when other measures are expected to confirm (or otherwise) the rapid fall in cases.

One part in the article not discussed here recently is that ZOE is not reporting a similar fall in cases (it's currently showing a levelling off).  I've never been a great fan of ZOE, but still it's a worrying trend.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58029383

The ZOE part put the nuclear-disaster level option in my mind - a sudden rise to prominence of a new variant that misses all 3 primers used by the PCR testing and so isn't picked up - and consequentially isn't sent on for sequencing.  This seems exceptionally unlikely, especially given the rapidity of the drop, no variant has risen to national prominence in that timeframe with synchronicity over all regions, and the gender signal is compelling during the football period.  Probably just the usual poorly understood details around how ZOE responds differently to other measures.

One quote from the article made me chuckle:

It will still take more time to get a clear picture of exactly what is going on.

That's more or less been my final comment for the last few months now...

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Edit: deaths tracking cases more closely would be a symptom of (amongst many other, more likely explanations) a greater proportion of with-not-of, wouldn't it? Which would follow cases moving up the ages. I don't see any indication that that's happened yet either, but another one to watch if data detail allows.

That is a good thought; and I have the "all-cause mortality" analysis to run for that now; something I can do for tomorrow's update.  Should run that weekly anyway as it's the best measure I think I've come across for answering "are we there yet?".

In reply to wintertree:

I don't think it could ever reasonably be a big enough proportion to make that much difference, but it is indeed a thought.

 wintertree 30 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> I don't think it could ever reasonably be a big enough proportion to make that much difference, but it is indeed a thought.

It was about 10% the last time I ran it, the highest fraction ever I think; I imagine it’s dropped since then.  That would shift the centroid of the case-to-death time by a couple of days over pure “from covid”; not enough of a difference in this context.

I hope the true percentage can drop a lot more over the next year, but the measured one is unlikely to as more people with more immunity become less symptomatic and so don’t go for testing; eventually if we do well, the only people getting tested for covid will be those being admitted to hospital.  (Optimistic hat day today)

 Si dH 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree and lsrh:

The thing I saw last week (which I can't remember and I can't reference, but I'm sure it was from a personal who should have been reasonably authoritative(!)) was clear that average hospital stay has gone down for people who come out alive, and gone up for people who die.

This is perfectly intuitive if you think about it because on average people are now better prepared to fight the virus themselves and so those that do die will mostly take longer to do so.

But it means the deaths should lag cases and hospitalisations by more, not less.

Another point to note is that the Indy sage slides included one showing the proportion of people in hospital (or it might have been deaths in hospital, can't remember) who being treated specifically for covid, out of all people in hospital with covid. It had been consistently around 80% with no changes other than a bit of noise since early June when the data began.

Post edited at 07:27
In reply to Si dH:

> This is perfectly intuitive if you think about it because on average people are now better prepared to fight the virus themselves and so those that do die will mostly take longer to do so.

Average hospital stay going up for people who eventually die is probably also a sign that the ICUs aren't totally overloaded.

 Å ljiva 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Finally; I might be able to pack up and go home 
 

i thought maybe you were moonlighting  at the Guardian last night. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/30/uk-appears-to-defy-dire-freed...

In reply to Si dH:

> The thing I saw last week (which I can't remember and I can't reference, but I'm sure it was from a personal who should have been reasonably authoritative(!)) was clear that average hospital stay has gone down for people who come out alive, and gone up for people who die.

Yes, this is what I've seen in various sources

> This is perfectly intuitive if you think about it because on average people are now better prepared to fight the virus themselves and so those that do die will mostly take longer to do so.

Does seem to be a lot of younger people admitted for a few days of CPAP then sent home. 

> But it means the deaths should lag cases and hospitalisations by more, not less.

Yes, all things being equal. 

> Another point to note is that the Indy sage slides included one showing the proportion of people in hospital (or it might have been deaths in hospital, can't remember) who being treated specifically for covid, out of all people in hospital with covid. It had been consistently around 80% with no changes other than a bit of noise since early June when the data began.

Those figures are probably from https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospi...

