Coronavirus death stats

[Rod RenshawParticipant @rodrenshaw28584]

The definition of a coronavirus death used by the Brits is a death for any reason within 28 days of a positive coronavirus test. So someone who dies from stroke or heart attack or diabetes or cancer or is run over by a bus within 28 days of a positive test counts as a coronavirus death. There are quite a few more total deaths in England each day than those counted by the coronavirus deaths. So more tests will lead to more deaths being captured by the " within 28 days " rule.

So, suppose for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that the incidence of coronavirus in the population at large is constant or only increasing slowly. Could the large increase in the coronavirus stats be partially or even largely due to the increased number of tests? Discuss.

Rod

Edited By Rod Renshaw on 14/01/2021 12:31:34

Edited By Rod Renshaw on 14/01/2021 12:32:07

[Rod RenshawParticipant @rodrenshaw28584]

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

The Corona virus – more accurately the Covid-19 one – is the last straw for many who are already seriously ill, and I lost a friend to it in that way. It might also weaken people who might otherwise recover, enough to die from a subsequent (not consequent) illness.

However, are we sure that the "within 28 days of a test" used in the News reports, is actually a fair representation of what the hospitals really report? The NHS reports deaths in which Covid is implicated as a direct cause or by taking out the already-ill. I cannot imagine it would really link Covid infections and co-incidental road traffic accidents.

We also know that politicians don't help when they muddle up the facts, because too many of them are as ignorant of anything technical and statistical than are too many journalists.

Nevertheless that question is an important one, and the 28-days move was established as a response, to try to make the pandemic death-rate at least somewhere near correct. However we must be very careful not to seize upon the corollary that would make increasing testing the guilty party.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

I am sceptical about some of the figures being bandied about.

My Physics master taught us to look at figures or statements and to analyse them

Some seemed to be based on the prognostications where previous forecasts have proved to be anything but accurate.

There seems to be a lack of clear or logical thought about the numbers. Possibly, as already said, those looking bat them do not understand them, and do not know how to process them.

Very few times are the figures translated into percentages.

"79,000 deaths" Sad news for very very many, but less than 0.15% of a population of 67,000,000.

Infection rates of "382 per 1000,000" Simple arithmetic says that represents 0.382%, a much less frightening figure.

"15,000" positive tests to day" Out of how many tests? 15,000, or 300,000? 100% or 5% infections?

And no one knows how many of those positives were false, from people showing no symptoms. Or if they IF do, we are not being told.

Are we being told what "they" want us know? Why? Not to frighten the horses, or knowledge is power, or even some other hidden agenda?

We are dealing with politicians. Remember Harold Wilson devaluing the pound "Won't affect the pound in your pocket" Until you take it out and spend it.

Gordon Brown advocating "prudence" while borrowing like it was becoming extinct

John Selwyn Gummer "When I say safe, I don't necessarily mean safe"

Not being political, but don't take everything coming from Westmister on face value.

Howard

Edited By Howard Lewis on 14/01/2021 13:19:30

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Whilst more testing might explain more deaths, the number of deaths per 100,000 is also reduced because of improved treatment. Don't jump to conclusions, it's the broad picture the numbers paint that matters, not flaws due to edge effects.

The government stats shown on TV don't make a big thing of deaths. Their main concern is hospital capacity and rising numbers of new cases. Capacity is red-lining in London and other badly effected areas. Be concerned at the numbers in intensive care, and worry about what happens if the health system overloads and large numbers of people can't be fully treated. You don't want to be admitted with breathing difficulties to a hospital that can't supply enough oxygen.

Found out last week a distant cousins step-daughter aged 9 is just home after a month in hospital, 3 weeks of which were on a ventilator. Apparently she is completely exhausted and spends most of the day asleep. He tested positive but had almost no symptoms while his wife was very ill for 10 days but managed at home. She says it was the most unpleasant illness she's ever had, and like her daughter, is completely washed out.

Keep safe!

Dave

[JourneymanParticipant @journeyman]

Posted by Howard Lewis on 14/01/2021 13:18:21:

… Not being political, but don't take everything coming from Westmister on face value.

