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?

[Deskdiary]

Maths was never my strong point, so I’m unable to forensically delve into the stats like some are, but I don’t think you need to be a maths whizz to realise the more you test there will be more positives.

That’s just common sense, isn’t it?

[Peter Pedant]

// the more you test there will be more positives.//

and so you stop testing - covid figures nose dive and it goes away 1
foo the whole of AB should be running SAGE

[Peter Pedant]

this was first floated by - - pres Trump
so you KNOW it makes sense....

[bobbinwales]

Dd have you thought it could be the other way round.. . that more people might be getting symptoms as the virus spreads quicker... and so more are needing or being asked to get tested .

[Gromit]

The Good News:
// People catching Omicron are 50% to 70% less likely to need hospital care compared with previous variants, a major analysis says. //

The Bad News
// The study also shows the jab's ability to stop people catching Omicron starts to wane 10 weeks after a booster dose. //

[bobbinwales]

Not too bad then as long as we top up again by spring

[Deskdiary]

From Gromit’s post I take that as a massive positive.

If the Omicron is as rife as we’re told, and most will have had the booster, in 2 and a half months we’ll be ok?

Or have I misunderstood and No Context Gromit is spinning it another way (as per).

[Togo]

//Gromit is spinning it another way (as per).//

You have it Dd. According to his "joyous" perspective Santa doesn't come every year ... he just goes everywhere else.

[New Judge]

//..and so you stop testing - covid figures nose dive and it goes away//

Thank you Peter. You've finally got it (and I hope everybody else has). You have correctly pointed out that reducing the number of tests (to zero) will reduce the number of positives (to zero) - but will provide the reader with no useful information whatsoever unless the number of tests is quoted. And of course if the number of tests is increased......

[Gromit]

For deskdiary, Togo and anyone else without the sense to look up the latest report, here is a link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969

[New Judge]

Part of the report:

"There is also uncertainty about what will happen when Omicron reaches older age groups because most of those catching it and going into hospital so far have been under the age of 40."

Why hasn't it reached the older age groups already and what will change to make it do so?

[Gromit]

NJ
If no tests are done and no one knows they have got it, they will super spread it and more people will get it, and more will become ill.
Pretending it doesn’t exist by not looking for it solves nothing. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[ichkeria]

“ 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”

It’s naturally the case however it’s also likely the case that more infection means more tests. No one claims that these figures are the be all and end all.

[1ozzy]

Just what everyone needed.
A covid thread, yet again.
Please get back to brexit!!

[New Judge]

//If no tests are done and no one knows they have got it, they will super spread it and more people will get it, and more will become ill.
Pretending it doesn’t exist by not looking for it solves nothing. Ignorance is not an excuse.//

//It’s naturally the case however it’s also likely the case that more infection means more tests. No one claims that these figures are the be all and end all.//

You are both correct – and both missing the point.

The point is not how many tests should be done (though I would argue that only people displaying symptoms need be tested, but that’s a different question). The number of tests undertaken clearly has a major influence on the number of positives found. Although it has increased in the past week or so, the percentage of positives has not varied greatly throughout. But the number of positives has varied enormously. Whilst random testing is taking place (where round about 95% of those tests prove negative) it is vital to know how many tests are taken to account for the positive results. It is important to know the absolute number of cases because, as PP mentioned, the medical facilities needed to treat Covid patients are finite. But to simply state "new cases doubled in the last two days" without knowing how many tests were undertaken is meaningless.

[THECORBYLOON]

The percentage of tests that were positive was almost 7% yesterday

6.95% 22-Dec
6.08% 21-Dec
6.15% 20-Dec
5.64% 19-Dec
6.43% 18-Dec
5.90% 17-Dec
5.53% 16-Dec

[THECORBYLOON]

Apologies, they are the most recent figures but tests show up to 22nd and positives up to the 23rd so I have used the positives from the 22nd with the tests from that date and so on.