Corona virus data analysis. A fascinating read.

borolad259

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
This is the most credible analysis of the data that I've seen. Interestingly, it's the model that the Swedish epidemiologists are working to. It also fits with the fact that people in my family got sick with Covid before it was thought to be widely spread (early February) ... and the fact that only one person in a household of 3 got sick (the only one that hadn't been taking codliver oil all winter funnily enough).

https://medium.com/@ali_razavian/covid-19-from-a-data-scientists-perspective-95bd4e84843b
 
It would be interesting to see/hear some peer review of this, particularly from the various lead scientists from the more affected countries.
 
Interesting analysis - I have never believed the estimated infections rates the Government Medical experts have been given in public. They said that they thought less than 4% of the UK population had been infected in their opinion. The guy (Ali R) in this analysis is saying many of the population has been infected by the time the death rate starts. Lets say around March 5th in the UK. These opinions/analysis are at complete odds with each other. I based my infection rates guess on number of deaths multiplied by 500 or 0.2% death rate. If I used 0.06% I should be using 1600. If we say there has been 15000 total deaths from the virus (the hospital and estimated non hospital figures) the number infected would be 15000 times 1600 = 24 million people - 4% of that is around 1 million as the number who have felt ill enough to think they have flu, according to Ali R in the UK. If I used his later fatality figure of 0.045 that would more like 32 million or around 50% of the UK population infected/been infected.

Many of my family members thought they may have had the virus well before the shutdown, but because they were not laid up they didn't consider it to be flu etc, certainly not a deadly virus.
 
Except his logic is flawed as he uses a mortality rate of 1.5% based on detection vs deaths whereas in the UK it is about 12% of detected cases result in deaths. This puts his figures out by about 1 decimal place so instead of an overall death rate of 0.06% it would be roughly 0.6%, and therefore the amount of people that have had the virus and the infection rate are therefore a tenth of what he claims.
 
Maybe in the uk, but not necessarily elsewhere. Wuhan for instance. As he also points out, that in stressed healthcare systems, only the most sick go into hospital, which may be us.
Interestingly in Sweden, the survival rate of those going into intensive care is 80%. I can't remember the figure off-hand, but the UK was significantly lower.

But, as he is updating the graph, we will soon see if actual cases continue to mirror the estimated curve.
 
Last edited:
Redwurzel said:
Interesting analysis - I have never believed the estimated infections rates the Government Medical experts have been given in public. They said that they thought less than 4% of the UK population had been infected in their opinion. The guy (Ali R) in this analysis is saying many of the population has been infected by the time the death rate starts. Lets say around March 5th in the UK. These opinions/analysis are at complete odds with each other. I based my infection rates guess on number of deaths multiplied by 500 or 0.2% death rate. If I used 0.06% I should be using 1600. If we say there has been 15000 total deaths from the virus (the hospital and estimated non hospital figures) the number infected would be 15000 times 1600 = 24 million people - 4% of that is around 1 million as the number who have felt ill enough to think they have flu, according to Ali R in the UK. If I used his later fatality figure of 0.045 that would more like 32 million or around 50% of the UK population infected/been infected.

Many of my family members thought they may have had the virus well before the shutdown, but because they were not laid up they didn't consider it to be flu etc, certainly not a deadly virus.
Click to expand...
I'm of the same mindset. I was laid up for a few days on January with the exact same symptoms of this coronavirus. My mum was actually bed bound for a full week. Work colleagues all suffered various different levels of the same symptoms basically over the full month of January.
 
I have a friend who came back from China with it in December. He was hospitalised for 6 days with double pneumonia BUT, of course, he wasn't tested for it. I know others who had the crushing fever, aches pains and horrible dry cough in January (in London).

Interestingly, the Oxford Covid 19 study a few weeks ago was suggesting that the epidemic began some time in January and has been transmitted silently through large portions of the population with most having only a very mild ilnness or none at all. This statistical analysis adds some weight to their assumptions.
 
It just goes to show the lockdown is not helping and should be lifted and it will have only caused more death.
You won't find this analysis on any mainstream news though.
 
