"The spokesman said that government now has the capacity to carry out 53,000 tests per day."
Even if we go with this spin, where are they going to magic up another 47,000 test capacity in 3-4 days?
I find this argument pedantic and petulant. Its not bad to aim for the moon, even if you miss you can reach the stars.
There's been roughly a five-fold increase in testing capabilities in the past few weeks and further capabilities are coming online rapidly. Whether the target is met on Thursday or not is less important than what those increased capabilities that followed that target meant.
If a student who was currently getting D's were to say they realise they need to buckle down, study and try to strive for an A-grade were to study hard and achieve a B would you mock them saying "You got a B? Hah! That's pathetic you said you were going to get an A!" Or would you say "You've done well, that's much improved."
Er, I'm no astrophysicist (no, really) - but if you fail to get to the moon which stars exactly do you reach?
What did I just say about being pedantic?
Don't blame me, Socrates started it.
If Patrick Moore taught me anything, it is that when people point at the sky and ask what's that bright star, the answer is the planet Venus.
Right of right wing, Patrick Moore. Terrible politics. And yet if he told me Saturn had rings (around it) I believed him implicitly. I trusted him in his area of expertise. There's a lesson there, I think.
Regarding the FinancialTimes Unexplained Excess Death figures.
I've just looked at Sweden and I simply do not see where they are getting 40% deaths above Covid.
In April from the 1st to the 16th Swedish 2020 deaths were 5,642, this is 1,586 more than the fire year average of 4,056.
Swedish Covid Deaths for that time frame are 1399, which leaves 187 deaths as an excess not explained by Covid. That is about 12% Unexplained deaths, not the 40% which the FT claims.
I thought the story was that Boris wanted to promise 250,000 tests daily?
6 weeks tomorrow since he said
"We're massively increasing the testing to see whether you have it now and ramping up daily testing from 5,000 a day, to 10,000 to 25,000 and then up at 250,000,"
Yes, the "100,000" was Hancock trying to bring some order - and IIRC 20,000 were for the antibody test which doesn't work yet. That said I'd rather he aim for 100,000 and miss than 50,000 and beat it.
That means 149,000 per million have been infected.
With 1,153 per million already dead (and those who are going to die from existing infections are going to increase that number), that implies the true IFR (including asymptomatic individuals) is somewhere in excess of 0.77%. If the death toll continues linearly, that'd put the IFR on deaths from infections to this date at approximately 1.0%.
That's a touch higher than most estimates so far.
Spookily close to the initial estimates right at the beginning, a death rate of 1%
I recall your estimates being significantly higher.
Whereas the emerging picture suggests 0.5% may be closer to the mark.
Globally the world has now passed 3 million, and by the end of the day the US will surely pass 1 million.
Still, according to the ‘model’ being touted on this site by Henrietta and Eadric not so long ago, we should be at 200 million confirmed cases by now.
Globally deaths are at 26.7/million. Using the 1% number that'd indicate 2670/million cases, or 20.3 million.
No chance global cases are only 3 million.
Fine, but the models were always working from published confirmed cases, not actual real world cases (which we can only guess at). In the early days the failure to test in the US meant that the early data points in the series were underestimated by at least as much as the current data.
I haven't read the report, but given the top room has the male toilet and the bottom room has the female toilet, I wonder if the rooms were also segregated by sex?
Hancock announces phasing out of the media from the daily briefing.
1Q from Joe Public today as a start.
'Tanya from Tewksbury would like to know if the prime minister is most like a magnificent lion, his mane blowing in the wind, or a wild stallion, his mane also blowing in the wind?'
We continue to run about a month ahead of it. If we are still a month ahead of it next month then things start getting scary. I fully expect the spreadsheet model to start catching up with us fairly rapidly over the next month.
They have been doing this at Southampton Hospital for weeks, my friend was admitted with an irregular heart beat and he was tested despite showing no symptoms.
Seems like a very good idea to me. If your friend is an asymptomatic carrier should he be in a ward with others with heart problems?
Regarding the FinancialTimes Unexplained Excess Death figures.
