The issue is that it's ou England and oy hospital data. It's extremely hard work getting the same stats for the whole nation and include deaths in non-hospital settings. The ONS is the only real source of truth, but he data runs two weeks in arrears.
Yes - critically important since (for example) today's data includes ~130 backdated cases (primarily from two hospitals) almost all from before 21 April...
But I really don't understand why the government aren't releasing the data by date of death and having the daily chart reflect that instead of reporting date which is worse than useless.
Yes. Even with the last few days shaded out because of limited data, it would seem to make more sense and give a much better understanding of how the epidemic is evolving. Perhaps such information is not so readily available for care home settings, thus making this very difficult?
The issue is that it's ou England and oy hospital data. It's extremely hard work getting the same stats for the whole nation and include deaths in non-hospital settings. The ONS is the only real source of truth, but he data runs two weeks in arrears.
Yes - critically important since (for example) today's data includes ~130 backdated cases (primarily from two hospitals) almost all from before 21 April...
But I really don't understand why the government aren't releasing the data by date of death and having the daily chart reflect that instead of reporting date which is worse than useless.
Yes. Even with the last few days shaded out because of limited data, it would seem to make more sense and give a much better understanding of how the epidemic is evolving. Perhaps such information is not so readily available for care home settings, thus making this very difficult?
But we didn't even do it for hospital deaths before we started including non-hospital settings. I think it's just another case of public sector data analysts not being up to the job. They hire people for £32k to do a job that pays minimum £45k in the private sector and I guess this is the result.
Journalists making tw@ts of themselves again...just how dense are they still don't understand the "DATE OF DEATH"...this is literally a daily occurrence, that a journalist picks some graph or stat and then has to be corrected. Its not f##king rocket science.
It's not, but it's also on the government for not releasing the stats by date of death and compiling their own graphs by reporting date. You can't blame journalists for using the government's own graphs.
I have said for weeks the government charts are stupid and I don't know why they don't use the date of death, but I also expect by now that journalists have informed themselves with these issues properly.
The whole point of such a job is to cut through the BS and get to the truth, no? We aren't asking them to read Ferguson's model code* and form a criticism of that, we are asking them to create some very simple charts.
* BTW, I wasted an hour last night looking at the "cleaned up" version on github. Still a shitshow and stuck in the dark ages. No use of standard modern maths libraries like Eigen or MKL.
Again, I agree with all of that but it's the government's fault for not actually providing a single source of truth for this data. We should already have a BQ public dataset with all of the case data sufficiently anonymised. All 200k positive test results and 1.5m actual tests should be an a bunch of tables that Joe public can access as well as academics, journalists and the tech sector. It would legitimately put us ahead of the game but no one in government has the vision to push this angle. The current data releases are both insufficient and badly organised.
Everyone always goes completely mental whenever health data is released like this, even if it's sufficiently anonymised.
Not all areas can afford the laxity that seems to be coming from central government (and don't get me started on those horrendous press headlines today, they are dangerous and irresponsible and the owners of these papers must be called to account for their actions over the past few weeks).
We have a free press, but yes the headlines are atrocious today. Liverpool has the right idea about the Sun.
Perhaps I'm not following the logic here. But even if the restrictions will be eased next week, how is that going to affect the ability to sunbathe over the weekend?
Look at it as the semi-strong efficient policy hypothesis. People assimilate information and discount it quickly.
Bizarre that they think leaking to journalists one way and then the other is the right approach.
They probably want more of us to return to normal life but not all or even most of us, so mixed messages actually make some sense for once - no idea if that is the intent.
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
Bizarre that they think leaking to journalists one way and then the other is the right approach.
They probably want more of us to return to normal life but not all or even most of us, so mixed messages actually make some sense for once - no idea if that is the intent.
Maybe. But fucking with peoples' minds is not a great policy move. Expectation management, yes. Volte face within the same 48 hrs, not so much.
People have discounted the fact that they will be set free this weekend. I don't imagine they will respond well to news that it is not to be.
The issue of Scotland, Wales etc. suggesting that they will depart from UK government line is for one main reason, that figures have been distorted by the London effect. This has been clear for some days now and very little has been said about it. Not all areas of the country are the same. Not all areas can afford the laxity that seems to be coming from central government (and don't get me started on those horrendous press headlines today, they are dangerous and irresponsible and the owners of these papers must be called to account for their actions over the past few weeks).
Excellent post. The variations within England are very striking, as you rightly imply.
We can argue until we are blue in the face about the stats. As I explained in detail yesterday, I think they show that the UK is probably already the third worst in the world on a per capita death rate. But that is besides the point. What matters is I think is that the general public will have in the main accepted that the UK's performance on the health aspects of the crisis has been at the very least pretty poor compared with most other countries.
This perception poses particular risks for the Government if the lockdown is extended. We now watching a series of countries easing back significantly on their restrictive measures, to the extent that life elsewhere is starting to return to some sort of normality. It's reasonable for the public to ask: "why isn't the UK in a position to follow suit?" The answer is not the one the Government tried to spin over a week ago, echoing Merkel's words designed to guard against complacency to imply that German easing was premature and we were wise to hang fire here. It is instead simply that our performance here has been so much worse such that we are nowhere near the position where we could let go significantly.
