Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah "surveillance" is certainly a strange word to use, but I suspect it's just a case of the writer couldn't think of a better word/phrase to use at the time.

The 1205 figure yesterday was from those that had tested positive. We know the actual figure will be a lot higher because not everybody with symptoms will have tests and some will be asymptomatic. 5 times higher seems reasonable and in line with ONS produced figures. maybe they are quoting the ONS figures.
Surveillance is used because it's about the ongoing collection of data and information. As in you closely observe something. It's widely used in Pandemic terminology.

It's not new terminology really.
 
138 deaths announced by the NHS today, down 14 on last Tuesday but up 76 on yesterday due to the usual weekend data lag. Of those deaths 129 were in English hospitals, up 70 on yesterday and down 14 on last week, with 109 coming in the past 10 days
 
138 deaths announced by the NHS today, down 14 on last Tuesday but up 76 on yesterday due to the usual weekend data lag. Of those deaths 129 were in English hospitals, up 70 on yesterday and down 14 on last week, with 109 coming in the past 10 days

Just wont go away
 
Could be, in fact I hope so. The quote, which was on the BBC, stated:

"Monday's data shows there were 1,205 new infections diagnosed, but surveillance suggests the true figure may be five times higher."

Alas, surveillance in its purest form refers to close observation so perhaps could refer to it being scrutinised, however the normal connotation is much darker.

We know that China and Israel to name a few have used such measures to monitor the progress of the virus, therefore it does raise questions about its reference.

The surveillance they're talking about here isn't the covert type, it's what comes out of the ONS swab survey ( details at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...onaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/5june2020 )

From the survey, they get an estimate of how many people would give a positive test over the course of a week or two, and then they compare that to the number of people who tested positive in the normal way.

Divide the first number by the second and you get a rough factor which presumably, though I han't checked the maths, would give an answer of about five
 
The surveillance they're talking about here isn't the covert type, it's what comes out of the ONS swab survey ( details at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...onaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/5june2020 )

From the survey, they get an estimate of how many people would give a positive test over the course of a week or two, and then they compare that to the number of people who tested positive in the normal way.

Divide the first number by the second and you get a rough factor which presumably, though I han't checked the maths, would give an answer of about five
A poor choice of word on their behalf then like I had hoped.
 
A poor choice of word on their behalf then like I had hoped.

It's a survey mate, as far as scientists are concerned, surveillance is what happens in a survey

Anyway, actually the maths is quite easy

Estimate of new cases per day from the survey ~ 5500
Actual positive cases per day for the same period* : Between 1000 and 1500 ?

So, roughly a factor of 4, which, given I couldn't be arsed working out the average of positive cases for the last two weeks of May, is close enough for me


*from https://assets.publishing.service.g...020-06-08_COVID-19_UK_testing_time_series.csv
 
Surveillance is used because it's about the ongoing collection of data and information. As in you closely observe something. It's widely used in Pandemic terminology.

It's not new terminology really.
Fair do's. I've not seen it used before but it's good to know I'm right for a change :)
 
Yeah "surveillance" is certainly a strange word to use, but I suspect it's just a case of the writer couldn't think of a better word/phrase to use at the time.

The 1205 figure yesterday was from those that had tested positive. We know the actual figure will be a lot higher because not everybody with symptoms will have tests and some will be asymptomatic. 5 times higher seems reasonable and in line with ONS produced figures. maybe they are quoting the ONS figures.

If we're performing 100-200k tests per day and only 1% of those are coming back positive.. the virus is burning itself out
 
That's pretty much the current national consideration. Economy messaging has jumped in front of public health communications now.

It's been a few weeks now since the earliest countries lifted their lockdowns, and we haven't had a huge 2nd spike in cases as some thought we might. It has obviously been a painful few months for people whose livelihoods have been severely impacted, but I do have high hopes that the recovery will be much more V-shaped than the pessimists thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top