Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
More discoveries. NEW: Zeiss Victory SF 32

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

UK death rate from C-19

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 24th April 2020, 19:46   #1
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 17,973
UK death rate from C-19

An alarming 13.6% of those testing positive in the UK have died from COV-19.

An even higher rate than Italy at 13.4%, Holland at 11.7%, Spain at 10.2% and the USA despite 52K deaths, is only at 5.6% of those testing positive so what's happened in the UK to produce this high mortality rate?

These are my own calculations so apologies if anyone finds errors.
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 24th April 2020, 20:09   #2
Xenospiza
Undescribed
 
Xenospiza's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In a drawer
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadcock View Post
An alarming 13.6% of those testing positive in the UK have died from COV-19.

An even higher rate than Italy at 13.4%, Holland at 11.7%, Spain at 10.2% and the USA despite 52K deaths, is only at 5.6% of those testing positive so what's happened in the UK to produce this high mortality rate?

These are my own calculations so apologies if anyone finds errors.
The answer must be insufficient testing. The UK is not even testing its NHS staff... I really hate the "tested positive" figures, because they are so incomplete.

Germany (3.8%) tested quite a bit more and I do not see much difference in smoking habits or obesity levels (none that could explain the difference with the Netherlands, for example).
South Korea (2.4%) and Taiwan (1.5%) are hailed for "blanket testing" and they get close to (what I expect to be) the "real" mortality rate in populations with a similar age structure.
Xenospiza is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 24th April 2020, 20:17   #3
dantheman
Bah humbug
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 13,036
Blog Entries: 2
Such figures on their own are fairly meaningless. What are the sources?

WHO reckons 3.4% on reported cases (3rd March)

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...us-death-rate/
__________________
stithiansreservoirbirding.blogspot.co.uk/ - last update 10/11/15 - really rather remarkable still!!!
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 25th April 2020, 05:07   #4
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 17,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
Such figures on their own are fairly meaningless. What are the sources?

WHO reckons 3.4% on reported cases (3rd March)

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...us-death-rate/
WHO figures are equally meaningless being as it's quite simply a complete guess! 3.4% of reported cases, Worldwide, that means some places will be worse than others, it won't be 3.4% everywhere.

Source, the site used by most people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
__________________
Andy A

Last edited by andyadcock : Saturday 25th April 2020 at 05:14.
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 25th April 2020, 05:36   #5
pshute
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 871
Might just be that the USA isn't testing everyone who dies before they're ever tested. I thought they were starting to though.
pshute is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 25th April 2020, 06:12   #6
John Cantelo
Registered User
 
John Cantelo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canterbury, UK
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadcock View Post
An alarming 13.6% of those testing positive in the UK have died from COV-19.

An even higher rate than Italy at 13.4%, Holland at 11.7%, Spain at 10.2% and the USA despite 52K deaths, is only at 5.6% of those testing positive so what's happened in the UK to produce this high mortality rate?

These are my own calculations so apologies if anyone finds errors.
I'm not sure anyone has a meaningful or accurate death rate for COV-19. Who, when, where, and how many people are tested introduces huge biases. In the UK we've only tested a tiny % of the population and, as I understand it, disproportionately those in hospital and/or showing serious symptoms. This surely introduces a distinct bias that is likely to greatly exaggerate the death rate in the population as a whole.
__________________
John

Please support Andalucia Bird Society www.andalusiabirdsociety.org Visit my website & blog on birding in SW Spain at http://birdingcadizprovince.weebly.com/
John Cantelo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th April 2020, 15:00   #7
Paul Longland
Registered User
 
Paul Longland's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: leicester
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cantelo View Post
I'm not sure anyone has a meaningful or accurate death rate for COV-19. Who, when, where, and how many people are tested introduces huge biases. In the UK we've only tested a tiny % of the population and, as I understand it, disproportionately those in hospital and/or showing serious symptoms. This surely introduces a distinct bias that is likely to greatly exaggerate the death rate in the population as a whole.
I think this nails it squarely on the head. If you only test those people who turn up at hospital already sick you are missing all of those who have the disease but do not need medical intervention. Only if testing is carried out across the board will we ever know for certain what the true mortality rate is. Remember back in the good old days when we were all being told that this was simply a particularly virulent type of cold/flu bug and that most people would only have a bit of a cough and maybe a temperature for a day or two so there was nothing to worry about? Maybe that is still true but the way we have gone about testing does nothing to allay peoples fears, especially those who are in the more vulnerable groups such as the elderly or those with underlying health issues etc.
Also somewhat concerning, which i picked up on, was whenever they highlighted a Dr or nurse etc that that had died from the virus without showing any underlying condition on TV, almost every one of them seemed to be from an Asian background. It now appears that this is being recognised and investigated. Similar trends are also being reported elsewhere with a disproportionate number of people with Afro-Caribbean heritage falling victim in the USA.
These demographics may have complex and varied reasons behind them, but once again, it just goes to show that there is so much that we do not know about this virus, and cannot possibly, until a full programme of widespread testing is available. Anything that helps us to understand these trends can only help in combating the thing. Know thine enemy and all that.
Paul Longland is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th April 2020, 15:09   #8
Farnboro John
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 14,546
I notice apropos of the possible super-vulnerability of BAME patients, that Vitamin D (which apparently they do not manufacture to the same extent as Caucasians) was being touted as possibly helpful. Bet you can't find it in the shops today!

