Coronavirus outbreak

[mjr]

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from these facts. Have UK, Spain and France done a much better job 2nd wave compared to 1st wave in stopping people becoming infected and/or treating those infected? Or has Germany got much worse at stopping its citizens becoming infected and/or treating them?

Or, looking for the most obvious possible explanation, did a higher proportion of more-vulnerable people die in the first wave in UK, Spain and France so they're not around now to die a second time, while they may have survived the first wave in Germany?


Meanwhile, did Brits heed their glorious leader's exhortions to use lockdown to get fighting fit to fight off this virus? Did they heck! Despite the UK lockdown being weaker than most European countries save the Nordics, Brits were top lockdown bingers, says https://www.theguardian.com/society...re-the-lockdown-bingers-of-europe-finds-study

 

[nickyboy]

Or, looking for the most obvious possible explanation, did a higher proportion of more-vulnerable people die in the first wave in UK, Spain and France so they're not around now to die a second time, while they may have survived the first wave in Germany

I did consider this but if you look at the numbers of "high risk" individuals in society and how many died in the first wave, it was actually a very small %...so a very large majority were alive entering the second wave and, thankfully, remain so. A fairly rudimentary statistical analysis shows that your assertion isn't correct. It may be a small contributory factor but it isn't a major one. It's something else

The bottom line is that UK is doing better 2nd wave v 1st wave and the opposite is true of Germany. Maybe the UK had caught up a bit with Germany's treatment methodologies. Maybe the UK lockdown/tier system is better than Germany's. Maybe Germany or UK has changed its counting methodologies. But it isn't down to the 1st wave killing all the susceptible UK population

I appreciate that this doesn't fit in with the persistent narrative in this thread but it's undeniable that UK is getting better at dealing with the pandemic whereas Germany is getting worse

 

[roubaixtuesday]

.

The bottom line is that UK is doing better 2nd wave v 1st wave and the opposite is true of Germany.

I think the bottom line is that Germany has done better than us in both.

2nd time around their track and trace has got overwhelmed, first time around they were harder with their lock down.

Our track and trace is practically non existent.

 

[PK99]

I did consider this but if you look at the numbers of "high risk" individuals in society and how many died in the first wave, it was actually a very small %...so a very large majority were alive entering the second wave and, thankfully, remain so. A fairly rudimentary statistical analysis shows that your assertion isn't correct. It may be a small contributory factor but it isn't a major one. It's something else

The bottom line is that UK is doing better 2nd wave v 1st wave and the opposite is true of Germany. Maybe the UK had caught up a bit with Germany's treatment methodologies. Maybe the UK lockdown/tier system is better than Germany's. Maybe Germany or UK has changed its counting methodologies. But it isn't down to the 1st wave killing all the susceptible UK population

I appreciate that this doesn't fit in with the persistent narrative in this thread but it's undeniable that UK is getting better at dealing with the pandemic whereas Germany is getting worse

The Swedish epidemiologist said some months ago that summed over the inevitable sussessive waves he predicted the overall totals would be similar for most countries.

 

[nickyboy]

.


I think the bottom line is that Germany has done better than us in both.

2nd time around their track and trace has got overwhelmed, first time around they were harder with their lock down.

Our track and trace is practically non existent.

Yes they've done better. 1st wave by a large margin, 2nd wave by a small margin so far

My point isn't this. What I'm saying is that UK has done much better 2nd wave v 1st wave. The opposite is true of Germany

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The Swedish epidemiologist said some months ago that summed over the inevitable sussessive waves he predicted the overall totals would be similar for most countries.

Sweden had ~10x a many deaths as other Nordics 1st wave, same again 2nd wave.

 

[mjr]

I did consider this but if you look at the numbers of "high risk" individuals in society and how many died in the first wave, it was actually a very small %...so a very large majority were alive entering the second wave and, thankfully, remain so. A fairly rudimentary statistical analysis shows that your assertion isn't correct. It may be a small contributory factor but it isn't a major one. It's something else

Can you show us this "rudimentary statistical analysis", please?

 

[mjr]

The Swedish epidemiologist said some months ago that summed over the inevitable sussessive waves he predicted the overall totals would be similar for most countries.

Is he the only epidemioloigst in the Sweden?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Is he the only epidemioloigst in the Sweden?

No, there are entire groups dissenting

https://vetcov19.se/en/om-oss/

 

[nickyboy]

Can you show us this "rudimentary statistical analysis", please?

