Page 1 of 2
Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 8:50 am
by 13roman58
I have personal knowledge of the fact that the statistics of confirmed virus incidents in the UK is completely false.
Totally under reported as unless you are tested and confirmed positive you aren't included
I have (to date) 3 members of my family in the UK with all the symptoms! 2 are over the worst 1 just started (caught from partner) asked nhs phone number if they should report details, told no.
What then are the true numbers?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 9:00 am
by Walesforever
Most reports say ( the true figures are believed to be a lot higher) I think we all realise the figures around the World are much much higher than what’s reported
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 9:22 am
by Chriswright03
13roman58 wrote: ↑Mon 30 Mar 2020 8:50 am
I have personal knowledge of the fact that the statistics of
confirmed virus incidents in the UK is completely false.
Totally under reported as unless you are tested and confirmed positive you aren't included
I have (to date) 3 members of my family in the UK with all the symptoms! 2 are over the worst 1 just started (caught from partner) asked nhs phone number if they should report details, told no.
What then are the true numbers?
I have highlighted the word confirmed in your post as that is what is being reported. How can they count the amount of people who are suspected? Many of those suspected will no doubt if they ever are tested but until such time they are they cannot be confirmed. Some who are feeling ill will be just that ill and not have the virus. How can you expect the figures to include everyone who is at home untested when it is simply not possible at the moment to test everyone? Also many will not even ring in to report their illness.
Common sense should tell everyone that there will be no 100% accurate figure but to report them as being false isn't accurate either.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 9:58 am
by EnjoyingTheSun
The operative word is confirmed. How can it included as a confirmed case if it is someone self diagnosing and then calling the NHS on the phone?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 9:59 am
by kibsolar1999
the more you test, also randomly, the better you get an idea of the dark numbers around. the robert koch institute is working on that and most probabably it can be "roughly scaled" for other countries as well.
3 weeks ago (half a century) , for germany it was said approx 1-2. one week later it was said average estimat at 1 to 8.
for the uk it was calculated at 1 to 100.
but basically you can say: they have no idea.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 10:33 am
by 13roman58
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 30 Mar 2020 9:58 am
The operative word is confirmed. How can it included as a confirmed case if it is someone self diagnosing and then calling the NHS on the phone?
MY point is that 3 obvious cases will not be recorded, how can you get statistical data to analyse for future planning, if you ignore occurrences.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 11:01 am
by MVP
The figures are meaningless.
I know of someone and her partner who seemed to have it and called 111.
They didn't even take a name so are they included in the figures?
Also if you are dying of something else and you catch coronavirus and you die, you died of coronavirus not cancer etc.
I was looking at the government website where they publish statistics each week on deaths - figures are completely normal for the time of year , 10 to 11 thousand per week for England alone.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 11:05 am
by erol
MVP wrote: ↑Mon 30 Mar 2020 11:01 am
I was looking at the government website where they publish statistics each week on deaths - figures are completely normal for the time of year , 10 to 11 thousand per week for England alone.
The site / source is here
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales
The data is there for week ending 13th March at which point there had been 11 deaths of those covid-19 positive in the UK. I do not think we can start drawing any useful conclusions yet from this data.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 11:15 am
by EnjoyingTheSun
13roman58 wrote: ↑Mon 30 Mar 2020 10:33 am
MY point is that 3 obvious cases will not be recorded, how can you get statistical data to analyse for future planning, if you ignore occurrences.
There are a lot of very nervous people out there. A mother with children with a cold will naturally fear the worst and there are a lot of hypochondriacs out there. Obvious isn't confirmed
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 11:50 am
by EnjoyingTheSun
MVP wrote: ↑Mon 30 Mar 2020 11:01 am
Also if you are dying of something else and you catch coronavirus and you die, you died of coronavirus not cancer etc.
I was looking at the government website where they publish statistics each week on deaths - figures are completely normal for the time of year , 10 to 11 thousand per week for England alone.
Big difference between dying of and dying with.
It wouldn't surprise me if TRNC's mortality rate dropped. One corovirus death against a dozen who would've died on the roads if they were still travelling around.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 12:37 pm
by Dalartokat
Researchers at Kings College London, are launching a new Covid19 symptom reporting App. to help track the Virus. Once the testing gets on the way, still early days yet, more accurate data will be around.
