Coronavirus

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

And you assume it’ll be fine, as you always have. And always been wrong.

As I said. Vaccines nudge the dial, it doesn’t prevent the reality that a large and increasing number of infections results in a large and increasing number of hospitalisations and deaths.

The two are linked; but the proportion of hospitalisations and deaths relative to cases has decreased significantly since the vaccination.


If you look at the numbers admitted (however that's worked out, it's been a fair test throughout) during Oct-Jan last winter compared to during May-July this year, positive tests were around 80k at the start of January and 50k in July, yet we were seeing 1000+ people die a day at the peak last winter and I think the recent peak is around 200, and that's a figure which fluctuates with reporting lag. In the case (which may well not reflect the actual figures) that without vaccines you'd maybe see 10% positive tests present to hospital but with you'd maybe see 0.1% that's reduced this by a factor of 100, but in the case of 50k positive tests a day, that's still 50 of those who will end up in hospital as opposed to 5000.



So yes, a larger number of positive tests will result in a larger number of hospitalisations, but a smaller number than before, and by some margin. And we probably wouldn't be able to take over 100k for a sustained period without seeing the same pressures in the NHS, unless it continued to be predominantly in school kids, but then, this trend can't peak for long.


It could well be fine, the increasing trend could also lead to more pressure and some restrictions again, only time will tell that.


But, if you look at the rate of change in case rates - from here, but also attached - (effectively a second derivative, showing if the cases are accelerating or decelerating), today's figure is actually a slight curve off, more crucially, when we've seen this happen it's showing it's just off the peak. Again, half-terms, and actually getting the lid on the SW area will no doubt help with this, if people are getting the right test result now then this will help as they'll need to isolate instead of going to the pub, football, etc, or even school and infect others. It's a similar risk to asymptomatic spread but probably worse, if people go to places thinking they have a cold because their PCR result came back negative and then they cough all over the supermarket then loads of other people will get covid.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is only correct if the patients admitted to hospital are admitted because of Covid.

If they are admitted for a completely unrelated condition and simply happen to test positive for Covid, it is wrong to quote those figures to justify more restrictions.

And it measures patients who are admitted to hospital with COVID, not tested after they had been admitted.

The clue is in the title "Patients admitted to hospital"

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

Yes, but if one person went into hospital with covid and wasn't quarantined, and then ended up on a ward with 15 or so others, who then caught it, even if no-one else was admitted in those few days, that figure would go from 1 to 16.


And it may be currently increasing, but it has spent the last few months oscillating within a similar amount. If it moves significantly ahead of this amount it would be potentially concerning. But this hasn't happened yet and it's no certainty that it will.

No, it wouldn’t, because the 15 weren’t admitted to hospital with COVID.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

I'm pretty sure that computers would still generate data that statistics are rising months after everyone is dead . . . not that we'd still be arguing over it

No, because there would be no one to enter the data…

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, it wouldn’t, because the 15 weren’t admitted to hospital with COVID.

I'm pretty sure that it is included in the figure and always has been.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

The two are linked

No need to waste any of our energy. You should have just left it there.

Originally Posted by nffc

I'm pretty sure that it is included in the figure and always has been.

Can you provide a link, please?

I can see why it would be included in the "COVID patients in hospital" but not why it would be in "COVID patients admitted to hospital".

Update - found the definition

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deta...ed-to-hospital

Daily and cumulative numbers of patients admitted to hospital

Numbers of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 on or up to the reporting date.

Data are not reported by each nation every day and Scotland's data are only published weekly. The definitions are not consistent between the four nations (see below).

England

England data include people admitted to hospital who tested positive for COVID-19 in the 14 days prior to admission, and those who tested positive in hospital after admission. Inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 after admission are reported as being admitted on the day prior to their diagnosis.

I see what you mean…

Here’s the NHS definition, which feeds into the GOV U.K. stats.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...ital-activity/

A supplementary analysis of confirmed COVID-19 patients who are being treated primarily for COVID-19 can be found in the file below. Note that this covers acute providers only.

The majority of inpatients with Covid-19 are admitted as a result of the infection. A subset of those who contract Covid in the community and are asymptomatic, or exhibited relatively mild symptoms that on their own are unlikely to warrant admission to hospital, will then be admitted to hospital to be treated for something else and be identified through routine testing. However these patients still require their treatment in areas that are segregated from patients without Covid, and the presence of Covid can be a significant co-morbidity in many cases. Equally, while the admission may be due to another primary condition, in many instances this may have been as a result of contracting Covid in the community. For example research has shown that people with Covid are more likely to have a stroke (Stroke Association); in these cases people would be admitted for the stroke, classified as ‘with’ Covid despite having had a stroke as a result of having Covid.

