Coronavirus outbreak

[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.

[Snowball]

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

For example, if all 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.

If you look at Spain's numbers, the current ratio of confirmed cases to the TOTAL population is 1:346.

That means if the whole population was already infected there would be 345 un-spotted cases for every one confirmed

For the ratio to be higher you would have to increase the population!

This 345:1 ratio reduces every day as we get more confirmed cases. If you presume that confirmed cases will at least treble by the end of the pandemic then the ratio then will be 115:1... that is with 100% of the population infected. This strongly suggests an eventual ratio of less than 100:1, which is why I'm using 100:1 as a ball-park for now.

[Snowball]

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.

So are you. If the posts disturb you, don't read them.

[Snowball]

I am frankly bewildered why, in the middle of what looks like the biggest crisis since WWII, some people want to stick their head in the sand over this.

I want to KNOW whether the lockdown is too loose or too draconian.

I want to know the confirmed-case to actual-case ratio

I want to know, if my loved ones get it, what are their chances.

I want to know why we are fiftieth in the world for tests per million people when we are the fifth or sixth richest nation on earth.

I want to know, if I, or anyone else, is hospitalised, does that mean (for example) a 2/3rds chance of death?

IF we are underestimating the medium-term danger I want that corrected.

IF we are OVER-estimating the medium-term danger I want that corrected.

The Government, the Scientists are all saying they are data-driven.

For example there appears to be a slow decline in death-rate, but that death-rate is measured against confirmed cases. And if you test more you find more cases, so the percentage death rate will, of course, appear to decline

[leon]

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.

So are you. If the posts disturb you, don't read them.

Yeah

[Hound]

I am frankly bewildered why, in the middle of what looks like the biggest crisis since WWII, some people want to stick their head in the sand over this.

I want to KNOW whether the lockdown is too loose or too draconian.

I want to know the confirmed-case to actual-case ratio

I want to know, if my loved ones get it, what are their chances.

I want to know why we are fiftieth in the world for tests per million people when we are the fifth or sixth richest nation on earth.

I want to know, if I, or anyone else, is hospitalised, does that mean (for example) a 2/3rds chance of death?

IF we are underestimating the medium-term danger I want that corrected.

IF we are OVER-estimating the medium-term danger I want that corrected.

The Government, the Scientists are all saying they are data-driven.

For example there appears to be a slow decline in death-rate, but that death-rate is measured against confirmed cases. And if you test more you find more cases, so the percentage death rate will, of course, appear to decline

I think everyone want to know that pretty much tbf Snowball. But we can't make that info come out, as they dont know most of it

[Emmer Green Royal]

[quote="Snowball"][quote="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.[/quote]

If you look at Spain's numbers, the current ratio of confirmed cases to the TOTAL population is 1:346.

That means if the whole population was already infected there would be 345 un-spotted cases for every one confirmed

For the ratio to be higher you would have to increase the population!

This 345:1 ratio reduces every day as we get more confirmed cases. If you presume that confirmed cases will at least treble by the end of the pandemic then the ratio then will be 115:1... that is with 100% of the population infected. This strongly suggests an eventual ratio of less than 100:1, which is why I'm using 100:1 as a ball-park for now.[/quote]

A study conducted by researchers at Oxford University says that, according to its model, more than half of the UK population has already been infected by coronavirus. That is, the ratio could be lower than 2:1. Basing your extrapolations on a figure of 100:1, when no evidence is provided to justify this figure, means that the conclusions are meaningless.

[Snowball]

I am frankly bewildered why, in the middle of what looks like the biggest crisis since WWII, some people want to stick their head in the sand over this.

I want to KNOW whether the lockdown is too loose or too draconian.

I want to know the confirmed-case to actual-case ratio

I want to know, if my loved ones get it, what are their chances.

I want to know why we are fiftieth in the world for tests per million people when we are the fifth or sixth richest nation on earth.

I want to know, if I, or anyone else, is hospitalised, does that mean (for example) a 2/3rds chance of death?

IF we are underestimating the medium-term danger I want that corrected.

IF we are OVER-estimating the medium-term danger I want that corrected.

The Government, the Scientists are all saying they are data-driven.

For example there appears to be a slow decline in death-rate, but that death-rate is measured against confirmed cases. And if you test more you find more cases, so the percentage death rate will, of course, appear to decline

I think everyone want to know that pretty much tbf Snowball. But we can't make that info come out, as they dont know most of it

Gradually, you can work some of these things out. Like, for example the max confirmed/unseen cases ratio. We at least now know that it's not 100s of thousands, not thousands, not even many 100s. That MATTERS. A couple of week's ago many were saying, "Ah this death rate means little, there are masses and masses of infections out there..." (etc) That downplayed the seriousness of the whole thing. To get closer and closer to a true number helps us make decisions

[Snowball]

A study conducted by researchers at Oxford University says that, according to its model, more than half of the UK population has already been infected by coronavirus. That is, the ratio could be lower than 2:1. Basing your extrapolations on a figure of 100:1, when no evidence is provided to justify this figure, means that the conclusions are meaningless.

That is some TERRIBLE mathematics!