This means that, either way, the government could lose out following the decision on Sunday. If the easing is fairly superficial, as it should be for at least another week or two, it will only reinforce the view that we are seriously out of step with the rest of the world's success and that our government's failures are impacting directly on everyone's lives. Yet if the easing is much wider, it will seen by many as a premature decision driven by the politics rather than the public health reality, and if the limited progress to date starts to be compromised they will suffer the political consequences.
The danger for the government is if the narrative takes hold that we have done worse than the rest of Europe. I feel that narrative is beginning to take hold despite HUFYD's best efforts.
For a short while it will be credible to say we locked down later so will re-open later but the response to that might well become "but why did we lock down later?"
Politically the government is entering dangerous times. We have the highest death toll in Europe, that is a fact but it also true to say that we have less deaths per head of population than a handful of European countries. What happens if and when we overtake those countries in terms of deaths per million as well?
I think the government has handled the economic aspects of the crisis well but the handling of the health aspects are not looking good at all.
Lockdown later also means lockdown longer, nobody is going anywhere near that uncomfortable fact. Look at countries that locked down early and more harshly, they are now open for business and in a much better position than the UK. The delay and toying with herd immunity has condemned us to hurt our people more and also to hurt our economy more.
Wiki has a list of 120 lockdown start dates, the median was the 22 March, the Uk 23 March, the same day as Germany.
An informal lockdown had already begun in practice in the UK following the PMs speech on 16 March.
Journalists making tw@ts of themselves again...just how dense are they still don't understand the "DATE OF DEATH"...this is literally a daily occurrence, that a journalist picks some graph or stat and then has to be corrected. Its not f##king rocket science.
It's not, but it's also on the government for not releasing the stats by date of death and compiling their own graphs by reporting date. You can't blame journalists for using the government's own graphs.
I have said for weeks the government charts are stupid and I don't know why they don't use the date of death, but I also expect by now that journalists have informed themselves with these issues properly.
The whole point of such a job is to cut through the BS and get to the truth, no? We aren't asking them to read Ferguson's model code* and form a criticism of that, we are asking them to create some very simple charts.
* BTW, I wasted an hour last night looking at the "cleaned up" version on github. Still a shitshow and stuck in the dark ages. No use of standard modern maths libraries like Eigen or MKL.
Again, I agree with all of that but it's the government's fault for not actually providing a single source of truth for this data. We should already have a BQ public dataset with all of the case data sufficiently anonymised. All 200k positive test results and 1.5m actual tests should be an a bunch of tables that Joe public can access as well as academics, journalists and the tech sector. It would legitimately put us ahead of the game but no one in government has the vision to push this angle. The current data releases are both insufficient and badly organised.
Everyone always goes completely mental whenever health data is released like this, even if it's sufficiently anonymised.
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
[Edit} sorry: ignore previous, I got confused.
The probelm is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
Journalists making tw@ts of themselves again...just how dense are they still don't understand the "DATE OF DEATH"...this is literally a daily occurrence, that a journalist picks some graph or stat and then has to be corrected. Its not f##king rocket science.
It's not, but it's also on the government for not releasing the stats by date of death and compiling their own graphs by reporting date. You can't blame journalists for using the government's own graphs.
I have said for weeks the government charts are stupid and I don't know why they don't use the date of death, but I also expect by now that journalists have informed themselves with these issues properly.
The whole point of such a job is to cut through the BS and get to the truth, no? We aren't asking them to read Ferguson's model code* and form a criticism of that, we are asking them to create some very simple charts.
* BTW, I wasted an hour last night looking at the "cleaned up" version on github. Still a shitshow and stuck in the dark ages. No use of standard modern maths libraries like Eigen or MKL.
Again, I agree with all of that but it's the government's fault for not actually providing a single source of truth for this data. We should already have a BQ public dataset with all of the case data sufficiently anonymised. All 200k positive test results and 1.5m actual tests should be an a bunch of tables that Joe public can access as well as academics, journalists and the tech sector. It would legitimately put us ahead of the game but no one in government has the vision to push this angle. The current data releases are both insufficient and badly organised.
Everyone always goes completely mental whenever health data is released like this, even if it's sufficiently anonymised.
We can argue until we are blue in the face about the stats. As I explained in detail yesterday, I think they show that the UK is probably already the third worst in the world on a per capita death rate. But that is besides the point. What matters is I think is that the general public will have in the main accepted that the UK's performance on the health aspects of the crisis has been at the very least pretty poor compared with most other countries.
This perception poses particular risks for the Government if the lockdown is extended. We now watching a series of countries easing back significantly on their restrictive measures, to the extent that life elsewhere is starting to return to some sort of normality. It's reasonable for the public to ask: "why isn't the UK in a position to follow suit?" The answer is not the one the Government tried to spin over a week ago, echoing Merkel's words designed to guard against complacency to imply that German easing was premature and we were wise to hang fire here. It is instead simply that our performance here has been so much worse such that we are nowhere near the position where we could let go significantly.