Just also to say when people say that they know someone or have done it themselves in UK, that they have been ringing NHS111
it has been made quite clear NOT to ring them and email them as they are overwhelmed with calls. So you will not get the answer maybe you are looking for as they cannot deal with it. Hence why putting in an email, gives them a better chance to help you. There is only so many people that can be answering the phones. Everything in the U.K. is now taking longer to deal with, as we have not known anything like this for many many years.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2020 12:41 pm
by erol
Dalartokat wrote: ↑Mon 30 Mar 2020 12:37 pm
Researchers at Kings College London, are launching a new Covid19 symptom reporting App. to help track the Virus. Once the testing gets on the way, still early days yet, more accurate data will be around.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:24 am
by Groucho
However as Cv19 is a 'notifiable disease' all deaths where Cv19 is detected whether or not that is the cause of death, are recorded as the cause of death = Cv19. Statistics are often misleading... I'm not saying Cv19 is not a very very serious issue.
Here's a sobering thought .... as people's life expectancy is approximately 80 then each year on average one eightieth of the world's population will die, in UK 64m people means 1/365th of one eightieth = approximately 2200 deaths per day.... that's normal. Given winter weather weights the figures it's possibly a norm of 3,000 per day from Dec to March.
I think my arithmetic is sound...
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:29 am
by 13roman58
In some European countries a death from the virus is only recorded, as such,if it occurs in a hospital.
Inaccurate statistics!
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:48 am
by erol
Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:24 am
However as Cv19 is a 'notifiable disease' all deaths where Cv19 is detected whether or not that is the cause of death, are recorded as the cause of death = Cv19. Statistics are often misleading... I'm not saying Cv19 is not a very very serious issue.
Here's a sobering thought .... as people's life expectancy is approximately 80 then each year on average one eightieth of the world's population will die, in UK 64m people means 1/365th of one eightieth = approximately 2200 deaths per day.... that's normal. Given winter weather weights the figures it's possibly a norm of 3,000 per day from Dec to March.
I think my arithmetic is sound...
Why not just use the actual numbers - given in link above ?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:49 am
by Groucho
13roman58 wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:29 am
In some European countries a death from the virus is only recorded, as such,if it occurs in a hospital.
Inaccurate statistics!
What do they record them as?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:59 am
by Groucho
erol wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:48 am
Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:24 am
However as Cv19 is a 'notifiable disease' all deaths where Cv19 is detected whether or not that is the cause of death, are recorded as the cause of death = Cv19. Statistics are often misleading... I'm not saying Cv19 is not a very very serious issue.
Here's a sobering thought .... as people's life expectancy is approximately 80 then each year on average one eightieth of the world's population will die, in UK 64m people means 1/365th of one eightieth = approximately 2200 deaths per day.... that's normal. Given winter weather weights the figures it's possibly a norm of 3,000 per day from Dec to March.
I think my arithmetic is sound...
Why not just use the actual numbers - given in link above ?
"I do not think we can start drawing any useful conclusions yet from this data." You said this..
The link requires you to open spreadsheets and understand the data.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 8:03 am
by erol
Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:59 am
erol wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:48 am
Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:24 am
However as Cv19 is a 'notifiable disease' all deaths where Cv19 is detected whether or not that is the cause of death, are recorded as the cause of death = Cv19. Statistics are often misleading... I'm not saying Cv19 is not a very very serious issue.
Here's a sobering thought .... as people's life expectancy is approximately 80 then each year on average one eightieth of the world's population will die, in UK 64m people means 1/365th of one eightieth = approximately 2200 deaths per day.... that's normal. Given winter weather weights the figures it's possibly a norm of 3,000 per day from Dec to March.
I think my arithmetic is sound...
Why not just use the actual numbers - given in link above ?
"I do not think we can start drawing any useful conclusions yet from this data." You said this..
The link requires you to open spreadsheets and understand the data.
