You lot over the border are obviously easily lead. 
Welsh is a beautifully simple language. So simple it manages confuse the English without ant effort whatsoever.
1 Like
You’re confusing me in English! 
3 Likes
FFS any hopes of my guitar playing flourishing are destroyed by my typing accuracy. It doesn’t bode well.
1 Like
Why? That does not remotely follow. There is an imperative to find a way to effectively treat people who become sick regardless of how robust your testing is, and testing doesn’t make more people become sick enough to require treatment. If you do it properly, it results in precisely the opposite, which is why it is supposed to be at the forefront of any response to an outbreak like this.
2 Likes
Ah, I see what you mean. That just makes the UK government look even more incompetent than it already is… I doubt those China numbers, 160 million on the dot, sure. That’s before considering what capacity they actually have, I doubt that 9 million per week is 30% of what they could do. Or the fact the UK numbers look way out of line with facts on the ground… Or the fact one country is basically Covid free and the other is a complete mess.
It’s also a bit strange using a metric used to analyse across differing population sizes and then arbitrarily adding your own back in. I mean you didn’t do that simply because there are slightly smaller countries testing more per capita, right?
1 Like
Let me try to explain what I mean and in context of my comparison.
There are countries right now who are showing very low numbers. Does that mean that the virus is eliminated? I don’t think so and I believe if you see those countries with low numbers, naturally they have reduced active testing too and understandably so. For example in Indonesia, when the pandemic hits, for a number of months, it has very low numbers. It also has very low testing. But the general public believes that there are people dying and getting sick from the virus, its just not attributed to the virus because they are not tested at all…because there is no need because there are low numbers…and the cycle goes on…
I then make the comparison to countries who test really aggressively, testing alot etc. I then go on to make the point that at the end of the day, testing is a means to an end, not the end itself. Whether you test or not, the key is to identify cases early and treat them early so that mortality can be low, which should ultimately be the end in mind. But yet the problem with some countries is that after doing aggressive testing, which is good, they find themselves in a problem where their hospitals are overwhelmed and with no proper facilities for those found positive. And with such an issue, even when you identify cases early, even when they are not very sick yet, if they are not caught early or treated early, then you would have cases who get worse and eventually pass on.
So to me, I think some governments are focusing on just getting the testing numbers up without understanding that the testing numbers are not a competition but it is a means to the end which is to ensure their citizens do not die.
Not sure whether that is any clearer but I tried hurhur…
How does the UK having the best rate of testing per 1 million of population among countries with more than 10 million inhabitants make the UK government look even more incompetent?! That level of testing is pretty much the gold standard.
What’s not gold standard is pretty much the rest of it.
I excluded countries below 10 million because it’s then a smaller undertaking. Is it easier for your testing numbers to be higher as a ratio to your population if your total population is only a few hundred thousand? Of course it is. However, if you include countries above 1 million as well the UK ranks 7th behind:
UAE: 1,130,190
Bahrain: 918,281
Denmark: 770,108
Singapore: 561,139
Hong Kong: 462,297
Israel: 447,414
UK: 417,289
Then it goes (ranking testing per 1 million of population of countries with at least 1 million inhabitants): 8. USA 366,655, 9. Russia 358,196, 14. Spain 312,034, 18. Germany 229,861, 21. Canada 220,763, 23. Italy 213,696, 30. France 194,595, 48. China 111,163, 68. India 65,920
I originally went for 10 million simply because this would then exclude small countries so that the UK numbers are more closely comparable. Of course China (at the other end) are then disadvantaged and their comparator could probably only be India.
Let’s keep it to countries with a population of between 55 million and 80 million then as being of roughly equivalent total population:
Testing per 1 million of population:
UK: 417,289
Italy: 213,696
France: 194,595
South Africa: 74,909
Thailand: 13,999
In terms of cases per million (for countries with a population of more than 1 million) we rank 31st.
In terms of deaths per million (for countries with a population of more than 1 million) we rank 10th.
Some countries are counting covid-attributable deaths differently but even allowing for some discrepancies you can see where the issue is.
