The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

Billy Horner

Well-known member
You've assumed by looking at the figures that every single person in a bed equipped for ventilation is on a ventilator with just covid-19 wrong with them.
They may be in hospital for ICU for one of a plethora of different conditions, traumas or illnesses that require ventilation. Also true that they may have tested positive for covid-19 on admission to hospital.

You don't always have to assume worst case scenario.

I mean its a nightmare in Middlesbrough last I heard, constant flow of ambulances into James Cook.
I agree that it’s technically possible that people may be in beds equipped with ventilators but not actually using the equipment. However, the reality of the NHS is that such resources are scarce, so it’s highly unlikely that a clinical decision would be made to put a patient in such a bed who didn’t need it.

Also, as a metric with a standard definition, this is just one of a range of indicators that show us the direction of travel. Unfortunately, they’ve all being going in the wrong direction of late (although ventilator usage is actually growing less quickly than the other hospital data).

On the ambulance point, I know you’re being flippant, but it’s not the nature of this disease that people suddenly go into respiratory arrest at home. They progressively get worse over time, so will progress from illness, to hospital admission to the ward, to transfer to ICU and then death. That’s why you don’t hear ambulances flying about all the time.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
I agree that it’s technically possible that people may be in beds equipped with ventilators but not actually using the equipment. However, the reality of the NHS is that such resources are scarce, so it’s highly unlikely that a clinical decision would be made to put a patient in such a bed who didn’t need it.

Also, as a metric with a standard definition, this is just one of a range of indicators that show us the direction of travel. Unfortunately, they’ve all being going in the wrong direction of late (although ventilator usage is actually growing less quickly than the other hospital data).

On the ambulance point, I know you’re being flippant, but it’s not the nature of this disease that people suddenly go into respiratory arrest at home. They progressively get worse over time, so will progress from illness, to hospital admission to the ward, to transfer to ICU and then death. That’s why you don’t hear ambulances flying about all the time.
Wasn't been flippant at all. Was told by a friend who lives round that neck of the woods he'd noticed an increase in ambulance traffic.
 

bear66

Well-known member
As of 9am on 17 October, 705,443 people have tested positive for COVID-19 in the UK.

Positive cases were 16,171.

150 deaths were reported today.

57,690 deaths with Covid-19 on the death certificate.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
Today's headline analysis:

• 16,171 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 15,635
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 0.9% to 16,370 per day, following 1.6% increase yesterday (and 46th increase in the past 49 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 3.4% higher than one week ago (from 4.7% higher yesterday) and 125.8% higher than two weeks ago (from 158.7% higher yesterday and 191.0% higher 7 days ago)
• 150 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, up from 136 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 9.2% to 117 per day, following 7.0% increase yesterday (and 30th increase in the past 32 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 84.9% higher than one week ago (from 82.5% higher yesterday) and 136.7% higher than two weeks ago (from 126.6% higher yesterday and 109.0% higher 7 days ago)
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
Billy is there a reversal of cases of positive tests coming? I ask because the 7 day average v one week ago is reducing day on day?
The rate of increase defintitely appears to be slowing down again. That could well be the prelude to a peak in cases followed by a decline. The rate of positive tests per test processed is also virtually unchanged from last week, which is a good sign.

That said, the last time this happened, a couple of weeks ago, it transpired that they'd been under-reporting the cases due to the excel spreadsheet fiasco. Hopefully, they've upgraded their version of Microsoft Office since then.
 

bear66

Well-known member
The rate of increase defintitely appears to be slowing down again. That could well be the prelude to a peak in cases followed by a decline. The rate of positive tests per test processed is also virtually unchanged from last week, which is a good sign.

That said, the last time this happened, a couple of weeks ago, it transpired that they'd been under-reporting the cases due to the excel spreadsheet fiasco. Hopefully, they've upgraded their version of Microsoft Office since then.
The huge number of university cases must have leveled off and not spread too far beyond their digs. Hopefully things are leveling off in terms of cases. The "healthcare" stats don't look so good though and seem to be increasing faster than cases.
 
Last edited:
The rate of increase defintitely appears to be slowing down again. That could well be the prelude to a peak in cases followed by a decline. The rate of positive tests per test processed is also virtually unchanged from last week, which is a good sign.

