Coronavirus death toll 2020

[Paul Bearer 6,100]

[Prophet 251]

2 hours ago, Paul Bearer said:

Germany numbers going up again after easing lockdown.  I'm being a bit of a hypocrite (cos I'm going out to work) STAY AT HOME. 

That's not true. The reproductive factor goes up  (it will be under 1.0 again next week, possibly at about 0.6-0.8, mark my words) but the numbers of currently infected people are still sinking. On fridays the numbers of new infections are usually higher than in the rest of the week and yesterday we had under 1000 infections again.

[Joey Russ 7,220]

 

 

[TQR 14,385]

Big Job has helpfully tweeted this formula for working out the threat level of Covid in the UK.

 

Devastatingly, it’s at 219,183.6 out of 5.

[torbrexbones 717]

It's about time this government caught up with the rest of the world and published the number of people that have recovered from the virus.

[Sir Creep 7,070]

1 hour ago, torbrexbones said:

It's about time this government caught up with the rest of the world and published the number of people that have recovered from the virus.

Oh let me help you with that for future pandemics:

 

  # of confirmed cases
-  # of dead from virus

  # of people who recovered 

[torbrexbones 717]

12 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

Oh let me help you with that for future pandemics:

 

  # of confirmed cases
-  # of dead from virus

  # of people who recovered 

That's OK for when it is all over but right now that sum can't be done, the UK is listed as having 190,651 active cases and I doubt very much if that number is correct as that number of people still in hospital with none discharged would create a bit of a headache for the NHS.

[TQR 14,385]

30 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

Oh let me help you with that for future pandemics:

 

  # of confirmed cases
-  # of dead from virus

  # of people who recovered 

Well there’s a turn up for the books; your maths has wiped out all current cases of Coronavirus. Rejoice!

[Toast 16,129]

20 minutes ago, torbrexbones said:

That's OK for when it is all over but right now that sum can't be done, the UK is listed as having 190,651 active cases and I doubt very much if that number is correct as that number of people still in hospital with none discharged would create a bit of a headache for the NHS.

 

They wouldn't all be in hospital though. 

[torbrexbones 717]

48 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

They wouldn't all be in hospital though. 

I just want to know how many have recovered and no longer classed as a 'current case', where they are makes no difference, the reason I said in hospital as that was the only place people were getting tested for long enough.

[ladyfiona 2,577]

I can give the recovery rate for my local hospital trust (two a&e hospitals) to be about 750 dischared to maybe 300+ died. I don't get many emails about how many have died. Only recoveries and how many inpatients. The amount of inpatients has declinded by half compared to two weeks ago but i'm expecting an increase due to government advice being stupid.

[torbrexbones 717]

I know it is wrong to say this on this site but I don't actually care about the deaths from this virus, for me it's all about numbers of infected and numbers of recovered and the bastards wont publish the recovered numbers.

They must have a record of all those that have been discharged from hospital all over the country, even that would do.

[TQR 14,385]

2 minutes ago, torbrexbones said:

I know it is wrong to say this on this site but I don't actually care about the deaths from this virus

 

You're in good company; neither does Her Majesty's Government.

[Paul Bearer 6,100]

3 minutes ago, torbrexbones said:

I know it is wrong to say this on this site but I don't actually care about the deaths from this virus, for me it's all about numbers of infected and numbers of recovered and the bastards wont publish the recovered numbers.

They must have a record of all those that have been discharged from hospital all over the country, even that would do.

I'd guess it's because if they gave the recovered numbers, that might lure people into a false sense of security.  Apparently there have been more recoveries than deaths. 

[Toast 16,129]

Still no way of knowing how many untested people have had the virus and recovered.  There must be a lot who were never ill enough to need hospital treatment.

 

56 minutes ago, Paul Bearer said:

I'd guess it's because if they gave the recovered numbers, that might lure people into a false sense of security.  Apparently there have been more recoveries than deaths. 

 

At this evening's press conference Chris Whitty made a big point of saying that only a tiny percentage of people who caught the virus die from it. 

 

"I'll just repeat something I said right at the beginning, because it's worth reinforcing. Most people – well, a significant proportion – will not get this virus at all, at any point in the epidemic, which is going to go on for a long period of time. Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it. They will have the virus with no symptoms at all – asymptomatic. Of those who get symptoms, the great majority – probably 80% - will have a mild or moderate disease that might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, but not bad enough to go to the doctor. An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and will then leave hospital. And a minority will end up having to go to critical care, and some of those, sadly, will die. But that's a minority – it's 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall, and even in the highest risk group this is significantly less than 20%. The great majority of people, even in the highest risk groups, if they catch this virus will not die."

 

I'm sure they also said that they would give recovery figures, such as are known. 

 

 

 

[Miracle Aligner 249]

37 minutes ago, Toast said:

Still no way of knowing how many untested people have had the virus and recovered.  There must be a lot who were never ill enough to need hospital treatment.

 

 

At this evening's press conference Chris Whitty made a big point of saying that only a tiny percentage of people who caught the virus die from it. 

I'm sure they also said that they would give recovery figures, such as are known.

 

 

 

Lord Sumptious pointed out this best

 

It's a waste of everybody's fucking time and a massive breach of millions civil liberties to subject us to lockdowns and fucking shielding.

 

Let us get on with our lives and let the tiny fraction - mostly the old and ill anyway who'd probably die of some other shite - go back to work.

 

No doubt i'll get flack for this but i'm getting tired of the government confining me to house arrest to save me from a virus that has a relatively small chance of killing me and similarly small chance of killing the overwhelming majority of other people apparently. 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1278949/uk-lockdown-end-lord-sumption-bbc-news

[paddyfool 379]

13 hours ago, Miracle Aligner said:

 

Lord Sumptious pointed out this best

 

It's a waste of everybody's fucking time and a massive breach of millions civil liberties to subject us to lockdowns and fucking shielding.