All figures from worldometer.
1 Like
The UK has a high level of testing now but is also sitting at a shamefully high level of deaths and infections per head of population. For countries with populations between 55m and 80m, the UK sits 3rd for infections per head of population behind France and South Africa, and number ONE for deaths per head of population. but thats fine because you have the gold badge for testing It’s a bit like those alternative premier league tables like the team that won the least red cards award etc.
The UK testing regime is spread wide and thinly and for many hard to get and many tests are multiple on single persons as well as poor link up to test and trace centres and systems etc, so overall the testing regime is of limited benefit. UK still reporting tests sent out in the post as a test. The high achievement level is merely a target for the tories so they can spout about their ‘gold standard’.
Other countries have begun using testing to greater effect, moving in to known outbreak areas and blanket testing, using batch testing method, enabling them to stop the spread at source. As mentioned above, China have been using large scale targeted batch testing to isolate outbreaks.
The problem in the UK is that, like other countries with crackpot governments and leaders, it’s always been all about the optics.
2 Likes
I think I would ask how do countries with a far better COVID response manage to achieve so much more with less?
It’s a bit deceptive ranking the countries in terms of placement when there are only 6 countries in the worldometer rankings with populations between 55 million and 80 million (South Africa, Tanzania, Italy, France, UK, and Thailand).
But tests per 1m it is
- UK 417,289
- Italy 213,696
- France 194,595
- SA 74,909
- Thailand 13,999
- Tanzania (no figures)
Cases per 1m it is.
- France 11,928
- SA 11,700
- UK 9,629
- Italy 6,169
- Thailand 52
- Tanzania 8
Deaths per 1m it is.
- UK 635
- Italy 600
- France 506
- SA 305
- Thailand 0.8
- Tanzania 0.3
Nobody said the UK’s numbers for cases and deaths were fine because our testing numbers are good. NOBODY. If your post is in response to mine I specifically said the opposite. 
Still trying to figure out what the fuck is going wrong in Belgium all the time (especially living about an hour drive away from the border), haven’t heard a satisfying answer yet.
Today we have the highest number of daily new infections since the start of the pandemic in Germany btw. Still a lot lower (relative to population) in comparison than than most of the countries around us, but that’s all just a race to the bottom.
1 Like
The $million question. Or, if you set up a new company and know someone within the government, a question worth £100m.
There is a difficulty in comparing numbers. I’ve said this from the beginning. All things being equal, if a country tests more it’s going to find more cases.
Loads of tests, low % of cases - are the numbers recorded for tests based on the same metrics as other countries, are the tests accurate and/or are your measures to limit the spread working?
High number of cases per 1m of population? Are your tests picking up more cases because there ARE more cases per 1m, or because your tests are more accurate or because your tests are producing more false positives?
High number of deaths per 1m of population? What are you recording as a covid-attributable death and is this comparable to the way other countries are reporting theirs? Is everyone who dies being tested in all countries?
We just don’t know if we’re comparing like for like across these data sets. I think we can only draw broad conclusions such as:
Testing in the UK is now relatively good (of course it took too long to get to this stage and of course there are still issues).
The number of cases looks comparable so perhaps our efforts at controlling the spread of the virus are about middle of the road?
The number of deaths is high. Are we attributing deaths to covid that other countries are not? Are we treating critical cases in a less effective way? Is a greater % of the vulnerable population being exposed than elsewhere (ie, are a greater number of cases in care homes, for example, than we’re seeing in other countries)?
I had previously brought up these stats too but I think there was an issue is that I think there are problems surrounding the distribution of tests where people can find themselves not having tests readily available in certain regions. There is also the issue of unique tests as in these numbers are cumulative and it means if you test a patient 10 times, that is counted it seems in the total
I think that the numbers, particularly for tests are not comparable.
France for instance only ‘publish’ cases that are positive from PCR tests. This effectively gives the number, on one particular day, that tested positive to ‘carrying’ the virus.
