Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2021, 09:25:22 am

Login with username, password and session length

@vscofficial

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 420495 times)

Nudga, ColinDouglasHandshake, selby and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1290 on March 30, 2020, 02:53:09 pm by Copps is Magic »
..An interesting graph he shared.

Iceland = tested the population more widely.
Netherlands = only really tested those presenting in Hospital.

I think the conclusions are pretty easy to draw.



UK follows the Netherlands model.



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

selby

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 8217
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1291 on March 30, 2020, 02:57:12 pm by selby »
  According to a report by Bloomberg in Italy only 0.8% of deaths are reported to be directly attributed to Covid 19 only, and 48.5% had three or more underlying health problems as well as Covid 19

ian1980

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1292 on March 30, 2020, 03:10:47 pm by ian1980 »
180 deaths in the UK in the last 24hrs

That’s dropped twice now the last two days
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 04:50:04 pm by ian1980 »

IDM

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 18714
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1293 on March 30, 2020, 03:16:33 pm by IDM »
We still won’t have had the peak from before the measures were brought in last Monday..

keyser_soze

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1403
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1294 on March 30, 2020, 03:36:22 pm by keyser_soze »
They are saying one of the deaths counted today was actually 13 days ago! And that people dying now were infected a month ago. Still some way before we see the impact of the social distancing.

albie

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2555
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1295 on March 30, 2020, 04:23:35 pm by albie »
From tomorrow, the UK will be adding the fatalities from outside the hospital count.
So all those in care homes and private residences should increase the total.

This will complicate the trend line into before and after numbers.

For those with an interest in how the exponentials work, the FT have produced a video;
https://www.ft.com/video/9a72a9d4-8db1-4615-8333-4b73ae3ddff8

It is NOT behind their paywall.
Th FT tracker page is also free access;
https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1296 on March 30, 2020, 04:58:50 pm by Copps is Magic »
New study from Imperial college. It shows that measures in 11 countries alone (including the UK) have saved 59,000 lives up untill March 31st. Well done everybody. It also estimates that around 2.7% of the UK population is currently infected (1.7 million people).

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Europe-estimates-and-NPI-impact-30-03-2020.pdf

adamtherover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2155
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1297 on March 30, 2020, 05:27:49 pm by adamtherover »
With regards to today's figures, on the BBC they said.of the 8k tests actually done it was nearer to 5k as many actually retests etc. So with a new case figure of 2.6k, that's over half tested are postive . That's the downside to the good news that actual deaths have dropped. :-(

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1298 on March 30, 2020, 06:00:24 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Adam

That is because they are only testing hospitalised patients with serious symptoms. We are not doing the sort of mass testing that Germany or South Korea have been implementing.

adamtherover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2155
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1299 on March 30, 2020, 06:14:00 pm by adamtherover »
Adam

That is because they are only testing hospitalised patients with serious symptoms. We are not doing the sort of mass testing that Germany or South Korea have been implementing.
gotcha, so you more or less tell before the result that the test is gonna be positive..   

They dont explain that clearly on the news....

selby

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 8217
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1300 on March 30, 2020, 06:28:15 pm by selby »
  Billy, is that right when there is such a big difference in the number tested and those who have been found positive?

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1301 on March 30, 2020, 06:28:59 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
That's pretty much it. Or at least, those tested will have s much higher chance of being found positive than the general.popukation would, because they have symptoms.

And I agree, the news service has been shocking.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 06:35:29 pm by BillyStubbsTears »

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1302 on March 30, 2020, 06:30:33 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
  Billy, is that right when there is such a big difference in the number tested and those who have been found positive?

Yes, because there are many people with symptoms who do not have CV-19.

Bristol Red Rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1303 on March 30, 2020, 07:48:53 pm by Bristol Red Rover »
..An interesting graph he shared.

Iceland = tested the population more widely.
Netherlands = only really tested those presenting in Hospital.

I think the conclusions are pretty easy to draw.
UK follows the Netherlands model.
Interesting to guess that from that graph how even in Iceland younger people aren't being tested much, and/or they are showing up negative more.

The latter makes sense becasue if someone is less ill from something, and by all reports that is the case with younger people and esp with kids, they will then show as postive for a shorter period of time, and so with random testing they are proportionately less likely to show as positive than older people.

Not that I'd expect many statisticians to get that, and so again we have skewed stats where there is an assumption that less people have had it than actuallly have.

Currently guessing 200k at the very least have had/have it in the UK.

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1304 on March 30, 2020, 08:34:01 pm by Copps is Magic »
I don't know is my response to the first part. I am sure there is a plausible explanation for it.

