The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
As I pointed out, an average of two and a bit years means 50% are in there for longer. Median stay of 27 months ≠ most stay for 27 months.rick_chasey said:
That is a lot shorter than I'd have guessed.Stevo_666 said:
Quick Google shows average length of stay in residential homes as 27 months and in nursing homes just under 12 months.rjsterry said:
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and
years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?
Both my grandmothers ended up in nursing homes. One was there for eight years, the other has been in one for seven years and is still going.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.1 -
Given the deaths are at +600 a day despite being much further into "lockdown" than 3 weeks, I think the lock down will have to be quite strict to keep deaths below say, 400 a day in the long term. Which is a lot of people.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.0 -
The research into this is quite interesting. If you look at the government's 2011 preparedness report everything is about what actions will slow the spread rather than prevent it. They hadn't considered a lock down though.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
0 -
There is a point where economics will the driving force rather than mortality.
It’s bloody harsh on us all but that’s the world we’ve created.0 -
But whether we like it or not there will be an “acceptable” level of deaths for each stage of opening up the economy.rick_chasey said:
Given the deaths are at +600 a day despite being much further into "lockdown" than 3 weeks, I think the lock down will have to be quite strict to keep deaths below say, 400 a day in the long term. Which is a lot of people.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
I can not believe that it took me writing that to realise why they are undercounting deaths.0 -
This is exactly why it's important to get some realistic numbers. It's not just about comparisons with other countries.surrey_commuter said:
But whether we like it or not there will be an “acceptable” level of deaths for each stage of opening up the economy.rick_chasey said:
Given the deaths are at +600 a day despite being much further into "lockdown" than 3 weeks, I think the lock down will have to be quite strict to keep deaths below say, 400 a day in the long term. Which is a lot of people.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
I can not believe that it took me writing that to realise why they are undercounting deaths.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I can not believe that it took me writing that to realise why they are undercounting deaths.
Well, indeed...You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
I agree. i'm pretty certain those figures don't tie in with the figures that the likes of Just, who are specialists in care funding provide. I'm pretty sure they say around 15-18 months in a nursing home and 6-7 years average in a residential home.rick_chasey said:
That is a lot shorter than I'd have guessed.Stevo_666 said:
Quick Google shows average length of stay in residential homes as 27 months and in nursing homes just under 12 months.rjsterry said:
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?
Both my grandmothers ended up in nursing homes. One was there for eight years, the other has been in one for seven years and is still going.0 -
It is going to kill so. many. people.
If the UK is at what, 30,000 now, a month and a half into it, and it's going to carry on for the next what, 12 months at least?
Now presumably the death rate will drop as those most vulnerable basically all die, but still.0 -
But if you want to open up the economy then under counting will get you to an acceptable number quicker.kingstongraham said:
This is exactly why it's important to get some realistic numbers. It's not just about comparisons with other countries.surrey_commuter said:
But whether we like it or not there will be an “acceptable” level of deaths for each stage of opening up the economy.rick_chasey said:
Given the deaths are at +600 a day despite being much further into "lockdown" than 3 weeks, I think the lock down will have to be quite strict to keep deaths below say, 400 a day in the long term. Which is a lot of people.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
I can not believe that it took me writing that to realise why they are undercounting deaths.
I had read that in the Cabinet were doves and hawks on ending lockdown but soaring above them was the PM who was more of a golden eagle than hawk. Seems he shat himself in hospital and is now the most dovish of doves0 -
surrey_commuter said:
But if you want to open up the economy then under counting will get you to an acceptable number quicker.kingstongraham said:
This is exactly why it's important to get some realistic numbers. It's not just about comparisons with other countries.surrey_commuter said:
But whether we like it or not there will be an “acceptable” level of deaths for each stage of opening up the economy.rick_chasey said:
Given the deaths are at +600 a day despite being much further into "lockdown" than 3 weeks, I think the lock down will have to be quite strict to keep deaths below say, 400 a day in the long term. Which is a lot of people.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
I can not believe that it took me writing that to realise why they are undercounting deaths.
I had read that in the Cabinet were doves and hawks on ending lockdown but soaring above them was the PM who was more of a golden eagle than hawk. Seems he shat himself in hospital and is now the most dovish of doves
Wouldn't be a surprise if having been in quite a bad way because of this himself, it brought it home to BoJo how critical the situation is0 -
I agree with para 1 and 1st half of para 2.bradsbeard said:There is a point where economics will the driving force rather than mortality.
