When’s the second wave?

Billy Horner

Well-known member
#83
Is the number of cases going up a problem when the amount of testing is going up faster and the amount of %positive is staying stable ?
7-day average for tests processed as at today = 143628
7-day average for tests processed as at two weeks ago = 137349
Increase = 4.57%

7-day average for new cases as at today = 638
7-day average for new cases as at two weeks ago = 546
Increase = 16.85%

Yes, it's a problem.
 

Wilf

Well-known member
#84
if 150 died in one day before lockdown, and 150 died in the last 24 hours/ today, can you let me know the difference ?
 
#86
7-day average for tests processed as at today = 143628
7-day average for tests processed as at two weeks ago = 137349
Increase = 4.57%

7-day average for new cases as at today = 638
7-day average for new cases as at two weeks ago = 546
Increase = 16.85%

Yes, it's a problem.
I take your word for it as you I am sure you understand stats better than me. What did you make of the graph I posted before as that seems to show things differently?
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
#87
I take your word for it as you I am sure you understand stats better than me. What did you make of the graph I posted before as that seems to show things differently?
Well, the first thing is that the lines showing the three different averages don't include the past three days' data, which I don't really understand.

I don't regularly track the data for tests processed. However, looking at the data on the government website, those lines look about right. The lines for cases (x100) also look right.

However, I don't understand the grey lines supposedly plotting the percentage of positive tests. As I've shown above, that has definitely increased in the past two weeks, as the number of cases has increased by more than the increase in tests processed.

I'd have to see the individual data to check for definite, but that doesn't look right to me.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
#88
if 150 died in one day before lockdown, and 150 died in the last 24 hours/ today, can you let me know the difference ?
150 people dead is 150 dead, the stat is the same the story behind the stat (context) is different

One was happening with an exponential rise in cases with a high r number and less constraints on the public. 150 deaths when in a exponential rise you knew the death rate was going to continue. As a result of locking down too late too many death sentences were already sanctioned

One was happening the other is when the r rate is lower the disease is spreading less and things are in place to stop the spread. Deaths have not been going up and are likely to continue to plateau and reduce
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
#93
1500 people have been reported to have died since that graph was produced. Have you got an updated graph?

I'll give you a clue. 90 people were reported to have died on 21 July, but 129 people have 21 July as the date of death.
No the point of the graph is to show how numbers can be manipulated to suit an agenda that government's may or may not have. 😀
 

bear66

Well-known member
#96
No the point of the graph is to show how numbers can be manipulated to suit an agenda that government's may or may not have. 😀
You are the manipulator for publicising a graph that is wrong. More people died in Florida that day than the daily reported deaths, not the other way round. That's why a 7 day running average is a better way of presenting such data.
Screenshot_20200802-095926.jpg
 
#98
"When is the 2nd wave?"

No idea, with the government's current approach much will depend on how many people have already been exposed to the virus, how many have developed immunity (likely all those who have had the virus, at least for some period of time), and crucially how many people are still susceptible.

Susceptibiliy is key. I keep hearing reports of "T-cells this" and "T-cells that" and while the research is all very interesting (and may have huge significance) some of the authors of such papers (Shane Crotty for one) are right to note that we do not yet know how relevant this is clinically.

If it is found that a much lower proportion of the population are still susceptible than is thought then there may not be a "2nd wave".

If there is a large proportion of the population still susceptible then a "2nd wave" is inevitable if things open up and people mix. What a "2nd wave " looks like in terms of cases, hospitalisations, deaths no one knows. There is a larger number of tests taking place now and a different section of the population can now access a test.

Just because we see a rise in cases it might not necessarily lead to subsequent increase in hospitalisations and deaths. Everything has to be looked at in context. Far too many people seem unable (or unwilling) to do this.

Does anyone know how many people have had the virus or are still susceptible? No. No one does and that's the problem. The way forward would ideally be very different depending on the answer.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
#99
"When is the 2nd wave?"

No idea, with the government's current approach much will depend on how many people have already been exposed to the virus, how many have developed immunity (likely all those who have had the virus, at least for some period of time), and crucially how many people are still susceptible.

Susceptibiliy is key. I keep hearing reports of "T-cells this" and "T-cells that" and while the research is all very interesting (and may have huge significance) some of the authors of such papers (Shane Crotty for one) are right to note that we do not yet know how relevant this is clinically.

If it is found that a much lower proportion of the population are still susceptible than is thought then there may not be a "2nd wave".

If there is a large proportion of the population still susceptible then a "2nd wave" is inevitable if things open up and people mix. What a "2nd wave " looks like in terms of cases, hospitalisations, deaths no one knows. There is a larger number of tests taking place now and a different section of the population can now access a test.

Just because we see a rise in cases it might not necessarily lead to subsequent increase in hospitalisations and deaths. Everything has to be looked at in context. Far too many people seem unable (or unwilling) to do this.

Does anyone know how many people have had the virus or are still susceptible? No. No one does and that's the problem. The way forward would ideally be very different depending on the answer.
You know what, this a great balanced approach to the currently situation. I’ll align to your view but I wouldn’t have been able to put it that eloquently
 
Top