The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

Today's headline analysis:

• 23,254 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 21,915
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 2.2% to 23,016 per day, following 0.7% decrease yesterday
• 7-day average for new cases is 6.4% higher than one week ago (from 6.1% higher yesterday) and 35.7% higher than two weeks ago (from 37.6% higher yesterday and 50.3% higher 7 days ago)
• 162 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 326 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 0.6% to 260 per day, following 9.2% increase yesterday (and 45th increase in the past 47 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 45.7% higher than one week ago (from 55.2% higher yesterday) and 121.8% higher than two weeks ago (from 121.0% higher yesterday and 163.2% higher 7 days ago)
 
A couple of weeks ago, I was asked if the number of positive cases identified was being constrained by testing capacity. At the time, I concluded this was unlikely as, over the previous four-week period, the proportion of cases being found (7-day average for positive cases as a proportion of the ONS infection survey estimate for infections) had remained virtually unchanged (45.8% of all cases in w/e 10th September compared with 45.9% of all cases in w/e 8th October.

Since that time, there have been two more weeks' data released by both the ONS and NHS Test and Trace. This shows that, by w/e 22nd October, the proportion of cases being found through our testing regime had reduced to 34.7%.

At that time, the 7-day average for new cases was 19,550. Had we been finding the same proportion of cases as those in the weeks previously, that 7-day average would have been 26,119 (and presumably higher still by now).

This is, perhaps, one reason why the government is introducing new lockdown restrictions at a time when it looks like new case numbers are plateauing.
 
A couple of weeks ago, I was asked if the number of positive cases identified was being constrained by testing capacity. At the time, I concluded this was unlikely as, over the previous four-week period, the proportion of cases being found (7-day average for positive cases as a proportion of the ONS infection survey estimate for infections) had remained virtually unchanged (45.8% of all cases in w/e 10th September compared with 45.9% of all cases in w/e 8th October.

Since that time, there have been two more weeks' data released by both the ONS and NHS Test and Trace. This shows that, by w/e 22nd October, the proportion of cases being found through our testing regime had reduced to 34.7%.

At that time, the 7-day average for new cases was 19,550. Had we been finding the same proportion of cases as those in the weeks previously, that 7-day average would have been 26,119 (and presumably higher still by now).

This is, perhaps, one reason why the government is introducing new lockdown restrictions at a time when it looks like new case numbers are plateauing.

I think demand must have exceeded capacity, or there’s excess capacity in areas where there’s not as much demand. Ether way though, everything to do with testing and results gets worse with more cases, it has to.

Another problem is the delay in getting results too, the longer the delay is, the more there are infected people, who have been tested, yet still spreading, which is unacceptable. Increased testing capacity is next to pointless if results capacity is limited, 300k 24 hr tests would probably do more good than 400k 3 day tests.

Do they publish data on testing v capacity per region, and average return time of results?
 
I think demand must have exceeded capacity, or there’s excess capacity in areas where there’s not as much demand. Ether way though, everything to do with testing and results gets worse with more cases, it has to.

Another problem is the delay in getting results too, the longer the delay is, the more there are infected people, who have been tested, yet still spreading, which is unacceptable. Increased testing capacity is next to pointless if results capacity is limited, 300k 24 hr tests would probably do more good than 400k 3 day tests.

Do they publish data on testing v capacity per region, and average return time of results?
You'd think hospitals would be the best place for testing capacity.
 
You'd think hospitals would be the best place for testing capacity.

I mean testing capacity (how many tests can be accommodated per day), not in the hospitals. Probably not the best idea having loads of unknowns turning up to and travelling to the most at risk place, as well as care homes etc.
 
I mean testing capacity (how many tests can be accommodated per day), not in the hospitals. Probably not the best idea having loads of unknowns turning up to and travelling to the most at risk place, as well as care homes etc.
Wouldn't people have to actually visit testing centres outside of hospitals or other medical buildings for capacity to be breached? There aren't exactly queues of people waiting for a test outside these venues are there?

Some are even deserted.
 
Wouldn't people have to actually visit testing centres outside of hospitals or other medical buildings for capacity to be breached? There aren't exactly queues of people waiting for a test outside these venues are there?

Some are even deserted.

I don’t know, I’ve not checked them all, have you?