If I am not mistaken the UK adds to that seriological tests, at least that’s the testing numbers given in government statements. Seriological tests do not give the number of cases ‘carrying’ the virus (though they could be) they give those that have had the virus (also not so reliable (even if PCR can pick up fragments).
An example would be a footballer, the club tests him using a seriological test (because it’s quick) it comes back positive (could be a false positive or the player has had tyhe virus over the summer …). To test if he is 'carrying the virus they then do a PCR test and find it’s negative in which case there’s no need to quarantine him. N.B I’m sure @Limiescouse will correct my errors).
So comparing for example tests per million between France and UK has no value if the tests being included are not the same and not for the same thing.
Anyway France is a horror show and the UK looks like getting there very soon. (As France only (and imo rightly) only take PCR tests as ‘conclusive’ it’s actual cases per million is probably far worst than the UK’s though that would depend on the testing regimes and efficiency put in place (niether country sems particularly good).
A population who obey the regulations? A culture that doesn’t revolve around getting leathered and partying?
Firstly the numbers might look comparable however looking at the graphs the story looks very different to me. I look at France and UK for obvious reasons and ‘comparing’ the 2 gives very different stories imo.
France had a very successful lockdown the numbers of cases dropped dramatically. It wasn’t until ‘we’ let the tourists back (Paris and Grand Est in particular) that things went haywire. Even despite very high infection rates deaths have been relatively low (though that’s starting to change). My interpretation is the virale load was lowered unfortuneately that’s on the increase if my ‘theory’ is correct.
The UK in comparison had a moderately effective lock down, the number of infections went to a steady rate. For me the virale load remained much higher than in France. So, when the touristic period came the virus was ‘ready and waiting’.
UK has greater population density (more ‘big’ cities with greater population concentrations) this is clearly a disadvantage and means lockdowns need to be stricter for them to be effective (this just was not the case).
Numbers of obese in the UK is definitely greater than many other countries (though we’re catching upover here) though I wouldn’t bet that the general publics health is much different. Perhaps more pollution related problems in the UK, asthme, allergies … however that’s just speculation due to the affore mentionned population concentration.
Some of my thoughts not exhaustive.
As for testing I am not sure seriological tests are ‘helpful’ in this scenario and the UK is imo are giving false hope with it’s testing numbers.It’s not as good as all that imo.
Yeah, used to be one of them but grew out of it.
Sure we dont help ourselves but what sense is there opening pubs, bars when there’s clear evidence that the virus thrives in enclosed crowded spaces?
This government has taken every opportunity to feed that culture and provide a perfect conditions for the virus to spread.
A skeptic would argue its deliberate . Chasing a herd immunity strategy that simply doesn’t exist.
eh ? 
1 Like
I thought of putting some possible answers to these. They are of course my opinion and likely dont cover the full picture.
Test numbers. it does appear that the numbers are good provided the UK is counting them correctly
i dont think so. Numbers are kind of useful but I think the rate of change is more revealing and shows fundamental problems at controlling the virus. For example, if you have case numbers increasing quickly in areas with restrictions - Manchester, Liverpool etc.) then something is still wrong. Government says no. I disagree.
As above. To me, we are not in control of this. The government seems to be continually ignoring the 2 week incubation period and reacting rather than being proactive and see the numbers start to climb and act. They act when the numbers reach a level that scares people. That always puts you behind the curve and gives the virus time and room to do what it does. Throw in a poor track and trace system and they are still dealing with this in a backward manner.
Personally I don’t know how Whitty and the SAGE scientists are sticking with it, because they’re clearly not being listened to.
1 Like
You are right that testing is a means to an end, and so focusing on simply being able to present good testing metrics as an end in itself is nothing but a PR move. However, the end is to use that robust testing along side a clear set of rules the public can follow to help limit the spread of the virus. That is how you generate good clinical outcomes, not by focusing on improving therapeutics, as those are simply only ever going to help around the edges.
the idea that testing more and revealing more cases changes the imperative to find good therapeutics, or that therapeutics will be the primary way around this problem just does not follow.
3 Likes