Number of Deaths

[BN41Albion]

Looking for global trends on the Hopkins new cases summary figure, if you exclude France and Spain you get a clear picture that the rate of new cases is not plummetting, just hovering slightly downward. France and Spain have done exactly what we don't want, which is change the rubric by which they count numbers, probably more than once. The weird shapes to their paths is a clue, but the proof comes from the examples of negative numbers from both nations, meaning either that people who had been diagnosed with Cova were actually going back in time and blowing the virus out of their bottoms, or those doing the counting decided for no apparent reason to subtract lage numbers from their tally. I'm referring to the mauve and brahn lines that have recently gone below the zero line.

The three nations with the most obvious lack of any sustained progress in the improvement department are Brazil (a late entrant to the pandemic) America where there appears to be a gun-totin' suicide cult on the streets (plus lots of poor people with no health insurance) and....yes, dear old Blighty.

View attachment 123067

But, as has been said multiple times, testing has been increasing loads. Therefore of course it seems like new cases aren't coming down here. You have to take that into consideration when looking at that graph!

Deaths have been in decline since early April, so therefore new cases must also being reducing sharply. Its just tens/hundreds of thousands of cases were missed previously.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

How can you argue that the number of deaths aren't falling?

Indeed.

 

[The Wizard]

Infections ARE falling dramatically, this time two weeks ago we had 4.8k new cases from 14k people tested now we have a similar number from 63k people tested yesterday. A fall from around 1/3 tests positive to around 1/13 positive tests. Hospital deaths are also dramatically falling, anyone who denies any of that clearly has an ulterior motive here because it’s clear to see.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Like the Iranians (150), I see that Russia has put a ‘cap’ on it’s daily death toll of ‘100ish’.

Oddly, the cap has not been applied to new cases (10k) yesterday. Either the Russians are too strong for this virus or the figures are totally obscured.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Peak of infections or peak of deaths ? Deaths is the only stable and certain measure surely ? No. of cases of infection is bound to be higher as the volume of testing is increasing exponentially (it's gone up x10 in April)......we've almost certainly had this number of infection cases for some time, we just haven't been confirming them. We don't know if that rate is increasing or not, but the falling number of deaths and hospitalisations would indicate it's falling too.

Yes. I have been posting on death trends elsewhere.

However, if testing has gone up exponentially in the UK, accounting for the increase in new cases, does this mean testing has gone down exponentially in Germany? Or is it that testing in the UK was the worst in the world, on a par only with those dimbot thirld world nations, Brazil and, er, USA (the other two nations whose new case data, like ours, is conspicuusly out of kilter with all the bigger western European nations)?

Anyway, no matter. I still maintain the ratio of cases to deaths and the movement in this number is the best measure of trends so perhaps it was pointless and provicative of me to post that Hopkins data on new cases.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Post #493. We are still comparably, one of the worst performing Western nations.

I see that the government is keen on comparing us to Italy, Spain & France in the graphs shown in the daily spin conferences.

But, using the figures from Worldometers, you have to add up the death-rates of the following European countries to get to our figure:

Ireland
Belgium
Germany
Holland
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Portugal
Austria
Czechia
Ukraine
Croatia
Bulgaria
Bosnia
Northern Macedonia
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Belarus
Greece
Serbia

Now I know there are different counting techniques, collection measurements and alternative reporting criteria at play but this paints a pretty horrific picture for our Country, our Island nation.

And people still think that EVERY Country has struggled and that our government has done as good a job as any other government would have.

 

[Triggaaar]

Like the Iranians (150), I see that Russia has put a ‘cap’ on it’s daily death toll of ‘100ish’.

Oddly, the cap has not been applied to new cases (10k) yesterday. Either the Russians are too strong for this virus or the figures are totally obscured.

I think Russia and China should release their daily deaths figure a day in advance.

 

[Triggaaar]

However, if testing has gone up exponentially in the UK, accounting for the increase in new cases, does this mean testing has gone down exponentially in Germany?

No. We're two different countries, with different circumstances. We are testing a lot more people than we were, so of course the number of positive results will now be a higher percentage of those who actually have the virus.

