The official figures are about 10,000 under counted according to the ONS.https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-d ... 3391.html
Sadly this number is likely to increase in the coming weeks once all the info is collated.
The official figures are about 10,000 under counted according to the ONS.https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-d ... 3391.html
I think that posts are becoming essays at the moment but here goes.KateR wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:25 pmthank you
I agree an IFR of 0.26% is still high but the numbers are continuing to reduce that as I understand it and the big argument seems to be the high number of people who are not affected by the virus in terms of symptoms as noted. Plus is the herd immunity as high as 70%, as you quoted between and estimated say 30% to 70%, so if on the high side yes an issue.
I also note Germany had a leaked doc regarding the issue being no real issue but how real this is I don't know but there was the link earlier to the Italian doctor:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/germa ... alse-alarm
But the main numbers are deaths for most of the world are dropping in a 7 day rolling forecast, which is the good news.
This week, Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis published a preprint (before peer review) analysis averaging the fatality rates reflected in the extrapolation of all the serology tests with a sample size larger than 500 and that were randomly sampled (as opposed to health care workers). These tests measure the seroprevalence – the prevalence of antibodies for the virus in a given population – through some degree of random sampling.
Based on these random samples, the Stanford professor of medicine, epidemiology, biomedical data science, and statistics concluded that the fatality rate ranges from 0.02% to 0.40%. That is a range of seven times less deadly or 2.8 times more deadly than seasonal influenza.
The mean IFR is 0.2%, right around the result we saw from the first U.S. serology studies in Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and Miami Dade Counties. That is 17 times less deadly than what the World Health Organization originally predicted and 4.5 times less deadly than the Imperial College study assumed!
The study included data from 12 antibody tests conducted in different countries, from the U.S. and Brazil to China, Japan, Iran, and several European countries. They collectively show that the virus is exponentially more prevalent, often presenting asymptomatically, than the confirmed case tally indicates. Ioannidis further notes that most of these surveys likely understate the number of infections (and therefore overstate the fatality rate) because several of them were of blood plasma donors, who tend to be healthier people.
Also, the virus seems to be particularly widespread in nursing homes, in prisons, and among disadvantaged minorities, which Ioannidis believes were underrepresented in these samples. He noted, this was especially true in the Santa Clara study conducted by his Stanford colleagues, Nonetheless, he concludes:
Interestingly, despite their differences in design, execution, and analysis, most studies provide IFR point estimates that are within a relatively narrow range. Seven of the 12 inferred IFR's are in the range 0.07 to 0.20 (corrected IFR of 0.06 to 0.16) which are similar to IFR values of seasonal influenza. Three values are modestly higher (corrected IFR of 0.25-0.40 in Gangelt, Geneva, and Wuhan) and two are modestly lower than this range (corrected IFR of 0.02-0.03 in Kobe and Oise).
Ioannides observes that two of the three antibody studies with the higher range were in cities with super-spreading events in the lead-up to the infection peak, and Wuhan had a situation where hospitals were overrun. Obviously, New York’s experience was an outlier, so the antibody test conducted by the state (which indicates an IFR of at least 0.6% for New York City) was not included in his analysis. He chalks up the more severe outcome in places like New York City and northern Italy to an amalgamation of factors that fed on each other, including: hospitals reaching capacity, large numbers of medical providers becoming infected and spreading it in the hospitals, use of unnecessarily aggressive ventilation treatment, and in the case of NYC, in particular, “an extremely busy, congested public transport system that may have exposed large segments of the population to high infectious load in close contact transmission and, thus, perhaps more severe disease.” Of course, public transportation was the one thing that was not shut down, even as officials closed outdoor parks and beaches, where every single published study as shown nearly zero transmission.
However, whether we go with a top-line IFR of 0.2%, 0.6%, or even the 0.9% of the Imperial College projection, it fails to account for the most salient characteristic of this virus – that its threat is extremely lopsided. In most countries and states, more than half of all deaths are in nursing homes, and in some states, upwards of 70 percent are – with many of the decedents having already been placed in hospice or end-of-life care. Most of the deaths are tragically within a tiny cohort of the population with a 5%-10% IFR, which is 25-50 times higher than the median. (I am not convinced by this statement but have not checked)
The more I read, the more confused I get in terms of the real threat to myself at the present time as we all move out of the worst of the lockdown wherever you might be, but the threat is still there.
