COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,234 comments
  • 553,004 views
Meanwhile, the test positivity rate in Scotland has all but doubled in the last seven days alone, hitting 10% today and a 7-day average of 8%. With 3,613 new cases today, that represents the 5th highest daily number of the entire pandemic, and I won't be surprised if this rise continues and breaks the previous record, probably within the next 3-5 days.
And there it is.

Scotland has set a new record for new daily cases today, at 4,323, and a test positivity rate of 14.5%, just 0.7% off the highest ever.

The First Minister mentioned the spectre of COVID restrictions returning for the first time today, but fortunately hospitalisations and deaths are still much lower than they might have been, thanks to our vaccination programme.

But - with restrictions all but fully lifted (masks are still required in shops an public transport, but an increasing number of people aren't even doing that), and the impact of schools returning just 6 days ago not having manifest itself in the daily case numbers yet, it's possible (if not likely) that we might see a very large spike in cases in the next couple of weeks that will start to put serious pressure on the NHS.
 
TB
R2qOH1D.jpeg
Oh, my.
 
The US is aging upwards when it comes to leadership.
It's a brief trend up, though; only as of the last three. W was older than Obama and Clinton was a substantial drop from the elder Bush.
He's only four years older than the burlap sack of fish vomit elected president in 2016...
Ew.
 
He's 18 years younger than Jimmy Carter, but entered office 44 years later.
 
Last edited:
And there it is.

Scotland has set a new record for new daily cases today, at 4,323, and a test positivity rate of 14.5%, just 0.7% off the highest ever.

The First Minister mentioned the spectre of COVID restrictions returning for the first time today, but fortunately hospitalisations and deaths are still much lower than they might have been, thanks to our vaccination programme.

But - with restrictions all but fully lifted (masks are still required in shops an public transport, but an increasing number of people aren't even doing that), and the impact of schools returning just 6 days ago not having manifest itself in the daily case numbers yet, it's possible (if not likely) that we might see a very large spike in cases in the next couple of weeks that will start to put serious pressure on the NHS.
Over 5,000 today, just crazy :(

Cornwall is the other bit of the UK with a big spike, but it may be diminishing a little now. 4,700 cases linked to a 4 day festival of 50,000 people, despite what appears to be reasonably good efforts made to keep infections out, and it being largely an outdoor event. 450 people were refused entry/ejected, maybe as many got in who were infected - in which case, more than 10x in 4 days.

Across the UK cases are rising overall, but with a very long doubling time. Really makes we think that cases would be falling, perhaps quite rapidly, if we didn't have these large superspreader events.
 
Last edited:
5021 cases in one day for Scotland is a new record by some distance - but there was also a record number of tests - over 47,000 - so in fact the test positivity rate is lower today than it was in the last two days, but it is still high.

What had me scratching my head a bit was when I plotted a (scaled) plot of the number of tests and overlaid it with the previous plots I made (TPR v hospitalisations) and there's a clear similarity now between test numbers and the TPR rate. This is a bit weird, because the TPR should basically show the cases corrected for the number of tests (i.e. it shouldn't mirror the shape of the raw tests plot), in other words a spike in the TPR rate ought to reflect a genuine increase in the relative number of people testing positive, while raw case numbers will also reflect the rise in tests.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, the previous wave (where testing was relatively flat) didn't show this connection, whereas now it looks quite convincing. Anyway, I don't have the plot handy, but let me know what you think - perhaps it is something to do with the way testing is carried out (do they include lateral flow tests?) or something like that.

We will know by this time next week if the hospitalisation rate starts to spike - if the TPR v hosp. rate relation is holding, then we can expect to see hospitalisations double within the next week or so to around 100 per day in Scotland, but if hospitalisations stay flat (at around 40 per day at the moment, then there might be something up with the way tests are being done in this current wave compared to the previous (alpha variant) wave.

