Number of Deaths

[Lyndhurst 14]

The number of deaths in the US could nearly double to 3,000 per day by early June, and that is from models run by Trumps own administration. So his quotes about "it's only like a case of flu" and "we've got this invisible enemy beaten" are total bollocks. This isn't going away any time soon, they've only stopped the spread by social distancing it hasn't been eradicated. If they re-open the various States too early thing could go back to what it was at the peak, and worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/coronavirus-updates.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But that's because we're doing more testing! We're testing 10 times as many people as we were, so of course it's going to show more cases. If you just looked at the number of cases of each country a few weeks back, it would have looked like Germany were doing badly. Of course they weren't, they were doing extremely well, but they were testing a lot more people than us (and more than most other countries too). It's good that we're now testing more people, but don't then look at the comparatively higher total and think it's bad.

Our cases to deaths ratio is similar to many countries, like Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden. Adding in the fact that we're now recording more cases, because we're testing more, is completely misleading you.

I've not disagreed with that.

I have already explained to you that if the number of new cases staying fairly level is due to the increase in testing then the ratio of cases to deaths will increase massively, and I already showed you it hasn't. The only explanation is the number of hospital deaths is grossly underestimating the total number of deaths. Or....the amount of new testing is being grossly exaggerated. Simple ratios....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The number of deaths in the US could nearly double to 3,000 per day by early June, and that is from models run by Trumps own administration. So his quotes about "it's only like a case of flu" and "we've got this invisible enemy beaten" are total bollocks. This isn't going away any time soon, they've only stopped the spread by social distancing it hasn't been eradicated. If they re-open the various States too early thing could go back to what it was at the peak, and worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/coronavirus-updates.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Precisely.

 

[Triggaaar]

OK. The number of daily deaths in hospital is coming down. When you started criticising my comments I had never said anything about the number of hospital-only reported daily deaths.

I expect that the number of deaths outside of hospitals is also coming down. I use the figure from hospitals because it's reliable. If you can find a bar chart with the total number of deaths (on the date of death, not the date reported), I'm sure you will find that is coming down too.

You were saying that the number of deaths is coming down for most countries, but not the UK. Now you're saying that although the number of deaths in hospitals in the UK is coming down, we don't know about the total number. Well how do you know the total number in all other countries? I would suggest that the reporting here is more honest and open than most countries, so I completely disagree with your conclusion that total deaths are falling elsewhere, but not here.

I also agree that of all the data published the figure you posted is probably the least equivocal. But it is not the number of daily deaths. People, you may be astonished to learn, die outside of hospital, too, at home and in nursing homes.

Obviously. Just as in other countries, but you seem happy to ignore that point.

The deaths in hospitals have halved. I suggest that it's extremely likely that the deaths outside of hospitals has also gone down. The data is probably available to prove that.

 

[dazzer6666]

I have already explained to you that if the number of new cases staying fairly level is due to the increase in testing then the ratio of cases to deaths will increase massively, and I already showed you it hasn't. The only explanation is the number of hospital deaths is grossly underestimating the total number of deaths. Or....the amount of new testing is being grossly exaggerated. Simple ratios....

Does that work yet though ? There are timing issues - testing has only just been ramped up (but the number of cases isn't - based on a few days evidence at best - increasing in line with that increase - nor would anyone expect it to given more of those tested now are likely to not be infected) and the only truly reliable number around COVID deaths (for the UK) is the ONS stat based on actual, registered date and cause of death - and data for that is only available up to April 17th at the moment. Feels like we're trying to compare apples with tractors, let alone pears.

 

[Triggaaar]

I have already explained to you that if the number of new cases staying fairly level is due to the increase in testing then the ratio of cases to deaths will increase massively, and I already showed you it hasn't.

You're mistaken. Your (I'm sorry) pointless ratio has confused you. Of course the high level of new cases is due to a higher level of testing. If that wasn't the reason, then we'd see an equally high level of deaths. You ratio won't change instantly, because it's looking at total cases and total deaths.

