[Bonjoy]

I think the most parsimonious explanation is - flu is less transmissible than COVID therefore COVID control measures suppress flu to the extent that it can’t generate sustained community transmission; plus flu vaccinations; plus probably what few case there are not getting detected and/or mistaken for COVID.

I'd have to say having read the last couple of pages and disagreed with Dan's opinions, by far the most offensive posts have been the ones directed at him.

e.g.

There are enough corners of the internet for wankers in their basements to discuss the 'scamdemic.' If Dan wants to he should piss off there.

I wholeheartedly agree with the posts appealing to reason.
How about sticking to the topic.

[Will Hunt]

For people who are not Dan: I expect that Dan's views are founded in a central belief that power is inherently corrupting. Thus medical institutions, governments, their leaders, and any major media organisation are also corrupt. I don't think anybody is going to present an argument here that changes Dan's mind. If that's the case, is there any point trying?

For Dan: What you believe is ultimately up to you. If those beliefs are unsubstantiated (your words, not mine) then it's unlikely that anybody here is going to persuade you otherwise. However, don't expect to express your opinion on a discussion forum and not be asked to provide evidence to support your beliefs - especially if you choose to do so by making snide remarks.

[spidermonkey09]

Yeah, fair point, on reflection I let my frustration get the better of me. My apologies.

I have absolutely no desire to discuss this and frankly find it an offensive topic. But I accept I don't have to read it or engage, so will refrain!

[Oldmanmatt]

I think the most parsimonious explanation is - flu is less transmissible than COVID therefore COVID control measures suppress flu to the extent that it can’t generate sustained community transmission; plus flu vaccinations; plus probably what few case there are not getting detected and/or mistaken for COVID.

I'd have to say having read the last couple of pages and disagreed with Dan's opinions, by far the most offensive posts have been the ones directed at him.

e.g.

There are enough corners of the internet for wankers in their basements to discuss the 'scamdemic.' If Dan wants to he should piss off there.

I wholeheartedly agree with the posts appealing to reason.
How about sticking to the topic.

To be fair, whilst it does seem a little “icky” to the touch, Dan’s brought up a very real aspect of this Pandemic.
Denial.

It’s had a huge role in the way this has played out, globally and the impact that such rhetoric has had on people’s mentality and mental health, is very real.

Imagine all this sacrifice, loneliness etc etc and not even accepting the reality of the disease.

[webbo]

The NHS is a corrupt organisation as is NHS England, it's corrupt due to the ongoing problems of health care being conflated with politics, money and power. Money and power is distributed to the NHS by the government via performance based measures, outcomes which are incentivised. This naturally leads to both conscious and unconscious motivating factors to manage and manipulate statistics for the benefit of the organisation which may or may not lead to improvements in health care but usually benefits the few as opposed to the many. I don't believe this is an organised global conspiracy but I do believe this has been going on throughout the pandemic which has been supported by the government campaign which essentially is about money and power or simply power. A good past example would be the pandemrix scandal reported by channel 4. Therefore my visceral reasoning suggests to me that top down decisions are being made about healthcare not on the basis of care for well being but on the basis of money and power. Some of the various ways this has played out during the pandemic include the management of reporting of death and the various covid testing queries. The fear and unhappiness generated by this government led campaign will be around for a long time.

There is a degree of reality in this in my experience given the NHS is target driven plus when government announces new money for the NHS and it never arrives on the front line because it has be off set against the annual cost/ financial improvements every trust has to make.
However despite the NHS still manages to deliver because lower down the food chain people believe in the NHS and make it work.
I don’t believe however as Dan does that things will benefit the few rather than the money.
Whoops bit of a Freudian slip there I meant many.

[abarro81]

This naturally leads to both conscious and unconscious motivating factors to manage and manipulate statistics for the benefit of the organisation

I only know a couple of statisticians, but they seem very aware of trying to avoid these issues. There are many situations where you "want" a certain answer, usually I imagine it's best to have a methodology set in these situations before starting the analysis (assuming you can't blind the analysis). Given flu isn't new I'd expect that to be the case here, making it harder to manipulate the data from the stats point of view; though presumably not impossible. Seems plausible that some flu will get misdiagnosed as covid or whatever given current environments, skewing stats slightly, but doctors are just trying to do their best. They've failed to diagnose a recurrent swelling on my hand for years, but it's not because Bojo's paying them off... though Stu might be now I think about it

Therefore my visceral reasoning suggests to me that top down decisions are being made about healthcare not on the basis of care for well being but on the basis of money and power.