This is what I currently look at in my own plots:
"TPR rate" - 7-day average cases divided by the 7-day average number of tests (both numbers from here: https://www.gov.scot/coronavirus-covid-19/)
"Hospitalisations" - 7-day average of COVID hospital admissions (numbers from here: https://public.tableau.com/app/prof...OVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview)

Scale the Hospitalisations to resemble the TPR rate (divide by 17.8) then plot both sets of data

Now, I've added the raw tests - also from the top link above - and scaled to fit (divide by approx 2200) then overlay the plot
 
Last edited:
What had me scratching my head a bit was when I plotted a (scaled) plot of the number of tests and overlaid it with the previous plots I made (TPR v hospitalisations) and there's a clear similarity now between test numbers and the TPR rate. This is a bit weird, because the TPR should basically show the cases corrected for the number of tests (i.e. it shouldn't mirror the shape of the raw tests plot), in other words a spike in the TPR rate ought to reflect a genuine increase in the relative number of people testing positive, while raw case numbers will also reflect the rise in tests.
I really struggle to see how the positivity rate gets used in all of this analysis. I know that it's a big figure that folks who know what they're doing pay a lot of attention to, but I don't understand why it is the case or how it can be relied upon. I'm sure it's just down to my own ignorance of the field.

For example, if you introduced another respiratory virus into the population, you'd expect the positivity rate for covid to drop would you not? You'd expect more covid test to be done (because of respiratory symptoms) and for a lot of them to flag the other virus. So a smaller percentage of the total tests should be positive for covid. That's nothing to do with how covid is spreading, and more to do with human behavior.

Similarly, I'd expect fluctuations in TPR to occur just based on news. As people get more concerned about covid, I'd expect more negative tests, and as people are less concerned about covid, I'd expect fewer tests overall, and fewer negatives.

I guess what's really fundamentally bothering me is that what drives the total number of tests includes a lot of behavior circumstances that won't translate to a positive test. So how is it that TPR is such an important number?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think like anything associated with COVID one must be careful not to read too much into any particular statistic, esp. without also considering the wider context.

I think the current spike(s) in cases in Scotland do reflect real increases in cases (since they have been reflected by COVID hospitalisations too, which are mostly independent of testing) but are also influenced by changes in the way tests are done: surge testing, home testing, testing kids at schools etc. all have an influence, over and above the 'real' spread of the virus.

I think that's likely what we are seeing now, hence why the TPR data needs to be considered alongside the hospitalisation data, since if that link breaks, then that suggests that the TPR data is being dominated by factors other than a genuine spike in COVID infections. I hope that is the case, since although we are still quite well below 'worrying' hospitalisation numbers, a continued spike in cases could bring about a bad situation pretty quickly from where we appear to be right now.

Worst case scenario is that we may see lockdown restrictions return within a month or so, if hospitalisations start to reach around 200 per day (from 40-50 a day now).

Best scenario is that the TPR data is being heavily skewed by behavioural and other factors and that hospitalisations stay between 50-100 a day, even as cases 'appear' to spike.

That said, one (major) reason why hospitalisations may stay low but cases really may well be spiking is because of the demographics of who is testing positive, and it is mainly young people now who are avoiding hospital anyway. So even hospitalisations is not a perfect metric for decision-making purposes.

I would certainly not like to be the person who has to make the call as to whether to reimpose restrictions, however. I'm sure the Scottish government have much better analyses to rely on, but the fact is that no matter how you slice it, it's a damned difficult thing to reliably measure when there are so many things to take into account...
 
Yes, I think like anything associated with COVID one must be careful not to read too much into any particular statistic, esp. without also considering the wider context.

I think the current spike(s) in cases in Scotland do reflect real increases in cases (since they have been reflected by COVID hospitalisations too, which are mostly independent of testing) but are also influenced by changes in the way tests are done: surge testing, home testing, testing kids at schools etc. all have an influence, over and above the 'real' spread of the virus.

I think that's likely what we are seeing now, hence why the TPR data needs to be considered alongside the hospitalisation data, since if that link breaks, then that suggests that the TPR data is being dominated by factors other than a genuine spike in COVID infections. I hope that is the case, since although we are still quite well below 'worrying' hospitalisation numbers, a continued spike in cases could bring about a bad situation pretty quickly from where we appear to be right now.

Worst case scenario is that we may see lockdown restrictions return within a month or so, if hospitalisations start to reach around 200 per day (from 40-50 a day now).

Best scenario is that the TPR data is being heavily skewed by behavioural and other factors and that hospitalisations stay between 50-100 a day, even as cases 'appear' to spike.

