Coronavirus outbreak

[mjr]

My only comment is that (citation required) over half the people admitted to hospital are not being admitted 'because of' COVID-19; they are testing +ve on admission.

BBC Look East this week explicitly stated the reverse to be true in the East of England: the vast majority of covid hospital cases here were admitted because of covid.

My local hospital had a bad record of hospital-acquired covid in earlier waves but I think they're probably listening to their infection control teams more lately.

 

[Ajax Bay]

My only comment is that (citation required) over half the people admitted to hospital are not being admitted 'because of' COVID-19; they are testing +ve on admission. Of course this still places an additional burden on the hospital as they seek to avoid nosocomial infections.

BBC Look East this week explicitly stated the reverse to be true in the East of England: the vast majority of covid hospital cases here were admitted because of covid.

As I indicated ["citation required"], I had not checked this comment and your report of the ever-reliable BBC Look East encouraged me to look for data. Their "vast majority" does appear well wide of the mark. I wonder on what they base this "explicit" assertion. Likely the devil will be in definition detail.
In England (5 Apr) 15,331 patients had confirmed COVID and of those there were 6,509 "patients who are being treated primarily for COVID-19". (East of England: 1673 total of which 608 primary.) I am surprised at the widely different proportions from NHS area to area and suspect data quality.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
There are various caveats on definitions which they try to address.

	Beds confirmed COVID	Primarily for COVID
Name	05-Apr-22	05-Apr-22​
ENGLAND	15,331	6,509​
East of England	1,673	608​
London	2,310	672​
Midlands	2,812	975​
North East & Yorkshire	2,673	1,319​
North West	2,276	1,000​
South East	2,256	1,159​
South West	1,331	776​

 

[mjr]

Are you mixing occupancy and admissions data there?

 

[Ajax Bay]

BBC Look East this week explicitly stated the reverse to be true in the East of England: the vast majority of covid hospital cases here were admitted because of covid.

Are you mixing occupancy and admissions data there?

The data I offered was to address your 'BBC Look East' statement, not to substantiate my comment.
I see a "covid hospital case" as the same as bed occupancy with COVID.
And "admitted because of covid" synonymous with "patients who are being treated primarily for COVID-19".
The data I shared were occupancy, extracted from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statisti...04/Primary-Diagnosis-Supplement-20220407.xlsx

 

[mjr]

The data I offered was to address your 'BBC Look East' statement, not to substantiate my comment.
I see a "covid hospital case" as the same as bed occupancy with COVID.
And "admitted because of covid" synonymous with "patients who are being treated primarily for COVID-19".
The data I shared were occupancy, extracted from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statisti...04/Primary-Diagnosis-Supplement-20220407.xlsx

You could just have said "Yes" when I asked if you were mixing occupancy and admissions data. The BBC reported about admissions. You posted stuff about bed occupancy. That doesn't really address admissions. I'm not going to ask the BBC if they goofed on the strength of that.

I also note that the link you posted earlier https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/ says "The majority of inpatients with Covid-19 are admitted as a result of the infection." Of course, they might be talking about all time, not current admissions.

Another spreadsheet on that page makes me think the BBC may well be correct that most covid cases are admitted due to covid in the East of England, as it looks like 1133 of 1483 new hospital covid cases in the last week reported caught covid in the community rather than in hospital or care. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statisti...d-admissions-and-beds-publication-220407.xlsx

But I'm doing this quickly due to lack of time so I'd welcome anyone telling me if I misread something.

 

[Deleted User]

Why are people so concerned about stats?

 

[Ajax Bay]

BBC Look East this week explicitly stated the reverse to be true in the East of England: the vast majority of covid hospital cases here were admitted because of covid.

The data I offered was to address your 'BBC Look East' statement, not to substantiate my comment.
I see a "covid hospital case" as the same as bed occupancy with COVID.
And "admitted because of covid" synonymous with "patients who are being treated primarily for COVID-19".

You could just have said "Yes" when I asked if you were mixing occupancy and admissions data. The BBC reported about admissions. You posted stuff about bed occupancy. That doesn't really address admissions. I'm not going to ask the BBC if they goofed on the strength of that. Another spreadsheet on that page makes me think the BBC may well be correct that most covid cases are admitted due to covid in the East of England, as it looks like 1133 of 1483 new hospital covid cases in the last week reported caught covid in the community rather than in hospital or care.