It’s bloody harsh on us all but that’s the world we’ve created.
2nd half of paragraph 2, I disagree.
It's the world into which we're born and which we have become very adept at removing harshness from. We don't like it when nature takes the upper hand and reminds us we are ultimately at its mercy.1 -
It is somewhat reassuring to know that despite their bluster most Right Wing columnists are exactly as wet and useless as we may have suspected
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/spectator-writers-in-lockdown-by-the-people-stuck-with-them/amp?__twitter_impression=trueWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.0 -
If as reported he was one of those people who views illness as some sort of personal failure, then it may have come as a bit of a shock to find that you can't just push on through a serious infection.kingstonian said:surrey_commuter said:
But if you want to open up the economy then under counting will get you to an acceptable number quicker.kingstongraham said:
This is exactly why it's important to get some realistic numbers. It's not just about comparisons with other countries.surrey_commuter said:
But whether we like it or not there will be an “acceptable” level of deaths for each stage of opening up the economy.rick_chasey said:
Given the deaths are at +600 a day despite being much further into "lockdown" than 3 weeks, I think the lock down will have to be quite strict to keep deaths below say, 400 a day in the long term. Which is a lot of people.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
I can not believe that it took me writing that to realise why they are undercounting deaths.
I had read that in the Cabinet were doves and hawks on ending lockdown but soaring above them was the PM who was more of a golden eagle than hawk. Seems he shat himself in hospital and is now the most dovish of doves
Wouldn't be a surprise if having been in quite a bad way because of this himself, it brought it home to BoJo how critical the situation is1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
If as reported he was one of those people who views illness as some sort of personal failure, then it may have come as a bit of a shock to find that you can't just push on through a serious infection.kingstonian said:surrey_commuter said:
But if you want to open up the economy then under counting will get you to an acceptable number quicker.kingstongraham said:
This is exactly why it's important to get some realistic numbers. It's not just about comparisons with other countries.surrey_commuter said:
But whether we like it or not there will be an “acceptable” level of deaths for each stage of opening up the economy.rick_chasey said:
Given the deaths are at +600 a day despite being much further into "lockdown" than 3 weeks, I think the lock down will have to be quite strict to keep deaths below say, 400 a day in the long term. Which is a lot of people.kingstongraham said:
I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
I can not believe that it took me writing that to realise why they are undercounting deaths.
I had read that in the Cabinet were doves and hawks on ending lockdown but soaring above them was the PM who was more of a golden eagle than hawk. Seems he shat himself in hospital and is now the most dovish of doves
Wouldn't be a surprise if having been in quite a bad way because of this himself, it brought it home to BoJo how critical the situation is
Yes, indeed. Nothing like a nasty personal experience to change one's perspective0 -
They've tested different cohorts. In the UK we've been testing largely people who we think have it, which is self-selecting the group out of which people will die.kingstonian said:What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.0 -
The easiest answer is that the true number of cases in France and the UK is much higher than those numbers.kingstonian said:What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.0 -
If you look back at the Imperial study, all the graphs are symmetrical https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
Doesn't feel like that is what's actually happening.0 -
mrb123 said:
The easiest answer is that the true number of cases in France and the UK is much higher than those numbers.kingstonian said:What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.
So you think the UK and France have had 4x the number of cases than Germany, so the death rate is in fact the same? That's a possibility, but why would 3 fairly similar countries have such wildly different infection rates?
I just don't get it.0 -
A young couple moved in next door at the weekend. The previous owner left a key under the mat to get in and as they had been living with one set of parents before the lockdown then that all helped the move.
All good. To that point.
Since Sunday there has been a constant stream of visitors going in and presumably getting the tour. 3 car loads today alone so far.
Some really are just treating this as an extended holiday.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Is this the dawning realisation that if there's no treatment or cure, it is a question of when not if and this is a giant exercise in palliative care?rick_chasey said:It is going to kill so. many. people.
If the UK is at what, 30,000 now, a month and a half into it, and it's going to carry on for the next what, 12 months at least?
Now presumably the death rate will drop as those most vulnerable basically all die, but still.
In the UK, the answer is about 300,000-600,000.
I can't believe that over the next 12 months there won't be some developments that bring the average mortality rate down from 0.5-1%. But that's all it is. A belief.0 -
I suppose to turn that round, why would the death rate be so wildly different between those countries?kingstonian said:mrb123 said:
The easiest answer is that the true number of cases in France and the UK is much higher than those numbers.kingstonian said:What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.