I'm sure that, in some situations, this has always been the case, still is, and always will be. Not really sure that that's a good refutation of the published flu stats or explains your distinction between masks and other rules around protecting others?

The fear and unhappiness generated by this government led campaign will be around for a long time.

Yes, but what's your alternative that causes less suffering? I'm sure we'll all agree that there's been some amount of mismanagement, significant in some cases, but again, what's that got to do with whether we trust flu stats? Or whether mask rules are a human rights infringement in a way that speed limits and other laws aren't?

P.s. on the older post about deaths in 2020 vs earlier years, this is a nice exploration of the deaths figures for 2020, slicing and dicing them in various different ways https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-how-mortality-rates-in-2020-compare-with-past-decades-and-centuries-12185275

[Plattsy]

I'd have to say having read the last couple of pages and disagreed with Dan's opinions, by far the most offensive posts have been the ones directed at him.

Hear hear!

[Loos3-tools]

This naturally leads to both conscious and unconscious motivating factors to manage and manipulate statistics for the benefit of the organisation

I only know a couple of statisticians, but they seem very aware of trying to avoid these issues. There are many situations where you "want" a certain answer, usually I imagine it's best to have a methodology set in these situations before starting the analysis (assuming you can't blind the analysis). Given flu isn't new I'd expect that to be the case here, making it harder to manipulate the data from the stats point of view; though presumably not impossible. Seems plausible that some flu will get misdiagnosed as covid or whatever given current environments, skewing stats slightly, but doctors are just trying to do their best. They've failed to diagnose a recurrent swelling on my hand for years, but it's not because Bojo's paying them off... though Stu might be now I think about it

Therefore my visceral reasoning suggests to me that top down decisions are being made about healthcare not on the basis of care for well being but on the basis of money and power.

I'm sure that, in some situations, this has always been the case, still is, and always will be. Not really sure that that's a good refutation of the published flu stats or explains your distinction between masks and other rules around protecting others?

The fear and unhappiness generated by this government led campaign will be around for a long time.

Yes, but what's your alternative that causes less suffering? I'm sure we'll all agree that there's been some amount of mismanagement, significant in some cases, but again, what's that got to do with whether we trust flu stats? Or whether mask rules are a human rights infringement in a way that speed limits and other laws aren't?

P.s. on the older post about deaths in 2020 vs earlier years, this is a nice exploration of the deaths figures for 2020, slicing and dicing them in various different ways https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-how-mortality-rates-in-2020-compare-with-past-decades-and-centuries-12185275

I absolutely believe that the pit face medical staff are all trying to do their best for the care of the patients. What happens in  health care however frustrating it might be often is led by top down policies which individuals are not willing to or don't have the energy left to question. For some of the reasons seen here. Christopher Hitchens talks about the idea that when given the choice most people will make the decision not to question authority. Go along to get along. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that mass covid testing has obscured flu data and made it disappear to some degree. 

[teestub]

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that mass covid testing has obscured flu data and made it disappear to some degree.

I still don’t get what you mean by this, that report was about 680k tests specifically looking for flu and not finding any. How would the Covid testing affect this.

You also seem to be suggesting that there would be a complicit silence from everyone involved in flu testing when some of the ‘higher ups’ in the govt/NHS decide to report zero cases. This seems vanishingly unlikely. See for example the Florida scientist who lost her job after whistle blowing on the local government altering the Covid data.

[abarro81]

Yeah, this isn't just a question of dumb top-down decisions influencing care lower down. Hadn't actually read the article until now, but either it's real (in the sense that the data is what the report says it is), or there's something significant like changing test protocols to make detection less likely or a genuine lie/cover-up. The latter seems very unlikely. The former... who knows, I don't know enough about PHE's flu testing procedures to have an opinion, but I'm guessing Dan doesn't either? I cba to go find the source report to check if it has a methodology to compare to previous years... I could easily believe that the pandemic means that in other data sources that there might be some effects, but I struggle with the conspiracy required w.r.t that article. So come on Dan, what are you actually suggesting here? (p.s. no response on masks vs other rules?)

[Oldmanmatt]

Yeah, this isn't just a question of dumb top-down decisions influencing care lower down. Either it's real (in the sense that the data is what the report says it is), or there's something significant like changing test protocols to make detection less likely or a genuine lie/cover-up. The latter seems very unlikely. The former... who knows, I don't know enough about PHE's flu testing procedures to have an opinion, but I'm guessing Dan doesn't either? I cba to go find the source report to check if it has a methodology to compare to previous years...

What would be the point?

