For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 582
#1820301
Statistics are so hard to pin down though aren't they?

Last week we heard that it is estimated that 1 in 50 has ("has" rather than "had") Covid. At the same time we are told that the UK it has an "infected mortality rate" of around 1%. So that means if we have a population of 70m we should have 700,000 expected to die within the next three or four weeks?

Really?

I'm not a Covid denier, but the stats really do need a better explanation!
Flying_john liked this
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1820310
@shortstripper Doesn't that mean 1% of the 1 in 50 = 14,000 (which looks plausible for a 2-3 week period given that c. 1000 people currently dying/day)?
johnm liked this
#1820312
I think you might be mixing statistics there @shortstripper.

They said they thought 1 in 50 had it at that time.

It was estimated at one point last year that the IFR (infected fatality ratio) was 1.15% but it's not 1.15% of the population but 1.15% of cases. If 1 in 50 people had it last week, that would be (on your figures) 1.4 million resulting in 16,100 deaths.
#1820321
Ok ... Sorry, my maths are terrible, let alone my understanding of stats.

Are there any sensible estimation about what percentage of the UK population have actually had it so far? If estimates of one in fifty had it last week and studies have now shown that the previously infected have good immunity for at least five months (maybe a lot more?). Then with vaccinations coming in quickly, we should surely start to see the numbers drop considerably in the coming weeks? I hope that is the case, but they seem to be doing anything but .... I know, more being tested .... but deaths?

SS
#1820325
Sydney area clusters seem to have been successfully contained and suppressed by rapid measures. These included effectively policed restrictions, diligent tracing, readily available testing with rapid reporting and follow up genomics, and clear communication.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-15/ ... e/13059962
johnm, T6Harvard liked this
#1820332
JAFO wrote:It was estimated at one point last year that the IFR (infected fatality ratio) was 1.15% but it's not 1.15% of the population but 1.15% of cases. If 1 in 50 people had it last week, that would be (on your figures) 1.4 million resulting in 16,100 deaths.


It is even more complicated because there is a difference between case fatality ratio and infection fatality ratio, but it is an important distinction when it comes to assessing infectious disease severity.

Here is a fairly neat summary from the WHO.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentar ... m-covid-19
JAFO, johnm, kanga and 1 others liked this
#1820381
I wouldn’t put it past some who, knowing quite well that they have the virus, will continue in their normal daily routine, not giving a damn who they infect. TV reporters continue to wander round ICU wards to deliver their news reports. Others seem to think they are immune from the rules to give reports from outside No.10 , using it as a backdrop - ‘kin crazy.
Flying_john liked this
#1820386
The number of infections is not really a problem. It's the number of hospitalisations that is causing the ruckus.

The ONS has published total death numbers for 2020 now - 614,114 for a 53 week period. let's say around 605,000 for a 365 day year. The 2019 England and Wales population was quoted as 59.44 million. So we have a rough mortality of 1.01% last year.
How bad is this? It's not even the worst rate this century. And using excess deaths over the 5 year average is kind of disingenuous because it ignores the fact that the rate has been climbing for the last decade. So we expected more than the 5 year average anyway.

Image
johnm liked this
#1820392
Cns416 wrote:not to mention those who have the virus but have no intention of going anywhere near an NHS testing station so are totally unrecorded - including the completely asymptomatic ones
The real number of daily infections is probably approaching double the stated number IMO.


Isn't the figure (such as 1 in50) what the ONS find by random testing and extrapolation? Thereby side-stepping these problems.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1820413
The swathes of statistics of infection rates / deaths are of no interest to me personally right now:

We are virtually locked down, confined to barracks with no visitors until three weeks after I get my first vaccination.Until then I'll keep my head down.

I can do no more to reduce my personal risk of getting Covid.

Until then the only statistic of interest to me is the date of my vaccination appointment, whenever that may be given that this part of E Anglia, containing Matt Hancock's constituency is light years behind the rest of the country even in vaccinating the highest risk group. :roll:
JAFO, T6Harvard liked this
#1820415
You're in a lucky position Pete and I really wish you well. Sadly, lots of us have no choice but to carry on and hope for the best. I'm lucky in that I have continuing fairly safe work (isolated on a farm). However, my wife works in retail and has no choice (other than to resign). It's not easy if not yet retired or furloughed. :(
  • 1
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 582