This means that, either way, the government could lose out following the decision on Sunday. If the easing is fairly superficial, as it should be for at least another week or two, it will only reinforce the view that we are seriously out of step with the rest of the world's success and that our government's failures are impacting directly on everyone's lives. Yet if the easing is much wider, it will seen by many as a premature decision driven by the politics rather than the public health reality, and if the limited progress to date starts to be compromised they will suffer the political consequences.
The danger for the government is if the narrative takes hold that we have done worse than the rest of Europe. I feel that narrative is beginning to take hold despite HUFYD's best efforts.
For a short while it will be credible to say we locked down later so will re-open later but the response to that might well become "but why did we lock down later?"
Politically the government is entering dangerous times. We have the highest death toll in Europe, that is a fact but it also true to say that we have less deaths per head of population than a handful of European countries. What happens if and when we overtake those countries in terms of deaths per million as well?
I think the government has handled the economic aspects of the crisis well but the handling of the health aspects are not looking good at all.
Is that a fact? I thought the numbers from each country were incomplete.
It is not a fact.
Other countries count differently, some include care homes, some do not, some include home deaths, others do not as France
It will only be a fact once all the data is analysed across Europe, and elsewhere, in months even years to come
Today should have been one of the highlights of my political year - local elections. I would normally have been actively campaigning and analysing the results. It appears that the official position is that the elections will be deferred for a year and that we will have double elections in 2021. But councillors and other elected officials can die, resign, or be removed under the 6 month rule at any time, I believe there are over 100 such vacancies at the moment, We could be in a position where local people are entirely unrepresented. Should we be looking at other options. These might include all postal ballots, the party holding the seat able to nominate a replacement, the chief executive to nominate a replacement ( for example is an Independent held the seat). Thoughts?
I was wondering on what authority the elections were cancelled. I can sees it made obvious sense, but where does one draw the line in cancelling democracy. We can already see the fear in the USA re the Presidential election being cancelled or delayed.
Who decides what the line is between taking common sense measures and ceasing power? (I know a bit dramatic!). I assume there are some laws in place, but I have no idea what they are.
Local government exists at the pleasure of central government.
OK that makes sense. What if we came to end of a 5 year term of parliament? I assume parliament could legislate to continue. Can it? But again potentially one hell of a precedent.
Acts were passed in WW2 extending the life of a Parliament. It could do that indefinitely, although the peasants may get restless.
Today should have been one of the highlights of my political year - local elections. I would normally have been actively campaigning and analysing the results. It appears that the official position is that the elections will be deferred for a year and that we will have double elections in 2021. But councillors and other elected officials can die, resign, or be removed under the 6 month rule at any time, I believe there are over 100 such vacancies at the moment, We could be in a position where local people are entirely unrepresented. Should we be looking at other options. These might include all postal ballots, the party holding the seat able to nominate a replacement, the chief executive to nominate a replacement ( for example is an Independent held the seat). Thoughts?
I was wondering on what authority the elections were cancelled. I can sees it made obvious sense, but where does one draw the line in cancelling democracy. We can already see the fear in the USA re the Presidential election being cancelled or delayed.
Who decides what the line is between taking common sense measures and ceasing power? (I know a bit dramatic!). I assume there are some laws in place, but I have no idea what they are.
Local government exists at the pleasure of central government.
OK that makes sense. What if we came to end of a 5 year term of parliament? I assume parliament could legislate to continue. Can it? But again potentially one hell of a precedent.
Acts were passed in WW2 extending the life of a Parliament. It could do that indefinitely, although the peasants may get restless.
The House of Lords would have to agree which would be unlikely unless Opposition parties were on board. However, there would be implications for how an election was conducted - including postal ballots for all.
The issue of Scotland, Wales etc. suggesting that they will depart from UK government line is for one main reason, that figures have been distorted by the London effect. This has been clear for some days now and very little has been said about it. Not all areas of the country are the same. Not all areas can afford the laxity that seems to be coming from central government (and don't get me started on those horrendous press headlines today, they are dangerous and irresponsible and the owners of these papers must be called to account for their actions over the past few weeks).
A genuine question
How is anyone going to hold to account the papers across the political spectrum.?
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
[Edit} sorry: ignore previous, I got confused.
The probelm is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
Exactly. So, if total unity of approach wasn't deemed essential when the Scottish Government locked down building sites and the Welsh Government took extra action on second homes, why shouldn't the UK Government go slightly further, slightly faster in easing the rules in England?
Bizarre that they think leaking to journalists one way and then the other is the right approach.
They probably want more of us to return to normal life but not all or even most of us, so mixed messages actually make some sense for once - no idea if that is the intent.
Maybe. But fucking with peoples' minds is not a great policy move. Expectation management, yes. Volte face within the same 48 hrs, not so much.
People have discounted the fact that they will be set free this weekend. I don't imagine they will respond well to news that it is not to be.
Last weekend polls showed a significant majority preferred not to be set free, so you might be wrong on that.
Yes. Some of Boris' little helpers could usefully STFU.
As to unlocking the lock down, in principle it would be best if the country moved in lock-step for ease of communication - but that means the whole country proceeding at the pace of the slowest ship in the convoy - if one country still had R0> 1.0 it would be madness for that country to unlock. So it will be a balancing act - judging the disadvantages of mixed messages over the advantages of some countries not being in lock down longer than they need to be. And it will need precise and accurate communication. What could possibly go wrong?