The headline published numbers in publications to date have been “inpatients with confirmed Covid” without differentiating between those in hospital “for” Covid and those in hospital “with” Covid. Recognising the combination of high community infections rates, with the reduced likelihood of admission for those who contract Covid in the community and are fully vaccinated, the Covid SitRep was enhanced to add a requirement for providers to distinguish between those being primarily treated ‘for’ Covid and those ‘with’ Covid but for whom the primary reason for being in hospital was non-Covid related. In practice this distinction is not always clear at the point of admission when the patient’s record has not been fully clinically coded. In light of this trusts have been asked to provide this “for” and “with” split on a ‘best endeavours’ basis.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

No need to waste any of our energy. You should have just left it there.

Nice constructive argument there. Well done, you have excelled yourself.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Can you provide a link, please?

I can see why it would be included in the "COVID patients in hospital" but not why it would be in "COVID patients admitted to hospital".

I seem to recall seeing it mentioned but can't remember where. In any case, the patients in hospital (as opposed to actual admissions) is probably the more important figure.


Incidentally, I think most of the people I know who have had the virus got it from within a hospital setting (or onward transmission from it). Given that initially there was a fair cry about CV19+ people being discharged into care homes, and that seemingly the issues with infection control still exist, amongst already sick people, it's certainly something in my view, that the NHS management needs to look at. And I don't think it's anything new considering they seem to have similar issues with norovirus most winters. Surely it's common sense to me to keep CV19+ patients isolates as much as possible and ensure staff in the same areas have PPE and change it in a controlled area before doing anything else, but what do I know?

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Sorry Hugh, just seen your edit - see what I mean now lol?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yet hospitalisations rise, deaths rise.

But are still less than 6 weeks ago.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Nice constructive argument there. Well done, you have excelled yourself.

There’s no point in engaging extensively with someone who clearly doesn’t understand the situation. And isn’t willing to.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s no point in engaging extensively with someone who clearly doesn’t understand the situation. And isn’t willing to.

Nice mirror you're talking to there.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But are still less than 6 weeks ago.

And less than the peaks of every wave before. We can all point to a worse situation, that doesn’t mean the current situation is desirable nor sustainable: Hence the Saj preparing all the freedom lovers for a Merry Christmas.

---------- Post added at 22:35 ---------- Previous post was at 22:35 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

Nice mirror you're talking to there.

That’s funny, you replied!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But are still less than 6 weeks ago.

Do you have a link?

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

That’s funny, you replied!

Well, you did shout it out in public.

Originally Posted by jfman

reality that a large and increasing number of infections results in a large and increasing number of hospitalisations and deaths.

Who says that's a reality ?
Also, whats a "large" increase ?

In the last month, cases have risen, from an average of about 35,000 to an average of about 45,000.
Is that a large increase ? Its 10,000 so you could reasonably say yes.

Admissions however from around 740 to 900.
Thats 160, so not really very large
Also, the rate 'per case' is actually lower.

The Deaths average has fallen.
Deaths within 28 days average from about 125 to about 115 per day.
Deaths with covid listed as a cause average from about 130 to about 90 per day.

The reality for the last month seems to be a largish increase in infections, a small increase in admissions, and a fall in death rate.

Deaths and admissions are lower than early September atm.
Compared to Jan this year, cases are slightly smaller, admissions and deaths are way way lower (and the NHS did not collapse in Jan).

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do you have a link?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

that doesn’t mean the current situation is desirable nor sustainable

It means we wait and watch because the current situation is ok.

That may or may not change.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not going to extensively engage in your misinformation exercise, I’ll leave that to Hugh, however we absolutely know that without some kind of intervention cases will continue to rise.

Many have gone before you denying the inevitable rise of the virus and been proven incorrect time and again.

As I say restrictions are inevitable - Javid acknowledges this reading between the lines - the only question is where and when. The most effective time is absolutely now.

The economic impact is a red herring. When even a small proportion of people - the clinically vulnerable, their families spend less up to large proportions - those who can work from home continue to do so all winter against a backdrop of rising cases many businesses will be adversely affected in any case. They will just do so without Government support.

Hospitalisations rising isn’t speculation. It’s inevitable without intervention.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

And it doesn't stop the NHS being overwhelmed, either.

Except, of course, that Covid is not responsible for such admissions.

---------- Post added at 23:29 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

And you assume it’ll be fine, as you always have. And always been wrong.

As I said. Vaccines nudge the dial, it doesn’t prevent the reality that a large and increasing number of infections results in a large and increasing number of hospitalisations and deaths.

Nudge the dial? They have made a tremendous difference, but for some curious reason you absolutely refuse to acknowledge it.

Incidentally, the big rise in infections are in young people. It’s the vulnerable elderly that are being admitted to hospital.