Listening to & reading about the symptoms of coronavirus ,i think the wife & myself may already have had it. It started the week before Christmas & lasted till well into February ,head,chest ,stiff & painful joints & muscles. We came through ok even with underlying health issues ,although i'm still full of catarrh.

Yes - in a country like the UK where there is very little testing, the official number of cases will massively understate the actual number who have it, but the death rate as a proportion of those who are tested will be high, because the sample of people who are tested is not representative of the population of people who contract the disease - it will be biased because it contains only the more severe cases who reach hospital treatment.

There will no doubt be some unscrupulous media source who runs a story that claims a super high mortality rate based on this.

Data on caseloads will be more accurate in countries like China/Korea where there is more extensive testing.

In the UK where so few people are tested, the best proxy to use for whether we are getting on top of the virus or not will be the number of deaths per day, but the death rate today is an indicator of the case load two weeks or so ago.

If for instance, the measures that the government announced today for additional social distancing are effective, the number of deaths per day may still rise rapidly over the next two weeks. This will be because the number of cases was rising rapidly in the two weeks before today, when we didn't have the measures in place, then if those are effective, it will start to level off in a couple of weeks and hopefully fall.

But again, people who don't understand the dynamics of the data, would see death rates rising in the next two weeks and say "social distancing is not making any impact".

The other factor that will start to drive deaths per day up rapidly (as found in Italy) is when the NHS gets to overcapacity, where people who could have survived with the right treatment start to die because of the lack of capacity. The reason measures like today are so important is to keep the NHS below that level.

So Johnson signs death warrant on the pub and restraunt industry. If you tell ask their customers to stay away but don't instruct them to close they cannot claim on insurance but cannot pay their bills which will lead to bankruptcy and mass unemployment.

Shame on whoever voted for this cretin to lead the country.

I don't think Boris is up to the job of PM, but it's unfair to criticise him over taking measures like this. If he said carry on as normal, he would be signing the literal death warrant of a lot of vulnerable people. Many other heads of state in other countries are taking measures like this and its sensible.

Boris knows the consequences to the economy and he's had to make an unpleasant trade-off. He's given it longer than some other PMs would. Theresa May or Gordon Brown for instance would probably have had this level of lock down last week.

Nope I’m not for one minute saying ‘carry on as normal’ but if you’re telling people not to go to pubs or cafes then why not shut them so at least the owners can claim on their insurance. He’s looking after his pals and protecting the profits of insurance companies.

Why is my wife going to teach a primary school full of kids tomorrow, but I shouldn't go and have a coffee in a cafe? It makes zero sense. He’s hanging pubs, cafes, restraunts, theatres etc out to dry.

Leader my arris.

Ah i didnt realise that and yes you make a good point.

I wonder how a) they detect new cases and b) determine deaths from corona virus if they are no longer testing? Or is it that they are only testing those admitted to hospital.

Quote ="Wires71"I'm happy to be wrong... but the death rate currently is calculated by deaths / tested cases known. As of today (Source: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboar ... 484dd4bb14) UK Cases Known - 1543 Deaths - 55 Mortality Rate = 55/1543 = 3.5%. But it is thought that there are up to 10,000 people infected (Source:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-news-uk-updates-symptoms-cases-map-deaths-world-travel-latest-a9403726.html) UK Estimate infections - 10,000 UK Deaths - 55 UK Mortality Rate = 55/10000 = 0.55%. What is the mortality rate of the new coronavirus? It is probably about or a bit less than 1%. Much higher figures have been flying about, but the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, is one of those who believes it will prove to be 1% or lower. The World Health Organization’s director general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, talked of 3.4%, but his figure was calculated by dividing the number of deaths by the number of officially confirmed cases. We know there are many more mild cases that do not get to hospital and are not being counted, which would bring the mortality rate significantly down. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... s-covid-19 So we have ... 1. (Global) Asymptomatic people who don't get tested, survive and never get counted. 2. (UK) Small sample size. 3. You cannot use additional mortality over the period to estimate corona deaths yet. In the early days of the crisis in Wuhan, China, the CFR was more than 4 percent. As the virus spread to other parts of Hubei, the number fell to 2 percent. As it spread through China, the reported CFR dropped further, to 0.2 to 0.4 percent. As testing begins to include more asymptomatic and mild cases, more realistic numbers are starting to surface. New reports from the World Health Organization that estimate the global death rate of COVID-19 to be 3.4 percent, higher than previously believed, is not cause for further panic. This number is subject to the same usual forces that we would normally expect to inaccurately embellish death rate statistics early in an epidemic. . Source:https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html That's why I believe it will be less than the figure of 3.4% given by the WHO which already is considered by the UK CMO Chris Whitty as hugely over calculated by a factor of over 3x. That is to what I was referring, so yes I do disagree with the WHO expert and so does the UK SMO, so let's hope that's right.'" As I am sure you would agree, neither of us are health experts so we must leave the external data to Whitty and Vallance to interpret. There must be many, many factors involved in calculating the figure for the UK mortality ( genetics, male smokers in China, age demographic in Italy, suppression of data perhaps in Iran, population densities etc etc) which is why I took Whitty's figure of 1% and R0 of 2.5. We can't pretend that a RL discussion thread is seriously going to challenge the official view of the UK's CMO and his team of experts. So based on his data we have an estimated number of deaths in the UK of 1% times 65% of people that will become infected times the UK population 66million ('1icon_cool.gif = 430,000. I am hoping that by isolating the elderly (Care Homes), encouraging the over 70's to hibernate for a month or two, and ensuring we have enough IC beds in hospital he will manage to reduce that figure. Particularly as my dad will be 100 in August. But whatever the number we finally arrive at, it is still going to be very big. If we also accept the current number of severe to critical patients as 20%, then we will have in the region of 8 million hospitalised. Even if you halved that figure it would still be a huge challenge.