That said, the last time this happened, a couple of weeks ago, it transpired that they'd been under-reporting the cases due to the excel spreadsheet fiasco. Hopefully, they've upgraded their version of Microsoft Office since then.
I must say I lost faith in the case figures after the spreadsheet problem and I notice since then that ’the fraternity’ have been putting other ‘estimated‘ case numbers out which are much higher. That’s why I think they should just concentrate on hospital admissions as a guideline to the direction of travel and possibly their view of the R number.
 
Occupying beds equipped for ventilation Randy.

Of course, given the well known lack of ICU/ventilation capacity in the NHS (at any time, not just during this pandemic), you’d have to be an absolute tin foil hat brigade loon to believe that the entire medical profession would conspire to allocate such beds to patients who didn’t need them.

Fortunately, I know that wouldn’t apply to you.
Billy, rely appreciate the work you put into the stats.
We all know that there are multiple tragedies being played out around the country and it is incredibly sad for those concerned,
I do however take exception to the reporting of ICU beds numbers without context.
Liverpool, in the highest possible danger has less icu beds occupied than this time last year, with no virus.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Billy, rely appreciate the work you put into the stats.
We all know that there are multiple tragedies being played out around the country and it is incredibly sad for those concerned,
I do however take exception to the reporting of ICU beds numbers without context.
Liverpool, in the highest possible danger has less icu beds occupied than this time last year, with no virus.
It's actually ventilator figures that are quoted on a daily basis, not ICU beds. PHE quote them as there is context. They define the number of most severe Covid-19 cases (running out of unlikely as 30,000 have been made ready for use if needed.)
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
I must say I lost faith in the case figures after the spreadsheet problem and I notice since then that ’the fraternity’ have been putting other ‘estimated‘ case numbers out which are much higher. That’s why I think they should just concentrate on hospital admissions as a guideline to the direction of travel and possibly their view of the R number.
Personally, I like to look across a range of metrics, covering infections, admissions and deaths. If they’re all growing, then the R is almost certainly above 1, if they’re all falling then it’s almost certainly below 1.

The most accurate measure of infections is the weekly ONS infection survey, published every Friday. The only drawback is that its data refers to the previous week.

The latest release, published yesterday, estimates there were around 28,000 new infections per day in England, during the period 2-8 October. If we extrapolate that for the whole of the UK, that would equate to around 34,000 new infections per day.

The ONS survey does not include people living in hospitals, care homes or other institutions. I’m not sure about care homes, but hospitals account for approx. one-eighth of all infections. Therefore, a reasonable estimate of all new infections in the UK for the 7-day period ending 8 October would be approx. 39,000 per day.

The 7-day average for cases identified by positive tests has grown by 5.4% since 8 October. Assuming the same rate of growth for all new infections, there might currently be approx. 41,000 new infections per day in the UK.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
Today's headline analysis:

• 16,982 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 16,171
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 3.6% to 16,957 per day, following 0.9% increase yesterday (and 47th increase in the past 50 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 17.8% higher than one week ago (from 3.4% higher yesterday) and 74.5% higher than two weeks ago (from 125.8% higher yesterday and 147.4% higher 7 days ago)
• 67 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 150 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 0.2% to 117 per day, following 9.2% increase yesterday (and 31st increase in the past 33 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 72.8% higher than one week ago (from 84.9% higher yesterday) and 126.8% higher than two weeks ago (from 136.7% higher yesterday and 125.1% higher 7 days ago)
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
Today's headline analysis:

• 18,804 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 16,982
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 4.1% to 17,647 per day, following 3.6% increase yesterday (and 48th increase in the past 51 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 21.0% higher than one week ago (from 17.8% higher yesterday) and 61.4% higher than two weeks ago (from 74.5% higher yesterday and 152.8% higher 7 days ago)
• 80 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, up from 67 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 3.7% to 122 per day, following 0.2% increase yesterday (and 32nd increase in the past 34 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 68.2% higher than one week ago (from 72.8% higher yesterday) and 131.3% higher than two weeks ago (from 126.8% higher yesterday and 137.6% higher 7 days ago)
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
It does seem we have reached a peak as the new cases seem to have saturated around the 15k to 20k figure.
It does not seem to be exponentially rising.

Here's hoping, I do expect the deaths to increase in the next 2 weeks to match the now infection rate
Yeah thats what I was thinking. The 7 day average is rising but slowly which would suggest the r rate is around 1? I'm just waiting for thenweek when we can see it go down (obviously, and sadly, desths will track quite a few weeks behind)
 
Top
X