Coronavirus death toll 2020

[grobler 35]

7 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

The one unanswered question is what happens to us when were all let back into the world?

 

We've built no immunity up. So surely we just get this shit then anyway?

of course we still get it...but UK society has "flattened the curve" . So instead of 20000 deaths in UK...we might only get say 18000....cos there are a few more ICU beds and ventilators  available for those of us that catch it in say late April.

When EVERYONE gets it at the same time....its bad news.

[Grim Up North 3,727]

9 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

The one unanswered question is what happens to us when were all let back into the world?

 

We've built no immunity up. So surely we just get this shit then anyway?

My concern too.

 

It feels like the obvious solution is to lock up the vulnerable for 6 weeks and take food to their doors etc (military).

 

Then actively infect the remaining population in week 1 - we all get it and survive and then in 6 weeks we release the vulnerable and  hey presto everything is okay again.

 

None of us go to hospital we just suffer at home during the illness.

 

Sounds harsh but it would massively reduce the ultimate death count and the length of the shut down and would give certainty that no one has at the moment. 

[Deathray 2,941]

7 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

My concern too.

 

It feels like the obvious solution is to lock up the vulnerable for 6 weeks and take food to their doors etc (military).

 

Then actively infect the remaining population in week 1 - we all get it and survive and then in 6 weeks we release the vulnerable and  hey presto everything is okay again.

 

None of us go to hospital we just suffer at home during the illness.

 

 Sounds harsh but it would massively reduce the ultimate death count and the length of the shut down and would give certainty that no one has at the moment. 

 

The problem is healthy people still need ventilators for this so that doesn't work (it was the govs original plan).

 

By we - I meant vulnerable - as I mentioned upthread I'm essentially mentally prepped for that letter asking me to stay at home for 12 weeks to come through. If not I still have to largely isolate from society for anywhere between 12 weeks and 12 months.

 

You shield for 12 weeks - possibly 12 months if govs numbers are wrong - but then what, as @grobler says it might mean there's a ventilator for me the other side of it - and crucially more for others in the mean time - should the worst happen - but the mental toll of shielding for those 1.5m in that group might do more damage than the physical toll of getting infected with this viral infection. 

[grobler 35]

2 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

My concern too.

 

It feels like the obvious solution is to lock up the vulnerable for 6 weeks and take food to their doors etc (military).

 

Then actively infect the remaining population in week 1 - we all get it and survive and then in 6 weeks we release the vulnerable and  hey presto everything is okay again.

 

None of us go to hospital we just suffer at home during the illness.

 

Sounds harsh but it would massively reduce the ultimate death count and the length of the shut down and would give certainty that no one has at the moment. 

I agree.

Easy for you to say though "Grim up North" . I find it not so grim here up North currently....few infections , and fingers crossed there will be minimal deaths in Yorkshire(where I am) . Its pretty grim though for Londoners....

[grobler 35]

Not sure all healthy fairly fit non smoking people who are catching this need ventilators though ?

For them its just a bad case of man-flu.....

We need to protect the ones who REALLY need help to breath .

[Deathray 2,941]

3 minutes ago, grobler said:

Not sure all healthy fairly fit non smoking people who are catching this need ventilators though ?

For them its just a bad case of man-flu.....

We need to protect the ones who REALLY need help to breath .

 

Not all but many are, your just more likely to survive a ventilator the younger you are, which is why the death toll is higher among elderly.

 

Young people are still catching this, and quite a few are going on ventilators (obvs more common in those with 'underlying health issues' which while I'm on a rant, does not mean 'gonna die anyway'. I intend to live another 40-60 years thank you very much, so please don't demean my memoriam should I catch this stupid virus with the catch all 'thank god he had'  'underlying health issues...)

[TQR 14,402]

30 minutes ago, grobler said:

Not sure all healthy fairly fit non smoking people who are catching this need ventilators though ?

For them its just a bad case of man-flu.....

We need to protect the ones who REALLY need help to breath .

It’s actually more akin to pneumonia for the most part. Even the otherwise healthy might find breathing a bit of a mission with pneumonia.

[ladyfiona 2,593]

It is really interesting going on Flight Radars Twitter because they do comparisons before and after COVID19 struck a country. Such as this tweet.