I could have done so, but I wasn't mixing up the two, as I sought to explain (see above). I explained why: sorry it was not clear enough for you. I appreciate you may argue over the definitions I offered (in fact bit surprised you haven't (but maybe just lack of time )).
Please don't bother the BBC, even if they do seem to be wrong.
Of course the vast majority (76%) of "new hospital covid cases" caught covid "in the community": do you think the majority caught it in hospital? But the key discimination is that the "new covid cases" are divided into patients admitted "primarily" Because of COVID, and patients admitted who, on testing, are found to have COVID, or subsequently catch it in hospital. See the figures in my post above.
@shep Covid is not 'going away' but the way the community deals with it is best done so with the background of knowledge. Why don't you listen to the Indie Sage 20 minutes (linked above)? Only then will you realise just how interesting this is and where the UK is now.
In other news my aged mother had her second booster last week.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I thought this was a thought provoking article (Time) on the primary transmission mechanism for COVID-19 "airborne" and the resistance to actually using that word, even though, from the start, its use would have helped the public (not the medics, for whom that word has special meaning) to understand.
https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-confusion/
"If even President Trump knew in February 2020, “You just breathe the air, and that’s how it’s passed,” why wasn’t the public told clearly the virus was airborne?"
"We and our colleagues, scientists and engineers who have studied airborne particles for our entire careers, met with W.H.O. in April 2020 to express our concern that airborne transmission was important in the spread of COVID-19. W.H.O. vehemently rejected our suggestion and painted us as trespassers who did not understand what was happening in hospitals."
"in December 2021, W.H.O. finally used the word “airborne” on one webpage to explain how COVID-19 spreads between people, although the organization’s social media posts continue to completely avoid the word. The word remains verboten for C.D.C."
Ventilation, peeps, especially in schools and offices.
"public health leaders began to acknowledge that it could occur in special situations, namely those with poor ventilation. What they might not have realized is that, relative to hospitals, nearly all other buildings—homes, schools, restaurants, and many workplaces and gyms—would qualify as such special situations. In these buildings, indoor air might be replaced with outdoor air once or twice per hour, whereas in hospitals the ventilation rate is at least 6 air changes per hour in patient rooms and 15 in operating rooms."

 

[mjr]

I thought this was a thought provoking article (Time) on the primary transmission mechanism for COVID-19 "airborne" and the resistance to actually using that word, even though, from the start, its use would have helped the public (not the medics, for whom that word has special meaning) to understand.
https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-confusion/

I linked the Wired article that links some time ago:

Here is a very well-written report on that whole droplet/aerosol handwashing/ventilation debate from early in the pandemic: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/

and does anyone really think Trump knew, rather than guessing as usual? Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day...

 

[PaulSB]

I thought this was a thought provoking article (Time) on the primary transmission mechanism for COVID-19 "airborne" and the resistance to actually using that word, even though, from the start, its use would have helped the public (not the medics, for whom that word has special meaning) to understand.
https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-confusion/
"If even President Trump knew in February 2020, “You just breathe the air, and that’s how it’s passed,” why wasn’t the public told clearly the virus was airborne?"
"We and our colleagues, scientists and engineers who have studied airborne particles for our entire careers, met with W.H.O. in April 2020 to express our concern that airborne transmission was important in the spread of COVID-19. W.H.O. vehemently rejected our suggestion and painted us as trespassers who did not understand what was happening in hospitals."
"in December 2021, W.H.O. finally used the word “airborne” on one webpage to explain how COVID-19 spreads between people, although the organization’s social media posts continue to completely avoid the word. The word remains verboten for C.D.C."
Ventilation, peeps, especially in schools and offices.
"public health leaders began to acknowledge that it could occur in special situations, namely those with poor ventilation. What they might not have realized is that, relative to hospitals, nearly all other buildings—homes, schools, restaurants, and many workplaces and gyms—would qualify as such special situations. In these buildings, indoor air might be replaced with outdoor air once or twice per hour, whereas in hospitals the ventilation rate is at least 6 air changes per hour in patient rooms and 15 in operating rooms."

While i understand the clear distinction being made between "airborne" and droplets I would say it was very clear from the outset Covid is an "airborne" in the sense to the public "it's in the air" and can be breathed in. Until I read this article I was not aware of the distinction drawn between the two in the medical world however I feel sure the idea of the virus being "in the air" was clear to all.

Why else would we be asked to socially distance, wear masks, cough into elbows etc? Possibly one could argue surface cleaning etc. was a distraction as I believe it's now thought to only be responsible for 15%, at most, of transmission. I'd argue these surface precautions were necessary if only because they act(ed) as a strong reminder of the threat Covid presented.

