The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

RandySavage said:
But you are correct as @Alvez_48 has already stated.

Fully expecting the country to crap it's pants again tomorrow though when it's announced that 40 or so have unfortunately passed.
Click to expand...
If it's 40 or so then the trend is significantly down from last week so it'll show improvement. If it's triple figures I genuinely will be worried. It's still a bit too high if so. Time will tell.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Anyone know the calculation which tells 1 in 1700 people have the virus?
Click to expand...

It’s from the ONS infection survey which is published every two weeks. Latest findings in the link below.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...naviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/18june2020

Important to highlight that this estimate relates purely to the infection rate in the community. It doesn’t include institutions such as hospitals, care homes or prisons, where the infection rate is likely to be significantly higher.
 
Billy Horner said:
It’s from the ONS infection survey which is published every two weeks. Latest findings in the link below.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...naviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/18june2020

Important to highlight that this estimate relates purely to the infection rate in the community. It doesn’t include institutions such as hospitals, care homes or prisons, where the infection rate is likely to be significantly higher.
Click to expand...
Which on turn is skewing the R number guesswork.
 
I see the excess deaths are coming down too, despite the vulnerable and care homes still shielding.

Time for some honesty over the figures.

65,138
 
RandySavage said:
Which on turn is skewing the R number guesswork.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but it's not really 'skewing' the number as such.

It's true that there are higher rates of infection and reproduction within these institutions. The problem is that, although they might appear so, these places are not really closed systems, so you can't isolate what's happening within them from the community in which they operate.

Take prisons for example. Even though they are obviously relatively isolated settings (and they've suspended prison visits), you still have prison officers travelling in and out from the community, suppliers arriving and leaving, prisoners being released back into the community on completion of sentence, transfers to hospital where necessary (where staff and other patients are travelling in/out), people being remanded who might subsequently be released on bail, and so on.

And that's just prisons. Hospitals and care homes are, by nature, much more open systems than prisons. So you can't really separate what's happening in these institutions and assume that it won't impact the local community.
 
Last edited:
Billy Horner said:
I know what you mean, but it's not really 'skewing' the number as such.

It's true that there are higher rates of infection and reproduction within these institutions. The problem is that, although they might appear so, these places are not really closed systems, so you can't isolate what's happening within them from the community in which they operate.

Take prisons for example. Even though they are obvioulsy relatively isolated settings (and they've suspended prison visits), you still have prison officers travelling in and out from the community, suppliers arriving and leaving, prisoners being released back into the community on completion of sentence, transfers to hospital where necessary (where staff and other patients are travelling in/out), people being remanded who might subsequently be released on bail, and so on.

And that's just prisons. Hospitals and care homes are, by nature, much more open systems than prisons. So you can't really separate what's happening in these institutions and assume that it won't impact the local community.
Click to expand...
They should have isolated these places right at the beginning. Then today's picture would be very different to what it looks like now.
 
Although there is an increase in deaths today of 171, total deaths have increased by 280 as they've "improved" how they count them and are now including 109 additional deaths that happened in April, May and June.

Am I missing something on how hard this is?
 
As of 9am on 23 June, there have been 8,309,929 tests, with 237,142 tests on 22 June.

306,210 people have tested positive.

As of 5pm on 22 June, of those who tested positive for coronavirus in the UK, across all settings, 42,927 have died.

0.3% increase in positive tests. 271 Pillar 1. 171 deaths reported.
 
Today's headline analysis:

• 271 hospital reported infections in 24-hour period, slightly up from yesterday's 260
• 7-day average for new hospital reported infections decreases by 2.5%, following 1.9% decrease yesterday (and 60th decrease in the past 65 days)
• 7-day average for new hospital reported infections is 7.6% lower than one week ago (from 18.0% lower yesterday) and 32.1% lower than two weeks ago (from 26.3% lower yesterday and 43.6% lower 7 days ago)
• 171 new deaths in all settings reported in 24-hour period, up from 15 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths in all settings decreases by 6.8%, following 2.5% decrease yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths in all settings is 21.8% lower than one week ago (from 20.0% lower yesterday) and 43.9% lower than two weeks ago (from 41.3% lower yesterday and 42.1% lower 7 days ago)
 
Bit of statistical gymnastics from the government today.

The difference between yesterday's and today's total deaths is 280, but 'only' 171 deaths have officially been recorded in today's figures. Whilst the government states that this is due to historical corrections to data from April, May and June, previously those additional 109 deaths would have been recorded in today's figures. Had they been, the 7-day average would have increased by 5.2% instead of falling by 6.8%.

Anyone would think they didn't want bad news on the day they announced further relaxations to the lockdown rules...
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
I see the excess deaths are coming down too, despite the vulnerable and care homes still shielding.

Time for some honesty over the figures.

65,138
Click to expand...

Or now that summers here and the hospital's are returning to normal. The numbers are much closer to the official statistic if not quite a lot lower.
 
As of 9am on 24 June, there have been 8,542,186 tests, with 232,086 tests on 23 June.

306,862 people have tested positive.

As of 5pm on 23 June, of those who tested positive for coronavirus in the UK, across all settings, 43,081 have died.

0.22% increase in positive tests. 164 Pillar 1. There were 154 deaths announced today.
 
Today's headline analysis:

• 164 hospital reported infections in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 271
• 7-day average for new hospital reported infections decreases by 7.2%, following 2.5% decrease yesterday (and 61st decrease in the past 66 days)
• 7-day average for new hospital reported infections is 20.8% lower than one week ago (from 7.6% lower yesterday) and 27.0% lower than two weeks ago (from 32.1% lower yesterday and 36.0% lower 7 days ago)
• 154 new deaths in all settings reported in 24-hour period, down from 171 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths in all settings decreases by 3.5%, following 6.8% decrease yesterday (and 55th decrease in the past 61 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths in all settings is 20.1% lower than one week ago (from 21.8% lower yesterday) and 41.5% lower than two weeks ago (from 43.9% lower yesterday and 43.8% lower 7 days ago)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top