by Snowball » 05 Apr 2020 15:18
by muirinho » 05 Apr 2020 15:54
Snowball
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.
by Snowball » 05 Apr 2020 16:36
by muirinho » 05 Apr 2020 16:51
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
by Snowball » 05 Apr 2020 17:15
by Snowball » 05 Apr 2020 17:34
by Snowball » 05 Apr 2020 20:16
by Snowball » 05 Apr 2020 21:07
by Jagermesiter1871 » 05 Apr 2020 23:55
by leon » 06 Apr 2020 00:11
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
by Snowball » 06 Apr 2020 00:13
leonSnowball 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?
by leon » 06 Apr 2020 00:15
SnowballleonSnowball 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.
by Old Man Andrews » 06 Apr 2020 00:17
by Dr_Hfuhruhurr » 06 Apr 2020 08:41
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/
by Hound » 06 Apr 2020 09:45
Dr_Hfuhruhurrmuirinho
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.
by Snowball » 06 Apr 2020 09:49
leonSnowballleon
Snowball can you take a fcuking chill pill?
I'm quite chilled, thanks.
Well you're not making anyone else feel that way.
by leon » 06 Apr 2020 10:31
SnowballleonSnowball
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.
by muirinho » 06 Apr 2020 11:40
HoundDr_Hfuhruhurrmuirinho
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.
by paultheroyal » 06 Apr 2020 12:35
by Emmer Green Royal » 06 Apr 2020 12:43
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests