Coronavirus - Page 109

Mad Max · 11-02-2022, 20:21

Can you imagine how high the figures would be if everybody submitted details of when they have a winter cold?

Taf · 11-02-2022, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Where are you getting these from, Taf?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths just shows a steady decrease

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Quote:

Worldometer's Covid-19 data is trusted and used by Johns Hopkins CSSE, Financial Times, The New York Times, Business Insider, and many others.

Over the past 15 years, our statistics have been trusted by: Oxford University Press, Wiley, Pearson, CERN, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), The Atlantic, BBC, Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science & Technology, Science Museum of Virginia, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Kaspersky, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Amazon Alexa, Google Translate, United Nations Rio+20. and many others.

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

They get their figures from both ONS and https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk to show any data input errors.

spiderplant · 11-02-2022, 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't see it there, nor on the ONS site. I also searched for your first chart on TinEye, and got no matches.

Pierre · 11-02-2022, 23:40

Nobody cares anymore, move along….

spiderplant · 11-02-2022, 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Nobody cares anymore, move along….

I do, and it seems Taf does. If you don't, move along...

OLD BOY · 12-02-2022, 00:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Can you imagine how high the figures would be if everybody submitted details of when they have a winter cold?

Nail. on. head.

**Hugh** · 12-02-2022, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nail. on. head.

That. Would. Explain. A. Lot. Of. Your. Posts…

Taf · 12-02-2022, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't see it there, nor on the ONS site. I also searched for your first chart on TinEye, and got no matches.

I produce the chart using Open Office, and the figures posted daily on both sites.

spiderplant · 12-02-2022, 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

I produce the chart using Open Office, and the figures posted daily on both sites.

Oh I see.

I think it's probably correct. It's just that the figures are only weekly so they do look very steppy. And the last week is always artificially low because some deaths are reported late.

Compare with this one I've done from the daily data. There really was a sudden rise, then flat, then a drop. I think the steep rise was the period where we had parallel pandemics of Delta and Omicron. Once Omicron became dominant, things stabilised.

Taf · 12-02-2022, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Oh I see.

I think it's probably correct.

Since the beginning of the records, there has been a constant 7-day cycle of results being published by ONS. Different areas have submitted figures at different times, some even lumped together a week's worth of data. Hence the use of a 7-day rolling average became the norm.

Then the infection figures from LFTs that were found to be false positives by PCR tests were deleted, but not historically, but from that day's figures. So, over 3 days the results could be 4,4,4, but a test from day#1 found to be a false positive on day #3 would mean the records would show 4,4,3.

I'm a bit wary about the dropping of many of the measures against infection, as the sudden rise and fall of cases due to omicron, is POSSIBLY sat upon a steady number of new delta cases.

Only time will tell.

nffc · 12-02-2022, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

Since the beginning of the records, there has been a constant 7-day cycle of results being published by ONS. Different areas have submitted figures at different times, some even lumped together a week's worth of data. Hence the use of a 7-day rolling average became the norm.

Then the infection figures from LFTs that were found to be false positives by PCR tests were deleted, but not historically, but from that day's figures. So, over 3 days the results could be 4,4,4, but a test from day#1 found to be a false positive on day #3 would mean the records would show 4,4,3.

I'm a bit wary about the dropping of many of the measures against infection, as the sudden rise and fall of cases due to omicron, is POSSIBLY sat upon a steady number of new delta cases.

Only time will tell.

The surveillance reports from UKHSA suggest not, I think it was said yesterday that Omicron had basically wiped out Delta.

pip08456 · 12-02-2022, 16:58

It's been said since early January.

"Omicron wipes Delta off map in many parts of England as health chiefs warn half of Europe will get infected"

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/u...fected-3524278

**Paul** · 12-02-2022, 18:04

Given its milder, thats a good thing, right ?

nffc · 12-02-2022, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

Given its milder, thats a good thing, right ?

Yes, probably why they're going to end the covid act early.

Taf · 12-02-2022, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Oh I see.

I think it's probably correct. It's just that the figures are only weekly so they do look very steppy.

I entered the "adjusted" ONS daily figures, and found that the "adjustments" are a relatively new thing, weeks, not months.

There were still 4 dates when figures weren't released though (2 for xmas, and 2 fairly recently).