oldboyroy
Well-known member
Still new confirmed cases staying around the 5000 mark which so far social distancing isn't making much difference yet!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Number of Deaths
- Thread starter Tim Over Whelmed
- Start date
Confirmed cases will go up all the time testing increasing. It`s the hospitalised cases and deaths that we need to see coming down. Which as others have said should start coming down this coming week.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
I don't think death rates are predicted to come down this week. An optimistic guess of when the peak will be is Friday April 17th, so I expect around 2 more weeks of 900+ per day, hopefully not much higher.
Easing the lockdown will prolong this, of course.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
We went with lockdown 2 weeks too late, after herd immunity had beguiled us to take our eyes off the ball.
We needed to have shut down large scale events earlier also.
There are other failures which will come out in the public inquiry of course. Manufacturing should have been repurposed for PPE and ventilators much earlier, and lack of airport quarantine looks to be a significant black mark.
As for case numbers, we have just tested less so that is likely to be a more inaccurate figure for us than for Germany.
Testing, tracing, ICU capacity among other things.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/09/...-country-whose-approach-puts-the-uk-to-shame/
I think you may be conflating numbers of cases and numbers of deaths. The point is they don't go hand in hand and the ratio is very clearly not fixed across the countries that all 'went bang' at about the same time (Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK).
The text I highlighted would account for Germany having fewer cases than us (oh, hang on, they have more cases), but would have absolutely no effect on the number of cases that progresses to death. The latter is dependent on effective medical care, something that Germany may trump us on.
Or it could be something else, for example Germany assigning 'clinical' diagnoses to many patients who don't actually have COVA, whereas the UK maybe assigns a 'confirmed' diagnosis only with a blood test. ('Clinical' merely means 'in the opinion of a doctor' whereas 'confirmed' means with a doagnostic test like a blood test). Maybe Germany doesn't register a death as a COVA death in a patient whose death would have been assigned as a COVA death in the UK. In each case the ratio of cases to deaths would be affected in a way that would give Germany more cases yet fewer deaths.
In fact the only explanation that doesn't work is yours. Late lockdown, on its own, would increase the number of cases and deaths in the UK versus Germany, and yet we have far fewer cases than Germany yet far more deaths.
My guess is that Germany makes a diagnosis sooner, the diagnosis is more accurate, and the intervention (oxygen etc) is introduced sooner and done better. Therefore even though they have more cases than we do, fewer people die. Not the best news.
Yes. Accurate early diagnosis allows early treatment. Then you need to be able to deliver effective treatment. I appreciate this British 'all mucking in together' spirit, but I am minded of our troops and the repeated complaints they have made over their inadequate equipment over the years......
It is too early for recriminations but at some point it will be very necessary for recriminations. The ratio of deaths to confirmed cases in each country (with approximately reliable data - forget Russia, China, India and some others), once the pandemic is over, is the key statistic.
Last edited:
Solid at the back
Well-known member
Anyone able to explain why, not just in the UK, but in Italy and Spain after lockdown (semi lockdown in UK) we're still seeing 5000 confirmed cases per day? We are old incubation period is up to 14 days. We've been in 'lockdown' for longer than that.
France - a week ahead of us on the curve, their lockdown started properly on Monday 16th March, infamously the French had ignored it on the warm and sunny 15th.
Germany - introduced their lockdown piecemeal with Bavaria the first state on 21st March, other states following from Monday 23rd March. Even now, Germans say the rules vary hugely between states.
UK - the lockdown was announced on the evening of the 23rd March.
So if we were late, then so were the other, much commended, European heavyweights. Whatever the French, Italians, Spanish, Belgiums and Dutch did, it didn’t prevent deaths per capita in line with the UK’s.
Germany are the stand out country in the democratic West in this crisis, with incredibly low mortality rates compared to the rest of Europe and North America. No doubt academics from across the world will find out exactly why. Countless numbers of ventilators, huge and ongoing testing of health professionals, large numbers of labs geared up for testing due to their pharmaceutical industry (Roche are mentioned repeatedly), a test that works, available in quantities?
Just put the BBC data into a spreadsheet and calculated the death rate per declared cases. These numbers are interesting. Some obvious big fat liars there. But there are also some plausible patters (that fit my wormy prejudices).
We are in here with Holland, Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, and the consistency suggests credibility.
Germany and USA seem to be keeping a higher propirion of the infected alive. USA surprises me as it is apparentlu poorer folk and blacks who are most at risk.
Russia, Turkey and Israel, lies, damned lies, and propaganda? And yet....Australia? Too few cases yet for a pattern to be evident?
Fill yer boots, 'numbers' boys and girls...
View attachment 122135
Edit - I am surprised that China and the US are similar for low death rate. My guess is all those poor blacks with no health care are going the same way as they do for the electoral register - not counted
We are in here with Holland, Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, and the consistency suggests credibility.
Germany and USA seem to be keeping a higher propirion of the infected alive. USA surprises me as it is apparentlu poorer folk and blacks who are most at risk.
Russia, Turkey and Israel, lies, damned lies, and propaganda? And yet....Australia? Too few cases yet for a pattern to be evident?
Fill yer boots, 'numbers' boys and girls...
View attachment 122135
Edit - I am surprised that China and the US are similar for low death rate. My guess is all those poor blacks with no health care are going the same way as they do for the electoral register - not counted
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
It is not the calendar date, but the date relative to the xth death ( 10th, 20th etc. ) which is the issue.