What is the benefit to the “top” in not finding any Flu cases?

If you had a conspiracy to make Flu cases appear to be Covid cases, this seems a very clumsy way to try and perpetuate it.

Then again, imagine for a minute, that this is just a very nasty Flu season and Covid is a red herring.

What would be any different?
The cases are real. The casualties are real. The spread and transmission and the mitigation required would be the same. The only difference to the last twelve months would be the name we gave the disease.
A new strain of Flu or a New Corona Virus, makes little difference to most people, only it’s relative severity and how you avoid the spread, matters.

Even if (and I don’t think it is so) the current death toll and hospital burden, is a combination of Flu and Covid in origin, nothing would change!
We would be facing exactly the same situation. Just because we have two Pandemics running concurrently, doesn’t magically mean that some of the casualties and desperately ill disappear.

So, what is Dan’s point anyway?

Damn it, we’ve been petrified of a nasty Flu mutation ever since we discovered Flu. Humanity knows ow nasty that bug can get. It really doesn’t need to invent a bogus disease to hide a terrible Flu season.

[mrjonathanr]

Go along to get along.

This has got to be Rishi's next slogan.

As to cover up conspiracies- think QAnon do it better.

[ali k]

How do you all know the name of Dan? Genuine question.

[Loos3-tools]

They just know me from being an idiot on here but actually a very nice friendly chap to meet in person.

At this point I’m just gonna get on with work and gardening. But would always be up for a conversation in person. Whatever that might be about.

[mrjonathanr]

How about 'Acquiesce to make progress'? Catchy enough?

[Oldmanmatt]

They just know me from being an idiot on here but actually a very nice friendly chap to meet in person.

At this point I’m just gonna get on with work and gardening. But would always be up for a conversation in person. Whatever that might be about.

Look. I get it and you (at least as far as this format allows). It’s why I try to engage with you when you make it possible. I just reserve the right to slap back, in kind, when you lash out.
The difference between patronising and caring is often no more than a tone of voice or a facial expression. Things forums such as this do not convey well.
Don’t be fooled into thinking all my “concern” is some sort of backhanded insult. It’s just hard to distinguish between the two in the circumstances. Just as I have, for certain, misread your intent, on occasion.

[Fultonius]

Now that we're a bit back on track, can I ask a stats/public health covid question that's been rumbling in my mind (especially since, in Scotland, we're *aiming* to get to 50 cases per 100,000 before rolling back from Level 4 to Level 3.).

Some of you are clearly quite up on this, and all my internet searches have come up a bit short.

So.

I presume PHE/PHS account for false positives in the Covid "positive test" rate. My question is, how, exactly? Do they send a sample of tests on for further screening? Do they just subtract an arbitrary assumed number of false positives?

My understanding is that the false positive rate for the PCR is 0.8% to 4%, which is quite a few!  50 cases per 100k is 0.05%....  So you don't need a lot of statistical error to generate your 50/100k purely out of false positives.

Now, I'm hoping the clever peeps doing this have this well accounted for, but I'd be pretty fuming to have a few more months in semi lockdown as a result of a statistical error....

[abarro81]

I don't know how, or if, they're doing that I'm afraid.
On the plus side, you shouldn't get to 50 via false positives alone. Quick back-of-envelope: 300k PCR tests/day UK-wide (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing), assuming pop of 66m this is ~455 tests per 100k. At 2% false positive (just picking roughly the middle of you range here), that would be ~9 false positives per day per 100k (approx 3.5-18 with the broad error range you gave). So enough that hopefully they're thinking about how to address this if they really want to be accurate, but you won't be stuck in perpetual lockdown due to the baseline of false positives. I guess it depends on where 50 comes from. If it's from an assessment based on previous figures e.g. trends from last year, then the false +ve would have been there then too, so they might really be saying "we want to hit 40, with 10 as a buffer for errors"

[Loos3-tools]

This naturally leads to both conscious and unconscious motivating factors to manage and manipulate statistics for the benefit of the organisation

I only know a couple of statisticians, but they seem very aware of trying to avoid these issues. There are many situations where you "want" a certain answer, usually I imagine it's best to have a methodology set in these situations before starting the analysis (assuming you can't blind the analysis). Given flu isn't new I'd expect that to be the case here, making it harder to manipulate the data from the stats point of view; though presumably not impossible. Seems plausible that some flu will get misdiagnosed as covid or whatever given current environments, skewing stats slightly, but doctors are just trying to do their best. They've failed to diagnose a recurrent swelling on my hand for years, but it's not because Bojo's paying them off... though Stu might be now I think about it

Therefore my visceral reasoning suggests to me that top down decisions are being made about healthcare not on the basis of care for well being but on the basis of money and power.

