Worrying times
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Worrying times
People may find this useful if technical in places, click on boxes for some other charts (also, may take some time to load)
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 5266
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: Worrying times
The "original" SARS had a death rate of 10% or more, no?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm
Re: Worrying times
We'll only know what the true death rate is when they instigate mass testing, of millions or more.
until then anything is speculation, although most of the evidence we have suggests it's nothing like 10 percent.
I think that's the problem with the virus- people don't really know where they stand. there is a lot of fear of the unknown.
until then anything is speculation, although most of the evidence we have suggests it's nothing like 10 percent.
I think that's the problem with the virus- people don't really know where they stand. there is a lot of fear of the unknown.
-
- Posts: 3738
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: Worrying times
Yes, but this is not disease is not the "original" SARS. The death rate of this disease is still subject to research by the qualified, but despite wild assertions here and no doubt elsewhere, it is not 10%. I do not wish to minimise the risks, but lurid scaremongering is not useful either. There are various estimates based on different data and different statistical methods by different authors in peer reviewed publications, all of which are easy to pursue in these times of enforced leisure. The consensus seems to be that when all the data is in, the death rate will be about 1% of those infected, with initial estimates of 2.5% or 3.5% probably reflecting lack of testing. A death rate of 1% is still an enormous toll, of course, and a fair justification for governments wreaking havoc upon their economies. This disease can be viewed as more dangerous than SARS, though, as although its death rate is lower than SARS, it appears to be much more transmissible.
-
- Posts: 3575
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Worrying times
The point has also been made that many of the victims are in poor health and wouldn't have lived much longer even if there had been no COVID-19. Perhaps the more relevant figure is how many people will die who wouldn't otherwise have done.Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:56 pmThe consensus seems to be that when all the data is in, the death rate will be about 1% of those infected, with figures of 2.5% or 3.5% probably reflecting lack of testing. A death rate of 1% is still an enormous toll, of course
I believe figures are calculated for seasonal flu deaths that do allow for this.
-
- Posts: 8843
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: Worrying times
The technical terms, I think, are: Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Not sure what the term is for the adjusted mortality rates.
On the impact of lockdown across Europe, this is an interesting overview:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52025553
On the impact of lockdown across Europe, this is an interesting overview:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52025553
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Worrying times
I shall be very surprised if it is as high as 0.1%, if properly calculated. By that I mean that the numerator should be, as Ian says above, the number of deaths of people who would not have died anyway and the denominator should be the number of people who have been infected, even if they showed unconvincing symptoms or none at all.Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:56 pmThe consensus seems to be that when all the data is in, the death rate will be about 1% of those infected
In Italy they are now testing post mortem. That may well be a useful thing to do, adding to the stock of knowledge. but the death rate gleaned from that group can never be anything but 100%.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 5851
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Worrying times
Newspaper reports are always suspect, but at least this one has links to original papers (well done). If they're right, we should rush out and get estrogen.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... us-but-why
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... us-but-why
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Worrying times
Well presumably the correct criteria in these categories are the same voices epidemiologists normally use?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:31 pmI shall be very surprised if it is as high as 0.1%, if properly calculated. By that I mean that the numerator should be, as Ian says above, the number of deaths of people who would not have died anyway and the denominator should be the number of people who have been infected, even if they showed unconvincing symptoms or none at all.Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:56 pmThe consensus seems to be that when all the data is in, the death rate will be about 1% of those infected
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Worrying times
I should not have written "if properly calculated". I meant "if calculated in an ideal way". Epidemiologists, like others trying to model social science, do the best they can with imperfect data.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:14 pmWell presumably the correct criteria in these categories are the same voices epidemiologists normally use?
For the numerator, they would use whatever it says on the death certificate. In different societies there may in cases of doubt be pressures either to stress a particular cause or to downplay it. For the denominator, they would use reported cases because that's all they've got.
I did see a piece of modelling which tried to estimate how many people might already be immune - unfortunately the conclusion was something like "between 10,000 and 10,000,000", which presumably shows how difficult it is.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Worrying times
That's a good find!
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm
Re: Worrying times
every blind squirrel finds a nut....
Re: Worrying times
This is complete and utter bo**ocks.Daniel Gormally wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:27 pmhttps://english.alarabiya.net/en/featur ... o-symptoms
This is what the Government of Iceland says
A website of no known (and doubtful?) provenance nevertheless adds this:
f**k me!ZMEScience wrote:Not all the results from Iceland’s tests have come through yet, but the ones that have, show that half of all cases are asymptomatic (at the time of testing). These results are indicated by a testing survey carried on an entire Italian (sic!!) town of Vo (population 3,300), where the results showed that more than 50% of all cases are asymptomatic.The whole population of the village was tested, and 3% of the residents tested positive. Then, after a two-week lockdown, the population was tested again. The transmission had been reduced by 90% and the results were confirmed: the majority of cases seem to be asymptomatic.
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Worrying times
Hard luck Danny, you don't get the approval of The Master. Still looks interesting to me.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.