Ireland went into lockdown much earlier than us on this metric, and are reaping the benefits. Ukraine locked down harsher than us on about the same calendar date, but after only 2/3 deaths. Also with better outcomes.
This will all come out in the final analysis, but we'll get a very poor report card - we sacrificed our excellent initial case tracking and isolation ( credit is due for this phase ) on the altar of herd immunity.
Last edited:
oldboyroy
Well-known member
The worrying stat is still rate of infection hasn't reduced yet but I am sure it will this week as lockdown must reduce significant numbers
France was ahead on death counts by a week throughout, just one example.
Far too early to say that the UK has ‘performed’ badly compared to other major Europeans nations. When laymen like us, invariably with a party political angle as is the way in this funny old country of ours, start to compare with Ireland or Italy or Norway, epidemiologists with no tie to the government without fail say we need to stop doing that for a long list of reasons. For example; population density, customs within a culture, entirely different ways of recording deaths or not from covid19.
This has barely began, there will be second or third waves. Why the party political inspired drive to reach conclusions now, when we know so little, especially as laymen? We know the world was caught on the hop.
When it’s all done and dusted in a year or two, it will be interesting to read the judgements of apolitical epidemiologists, those looking at all European and North American countries. A politicised kangaroo court on a football forum makes amusing viewing, but other than from @HWT, what do we learn?
Last edited:
BN41Albion
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2017
- 6,401
You're right. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has their opinion on how we've handled it compared to every other country despite warped statistics, despite different methods of reporting deaths (can Germany's death rate really be that low??), despite hugely different population densities and different demographics... Plus as you say we're only at the beginning of it all. You never know, our slightly more relaxed lockdown might prevent a big second spike. Who knows. We can't judge anything yet.
I'm not saying mistakes haven't been made, but you could say that about the vast majority of countries with a couple of exceptions. SE Asian countries were/are in a slightly different position to European countries too because they had to deal with Sars not long ago.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
Many valid points are being made. Of course it's too early too make definitive judgments until this ghastly thing is over. But in terms of the UKs performance, I'd put the following into the mix as being possible characteristics of our own flawed strategy:
1. The herd immunity factor. this was at best a distraction; at worst a major blunder.
2. The 'behavioural science' factor. I've never been convinced that tis should have had weight. There was an assumption (I think) that the British people would get fed up with early lockdown and become non-compliant. Sure we listened to the science - but it was the not really always a science.
3. Having a PM who was fundamentally (at least at first) uncomfortable with lockdown.
I think each of the above three led to slow and/or weak intervention.
I'd finally add the one that we can all agree on: a health system which although potentially is one of the best configured (centralised) on the planet to fight this pandemic, came into the fight weakened by a decade of chronic underfunding.
1. The herd immunity factor. this was at best a distraction; at worst a major blunder.
2. The 'behavioural science' factor. I've never been convinced that tis should have had weight. There was an assumption (I think) that the British people would get fed up with early lockdown and become non-compliant. Sure we listened to the science - but it was the not really always a science.
3. Having a PM who was fundamentally (at least at first) uncomfortable with lockdown.
I think each of the above three led to slow and/or weak intervention.
I'd finally add the one that we can all agree on: a health system which although potentially is one of the best configured (centralised) on the planet to fight this pandemic, came into the fight weakened by a decade of chronic underfunding.
RossyG
Well-known member
- Dec 20, 2014
- 2,630
I think the behavioural science thing might have some validity. I can see people getting bored with isolation and start to ignore it. We’ve already seen a handful of examples already - groups of youths playing football etc - and I can see it getting worse.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
This is a classic case of 'we'll see'; and we'll never really know. The use of transport stats are interesting as these seem to be holing at a low level. It's really a case of
a) did we follow the wrong strategy of being slow to lockdown? and
b) why did we follow this strategy? If 'yes' is the answer the first and the behavioural science is part of the answer to the second, then questions should be asked.
I can't be bothered to go back and dig it out now, but I'm pretty sure that reports (including in the Guardian) indicted the initial strategy was from the Imperial College modellers - Neil Ferguson et al - and it was only when they factored in further data from the emerging picture in Italy, that the potentially catastrophic impact on the NHS emerged, triggering the rather rapid change of direction.
Hindsight is always a wonderful thing, of course, and there seems to be lots of "it was obvious that the approach was going to lead to lots of people dying". Maybe so, but none of the experts advising the UK government at the time seemed to think that.
"The buck stops with Boris Johnson" also has merit, because of course it does. But when my accountant tells me to do a certain thing with my accounts (or he does it and I sign off on it), it's because he's my trusted expert. If he ****s up, HMRC are coming after me though.
Come on. You pay your accountant, you are in charge, you are the client. If you tell them you want to avoid paying as much tax as possible, you will get methods and advice to help you achieve that aim despite what their non-professional ethical opinion on that might be (I’d never suggest for one moment you’d do that BTW!).
The last thing Mr Johnson wanted was to close the borders and lock-down, the modelling and the original plan was clearly based on Mr Johnson’s libertarian attitudes. He’ll hide behind behaviourist scientists but it’s people like his Dad and his anti-authoritarian voters he was trying to appease. Be it a PM, a CEO or any type of leader, he would have been given a number of options, the scientists did not all agree on the approach, he selected the one that suited him.
As you say, the buck stops with the PM.