We can not see what the effect of covid-19 has been from these figures yet but you are just 'speculating' what the 'normal' death rate is and there is no need to 'speculate' on this as there are official public published figures available ?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 11:51 am
by EnjoyingTheSun
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2020 12:22 pm
by Groucho
erol wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 8:03 am
Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:59 am
erol wrote: ↑Tue 31 Mar 2020 7:48 am
Why not just use the actual numbers - given in link above ?
"I do not think we can start drawing any useful conclusions yet from this data." You said this..
The link requires you to open spreadsheets and understand the data.
We can not see what the effect of covid-19 has been from these figures yet but you are just 'speculating' what the 'normal' death rate is and there is no need to 'speculate' on this as there are official public published figures available ?
"Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional",
They do not include the whole UK, are only provisional and do not serve to succinctly explain death rates for the whole of the UK, do they?
The Spectator article makes a similar point...
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 14 Apr 2020 2:19 pm
by erol
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 14 Apr 2020 3:05 pm
by Groucho
Is linked to the same as caused by?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 14 Apr 2020 4:37 pm
by erol
Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 14 Apr 2020 3:05 pm
Is linked to the same as caused by?
Is that a question ?
In the week ending 3rd April the official provisional figures for deaths in England and Wales is up by 60% vs the average for that same week over the previous 5 years. If that is not linked to corona virus then what explains this increase ?
Previously in this thread it was suggested the figures for death rates in England and Wales were 'completely normal for the time of year'. These latest figures would seem to belie that and much of what was in the spectator articles linked to, no ? Or am I missing something ?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 14 Apr 2020 8:34 pm
by Groucho
erol wrote: ↑Tue 14 Apr 2020 4:37 pm
Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 14 Apr 2020 3:05 pm
Is linked to the same as caused by?
Is that a question ?
In the week ending 3rd April the official provisional figures for deaths in England and Wales is up by 60% vs the average for that same week over the previous 5 years. If that is not linked to corona virus then what explains this increase ?
Previously in this thread it was suggested the figures for death rates in England and Wales were 'completely normal for the time of year'. These latest figures would seem to belie that and much of what was in the spectator articles linked to, no ? Or am I missing something ?
It was... hence the ?
I'm not attempting to make light of the very serious nature of Covid-19... I just don't believe that Covid-19 ought be reported by the media as the cause of death unless it actually was the cause. The statistics might be useful to the medical professionals whose job it is to drill-down and advise policy.
It is a fact that for most people affected it is not fatal. That's little comfort to those who die or suffer serious complications but this thread is about inaccurate statistics... and the public are being fed all sorts of stats that are no better than what appear to me to be best guesses.
It may be being done on purpose to create the right atmosphere for public acceptance of stringent enforcement of lock-down (not a bad thing) but it is leading to some 'experts' to question the figures which muddies the waters... so as much as I think the stats paint a picture of terrible suffering they are to me fuelling some dissension among the ranks... that is not good... conspiracy theorists love this and that's all we need.
"The Office for National Statistics said in the week ending 3 April the virus was cited on 3,475 death certificates.It pushed the total number of deaths in that week to over 16,000 - a record high and 6,000 more than normal at this time of year when deaths tend to fall."
Here's an example:-
If the virus was cited on 3,475 death certificates how are the public meant to process the figure of 6,000 extra deaths over seasonal norms?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 14 Apr 2020 9:44 pm
by erol
Of or with , to me at least, seem largely a game of semantics in the face of an apparent 60% increase in weekly death rate for week ending April 3rd compared to the average for same week over previous 5 years. It was only a couple of weeks ago that it was suggested here that the very same data source showed there had been no increase from seasonal norms. Hopefully those kind of 'narratives' and others in similar vein, like how many people die of flu in a given week will recede as the data increases over time.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Tue 14 Apr 2020 11:58 pm
by kibsolar1999
It was only a couple of weeks ago that it was suggested here that the very same data source showed there had been no increase from seasonal norms.
it was 16 days ago only. it feels different, i know.
i personally have no idea why corpses laying round in the streets of a town in equador and why tents are erected in the central park in NY and why all these nurses cry into cameras.
must be the bad air quality.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 7:43 am
by Groucho
erol wrote: ↑Tue 14 Apr 2020 9:44 pm
Of or with , to me at least, seem largely a game of semantics in the face of an apparent 60% increase in weekly death rate for week ending April 3rd compared to the average for same week over previous 5 years. It was only a couple of weeks ago that it was suggested here that the very same data source showed there had been no increase from seasonal norms. Hopefully those kind of 'narratives' and others in similar vein, like how many people die of flu in a given week will recede as the data increases over time.