When we did the maths for 'deaths within 28 days...' a couple weeks back the numbers weren't that far off. But the interesting part came when you imagine a world where cases aren't concentrated in the young. When I did some envelope maths I reckoned 'with-not-of' deaths would be a factor ~5-6 higher if cases were evenly distributed through the population. Not saying the same is necessarily true of hospitalisations (not least because it's not measuring hospitalisations within 28 days of a positive test), but if we assume it rests on a similar set of probability-by-age, I think it's artificially low because of the age mix of the current wave and is unlikely to go any lower (if no other variables changed). Vague recollection that we might even have discussed that this metric increasing would be one of the more counterintuitive signs that the vaccinations are working. That might have been somewhere else.

Edit: long post typed on phone with fat fingers

Edit again: no, the phone doesn't have fingers

Post edited at 08:26
 BusyLizzie 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Huge sorries, someone just remind me please what is ZOE?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

More data than you could ever want in the ICNARC reports

https://www.icnarc.org/our-audit/audits/cmp/reports

 Offwidth 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

There is always a separate copy of the slide show but it's a bugger to find with the cross-format of a youtube channel, main page, monthly archives and the weekly report web page. It's attached in a link under one of the web versions. For those interested, the data presentation is up front on the youtube show and usually takes 15 to 30 minutes, the rest of the time is a focus on some matters of interest and a Q&A.

I'm pretty convinced the case drop is real but smaller than the case numbers indicate, as discussed in the IndieSAGE breifing. The bit I didn't agree with from that IndieSAGE presentation, at the end, was predicting cases will be back in growth next week, which they might well be but as yet it's not based on any data.

Zoe and ONS infection surveys will both blur out daily values upto a week ago so neither should show clear drops this week, even if the case drop is real.

 Si dH 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> There is always a separate copy of the slide show but it's a bugger to find with the cross-format of a youtube channel, main page, monthly archives and the weekly report web page. It's attached in a link under one of the web versions. For those interested, the data presentation is up front on the youtube show and usually takes 15 to 30 minutes, the rest of the time is a focus on some matters of interest and a Q&A.

> I'm pretty convinced the case drop is real but smaller than the case numbers indicate, as discussed in the IndieSAGE breifing. The bit I didn't agree with from that IndieSAGE presentation, at the end, was predicting cases will be back in growth next week, which they might well be but as yet it's not based on any data.

Day to day in the last 2-3 days they are already growing in East Midlands, South West and flat or only falling very slowly elsewhere.  It won't show in weekly averages or rate of change calculations based on the non-provisional data until next weekend, but that it will be shown by that point is already 95% certain.

In reply to Offwidth:

I can't see the drop continuing either; we'll be back into growth this coming week. But as wintertree says if it's not universally obviously in growth, things could be worse.

If you look at the cases by specimen date and add the numbers that typically come in later by eye to the leading edge, it's going up already.

 wintertree 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Šljiva:

> i thought maybe you were moonlighting  at the Guardian last night. 

Moonlighting from my moonlighting!  Afraid not, but it's good that various different outlets seem to be tightening up the way they examine changes in cases data and its relation to other measures.

> Huge sorries, someone just remind me please what is ZOE?

Tim SMERSH, sorry Tim Spectre's symptom tracker based on a mobile app - https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time

In reply to Si dH:  (& Offwidth)

> Day to day in the last 2-3 days they are already growing in East Midlands, South West and flat or only falling very slowly elsewhere.  It won't show in weekly averages or rate of change calculations based on the non-provisional data until next weekend, but that it will be shown by that point is already 95% certain.  

Agree.

So far the provisional data is still showing a fall week-on-week, but the 28th looks like it's gong to blow through that with tonight's data release in many regions - a week after Freedom Day.  The North East still has a falling signal in the provisional window and a chance of keeping that as the data becomes final....

The halving time measured by week-on-week change bottomed out at around 9 days with a "false low" in the plot arising from the big football finale spike the week before biasing the measurement for that 7-day period.   Temperatures are falling as well which is well correlated with a rising exponential rate constant.

The halving times look to be trending towards growth; these almost always have momentum and inertia over ~week long timescales so normally I'd say it's a given that we're heading for growth in all regions by this point; now however the threshold level of immunity can't be far away and temperatures bottom out tomorrow and start rising again as the storm system departs...

Best guess (pretty much a stab in the dark) - we're going to see most regions have a week or so of mild growth, and then things are go to trend to slow decay.

Edit: Fixed the black line on the weather plot which was plotted a few days too far left.

Post edited at 10:26

 mik82 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Some interesting stats in these reports

Median age of ITU admission is now 49

Almost 30% of women are pregnant or recently pregnant.