I've just looked at Sweden and I simply do not see where they are getting 40% deaths above Covid. ... That is about 12% Unexplained deaths, not the 40% which the FT claims.
Does anyone want to tell me I am bad at maths?
I think I saw in the FT explanation that they are doing some extra adjustment to account for the extra lives saved by the lockdown - due to reduction in flu transmission, road fatalities, etc.
No idea how good this adjustment of there's is, but it is plausible as an explanation for the discrepancy.
My head hurts so not going to run the numbers, but when were Sweden's last overall death stats released? As of April 21st the FT only showed them up to Apr7th.
They have been doing this at Southampton Hospital for weeks, my friend was admitted with an irregular heart beat and he was tested despite showing no symptoms.
Seems like a very good idea to me. If your friend is an asymptomatic carrier should he be in a ward with others with heart problems?
I really thought all hospitals were doing this already
My head hurts so not going to run the numbers, but when were Sweden's last overall death stats released? As of April 21st the FT only showed them up to Apr7th.
Statistical Office released a set on the 24th, but they have a clear lag in them so I only took up to the 16th. The previous set was released on the 17th and the lag on them meant you could only take the data up the the 7th or so.
Regarding the FinancialTimes Unexplained Excess Death figures.
I've just looked at Sweden and I simply do not see where they are getting 40% deaths above Covid. ... That is about 12% Unexplained deaths, not the 40% which the FT claims.
Does anyone want to tell me I am bad at maths?
I think I saw in the FT explanation that they are doing some extra adjustment to account for the extra lives saved by the lockdown - due to reduction in flu transmission, road fatalities, etc.
No idea how good this adjustment of there's is, but it is plausible as an explanation for the discrepancy.
A rapid, low cost, and highly sensitive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic based on whole genome sequencing https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.25.061499v1.full.pdf ...Here, we introduce a low-cost, high-throughput method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, dubbed Pathogen- Oriented Low-Cost Assembly & Re-Sequencing (POLAR), that enhances sensitivity by aiming to amplify the entire SARS-CoV-2 genome rather than targeting particular viral loci, as in typical RT- PCR assays. To achieve this goal, we combine a SARS-CoV-2 enrichment method developed by the ARTIC Network (https://artic.network/) with short-read DNA sequencing and de novo genome assembly. We are able to reliably (>95% accuracy) detect SARS-CoV-2 at concentrations of 84 genome equivalents per milliliter, better than the reported limits of detection of almost all diagnostic methods currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. At higher concentrations, we are able to reliably assemble the SARS-CoV-2 genome in the sample, often with no gaps and perfect accuracy. Such genome assemblies enable the spread of the disease to be analyzed much more effectively than would be possible with an ordinary yes/no diagnostic, and can help identify vaccine and drug targets. Using POLAR, a single person can process 192 samples over the course of an 8-hour experiment, at a cost of ~$30/patient, enabling a 24-hour turnaround with sequencing and data analysis time included. Further testing and refinement will likely enable greater enhancements in the sensitivity of the above approach...
So slower than (for example) The Abbott test, which can give a readout in less than half an hour, but much more accurate, and significantly higher throughput.
So he was at the Times. Now at the New Statesman.. tells you all you need to.know.
I genuinely don't know how to take this.
How is it that moving between those two particular organs tells me all I need to know about a journalist?
Is it anything like moving from the Times to the Telegraph?
I haven't read the Telegraph since back when it was an oddly comforting insight into "trad" shires values inc some very good cricket journalism. It was also the physically widest of the broadsheets such that you could hide all but your legs with it when slouched in a club chair after lunch. Downside - it made your arms ache.
Hancock announces phasing out of the media from the daily briefing.
1Q from Joe Public today as a start.
'Tanya from Tewksbury would like to know if the prime minister is most like a magnificent lion, his mane blowing in the wind, or a wild stallion, his mane also blowing in the wind?'
Or like a flatulent stallion, blowing from the other end...