And we all know how loathe you are to indulge in semantics...
Use of figures that are most likely not actual - like 16,000, 10,000 and 60% (suspiciously round figures) do seem contrived and therefore to me at least, unconvincing. If the ONS are putting out data that are not real then they a cause for concern... the use by you of the word 'apparent' to qualify your statement makes me think you might be suspicious of the data too...
But let's hope the data shows a decrease over time.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 9:20 am
by erol
If you want to doubt the ONS figures on deaths in the UK then go ahead and do so. I did not see you doubting them when they were being presented as evidence that there had been no increase in death rates in the UK because of corona virus. You stick with your own 'arithmetically sound' back of the envelope calculations, whilst casting doubt on the ONS figures and all whilst bemoaning that "the public are being fed all sorts of stats that are no better than what appear to me to be best guesses." if you like. I personally will stick to the assumption that the ONS has a better grip on the number of deaths in the UK than you do.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 9:43 am
by Brazen
The covid death statistics only include those that have died in hospital so every death from the virus is not recorded.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:46 am
by Groucho
erol wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 9:20 am
If you want to doubt the ONS figures on deaths in the UK then go ahead and do so. I did not see you doubting them when they were being presented as evidence that there had been no increase in death rates in the UK because of corona virus. You stick with your own 'arithmetically sound' back of the envelope calculations, whilst casting doubt on the ONS figures and all whilst bemoaning that "the public are being fed all sorts of stats that are no better than what appear to me to be best guesses." if you like. I personally will stick to the assumption that the ONS has a better grip on the number of deaths in the UK than you do.
I do not doubt (or have ever doubted) the numbers are terrifying - but I do doubt their accuracy which always been my contention. As I said in my original post on the subject of Inaccurate statistics - the topic of this thread....
So can we trust the statistics?
They can be under or over recorded or reported in any way that supports a line of argument or 'narrative' as you put it...
What is, based on ONS figures, the normal weekly death rate for England and Wales? Clue - It's not 10,000...
You seem to be confusing my questioning the stats with a desire to pooh-pooh the seriousness of Covid-19..
I would not dream of making that point on a thread about the danger of Covid-19 but on the accuracy of statistics I have doubts and that is what, after all, this thread is about...
I think you seem to be arguing that we should not question the numbers because the situation is serious.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:53 am
by Groucho
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:46 am
erol wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 9:20 am
If you want to doubt the ONS figures on deaths in the UK then go ahead and do so. I did not see you doubting them when they were being presented as evidence that there had been no increase in death rates in the UK because of corona virus. You stick with your own 'arithmetically sound' back of the envelope calculations, whilst casting doubt on the ONS figures and all whilst bemoaning that "the public are being fed all sorts of stats that are no better than what appear to me to be best guesses." if you like. I personally will stick to the assumption that the ONS has a better grip on the number of deaths in the UK than you do.
I do not doubt (or have ever doubted) the numbers are terrifying - but I do doubt their accuracy which always been my contention. As I said in my original post on the subject of Inaccurate statistics - the topic of this thread....
So can we trust the statistics?
They can be under or over recorded or reported in any way that supports a line of argument or 'narrative' as you put it...
What is, based on ONS figures, the normal weekly death rate for England and Wales? Clue - It's not 10,000...
You seem to be confusing my questioning the stats with a desire to pooh-pooh the seriousness of Covid-19..
I would not dream of making that point on a thread about the danger of Covid-19 but on the accuracy of statistics I have doubts and that is what, after all, this thread is about...