The study I saw suggested that the average number of years of life lost was about 12 years.
That study implies that people who died of coronavirus had a life expectancy the same as the average. Either people with severe health conditions are no more vulnerable than the healthy to coronavirus, or else people with severe health conditions are more vulnerable but they would have lived as long as the healthy anyway. Neither seems likely.aggi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:39 pmThe study I saw suggested that the average number of years of life lost was about 12 years.
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75
I’ve only read the first few paras, but it clearly takes into account the impact of LTCs (Long Term Conditions) on life expectancy.dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 2:31 pmThat study implies that people who died of coronavirus had a life expectancy the same as the average. Either people with severe health conditions are no more vulnerable than the healthy to coronavirus, or else people with severe health conditions are more vulnerable but they would have lived as long as the healthy anyway. Neither seems likely.
The problem is in getting their conclusion to make sense. Especially when you bear in mind that a third or more of deaths are in nursing homes, where life expectancy isn't much above a year anyway; if those people are losing a year each, then the people dying away from nursing homes are losing 15 years. Bearing in mind the average age of death in hospitals is something like 79, to say that those people on average would have lived another 15 years seems counterintuitive.
I know it does. And it concludes that it makes no difference.
It clearly takes them into accountdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 2:31 pmThat study implies that people who died of coronavirus had a life expectancy the same as the average. Either people with severe health conditions are no more vulnerable than the healthy to coronavirus, or else people with severe health conditions are more vulnerable but they would have lived as long as the healthy anyway. Neither seems likely.
The problem is in getting their conclusion to make sense. Especially when you bear in mind that a third or more of deaths are in nursing homes, where life expectancy isn't much above a year anyway; if those people are losing a year each, then the people dying away from nursing homes are losing 15 years. Bearing in mind the average age of death in hospitals is something like 79, to say that those people on average would have lived another 15 years seems counterintuitive.
Is this allowed? I thought when you were furloughed you couldn't do any work at all?
It doesn’t say that at all.dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 2:46 pmI know it does. And it concludes that it makes no difference.
The average age life lost, they say, is over 10 years per person. The average age of death, they don't say but it's true, of the government's official stats, is 79 for men, 81 for women. A lot of nursing home deaths are not on those stats and they would only increase the average.
How are we expected to believe that these people dying of coronavirus, the large majority of whom already have some serious illness, would have lived with their illnesses to an average age of over 90 if coronavirus hadn't struck?
It doesn't say that, but if the average life expectancy of people who die with coronavirus is the same or similar to the average life expectancy of the survivors, the obvious conclusion is that it makes no difference.martin_p wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:17 pmIt doesn’t say that at all.
‘ On stratifying the YLL estimates by sex, age and multimorbidity count (for the simulated patients) there were clear differences (Figure 5, Table 2) with the YLL ranging from around 2-years per person in men or women aged 80 with large numbers of LTCs, to around 35 years in younger people without any LTCs (Table 2). For most age-bands and most multimorbidity counts the YLL per person remained above 5.’
This is apparently the explanation.
Well that’s what happens when you change 50,000 figures out of 70 million, especially when most of those dying have already surpassed the average life expectancy!dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:42 pmIt doesn't say that, but if the average life expectancy of people who die with coronavirus is the same or similar to the average life expectancy of the survivors, the obvious conclusion is that it makes no difference.
You don't need to break down the average. If the average is similar, then obviously it will be made up of larger and smaller numbers; but the average is the same however they break it down. If average life expectancy is the same for the dead as for the survivors, then it will be similar across the board.
How can they know that? The virus is only a few months old.aggi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:39 pmThe study I saw suggested that the average number of years of life lost was about 12 years.