A rapid, low cost, and highly sensitive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic based on whole genome sequencing https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.25.061499v1.full.pdf ...Here, we introduce a low-cost, high-throughput method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, dubbed Pathogen- Oriented Low-Cost Assembly & Re-Sequencing (POLAR), that enhances sensitivity by aiming to amplify the entire SARS-CoV-2 genome rather than targeting particular viral loci, as in typical RT- PCR assays. To achieve this goal, we combine a SARS-CoV-2 enrichment method developed by the ARTIC Network (https://artic.network/) with short-read DNA sequencing and de novo genome assembly. We are able to reliably (>95% accuracy) detect SARS-CoV-2 at concentrations of 84 genome equivalents per milliliter, better than the reported limits of detection of almost all diagnostic methods currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. At higher concentrations, we are able to reliably assemble the SARS-CoV-2 genome in the sample, often with no gaps and perfect accuracy. Such genome assemblies enable the spread of the disease to be analyzed much more effectively than would be possible with an ordinary yes/no diagnostic, and can help identify vaccine and drug targets. Using POLAR, a single person can process 192 samples over the course of an 8-hour experiment, at a cost of ~$30/patient, enabling a 24-hour turnaround with sequencing and data analysis time included. Further testing and refinement will likely enable greater enhancements in the sensitivity of the above approach...
So slower than (for example) The Abbott test, which can give a readout in less than half an hour, but much more accurate, and significantly higher throughput.
I tend to distrust any account of a diagnostic test that reports accuracy rather than sensitivity and specificity, because it makes me think the authors don't know what they're talking about.
"The spokesman said that government now has the capacity to carry out 53,000 tests per day."
Even if we go with this spin, where are they going to magic up another 47,000 test capacity in 3-4 days?
I find this argument pedantic and petulant. Its not bad to aim for the moon, even if you miss you can reach the stars.
There's been roughly a five-fold increase in testing capabilities in the past few weeks and further capabilities are coming online rapidly. Whether the target is met on Thursday or not is less important than what those increased capabilities that followed that target meant.
If a student who was currently getting D's were to say they realise they need to buckle down, study and try to strive for an A-grade were to study hard and achieve a B would you mock them saying "You got a B? Hah! That's pathetic you said you were going to get an A!" Or would you say "You've done well, that's much improved."
Er, I'm no astrophysicist (no, really) - but if you fail to get to the moon which stars exactly do you reach?
What did I just say about being pedantic?
Don't blame me, Socrates started it.
If Patrick Moore taught me anything, it is that when people point at the sky and ask what's that bright star, the answer is the planet Venus.
Right of right wing, Patrick Moore. Terrible politics. And yet if he told me Saturn had rings (around it) I believed him implicitly. I trusted him in his area of expertise. There's a lesson there, I think.
Moore once called for female presenters to be banned from BBC radio as their voices were too quiet.
So testing lots of people is a trick, to reach a target to test lots of people.
Not targeted, though, is it.
It's all about the target.
If tests are measured in material goods (tests) that have an economic value, then it is silly to waste them on reaching an arbitrary target. However, if a test is measured more by the admin, doctor, and lab time it takes to do the test, and that capacity is a non-recoverable resource, like a hotel room night, then it makes sense to just test everyone you can lay your hands on.
So he was at the Times. Now at the New Statesman.. tells you all you need to.know.
I genuinely don't know how to take this.
How is it that moving between those two particular organs tells me all I need to know about a journalist?
Is it anything like moving from the Times to the Telegraph?
I haven't read the Telegraph since back when it was an oddly comforting insight into "trad" shires values inc some very good cricket journalism. It was also the physically widest of the broadsheets such that you could hide all but your legs with it when slouched in a club chair after lunch. Downside - it made your arms ache.
Let's hope someone asks why the NHS think they can build an app that doesn't follow the proposal by Apple and Google.
The app is the big question of the day they should be asking about. Firstly, privacy issues and secondly we have decided to diverge from the Apple / Google APIs and going for a centralized system.
This is a big call. If this thing is a shambles, it effects everything.
So he was at the Times. Now at the New Statesman.. tells you all you need to.know.
I genuinely don't know how to take this.
How is it that moving between those two particular organs tells me all I need to know about a journalist?
Is it anything like moving from the Times to the Telegraph?
