The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

zorro_mfc

Well-known member
Cartoon on twitter about trumps Easter plan
 

Attachments

  • 3BD61158-CCFE-4BD0-9CBE-A51B18D5B1F9.jpeg
    3BD61158-CCFE-4BD0-9CBE-A51B18D5B1F9.jpeg
    29 KB · Views: 27

1finny

Well-known member
He actually said that if we end up with fewer than 20,000 deaths we will have “done very well”.

Anyway, that aside, if the numbers do keep doubling every 3/4 days for the next 20 days then we will be totally screwed. Not only would we be well above 20,000 deaths by that point in time, but we would also still have to endure a similar number on the down slope.

Not saying that will happen by the way, just pointing out that we need to see the rate of growth slowing before we can have any real optimism.


But, and trying for optimism, if he’s right......
 

Jonny Ingbar

Well-known member
Italy have suffered over 10,000 deaths and its still rising, although hopefully not for much longer.

But whatever the death rate is at the peak of the curve you can double that as the virus subsides - I'd expect Italy to reach around 25,000 deaths by the end of the summer, maybe more.

I think 20,000 in the UK is the least we'll see, I hope I'm wrong.

The biggest concern is the US, where the eventual death rate is anyone's guess at the moment, but I would be surprised to see it reach (and even exceed) 100,000
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
But, and trying for optimism, if he’s right......

If the rate of increase begins to slow over the next week or so, then there may indeed be grounds for optimism.

If, however, we get to the end of the following week without any such reduction, then it’s time to get your prayer mats out.
 

newusername

Well-known member
The general trend is c. what new positives there were two weeks ago, that is deaths now.

Eg On 1.3 we had 12 new positives, 15.3 we had 14 deaths
On 14.3 UK had 264 new positive, on 27.3 (latest available) we had 260 deaths.
Today there were 2,546 new positives, slightly down from 2,885 yesterday.

Hence people saying we may be over the worst in two weeks time.
 

Nobby_Barnes

Well-known member
I don't see how 'positive tests' is really that relevant, it's just dependent on the total number of tests performed.

The death rate is all that matters !
 

bear66

Well-known member
In the UK all positives are people ill enough to need hospitalisation. As these go down, deaths with follow in about three weeks.

As testing begins on NHS staff, the numbers of positives will probably increase for less ill patients so figures may then become less informative.
 

newusername

Well-known member
I don't see how 'positive tests' is really that relevant, it's just dependent on the total number of tests performed.

The death rate is all that matters !

Sure.

But as the UK sometime around 14.3 stopped testing anyone not admitted into hospital, ie the most serious cases & those most likely to die & now 2 weeks later still isn't doing general testing, if that trend holds true we could be topping a thousand daily deaths in the first week in April.
 
Last edited:

bear66

Well-known member
That sounds right. Hopefully at somene point that number turns. Once you get to those numbers, people who would live today will die because we won't have enough ventilators. The NHS guy wasn't dismissing 20,000 deaths as being a good number (in that it could be wise).
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
That sounds right. Hopefully at somene point that number turns. Once you get to those numbers, people who would live today will die because we won't have enough ventilators. The NHS guy wasn't dismissing 20,000 deaths as being a good number (in that it could be wise).

That’s entirely correct. Once you get past a certain point (i.e. the surge capacity of the NHS) then larger numbers of people will die simply due to a lack of facilities.

This will also include those who have heart attacks, strokes, etc. which will still happen at about the same rate as normal, but at a point of severe stress in the NHS. If that happens, then the ‘excess deaths’ figure will be much higher.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Bears interpretation is entirely correct. As we are only testing hospital admitances the death rate will track positive test results until we start doing more general testing.

The ascersion that once we get a certain number of critical cases, the death rate will begin to climb against the number of positive tests as we start to put a strain on the NHS is also true. The worst possible scenario is that the doctors and nurses start to get ill in large numbers. 1 isolated doctor is potentially hundreds of patients not getting diagnosed, treated and ventillated when they ought to be.

Not wishing to be negative, but I don't think the UK is anywhere near peak yet. Add to this that when we do peak, it is likely that the NHS will no longer be fully staffed so the downward curve my be much shallower than the upward curve. We need to get testing kits to get our doctors and nurses back to work, or indeed out of the workplace as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is also the reason that it is a disgrace that the NHS staff do not have full PPE from the consultants down to the tea lady. And when I say disgrace I mean that literally.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
I was using the timeline that was getting used last week. It had us 14 days behind Italy but now the media have moved the start time and have us 18 days behind Italy.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....y-two-weeks-Italy-coronavirus-death-toll.html

I’ve been tracking the numbers from various countries and comparing their trends to ours. Not saying I’m a professor of epidemiology or anything, but I can forecast trends and know my way round a spreadsheet.

A few things are obvious, even from a bit of semi-amateur modelling:

1. Regardless of debates over testing criteria, we are almost exactly following France’s trajectory for infections, but around four days behind.

2. We have been tracking Italy’s trajectory for deaths for over a week and continue to do so. Our numbers look slightly smaller than theirs, but not significantly, and we are around 14 days behind them.

3. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that either the much reported peak in 7 days or a total deaths of around 5,000 might be correct. The 3-day averages for both infections and deaths are still increasing, which would suggest rising deaths for a minimum of another 14 days.
 
Last edited:

bear66

Well-known member
As of 9am on 29 March 2020, a total of 127,737 people have been tested, of which 108,215 were confirmed negative and 19,522 were confirmed positive.

As of 5pm on 28 March 2020, 1,228 patients in the UK who tested positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) have died.
 

ABHBORO

Active member
I’ve been tracking the numbers from various countries and comparing their trends to ours. Not saying I’m a professor of epidemiology or anything, but I can forecast trends and know my way round a spreadsheet.

A few things are obvious, even from a bit of semi-amateur modelling:

1. Regardless of debates over testing criteria, we are almost exactly following France’s trajectory for infections, but around four days behind.

2. We have been tracking Italy’s trajectory for deaths for over a week and continue to do so. Our numbers look slightly smaller than theirs, but not significantly, and we are around 14 days behind them.

3. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that either the much reported peak in 7 days or a total deaths of around 5,000 might be correct. The 3-day averages for both infections and deaths are still increasing, which would suggest rising deaths for a minimum of another 14 days.
I didn’t look into in that much detail:) Our total deaths was 1019 and 14 days earlier Italy’s was 1266
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
March 28th the UK had recorded 1019 deaths

March 14th Italy had recorded 1441 deaths.

You can’t compare them on a direct basis like that, as it takes different lengths of time for the virus to establish itself within the community. You have to do it on a days since Xth death basis, as that enables you to use numbers which are statistically significant.

Using that modelling, as of yesterday we were on a similar trajectory to Italy, but with slightly smaller numbers and 14 days behind. I haven’t looked at today’s figures yet.
 
Top
X