Quote ="Wires71"I'm happy to be wrong... but the death rate currently is calculated by deaths / tested cases known. As of today (Source: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboar ... 484dd4bb14) UK Cases Known - 1543 Deaths - 55 Mortality Rate = 55/1543 = 3.5%. But it is thought that there are up to 10,000 people infected (Source:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-news-uk-updates-symptoms-cases-map-deaths-world-travel-latest-a9403726.html) UK Estimate infections - 10,000 UK Deaths - 55 UK Mortality Rate = 55/10000 = 0.55%. What is the mortality rate of the new coronavirus? It is probably about or a bit less than 1%. Much higher figures have been flying about, but the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, is one of those who believes it will prove to be 1% or lower. The World Health Organization’s director general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, talked of 3.4%, but his figure was calculated by dividing the number of deaths by the number of officially confirmed cases. We know there are many more mild cases that do not get to hospital and are not being counted, which would bring the mortality rate significantly down. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... s-covid-19 So we have ... 1. (Global) Asymptomatic people who don't get tested, survive and never get counted. 2. (UK) Small sample size. 3. You cannot use additional mortality over the period to estimate corona deaths yet. In the early days of the crisis in Wuhan, China, the CFR was more than 4 percent. As the virus spread to other parts of Hubei, the number fell to 2 percent. As it spread through China, the reported CFR dropped further, to 0.2 to 0.4 percent. As testing begins to include more asymptomatic and mild cases, more realistic numbers are starting to surface. New reports from the World Health Organization that estimate the global death rate of COVID-19 to be 3.4 percent, higher than previously believed, is not cause for further panic. This number is subject to the same usual forces that we would normally expect to inaccurately embellish death rate statistics early in an epidemic. . Source:https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html That's why I believe it will be less than the figure of 3.4% given by the WHO which already is considered by the UK CMO Chris Whitty as hugely over calculated by a factor of over 3x. That is to what I was referring, so yes I do disagree with the WHO expert and so does the UK SMO, so let's hope that's right.'" As I am sure you would agree, neither of us are health experts so we must leave the external data to Whitty and Vallance to interpret. There must be many, many factors involved in calculating the figure for the UK mortality ( genetics, male smokers in China, age demographic in Italy, suppression of data perhaps in Iran, population densities etc etc) which is why I took Whitty's figure of 1% and R0 of 2.5. We can't pretend that a RL discussion thread is seriously going to challenge the official view of the UK's CMO and his team of experts. So based on his data we have an estimated number of deaths in the UK of 1% times 65% of people that will become infected times the UK population 66million ('1icon_cool.gif = 430,000. I am hoping that by isolating the elderly (Care Homes), encouraging the over 70's to hibernate for a month or two, and ensuring we have enough IC beds in hospital he will manage to reduce that figure. Particularly as my dad will be 100 in August. But whatever the number we finally arrive at, it is still going to be very big. If we also accept the current number of severe to critical patients as 20%, then we will have in the region of 8 million hospitalised. Even if you halved that figure it would still be a huge challenge.

Cutting through all the various modelling estimates, there are only two factual numbers, in that 55 deaths in 1500 tested positive.

What is not clear is the demographic age breakdown of those two numbers.

From news reports it appears the 55 souls are predominantly elderly or with some underlying health issue,

So 40 of those could be from 400 elderly/infirm tested positive, or from 1000 elderly/infirm tested positive.

10% or 4%



If it is 10% then final numbers will be determined how far this virus transmits around the elderly or infirm population.

The numbers are way off.

They are only testing after hours of obz and if you deteriorate. Then they assess if your likely to die from it first before they test for it so the actual number of confirmed cases is low this disfigured the mortality rate.

The numbers are perhaps a bit small atm to interpret ? Plus the point that Sally made earlier about a lag time between contracting and dying from the disease is a good one.

Indeed. He'll close the pubs and cafes when he has to but by then he'll be blaming a rising death toll on those who enjoy a coffee or a pint for not following advice. Much as the French govt. has done.