Our hospitals haven't been overwhelmed, so people who have needed hospital treatment (care homes aside) have had it, so the number of patients dying in hospital from the virus are easy to compare between dates. That number is clearly coming down. Agreed?

Or is it that testing in the UK was the worst in the world, on a par only with those dimbot thirld world nations

Eh? What are you talking about? Germany were ahead of other western countries, because they already had test centres before the outbreak. Compared to them we haven't been testing many, but that applies to all other European countries too. But we're nowhere near the worst in the world, what are you talking about?

Brazil and, er, USA (the other two nations whose new case data, like ours, is conspicuusly out of kilter with all the bigger western European nations)?

Can you point out specifically (metric and numbers) where we're lacking behind the bigger European nations (other than Germany)?

Anyway, no matter. I still maintain the ratio of cases to deaths and the movement in this number is the best measure of trends

The ration of cases to deaths is fine, as long as you have accurate figures. The problem is that we clearly don't have accurate figures for the number of cases, which makes your ratio extremely inaccurate.

 

[Triggaaar]

I see that the government is keen on comparing us to Italy, Spain & France in the graphs shown in the daily spin conferences.

But, using the figures from Worldometers, you have to add up the death-rates of the following European countries to get to our figure:

Ireland
Belgium
Germany
Holland
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Portugal
Austria
Czechia
Ukraine
Croatia
Bulgaria
Bosnia
Northern Macedonia
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Belarus
Greece
Serbia

Excluding Germany, what is the total population for those countries?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No. We're two different countries, with different circumstances. We are testing a lot more people than we were, so of course the number of positive results will now be a higher percentage of those who actually have the virus.

Our hospitals haven't been overwhelmed, so people who have needed hospital treatment (care homes aside) have had it, so the number of patients dying in hospital from the virus are easy to compare between dates. That number is clearly coming down. Agreed?

Eh? What are you talking about? Germany were ahead of other western countries, because they already had test centres before the outbreak. Compared to them we haven't been testing many, but that applies to all other European countries too. But we're nowhere near the worst in the world, what are you talking about?

Can you point out specifically (metric and numbers) where we're lacking behind the bigger European nations (other than Germany)?

The ration of cases to deaths is fine, as long as you have accurate figures. The problem is that we clearly don't have accurate figures for the number of cases, which makes your ratio extremely inaccurate.

I appear to have failed to explain myself properly. My first comment was a rhetorical question. Of course I don't infer Germany's testing has fallen because cases have fallen. The point I was making was it is equally dubious to infer our testing has gone through the roof becuse our cases haven't fallen or, indeed, to link reported numbers of cases with reported amounts of testing in any way.

Cutting to your final point, yes, of course, I agree that none of the reported figures (for cases or COVA deaths) are accurate. However if you look at the ratio of reported cases to reported deaths in an individual country, and make an assumption that the accuracy of reporting (hopeless and variable that may be) should stay fairly constant for each, within a country, you can do something with the numbers....

However, I accept that I have made an error commenting about the direction of travel of the reported numbers of cases. Nobody should comment on this given the general concensus the absolute numbers are meaningless.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think Russia and China should release their daily deaths figure a day in advance.

I thought they were already.....

I have noticed that a couple of countries have reported resurrections (in terms of consecutive daily death counts). Whether coincidentally or not, these are Catholic countries. My inference is that this is proof of the existence of God.

 

[Triggaaar]

Cutting to your final point, yes, of course, I agree that none of the reported figures (for cases or COVA deaths) are accurate. However if you look at the ratio of reported cases to reported deaths in an individual country, and make an assumption that the accuracy of reporting (hopeless and variable that may be) should stay fairly constant for each, within a country, you can do something with the numbers....

I completely disagree for a couple of reasons:
1) The accuracy of reporting (as variable as you point out that can be) might bot stay constant within a country, because testing methods can improve.
2) More importantly, increasing the number of tests is not linked to accuracy, but will obviously give you a higher number of positive results. Mrs T was tested for the first time this week, because she works for the NHS. She's not had symptoms, or been in contact with anyone who has, but the new testing strategy means more people are being tested. Some of the results will come back positive, without affecting the number of deaths, which will change your ratio.