I think you seem to be arguing that we should not question the numbers because of the situation is serious.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:54 am
by Groucho
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:53 am
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:46 am
erol wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 9:20 am
If you want to doubt the ONS figures on deaths in the UK then go ahead and do so. I did not see you doubting them when they were being presented as evidence that there had been no increase in death rates in the UK because of corona virus. You stick with your own 'arithmetically sound' back of the envelope calculations, whilst casting doubt on the ONS figures and all whilst bemoaning that "the public are being fed all sorts of stats that are no better than what appear to me to be best guesses." if you like. I personally will stick to the assumption that the ONS has a better grip on the number of deaths in the UK than you do.
I do not doubt (or have ever doubted) the numbers are terrifying - but I do doubt their accuracy which always been my contention. As I said in my original post on the subject of Inaccurate statistics - the topic of this thread....
So can we trust the statistics?
They can be under or over recorded or reported in any way that supports a line of argument or 'narrative' as you put it...
What is, based on ONS figures, the normal weekly death rate for England and Wales? Clue - It's not 10,000...
You seem to be confusing my questioning the stats with a desire to pooh-pooh the seriousness of Covid-19..
I would not dream of making that point on a thread about the danger of Covid-19 but on the accuracy of statistics I have doubts and that is what, after all, this thread is about...
I think you seem to be arguing that we should not question the numbers because the situation is serious.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:54 am
by Groucho
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:53 am
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:46 am
erol wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 9:20 am
If you want to doubt the ONS figures on deaths in the UK then go ahead and do so. I did not see you doubting them when they were being presented as evidence that there had been no increase in death rates in the UK because of corona virus. You stick with your own 'arithmetically sound' back of the envelope calculations, whilst casting doubt on the ONS figures and all whilst bemoaning that "the public are being fed all sorts of stats that are no better than what appear to me to be best guesses." if you like. I personally will stick to the assumption that the ONS has a better grip on the number of deaths in the UK than you do.
I do not doubt (or have ever doubted) the numbers are terrifying - but I do doubt their accuracy which always been my contention. As I said in my original post on the subject of Inaccurate statistics - the topic of this thread....
So can we trust the statistics?
They can be under or over recorded or reported in any way that supports a line of argument or 'narrative' as you put it...
What is, based on ONS figures, the normal weekly death rate for England and Wales? Clue - It's not 10,000...
You seem to be confusing my questioning the stats with a desire to pooh-pooh the seriousness of Covid-19..
I would not dream of making that point on a thread about the danger of Covid-19 but on the accuracy of statistics I have doubts and that is what, after all, this thread is about...
I think you seem to be arguing that we should not question the numbers because the situation is serious.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:56 am
by Groucho
There is a bug in the edit function...
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 12:07 pm
by erol
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:46 am
What is, based on ONS figures, the normal weekly death rate for England and Wales? Clue - It's not 10,000...
From the ONS figures for 2019
Total deaths, all ages, week 14 - 10,126
Total deaths: average of corresponding week over the previous 5 years - 10,268
Average weekly Death rate over 52 weeks of 2019 - 10,139
From ONS figures for 2020
Total deaths, all ages, week 14 - 16,387
Total deaths: average of corresponding week over the previous 5 years - 10,305
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:46 am
I would not dream of making that point on a thread about the danger of Covid-19 but on the accuracy of statistics I have doubts and that is what, after all, this thread is about...
I think you seem to be arguing that we should not question the numbers because the situation is serious.
I am just doing my best to understand the numbers as I see them by explaining how I see the. I entered this thread as a response to the claim
"I was looking at the government website where they publish statistics each week on deaths - figures are completely normal for the time of year , 10 to 11 thousand per week for England alone."
To which I pointed out that the figures at that time went up to week 11 by which point in time the UK had only reported 11 Covid19 related deaths and thus drawing conclusion from such figures was imo somewhat premature.
I next responded to your attempts to calculate on the 'back of an envelope' what the normal average weekly death rate might be in the UK by pointing out that there was little need or point imo to make such an estimate given the availability of figures from the ONS on such things, which then appeared to turn in to some sort of pissing match, which I eventually let drop after one more post. My next contribution was when the figures from the ONS for week 14 were released.
I am not arguing that figures should not be questioned. I am arguing that the ONS figures are more credible to me that your back of the envelope ones. I am not arguing that figures should not be questioned. I did argue that the conclusion draw from the ONS figures early in this thread were premature imo.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 12:09 pm
by erol
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:56 am
There is a bug in the edit function...
