Coronavirus outbreak

[Snowball]

The figure, the maximum number now possible for unconfirmed cases/confirmed cases has fallen.

It will fall every day for at least another 2-3 weeks

355 UK
358 Spain
485 Italy

As explained before, that 358 for Spain is ABSOLUTE. If the ration was 358:1 that would be MORE than the total population of Spain

The way the numbers are progressing, it is highly likely the multiplier will be <100

For now I will work on an optimistic multiplier of 99:1 (arguing that testing is only catching 1% of actual infections)

[muirinho]

It should be noted that not all confirmed cases end up in hospital. Are there stats on Hospital admissions for Covid-19? If, for example, a third of confirmed cases DON'T go into hospital, then that would mean 31% of people being hospitalised are dying. If half manage not to go to hospital then the death rate for those going into hospital is 41%. Fearsome figures.

Might be of interest looking at Ireland's figures. Of the 4,014 confirmed cases as of midnight 02/04/20, 1,118 required hospitalisation, i.e., 27.8%

158 of those 1118 required ICU treatment. (14.13% of hospitalised cases, 3.93% of confirmed cases)

Ireland are testing a lot more per head of population than the UK (they ran into a bit of a backlog in the last few days, so sent some 2000 or so tests to Germany to speed things up). So possibly the age profile of those tested is a bit different, and they are catching more confirmed cases with milder symptoms. Whereas in the UK it seems you have to be a royal, or be at deaths door, to get tested.

Data from here.
https://www.gov.ie/en/service/0039bc-vi ... dashboard/

[Snowball]

Thanks for that

27.8% ?

If only a third of UK confirmed cases are getting hospitalised and 20.6 of all CC’s are dying, that would mean 62% of people entering hospital were leaving in a box.

I hope to God it’s not as bad as that!

I really want to see a stat for number of confirmed cases being hospitalised

[muirinho]

Thanks for that

27.8% ?

If only a third of UK confirmed cases are getting hospitalised and 20.6 of all CC’s are dying, that would mean 62% of people entering hospital were leaving in a box.

I hope to God it’s not as bad as that!

I really want to see a stat for number of confirmed cases being hospitalised

It may of course be different medical regimes and decisions on who to hospitalise. If you look at the number of people admitted to ICU in Irish hospitals out of hospitalised cases, or indeed confirmed cases, it's a pretty low percentage. It's worth noting that all the Irish figures include people confirmed positive who are looked after in care homes, without being hospitalised at all. The UK figures currently probably don't include these, they definitely don't include deaths in care homes as yet.

[Snowball]

The WorldoMeter has added some columns


Here are the UK Rankings

49th Tests per Million Population. Switzerland, (11th) pro-rata is doing 6 times as many tests as us 18,256 v 2,880

11th Total Tests. Just over half of Spain's

[Snowball]

These are some of the worst-off countries in terms of Confirmed Cases per Million

To explain. First column is the country's stat.

Second column is what the UK would be on in terms of that country's percentage cases but based on our population

10,000 677,933 1.00% 1% of POP (for illustration: Vatican approaching 1%)


8,739 per Million - - 592,446 0.87% Vatican
7,839 per Million - - 531,432 0.78% San Marino
6,484 per Million - - 439,572 0.65% Andorra
4,479 per Million - - 303,646 0.45% Luxembourg
4,355 per Million - - 295,240 0.44% Iceland
3,704 per Million - - 251,106 0.37% Faeros
3,057 per Million - - 207,244 0.31% Gibraltar

2,797 per Million - - 189,618 0.28% - - - SPAIN
2,438 per Million - - 165,280 0.24% - - - Switzerland
2,061 per Million - - 139,722 0.21% - - - Italy
1,699 per Million - - 115,181 0.17% - - - Belgium
1,378 per Million - - 093,419 0.14% - - - France
1,338 per Million - - 090,707 0.13% - - - Austria
1,162 per Million - - 078,776 0.12% - - - Germany

Remember all the major countries above will RISE to at least double their current figure

0,704 UK at the moment


1% of Pop = 677,933 Infected x Current Death Rate of 20.6% is 139,564 UK Dead

Phrased another way take Spain. Currently on 2,797 Cases per million. If the UK reaches 2797 Case per Million it will have 189,618 Cases, almost four times what we have currently. Multiply that by the current death rate for Confirmed Cases is 39,061 Dead

[Snowball]

The figure, the maximum number now possible for unconfirmed cases/confirmed cases has fallen.

It will fall every day for at least another 2-3 weeks

UPDATE

355 UK
358 Spain
358 Italy

REMARKABLE the way these numbers have come together. So the Max, "proven" by 3 countries, all in the west, is 358. This will keep falling and will be under 300 withinn a week.

[Snowball]

The algorithm predicts


22-Mar - - - Cases = 332,577 - - - 05-Apr - - - 69,281 Deaths @ 23:59 5th April


On 69,346 Deaths at 23:57


69,281 Predicted
69,273 Actual (Corrected by WorldoMeter 00:10)

[Jagermesiter1871]

Can you IM me when things start to improve please snowball? I can't keep coming into this thread and getting more depressed.