I'm not ignoring your other points, but I'm off to do lunch

 

[Jim in the West]

Infections ARE falling dramatically, this time two weeks ago we had 4.8k new cases from 14k people tested now we have a similar number from 63k people tested yesterday. A fall from around 1/3 tests positive to around 1/13 positive tests. Hospital deaths are also dramatically falling, anyone who denies any of that clearly has an ulterior motive here because it’s clear to see.

It's not quite as simple as that, as the criteria for testing have changed recently. For example, if you work or live in a care home you can now be tested regardless of whether you are symptomatic. As the testing programme is massively expanded you would expect there to be a significant fall in the ratio of positive tests. Unfortunately, as the UK government abandoned mass testing in early March (only to have to U-turn later), there will be a significant lag in the relevance of the data. I'm not saying that we're not past the peak (I have no idea), but the stats that are being published are often really difficult to compare, because the criteria keep changing.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Excluding Germany, what is the total population for those countries?

160m give or take 100,000.

 

[Machiavelli]

Look at the rise and fall, very hard to declare that there is a definite trend of decline in numbers, lots of peaks and troughs. look at April 26th/ 27th, deaths back up again by some margin since then, it's NOT that simple.

Individual numbers are irrelevant, as most of the statisticians and experts are informing us. Look at the trends and, fortunately as many others have pointed out, things are improving from what they were.

 

[Triggaaar]

160m give or take 100,000.

So 3 times the population, but many many times the land mass. And how confident are we with the numbers that they're reporting?

It's just not comparing like with like.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yes. I have been posting on death trends elsewhere.

However, if testing has gone up exponentially in the UK, accounting for the increase in new cases, does this mean testing has gone down exponentially in Germany? Or is it that testing in the UK was the worst in the world, on a par only with those dimbot thirld world nations, Brazil and, er, USA (the other two nations whose new case data, like ours, is conspicuusly out of kilter with all the bigger western European nations)?

Anyway, no matter. I still maintain the ratio of cases to deaths and the movement in this number is the best measure of trends so perhaps it was pointless and provicative of me to post that Hopkins data on new cases.

What do you reckon will be the effect of the new UK numbers on your trends ? I have noticed that all the historic figures have now been adjusted upward to reflect these new 'all settings' figures. I've got all the original figures recorded, but it seems as if all graphs etc have now been reworked on these 'all settings' numbers, so there is no stepped increase from 5 days ago. What I don't understand is that if we had these figures all along, why didn't we use them

However, I believe the new 'all settings' figures are far closer to the actual.

So using the all settings figures, I believe that today's total fatality announcement of 28,489 is an actual total death figure of > 37,485.

 

[Weststander]

What do you reckon will be the effect of the new UK numbers on your trends ? I have noticed that all the historic figures have now been adjusted upward to reflect these new 'all settings' figures. I've got all the original figures recorded, but it seems as if all graphs etc have now been reworked on these 'all settings' numbers, so there is no stepped increase from 5 days ago. What I don't understand is that if we had these figures all along, why didn't we use them

However, I believe the new 'all settings' figures are far closer to the actual.

So using the all settings figures, I believe that today's total fatality announcement of 28,489 is an actual total death figure of > 37,485.

With the time lags in reporting hospital deaths and especially other settings deaths, your estimate up to say 2nd May looks realistic. Sadly.

 

[beorhthelm]

However, I believe the new 'all settings' figures are far closer to the actual.

So using the all settings figures, I believe that today's total fatality announcement of 28,489 is an actual total death figure of > 37,485.

are you taking in to account that the "all settings" are closer to final mortality based on date of death, so the difference of increase from daily number will be lower?

 

[WATFORD zero]

With the time lags in reporting hospital deaths and especially other settings deaths, your estimate up to say 2nd May looks realistic. Sadly.

Sadly, I really wouldn't post them if I wasn't really confident about them.

are you taking in to account that the "all settings" are closer to final mortality based on date of death, so the difference of increase from daily number will be lower?

Yes, I am.