I think you may be confusing the quote function as shown by a " symbol with the edit function as shown by a small pencil symbol ?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 12:22 pm
by Groucho
erol wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 12:09 pm
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 11:56 am
There is a bug in the edit function...
I think you may be confusing the quote function as shown by a " symbol with the edit function as shown by a small pencil symbol ?
I will keep an eye on it....
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 12:37 pm
by Groucho
My back of fag packet is a calculator, I was trying to quantify figures for UK not just England and Wales as UK total was the one being broadcast by the BBC... I still don't understand that the England and Wales population 54.1m would only have a weekly norm death rate of only just over 10k.. That would equate to a growing population when I understood birth rates were falling...
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Wed 15 Apr 2020 4:23 pm
by erol
Groucho wrote: ↑Wed 15 Apr 2020 12:37 pm
I still don't understand that the England and Wales population 54.1m would only have a weekly norm death rate of only just over 10k.. That would equate to a growing population when I understood birth rates were falling...
I am no expert and I am not that interested to spend much 'thought minutes' on this right now but I am not sure there is a 'discrepancy' there. Off the top of my head you seem to be taking death totals pw based on average lifespan being 80 today and comparing them with birth totals today and see discrepancy as to how births can be greater than deaths when birth rates are dropping. It seems to me you need to compare death totals today based on average lifespan today of being 80 and compare them with total births not today but 80 years ago, because that is when someone who is 80 today was born ? I suspect if you do it that way then deaths will be in excess of births and thus support that birth rates are dropping over time in the UK ? Like I say just off the top of my head.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Fri 17 Apr 2020 11:32 am
by kibsolar1999
thanks erol for posting the bbc link.
exactly that was predicted.. and for the US, especially NY, you can find quite similar datas.
that statistics during the beginning of this pandemic are not 100% correct.. is normal, or?
all over the world they try to evaluate transmission paths (still), who gets infected and who not and why, why some show symtoms and others not, reproduction numbers, official and hidden infections , doubling rates, death rates, mortality rates, is an app helpful or masks or both, what role the the kids have , the lot.
also during the aids pandemic (which is still active with 770k deaths last year and a total of 33 million deaths in the last 20 years), we had these problems.eg, no one dies from aids.. but all with aids. but aids takes longer to die... it was more obvious that aids "was the cause", as the patients will get one serious desease after the other until they die. ....covid 19 is a "quick one", infected, symthoms, ICU, dead in 10days to 3 weeks. Boris was very lucky.
or in other words: under covid 19 the circulatory system breaks to pieces and the diagnosis is: heart attack, for the statistics: died "with" covid19?
stupid, or?
china just corrected the number of death related to covid 19 in Wuhan up 50%.
it is said that in equador 800 corpses have been relaesed from homes.. but are not shown in the statistics (403 officially).
so, in the more developed countries we are better with statistics, we will sort that and show better numbers soon.
and do not forget.. these numbers will be INCLUDING measures like lockdowns.
newest data from germany show (and sort of confirming older "guessings") a mortality rate of 0,4 to 0,7 %. (of ALL infected, not registered ones), but only because the health system work.
if the health system breaks to pieces... then expect 5% or higher.
all that would happen during the next 3 month or so (in europe /US) and for the UK alone, @ 65% herdimmunisation expect approx 2 milliion, for the US 12 million, germany 2 million, worldwide +350 million. even dumptrump and others finally accepted that.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Fri 17 Apr 2020 11:58 am
by EnjoyingTheSun
kibsolar1999 wrote: ↑Fri 17 Apr 2020 11:32 am
all that would happen during the next 3 month or so (in europe /US) and for the UK alone, @ 65% herdimmunisation expect approx 2 milliion, for the US 12 million, germany 2 million, worldwide +350 million. even dumptrump and others finally accepted that.
What are you saying, that there will be over 350 million cases this year? What mortality rate are you going to guess at?