On the second part, I also posted a 2nd link above. Researchers have done some quite sophisticated modeling to estimate that just short of 1.8 million have been infected in the UK up until 31st March.

It sounds perfectly plausible to me. Its not just asymptomatic people who account for that, its probably in the main those who've had some mild to moderate symptoms (to the level of calling 111 or something) but have been told to stay home, or returned home if visiting the hospital. There is a lot of doctors now who have Youtube channels, and they all are saying something similar - that they send alot home even if they a suspected. Of course, they won't be tested or be accounted for in many statistics.

adamtherover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2155
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1305 on March 30, 2020, 08:56:48 pm by adamtherover »

On the second part, I also posted a 2nd link above. Researchers have done some quite sophisticated modeling to estimate that just short of 1.8 million have been infected in the UK up until 31st March.

That means that current death rates are about 0.00007% ?
Even 1% would be 18k deaths so far, and I've read on more than one occasion that there could be full digit number death rates overall? 

So either those reports/posts are scare mongering?   Or this figure of 1.8 million is pie in the sky based on guess work alone? 
I'm open to whichever number has the lowest deaths.

Current world death figures *being reported, are 4.7% ,   so we are looking at 84k deaths in the next month or so based on current speculation regarding numbers . And that's without a further soul being infected. 

God I hope they are wrong!!
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 09:03:24 pm by adamtherover »

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1306 on March 30, 2020, 09:10:50 pm by Copps is Magic »
Adam, 1408 deaths in the UK, 1.79m infected = a mortality rate of 0.08%.

That's not really how a mortality rate is calculated anyway, its not really suitable to calculate a mortality rate based on the way they present the numbers. There are a number of people infected until march 31st that are unfortunately going to die after that time.

The report isn't scare mongering, pie in the sky guess work. Its a serious scientific study conducted by close to 50 researchers. Why would it be an attemp to scaremonger when it seems to indicate the virus may be much less deadly than we anticipated and measures are working to slow it?

BigH

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 1101
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1307 on March 30, 2020, 09:32:28 pm by BigH »

On the second part, I also posted a 2nd link above. Researchers have done some quite sophisticated modeling to estimate that just short of 1.8 million have been infected in the UK up until 31st March.

That means that current death rates are about 0.00007% ?
Even 1% would be 18k deaths so far, and I've read on more than one occasion that there could be full digit number death rates overall? 

So either those reports/posts are scare mongering?   Or this figure of 1.8 million is pie in the sky based on guess work alone? 
I'm open to whichever number has the lowest deaths.

Current world death figures *being reported, are 4.7% ,   so we are looking at 84k deaths in the next month or so based on current speculation regarding numbers . And that's without a further soul being infected. 

God I hope they are wrong!!
Not necessarily.

Ordinarily, c600,000 people a year die across the UK. So, in that context, 18,000 deaths in the course of, say, a month, doesn't look that big (although it would reflect a 36% uplift on an monthly average). Also, it may be the case that a number of those 18,000 had the virus but had their cause of death attributed to something else. Remember, we're coming out of a winter period when a disproportionate number of sick and elderly pass away.

wilts rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7993
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1308 on March 30, 2020, 09:38:52 pm by wilts rover »
There's a good article on your dilemma here:

The mystery of the true coronavirus death rate

https://www.ft.com/content/f3796baf-e4f0-4862-8887-d09c7f706553

(spoiler alert - they don't know either)

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1309 on March 30, 2020, 09:54:17 pm by Copps is Magic »
There are only educated guesses, the link I posted was one.

Just think about it also... Madrid... New York... its hitting certain cities hard... is it not plausible that London, one of the most globally connected cities in the world, in reality has 100s of thousands of cases already? The rest of the UK then evens itself out.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1310 on March 30, 2020, 10:56:41 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
CiM/Adam

A few thoughts on the mortality rate.

If there are 1.8m infected in the UK at the moment and the first case (not the first recorded case) is assumed to have been mid-Jan (which I have read from someone authoritative, although I can't remember who) then we have had about 21 doublings in about 75 days. Say 3.75 days to double which sounds very similar to what has been quoted elsewhere.

The jury is still out on the time from infection to death, but this article (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article) suggests it is about 13 days. That would be time for about 3.5 doublings in numbers or about an 11-fold increase. So the people dying today would have caught the infection when there were about 160,000 people infected in the whole country.