From a very young age we are taught to cough into a hanky/tissue, cover mouths, avoid coughing/sneezing on others and so on. While the vast majority may not understand or be aware of the distinction drawn in this article I'm sure all understand the concept of a virus being spread through the air and therefore, in layman's terms, airborne.

It's an American article perhaps things are different in the US?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

From a very young age we are taught to cough into a hanky/tissue, cover mouths, avoid coughing/sneezing on others and so on.

I wonder if this is a leftover from the Spanish Flu 100 years ago, I do notice the lack of handkerchief carrying these days, along with the lack of covering the mouth/nose when coughing/sneezing from the younger generation, is it something that is dying out as being taught?

 

[mjr]

Why else would we be asked to socially distance, wear masks, cough into elbows etc?

Because all of those also protect against spat droplet transmission? And remember, initially some leaders told their populations not to wear any sort of masks, sometimes for good reason (shortage of masks for health and care workers) and sometimes not.

Possibly one could argue surface cleaning etc. was a distraction as I believe it's now thought to only be responsible for 15%, at most, of transmission. I'd argue these surface precautions were necessary if only because they act(ed) as a strong reminder of the threat Covid presented.

I'd argue they were necessary because a 15% reduction of transmission would still be worth having at the relatively low cost (compared to lockdowns and shoot).

From a very young age we are taught to cough into a hanky/tissue, cover mouths, avoid coughing/sneezing on others and so on.

We might have been. It really doesn't seem like people in general were. I hadn't really noticed until this pandemic just how few do such things.

I wonder if this is a leftover from the Spanish Flu 100 years ago, I do notice the lack of handkerchief carrying these days, along with the lack of covering the mouth/nose when coughing/sneezing from the younger generation, is it something that is dying out as being taught?

Or is it just something that people in Britain in general were no longer doing? It wasn't only youngsters who were spitting and snotting in verges, or coughing and sneezing uncovered in enclosed spaces; and there were few people who can remember the 1918 Flu (please stop tarring Spain) alive at the start of this.

 

[classic33]

3634146

Because all of those also protect against spat droplet transmission? And remember, initially some leaders told their populations not to wear any sort of masks, sometimes for good reason (shortage of masks for health and care workers) and sometimes not.


I'd argue they were necessary because a 15% reduction of transmission would still be worth having at the relatively low cost (compared to lockdowns and shoot).


We might have been. It really doesn't seem like people in general were. I hadn't really noticed until this pandemic just how few do such things.


Or is it just something that people in Britain in general were no longer doing? It wasn't only youngsters who were spitting and snotting in verges, or coughing and sneezing uncovered in enclosed spaces; and there were few people who can remember the 1918 Flu (please stop tarring Spain) alive at the start of this.

First hit, gives Spanish Flu. Don't think he was tarring Spain.

 

[mjr]

(in fact bit surprised you haven't (but maybe just lack of time )).

Not having a decent reply does not excuse such personal attacks.

Of course the vast majority (76%) of "new hospital covid cases" caught covid "in the community": do you think the majority caught it in hospital?

No, of course not. That is a terrible attempt at distraction.

But the key discimination is that the "new covid cases" are divided into patients admitted "primarily" Because of COVID, and patients admitted who, on testing, are found to have COVID, or subsequently catch it in hospital.

What are you quoting there? And that's not the key distinction! A patient admitted "primarily" because of something else like breathing difficulties or low blood oxygen and covid is only diagnosed on admission testing: they are still probably there "due to covid" like the BBC claimed. Any fall in admissions due to previously-detected covid may say more about the dismantling of public testing than anything else. Testing is on the slide as most of the remaining test centres close and distributed rapid tests are used up as illustrated by this graph from gov.uk:

See the figures in my post above.

Those figures are occupancy and tell us little about admissions.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Not having a decent reply does not excuse such personal attacks. etc etc . . . fall in admissions due to previously-detected covid may say more about the dismantling of public testing. . . . Those figures are occupancy and tell us little about admissions.

Your assessment of "personal attacks" has a very very low threshold. Glad to see you've found more time.
That is a terrible attempt at distraction.
" . . fall in admissions due to previously-detected covid may say more about the dismantling of public testing"
That is a terrible attempt at distraction. Anyone being admitted to hospital will either have an NHS arranged test beforehand or be tested on emergency admission. Admissions "because" of COVID-19 is because of severe COVID-19 symptoms: the main reason for being treated overnight (+) in hospital. All other admissions are "with not because of" COVID-19.
"Those figures are occupancy and tell us little about admissions." Correct: I did not seek to tell you about admissions, nor purport so to do. Please keep up. Apologies for boring others who are.