I thought testing was fairly relatively stable over april
First available figure on 1st April was 11,896. It rose steadily until about 25th April at 28,232 and then the rate shot up to 57,123 on 30th April (7-day averages).
I think a delta cases and a delta cases /test curve should have measured the steepness of the curve which it doesn’t seem too?
It's all in the noise. I charted 7-day average cases/tests against the daily delta cases/tests. Here is the chart with un-averaged cases/tests.
Here you can see so much noise that one cannot get any sensible results, which was really what I was trying to show anyway, i.e. the sensible result is that I cannot get any sensible result.
You may notice that I have added on yesterday's case results and it has had a significant effect as the cases dropped. The hoped-for measure of those already having had the infection jumped from 7.9m to 9.6m. The present level and inaccuracy of testing provides so much noise that we cannot even see the noise underneath it, let alone what is really going on beneath that.
I will have to think about that just spent too much time in a Manchester speakeasy and a bit pissed.
Caveat bibitor.
The ONS data indicates 14% of the English community population had covid between 26th April and 10th September.
That could well have jumped up to 15% over the last 15 days due to the enigmatic uptick .
It would appear from the death curve that the “epidemic” was about 60% through its course on the 26th April
So I will multiple 15% by 1.6 to estimate number of “ONS case’s” there would have been from the beginning to today’s date.
1.6 x 15% = 24%
0.24 x 57 million = 14 million.
We have used the PHE data here just to estimate how far the “epidemic had proceeded on the 26th of April.
The average ONS cases /PHE deaths for 26th april to 1st June is;
0.076 x 57million/ {34,000 -24000}
= 430
Calculating total cases from total deaths with this cases per death value of 430.
We get
430 x 37,250 = 16 million
Which is 16/57 x 100
28%
I will respond later to above posts have just done the above with a hangover
anyone want to plot ONS cases [numbers] against PHE deaths ?
Have the ONS now just changed their data ????
From
26 April 2020 0.45%
27 April 2020 0.42%
28 April 2020 0.40%
29 April 2020 0.38%
30 April 2020 0.36%
01 May 2020 0.34%
02 May 2020 0.32%
To
27 April 2020 0.50%
28 April 2020 0.47%
29 April 2020 0.44%
30 April 2020 0.41%
01 May 2020 0.39%
02 May 2020 0.36%
Update
the ONS has changed their data
Probably decreased their detection threshold like PHE
So now we have 26.3 % of people would have tested positive for covid instead of 24%
------------------------------------------
The ONS data indicates 14% of the English community population had covid between 26th April and 10th September.
That could well have jumped up to 15% over the last 15 days due to the enigmatic uptick .
It would appear from the death curve that the “epidemic” was about 60% through its course on the 26th April
So I will multiple 15% by 1.6 to estimate number of “ONS case’s” there would have been from the beginning to today’s date.
1.6 x 15% = 24%
0.24 x 57 million = 14 million.
We have used the PHE data here just to estimate how far the “epidemic had proceeded on the 26th of April.
The average ONS cases /PHE deaths for 26th april to 1st June is;
0.076 x 57million/ {34,000 -24000}
= 430
Calculating total cases from total deaths with this cases per death value of 430.
We get
430 x 37,250 = 16 million
Which is 16/57 x 100
28%
Have the ONS now just changed their data ????
They document their changes, but are subject to what they are given. One of the changes was relating to specimen date and publication date. I only noticed that when my spreadsheet's calls were no longer picking up the data.
On the whole, I think the ONS are good and fair. No doubt they get pressures put on them, but they don't hold back when it comes to commenting how statistically insignificant the covid-19 deaths are.
It is lamentable that the government and its puppet scientists don't seem to pay much attention, instead preferring to rely on their rather wild and baseless imaginations.
