NWR new zero tolerance covid thread

What I don't understand about the pinging business is that given the sensitivity of the 'app' has not changed the increase must indicate an increase in infection-or is it just an increase in interaction, or both?
I guess it would be both though how you separate that out I have no idea.

I did find this though which can calculate Covid infection rates. It has a limit of 10000 initially infected. So plugging in the 2 million isolated would mean scaling it by 1/200th for population and cases. Then putting in R as 1.4 and the average transmission times et al this gives you after 14 days 10,900 people infected. Scale that up and take away the original number and you get 180,000. I must admit that does not seem right and I am sure someone with a better grasp of modelling could do this so much better than me!
 
It

What an extraordinary assembly. When David Icke, Gillian McKeith, Piers Corbyn and Katie Hopkins unite in a cause it is helpfully clear that the cause is beyond ludicrous.
It was one of the reasons I voted for the EU in the 70s, anything that Enoch Powell and Tony Benn agreed with (leaving) must be wrong
 
I did have a little chuckle to myself when I read an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph that scientists are looking into whether you can catch Covid from other people's farts. I had to double check that I hadn't been sold the April 1st edition by mistake. The mind boggles at what their research techniques might be! Another reason, as if one was needed, as to why you should always try to stay up wind of anyone who you suspect spent last night on real ale.
 
I did have a little chuckle to myself when I read an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph that scientists are looking into whether you can catch Covid from other people's farts. I had to double check that I hadn't been sold the April 1st edition by mistake. The mind boggles at what their research techniques might be! Another reason, as if one was needed, as to why you should always try to stay up wind of anyone who you suspect spent last night on real ale.
At least they would be all (?) wearing arse-mask....
 
I did have a little chuckle to myself when I read an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph that scientists are looking into whether you can catch Covid from other people's farts. I had to double check that I hadn't been sold the April 1st edition by mistake. The mind boggles at what their research techniques might be! Another reason, as if one was needed, as to why you should always try to stay up wind of anyone who you suspect spent last night on real ale.
At 2m, at 1m? It's a worry. Check please.
 
I can't see any evidence of numbers of tests declining in recent weeks. If anything the numbers have been going up gently over the last couple of months
I meant a possible decline in the last few days, Bryan.
I'm not sure I understand what "contrary and non-anecdotal pingdemic" means, I'm afraid, in terms of questioning the numbers of cases.
Given that the number of 'pings' is increasing, it could indicate that the number of cases is rising, that interaction is increasing, or both. I apologise for the lack of clarity.
 
I meant a possible decline in the last few days, Bryan.

Given that the number of 'pings' is increasing, it could indicate that the number of cases is rising, that interaction is increasing, or both. I apologise for the lack of clarity.
Ah, I see, yes. The testing numbers on the government website go up to Thursday currently, and don't show any decrease at that point. I suppose it's possible testing has decreased massively since then but it doesn't seem vey likely. Official figures will confirm or otherwise in the next few days.

As far as numbers of pings go, sure, either of those things might be happening. Or perhaps there's a positive correlation between people who use the app and people who have been interacting in the last week (I can't imagine why, but it's another possibility.) Or perhaps more people are actually using the app, or (probably more likely) more venues have now opened, such as nightclubs, which one might think would be likely to generate more pings per infected person due to "people density". There are way too many variables to be able to know.

Fortunately regular release of case figures mean that we don't really have to worry too much about trying to answer such unanswerable questions. If the apparent fall in cases is a mirage, it'll become clear soon enough - as long as we trust the official data - no doubt there are plenty of people who don't, but I'm not one of them.
 
I suppose it's possible testing has decreased massively since then but it doesn't seem very likely.
My pure guess is that Monday may have brought a generalised switching off of the 'app'-certainly I know of many who have-and a concomitant reduction in the use of lateral flow tests, so that only the symptomatic are likely to take the more reliable PCR test. The really reliable figures are for hospital and ICU admissions, which remain low though on quite a steep incline last time I looked. I have no idea where this will go, though I would have if this were Greek tragedy rather than real life.
 
I'm not saying I don't trust it, but the "official" data - that reported on the news everyday - is just one way of looking at what is happing, with its own set of definitions for Covid new cases, hospitalisations and deaths, and means of data collection.

When you look beyond the official data, you do not immediately descend into the world of anecdote and cranks. There are other groups of respectable researchers who have their own methodologies for analysing data, with the aim of understanding trends and their causes.

The team behind the Covid Zoe app is one example. Their reports are made available to Sage, and thus are considered when advising Government. They can also be accessed by anyone else through the app, and maybe other ways.

I'm not sure how the Zoe data might impact on recent discussions here, as frankly I am not so interested in that level of detail, but I am aware that it does sometimes throw a different light on what is happening.
 
I'm not saying I don't trust it, but the "official" data - that reported on the news everyday - is just one way of looking at what is happing, with its own set of definitions for Covid new cases, hospitalisations and deaths, and means of data collection.

When you look beyond the official data, you do not immediately descend into the worls of anecdote and cranks. There are other groups of respectable researchers who have their own methodologies for analysing data, with the aim of understanding trends and their causes.
Who else (other than government agencies) is generating primary data on a scale that is reliable Steve? Or are you sceptical about how those data are interpreted by the government and/or media? Personally, I don't see those primary data 'as just one way of looking at what is happening' - it's pretty well all we have to go on and I think you'd have to be in the conspiracy camp to believe that it is being faked or poorer than data from non-government sources. Or perhaps I just haven't understood the root cause of your concerns.
 