Howard

I don't think it is prudent to believe anything these days, not just Westminster. The old saying – Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics – should probably now be – Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Media, Social Media and the Internet

John

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[Alexander Smith 1Participant @alexandersmith1]

Don't want to get into statistics( I did enough of that at work) but I was involved for many years with clinical trials. It may seem ridiculous to record all deaths I.e. Someone getting knocked down by a bus or having a heart attack but when you are looking for possible side effects you need to record everything- what if the drug (or virus) doesn't kill you or even makes you very sick but messes with your eyesight or makes you a bit dopey ( very scientific, I know) such that you walk out in front of a bus without looking. It might even make you suicidal so that you do it deliberately. When it happens to one person, it may be chance but if you find it happening regularly then you need to investigate and hopefully do something about it.

Sandy

[Dave HalfordParticipant @davehalford22513]

Posted by Howard Lewis on 14/01/2021 13:18:21:

I am sceptical about some of the figures being bandied about.

My Physics master taught us to look at figures or statements and to analyse them

Some seemed to be based on the prognostications where previous forecasts have proved to be anything but accurate.

There seems to be a lack of clear or logical thought about the numbers. Possibly, as already said, those looking bat them do not understand them, and do not know how to process them.

Very few times are the figures translated into percentages.

"79,000 deaths" Sad news for very very many, but less than 0.15% of a population of 67,000,000.

Infection rates of "382 per 1000,000" Simple arithmetic says that represents 0.382%, a much less frightening figure.

"15,000" positive tests to day" Out of how many tests? 15,000, or 300,000? 100% or 5% infections?

And no one knows how many of those positives were false, from people showing no symptoms. Or if they IF do, we are not being told.

Are we being told what "they" want us know? Why? Not to frighten the horses, or knowledge is power, or even some other hidden agenda?

We are dealing with politicians. Remember Harold Wilson devaluing the pound "Won't affect the pound in your pocket" Until you take it out and spend it.

Gordon Brown advocating "prudence" while borrowing like it was becoming extinct

John Selwyn Gummer "When I say safe, I don't necessarily mean safe"

Not being political, but don't take everything coming from Westmister on face value.

Howard

Edited By Howard Lewis on 14/01/2021 13:19:30

What ever makes you feel better.

Making the 100,000 figure a million doesn't help

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Ultimately, the real figure to take notice of the the excess deaths over and above the normal 5 or 10 year average.

C-19 will account for a large number of that excess directly, but also indirectly, due to a variety of reasons including delayed treatments and investigations, mental health, stress induced heart disease, etc.
Against that, with lockdowns there should be less road traffic and industrial accidents etc.
Obviously non of the above are exhaustive.

Here's a couple of links from a doctor on Twitter. I attach them here via threadreader for those without an account.
Forget the actual numbers, but look at the trends

Link 1 This contains an animation in the first graph.

Link 2 shows current ventilator occupancy. Don't forget that treatments have improved after the first wave, with conventional oxygen therapy, oxygen enhanced CPAP, and other drug therapies, so one would perhaps expect actual invasive ventilator use to decrease, but look at the graph.

Please don't let anyone be misled by those misusing or misunderstanding the figures and claiming this isn't as serious as it is in reality.

Stay safe folks, but don't get so stressed your health suffers for other reasons.
Seek help if you need it, physical, or mental.

Bill

[HOWARDTParticipant @howardt]

Unfortunately at that age where death is all too common now, quite a few people we know have known people who have died during this last year from non covid illness but had it included on their death certificate. Although at least one had it removed from cause of death. Just wonder if it is used as a catch all to ease the paperwork.

Like most we keep safe and overuse FaceTime etc

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

As Bill say, it's the excess deaths that give us the best picture:

Not all excess deaths are necessarily directly attributable to Covid 19, could be as a result of delayed medical attention but still a result of the pandemic.

Stay well,

Rod

[Rod RenshawParticipant @rodrenshaw28584]

When I started this thread I did not mean to suggest that there is not a very serious problem. The pressure on the hospitals makes the problem obvious, but rather to point to what seems to me to be a difficulty with the definition of a virus related death, which potentially gets more serious as the number of tests goes up. In the early days ,when the definition was devised, the effect would probably have been very small, but perhaps not so small now?