I haven't read the Telegraph since back when it was an oddly comforting insight into "trad" shires values inc some very good cricket journalism. It was also the physically widest of the broadsheets such that you could hide all but your legs with it when slouched in a club chair after lunch. Downside - it made your arms ache.
My mother is leftish in her views, but took the Telegraph while abroad as it made a better sunshade.
Yawn. Hundred thousand. Yawn. Does ANYONE care other than journos trying for a scalp?
I suppose Hancock does. Silly, though, I agree. The curse of the arbitrary target.
I think Hancock will get away with it but it was an unnecessary promise
I disagree. I've said a few times I don't care whether the target is met actually or not, but what mattered was increasing testing numbers. Putting the target out their meant putting pressure on the government and the Civil Service and industry to ramp up testing. Which is all that bloody matters.
Whether an arbitrary target is hit or not is moot. If testing numbers are up because of the target then the target has saved lives.
Let's hope someone asks why the NHS think they can build an app that doesn't follow the proposal by Apple and Google.
The app is the big question of the day they should be asking about. Firstly, privacy issues and secondly we have decided to diverge from the Apple / Google APIs and going for a centralized system.
This is a big call. If this thing is a shambles, it effects everything.
I predict it will be a shambles.
Apple and Google are the best in the world at this kind of thing. Why on earth go against their knowledge and skill and try to build your own solution with a centralised system.
Yawn. Hundred thousand. Yawn. Does ANYONE care other than journos trying for a scalp?
I suppose Hancock does. Silly, though, I agree. The curse of the arbitrary target.
I think Hancock will get away with it but it was an unnecessary promise
I disagree. I've said a few times I don't care whether the target is met actually or not, but what mattered was increasing testing numbers. Putting the target out their meant putting pressure on the government and the Civil Service and industry to ramp up testing. Which is all that bloody matters.
Whether an arbitrary target is hit or not is moot. If testing numbers are up because of the target then the target has saved lives.
Let's hope someone asks why the NHS think they can build an app that doesn't follow the proposal by Apple and Google.
The app is the big question of the day they should be asking about. Firstly, privacy issues and secondly we have decided to diverge from the Apple / Google APIs and going for a centralized system.
This is a big call. If this thing is a shambles, it effects everything.
I predict it will be a shambles.
Apple and Google are the best in the world at this kind of thing. Why on earth go against their knowledge and skill and try to build your own solution with a centralised system.
No, no, it's British. It'll be the best in the world.
My overseas sources suggest that the view of our Government that all has been handled as well as possible by the best people in the world isn't a truth universally acknowledged.
Let's hope someone asks why the NHS think they can build an app that doesn't follow the proposal by Apple and Google.
The app is the big question of the day they should be asking about. Firstly, privacy issues and secondly we have decided to diverge from the Apple / Google APIs and going for a centralized system.
This is a big call. If this thing is a shambles, it effects everything.
They should just demand Apple and Google build an app and make it an automatic download (ie you have to proactively opt out of it, and if you do, you remain locked down)
Quality of life, not quantity. Hug your grandchildern FFS.
It is very painful to my wife and I that we cannot hug our grandchildren
Hug the critters then. Just make sure the curtain switching stasi isn`t watching.
I dont think its the lockdown rules that concern them, more like the impact of catching COVID at their time of life.
That`s an interesting point. Standing over two metres from my neighbours during my walk yesterday caused me to reflect on this. We`ve been in lockdown for so long that the chance of catching the virus off the other is vanishingly small. So why are we doing it? - it`s as though there`s some invisible force field between us. I don`t think it`s health anymore, I think it`s obedience to authority. Following the letter rather than the spirit. Which worries me greatly.
Yawn. Hundred thousand. Yawn. Does ANYONE care other than journos trying for a scalp?
I suppose Hancock does. Silly, though, I agree. The curse of the arbitrary target.
I think Hancock will get away with it but it was an unnecessary promise
I disagree. I've said a few times I don't care whether the target is met actually or not, but what mattered was increasing testing numbers. Putting the target out their meant putting pressure on the government and the Civil Service and industry to ramp up testing. Which is all that bloody matters.
