Over 100,000 New Cases Today

[lankeela]

could it just be that there are so many more people taking tests than there were before and we really had this many previously without knowing about them?

[New Judge]

//However, his calculation, if the statement is accurate, is wrong.//

Yes, it seems the “simple arithmetic” was a little too complex for our “expert”. That would raise a chuckle in normal circumstances. But these are not normal circumstances. People are being pushed into fear and anxiety by such people and the government is following the “science” of such people.

//Thats silly point IMO.//

Yes it is a silly point – deliberately so because it is about as sensible as denying that the number of positive tests is very much dependant on the number of tests you undertake.

//If we were doing 100 times as many PCRs on everyone just for the hell of it then the infection count would NOT go up x100- it might double at most IMO//

But we’re not talking about an increase of that magnitude. That would mean (on current figures) testing every member of the population more than twice a day. Since the beginning of November the number of daily tests reported has varied between a minimum of 649,990 and a maximum of 1,635,992. That’s an increase on the minimum of 151%. On the day of the minimum number of tests there were 30,150 positives. On the day of the maximum number of tests there were 77,794 positives. This is an increase on the minimum of 158%. So the two are remarkably similar. If you plot a chart of the tests over time and the number of positives over the same period the two lines virtually mirror each other. If you run a correlation analysis on the two the correlation coefficient is calculated at 0.88 (where 1 is a perfect relationship). There is a very strong mathematical relationship between tests and positives. It is also fair to assume there is a very strong causal relationship between the two because, as I keep repeating, if you carry out more tests, you will get more positives (and vice versa). That strong relationship is weakening slightly now because the proportion of tests proving positive in increasing

I am not disputing the fact that the virus is now more widespread than earlier in the month. The seven day average of positives per 1,000 tests has increased from around 44 to around 57. But to report just the number of positives without reference to the number of tests is simply misleading and to deny it isn’t is just plain daft. It’s simple enough to portray – “There were 100,000 new cases today and there were 45 positive tests for every 1,000 tests carried out” (or similar).

//Well any figures are bunkum if you dont understand them…//

They are also bunkum if they are not presented in a proper context.

[davebro]

As per usual London is the problem (hm, I wonder why!) - the tail wagging the dog?

[Old_Geezer]

Worth subscribing to

https://youtu.be/4qzKh_S4Qs0

[ichkeria]

It really isn’t misleading not to give the total number of tests (which actually IS given)
Why oh why do we have to keep coming back to this?

[Deskdiary]

Just heard on the radio that only 132 people with Omicron, across the whole of the UK, have been admitted, and of those admitted, they’re leaving within a day or two.

Why the panic?

[david small]

If these so called experts were to have to face the consequences of their “predictions” there would be far less of them on the band wagon. Good intentions? The road to hell is paved with them.

[Togo]

Not only that Dd ... more than 80% of people admitted are unvaccinated. No demoghraphic breakdown as yet on the social strata of these unvaccinated cases.

[Togo]

Looks like the best bet is to circle the M25 with troops and tanks and lock them all in. Just like that fillum Escape From New York.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/covid-cases-hit-100k-in-the-uk-the-10-virus-hotspots-revealed/ar-AAS3AZl?ocid=msedgntp

[jourdain2]

But - it doesn't really matter, does it, how many people test positive - as long as they are not dying of it. That has to be the point.

[New Judge]

//It really isn’t misleading not to give the total number of tests (which actually IS given)//

It is. It’s an incomplete picture. We keep coming back to it because it keeps being raised.

//…as long as they are not dying of it.//

Or have to be admitted to hospital.

[Deskdiary]

Completely agree jourdain.

The problem is, “hundreds of thousands are infected” is a sexier headline than “it’s mild and people aren’t dying”.

[Togo]

Look on the bright side ... covideo has completely erradicated the common cold and "the Flu". Remember when the worst bit was telling "the boss" that you didn't feel well enough to come to work today? Now you have to tell everybody and claim you reward for being ill, on so shall me deah.

[Togo]

This caught my eye ealier.
"Covid staff sickness has rocketed 122% in a week at hospital trusts in London, which has had more Omicron cases than anywhere else in England. In the capital, 3,874 NHS staff were off for that reason on Sunday 19 December – more than double the 1,540 seen a week earlier.".
Do, they know it's Christmas at all?

[ichkeria]

“ The problem is, “hundreds of thousands are infected” is a sexier headline than “it’s mild and people aren’t dying”.

Hmm. Well the “nasty old BBC” aren’t playing ball with your demented conspiracy theory then, given this evenings news headline

[Deskdiary]

Not my demented conspiracy theory (about the number of people admitted), it was on LBC; I merely repeated what they reported.

If the demented conspiracy theory is that it’s mild, I’m merely parroting the reports from today.

If the demented conspiracy theory is that it’s sexier to report a high number…that’s not a conspiracy theory either, rather that’s just headline grabbing journalism.

I haven’t seen the BBC today, so if they’re reporting something different, which source would you rather I take heed of?

[Togo]

//which source would you rather I take heed of?//

Private Eye is the new and exciting information source on here now Dd.

[Peter Pedant]

// It is. It’s an incomplete picture. We keep coming back to it because it keeps being raised.//

It is. It’s an incomplete picture. We keep coming back to it because no-one on AB has the slightest understanding of statistics

correlation never shows causation by the way
but what the hell, this is AB !

thank god covid= flu, that's what I say !

[THECORBYLOON]

TOGO, I couldn't find a report including the word "rocketed" but your quote is very similar to one in The Guardian which also includes the perecentage increase for NHS staff in England.

"Covid staff sickness rose by 122% in a week at hospital trusts in London, which has had more Omicron cases than anywhere else in England. Across the capital, 3,874 NHS staff were off for that reason on Sunday 19 December – more than double the 1,540 seen a week earlier.

Across England as a whole, the number of health workers off because of Covid rose by 54% in a week, from 12,240 to 18,820"

I am sure they know it's Christmas but I wonder if you can explain why the percentage increase in sick absence for London (152%) is almost three times that for England as a whole?

[Deskdiary]

Understood Togo.

I get that people prefer sources that mirror their views, of course they do, we all do, but rubbishing a source because it because it doesn’t mirror a view is daft.

[New Judge]

//correlation never shows causation by the way
but what the hell, this is AB !//

Indeed it isn't, PP. That's why I mentioned the likely causal connection. If anyone doubts the premise that more tests are likely to result in more positives (which is supported by the mathematical correlation) perhaps they could put up an argument against it.