[leon]

The algorithm predicts


22-Mar - - - Cases = 332,577 - - - 05-Apr - - - 69,281 Deaths @ 23:59 5th April


On 69,346 Deaths at 23:57


69,281 Predicted
69,346 Actual

Snowball can you take a fcuking chill pill?

[Snowball]

The algorithm predicts


22-Mar - - - Cases = 332,577 - - - 05-Apr - - - 69,281 Deaths @ 23:59 5th April


On 69,346 Deaths at 23:57


69,281 Predicted
69,346 Actual

Snowball can you take a fcuking chill pill?

I'm quite chilled, thanks.

[leon]

The algorithm predicts


22-Mar - - - Cases = 332,577 - - - 05-Apr - - - 69,281 Deaths @ 23:59 5th April


On 69,346 Deaths at 23:57


69,281 Predicted
69,346 Actual

Snowball can you take a fcuking chill pill?

I'm quite chilled, thanks.

Well you're not making anyone else feel that way.

[Old Man Andrews]

Good god this thread is horrific. Some of the worst content on the internet.

[Dr_Hfuhruhurr]

Might be of interest looking at Ireland's figures. Of the 4,014 confirmed cases as of midnight 02/04/20, 1,118 required hospitalisation, i.e., 27.8%

158 of those 1118 required ICU treatment. (14.13% of hospitalised cases, 3.93% of confirmed cases)

Ireland are testing a lot more per head of population than the UK (they ran into a bit of a backlog in the last few days, so sent some 2000 or so tests to Germany to speed things up). So possibly the age profile of those tested is a bit different, and they are catching more confirmed cases with milder symptoms. Whereas in the UK it seems you have to be a royal, or be at deaths door, to get tested.

Data from here.
https://www.gov.ie/en/service/0039bc-vi ... dashboard/

Excellant webpage - Thanks for the link. Ive been looking for stats like this for a while.

The two problems with extrapolating from the UK data is that it is inherently biased towards severe cases for two reasons
1. The UK is taking the advice that unless you present with severe symptoms, hospitalisation will do nothing for you
2. To get a test, you basically have to go to a hospital.

This means our apparent death rate looks a lot worse than it is. I mean the absolute numbers are currently quite alarming, but the rates themselves are utterly meaningless. They arent even a fair reflection of how good the NHS is at keeping people alive.

[Hound]

Might be of interest looking at Ireland's figures. Of the 4,014 confirmed cases as of midnight 02/04/20, 1,118 required hospitalisation, i.e., 27.8%

158 of those 1118 required ICU treatment. (14.13% of hospitalised cases, 3.93% of confirmed cases)

Ireland are testing a lot more per head of population than the UK (they ran into a bit of a backlog in the last few days, so sent some 2000 or so tests to Germany to speed things up). So possibly the age profile of those tested is a bit different, and they are catching more confirmed cases with milder symptoms. Whereas in the UK it seems you have to be a royal, or be at deaths door, to get tested.

Data from here.
https://www.gov.ie/en/service/0039bc-vi ... dashboard/

Excellant webpage - Thanks for the link. Ive been looking for stats like this for a while.

The two problems with extrapolating from the UK data is that it is inherently biased towards severe cases for two reasons
1. The UK is taking the advice that unless you present with severe symptoms, hospitalisation will do nothing for you
2. To get a test, you basically have to go to a hospital.

This means our apparent death rate looks a lot worse than it is. I mean the absolute numbers are currently quite alarming, but the rates themselves are utterly meaningless. They arent even a fair reflection of how good the NHS is at keeping people alive.

Its good, but unless I am missing a link, there is quite a lot of impt data (imo) missing

Such as age profile of those hospitalised, and died from it.

Its also slightly strange how so few people have been tested positive under 24 comparatively. When does testing take place? Is it on showing some symptoms? If so, reinforces the view that people under that age generally show very few symptoms

One of the thing that interests me the most going forward is whether we continue to treat all people of all ages the same in terms of lockdowns. Esp when I think the death rate of those diagnosed with it and under 50 is around 0.3. Add in those without symptoms and maybe its far less.

[Snowball]

Snowball can you take a fcuking chill pill?

I'm quite chilled, thanks.

Well you're not making anyone else feel that way.

All I am doing is posting government stats and analysis or projections

If people don't want to read it/them then they don't read it.

Or they can block me.

What's the problem?

The alternative seems to be "Ignore what is happening or likely to happen and look again in 18 months if we are alive."




For one example. One hugely crucial number is how many uncounted infections are there for every officially logged one.

I have seen speculation that the ratio is 10:1 but others saying it's more than 1000:1

To be able to show based on the UK, Spain, Italy's figures that multiply HAS to be under 350:1, is important. By coming up with that 350-and-falling-every day, there is (for me at least) some removal of uncertainty.