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
I've posted literal statements down thread from members of this Tory government saying the UK must leave lockdown as one and in lockstep. As far as sauce for ganders goes, Nicola agrees.
We all debated the first Starmer vs Johnson PMQs yesterday. Forensic takedown vs populist bluster.
Politically I'd say the triumph of Starmer was to force Johnson to make it up on the spot. "200k tests a day" and "big announcement Sunday" will not age well...
The issue of Scotland, Wales etc. suggesting that they will depart from UK government line is for one main reason, that figures have been distorted by the London effect. This has been clear for some days now and very little has been said about it. Not all areas of the country are the same. Not all areas can afford the laxity that seems to be coming from central government (and don't get me started on those horrendous press headlines today, they are dangerous and irresponsible and the owners of these papers must be called to account for their actions over the past few weeks).
A genuine question
How is anyone going to hold to account the papers across the political spectrum.?
Well, there's going to be a public inquiry, so I would imagine that media coverage and its impact would be part of that. Various businesses are going to be lauded/hauled over the coals for what they have done or failed to do in this period, the press will not be immune from that.
Bizarre that they think leaking to journalists one way and then the other is the right approach.
They probably want more of us to return to normal life but not all or even most of us, so mixed messages actually make some sense for once - no idea if that is the intent.
Maybe. But fucking with peoples' minds is not a great policy move. Expectation management, yes. Volte face within the same 48 hrs, not so much.
People have discounted the fact that they will be set free this weekend. I don't imagine they will respond well to news that it is not to be.
Last weekend polls showed a significant majority preferred not to be set free, so you might be wrong on that.
Yes we'll see. Furloughed on 80% of your salary (and more in cases) means that you are happy with the status quo. I suppose equally we'll see the level of satisfaction with it all as the furlough taper or curtailment takes its course.
But yes, as is I can see that people are loving it. A big problem for govt that is and in any case it is the change of message that is the issue.
We should ask why only the UK, France and Belgium are reporting all-settings deaths and not just hospitals. Why are other countries so scared to release the data for all settings?
The issue is that it's ou England and oy hospital data. It's extremely hard work getting the same stats for the whole nation and include deaths in non-hospital settings. The ONS is the only real source of truth, but he data runs two weeks in arrears.
Yes - critically important since (for example) today's data includes ~130 backdated cases (primarily from two hospitals) almost all from before 21 April...
But I really don't understand why the government aren't releasing the data by date of death and having the daily chart reflect that instead of reporting date which is worse than useless.
Because data reporting day doesn't "develop". It just stays the same as it is forever. If they chose to highlight the incident day reporting they'd be stuck answering endless questions about why the figures keep going up and why the government was trying to hide the true scale of things via reporting delays.
At some point we're all going to have to accept that, until we can educate the public otherwise, the pressures of a free press combined with democratic accountability inevitably lead to sub-optimal outcomes when it comes to messaging like this.
Our choices are: this; regulate the press much more strongly; move our form of government to be much more authoritarian. I don't really see another option.
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
[Edit} sorry: ignore previous, I got confused.
The probelm is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
Exactly. So, if total unity of approach wasn't deemed essential when the Scottish Government locked down building sites and the Welsh Government took extra action on second homes, why shouldn't the UK Government go slightly further, slightly faster in easing the rules in England?
Well, it makes it much harder to publicise the actual rules in place, thanks to the way in whcih the media are so poor at conveying the differences beteween the four nations when it comes to such things.
And reemphasising the difference now is in itself a useful reminder that there is indeed one. And that more consultation in advance of briefing the media would be very helpful.
Of course, if there is an outbreak right next door as a result of liberalization it doesn't help things.
But as noted - if restrictions are loosened in London and then what of, say, Yorkshire, if the same rules apply?
One trouble with easing the lockdown is that it is hard to do it in a way that does not draw attention to its arbitrary nature. The front pages in the header mention picnics and country visits, which of course caught many people out when they were first banned -- even pb was unsure if some activities were actually verboten or if the police were overreaching. Still, four years before an election.
I don’t buy this “we’re 4 years away from an election so no need to worry” meme.
The Tories lost the 1997 election in autumn 1992 when they cocked up massively on Black Wednesday over the ERM. How they dealt with that and its aftermath and their tin ear for its effect on people was fatal to their chances at the next election.
How the government deals with the virus and its economic effects will determine the next election. People who lose jobs, businesses, homes, futures because of government decisions now will not forget this in 4 years time.
I don't really disagree , but the counterevidence is there from the 1992 election. Despite the severe recession which had taken hold in 1990 - and which was continuing at the time of Polling Day in April 1992 - the Tories were reelected.
I think the Tories lost the 1997 election on the day they won the 1992 election. It was the worst thing that could have happened to them. If they had lost in 1992 they would probably have been back by 1996.
If the Tories had lost in 1992 it would likely have been Heseltine v Kinnock in 1997, a Kinnock minority government beimg propped up by the LDs
Journalists making tw@ts of themselves again...just how dense are they still don't understand the "DATE OF DEATH"...this is literally a daily occurrence, that a journalist picks some graph or stat and then has to be corrected. Its not f##king rocket science.