Whether an arbitrary target is hit or not is moot. If testing numbers are up because of the target then the target has saved lives.
But a target that is unachievable is merely dispiriting. If you really want to motivate, you need to set targets that can actually be achieved with a sufficient amount of determination and hard work. Setting unrealistic targets makes people give up since they have no hope of reaching them. So it's likely that the current level of testing would have been reached with or without Hancock's target.
Let's hope someone asks why the NHS think they can build an app that doesn't follow the proposal by Apple and Google.
The app is the big question of the day they should be asking about. Firstly, privacy issues and secondly we have decided to diverge from the Apple / Google APIs and going for a centralized system.
This is a big call. If this thing is a shambles, it effects everything.
I predict it will be a shambles.
Apple and Google are the best in the world at this kind of thing. Why on earth go against their knowledge and skill and try to build your own solution with a centralised system.
No, no, it's British. It'll be the best in the world.
My overseas sources suggest that the view of our Government that all has been handled as well as possible by the best people in the world isn't a truth universally acknowledged.
When it comes to highly advanced computer tech, the UK is exceptionally good. ARM, Deep Mind, GCHQ etc etc etc. And why the likes of Amazon have big R&D centre here.
But this is an app created by the NHS, and we are shunning Apple / Google API, built by the people who build the O/S that run the phones. It seems a bit like asking getting the bloke down the local garage who does Fords, to have a look at an F1 car to see what's wrong with it rather than Mclaren engineers.
I read somewhere that GCHQ had found a loophole to enable the functionality that Apple says isn't possible, but that sounds like a dangerous game. If they patch it, you are buggered and you are trying to make it do something it isn't suppose to do.
Let's hope someone asks why the NHS think they can build an app that doesn't follow the proposal by Apple and Google.
The app is the big question of the day they should be asking about. Firstly, privacy issues and secondly we have decided to diverge from the Apple / Google APIs and going for a centralized system.
This is a big call. If this thing is a shambles, it effects everything.
They should just demand Apple and Google build an app and make it an automatic download (ie you have to proactively opt out of it, and if you do, you remain locked down)
I would have thought a call from the government saying, now about your tax returns...might get them onboard.
Quality of life, not quantity. Hug your grandchildern FFS.
It is very painful to my wife and I that we cannot hug our grandchildren
Hug the critters then. Just make sure the curtain switching stasi isn`t watching.
I dont think its the lockdown rules that concern them, more like the impact of catching COVID at their time of life.
That`s an interesting point. Standing over two metres from my neighbours during my walk yesterday caused me to reflect on this. We`ve been in lockdown for so long that the chance of catching the virus off the other is vanishingly small. So why are we doing it? - it`s as though there`s some invisible force field between us. I don`t think it`s health anymore, I think it`s obedience to authority. Following the letter rather than the spirit. Which worries me greatly.
In our case it is our judgment that we need to stay in lockdown for as long as necessary to give us the best chance of achieving our diamond wedding in 4 years
Quality of life, not quantity. Hug your grandchildern FFS.
It is very painful to my wife and I that we cannot hug our grandchildren
Hug the critters then. Just make sure the curtain switching stasi isn`t watching.
I dont think its the lockdown rules that concern them, more like the impact of catching COVID at their time of life.
Exactly.
My wife and I are high risk and will not take any chances and will be very wary even after lockdown is lifted
You`ll never be out of lockdown if you won`t take ANY chances. No matter how quickly and when we exit lockdown the virus will still be present. Even if you stay holed up for two or three years and then a vaccine appears it won`t be 100% effective. Quality of life not quantity.
Comments
I've just looked at Sweden and I simply do not see where they are getting 40% deaths above Covid.
In April from the 1st to the 16th Swedish 2020 deaths were 5,642, this is 1,586 more than the fire year average of 4,056.
Swedish Covid Deaths for that time frame are 1399, which leaves 187 deaths as an excess not explained by Covid. That is about 12% Unexplained deaths, not the 40% which the FT claims.
Does anyone want to tell me I am bad at maths?
No chance global cases are only 3 million.