That said, one (major) reason why hospitalisations may stay low but cases really may well be spiking is because of the demographics of who is testing positive, and it is mainly young people now who are avoiding hospital anyway. So even hospitalisations is not a perfect metric for decision-making purposes.

I would certainly not like to be the person who has to make the call as to whether to reimpose restrictions, however. I'm sure the Scottish government have much better analyses to rely on, but the fact is that no matter how you slice it, it's a damned difficult thing to reliably measure when there are so many things to take into account...
91-DIVOC-states-Colorado.png
91-DIVOC-states-Colorado (4).png


I don't know if this helps, but the rise in Colorado has been for a month straight and we've seen no real change in deaths. That being said, hospitalizations seem to be tracking just as bad as any previous peak for us. Our current hospitalization stats are right around where they were end of april.
 
Last edited:
@Touring Mars - I'm not sure what, if anything, we can read into these apparent correlations, nor predict what might follow in terms of hospitalisations. We might get to know a rough breakdown of cases by age and vaccination status, but I don't think we'll get that for tests.

What I think we can say, borne out from previous waves, is that when TPR is greater than about 10% the number of cases becomes more and more innacurate, as more cases are missed. I'm not sure we can say anything from it directly except as a quality metric of testing effectiveness. So when it spikes to 15% with cases at 4300, then the next day back at 10% with cases at 5000, an extra 700 cases could easily have been missed with TPR at 15%; at least we can say that the 5000 is likely to be more accurate than the 4300. It seems reasonable to me then to scale testing up and down to aim for a (preferably low) single-digit TPR - which, in the ideal, would be kept fairly constant.

Maybe think of it as a modifier - some curve that estimates the under-reporting of cases based on TPR. Perhaps roughly fitting something like: TPR=5% -> cases+10%, TPR=10% -> cases+25%, TPR=15% -> cases+40%.

So many more factors to weigh up now there are good numbers vaccinated and few restrictions that data from past waves just can't give us a good guide of what to expect.

FWIW, my hunch is that it's a real peak of cases, mostly affecting young adults, perhaps detected by them needing a negative test for access to something. We'll see such spikes all over the UK, I guess, but I suspect they won't last for long in any given place, and won't amount to a noticable UK-wide wave. Remains to be seen what happens when schools are all back - could be bad for cases, but also means the end of holiday season which would be good.


edit: Hot? Not sure if good or bad... didn't intend to be combative, and any exasperation is just with the case numbers and how difficult it is to make any sense of them now.
 
Last edited:
Off-site related, but a bunch of subreddits are banding together to ask Reddit to remove any and all Covid misinformation subreddits. Would be a huge step in the right direction given the amount of deniers having sincere discussions about false information. I was surprised to see Ivermectin had a subreddit, and it's unfortunately full of more misinformation and awful advice; people not only discussing how to get a hold of prescriptions they don't need, but others also giving advice on how to sneak in ivermectin to their relatives in the hospital. Which led me to wonder: how much deep doo-doo are you in if you sneak in medication to your relative in the hospital, and they die b/c of it?
 
Also in Texas:
In August of 2020, Texas received two reports about ivermectin poisoning statewide. This August, they’ve received 55.

Last year, the state received 23 ivermectin reports from January through August. This year, there have been 150, an increase of 552%.
 
Me: "People can't be this stupid."

People: "Hold my beer."





When users visit the telemedicine website SpeakWithAnMD.com, they are immediately hit with a warning: “Due to overwhelming demand, we are experiencing longer than usual wait times.”

The demand is for ivermectin, a drug primarily used to deworm animals that has become the latest false cure for Covid-19. And the website, in partnership with the organization America’s Frontline Doctors, whose founder stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, has become well-known in the Facebook groups and Reddit communities where anti-vaccination sentiment thrives.

In those groups, people trade dosing directions and purchasing advice for ivermectin.

“Please consider that even if you can get an Rx for IVM, the pharmacy may not fill it for 1-3 days claiming they don’t have it in stock, which is pure ********,” a Reddit user wrote in the ivermectin community this month. “HAVE SOME HORSE PASTE ON HAND,” the user added, referring to the tube form that ivermectin meant for horses comes in.