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75
They first estimated YLL from COVID-19 using standard WHO life tables, based on published age/sex data from COVID-19 deaths in Italy. They then used aggregate data on number/type of LTCs to model likely combinations of LTCs among people dying with COVID-19. From these, they used routine UK healthcare data to estimate life expectancy based on age/sex/different combinations of LTCs. They then calculated YLL based on age, sex and type of LTCs and multimorbidity count.UnderSeige wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 7:34 pmHow can they know that? The virus is only a few months old.
Does herd immunity work, if those infected never leave the care home?Zlatan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:23 pmWithout sounding like I support BJ in any way whatsoever, I will say this - as long as Covid-19 is still active going through the winter, other countries may suffer a much larger second wave or need another lockdown whereas sacrificing our old people in care homes to get a higher rate of herd immunity may prove to be economically the “right” decision, and one I can understand BJ with DC making without batting an eyelid. Lockdown came when they realised we’d have an overrun NHS because of the cuts and austerity...
All my opinion of course
A bit more on Spanish flue and lessons that can be learned from it for COVID-19.Vino blanco wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:13 pmNo covid deaths in Spain yesterday and only a handful of new cases. I've just had a wander round parts of Benalmadena and it's great to see people sat on terrace bars enjoying a refreshing drink and a meal. Regarding the idea that covid is losing its potency, didn't the Spanish flu outbreak in 1918 more or less fizzle out eventually after killing about 20 million world wide?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hospital-deat ... 18829.htmlaggi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:39 pmThe study I saw suggested that the average number of years of life lost was about 12 years.
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75
It was this bit of your post....
Ah ok, I was alluding to the political football that is the forgotten care homes and the way the government hung them out to dry in the early stages, things like forcing hospitals to move on elderly patients who were positive Covid-19 to care homes etc
It's been done before, we know patients were moved, whether that's was indiviual NHS, or goverment instructions.Zlatan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:47 pmAh ok, I was alluding to the political football that is the forgotten care homes and the way the government hung them out to dry in the early stages, things like forcing hospitals to move on elderly patients who were positive Covid-19 to care homes etc
I’ll openingly admit I think BJ and his goons have screwed up by being indecisive and making decisions for what appears to be the wrong reasons, but I can see them patting themselves on the back before the next election on how well they did during 2020
I am not sure whether it was the government that "forced hospitals to move on elderly patients who were positive Covid-19 to care homes". Often, when an elderly patient is admitted to hospital they are discharged to care homes by the NHS hospital for convalescence. This is normal practice if a patient is unsafe to return home immediately. The objective is to 'clear the beds as quickly as possible'.Zlatan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:47 pmAh ok, I was alluding to the political football that is the forgotten care homes and the way the government hung them out to dry in the early stages, things like forcing hospitals to move on elderly patients who were positive Covid-19 to care homes etc
I’ll openingly admit I think BJ and his goons have screwed up by being indecisive and making decisions for what appears to be the wrong reasons, but I can see them patting themselves on the back before the next election on how well they did during 2020
I can't give details , but this was mentioned on last night's news, they're still counting home testing kits that have been mailed out, but not necessarily returned amongst the daily testing figures, why they insist on continuing to do this I've got no idea, and it's not the 1st time they've been rapped over the knuckles for it, i can only assume it's so they can claim to have met their arbitrary testing targets, and this makes them look good, TBH the numbers aren't the main issue with testing, it's how effective the strategy is which ultimately matters.aggi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:29 amAn interesting thread on testing statistics.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/ ... 8449323010
I cannot recollect a PM struggling so badly at PMQs when questioned by the Leader of the Opposition. Johnson is well out of his depth. Corbyn made him look good.
It works for me. Threadreader version here https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1267 ... 23010.htmlFactualFrank wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:50 amWhen I check, Twitter says that status has been deleted?
looking at his little tantrum when under pressure there, you can see how easily the lying shagbag could revert so quickly to knocking his partners around.
Summed it up in a sentence, Johnson got it easy facing Corbyn, since Starmer's came on the scene he's looked hapless.Billy Balfour wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:38 pmI cannot recollect a PM struggling so badly at PMQs when questioned by the Leader of the Opposition. Johnson is well out of his depth. Corbyn made him look good.