This is from your table:
From April 29 to May 2: 10,131 new cases, 5,097 new deaths.
From Mat 2 to May 4: 11,019 new cases (9% more), 1,363 new deaths (73% less).
If the figures in your table were reliable, then they would show a massive change in what's happening in the UK. The problem is that the huge increase in deaths between April 29 and May 2 is due to a change in reporting, which you haven't allowed for, which makes your conclusions worthless. Sorry that I'm not sugar coating it.

The only explanation is the number of hospital deaths is grossly underestimating the total number of deaths. Or....the amount of new testing is being grossly exaggerated. Simple ratios....

I think you'll find the explanation above.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Does that work yet though ? There are timing issues - testing has only just been ramped up (but the number of cases isn't - based on a few days evidence at best - increasing in line with that increase - nor would anyone expect it to given more of those tested now are likely to not be infected) and the only truly reliable number around COVID deaths (for the UK) is the ONS stat based on actual, registered date and cause of death - and data for that is only available up to April 17th at the moment. Feels like we're trying to compare apples with tractors, let alone pears.

I have been doing my calculations since April 12. The ratios have stayed rock solid, worldwide, becoming slightly smaller everywhere (more than slightly in nations initially reporting a low number of deaths in relation to cases, like Germany). If the number of total deaths is plummeting like the in hospital deaths figure shows, while testing is increasing, the ratio of cases to deaths would be way over 20 by now, not still stuck at 6-8. If reporting is out of synch it would need to be weeks out of synch. The increase in daily deaths must be near as damn it yesterdays deaths not early April's.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're mistaken. Your (I'm sorry) pointless ratio has confused you. Of course the high level of new cases is due to a higher level of testing. If that wasn't the reason, then we'd see an equally high level of deaths. You ratio won't change instantly, because it's looking at total cases and total deaths.

This is from your table:
From April 29 to May 2: 10,131 new cases, 5,097 new deaths.
From Mat 2 to May 4: 11,019 new cases (9% more), 1,363 new deaths (73% less).
If the figures in your table were reliable, then they would show a massive change in what's happening in the UK. The problem is that the huge increase in deaths between April 29 and May 2 is due to a change in reporting, which you haven't allowed for, which makes your conclusions worthless. Sorry that I'm not sugar coating it.

I think you'll find the explanation above.

My conclusions worthless? My conclusion that it is too early to know what will happen? And you do?

The numbers I am using are from Johns Hopkins. I haven't edited them, corrected them or excluded anything that doesn't fit my agenda (I don't have an agenda in any case). Given that you evidently think you know better than them, perhaps you should give them a bell.

If you think my calculations (simple ratios using the globally respected John's Hopkins data) are worthless, ignore them.

 

[dazzer6666]

I have been doing my calculations since April 12. The ratios have stayed rock solid, worldwide, becoming slightly smaller everywhere (more than slightly in nations initially reporting a low number of deaths in relation to cases, like Germany). If the number of total deaths is plummeting like the in hospital deaths figure shows, while testing is increasing, the ratio of cases to deaths would be way over 20 by now, not still stuck at 6-8. If reporting is out of synch it would need to be weeks out of synch. The increase in daily deaths must be near as damn it yesterdays deaths not early April's.

But it is at least a couple of weeks out of synch isn't it ? The latest ONS data stops at 17th April - testing was still in the doldrums at that point. FWIW I don't think the number of deaths is 'plummeting' - more maybe just starting to trend slowly downwards - hospital deaths seem to be falling which ties in with the reducing number of hospitalised patients but care homes not so much yet - only the ONS data will confirm properly because the daily published numbers are unreliable and inaccurate.

 

[Triggaaar]

My conclusions worthless? My conclusion that it is too early to know what will happen? And you do?