You know the average deaths is around 60 million and the UN projection for 2020 before coronavirus was 7.612 deaths per thousand
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sat 18 Apr 2020 9:20 am
by kibsolar1999
no, i said there would be...
the numbers given from epidemiologists are quite clear: without measures as lockdowns, distancing and so on, and a completely collapsed health system (no emergency car is coming at all), the death toll could/would be as high as 5%. they can not be sure 100%, maybe a bit less, but maybe higher.
10% of the population would be infected within a month/6 weeks, at the peak of the wave, a month later, 30% of the population would be infected at the same time.
for the uk, approx 7 million infected in 30 days, 25 million infected at peak.
as for today, approx 15-20% need hospitalisation, 5% intubation. 5 million beds, 1,2 million intubators. but unfortunately the non existing beds are full from the 10%, as covid 19 takes 10 days up to 3 weeks intubation. so no one will get any treatment any more. they just die. at home. and no funeral service coming as well.
and of the survivers, many will have COP-like symthoms forever or for a long long time... also the younger ones. covid 19 is a tough one, very difficult to intubate, difficult/impossible to treat. see Boris, he is still at checkers. a threat for the economy as well. long term effects.
if the curve can be flattened and the health system works, the pandemia is going on until a vaccination is found and working and given, the death rate is around 0,4 to 0,7% (german statitics). maybe a medication will help a bit here, if available.
so, over time, say 200.000 - 300.000 in UK.
last month in the UK: 13.000 cases of which account for last week 6000, and is not foreseeable how long that will go on.
it is a terrible disease/pandemia and we most probably can not "learn to live with it". the situation will change every day, every month... despite EU, UK, US.. we have also india, asia, africa, south america on the list to come...
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sat 18 Apr 2020 10:10 am
by EnjoyingTheSun
So if I have this right, without a vaccine, which will take a year to come online, we need to shut down our economies or else 30% of the world will get this virus? That's around 2.34 billion people.
If that many people get it then obviously the health services will fail and the mortality rate will go up to 5%? That's around 120 million people dying from coronavirus?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sat 18 Apr 2020 12:30 pm
by kibsolar1999
pls read carefully...
at peak, 30% would be infected AT THE SAME TIME , 60-70% in total until the good old "herdimmunisation" is achived.
as the virus has a reproduction rate at 3 or higher, we would reach this peak in whenever late may. well before that, the health systems breaks to pieces. the wave would go up skyhigh and then lowers a bit, as many are infected already and reproduction rates lowers.... till the 65% are reached.
the phase out takes some time, still, health system can not help anybody, as most of the nurses can not work as well.
in august (more or less, iam not an expert.. and many factors re still not clear), all would be over. at least in the EU/US, in other parts they are "full in".
in this scenario not only 5% (or more or a little less, who knows?) of the infected would die. makes 5% of say, 50 million ( 65% herdimmunisation)
2.5 million would die during a couple of month, most of them during a month only.
no. we would not escape "taht easily": also economically that would be a complete breakdown of everything. not 5% down or 20% down.
100% down. not one supermarket would be open, riots... military would take over.... not forever.. but for how long.
the harvest 2020 is history or can not be done properly...and the winter is on the doorstep.
that was the problem the politcians had, has, or will have.. shall we accept 2,5 million (and say, 350 million worldwide) to die surely (or shall we end the lockdown on lower levels, eg risk a second wave..) , or shall we try to handle all oncoming problems with the economics, austerity, starvation, family tragedies... aso, later.
basically all came to the same conclusion: try to solve problems later.
every attempt to belittle this pandemia is irresponsible. i rather accept lockdowns, travel restrictions, to "forget" 2020, instead of having a war. the danger still is big enough.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sat 18 Apr 2020 1:20 pm
by EnjoyingTheSun
So your prediction is 2.5 million will die in the UK alone?
And your best case scenario?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sat 18 Apr 2020 1:26 pm
by Brazen
“Herd immunity” is not a given. No one knows whether it will be achieved or not. We have never achieved it for the common cold or influenza. An effective vaccine may never be found, and if it is it could have very severe side effects.. The flu virus alters itself all the time, that is why it’s necessary to have a jab every year for the newest strain. Perhaps the real hope is an antiviral medicine that will make the infection less severe. Who knows?