Highest proportion of ITU admissions for women is in the age group 30-39, as opposed to 40-49 in men -  I assume due to the pregnancy risk factor.

In reply to wintertree:

> ... trend to slow decay.

Bold prediction when you're expecting a rate constant close to 1.........

In reply to mik82:

Vaccination?

 wintertree 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Bold prediction when you're expecting a rate constant close to 1.........

I'm playing it much more conservatively since my latest review from the poster of a hundred names.

I cobbled  the review together from their various different insults on the thread in The Pub:

  • Your weekly dose of “over-interpreted charts” wrapped up with “bullshit complexity” and seasoned with some 'intellectual masturbation” from a “pretentious academic with a track record of being wrong”.
 Offwidth 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

There has been a bit of lag in pregnant women being vaccinated partly due to initial precautionary advice not to. The government advice has been ramping up on this, with enhanced advice a week ago and with TV news reports on this yesterday.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/health-chiefs-encourage-more-pregnant-wo...

In reply to Offwidth:

Yep, that's what I was getting at but didn't type a full answer. The people showing up in ITU now are more closely matching the unvaccinated demographic.

 Offwidth 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Some of that deserves a T-shirt.

I was having some fun banter with the wonderful folk from Climbers Against Cancer and they said they could make up some individual printed designs for me, which they did. It extends the fun whilst helping a really good cause. Standard CAC front, individualised text on the back.

https://www.climbersagainstcancer.org/

Post edited at 10:50
In reply to wintertree:

I just meant it was bold to say which side of 1 you thought it would be. Slow growth or slow decay is pretty much a coin toss. Should throw in that caveat or rom will be all over it in a week.

 wintertree 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Some of that deserves a T-shirt.

I could make them a “UKC University” leavers shirt for the year 20/21.  Their names would fill the back side completely.  Just need a suitably pretentious crest for the front; a sock holding a quill and wearing a mortar board?  The only question is where to send it….

 Bottom Clinger 31 Jul 2021
In reply to BusyLizzie:

It’s a study group, private business but supported by some top UK unis and backed by government and nhs. It’s legit. And they have an app which gathers tonnes of data. 

 Si dH 31 Jul 2021
In reply to mik82:

Pretty worrying re pregnancy.

Lsrh - I saw a separate article re numbers of pregnant women in hospital yesterday. There were somewhere between 150 and 200 total, 3 with a single jab, none double jabbed, the rest unjabbed. Of course relatively few pregnant women will have hit 8 weeks from their first dose yet, especially if they delayed getting it due to uncertainty about the advice.

Unfortunately on this particular point the health service has been partially culpable. My wife went for her first jab a week after the guidance was updated to advise that she should do so, but both the jabber and the on-hand pharmacist questioned her decision and she had to be quite forthright to get them to do it. Many less certain women might have turned around. (I'm very glad she did as she is now 2-3 weeks post second dose so should have decent protection through this period.)

(Edit to add that as Offwidth says the advice for pregnant women has been increasingly widely and regularly communicated so I would hope this is no longer an issue.)

Post edited at 10:46
In reply to Si dH:

Yeah, it's been bad, but I can sympathise; advising on vaccination of pregnant women obviously shares a lot of the reasons for reticence with advising on vaccination of children. It becomes more about blame than benefit.

 Offwidth 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

KISS?... if you get CAC to agree one with just "UKC University Leavers 20/21"  on the back I'll buy one.

Post edited at 10:57
In reply to Offwidth:

Or Rom's UKC tour 2021 with the dates of all his memorable performances

 wintertree 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> (Edit to add that as Offwidth says the advice for pregnant women has been increasingly widely and regularly communicated so I would hope this is no longer an issue.)

There seems to be some targeted campaigning going on on the radio over jabs for pregnant women.  

If I understand your post right, congratulations!  It’s so much easier with two, life’s a breeze.

 Offwidth 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Not sure I'd go for that but I would buy a CAC  "Friday Night Covid Plot" 

 AJM 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> It’s so much easier with two, life’s a breeze.

Splutter!

 Offwidth 31 Jul 2021
In reply to AJM:

Another T shirt possiblity !?

Actuaries with a black humour must have lots of options.

 Offwidth 31 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

ONS survey on covid measures compliance (data from last week).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/hea...

 BusyLizzie 31 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

Ta luv.

In reply to Offwidth:

> "Friday Night Covid Plot"

Nice double meaning...

Or triple, whichever way you hang on the conspiracy side ..


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...