Originally introduced as a veterinary drug for livestock animals in the late-1970s, ivermectin quickly proved useful in combating certain human diseases caused by parasites, a discovery that won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2015. It comes in pills and pastes, in versions meant for humans and for animals.

Ivermectin has been called a “wonder drug” because of its use in treating parasitic diseases, but it has not shown the same results in studies against viruses.

The drug was the subject of research into possible use as a Covid-19 treatment — including a promising non-peer-reviewed study that was later determined to be “flawed” and taken down by the website Research Square, which hosts preprints of research papers that have not yet been published in academic journals.

The groups highlight the challenge public health officials and tech companies face in cracking down on Covid-19 misinformation — and the lengths some people will go to embrace fringe and misleading Covid advice. NBC News obtained access to several groups that are dedicated to ivermectin or have recently embraced the drug. Some groups have tens of thousands of members and can easily be found through Facebook’s search feature.

More than a year and a half into the coronavirus pandemic, various drugs have had their moments in anti-vaccination communities and among some conservatives in the U.S. — and ivermectin is not particularly different. But it comes at a time when parts of the country are in another Covid wave, this one fueled by the delta variant of the virus and with a safe and effective option available: the vaccines.

“It’s hard to understand why people would turn down an FDA-approved Covid preventative in favor of a treatment that’s not only unapproved but has a large body of evidence showing it doesn’t work,” said Dr. Nathan Boonstra, a pediatrician at Blank Children’s Hospital in Des Moines, Iowa, and co-host of the podcast “Voices for Vaccines.” “But antivax groups will eat up any opportunity to make it seem like a vaccine isn’t needed. This has been true about anti-vaccine groups long before the pandemic.

“There is a lot of shared space between pro-ivermectin and anti-vaccine groups,” he added.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a health advisory Thursday warning of a rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness by people using ivermectin products. Data from the National Prescription Audit showed a dramatic spike in ivermectin prescriptions in recent weeks — more than nine times pre-pandemic levels.

Facebook spokesperson Aaron Simpson said in an emailed statement that the company removes any content that "attempts to buy, sell, donate or ask for Ivermectin."

"We also enforce against any account or group that violates our COVID-19 and vaccine policies, including claims that Ivermectin is a guaranteed cure or guaranteed prevention, and we don’t allow ads promoting Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19," he wrote. "Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have removed 20 million pieces of COVID misinformation, labeled more than 190 million pieces of COVID content rated by our fact-checking partners, and connected over 2 billion people with authoritative information through tools like our COVID information center.”

Reddit is reviewing the ivermectin communities, spokesperson Cameron Njaa said in an emailed statement that underscored its commitment to providing accurate information, resources and support to its users.

The groups suggest ways to buy ivermectin and plenty of encouragement to do so. Some commenters push users to online cattle supply companies or pet stores. Others recommend SpeakWithAnMD.com.

The website advertises consultations for $90 and fills prescriptions through Ravkoo Pharmacy, an online pharmacy that America’s Frontline Doctors advertises as “partners,” who provide “the option to have that prescription delivered right to your door, the same day.” On a SpeakWithAnMD.com intake form viewed by NBC News, prospective patients are asked, “What medication do you prefer?” The user is then presented with three options: “Ivermectin,” “Hydroxychloroquine” or “Not sure.”

A user visiting for other reasons may not have much luck. The website makes it clear: “Controlled substances (such as narcotics) will never be prescribed.”

Reached by phone, Ravkoo Pharmacy CEO Alpesh Patel declined to comment about the relationship with America’s Frontline Doctors and hung up. America’s Frontline Doctors and SpeakWithAnMD did not respond to requests for comment.

From hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin

Much as the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine became an unproven remedy for Covid deniers after former President Donald Trump embraced it, ivermectin has emerged in recent weeks as a favorite treatment of some conservatives and anti-vaccination activists.

Ivermectin first drew some attention late last year as a possible Covid treatment, with interest remaining reasonably low until July, according to Google search data.

In recent weeks, a variety of conservative figures and anti-vaccination activists have embraced the drug. Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have mentioned it.

Phil Valentine, the conservative radio host who died from Covid-19 this week, also turned to ivermectin after his diagnosis and urged his listeners to do the same. (He later encouraged listeners to get vaccinated.)
 
Back