I use the ONS (& equivalents for Scotland and Northern Ireland) data for official death toll. Leaving aside all the deaths not recorded as Covid19 on death certificate, for which we would look at overall mortality figures, the figure for COVID19 deaths was 38,420 deaths that happened up to and including 1st May.
The estimate for population infected so far is likely to be the most inaccurate. But it varies in different regions of the UK, and how many of those infections were in groups especially vulnerable to this disease would also make a difference.
It's just none of them knowing what they are talking about again.I've not been keeping up but just read of todays briefing "He said people should wear face coverings in shops and on public transport".
Is that new or have we already been told to wear 'face coverings" when shopping?
I'm always doing this sum, for various countries. I get the excess death numbers from the Economist, The UK number is 51,000. Tracking covid-19 excess deaths across countriesAssuming an Infection Fatality Rate of 1% and 5% of the UK population having caught Covid-19 to date predicts around 33,000 deaths. This is not far off the official death toll.
Which of the above assumptions is likely to be the most inaccurate?
Thank you. There have been such widely varying estimates of the proportion of the population likely to have been infected so far, it's hard to know what to expect.
I thought the ONS data indicated 42k where covid was on the death certificate?
Even a fatality rate of 0.3% would be catastrophic and mean 203k people could potentially die if everyone is infected.
I've not been keeping up but just read of todays briefing "He said people should wear face coverings in shops and on public transport".
Is that new or have we already been told to wear 'face coverings" when shopping?
I see. Have not noticed any increase in face coverings this week.It is not new, it was part of the detail that came out in the days following Johnsons botched Sunday speech to the nation.
The only ones I can take seriously so far are all within the same kind of pretty low range. I expect estimates to vary a bit, and those do, but not by baffling amounts.
Those low ones are the only ones I can take seriously because thats the sort of levels that various serology(antibody) studies have shown from various places. There have not been enough large, sustained studies yet for me to feel like I have all the definitive answers, far from its, its still early days, but there isnt much that contradicts initial findings from these.
And thats the reason I cannot currently take seriously any studies that have modelled or supposed a much higher proportion of populations infected so far. I'll still look at them in case they are onto something compelling, so far they have not been. I like to think I can still review them fairly despite whatever odious slugs are trying to use their findings to make some hideous anti-lockdown point, but its possible that this still influences my opinion of them. All the same, I usually end up being unimpressed by their methodologies, theories and models. I will change my angle if some new facts are established that are actually compatible with what ehy've come up with, but unless I've missed something that hasnt happened yet, so I do not allow their higher estimates to cloud my tentative impression of the reality.
Regarding 'if everyone infected', thats yet another number we dont know. It seems to be quite normal to have population attack rate estimates (without lockdown or other mitigation) of 60 to 80% chucked around, but as best I can tell this was just a crude assumption that they had to use because they didnt have anything better, and you cant do much planning unless you pick some number for that.
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
I've been hearing the number of UK tests reportedly carried out each day, might be a bit misleading.
It costs me £10 a day to get to work really resent itI don’t have a beef, but it costs a lot of money to run a car.
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
I think it's disappointing because it means the case fatality rate is much higher if you do get it.Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
I wish people would stop going on about herd immunity. It's an easy/lazy phrase to trot out but in the situation we have at the moment there's a good chance that it doesn't even exist.
Does anyone find it surprising that infection rates are not higher? 5% seems typical for countries which were slow with the mitigation, e.g. UK, Italy, Spain. We keep being told that 5% is 'disappointing'. Maybe the disappointment is really just a political factor, cooked up by people who want to use herd immunnity to reopen for economic reasons? But is 5% a surprise? Given that it's highly infectious, and you pass it on for 4 days before you realise you've got it...you would think it might have spread more.
If herd immunity is being discussed, then 90% tells you how many people on the bus are likely immune but it doesn't tell you how many are likely infected - over time it would approach zero.I still don't think even 90% would make it safe for vulnerable people to go out. If restrictions were lifted then 30 people on a bus with one of them having it and two of them vulnerable doesn't sound too safe to me.