I'm not saying I don't trust it, but the "official" data - that reported on the news everyday - is just one way of looking at what is happing, with its own set of definitions for Covid new cases, hospitalisations and deaths, and means of data collection.

When you look beyond the official data, you do not immediately descend into the world of anecdote and cranks. There are other groups of respectable researchers who have their own methodologies for analysing data, with the aim of understanding trends and their causes.

The team behind the Covid Zoe app is one example. Their reports are made available to Sage, and thus are considered when advising Government. They can also be accessed by anyone else through the app, and maybe other ways.

I'm not sure how the Zoe data might impact on recent discussions here, as frankly I am not so interested in that level of detail, but I am aware that it does sometimes throw a different light on what is happening.
Does it show any difference Steve? It seems getting hold of a simple graph that is up-to-date to the last few days is not possible. Or am I missing something?

Anyhow on the Government site cases are down just under 10% on yesterday.
 
Firmly in the optimistic camp, and with the flag to prove it, it nevertheless seems feasible to me that the current dip is just the effect of schools closing. I'm sure the data exists to test that, however, although I've not seen it: it would plainly reside in an age breakdown of cases.
 
Firmly in the optimistic camp, and with the flag to prove it, it nevertheless seems feasible to me that the current dip is just the effect of schools closing. I'm sure the data exists to test that, however, although I've not seen it: it would plainly reside in an age breakdown of cases.
We'll likely have to wait a week or so for the latest PHE surveillance report to come out that gives that sort of breakdown. Though annoyingly its age group category includes 10-19 which is slightly too far of a range to be completely helpful.
 
I have always been told that when looking for trends to stick to one data set, not to pick and choose the one that suits ones argument. And that some data is leading and some lagging. I am optimistic with the figures I am seeing.
 
Who else (other than government agencies) is generating primary data on a scale that is reliable Steve? Or are you sceptical about how those data are interpreted by the government and/or media? Personally, I don't see those primary data 'as just one way of looking at what is happening' - it's pretty well all we have to go on and I think you'd have to be in the conspiracy camp to believe that it is being faked or poorer than data from non-government sources. Or perhaps I just haven't understood the root cause of your concerns.
Well, I mentioned one, you can get the app, or there is a website here

I thought I was clear in saying I did NOT have concerns about the "official" data. But it is what it is, and there are alternative definitions, ways of gathering data and analysing it - that's all. The official numbers do not describe everything that is happening. I don't see there is any competition.

The focus of the Zoe research is to identify symptoms, which the official data does not address at all. But they report other aspects along the way.

I presume there are other research projects too, but don't know there names
 
Last edited:
Does it show any difference Steve? It seems getting hold of a simple graph that is up-to-date to the last few days is not possible. Or am I missing something?

Anyhow on the Government site cases are down just under 10% on yesterday.
There are differences. Of course - different method were used to get the numbers and trends. Like I said, if you want to know more details you'll have to look for yourself
 
There are differences. Of course - different method were used to get the numbers and trends. Like I said, if you want to know more details you'll have to look for yourself
I was just assuming as you were using it that you'd know. It appears to be based on self reporting and extrapolation. Which as interesting as that is really nothing like actual data for tests and cases. It also seems rather difficult to get anything out of it. Anyway. I'm sure it's useful to someone just cannot make much sense of it myself.
 
I have always been told that when looking for trends to stick to one data set, not to pick and choose the one that suits ones argument. And that some data is leading and some lagging. I am optimistic with the figures I am seeing.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting we should "pick and choose the one that suits ones argument".

But that doesn't stop us using all the data we have, and analysing it, and creating predictive models, to the best of our ability.

It is better than only accepting the "official" data as the basis for decisions, and hand-waving to explain anomalies.
 
I was just assuming as you were using it that you'd know. It appears to be based on self reporting and extrapolation. Which as interesting as that is really nothing like actual data for tests and cases. It also seems rather difficult to get anything out of it. Anyway. I'm sure it's useful to someone just cannot make much sense of it myself.
Symptoms are definitely self reported, but reportees can be asked to do PCR tests, and I am sure all test results from outside the project are used in some form.

I believe some body is also asking randomly selected people to take tests to help establish the prevalence rates in the population. In principle that is a much sounder basis for decision-making than "confirmed cases" (as testing is usually performed for practical purposes, and thus focusses on those most likely to be positive, according to criteria that change) but will be a much smaller data set.
 
We'll likely have to wait a week or so for the latest PHE surveillance report to come out that gives that sort of breakdown. Though annoyingly its age group category includes 10-19 which is slightly too far of a range to be completely helpful.
Yes looks encouraging but it’s two weeks since the Euros finished and schools have just broken up. To counter that you have got the opening up and all those clubs and other activities from this weekend. If they are sitting around same number or less next Sunday I think we can certainly say it’s a possibly unexpected reversal of rising numbers.
I certainly expected numbers to continue upwards for a while as did the government and scientists.
Either way even if there is a rise it willl be from a lower base number which is positive. The school years 7-11 and year 12- age 24 group accounted for a rather large chunk of infection numbers.
 
Last edited:
Top