At my work, throughout February, my shift partner’s wife, a teacher, was bed ridden for a week with a fever, despite ‘never getting ill’. He said she was told it was glandular fever. Another lad phoned in sick cos he couldn’t get off the sofa for 3 days, just a complete energy crash he said. He had some blood tests done because his father has a blood disease that can be hereditary, but they all came back clear. A girl I was working with spent a week complaining that she couldn’t taste a single thing she ate or drank. Another guy had a relatively mild cough, and I felt achey and lost my sense of smell as well as feeling ever so slightly tight chested. It was only looking back weeks and weeks later, when it all proper kicked off, that I thought ‘I wonder?’. Who knows. Maybe none of us had it?

Frankly, I hope we’ve all had it, and our families, and that was the limit of it for us but I bet everyone everywhere who has had a sniffle or a ‘knackered’ day is thinking the same - have I had it?

Will be really interesting if they ever manage to mass anti-body test, or a large sample to model, to see what the real numbers are.
 
I'm not sure I would put any weight behind the Wuhan figures I'm afraid. And even if I did, globally the known infection vs death rate isn't 1.5% so there is no way that you can use that figure to calculate the number infected and infection rates, as much as I would love to.
 
Also didn't the Government here recently say that when they tested all the medical professionals that were currently off with symptoms that only around 30% tested positive
 
Alvez_48 said:
It just goes to show the lockdown is not helping and should be lifted and it will have only caused more death.
You won't find this analysis on any mainstream news though.
Click to expand...

This is what my Swedish scientist friend keeps banging on about. The science does not support lock down. In his eyes it's just handing draconian powers to the state for no reason. It damages the economy. Causes untold hardship and, ultimately, causes starvation if it's not stopped soon (because farmers can't get food from the ground etc etc)
 
Stanny said:
I'm not sure I would put any weight behind the Wuhan figures I'm afraid. And even if I did, globally the known infection vs death rate isn't 1.5% so there is no way that you can use that figure to calculate the number infected and infection rates, as much as I would love to.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the mortality rate figures on the John Hopkins site and we are an outlier. We have far too many people not going to hospital on time. Also, over time, the percentage of fatalities will fall in relation to overall infections.
 
borolad259 said:
This is what my Swedish scientist friend keeps banging on about. The science does not support lock down. In his eyes it's just handing draconian powers to the state for no reason. It damages the economy. Causes untold hardship and, ultimately, causes starvation if it's not stopped soon (because farmers can't get food from the ground etc etc)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all suprised if the government already have this information know it's likely the reality but won't act on it because they've already gone too deep to say 'we ****ed up'.

Instead it will be slower release of restrictions, Draconian measures with us for a long time and big claims of winning the 'war' over this virus.
 
Alvez_48 said:
It just goes to show the lockdown is not helping and should be lifted and it will have only caused more death.
You won't find this analysis on any mainstream news though.
Click to expand...
Have you taken population density into your thinking at all Alvez?
I'm not saying you are wrong as it is nigh on impossible to say who is right with any degree of certainty, but we have a population density in the order of 10 times that of Sweden so commonsense would indicate that there would be more chance of infection here.
If you look at it from that point of view then Sweden's mortality figures don't look that good.
 
dooderooni said:
Have you taken population density into your thinking at all Alvez?
I'm not saying you are wrong as it is nigh on impossible to say who is right with any degree of certainty, but we have a population density in the order of 10 times that of Sweden so commonsense would indicate that there would be more chance of infection here.
If you look at it from that point of view then Sweden's mortality figures don't look that good.
Click to expand...

If this analysis is correct, then Sweden is doing ok in the deaths per million of population. Bear in mind that they will likely be out the other side before, say, Denmark. What I extrapolate from his work is that pretty much all of us will get it and for most places (I'm guessing those with a functioning healthcare system) the death rate will be 0.06%. Whether you are in Sweden with 6000 deaths or the USA with 140,000, that's a **** of a lot of life lost. I don't think he is under-playing the figures.

Sweden's lead epidemiologist is working on the basis that this will rip through the population at a rate of knots whatever you do. If you cocoon those most likely to die and let the rest of the population go ahead and get mildly sick, you might have just as good, if not better, outcome than trying to lock up the whole population, who are most likely already infectious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top