I have no special insight into the internal workings of the NHS but I have collated National stats from numbers complied by large numbers of local observers. One of the most important parts of such exercises is devising a very robust definition of which cases are to be included and which are to be left out.

If the definition is not precise this leaves the decisions on inclusion to the local observers' individual judgements and leads to stats of doubtful value. So I do wonder if the "within 28 days definition "is being used by the clinicians – whatever their individual views on which deaths are "obviously" not virus related..

Rod

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Removed V8

Edited By V8Eng on 14/01/2021 16:51:03

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

I was posting an adverse comment about Blowlamp’s video but that seems to disappear when quoted.

Edited By V8Eng on 14/01/2021 16:54:54

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

Rod, I rarely contribute to these threads, but can not face rooting about on a cold garage floor for a dropped titanium M6 bolt.

The deaths “from” covid were inflated and each part of the constituent countries in the UK records differently. In Scotland Covid was made ,by statute a notifiable disease thereby mandating its reporting…even on suspicion . So no influenza deaths were recorded ( they are not notifiable). The suspicion was softened and its capture firmed up.

However the annualised death rathe was still higher , and if you are in your sod bed , it perhaps matters naught which statistical or administrative box is ticked.

A bit like Mark Twain suggesting that ” to a man carrying a hammer everything looks like a nail”.

Strangely my wife has just sneezed and the garage seems attractive again….

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by V8Eng on 14/01/2021 16:51:44:

I was posting an adverse comment about Blowlamp’s video but that seems to disappear when quoted.

Edited By V8Eng on 14/01/2021 16:54:54

 

It's not my video.

It's one I came across that puts a Doctor's assessment over. That's all.

 

Stay safe Stay at Home Stay Apart

 

Edited By blowlamp on 14/01/2021 17:08:24

[larry phelan 1Participant @larryphelan1]

Believe nothing you read and half of what you hear [ or vice-versa ] and you wont go too far wrong.

Advice given freely by my Granny, who knew EVERYTHING..

Turns out, she was not too far off the mark.

[Ramon WilsonParticipant @ramonwilson3]

You can only believe what you want to believe but personally I'm keeping strictly to Boris's request

I have a few plans in mind for the future – getting Covid isn't one of them so why not do as he says. Can't do no harm can it?

Tug

[Stuart BridgerParticipant @stuartbridger82290]

Best thing is not to look at the death figures they can always and are being argued over. Cumulative figures are only of interest to journalists.
The real issue is the number of patients being hospitalised and the capacity to treat.
The scary thing is that during the first wave, I knew of very few cases. but currently I am hearing about a lot of people locally who have tested positive, a number in hospital and sadly some deaths

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by blowlamp on 14/01/2021 15:59:54:

[…]

.

I couldn’t suppress a wry smile when I saw the McAfee anti-virus advert pop up in that

MichaelG.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

What… McAfee's got a vaccine out too?

[Stephen SpindlerParticipant @stephenspindler87715]

Good evening folks, first time on here for me for about a week and so I'm enjoying reading through a few threads. The reason for the gap is I'm recovering C-19. Positive test result new years eve, when downhill on the 5th and only really surfaced on the 11th. For me it was (and still is) far worse than Flu, and I've only had that twice in my life and general opinion is I'm still two weeks away from being normally mobile again. I'm 62 and in general good health and not over weight to any degree. I guess my point is, keep safe and be guided by your own common sense rather than any statistic regardless of how dire or indeed comforting it might seem.

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

Posted by peak4 on 14/01/2021 14:09:17:

Link 1 This contains an animation in the first graph.

Link 2 shows current ventilator occupancy.

Not that i want to disbelieve any of that– but look at the doctor's name !!!!!!!!!!!

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

However inaccurate our Covid stats are, I think it's likely they're at least in the ball park.

Current fatality rates from Covid:

UK: 1 in 776 people

France: 1 in 942 people

USA: 1 in 838 people

Contrast these figures with China's officially reported rate of 1 Covid death per 310,000 people, i.e. 0.25 % of the death rate in the UK.

With relatives currently locked down in Hebei province and unable to leave their homes for the last week even to buy food [no online ordering of groceries possible for them], I'm fairly confident of one thing at least: it's not the UK population who are being fed the most unreliable death stats out there.

[Author]

Posts