Obviously you're just being silly there, as you know full well. I'm referring to your conclusion that the UK's death rate hasn't gone down, while nearly all other countries have. And your conclusions from your ratio. I have never suggested that we know what's going to happen (as you know) and I've not disagreed when you've said you don't.

The numbers I am using are from Johns Hopkins. I haven't edited them, corrected them or excluded anything that doesn't fit my agenda (I don't have an agenda in any case).

I'm aware that you haven't edited them, but you should be aware that his data shows 5,097 deaths between the 29th April and 2nd May. That's 3 days. 1,699 deaths per day.

That is clearly not what's happened. I don't need to give them a bell to tell them, because they know that we weren't getting 1,699 deaths per day, but then they aren't expecting someone to use their data to create a ratio between deaths and cases.

If you think my calculations (simple ratios using the globally respected John's Hopkins data) are worthless, ignore them.

Oh don't worry, I have. But when you concluded that deaths were falling around the world, but not in the worst performing nations, like the UK, I felt I should point out that you're mistaken.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Obviously you're just being silly there, as you know full well. I'm referring to your conclusion that the UK's death rate hasn't gone down, while nearly all other countries have. And your conclusions from your ratio. I have never suggested that we know what's going to happen (as you know) and I've not disagreed when you've said you don't.

I'm aware that you haven't edited them, but you should be aware that his data shows 5,097 deaths between the 29th April and 2nd May. That's 3 days. 1,699 deaths per day.

That is clearly not what's happened. I don't need to give them a bell to tell them, because they know that we weren't getting 1,699 deaths per day, but then they aren't expecting someone to use their data to create a ratio between deaths and cases.

Oh don't worry, I have. But when you concluded that deaths were falling around the world, but not in the worst performing nations, like the UK, I felt I should point out that you're mistaken.

I didn't conclude that.

You don't get 'nuance' do you?

I think that for the sake of everyone, you, me and the other bloke who's reading this conversation, I'm going to have to put you on ignore for a bit. Nobody wants to see this.

 

[Triggaaar]

As others have said repeatledly total number of deaths is ostensibly the key ststistic for assessing trends, albeit the exact numbers are questionable. As others have said in most countries this number is going down. In the worst performing nations it is too early to say. Those nations are Brazil, USA and, er, UK.

But when you concluded that deaths were falling around the world, but not in the worst performing nations, like the UK, I felt I should point out that you're mistaken.

I didn't conclude that.

You don't get 'nuance' do you?

There's no nuance there. You said we were one of the worst performing nations, and that's it's too early to say that the number of deaths are going down.

And although it's you that said it, you then started on a tangent saying that deaths don't go down unless people are resurrected.

 

[beorhthelm]

And although it's you that said it, you then started on a tangent saying that deaths don't go down unless people are resurrected.

that little pedantic quip really eaten at you

 

[Triggaaar]

that little pedantic quip really eaten at you

not sure what you mean

 

[CHAPPERS]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...act-tracing-app-trial-begins-on-isle-of-wight

Today’s ONS figures also show there were 29,710 deaths involving Covid-19 in England and Wales up to April 24 (and which were registered up to May 2), compared with 22,173 deaths of people in England and Wales testing positive for Covid-19 reported by the Department of Health & Social Care for the same period.

The ONS total is 34% higher than the Department of Health total.

This is because the ONS figures include all mentions of Covid-19 on a death certificate, including suspected Covid-19, and are based on the date that deaths occurred.

The Department of Health figures are based on when deaths were reported and are for deaths where a person has been tested positive for Covid-19.

 

[WATFORD zero]

On Tuesday the ONS will release the next week's detailed data on actual date of deaths from 18th April to the 24th April.

I started calculating actual deaths on 21st April, from data collected 17th March to 12th April. On 21st April - 23rd April, using that data, I calculated

21st April Government announced 18,100, Calculated > 27,089
22nd April Government announced 18,738, Calculated > 29,743
23rd April Government announced 19,506, Calculated > 30,961

The Government have also changed the basis of their reporting to deaths all settings in the last couple of days, so I will use this figure going forward.