It's not, but it's also on the government for not releasing the stats by date of death and compiling their own graphs by reporting date. You can't blame journalists for using the government's own graphs.
I have said for weeks the government charts are stupid and I don't know why they don't use the date of death, but I also expect by now that journalists have informed themselves with these issues properly.
The whole point of such a job is to cut through the BS and get to the truth, no? We aren't asking them to read Ferguson's model code* and form a criticism of that, we are asking them to create some very simple charts.
* BTW, I wasted an hour last night looking at the "cleaned up" version on github. Still a shitshow and stuck in the dark ages. No use of standard modern maths libraries like Eigen or MKL.
Again, I agree with all of that but it's the government's fault for not actually providing a single source of truth for this data. We should already have a BQ public dataset with all of the case data sufficiently anonymised. All 200k positive test results and 1.5m actual tests should be an a bunch of tables that Joe public can access as well as academics, journalists and the tech sector. It would legitimately put us ahead of the game but no one in government has the vision to push this angle. The current data releases are both insufficient and badly organised.
Everyone always goes completely mental whenever health data is released like this, even if it's sufficiently anonymised.
I agree that this should be done, and maybe even the above is not actually the reason why it isn't being done, but I don't think it's realistic.
That's because it's being sold to a third party, what I'm suggesting is making it completely publicly available at no charge.
That wasn't the main complaint at the time. A lot of the newspaper coverage focused on the fact that insurers might use the study to put some people's premiums up. Anyway, it was sold to a research body, not a private company.
Last night I posted on here that Nate Silver from the '538 Blog' had tweeted a report from the Swedish Gov saying that they estimated 30% of Stockholm have had the virus at some point.
After chasing that up with a friend living in Stockholm, I have been tolled that its 26% which is still very good in my opinion for a death rate of 620 per million in the city.
If (big IF) we can extrapolate on to 3 times that 78% immunity for 0.18% of population dying.
78% with infection induced immunity is probably sufficient to keep the virus at bay.
0.18% Might sound like a lot, but its a lot less than many of the early predictions, (it would be about, 20,000 in Sweden and 100,000 people in UK terms).
How have they achieved this?
As everywhere, most of the deaths in Sweden are in the old, 80-89 year olds account for 40% of those who have died, and 90+ make up another 24%. But by keeping the Schools open, workplaces open, bars and restraints open, while strongly advising the old and ill to stay Indoors and keep safe, the virus is mostly travelling though the healthy parts of the population, with proportionately little harm
If anybody has seen any meaningful estimates for how may people in the UK/London have had the virus I would love to see them, but I don't think they exist, instead what are people estimates for the % infected here?
The issue of Scotland, Wales etc. suggesting that they will depart from UK government line is for one main reason, that figures have been distorted by the London effect. This has been clear for some days now and very little has been said about it. Not all areas of the country are the same. Not all areas can afford the laxity that seems to be coming from central government (and don't get me started on those horrendous press headlines today, they are dangerous and irresponsible and the owners of these papers must be called to account for their actions over the past few weeks).
A genuine question
How is anyone going to hold to account the papers across the political spectrum.?
Well, there's going to be a public inquiry, so I would imagine that media coverage and its impact would be part of that. Various businesses are going to be lauded/hauled over the coals for what they have done or failed to do in this period, the press will not be immune from that.
One question that will not be answered is how much plain inventing stories has been going on.
e.g. "No help for the economy - inside scoop" hours before the Chancellor stood up and announced the first of the various measures.
We should ask why only the UK, France and Belgium are reporting all-settings deaths and not just hospitals. Why are other countries so scared to release the data for all settings?
Some are lieing (China) Others probably don't even have the capability to collect it (Ecuador)
We can argue until we are blue in the face about the stats. As I explained in detail yesterday, I think they show that the UK is probably already the third worst in the world on a per capita death rate. But that is besides the point. What matters is I think is that the general public will have in the main accepted that the UK's performance on the health aspects of the crisis has been at the very least pretty poor compared with most other countries.
This perception poses particular risks for the Government if the lockdown is extended. We now watching a series of countries easing back significantly on their restrictive measures, to the extent that life elsewhere is starting to return to some sort of normality. It's reasonable for the public to ask: "why isn't the UK in a position to follow suit?" The answer is not the one the Government tried to spin over a week ago, echoing Merkel's words designed to guard against complacency to imply that German easing was premature and we were wise to hang fire here. It is instead simply that our performance here has been so much worse such that we are nowhere near the position where we could let go significantly.
This means that, either way, the government could lose out following the decision on Sunday. If the easing is fairly superficial, as it should be for at least another week or two, it will only reinforce the view that we are seriously out of step with the rest of the world's success and that our government's failures are impacting directly on everyone's lives. Yet if the easing is much wider, it will seen by many as a premature decision driven by the politics rather than the public health reality, and if the limited progress to date starts to be compromised they will suffer the political consequences.
The danger for the government is if the narrative takes hold that we have done worse than the rest of Europe. I feel that narrative is beginning to take hold despite HUFYD's best efforts.
For a short while it will be credible to say we locked down later so will re-open later but the response to that might well become "but why did we lock down later?"
