The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

The ONS is now publishing figures for Covid-19 deaths based on death certificates. on 20 March, when the reported number of England and Wales deaths were said to be 170, the ONS are now saying there were 210 deaths.

That is the official (new) weekly bulletin so it looks like they will be nearly two weeks behind (that'll effectively drip feed the new numbers in).
 
bear66 said:
The ONS is now publishing figures for Covid-19 deaths based on death certificates. on 20 March, when the reported number of England and Wales deaths were said to be 170, the ONS are now saying there were 210 deaths.

That is the official (new) weekly bulletin so it looks like they will be nearly two weeks behind (that'll effectively drip feed the new numbers in).
Click to expand...
Is the extra 40 deaths for that day or 40 extra death up to 20th March?
 
What I don't understand is the sudden fascination with death figures.
**** is depressing as **** seeing it everywhere you turn on the tv or the radio or the internet.
 
RandySavage said:
What I don't understand is the sudden fascination with death figures.
Click to expand...

Initially I thought people/govt were over reacting & so I was looking at the figures to seek reassurance.
Then there was a grim realisation that, despite limited testing & vast majority of tests being negative, positives & deaths were doubling every couple of days and the UK wouldn't escape.
Now I'm looking for the peak/slow down so we can see when this will end.
 
bear66 said:
The ONS is now publishing figures for Covid-19 deaths based on death certificates. on 20 March, when the reported number of England and Wales deaths were said to be 170, the ONS are now saying there were 210 deaths.

That is the official (new) weekly bulletin so it looks like they will be nearly two weeks behind (that'll effectively drip feed the new numbers in).
Click to expand...

Wow, those figures are complicated even by ONS standards!

So, the actual number of registered deaths involving Covid-19 by 20th March was 108 (5 in w/e 13th March and 103 in w/e 20th March).

However, as that doesn’t really tell you much (as hospital reported deaths already stood at 170 by that date), they’ve also added a provisional figure based on further registrations by 25th March (as they state it can take five days for a doctor to certify a death). This takes the number to 210.

Personally, I think that’s unsatisfactory, as the provisional figure is based on an unmeasurable assumption, so will include some deaths which actually occurred in w/e 27th March. Therefore, one can have little confidence in assuming that 210 is the ‘correct’ figure and/or extrapolating that non-hospital deaths account for c.20% of all deaths.

Interesting blog from the ONS on this below:

https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2020/03/31/...virus-covid-19/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
 
Billy Horner said:
Wow, those figures are complicated even by ONS standards!

So, the actual number of registered deaths involving Covid-19 by 20th March was 108 (5 in w/e 13th March and 103 in w/e 20th March).

However, as that doesn’t really tell you much (as hospital reported deaths already stood at 170 by that date), they’ve also added a provisional figure based on further registrations by 25th March (as they state it can take five days for a doctor to certify a death). This takes the number to 210.

Personally, I think that’s unsatisfactory, as the provisional figure is based on an unmeasurable assumption, so will include some deaths which actually occurred in w/e 27th March. Therefore, one can have little confidence in assuming that 210 is the ‘correct’ figure and/or extrapolating that non-hospital deaths account for c.20% of all deaths.

Interesting blog from the ONS on this below:

https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2020/03/31/...virus-covid-19/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Click to expand...
Now I'm really confused! :unsure:
 
bear66 said:
Now I'm really confused! :unsure:
Click to expand...
We have included in the count every death registered in the relevant week for which COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate (whether as the underlying cause of death or not).
That’s the bit that stood out for me
 
ABHBORO said:
We have included in the count every death registered in the relevant week for which COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate (whether as the underlying cause of death or not).
That’s the bit that stood out for me
Click to expand...
I presume that they are counting non-hospital deaths as a measure to compare with either their total figures or hospital reported figures.
 
bear66 said:
Now I'm really confused! :unsure:
Click to expand...

I agree it is confusing. And convoluted and a little bit contrived.

To be honest, it took me 20 minutes to find the 210 figure anywhere on the ONS website, as it’s the 108 figure which is in all the spreadsheets. It sounds like the sort of thing that the comms guy asks you to do, because he knows it won’t get a headline otherwise.

It’s not like there isn’t some really interesting stuff in the data release itself. For example, of the 108 registered deaths, 79 (73%) were aged 75+, 64 (59%) were men and 44 (41%) were in London.

I’d much prefer that they’d let this data stand in its own right, rather than trying to invent a read across to the Department of Health daily figures.
 
Scary numbers today. Depressing when we have a few days without alarming rises that you convince yourself we've somehow managed to turn the corner, but all the experts keep telling us not to view it like that.
 
As of 9am on 31 March 2020, a total of 143,186 people have been tested, of which 25,150 were confirmed positive.

As of 5pm on 30 March 2020, of those hospitalised in the UK, 1,789 have died.
 
Not sure whether good/bad or indifferent but the 4 day rolling average for the number of deaths is pretty consistent at around 25%.
 
Some headline analysis:

• Highest number of new infections in 24-hour period (3,009)
• But, rate of growth in 4-day average for infections has now slowed for the past 5 days (only 1.2% growth since yesterday)
• Highest number of new deaths in 24-hour period (381)
• 4-day average for deaths grows by 24% having slowed to 3% growth yesterday
• We continue to track just below Italy on a days since 20th death basis, having now done so for the past 16 days
 
The problem is that the government have been woefully short of the amount of tests needed and now they are working hard to test more the number of infections will obviously increase, which will make analysis of the data very difficult to do.

The number of deaths is a reliable measure of the trend but the problem is thats its around 2-3 weeks behind the true infection rate.
 
I am no statician but I have been tracking number of deaths and according to what I have the averages for rolling 4 days increase have been 24/26/28/25% (today's first), again other than showing its fairly consistent, not sure what else it shows.

Today is day 17 since 21 deaths in the UK (using 21 as day 0), on day 17 Italy had recorded 2,158 deaths and the UK 1808.

From day 19 both Italy and Spain start to see a slow down in the % increase of deaths, hopefully we are following the same trend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top