The ONS have now released detailed stats up to 24th April, so compared to the numbers I calculated.

21st April Government announced 18,100, Calculated > 27,089 Actual 27,175
22nd April Government announced 18,738, Calculated > 29,743 Actual 28,261
23rd April Government announced 19,506, Calculated > 30,961 Actual 29,200

It seems my calculations may have been a little pessimistic, but it is only a little. I have adjusted my calculations going forward, based on the latest ONS detailed data.

One other thing to note. It appears the Care home peak was later with Care Home deaths going over 300 from 11th April, peaking at 415 on 15th April and only dropping back under 300 on 24th April. The inclusion of all deaths in the daily announcement has, unsurprisingly, improved the accuracy to a significant degree.

I believe yesterday's total fatalities of 28,734 to be an actual figure of > 35,917.

 

[WATFORD zero]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...act-tracing-app-trial-begins-on-isle-of-wight

Today’s ONS figures also show there were 29,710 deaths involving Covid-19 in England and Wales up to April 24 (and which were registered up to May 2), compared with 22,173 deaths of people in England and Wales testing positive for Covid-19 reported by the Department of Health & Social Care for the same period.

The ONS total is 34% higher than the Department of Health total.

This is because the ONS figures include all mentions of Covid-19 on a death certificate, including suspected Covid-19, and are based on the date that deaths occurred.

The Department of Health figures are based on when deaths were reported and are for deaths where a person has been tested positive for Covid-19.

I thought that 72% of fatalities happened in hospital and were all tested, leaving only 28% with the possibility of being diagnosed or tested ? And then there was this

Public Health England (PHE) has developed a new method of reporting daily COVID-19 deaths, to give a more complete number of those who have died from the virus. For the first time from today, Wednesday 29 April 2020, the government’s daily figure will include deaths that have occurred in all settings where there has been a positive COVID-19 test, including hospitals, care homes and the wider community.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Mind you, trying to get standardised figures or definitions from the various Government bodies is nigh on impossible

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The ONS have now released detailed stats up to 24th April, so compared to the numbers I calculated.

21st April Government announced 18,100, Calculated > 27,089 Actual 27,175
22nd April Government announced 18,738, Calculated > 29,743 Actual 28,261
23rd April Government announced 19,506, Calculated > 30,961 Actual 29,200

It seems my calculations may have been a little pessimistic, but it is only a little. I have adjusted my calculations going forward, based on the latest ONS detailed data.

One other thing to note. It appears the Care home peak was later with Care Home deaths going over 300 from 11th April, peaking at 415 on 15th April and only dropping back under 300 on 24th April. The inclusion of all deaths in the daily announcement has, unsurprisingly, improved the accuracy to a significant degree.

I believe yesterday's total fatalities of 28,734 to be an actual figure of > 35,917.

It said on R5 today the care home deaths are still going up. Who was it, who was stridently insisting, yesterday, that death rate is going down (based only on hospital deaths)?

The sporting and other events that still have provisional restart dates.....folks, a provisional restart date in the present context is like a cross between a provisional driving licence and the provisional IRA; it won't achieve what some people may actually want, and it will eventually become disbanded. Plus there is a likelihood some people may die.

 

[Triggaaar]

It said on R5 today the care home deaths are still going up. Who was it, who was stridently insisting, yesterday, that death rate is going down (based only on hospital deaths)?

I think you're referring to me, and hoping to be proving me wrong, which you're not. I said that we were past peak deaths for this wave. If care home deaths are still going up (and I'm not sure that's the case), the fact is still that the total number of deaths is still lower than when we hit the peak. So what's your point?

 

[dazzer6666]

Worth a read in relation to care home deaths.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/05/covid-19-is-a-statistical-nonsense/