Look at it that way, and the 1400 deaths we have had so far ties in well with the idea that the fatality rate is about 1%. There's a lot of big handful estimates in there, but I think it's clear that 1% is somewhere in the right region. Which would mean we should expect our total number of deaths to be 10-20,000 by the middle of April.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6308
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1311 on March 30, 2020, 11:17:44 pm by River Don »
Of that 10-20,000 Dr Neil Fergusson at Imperial suggests roughly half of those are people who are terminally ill, who could not expect to live longer than a year. Whilst each case is tragic for those involved, many will have lived a long life. Of the other five to ten thousand, many will will have underlying health conditions or will be elderly.

The numbers of relatively fit and healthy, younger people having their lives cut short by this thing must represent a very small percentage of the total population.

In developing countries where health services are weak and devices like ventilators are unavailable, it will be far more damaging.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6308
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1312 on March 30, 2020, 11:25:49 pm by River Don »
There is one other conundrum with this virus. It appears to be more aggressive with men, I think I read it was taking roughly twice as many men as women.

As I understand it, the virus attacks the body through something called the ACE2 receptor. Don't ask me what that is, I did read it but I don't remember now. One theory is that men have more of this, so are more vulnerable. Anyway there is another small issue, it seems it is leaving some men who are badly affected by it with reduced fertility. Again perhaps something to do with this ACE2.

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1313 on March 31, 2020, 11:25:20 am by Copps is Magic »
BST, yes, thats a plausible explanation for how we got to 1.8m.

On the overall infection fataility ratio, a study published yesterday estimates it now to be 0.66%.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

What I also have slowly relised is that when most people see any 'fatality ratio' they are actually thinking 'what are my chances of dying' (not aimed at anyone here), but that is not really what a mortality ratio is, or how it should be interpreted. Its a statistical description of a given population, but each individual is exactly that - an individual with their own place, time, conditions which deviate from the median.

And the number will only go down, if I am interepreting the various experts I have watched. For several reasons.

1. Viruses generally become less virulent through time through genetic mutations
2. Heatlhcare systems have better knowledge of the disease and how to deal with it.
3. Vacines may develop. But also prophylactics and therapeutic drugs/treatments.

The next significant step to understanding and fighting this disease is to get the antibody tests done.

ian1980

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1314 on March 31, 2020, 03:11:52 pm by ian1980 »
393 deaths in the UK in the last 24hrs

That’s a biggish jump after the last couple of days

Bristol Red Rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1315 on March 31, 2020, 03:21:17 pm by Bristol Red Rover »
CiM/Adam

A few thoughts on the mortality rate.

If there are 1.8m infected in the UK at the moment and the first case (not the first recorded case) is assumed to have been mid-Jan (which I have read from someone authoritative, although I can't remember who) then we have had about 21 doublings in about 75 days. Say 3.75 days to double which sounds very similar to what has been quoted elsewhere.....

I think the UK cases almost certainly started by multiple people coming from abroad, not just the one case scenario. And of course the numbers of infected coming in increased very quickly, setting off hundreds if not thousands of fresh, straight from the planes (so to speak) pockets of growth. I'm no sure how modelling includes that? Maybe it doesn't change it.

Good that we're still doing what we're doing, and personally I'm loving the catch up on life time it is giving, but I suspect the real picture will emerge within 2 weeks, and lockdown is likely to end soon after in small steps, back too normal by 5 or 6 weeks. Nowt like a guess eh ;)

I suspect the mortality rate to be much less than 0.5% and assuming that we don't have the critical care overload, the whole thing will be in the range of a normal bad flu epidemic. The key being that this virus occasionally turns real nasty in the lungs in a different way to normal flu pnuemonia, which is stressing out that side of critical care.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1316 on March 31, 2020, 03:23:55 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Anyone know if this includes the deaths at home that the ONS announced earlier today?

Metalmicky

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4206
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1317 on March 31, 2020, 03:31:26 pm by Metalmicky »
Understand the figures is 400 deaths... not sure if this includes deaths at home/s though....

ChrisBx

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 323
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1318 on March 31, 2020, 03:33:18 pm by ChrisBx »
Anyone know if this includes the deaths at home that the ONS announced earlier today?

The figures from England were all deaths in hospitals.

big fat yorkshire pudding

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 11721
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1319 on March 31, 2020, 03:42:21 pm by big fat yorkshire pudding »
Anyone know if this includes the deaths at home that the ONS announced earlier today?

The figures from England were all deaths in hospitals.

Pretty grim with that in mind.  But given the expected time lag it's in line with what was predicted.  Let's hope it's an outlier though and not the new norm before further increases.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012