 

 

and

 

 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

We really need to stop fucking around now.

Full 15 day lock down with only journeys to the supermarkets allowed.

Any fuckers out there who are not essential services, utilities etc, shoot the cunts, they are clearly a waste of fucking space.

Nobody comes into the UK unless they are UK citizens coming back HOME.

When they arrive, 15 day quarantine.

After the 15 days, you still a lockdown on visitors into the UK, which will be basically none.

Kick out all those that want to go back home by getting them on planes and fucking them off.

That should work through the incubation period and, if anybody falls ill in those 15 days, they stay the fuck home until they are better.

It is the only way now, too many pricks out there to avoid getting ill.

 

 

[Youth in Asia 1,087]

I keep obsessively checking the stats coming in from each country. Currently waiting for today's score from Italy. It's like the frigging Eurovision song contest.

[Torva Messor 279]

10 minutes ago, Youth in Asia said:

I keep obsessively checking the stats coming in from each country

From 10 March to present I'm tracking six countries: Iceland, Norway, Canada, US, Australia and UK, daily confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries, on a spreadsheet; also day to day rates of change for active cases and deaths.

Sometimes I pretend it's a horse race or Olympics. The US was in tenth place overall for a while, and this past week it went from tenth to fourth place. Sometimes we chant "USA! USA!" as if it wants to beat Spain and Italy and grab the 'supremacy' title and rank from China.

 

 Australia and Canada are very close together for confirmed cases, but Canada has 50% more people than Australia has, so by capita Down Under has it worse.  The UK started out fecked and continues to be fecked, but as of Friday the US has surpassed it in active cases % for population.

Having 37 million people in 9.9 million square miles is good for social distancing. Canada has fewer confirmed cases than does the State of Washington (US, not the DC area, that evergreen area home to Amazon, Starbucks and Microsoft).

[the_engineer 1,415]

4 hours ago, Deathray said:

 

It's alright, some of us are about to be told we can't leave the house for 12 fucking weeks, even to walk the dog..... 

 

I think after 12 weeks inside the dog will be walking you.

 

I know I'm going to struggle , I'm someone who likes to go somewhere new at least once a week . Just all have to get on with it, I have about 6 or 7 games backed up and Resident evil 3 around the corner (providing it's delivered) 30 books and over 50 movies in a backlog. If this never happened probably wouldn't of got around to playing, watching and reading them all anyway. 

[gcreptile 10,979]

Italy is in, a hundred fewer deaths than yesterday. And I was afraid they're going to hit 4 digits...

... that's left for the USA...

[Deathray 2,941]

1 hour ago, the_engineer said:

 

I think after 12 weeks inside the dog will be walking you.

 

I know I'm going to struggle , I'm someone who likes to go somewhere new at least once a week . Just all have to get on with it, I have about 6 or 7 games backed up and Resident evil 3 around the corner (providing it's delivered) 30 books and over 50 movies in a backlog. If this never happened probably wouldn't of got around to playing, watching and reading them all anyway. 

 

Thankfully live with someone else so they can do if it comes to it. Just my last pleasure gone if so.

 

The lack of clarity in the shielding guidance is more the nuisance. If you have this condition but only if this applies but we can't say  what this actually is. Just tell me if I can go outside ffs. 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

8 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

Thankfully live with someone else so they can do if it comes to it. Just my last pleasure gone if so.

 

The lack of clarity in the shielding guidance is more the nuisance. If you have this condition but only if this applies but we can't say  what this actually is. Just tell me if I can go outside ffs. 

Oh, come on now!

So long as you don't run out of socks you will still be able to, ya know....

[drol 11,960]

Actually death toll is worse in Italy than numbers you hear. In a small borough like Caravaggio (16 000 people) there were 50 deaths during the last month; 7 during the same period last year. Only 2 of them were tested for COVID, many of others have "bilateral interstitial pneumonia" as cause of death. 

 

That should tell you how far more sever is the situation, though I'm confident we'll see the light after a lot more suffering.

[ladyfiona 2,593]

I book appointments for NHS in Cardiology. The state of things keep changing daily with different advice. Might need to contact my manager in the morning asking "so can I postpone non urgent tests until late May or early June?"

 

I literally get no advice from my manager, he's useless.