Politically the government is entering dangerous times. We have the highest death toll in Europe, that is a fact but it also true to say that we have less deaths per head of population than a handful of European countries. What happens if and when we overtake those countries in terms of deaths per million as well?
I think the government has handled the economic aspects of the crisis well but the handling of the health aspects are not looking good at all.
Is that a fact? I thought the numbers from each country were incomplete.
He keeps hoping and hoping so much that it's become a fact in his head!
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
[Edit} sorry: ignore previous, I got confused.
The problem is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
To the extent that this does happen it is unsurprising. The media environment in Britain is quite atomised; there always have been a lot of separate print and broadcast media outlets outside of England, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the trend of separate coverage has only increased due to devolution.
As far as the English regions are concerned, the hospitalisation data suggest that all the regions are heading in the same direction, i.e. downwards. It would appear that London and the Midlands peaked around 8 April, the rest of England about a week later. The rate of decline in the North would seem to be disappointingly slower than in the South, but the whole country is at least three weeks past peak nonetheless.
By contrast Scotland appears to have peaked just after England but its hospitalisation numbers are only declining very slowly. Wales and Northern Ireland may now be past peak as well, but didn't start to decline until around the end of April.
We should ask why only the UK, France and Belgium are reporting all-settings deaths and not just hospitals. Why are other countries so scared to release the data for all settings?
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
[Edit} sorry: ignore previous, I got confused.
The probelm is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
Exactly it the sheer arrogance thinking England = UK and we are supposed to do just do as we are told. Sturgeon should tell Boris to GTF and get on with her own policy for Scotland.
The issue of Scotland, Wales etc. suggesting that they will depart from UK government line is for one main reason, that figures have been distorted by the London effect. This has been clear for some days now and very little has been said about it. Not all areas of the country are the same. Not all areas can afford the laxity that seems to be coming from central government (and don't get me started on those horrendous press headlines today, they are dangerous and irresponsible and the owners of these papers must be called to account for their actions over the past few weeks).
A genuine question
How is anyone going to hold to account the papers across the political spectrum.?
Well, there's going to be a public inquiry, so I would imagine that media coverage and its impact would be part of that. Various businesses are going to be lauded/hauled over the coals for what they have done or failed to do in this period, the press will not be immune from that.
One question that will not be answered is how much plain inventing stories has been going on.
e.g. "No help for the economy - inside scoop" hours before the Chancellor stood up and announced the first of the various measures.
No doubt some politicians, advisers and so on are going to be getting a bit twitchy as well. All those off the record briefings that turned out to be rubbish (and possibly dangerously misleading rubbish). The reporters are reporting and that's a concern if it is baseless but what they are being fed is also an issue.
What message is coming from the top of these organisations as well? Compared to the feeling of the country they appear to have been completely out of step regarding lockdown, how much is this because of the different needs of their owners, executives etc.?
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
[Edit} sorry: ignore previous, I got confused.
The probelm is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
Exactly it the sheer arrogance thinking England = UK and we are supposed to do just do as we are told. Sturgeon should tell Boris to GTF and get on with her own policy for Scotland.
You're assuming that the media have a clue.
All that has been announced is that a decision/announcement will be made on Sunday - on the basis that Thursday was too early for the data required.
The only addition to that is that apparently the Cabinet have been told by the PM he is not intending to change things in a major way.
The issue of Scotland, Wales etc. suggesting that they will depart from UK government line is for one main reason, that figures have been distorted by the London effect. This has been clear for some days now and very little has been said about it. Not all areas of the country are the same. Not all areas can afford the laxity that seems to be coming from central government (and don't get me started on those horrendous press headlines today, they are dangerous and irresponsible and the owners of these papers must be called to account for their actions over the past few weeks).
A genuine question
How is anyone going to hold to account the papers across the political spectrum.?
Well, there's going to be a public inquiry, so I would imagine that media coverage and its impact would be part of that. Various businesses are going to be lauded/hauled over the coals for what they have done or failed to do in this period, the press will not be immune from that.
One question that will not be answered is how much plain inventing stories has been going on.
e.g. "No help for the economy - inside scoop" hours before the Chancellor stood up and announced the first of the various measures.
No doubt some politicians, advisers and so on are going to be getting a bit twitchy as well. All those off the record briefings that turned out to be rubbish (and possibly dangerously misleading rubbish). The reporters are reporting and that's a concern if it is baseless but what they are being fed is also an issue.
What message is coming from the top of these organisations as well? Compared to the feeling of the country they appear to have been completely out of step regarding lockdown, how much is this because of the different needs of their owners, executives etc.?
You are assuming that any such briefing is going on. What reporter is going to tell his editor that "No one is talking to me"?
We have an actual example of a story being made up.
The picture is of barely-hidden unease, and confusion, with hints of panic
There is always going to be a 'risk of a second peek' when we lift or relax a knockdown. I fear that if this is his stated strategy then he is boxing himself in to a corner where we can only lift the lock-down when/if a vaccine is created. by that time the economic damage might have put us in to a 'Mad Max' would
They were happy doing their own thing in their own time previously, weren't they?