 

Let us get on with our lives and let the tiny fraction - mostly the old and ill anyway who'd probably die of some other shite - go back to work.

 

No doubt i'll get flack for this but i'm getting tired of the government confining me to house arrest to save me from a virus that has a relatively small chance of killing me and similarly small chance of killing the overwhelming majority of other people apparently. 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1278949/uk-lockdown-end-lord-sumption-bbc-news

 

Assuming you're under 50 and in good health, your chances of dying are indeed low. Your chances of killing someone else by infecting them are another matter. Your chances of longish term debilitation with prolonged shortness of breath are also worth considering.

 

The UK was seeing double its usual rate of overall mortality in April, with more than 10,000 extra deaths per week.  These aren't small figures.

[Toast 16,129]

By the way, I had absolutely no idea till yesterday that we weren't allowed to speak to more than one person at a time, even if we keep at least 2m apart. 

 

Where I live, you know pretty much everyone you see while out.   I regularly see friends and neighbours, people from the same households,  who are out walking together and see no harm in pausing to chat for a few minutes.  We've all been doing that since the lockdown started.  Not stopping now.

 

There isn't any one size fits all answer, we just do what seems reasonable.  This sums it up for me

 

[TQR 14,385]

 

[Miracle Aligner 249]

[paddyfool 379]

On 23/03/2020 at 09:36, paddyfool said:

Casual prediction: This year, the UK will see more deaths than in any year on record for the last hundred years (I'm not sure if we'll exceed the whopping 715,000 deaths seen in 1918 courtesy of WWI and the Spanish Flu, but I reckon 2020 will likely beat every year since then; for reference, the last year on record, 2018, saw 616,000 deaths). 

 

On 23/03/2020 at 09:52, Deathray said:

 

For context - the grimmest league table in history (stats start from 1887)

 

1918 - 715,246

1891 - 696,490

1900 - 695,867

1899 - 685,510

1976 - 680,799

1895 - 676,110

1979 - 675,576

1972 - 673,938

1893 - 673,722

1940 - 673,253

 

Also in 2018 there was 1687 deaths a day.

And in 2017 there was 1663 deaths a day

 

Puts the Covid-19 numbers in context. 

 

Given that we saw 50,000 excess deaths in the UK in the 5 weeks ending at May 1st, and, as Miracle Aligner's graph shows, it's not over yet, we'll have to be very lucky indeed for 2020 not to end the year in a top 10 league table position. 

 

My prior "top 2" prediction is not nailed in yet, but doesn't seem unlikely. 

 

(Yes, I know some of the excess deaths so far will include people who have died later in the year. But equally, recession, missed cancer diagnoses, delayed treatments, and the complications of infections so far survived are not going to be kind on mortality for the rest of the year. And then there's the question of a second wave). 

[The Old Crem 3,582]

 

If Korea is any warning Norway will have to start/stop a bit.

[Prophet 251]

4 hours ago, The Old Crem said:

 

If Korea is any warning Norway will have to start/stop a bit.

South Korea only had 26 new cases today. That's not a second wave, that's only panic by the media and so-called experts who were wrong with all of their doomsday predictions until now.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

1 hour ago, Prophet said:

South Korea only had 26 new cases today. That's not a second wave, that's only panic by the media and so-called experts who were wrong with all of their doomsday predictions until now.

Testing, testing, testing.

That's why there were only 26 new cases in South Korea.

So what happens when they stop testing?

This virus is highly virulent, it will infect many more people than influenza can and, proportionately, will kill more people.

I don't think that is arguable, is it, surely?

 

 

[Miracle Aligner 249]

22 hours ago, paddyfool said:

 

 

Given that we saw 50,000 excess deaths in the UK in the 5 weeks ending at May 1st, and, as Miracle Aligner's graph shows, it's not over yet, we'll have to be very lucky indeed for 2020 not to end the year in a top 10 league table position. 

  

 My prior "top 2" prediction is not nailed in yet, but doesn't seem unlikely. 

 

(Yes, I know some of the excess deaths so far will include people who have died later in the year. But equally, recession, missed cancer diagnoses, delayed treatments, and the complications of infections so far survived are not going to be kind on mortality for the rest of the year. And then there's the question of a second wave). 

 

This is the current Top 20

 

1918	715,246
1891	696,490
1900	695,867
1899	685,510
1976	680,799
1895	676,110
1979	675,576
1972	673,938
1893	673,722
1940	673,253
1985	670,656
1973	669,692
1974	667,359
1978	667,177
1915	666,322
1890	665,758
1982	662,801
1975	662,477
1980	661,519
1892	661,273

 

 

To put some context we had some of the lowest death rates in recorded years only 5-10 years ago; so given our aging population; even without the pandemic we'd be expecting sharp continued rises in death totals. Following on from that adding the pandemic in and it seems likely we'll challenge the Top 10. However it's worth noting if you add 50k to the 5 year average you still don't enter the top 10 (598703 + 50,000  = 648,703) or even top 20.

 

2018 -  616,014 (64th)

2017 -  607,172 (72nd)

2016 - 597,206  (85th)

2015 - 602,782  (78th)

2014 - 570,341 (111th)

2013 - 576,458 (104th)

2012 - 569,024  (112th)

2011 - 552,232 (126th)

2010 - 561,666 (119th)

 

(of 132 years in total in the dataset)

 

Deaths were already on the way up prior to this compared to 5 years ago -