No, I would start from those factual numbers and calculate the factual death to tested positives weekly ratio every Sunday night for each age / lnfirmity range , and then produce an ongoing set of week to week trends graphs.

All tested positive and all deaths/ belated deaths would become included at some point, and a rolling average figure calculated per age group.

You could see where the big numbers are happening, and pick up any spikes.

Just been listening to the bafoon who wants to close pubs clubs restaurants etc to curb the spread of the virus...but I've got to go to work where I'm in contact with 150 plus other mugs...hypocrite springs to mind...stroll on Friday 4 pm I'm off to local thru back door for a well earned beer...suck on that doris

It depends what happens with the untested, whether they recover, or deteriorate Further to become tested, where they will enter the ongoing weekly calculation.

Reading this in Phil Clarke’s “number crunching” voice

But any changes to the scope of who gets tested will distort those ratios over time. The best rule of thumb is to track how the raw number of deaths is trending over time. Assume the mortality rate stays fairly constant, the deaths per day will give you an indication of the underlying caseload, although bear in mind when the NHS reaches capacity point the mortality rate will probably shift to a higher level and then stay there.

In the next few weeks the daily death count will likely rise rapidly; the point at which we know we are gaining some control is where that levels off and starts to fall. That will show us that the underlying case load started to fall a couple of weeks earlier.

The government strategy has now changed after they received a report ( modelling) from Imperial which basically pointed out that on the current infection rate the NHS would need 'many times' the number of intensive care beds that they currently had in place leading to 'excess mortality' as experienced in Italy. Is this the first detailed piece of work to try and estimate the NHS capacity ? Anyway, rather than now trying to flatten the infection curve they will try and drastically reduce the numbers that are getting infected (Suppression). Hence all the much stricter social distancing announced yesterday ( pubs, restaurants, theatres etc). So now we will see a smaller peak of infections followed by a drop ( to allow the NHS to recover their available bed numbers), followed by another increase in infections as they relax the social distancing. I don't know how many bumps they anticipate we will go through. The upside is that they should save a lot more lives but the downside is it will obviously take a lot longer to get through the outbreak. That will certainly hit our businesses and economy. In order to soften this blow the government announced today a lot more money in the form of grants and loans (100's of £billions). https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronav ... n-response

The government strategy has now changed after they received a report ( modelling) from Imperial which basically pointed out that on the current infection rate the NHS would need 'many times' the number of intensive care beds that they currently had in place leading to 'excess mortality' as experienced in Italy. Is this the first detailed piece of work to try and estimate the NHS capacity ? Anyway, rather than now trying to flatten the infection curve they will try and drastically reduce the numbers that are getting infected (Suppression). Hence all the much stricter social distancing announced yesterday ( pubs, restaurants, theatres etc). So now we will see a smaller peak of infections followed by a drop ( to allow the NHS to recover their available bed numbers), followed by another increase in infections as they relax the social distancing. I don't know how many bumps they anticipate we will go through. The upside is that they should save a lot more lives but the downside is it will obviously take a lot longer to get through the outbreak. That will certainly hit our businesses and economy. In order to soften this blow the government announced today a lot more money in the form of grants and loans (100's of £billions). https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronav ... n-response

I bet Israel Folau is unbearable, now

Enjoy your pint matey. You'll be fine ... what difference can one individual make. You probably won't feel a bit guilty or even know if you pass it on to some unlucky person.
Look after yourself you deserve it.

Cheers will do and I have

My parents are both in their mid 70’s and in reasonable health + they’ve stated they will not be looking at four walls for three months despite their sons advice + who am I to tell them what do as bit late for that now.

Good for them...some of the young who think they know better know sod all..wish I knew em I'd buy them several drinks...sense talking at last

There are a lot saying that. There was a bad cold/flu/chest infection type virus about at Christmas, I remember everyone at work moaning about it. I was really annoyed by it because I knew I'd catch it for the Christmas break and I was moaning at them all for continuing to come into work, only to sit with their hand in their hands moaning about how ill they were and do no work anyway.

There are tons of other viruses and illnesses that could cause those symptoms though. It's possible you just had regular flu. But it is possible as they traced the first case back to 17th November. It is possible it spread earlier than expected.

SAM

The government now know how many critical care beds it has available.

From the number of people that are infected each day it is relatively easy to predict how many people will be infected in say 6 weeks time.

From the numbers infected you also know how many will need to be hospitalised (and need ventilators).

At the moment the infection rate is too high and will result in more people needing hospitalisation than there are beds available. So the only solution is to slow the infection rate down by reducing social mixing ie visits to cinema, restaurants, pubs, closing schools etc. If that doesn't work you can guess their next step will be to enforce a complete lock down.

What they are trying to avoid is a situation where two urgent cases are admitted to hospital but they only have one bed left. One is say an 80 year old man, the other is a 70 year old lady. So they decide to leave the older man on a trolley and make him comfortable, whilst the younger lady is given oxygen and the ventilator.

We all need to think very carefully about what we do over the coming weeks and limit the opportunity for the virus to spread rapidly.