So you think the UK and France have had 4x the number of cases than Germany, so the death rate is in fact the same? That's a possibility, but why would 3 fairly similar countries have such wildly different infection rates?
I just don't get it.
We already know with a fair degree of certainty that Germany's testing regime has been much more thorough than ours so they'll have been picking up far more mild/moderate/asymptomatic cases than us, whereas we're pretty much only testing people who are hospitalised.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109066/coronavirus-testing-in-europe-by-country/0 -
That was the early lockdown.kingstonian said:mrb123 said:
The easiest answer is that the true number of cases in France and the UK is much higher than those numbers.kingstonian said:What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.
So you think the UK and France have had 4x the number of cases than Germany, so the death rate is in fact the same? That's a possibility, but why would 3 fairly similar countries have such wildly different infection rates?
I just don't get it.
That is why Greece has been so successful at suppressing infection. They knew their health system wasn't robust so went full on close everything.
No denying it is a successful short term strategy.
0 -
Good spot!kingstongraham said:If you look back at the Imperial study, all the graphs are symmetrical https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
Doesn't feel like that is what's actually happening.
There seems to be no account taken that as more people are infected/recover the R0 figure drops because there are less people able to transmit it. All graphs should show a tail off.
There is a lot of dispute around this study, the Swede's particularly.
0 -
I would have thought you would agree with a lot of its proposals. Their definition of the social distancing that is switched on is "All households reduce contact outside household, school or workplace by 75%. School contact rates unchanged, workplace contact rates reduced by 25%. Household contact rates assumed to increase by 25%."coopster_the_1st said:
Good spot!kingstongraham said:If you look back at the Imperial study, all the graphs are symmetrical https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
Doesn't feel like that is what's actually happening.
There seems to be no account taken that as more people are infected/recover the R0 figure drops because there are less people able to transmit it. All graphs should show a tail off.
There is a lot of dispute around this study, the Swede's particularly.
That seems very likely to be pretty much on all the time for the duration, rather than their assumption it would be needed 2/3rds of the time. The difficult one is they say that we'll be needing to close schools 2/3rds of the time. I can't see that happening, they should be more open to other options.0 -
The German approach meant shielding happened better for their vulnerable before lockdowns were in place.kingstonian said:mrb123 said:
The easiest answer is that the true number of cases in France and the UK is much higher than those numbers.kingstonian said:What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.
So you think the UK and France have had 4x the number of cases than Germany, so the death rate is in fact the same? That's a possibility, but why would 3 fairly similar countries have such wildly different infection rates?
I just don't get it.
However many of their own experts believe Germany will see the same relative number of deaths as other European countries. Morstar posted a graph showing simply how that is going to happen0 -
Testing, testing, testingkingstonian said:mrb123 said:
The easiest answer is that the true number of cases in France and the UK is much higher than those numbers.kingstonian said:What I'm struggling to get to grips with is how Germany's numbers of deaths through this is so much lower. As of today, 151,000 confirmed cases compared to 159,000 in France and 138,000 in the UK, yet only 5,300 deaths compared to 21,300 in France and 18,700 in the UK (yes, I know there is debate regarding what is "in" and "out" of those death numbers, but that's separate).
Why would one country have so relatively few deaths? All 3 countries have solid healthcare systems. I don't believe any of the 3 countries have run out of ICU beds etc - they might have had to scramble to reconfigure wards, build new temporary hospitals etc, but they haven't run out to my knowledge. The medics are sharing treatment plans with each other, so it isn't as if Germany have discovered a cocktail of drugs which is way more successful.
Is it genetics, is it based on existing immunities, or something else? Really mystifying to me.
So you think the UK and France have had 4x the number of cases than Germany, so the death rate is in fact the same? That's a possibility, but why would 3 fairly similar countries have such wildly different infection rates?
I just don't get it.
I can’t explain why but I can think of no other major differentiating factors to explain the disparity0 -
I think @kingstongraham was referring to the steep descent in deaths after the peak, whereas all the real graphs show a much slower descent than the initial rise.coopster_the_1st said:
Good spot!kingstongraham said:If you look back at the Imperial study, all the graphs are symmetrical https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
Doesn't feel like that is what's actually happening.
There seems to be no account taken that as more people are infected/recover the R0 figure drops because there are less people able to transmit it. All graphs should show a tail off.
There is a lot of dispute around this study, the Swede's particularly.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