The UK Population is approximately 68,000,000

Half of that is 34,00,000. That's how many people you are saying has it! For God's sake 60% is considered the herd-immunity level

The officially confirmed cases number is 47,806 Cases

34,000,000:47,806 is a ratio of 711:1 (Yesterday's numbers)

Not only is that bonkers but please explain: if half the population has it, when you test people WITH symptoms, in hospital, dead, dying, back from a crisis area, or had a contact with a known sufferer the percentage is (yesterday) 24.45%

If there really were half of the population with it, we'd get 97K cases from 194,000 tests, but if we were testing people who are NOT "randoms" but with serious symptoms, dead etc we would surely get something around 75% not 24%

If the 195,524 test were TOTALLY random they would have found 97,762 cases

================================================================

As for "no evidence" for my numbers. I have posted plenty. Spain, for example has 2,888 Confirmed Cases per million, a total of 135,082 Cases. The population, the TOTAL population of Spain is 46,750,098. The ratio between the TOTAL population and the number of confirmed cases is 46,750,098:135,082 is 346. That means if every single person in the country has it (absolutely ridiculous of course) the number, the maximum POSSIBLE number is 346:1, half of the Oxford 711:1

Or, look at the UK. It would be ludicrous to believe that the Confirmed Cases (tests are aimed at likely cases) would produce a number LESS than a random 195,524 people from the untested population. So, wildly saying the general population rate IS 24.45% (anything higher defies logic) that would give a total of about 17 Million people. (Actually 16,541,571)

The ratio of 16,541,571:47,806 is 1:347

Interesting Spain based on actual cases v population produces 1:346. Doing the UK a different way gives 1:347

346:1
347:1

that is the most extreme possible ratio

[Emmer Green Royal]

[quote="Snowball"]

As for "no evidence" for my numbers. I have posted plenty. [/quote]

I'm sorry but you have provided no evidence. Yes, you have posted plenty of numbers, but no actual evidence of the number of people infected. And without knowing the actual number of people infected, any conclusions drawn about possible death toll is meaningless.

[Snowball]

As for "no evidence" for my numbers. I have posted plenty.

I'm sorry but you have provided no evidence. Yes, you have posted plenty of numbers, but no actual evidence of the number of people infected. And without knowing the actual number of people infected, any conclusions drawn about possible death toll is meaningless.

If you simply Google "How many undetected cases of Covid-19" you can read dozens of sites

Here are the top ten

85.71% 6:1
90.91% 10:1
66.67% 2:1
93.09% 13:1
86.00% 6:1
83.33% 5:1
90.91% 10:1
60.00% 1.5:1

82.08% Average = 82:18 or 5:1 = This means five undetected cases for every detected case

If that number applies to the UK it means we have 50,000 detected and 250,000 undetected.

As for confirmed infections versus THE POPULATION (of Spain) if you can't understand that then there isn't even a point in you going back to school

[Emmer Green Royal]

[quote="Snowball"][quote="Emmer Green Royal"][quote="Snowball"]

As for "no evidence" for my numbers. I have posted plenty. [/quote]

I'm sorry but you have provided no evidence. Yes, you have posted plenty of numbers, but no actual evidence of the number of people infected. And without knowing the actual number of people infected, any conclusions drawn about possible death toll is meaningless.[/quote]

If you simply Google "How many undetected cases of Covid-19" you can read dozens of sites

Here are the top ten

85.71% 6:1
90.91% 10:1
66.67% 2:1
93.09% 13:1
86.00% 6:1
83.33% 5:1
90.91% 10:1
60.00% 1.5:1

82.08% Average = 82:18 or 5:1 = This means five undetected cases for every detected case

If that number applies to the UK it means we have 50,000 detected and 250,000 undetected.

As for confirmed infections versus THE POPULATION (of Spain) if you can't understand that then there isn't even a point in you going back to school[/quote]

But there is no EVIDENCE for these numbers. They are guesses.

[Snowball]

I'm sorry but you have provided no evidence. Yes, you have posted plenty of numbers, but no actual evidence of the number of people infected. And without knowing the actual number of people infected, any conclusions drawn about possible death toll is meaningless.

If you simply Google "How many undetected cases of Covid-19" you can read dozens of sites

Here are the top ten

85.71% 6:1
90.91% 10:1
66.67% 2:1
93.09% 13:1
86.00% 6:1
83.33% 5:1
90.91% 10:1
60.00% 1.5:1

82.08% Average = 82:18 or 5:1 = This means five undetected cases for every detected case

If that number applies to the UK it means we have 50,000 detected and 250,000 undetected.

As for confirmed infections versus THE POPULATION (of Spain) if you can't understand that then there isn't even a point in you going back to school

But there is no EVIDENCE for these numbers. They are guesses.

Explain the "evidence" you had when you said "MORE THAN HALF" of the UK population have it?

You said "Oxford".

Strange the WHO etc don't agree

[Emmer Green Royal]

[quote="Snowball"][quote="Emmer Green Royal"][quote="Snowball"]

If you simply Google "How many undetected cases of Covid-19" you can read dozens of sites

Here are the top ten

85.71% 6:1
90.91% 10:1
66.67% 2:1
93.09% 13:1
86.00% 6:1
83.33% 5:1
90.91% 10:1
60.00% 1.5:1

82.08% Average = 82:18 or 5:1 = This means five undetected cases for every detected case

If that number applies to the UK it means we have 50,000 detected and 250,000 undetected.

As for confirmed infections versus THE POPULATION (of Spain) if you can't understand that then there isn't even a point in you going back to school[/quote]

But there is no EVIDENCE for these numbers. They are guesses.[/quote]

Explain the "evidence" you had when you said "MORE THAN HALF" of the UK population have it?

You said "Oxford".

Strange the WHO etc don't agree[/quote]

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd ... bea055720b

[Hendo]

EGR - I am not sure how you are constantly failing to quote Snowball properly

[Emmer Green Royal]

[quote="Hendo"]EGR - I am not sure how you are constantly failing to quote Snowball properly [/quote]

Do you mean what the quote looks like, or the contents that I'm quoting?