5 Filters

UK covid hospitalisation sitrep - part 2

Continuing the discussion from Current covid hospitalisation sitrep in the UK:

10 days ago, I took a look at how the hospitalisations in the UK were increasing, and noticed that they were on a pure exponential trajectory. I decided to take another look today and see what the current situation is, as of end of last week. The data below are up to Oct 22/23.

I used the exponential model from the last post, to see how the reality has followed the predicted fit. Results below

hospitalisations

The blue bars are the actual data. The red circles are the data used to fit the model, and the red line is the prediction from the model.

Up until just before last weekend, we can see that the number of patients admitted into hospital continued to follow the perfect exponential fit from more than 10 days ago. Some possible good news is that it seems to be tailing off in the last couple of days. Not sure if that is some kind of problem in data recording or whether it is real. Something that some folk here might find interesting is that this effect seems too early for it to be a result of the Tier 3 lockdowns. I would expect the effect of the lockdown to show up (if at all) later this week, not last week. Either it’s dodgy data, or the people themselves were responsible for the drop in hospitalisations either through social distancing, or because we are hitting levels of immunity in the population.

In any case, we are hitting about 40% of the hospitalisations that we saw at the height of the bad times, in April. And there are still large parts of the country that I believe have not experienced the virus yet.

ventilated patients


Again, blue bars are actual data, red circles are data used to fit the model and red line is the model prediction.

Due to some lag between patients being admitted to hospital, and being put onto a ventilator, we are still seeing pure exponential growth of ventilated patients.

The good news is that the rate at which people are being put onto ventilators seems much slower than the first time round. Either because doctors have other treatments now and are just not putting people onto ventilators if they can possible help it, or because people are not getting as sick this time.

If the trajectory continues for another 10 days or so, though, we will still end up with about 40% of the total of ventilator patients as we saw at the worst of the April peak.

thoughts

Clearly there has been another epidemic outbreak of this virus in the north of England. There are some early signs that it might be tailing off now. If that’s true, then the explanation for that is unlikely to be lockdows, as those have only just been put in place, and haven’t had time to filter through. That means that either people were getting scared and social distancing before the lockdowns came into force, or the virus has reached the limit of its reach in those areas, which would give some support to innate immunity amongst the pop. If either of those explanations are true, then it would seem we didn’t need the lockdown. I know many of you will be shocked to hear that :wink:

If we have almost reached the peak of new hospitalisations (and it doesn’t spike up again this week), then this also suggests that, going forward, we are likely to see regional outbreaks of smaller scale than the london outbreak we saw in April. But there are still plenty of regions waiting to be hit…

This will be an interesting week to see what happens next in the data.

cheers

Each year, flu/colds/pneumonia cases - that’s actually-real cases needing treatment, of course - kick up as the season heads towards Winter. It would be astonishing if this wasn’t happening now. Getting towards a key point in the W&S strategy now: will there be another big outbreak, anywhere at all, during this Northern Hemisphere cold period, over and above the usual rise? (My money’s on ‘no’.) As also on not taking seriously the new canard being pushed today: The immunity to covid, caused by all the low-impact infections that have come and gone quietly on the way to herd immunity “might” be dying away rapidly - unlike any other immunity in the history of humankind. Yeah right! Was just listening to a Peter Hitchens interview where he underlined the use of what he called 'weak verbs: ‘might’, ‘could’, etc., which nevertheless doesn’t stop the reports getting high profile in the panic shrieking (currently losing its vigour though that is…). W&S, boys and girls, W&S. :slight_smile:

Craig M’s sober analysis. Pretty much how I see it too: real illness that needs taking seriously, but absolutely not a credible reason for the insane panic-fest we suffer currently. Craig too doubts any grand conspiracy; though I’d add that there have been quite a few ad-hoc scams jazzed up by more factional bands of lying chancers - such as the BellenderGatesoids - to push their factional agendas; not very successfully so far, I’m very chuffed to say. :grin: True, Gates and other creatures of that oligo-plankton have made a killing, yetmorebillions-wise. But when a time of reckoning finally arrives that can still be taken away from them; as much of it as will survive the big shake-out when the super ‘rich’ realise that so much of their hallucinated ‘wealth’ has turned out to be just so much worthless paper/computer-entries:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/covid-19-and-the-political-utility-of-fear/

1 Like

@PontiusPrimate. Forgive me if my memory is failing (it always was bad so can’t claim its my age!), however, I recall a detailed analysis you did some time ago. It was an explanation of the excess deaths that occurred just after the first lockdown in the UK. As I recall the conclusion was that the timings etc, coincided exactly with the contagious and gestation periods of Corona virus, and hence it was the virus that was the cause of the excess deaths.

If my memory and paraphrasing of your conclusions is accurate, perhaps you would comment on the link below (only watch from minutes 2 to 3). The figures are from the Daily Mail (apologies one and all).

1 Like

@RhisiartGwilym I agree with your take on Craig Murrays article. A good one by him. And this is a key point.

" But what really worried me was the Scottish government’s new five tier system with restrictions nominated not 1 to 5, but 0 to 4. Zero level restrictions includes gatherings being limited to 8 people indoors or 15 people outdoors – which of course would preclude much political activity. When Julian Assange’s father John was visiting us this week I wished to organise a small vigil for Julian in Glasgow, but was unable to do so because of Covid restrictions. Even at zero level under the Scottish government’s new plans, freedom of assembly – an absolutely fundamental right – will still be abolished and much political activity banned…"

Its the same for England and most seem to have missed it. There are the three tiers of “danger” but there is no tier for normal, everyday, life before Corona virus, conditions. I look forward to the day when the oil is gone and we can put the real criminals, the GIC’s, in the stocks.

Thanks @PatB. I had a look, and have a couple thoughts, but it’ll take me a bit to get them down - hopefully this eve. To your greater point, which is a very valid one, the bigger picture overall here is one of abject failure to actually support public health in a meaningful way, and a clear takeover of the discussion by vested interests.

On the video above, as the terminator says - I’ll be back.

Cheers

Hi PatB.

So I’ve not really followed UKC before so I’m not sure of the nuance in their argument. From the brief clip you pointed me to I took three things away:

  1. Many of the covid deaths happened because of govt policy to park people with covid in care homes. I agree 100% with this

  2. The lockdown, combined with the cancelling of all routine NHS treatments had led to an increase of death and suffering separate to the death and suffering caused by covid. Again, I don’t think anyone can really argue with that point. I certainly wouldn’t argue against that.

  3. This is where I might be missing some of the nuance of their argument, so do correct me if I’m wrong. They seem to be suggesting that most, if not all of the excess mortality are caused by points 1 and 2 above. Does that mean that they think there wouldn’t have been a spike in excess mortality of we have hadnt had a lockdown? If that’s their position then I don’t agree. It seems clear to me that letting the virus race exponentially through the population would have had a completely devastating effect on mortality.

In general, the post I made was making the point that the sequence of cases --> hospitalisations --> deaths matched what is expected from what we know about how covid spreads through a community.

So I think that, yes, lockdowns lead to public health problems and even deaths. But so does runaway covid.

Cheers