[Deathray 2,941]

26 minutes ago, ladyfiona said:

I book appointments for NHS in Cardiology. The state of things keep changing daily with different advice. Might need to contact my manager in the morning asking "so can I postpone non urgent tests until late May or early June?"

  

I literally get no advice from my manager, he's useless.

 

Seems about as clear as the public advise....

 

 

45 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Oh, come on now!

So long as you don't run out of socks you will still be able to, ya know....

 

I'm already running out  

 

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

1 hour ago, ladyfiona said:

I book appointments for NHS in Cardiology. The state of things keep changing daily with different advice. Might need to contact my manager in the morning asking "so can I postpone non urgent tests until late May or early June?"

 

I literally get no advice from my manager, he's useless.

He might be a manager but has no authority, this is a symptom of many organisations with layers of infrastructure, the question to ask for an empathetic  evaluation is what could they or would they do with the power that they have been given, often they have constraints put upon them that can't be passed down the line. Perfect information is not always present. Or he is a twat.

[Lard Bazaar 3,800]

The figures are pointless as they are only testing hospital admissions - there are thousands of people in the community that will have it already or will get it, but they won’t be counted. 

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

1 hour ago, Lard Bazaar said:

The figures are pointless as they are only testing hospital admissions - there are thousands of people in the community that will have it already or will get it, but they won’t be counted. 

The figures that count are deaths they are final, tests of people with mild forms of the virus who are going to recover should not really register they are part of the herd. If all of the testing was carried out on a universally consistent basis then the quoted numbers would be equivalent however they never will be. Therefore comparisons will always be difficult governments will always try to manipulate numbers.

[Toast 16,152]

3 minutes ago, Charlotte's Controller said:

The figures that count are deaths they are final, tests of people with mild forms of the virus who are going to recover should not really register they are part of the herd. If all of the testing was carried out on a universally consistent basis then the quoted numbers would be equivalent however they never will be. Therefore comparisons will always be difficult governments will always try to manipulate numbers.

 

Thank you, Captain Obvious. 

I suspect Lardy was thinking of the mortality rate, which probably appears to be higher than it actually is.

[Skinny kiltrunner 553]

It seems that the fatality rate of 3-3.4% may be drastically underestimated.  It could be as high as 13%. The following excerpt from Worldometer illustrates this: (math warning- you might want to warm up your brain first do you don't  sprain something!). And remember,  the typical "flu" has a death rate of around 0.1%.

 

The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." ^[8]

(Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease - Ghani et al, American Journal of Epidemiology).

 

In other words, current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.

The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:

CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}
(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)

This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients.

One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).

Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.

If we use the formula (deaths / cases) we get:

813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).

With a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:

Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).

T could be estimated by simply looking at the value of (current total deaths + current total recovered) and pair it with a case total in the past that has the same value. For the above formula, the matching dates would be January 26/27, providing an estimate for T of 12 to 13 days. This method of estimating T uses the same logic of the following method, and therefore will yield the same result.

An alternative method, which has the advantage of not having to estimate a variable, and that is mentioned in the American Journal of Epidemiology study cited previously as a simple method that nevertheless could work reasonably well if the hazards of death and recovery at any time t measured from admission to the hospital, conditional on an event occurring at time t, are proportional, would be to use the formula:

CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)

which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:

14,611 / (14,611 + 97,636) = 13% CFR (worldwide)

If we now exclude cases in mainland China, using current data on deaths and recovered cases, we get:

11,350 / (11,350 + 25,196) = 31.1% CFR (outside of mainland China)

The sample size above is limited, and the data could be inaccurate (for example, the number of recoveries in countries outside of China could be lagging in our collection of data from numerous sources, whereas the number of cases and deaths is more readily available and therefore generally more up to par).

There was a discrepancy in mortality rates (with a much higher mortality rate in China) which however is not being confirmed as the sample of cases outside of China is growing in size. On the contrary, it is now higher outside of China than within.

That initial discrepancy was generally explained with a higher case detection rate outside of China especially with respect to Wuhan, where priority had to be initially placed on severe and critical cases, given the ongoing emergency.

Unreported cases would have the effect of decreasing the denominator and inflating the CFR above its real value. For example, assuming 10,000 total unreported cases in Wuhan and adding them back to the formula, we would get a CFR of 12.0% (quite different from the CFR of 13% based strictly on confirmed cases).

Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College in the UK, said his “best guess” was that there were 100,000 affected by the virus even though there were only 2,000 confirmed cases at the time. ^[11]

Without going that far, the possibility of a non negligible number of unreported cases in the initial stages of the crisis should be taken into account when trying to calculate the case fatally rate.

As the days go by and the city organized its efforts and built the infrastructure, the ability to detect and confirm cases improved. As of February 3, for example, the novel coronavirus nucleic acid testing capability of Wuhan had increased to 4,196 samples per day from an initial 200 samples.^[10]

A significant discrepancy in case mortality rate can also be observed when comparing mortality rates as calculated and reported by China NHC: a CFR of 3.1% in the Hubei province (where Wuhan, with the vast majority of deaths is situated), and a CFR of 0.16% in other provinces (19 times less).

Finally, we shall remember that while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%.

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

The problem is the obvious is different to different people, there are those who take the headlines and those that read behind them, I take it that you are the latter which is a good thing. Listening to the commentaries there are too many who are not this wise.

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

4 minutes ago, Skinny kiltrunner said:

It seems that the fatality rate of 3-3.4% may be drastically underestimated.  It could be as high as 13%. The following excerpt from Worldometer illustrates this: (math warning- you might want to warm up your brain first do you don't  sprain something!). And remember,  the typical "flu" has a death rate of around 0.1%.

 

The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." ^[8]

(Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease - Ghani et al, American Journal of Epidemiology).

 

In other words, current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.

The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:

CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}
(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)

This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients.

One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).

Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.

If we use the formula (deaths / cases) we get:

813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).

With a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:

Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).

T could be estimated by simply looking at the value of (current total deaths + current total recovered) and pair it with a case total in the past that has the same value. For the above formula, the matching dates would be January 26/27, providing an estimate for T of 12 to 13 days. This method of estimating T uses the same logic of the following method, and therefore will yield the same result.

An alternative method, which has the advantage of not having to estimate a variable, and that is mentioned in the American Journal of Epidemiology study cited previously as a simple method that nevertheless could work reasonably well if the hazards of death and recovery at any time t measured from admission to the hospital, conditional on an event occurring at time t, are proportional, would be to use the formula:

CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)

which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:

14,611 / (14,611 + 97,636) = 13% CFR (worldwide)

If we now exclude cases in mainland China, using current data on deaths and recovered cases, we get:

11,350 / (11,350 + 25,196) = 31.1% CFR (outside of mainland China)

The sample size above is limited, and the data could be inaccurate (for example, the number of recoveries in countries outside of China could be lagging in our collection of data from numerous sources, whereas the number of cases and deaths is more readily available and therefore generally more up to par).

There was a discrepancy in mortality rates (with a much higher mortality rate in China) which however is not being confirmed as the sample of cases outside of China is growing in size. On the contrary, it is now higher outside of China than within.

That initial discrepancy was generally explained with a higher case detection rate outside of China especially with respect to Wuhan, where priority had to be initially placed on severe and critical cases, given the ongoing emergency.

Unreported cases would have the effect of decreasing the denominator and inflating the CFR above its real value. For example, assuming 10,000 total unreported cases in Wuhan and adding them back to the formula, we would get a CFR of 12.0% (quite different from the CFR of 13% based strictly on confirmed cases).

Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College in the UK, said his “best guess” was that there were 100,000 affected by the virus even though there were only 2,000 confirmed cases at the time. ^[11]

Without going that far, the possibility of a non negligible number of unreported cases in the initial stages of the crisis should be taken into account when trying to calculate the case fatally rate.

As the days go by and the city organized its efforts and built the infrastructure, the ability to detect and confirm cases improved. As of February 3, for example, the novel coronavirus nucleic acid testing capability of Wuhan had increased to 4,196 samples per day from an initial 200 samples.^[10]

A significant discrepancy in case mortality rate can also be observed when comparing mortality rates as calculated and reported by China NHC: a CFR of 3.1% in the Hubei province (where Wuhan, with the vast majority of deaths is situated), and a CFR of 0.16% in other provinces (19 times less).

Finally, we shall remember that while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%.