Fatality Chance At Most 0.37%

[B0ycey]

The problem is it only takes one idiot to infect hundreds.

There are loads of idiots. We'll be seeing them all tomorrow when they head down to the beach. But that is why it is up to you to take responsibility for yourself. It is your life so it is up to you to make sure you listen to the advice regardless what others do around you. And if you do not want to catch the virus or take a risk on it stay indoors even if everyone else is going outside and ask family to do your shopping for you. The only exception to that would be those in the health care profession who are on the front line. If they are not given the right PPE or feel they are taking unnecessary risk then perhaps they should stand up and speak out. Everyone else needs to stop expecting the government to wipe their asses for them.

[papasmurf]

 acting sensibly in an open society.

The problem is it only takes one idiot to infect hundreds.

[B0ycey]

The other point is, even if you think modellers and suchlike are talking rubbish, I have actually seen the number of people arriving in hospitals with Covid-19 in March and April with my own eyes - this is not project fear or whatever.

It not about modellers talking rubbish. It is about that as we do not have reliable data, their models are over cautious. Which is a problem if you are trying to base a functioning strategy on models that rely on subjective figures.



Also I'm not down playing Covid deaths. They happen and will continue to happen. But just like we could stop all road deaths by banning driving, it doesn't mean that is the best way in order to stop them. And lockdowns aren't the best way to protect the NHS or people in general. Social distancing and hand washing are and so is mitigating your risk by acting sensibly in an open society.

[Borg Refinery]

Not sure who is doing that on Twitter - nobody that has any awareness at all from what I've seen.  Certainly I haven't heard a single expert of person who actually knows what they are talking about use the positive test to death ratio as an indicator of mortality.



It's perfectly normal to use statistical modelling in the first stages of an outbreak of a virus if tests are not available. Virologists, immunologists, and modellers work together to give estimates based on the so far known information.



As time goes on, those models are refined.  If the virus is considered as possibly very deadly or very impactful on public health (e.g. high hospitalisation rates as in this case), models will use worse case assumptions and worst case scenarious.



Once the models are refined with new data, and if fortunately and luckily the real information is not as bad as the first estimates, some people will jump on that and say that modellers don't know what they are talking about.  However if you go back and read the detail of the first models, they always make it very clear what are the assumptions they are using.



The last proper study I saw on the mortality rate of Covid-19 in the UK put it at 0.99%, based on small scale studies in the UK, and various other larger studies in other countries, and then adjusting for demographics.  Obviously that makes it sound very exact, but that number would have a significant margin of error and of course will not be exactly correct.



I've seen some people suggesting the real mortality rate is much lower, which is possible but not likely - the reality is that we don't have peer reviewed reliable studies that would show that up to this point.



The other point is, even if you think modellers and suchlike are talking rubbish, I have actually seen the number of people arriving in hospitals with Covid-19 in March and April with my own eyes - this is not project fear or whatever.

I want to see UK closed case figures which disappeared mysteriously from several sites in mid April.



The 'recovered/discharged' figure was worryingly low vis a vis the death figure.



It was getting above 30% dead, at one point....

[Javert]

Anyway antibody test have been approved and if a nationwide roll out is performed, we will have the most reliable data for mortality rates than model guesstimates we have from the "professionals", or the twitter police dividing confirmed cases by reported death for their mortality fixation to justify having enough wry one watching Netflix for seven weeks.

Not sure who is doing that on Twitter - nobody that has any awareness at all from what I've seen.  Certainly I haven't heard a single expert of person who actually knows what they are talking about use the positive test to death ratio as an indicator of mortality.



It's perfectly normal to use statistical modelling in the first stages of an outbreak of a virus if tests are not available. Virologists, immunologists, and modellers work together to give estimates based on the so far known information.



As time goes on, those models are refined.  If the virus is considered as possibly very deadly or very impactful on public health (e.g. high hospitalisation rates as in this case), models will use worse case assumptions and worst case scenarious.



Once the models are refined with new data, and if fortunately and luckily the real information is not as bad as the first estimates, some people will jump on that and say that modellers don't know what they are talking about.  However if you go back and read the detail of the first models, they always make it very clear what are the assumptions they are using.



The last proper study I saw on the mortality rate of Covid-19 in the UK put it at 0.99%, based on small scale studies in the UK, and various other larger studies in other countries, and then adjusting for demographics.  Obviously that makes it sound very exact, but that number would have a significant margin of error and of course will not be exactly correct.



I've seen some people suggesting the real mortality rate is much lower, which is possible but not likely - the reality is that we don't have peer reviewed reliable studies that would show that up to this point.



The other point is, even if you think modellers and suchlike are talking rubbish, I have actually seen the number of people arriving in hospitals with Covid-19 in March and April with my own eyes - this is not project fear or whatever.