I for one would like to know is the number 10:1, or 37:1 or 99:1. Then I know how many will/would get the virus in a free-society or one heavily locked down. If we knew (just saying) that without this 99% lockdown we would have 100,000 new cases a day (UK) and 50,000 deaths a day (UK) then that would be incredibly strong incentive to stay in etc.

If, OTOH it was shown that free movement would "only" cause 500 cases a day and 100 deaths a day, consistently over, say, a year, (182,500 Cases and 36,500 deaths) then maybe we would just bite that bullet, take the death toll but still have an economy when we came out the other side.

[leon]

I'm quite chilled, thanks.

Well you're not making anyone else feel that way.

All I am doing is posting government stats and analysis or projections

If people don't want to read it/them then they don't read it.

Or they can block me.

What's the problem?

The alternative seems to be "Ignore what is happening or likely to happen and look again in 18 months if we are alive."




For one example. One hugely crucial number is how many uncounted infections are there for every officially logged one.

I have seen speculation that the ratio is 10:1 but others saying it's more than 1000:1

To be able to show based on the UK, Spain, Italy's figures that multiply HAS to be under 350:1, is important. By coming up with that 350-and-falling-every day, there is (for me at least) some removal of uncertainty.

I for one would like to know is the number 10:1, or 37:1 or 99:1. Then I know how many will/would get the virus in a free-society or one heavily locked down. If we knew (just saying) that without this 99% lockdown we would have 100,000 new cases a day (UK) and 50,000 deaths a day (UK) then that would be incredibly strong incentive to stay in etc.

If, OTOH it was shown that free movement would "only" cause 500 cases a day and 100 deaths a day, consistently over, say, a year, (182,500 Cases and 36,500 deaths) then maybe we would just bite that bullet, take the death toll but still have an economy when we came out the other side.

You’re doing it again.

[muirinho]

Might be of interest looking at Ireland's figures. Of the 4,014 confirmed cases as of midnight 02/04/20, 1,118 required hospitalisation, i.e., 27.8%

158 of those 1118 required ICU treatment. (14.13% of hospitalised cases, 3.93% of confirmed cases)

Ireland are testing a lot more per head of population than the UK (they ran into a bit of a backlog in the last few days, so sent some 2000 or so tests to Germany to speed things up). So possibly the age profile of those tested is a bit different, and they are catching more confirmed cases with milder symptoms. Whereas in the UK it seems you have to be a royal, or be at deaths door, to get tested.

Data from here.
https://www.gov.ie/en/service/0039bc-vi ... dashboard/

Excellant webpage - Thanks for the link. Ive been looking for stats like this for a while.

The two problems with extrapolating from the UK data is that it is inherently biased towards severe cases for two reasons
1. The UK is taking the advice that unless you present with severe symptoms, hospitalisation will do nothing for you
2. To get a test, you basically have to go to a hospital.

This means our apparent death rate looks a lot worse than it is. I mean the absolute numbers are currently quite alarming, but the rates themselves are utterly meaningless. They arent even a fair reflection of how good the NHS is at keeping people alive.

Its good, but unless I am missing a link, there is quite a lot of impt data (imo) missing

Such as age profile of those hospitalised, and died from it.

Its also slightly strange how so few people have been tested positive under 24 comparatively. When does testing take place? Is it on showing some symptoms? If so, reinforces the view that people under that age generally show very few symptoms

One of the thing that interests me the most going forward is whether we continue to treat all people of all ages the same in terms of lockdowns. Esp when I think the death rate of those diagnosed with it and under 50 is around 0.3. Add in those without symptoms and maybe its far less.

Yes, some of the stats you're looking for have been reported piecemeal, and aren't in this particular dashboard. E.g., when the daily deaths (god, that sounds grim) are reported in Ireland, they always give a mean age - generally it's in the 80s.

If you're interested in more detailed stats, under the Total confirmed cases by county panel click the Advice and Sources tab. In there click on the Data Sources from HPSC link, then click Cases in Ireland and in there you can look at the daily reports. These do have a detailed age breakdown of hospitalisations.

In Ireland, originally, you only needed one symptom to request a test. Or if you were reporting no symptoms but had been in contact with a Covid case. That resulted in thy system being overwhelmed with tests, most (I think 94%) were negative. A lot of small children with, say, bronchiolitis, would have been tested in that first tranche.
now the requirements for getting a test are more stringent, but not as stringent as the UK. So you'd expect more negative tests than in the UK.

I could see maybe some relaxing of lockdowns based on age/at risk, but only if they didn't live with somebody who was at risk. Which would make it very difficult to police.

[paultheroyal]

First time on here for awhile, and after looking at this thread now I know why. Good god.

[Emmer Green Royal]

As the proportion of the population that has been infected is unknown, surely much of this discussion is meaningless.

For example, if [u][b]all[/b][/u] of the population was already infected, then ending the lockdown would lead to no increase in illness at all. I'm not suggesting that this is the case, but without knowing what proportion of the population is infected everything else is a bit random.