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sat 18 Apr 2020 4:47 pm
by kibsolar1999
hey, again, read carefully. they WOULD be diying.
well the best case scenario given from uk officials was 20k on march 30th. 19 days later the UK stands at 15.500 with 700-800 to add every day.
but, as you asked me.... with nice lockdowns to continue, no restaurants, limited shopping, most probably closed kindergardens, limited school, no events as football, theater, concerts, public pools, closed beaches, all the lot, basically no travelling incl day tours to-with relatives or friends, masks, distancing and so on.. 100k?
one mistake, as early lifts, and you are easily at 200 or 300k.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sat 18 Apr 2020 8:42 pm
by EnjoyingTheSun
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/G ... death-rate
Going on the above, the UN estimated a UK mortality rate of 9.413 for 2020 pre Coronavirus.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-pop ... opulation/
The above has the UN estimating a UK population of 67,814,098 currently and
67,886,011 at the mid year or in 2 months. So shall we say 68 million by the year end as fair?
So that would give us an estimated 640,000 deaths at year end without Coronavirus, agreed?
Now if we accept that economic hardship causes deaths then your 100,000 deaths best case scenario from Coronavirus would push the 2020 UK deaths to 740,000. It would probably be conservative to add 10,000 to that for deaths for economic hardship as we are going to see the biggest recession in our lifetimes in the next few years.
I’ll have a bet with you that this time next year that the UK deaths will begin with a 6 and I don’t mean 6 million.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sun 19 Apr 2020 9:26 am
by kibsolar1999
i do not know what you want to tell us excactly...
if the UK can escape the pandemia with a 100 k death from covid 19, + 10 k death from austerity incl the biggest recession in our lifetime.. that would be a bargain.
other countries will be not that happy, here the austerity - death will be even higher as direct covid 19 casulties. because it was not tested, because covid deaths were not registered (people just die, nobody cares why.. from tubercolosis, covid 19.. who cares?) , whatever.. or because the situation in general is much worse.... i am talking about what happens in the US as an example what may can happen even in a developed country, or in SA, where shops had been plundered.. or what might come in other non developed countries.. eg, india.
finally ( in 2021/2022.. as it would take time to "complete and clear" statistics ) it could be that we had, eg, 10 million covid 19 deaths and 20 million from austerity-starvation.
btw, as the UKs population is around 0,87% of the worlds population, my "100k guess" for the UK (15k till today , + 20 k within the next weeks , the other 65 k within the next year till a vaccination is found..) would make approx 10 million worldwide..
if a somewhat working health system would be available.
Re: Inaccurate statistics
Posted: Sun 19 Apr 2020 9:59 am
by EnjoyingTheSun
kibsolar1999 wrote: ↑Sun 19 Apr 2020 9:26 am
i do not know what you want to tell us excactly...
if the UK can escape the pandemia with a 100 k death from covid 19, + 10 k death from austerity incl the biggest recession in our lifetime.. that would be a bargain.
I want you to nail your colours to the mast on this in a way that is very clear.
This time next year we will know what the damage for 2020 was. So you agree with my/the UN estimate for UK deaths for 2020? 640,000? So any deaths over that we can assume are down to coronavirus and austerity?
kibsolar1999 wrote: ↑Sun 19 Apr 2020 9:26 am
finally ( in 2021/2022.. as it would take time to "complete and clear" statistics ) it could be that we had, eg, 10 million covid 19 deaths and 20 million from austerity-starvation.
Trust me the deaths from the economic catastrophe will dwarf coronavirus
kibsolar1999 wrote: ↑Sun 19 Apr 2020 9:26 am
my "100k guess" for the UK (15k till today , + 20 k within the next weeks , the other 65 k within the next year till a vaccination is found..) would make approx 10 million worldwide..
if a somewhat working health system would be available.
What you don't seem to realise is the vast majority of those 15K were going to die anyway. But anyhow we have our guesses in. Yours is 750,000 deaths in the UK absolute minimum, mine is under 700,000. Agreed?
Personally I'd drop mine to midway between the 640 and 700 but it's difficult to judge the economic fallout. I can guarantee the suicide rate will be going up.