Whereas the emerging picture suggests 0.5% may be closer to the mark.
1Q from Joe Public today as a start.
It's all about the target.
It'd improve the average quality.
Might suggest that Actemra's odds aren't great, either; though the two drugs are somewhat different.
https://twitter.com/adamfeuerstein/status/1254727441580466180
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XTwPjI5l4d_xZAXOQy72LU8eRoPJyfU6fp9Hgx1flUo/edit?usp=sharing
We continue to run about a month ahead of it. If we are still a month ahead of it next month then things start getting scary. I fully expect the spreadsheet model to start catching up with us fairly rapidly over the next month.
No idea how good this adjustment of there's is, but it is plausible as an explanation for the discrepancy.
"I have en email from Miss Marple in St Mary Mead".
Would have thought that there would already be a death benefit from the NHS Pension scheme too.
https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/
No, unless you became a gran at a young age.
1) You must have symptoms to get a test
2) Pillar 2 % positive was very similar to Pillar 1 % positive (as of yesterday - await today's numbers)
A rapid, low cost, and highly sensitive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic based on whole genome sequencing
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.25.061499v1.full.pdf
...Here, we introduce a low-cost, high-throughput method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, dubbed Pathogen- Oriented Low-Cost Assembly & Re-Sequencing (POLAR), that enhances sensitivity by aiming to amplify the entire SARS-CoV-2 genome rather than targeting particular viral loci, as in typical RT- PCR assays. To achieve this goal, we combine a SARS-CoV-2 enrichment method developed by the ARTIC Network (https://artic.network/) with short-read DNA sequencing and de novo genome assembly. We are able to reliably (>95% accuracy) detect SARS-CoV-2 at concentrations of 84 genome equivalents per milliliter, better than the reported limits of detection of almost all diagnostic methods currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. At higher concentrations, we are able to reliably assemble the SARS-CoV-2 genome in the sample, often with no gaps and perfect accuracy. Such genome assemblies enable the spread of the disease to be analyzed much more effectively than would be possible with an ordinary yes/no diagnostic, and can help identify vaccine and drug targets. Using POLAR, a single person can process 192 samples over the course of an 8-hour experiment, at a cost of ~$30/patient, enabling a 24-hour turnaround with sequencing and data analysis time included. Further testing and refinement will likely enable greater enhancements in the sensitivity of the above approach...
So slower than (for example) The Abbott test, which can give a readout in less than half an hour, but much more accurate, and significantly higher throughput.
The day will come but not now
FFS. Have they listened to a word in the last six weeks.
That aside, promising
Tin ear question of the day.
(On your lesson point, I agree, by the way)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/middle-class-signs-losing-plot-lockdown/
This is a big call. If this thing is a shambles, it effects everything.
Germany has a capacity of 800k a week - only uses 450k...
https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/1254510592745971712
Whether an arbitrary target is hit or not is moot. If testing numbers are up because of the target then the target has saved lives.
Apple and Google are the best in the world at this kind of thing. Why on earth go against their knowledge and skill and try to build your own solution with a centralised system.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjYk7L_hInpAhVKQMAKHfsDDBsQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-royal-marines-did-not-forcibly-take-coronavirus-equipment-from-scotland-for-england/&usg=AOvVaw0k1HXNao1bfx8ikB8w75NJ
(The 25% of turnover to a max of £50k isn’t the same thing, ie. does a company with a £1m turnover qualify for the £50k, or is it too large?)
My overseas sources suggest that the view of our Government that all has been handled as well as possible by the best people in the world isn't a truth universally acknowledged.
My wife and I are high risk and will not take any chances and will be very wary even after lockdown is lifted
But this is an app created by the NHS, and we are shunning Apple / Google API, built by the people who build the O/S that run the phones. It seems a bit like asking getting the bloke down the local garage who does Fords, to have a look at an F1 car to see what's wrong with it rather than Mclaren engineers.
I read somewhere that GCHQ had found a loophole to enable the functionality that Apple says isn't possible, but that sounds like a dangerous game. If they patch it, you are buggered and you are trying to make it do something it isn't suppose to do.