Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, renton said:

So, I know we all love a good graph on this thread, I have (sad b*****d that I am) taken Travelling Tabby's data set for new cases and plotted it first linearly, including some inportant dates for openings and restrictions. Orange is the actual data, blue is the 7 day average. Green vertical lines are things opening, which I've labelled, yellow are restrictions (also labelled). Black dashed lines are 5 days after an opening (5 days is the median infection time) red dashed lines are two weeks after infection, purple line indicates when Scot Gove believed R stepped above 1:

image.thumb.png.d9bcfa380a8e8d115232a605b72cd9f2.png

But I don't like plotting exponentials on a linear trend, it tends to decieve the eye and drag it towards the knee point where the exponential takes off, and isn't good at looking at the early stages of exponential growth. So, I replotted it with a Y axis log scale. This converts the data so that a pure, noiseless exponential function would look like a straight line, the slope of which would be derived from the time constant of the exponential. The shallower the gradient, the flatter the line, the longer it takes for infections to increase:

image.thumb.png.95b6d62f9f51a0e12640c00ab38b9d16.png

On a log scale, using the 7 day average curve you can kinda see that infections begin to climb again almost as soon as anything is open again. There is that one (weekend?) of very small numbers in the middle of it, but there is no doubt that there is exponential growth of infections even before the schools open. interestingly that seems to flatten out around the second week of August when the schools went back, and stays reasonably flat over the next two weeks afterwards. Scot Gov said it's track and trace teams were seeing cases assocaited with indoor gatherings in the west, which prompted the initial restrictions there. The gradient shallows again for a week or so after that until the Universties open, which does seem to push the gradient higher again.

What it does suggest to me is how hard it is to disagregate causes. If we can assume from this that hospitality, indoor socialising and retail do drive some case loads, then it's quite hard to show schools making a big difference based on this. You could delete the date line for the schools opening and the trend would look reasonably uninterupted. That's not to say schools didn't - for all we know, another factor may have been decreasing at the time and schools picking up the slack... but it doesn't appear like schools particularly change the trajectory of the graph if you look at it on a longer time frame.

Interesting - thanks for being arsed to do this. 

Looks from this graph like the increased infection rates are a culmination of everything that came before. Every time something new opens, there's a new twitch upwards of cases at about 5 days, and then when something new opens again, that twitch is on top of the foundation of cases that is already higher than it was due to the previous twitch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Not sure what you mean here.

Maybe not clear as I should be. What I was trying to indicate was a two week period after the day something opened assuming that person was infected on the day it opened.

Not an entirely helpful indicator by any means but on this thread we do tend to look at things in terms of two weeks after something when looking for effects. I don't think its that relevant but put it in for completeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I've missed something, but why are Lancashire councillors having to 'agree' to move to Tier 3?

Surely this is a set of tightly-defined national measures that mean a region is either Tier 3 or isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, renton said:

So, I know we all love a good graph on this thread, I have (sad b*****d that I am) taken Travelling Tabby's data set for new cases and plotted it first linearly, including some inportant dates for openings and restrictions. Orange is the actual data, blue is the 7 day average. Green vertical lines are things opening, which I've labelled, yellow are restrictions (also labelled). Black dashed lines are 5 days after an opening (5 days is the median infection time) red dashed lines are two weeks after infection, purple line indicates when Scot Gove believed R stepped above 1:

image.thumb.png.d9bcfa380a8e8d115232a605b72cd9f2.png

But I don't like plotting exponentials on a linear trend, it tends to decieve the eye and drag it towards the knee point where the exponential takes off, and isn't good at looking at the early stages of exponential growth. So, I replotted it with a Y axis log scale. This converts the data so that a pure, noiseless exponential function would look like a straight line, the slope of which would be derived from the time constant of the exponential. The shallower the gradient, the flatter the line, the longer it takes for infections to increase:

image.thumb.png.95b6d62f9f51a0e12640c00ab38b9d16.png

On a log scale, using the 7 day average curve you can kinda see that infections begin to climb again almost as soon as anything is open again. There is that one (weekend?) of very small numbers in the middle of it, but there is no doubt that there is exponential growth of infections even before the schools open. interestingly that seems to flatten out around the second week of August when the schools went back, and stays reasonably flat over the next two weeks afterwards. Scot Gov said it's track and trace teams were seeing cases assocaited with indoor gatherings in the west, which prompted the initial restrictions there. The gradient shallows again for a week or so after that until the Universties open, which does seem to push the gradient higher again.

What it does suggest to me is how hard it is to disagregate causes. If we can assume from this that hospitality, indoor socialising and retail do drive some case loads, then it's quite hard to show schools making a big difference based on this. You could delete the date line for the schools opening and the trend would look reasonably uninterupted. That's not to say schools didn't - for all we know, another factor may have been decreasing at the time and schools picking up the slack... but it doesn't appear like schools particularly change the trajectory of the graph if you look at it on a longer time frame.

Conclusions drawn from clearly presented data? on this thread? 

It will never catch on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gaz said:

Maybe I've missed something, but why are Lancashire councillors having to 'agree' to move to Tier 3?

Surely this is a set of tightly-defined national measures that mean a region is either Tier 3 or isn't?

I suppose it depends on who's job it is to enforce it. Didn't Aberdeen City Council not briefly threaten to disobey Scot Gov edicts on enforcing the hospitality ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Public Health England:

Weekly national flu and COVID-19 surveillance reports

I'll not post any charts or graphs from this as they seem to upset some people but I know a few are interested in these reports. I'll just leave the link here for a bit of light reading.

Warmest regards

Edited by Szamo's_Ammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I've missed something, but why are Lancashire councillors having to 'agree' to move to Tier 3?
Surely this is a set of tightly-defined national measures that mean a region is either Tier 3 or isn't?

The government can impose Tier 3 but has been trying to get buy-in from popular local mayors as its deemed the public will be more compliant if the local leaders are encouraging them to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Donathan said:


The government can impose Tier 3 but has been trying to get buy-in from popular local mayors as its deemed the public will be more compliant if the local leaders are encouraging them to.

One person's "buy in" is another's "passing the buck". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

I'd argue that makes you too emotionally involved to make a clear judgement. 

It's an argument you could make, certainly. I would counterargue that having been through the years where my offspring were at school and entirely dependent upon Mrs WRK and I, I have limited skin in the game in this one, but can empathise with the struggles of today's parents of school-age children (including the two Rosettes with kids). I'm not saying I'm SuperDad, but my opinion is based on something more than theory and prejudice, unlike some on this thread. Thanks for engaging, though. It's nice to know why someone thinks I'm wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...