Just looking at it realistically, up to the 23rd we were at around 90% of testing capacity. I doubt that 10% extra was in places that needed it, that’s why I wanted the stats for the breakdown.

We seem to have upped capacity in the last week, which is good, but there’s loads of reports of delayed results, which is the problem I’m more concerned about, hence want data on that too.
 
I think demand must have exceeded capacity, or there’s excess capacity in areas where there’s not as much demand. Ether way though, everything to do with testing and results gets worse with more cases, it has to.

Another problem is the delay in getting results too, the longer the delay is, the more there are infected people, who have been tested, yet still spreading, which is unacceptable. Increased testing capacity is next to pointless if results capacity is limited, 300k 24 hr tests would probably do more good than 400k 3 day tests.

Do they publish data on testing v capacity per region, and average return time of results?

As far as I'm aware, they only publish testing data on a UK (or by nation) basis.

On average time for results, they publish that by Pillar and then (for Pillar 2) by test centre/type (i.e. regional, local, mobile, satellite test centre or home test kit). Suffice to say that Pillar 1 testing (conducted by the NHS) results in a nearly 90% return rate within 24 hours, whilst the best that any of the Pillar 2 (private sector) routes manages is less then 50%

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...esting-uk-statistics-15-october-to-21-october
 
As far as I'm aware, they only publish testing data on a UK (or by nation) basis.

On average time for results, they publish that by Pillar and then (for Pillar 2) by test centre/type (i.e. regional, local, mobile, satellite test centre or home test kit). Suffice to say that Pillar 1 testing (conducted by the NHS) results in a nearly 90% return rate within 24 hours, whilst the best that any of the Pillar 2 (private sector) routes manages is less then 50%

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...esting-uk-statistics-15-october-to-21-october

Thanks Billy, I'll have a look at that later.

The below table seemed interesting, 24hr and 48hr results getting better, but still only 16-28% for 24hr tests and 25-35% for 48 hour tests. So, better, but still poor. I wonder how much of a role delayed return times play, it's likely massively inflating R.

Not sure why they bother quoting 28 May - 21 Oct figures, they're still bad even though we had less testing and less cases.
1604324808997.png
 
Are cases normally so 'low' on a Monday bear as in is there weekend effect here? I'm lazy and can't be bothered to scroll through to last week on the thread.

Also some light reading for you now it's reached the guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nt-in-adults-six-months-after-first-infection

😉
Cases, no. There have been a few weeks but not necessarily. Average down a bit.

Deaths about 3 per day up on average.

Other healthcare looks flattish or down (admitted, in hospital, ventilators). That may be the good news.
 
Today's headline analysis:

• 18,950 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 23,254
• 7-day average for new cases decreases by 1.2% to 22,739 per day, following 2.2% increase yesterday
• 7-day average for new cases is 3.7% higher than one week ago (from 6.4% higher yesterday) and 28.9% higher than two weeks ago (from 35.7% higher yesterday and 50.3% higher 7 days ago)
• 136 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 162 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 1.9% to 265 per day, following 0.6% increase yesterday (and 46th increase in the past 48 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 45.8% higher than one week ago (from 45.7% higher yesterday) and 118.0% higher than two weeks ago (from 121.8% higher yesterday and 151.4% higher 7 days ago)
 
What do we do with these stats when they start testing the entire of Liverpool every week or two? It's going to become impossible to wade between positive and false positives, specially if they use an unproven test that gives results in an hour.

The testing is actually becoming a problem, as per usual we are doing the most blunt thing possible.

@bear66 thoughts?
 
What do we do with these stats when they start testing the entire of Liverpool every week or two? It's going to become impossible to wade between positive and false positives, specially if they use an unproven test that gives results in an hour.

The testing is actually becoming a problem, as per usual we are doing the most blunt thing possible.

@bear66 thoughts?
They won't be reported just as Tier 4 tests aren't reported now.
 
What do we do with these stats when they start testing the entire of Liverpool every week or two? It's going to become impossible to wade between positive and false positives, specially if they use an unproven test that gives results in an hour.

The testing is actually becoming a problem, as per usual we are doing the most blunt thing possible.

@bear66 thoughts?
I was referring to the mortality Alvez.
 
Back
Top