OK. It's a fact that the UK daily death rate in the 2nd wave is about half that of the 1st wave

Your idea is that the reason for this is because " a higher proportion of more-vulnerable people die in the first wave in UK, Spain and France so they're not around now to die a second time". The reason that the death rate is lower in the 2nd wave is because a lot died in the 1st wave

So let's look at the numbers. There are 2.2million UK citizens categorised as "High Risk" and recommended to shield. The total deaths in the fist wave was about 40,000 (we can argue the exact number but equally not all would have been high risk). This is 1.8% of those categorised "high risk".

So when the 2nd wave hit, about 98 in 100 high risk individuals were still alive. The death rate in the second wave is about (but not exactly) half that of the first wave. But almost all the high risk people were alive at the start of the second wave (indeed now, 97 out of 100 are still alive). So your idea that the reason for a much lower daily death rate being down to a much smaller cohort of high risk individuals not being around for the second wave is just not correct (50%-ish lower daily death rate but only 2% lower numbers of high risk individuals)

Which means we are back to the fact that UK daily death rates in 2nd wave are lower than in the 1st wave and the opposite is true in Germany. I've postulated a few ideas why. You've suggested one idea, but as you can see above, it isn't correct

 

[mjr]

I appreciate that this doesn't fit in with the persistent narrative in this thread but it's undeniable that UK is getting better at dealing with the pandemic whereas Germany is getting worse

Winding back a bit: is that even true? It doesn't look it to me, but have I misunderstood something about this claim? Germany's rate still looks lower to me.

 

[Unkraut]

Which means we are back to the fact that UK daily death rates in 2nd wave are lower than in the 1st wave and the opposite is true in Germany.

I still maintain the official death rates in the UK and Germany are not comparing like with like.

Some things have changed since the first wave, notably that in Germany the current wave is very considerably worse than the former, and inevitably the death rate will go up, notwithstanding increased provision and medical knowledge. Beds and equipment are not the problem, but a chronic shortage of ICU staff, something predating the current pandemic.

The population may have got a bit complacent over the summer, when the rates dropped very considerably. Momentum lost in developing tracking systems and the corona app, which is not that effective though widely downloaded.

Decision-making at federal and state (Land) level is beginning to slow down whilst compromises are sought, and swift, decisive action is essential if the virus is to be brought under some sort of control. In March they got on with it.

Testing has plateaued.

If you compare Germany with the SE Asian countries, as I saw done by a Vietnamese German a couple of days ago, then Germany would be at the bottom of the class. They have the virus under control, mostly because they instantly reacted to it when it appeared, and the populations follow the hygiene rules, distancing masking etc. They have the advantage of having a previous epidemic to learn from, and were better prepared. Some have avoided lockdowns altogether, mainly due to the discipline of the public (willing or otherwise depending on the country), and the excessive individualism of Europe in general and Britain in particular are not helping get things under control.

 

[mjr]

So let's look at the numbers. There are 2.2million UK citizens categorised as "High Risk" and recommended to shield. The total deaths in the fist wave was about 40,000 (we can argue the exact number but equally not all would have been high risk). This is 1.8% of those categorised "high risk".

So, the first problem with this argument I'll highlight, as you acknowledge, is that it assumes that the categorisation was accurate (despite the limited initial knowledge about covid-19) and that all first wave deaths were high risk.

So your idea that the reason for a much lower daily death rate being down to a much smaller cohort of high risk individuals not being around for the second wave is just not correct (50%-ish lower daily death rate but only 2% lower numbers of high risk individuals)

And the second problem with this argument is a subtle rephrasing of the claim here. The claim was not that there were fewer individuals categorised by the government as "High Risk", but that those who were really most vulnerable to dying from it had already died.

So this argument does not really rebut the claim. It is an argument against a slightly different claim based on some questionable assumptions.

Personally, I do favour the idea put forward by @roubaixtuesday that a faltering test/track/trace programme is a key contributor,described in https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-lost-control-of-tracing-as-infections-surge - but I also notice on https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-lockdowns/ that Germany's second lockdown was apparently not as strict as the UK's.

 

[Adam4868]

Some good news to start the day.The UK regulator approves the use of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine - roll out starts next week!

 

[nickyboy]

Winding back a bit: is that even true? It doesn't look it to me, but have I misunderstood something about this claim? Germany's rate still looks lower to me.
View attachment 561226

You've misunderstood what I said. Go back and read it again

Germany's death rate in 2nd wave is higher than in the first wave...they have got worse at stopping their citizens from dying

UK's death rate (and Spain and France) in the 2nd wave is lower than in the first wave....they have got better at stopping their citizens from dying

All I'm trying to do is provide some balance to the narrative here that UK response is rubbish and countries like Germany's is really good. The facts don't support this. It was rubbish in the first wave (and equally Germany was really good). But in the second wave the responses are much closer (although Germany is still a bit better than UK)