I wondered why the Scottish and Welsh Governments might be quite so concerned about this situation so I checked something that I thought I remembered from the recent UK Government briefing slides. I thought that hospitalisations might be falling more quickly in England - and I believe I'm right. I don't know if Drakeford has said anything about the R number in Wales, but Sturgeon is certainly concerned that it may be higher in Scotland.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
[Edit} sorry: ignore previous, I got confused.
The problem is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
To the extent that this does happen it is unsurprising. The media environment in Britain is quite atomised; there always have been a lot of separate print and broadcast media outlets outside of England, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the trend of separate coverage has only increased due to devolution.
As far as the English regions are concerned, the hospitalisation data suggest that all the regions are heading in the same direction, i.e. downwards. It would appear that London and the Midlands peaked around 8 April, the rest of England about a week later. The rate of decline in the North would seem to be disappointingly slower than in the South, but the whole country is at least three weeks past peak nonetheless.
By contrast Scotland appears to have peaked just after England but its hospitalisation numbers are only declining very slowly. Wales and Northern Ireland may now be past peak as well, but didn't start to decline until around the end of April.
Acutally a problem in Scotland is the tendency to present the London news sometimes as if the UK was a single polity - so you do get the London news and then later on the Scottish rules, a good example being the BBC evening news. Recipe for confusion and a worry.
The hopsitalisation figures - are those for new cases or total in hospital (some of which will be old cases)? Just checking which ouyt of ijnterest, please.
The picture is of barely-hidden unease, and confusion, with hints of panic
There is always going to be a 'risk of a second peek' when we lift or relax a knockdown. I fear that if this is his stated strategy then he is boxing himself in to a corner where we can only lift the lock-down when/if a vaccine is created. by that time the economic damage might have put us in to a 'Mad Max' would
Yes. This is one for media studies students to study in years to come. Seemingly direct from the source briefing even with a message ("Stay safe") within hours contradicted officially.
At 2 minutes to 5 the Beeboids have Samuel demanding that the Govt do something about Bristol Council's decision to close their parks, and about the one broken lift in his block of flats.
Pity they left him in ignorance of the accurate policy context.
We can argue until we are blue in the face about the stats. As I explained in detail yesterday, I think they show that the UK is probably already the third worst in the world on a per capita death rate. But that is besides the point. What matters is I think is that the general public will have in the main accepted that the UK's performance on the health aspects of the crisis has been at the very least pretty poor compared with most other countries.
This perception poses particular risks for the Government if the lockdown is extended. We now watching a series of countries easing back significantly on their restrictive measures, to the extent that life elsewhere is starting to return to some sort of normality. It's reasonable for the public to ask: "why isn't the UK in a position to follow suit?" The answer is not the one the Government tried to spin over a week ago, echoing Merkel's words designed to guard against complacency to imply that German easing was premature and we were wise to hang fire here. It is instead simply that our performance here has been so much worse such that we are nowhere near the position where we could let go significantly.
This means that, either way, the government could lose out following the decision on Sunday. If the easing is fairly superficial, as it should be for at least another week or two, it will only reinforce the view that we are seriously out of step with the rest of the world's success and that our government's failures are impacting directly on everyone's lives. Yet if the easing is much wider, it will seen by many as a premature decision driven by the politics rather than the public health reality, and if the limited progress to date starts to be compromised they will suffer the political consequences.
The danger for the government is if the narrative takes hold that we have done worse than the rest of Europe. I feel that narrative is beginning to take hold despite HUFYD's best efforts.
For a short while it will be credible to say we locked down later so will re-open later but the response to that might well become "but why did we lock down later?"
Politically the government is entering dangerous times. We have the highest death toll in Europe, that is a fact but it also true to say that we have less deaths per head of population than a handful of European countries. What happens if and when we overtake those countries in terms of deaths per million as well?
I think the government has handled the economic aspects of the crisis well but the handling of the health aspects are not looking good at all.
Is that a fact? I thought the numbers from each country were incomplete.
We have to work off something and most people seem to be using the Worldometer figures. It's only since we came top of the European deaths league that government fans are telling us other people's stats can't be trusted.
Mr. T, as I'd be included in your 'government fans' comment, I'd point out that I doubt the veracity of just about every country's stats, due to over-counting, under-reporting, the difficulty of data collection, and, in rare cases, total bullshit from certain governments.
Sad to hear that a pretty objective view about the importance of accurate stats gets me labelled as openly biased, particularly given my repeated comments on care homes and the app situation.
And that's before we get to the matter of demography.
Comments
Day
---
-3 29
-2 120
-1 58
Again fair old amount of "historic" deaths in there, all the way back to the 19th March !!!
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/05/COVID-19-daily-announced-deaths-7-May-2020.xlsx
See here, for example:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10656893/Hospital-records-of-all-NHS-patients-sold-to-insurers.html
And also this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/07/23/anonymised-data-can-linked-peoples-real-identities-9998pc-time/
I agree that this should be done, and maybe even the above is not actually the reason why it isn't being done, but I don't think it's realistic.
They might, therefore, be worried that the UK Government will allow a more rapid relaxation of the rules in England than they are presently willing to stomach, and that their own people will grumble accordingly, or may assume incorrectly that the more liberal regime now also applies to them.