I'm sure that, in some situations, this has always been the case, still is, and always will be. Not really sure that that's a good refutation of the published flu stats or explains your distinction between masks and other rules around protecting others?

The fear and unhappiness generated by this government led campaign will be around for a long time.

Yes, but what's your alternative that causes less suffering? I'm sure we'll all agree that there's been some amount of mismanagement, significant in some cases, but again, what's that got to do with whether we trust flu stats? Or whether mask rules are a human rights infringement in a way that speed limits and other laws aren't?

P.s. on the older post about deaths in 2020 vs earlier years, this is a nice exploration of the deaths figures for 2020, slicing and dicing them in various different ways https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-how-mortality-rates-in-2020-compare-with-past-decades-and-centuries-12185275

I had a look through this article and think the debate lies in the last paragraph, thanks for the link. My current belief which is largely unsubstantiated is that the cost benefit analysis of the measures (which I believe to be a human rights abuse) will on reflection show collateral that significantly outweighs any proposed benefits. The term visceral reasoning which I used to mean a combination of active thought process and attention to physical signals e.g. head heart / gut instinct etc is a reasonable one that often serves people well in many situations including medical ones. I also believe that this collateral is on the minds of the policy makers and that future decisions are being made with a hope to reduce the impact of any backlash.

[Loos3-tools]

One example of many with regards corruption

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n556?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage

[Loos3-tools]

I've yet to look at this properly - put together by a British Harvard phd student. Looks very interesting

https://www.sophie-e-hill.com/post/my-little-crony/

[Jerry Morefat]

I don't know how, or if, they're doing that I'm afraid.
On the plus side, you shouldn't get to 50 via false positives alone. Quick back-of-envelope: 300k PCR tests/day UK-wide (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing), assuming pop of 66m this is ~455 tests per 100k. At 2% false positive (just picking roughly the middle of you range here), that would be ~9 false positives per day per 100k (approx 3.5-18 with the broad error range you gave).

I don't think your maths is right. Testing 455 (out of a population of 100k) and getting 9 positives doesn't mean there are 9 positives in the 100k as you haven't tested the other 99.5k!Testing 455 and getting 9 positives gives a positive rate of 2%. Inferring that this is the population rate (of the 100k) gives 2k positives per the 100k.

I think the FPR is actually around 0.05% but the point still holds you will hit 50 cases per 100k just because of the FPR. I have to admit this hadn't occurred to me by the statisticians must be correcting for it. Perhaps a question for more or less on radio 4.

[abarro81]

I was assuming that the 50 measure was in positive tests, not actual prevalence.

[Fultonius]

I had wondered the same thing, was wondering if I had missed something - but I'm fairly/i] sure the prevalence rate will be scaled up to 100k based on the number of people tested.

E.g. this week Scotland had an average rate of  Covid infections of 500/day, or 3500 for the week. There were on average, 18,000 tests per day, so you may expect 360 cases per day (2% of those tests) to be false positives.

The rate is calculated by adding up all the cases over the previous seven days and then dividing by the population of the local authority. This number is then multiplied by 100,000.

But, they do say that any tests that have 1 "region" positive, rather than 2+ should be sent for a conformation test before the results are recorded. No stats on how many tests are referred for a second confirmation.

Would still like some more positive confirmation of how this all works.

I was assuming that the 50 measure was in positive tests, not actual prevalence.

Not sure what you mean by this?   

We need the total, local (council area) prevalence to drop below 50/100k before we can go from L4 to L3. As above, this is worked out by dividing the total positive cases by the local council area popn., then multiplying by 100k.

Hypothetically, if there is even just a 0.8% false positive rate, that's still above the 0.05% prevalence rate they're aiming for. Handling / accounting for false positives will come to be very important!

[Oldmanmatt]

At this point, we are predominantly still testing only those reporting symptoms. As that number drops off, it seems reasonable to infer that the rate per 100k has dropped off too, otherwise, if only two people test and one is positive, that would infer a 50k in 100k infection rate.
Clearly I haven’t bothered working out how that is accounted for, but if we’re only testing those with symptoms and we have a rough idea of how many infections lead to symptoms, then we are already eliminating a good number of that total population before you need to account for false positives?
This will be impacted by the lat flow testing done on asymptomatic school kids now, unless they simply use the LF as a reason to carry out a PCR? Not sure, but I think that would make more sense, though?