[Javert]

One might argue if they had locked down the vulnerable and let the young fit and healthy run around, they might now be nearer to that herd immunity.

Yes, but like all things it's a lot more complicated as we've discussed before - the fit and healthy are by definition needed to visit the vulnerable as they are the ones that require various regular (often daily) interventions.

[Barry]

B0ycey, the Spanish have a very top heavy population age pyramid, lots waiting for God, and the virus cut short their wait.

[B0ycey]

B0ycey - this study:

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html">//https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html

Interesting. My instinct tells me that the primarily study will be wrong as that doesn't seem to be reflect what we have learnt from similar studies from other countries. When antibody tests are rolled out, death rate figures are going to be over estimated that is for sure. But I hope the Spanish don't have a genetic deviant that makes them more susceptible to Covid19. Especially as they rely on tourism for their economy and the EU is insistent on having a tourism season this year and I can see them being flooded by asystematic Central Europeans in August.

[Borg Refinery]

::  ::  ::  ::  ::  ::



Absolute comedy gold. Mind you, its just as invalid to say "you cannot be sceptical about any forecast/report/study unless you are an 'expert' in the same field"



Unless of course, its a forecast/report/study by a different 'expert' who is sceptical about the suggestion that umpty six zillion people will die by next Wednesday, because that expert is probably an idiot (even if he is a Phd educated Metropolitan elitist  :: )



I see where this is going. I like "experts" who tell me things that fuel my own "gut feelings". I'm less inclined to listen to any "experts" who don't.

Ok but surely this is cause for concern?



WORLD



CLOSED CASES

1,991,753

Cases which had an outcome:

1,690,702 (85%)

Recovered / Discharged

301,051 (15%)

Deaths



https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/">https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

[Barry]

B0ycey - this study:

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html">//https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html

[B0ycey]

A Spanish study shows only 5% of the population have had the virus.

That equates to around 2.35 million.

27,300 have died.

=1.1%

What Spanish study is this?



University of Bonn case study from antibody sampling estimates that Germany, who are testing like crazy already, are ten times under reporting cases due to asystematic victims. That is 1.8 million people at around 7000 deaths. Or .4% death rate. And that doesn't take into account risk factors such as age and health which you can mitigate to reduce this figure further.



Anyway antibody test have been approved and if a nationwide roll out is performed, we will have the most reliable data for mortality rates than model guesstimates we have from the "professionals", or the twitter police dividing confirmed cases by reported death for their mortality fixation to justify having enough wry one watching Netflix for seven weeks.

[Barry]

A Spanish study shows only 5% of the population have had the virus.

That equates to around 2.35 million.

27,300 have died.

=1.1%



They have stifled herd immunity by locking everyone down in Spain. Now they are relaxing the lockdown, if correct, they will still have 95% of the population left to infect.



One might argue if they had locked down the vulnerable and let the young fit and healthy run around, they might now be nearer to that herd immunity.

[DeppityDawg]

Of course, if you want to challenge the assumptions behind those models I'm sure you can try to do so, but it's not really valid to just say "my gut feel common sense tells me that's wrong because I suspect the person who wrote this report lives in London and is a Metropolitan Elitist" or whatever.

 ::  ::  ::  ::  ::  ::



Absolute comedy gold. Mind you, its just as invalid to say "you cannot be sceptical about any forecast/report/study unless you are an 'expert' in the same field"



Unless of course, its a forecast/report/study by a different 'expert' who is sceptical about the suggestion that umpty six zillion people will die by next Wednesday, because that expert is probably an idiot (even if he is a Phd educated Metropolitan elitist  :: )



I see where this is going. I like "experts" who tell me things that fuel my own "gut feelings". I'm less inclined to listen to any "experts" who don't.

[Javert]

Which report estimates deaths?

The one from 16th March - you have to download and read the full pdf of the report not just the summary.



It says that in a completely unmitigated scenario, based on the assumptions used, there would be up to 510,000 deaths in GB.



Note the term "unmitigated".  This does not mean there will be those many deaths, it means if we had done literally nothing at all that's what would happen.  Those 510,000 deaths would not be only from Covid-19 but from other deaths where people could not access medical care due to the hospital ICU being full.



Of course, if you want to challenge the assumptions behind those models I'm sure you can try to do so, but it's not really valid to just say "my gut feel common sense tells me that's wrong because I suspect the person who wrote this report lives in London and is a Metropolitan Elitist" or whatever.



That said, as I'm sure others will point out, that model is for sure wrong.  The assumptions in it were based on what we knew about the virus as of 16th March.  It's now 6 weeks later, so the modelling now may look different as new information comes in.   Models can only be based on the currently known information.

[Scott777]

The one which triggered the change from supression to lockdown was published on 16th March, but I'm not sure if the entire report is public.



I'm also tempted to ask - if you won't read a long post on a forum, should we expect that you will read a long scientific report?

Which report estimates deaths?