As you say, this point would have more validity if the devolved administrations hadn't previously exercised their right to do their own thing as they saw fit. England doesn't get to have its own Parliament, but nonetheless devolution effectively works both ways in this case. What's sauce for the goose, and all that...
The backdated deaths are from Bart's NHS trust.
People have discounted the fact that they will be set free this weekend. I don't imagine they will respond well to news that it is not to be.
An informal lockdown had already begun in practice in the UK following the PMs speech on 16 March.
The probelm is the confusion of England = UK in the media (and in the minds of many) and the atrocious media coverage.
In any case England is a mix itself - much is in a similar position to, say, Wales.
383
500-600??
Other countries count differently, some include care homes, some do not, some include home deaths, others do not as France
It will only be a fact once all the data is analysed across Europe, and elsewhere, in months even years to come
How is anyone going to hold to account the papers across the political spectrum.?
Piss funny
As to unlocking the lock down, in principle it would be best if the country moved in lock-step for ease of communication - but that means the whole country proceeding at the pace of the slowest ship in the convoy - if one country still had R0> 1.0 it would be madness for that country to unlock. So it will be a balancing act - judging the disadvantages of mixed messages over the advantages of some countries not being in lock down longer than they need to be. And it will need precise and accurate communication. What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1258361641508507654?s=20
In any case it's academic as HMG is very sensibly following the SG's lead.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-death-toll-comparison-world-boris-johnson-david-spiegelhalter-a9502921.html
Maybe it's just a coincidence.
Politically I'd say the triumph of Starmer was to force Johnson to make it up on the spot. "200k tests a day" and "big announcement Sunday" will not age well...
But yes, as is I can see that people are loving it. A big problem for govt that is and in any case it is the change of message that is the issue.
At some point we're all going to have to accept that, until we can educate the public otherwise, the pressures of a free press combined with democratic accountability inevitably lead to sub-optimal outcomes when it comes to messaging like this.
Our choices are: this; regulate the press much more strongly; move our form of government to be much more authoritarian. I don't really see another option.
And reemphasising the difference now is in itself a useful reminder that there is indeed one. And that more consultation in advance of briefing the media would be very helpful.
Of course, if there is an outbreak right next door as a result of liberalization it doesn't help things.
But as noted - if restrictions are loosened in London and then what of, say, Yorkshire, if the same rules apply?
After chasing that up with a friend living in Stockholm, I have been tolled that its 26% which is still very good in my opinion for a death rate of 620 per million in the city.
If (big IF) we can extrapolate on to 3 times that 78% immunity for 0.18% of population dying.
78% with infection induced immunity is probably sufficient to keep the virus at bay.
0.18% Might sound like a lot, but its a lot less than many of the early predictions, (it would be about, 20,000 in Sweden and 100,000 people in UK terms).
How have they achieved this?
As everywhere, most of the deaths in Sweden are in the old, 80-89 year olds account for 40% of those who have died, and 90+ make up another 24%. But by keeping the Schools open, workplaces open, bars and restraints open, while strongly advising the old and ill to stay Indoors and keep safe, the virus is mostly travelling though the healthy parts of the population, with proportionately little harm
If anybody has seen any meaningful estimates for how may people in the UK/London have had the virus I would love to see them, but I don't think they exist, instead what are people estimates for the % infected here?
OMG so could be 700ish?
Hopefully not
e.g. "No help for the economy - inside scoop" hours before the Chancellor stood up and announced the first of the various measures.
Others probably don't even have the capability to collect it (Ecuador)
I expect the changes will happen on monday at about the time he addresss the HOC
The right wing press's headlines today are out of order and simply unacceptably divisive.
Furthermore the broadcast media are all over the place
However, the one thing that is overlooked, the public have more sense than the lot of them
As far as the English regions are concerned, the hospitalisation data suggest that all the regions are heading in the same direction, i.e. downwards. It would appear that London and the Midlands peaked around 8 April, the rest of England about a week later. The rate of decline in the North would seem to be disappointingly slower than in the South, but the whole country is at least three weeks past peak nonetheless.
By contrast Scotland appears to have peaked just after England but its hospitalisation numbers are only declining very slowly. Wales and Northern Ireland may now be past peak as well, but didn't start to decline until around the end of April.
But otherwise good point.
What message is coming from the top of these organisations as well? Compared to the feeling of the country they appear to have been completely out of step regarding lockdown, how much is this because of the different needs of their owners, executives etc.?
All that has been announced is that a decision/announcement will be made on Sunday - on the basis that Thursday was too early for the data required.
The only addition to that is that apparently the Cabinet have been told by the PM he is not intending to change things in a major way.
We have an actual example of a story being made up.
The hopsitalisation figures - are those for new cases or total in hospital (some of which will be old cases)? Just checking which ouyt of ijnterest, please.
What a fucking shambles.
At 2 minutes to 5 the Beeboids have Samuel demanding that the Govt do something about Bristol Council's decision to close their parks, and about the one broken lift in his block of flats.
Pity they left him in ignorance of the accurate policy context.
Sad to hear that a pretty objective view about the importance of accurate stats gets me labelled as openly biased, particularly given my repeated comments on care homes and the app situation.
And that's before we get to the matter of demography.
Giving way on fishing would play very badly in Scotland. He made himself "Minister for the Union".