John
Farnboro John is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th April 2020, 15:23   #9
dantheman
Bah humbug
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 13,036
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadcock View Post
WHO figures are equally meaningless being as it's quite simply a complete guess! 3.4% of reported cases, Worldwide, that means some places will be worse than others, it won't be 3.4% everywhere.

Source, the site used by most people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
That 3.4% was for China back when (and I went to it from the worldometer site). And it was calculated (see link in that post). Are you suggesting that AndyAdcock has a better handle and understanding on it than the World Health Organization?

The point is (others have mentioned/alluded to) that we can't know the actual death rate given all the various uncertainties. Certainly the high figures in #post 1 aren't meaningful as an overall death rate from the virus etc. Depends on the stage at which the infection cycle is in, the health service regime in a country and reporting/testing rates etc etc.

If you look at small countries such as Iceland or Luxemburg, with lots of testing and a lot of 'completed' cases you can get a better/alternative idea of the virus infection/mortality rate in a better assumption of a 'closed system' (click on tests per million etc)
__________________
stithiansreservoirbirding.blogspot.co.uk/ - last update 10/11/15 - really rather remarkable still!!!

Last edited by dantheman : Tuesday 28th April 2020 at 15:33.
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th April 2020, 16:24   #10
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 17,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
That 3.4% was for China back when (and I went to it from the worldometer site). And it was calculated (see link in that post). Are you suggesting that AndyAdcock has a better handle and understanding on it than the World Health Organization?

The point is (others have mentioned/alluded to) that we can't know the actual death rate given all the various uncertainties. Certainly the high figures in #post 1 aren't meaningful as an overall death rate from the virus etc. Depends on the stage at which the infection cycle is in, the health service regime in a country and reporting/testing rates etc etc.

If you look at small countries such as Iceland or Luxemburg, with lots of testing and a lot of 'completed' cases you can get a better/alternative idea of the virus infection/mortality rate in a better assumption of a 'closed system' (click on tests per million etc)

You made my point for me.
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th April 2020, 22:46   #11
John A Roberts
Registered User
 
John A Roberts's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Perth
Posts: 543
While there is no one measurement that gives a really clear idea of the progress of the disease within a locality, let alone between localities,
its useful to make an initial distinction between the Case Fatality Rate and the Mortality Rate, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate

The number of deaths per number of tests (diagnoses), as discussed in this thread is a CFR. And the number of deaths in a population is the MR

Increasingly Im of the view that the latter is a better way of looking at things, especially when attempting the compare different jurisdictions,
while taking into account what's known about the differing circumstances

For a good source of mortality rates, expressed as deaths per million of total population, updated daily, see: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Scroll down to the comprehensive table and click on the 3rd column from the right a couple of times to sort from highest to lowest

If you then select for Europe (at the top left of the table) the comparative figures give a lot of food for thought


John
John A Roberts is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th April 2020, 23:18   #12
dantheman
Bah humbug
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 13,036
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by John A Roberts View Post

For a good source of mortality rates, expressed as deaths per million of total population, updated daily, see: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Scroll down to the comprehensive table and click on the 3rd column from the right a couple of times to sort from highest to lowest

If you then select for Europe (at the top left of the table) the comparative figures give a lot of food for thought
I think we've all been looking at that for the last few months The problem is that with different testing regimes, and not knowing how many people have yet got the virus in any population, we can't know the eventual mortality rate at this stage at all - it will continue to change ... It's also the case that life expectancy is likely to shift, and causes of death from other sources such as heart disease etc will likely be reduced in the coming years. It's all a mess.
__________________
stithiansreservoirbirding.blogspot.co.uk/ - last update 10/11/15 - really rather remarkable still!!!
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 03:25   #13
Pariah
Stealth Birder
 
Pariah's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 3,032
Rather than trying to figure out the mortality rate, which is rolling, dependent on testing, reporting and the actions being taken by governments, compare instead the excess mortality, above the average rates at the same time of year, by two neighbouring nations, both with excellent healthcare systems but markedly different approaches.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonard...tm_source=digg

Those praising Sweden should have a long hard think on the difference here.

Owen
__________________
My new blog http://helhathnobirdies.blogspot.fi
Twitter - https://twitter.com/birdingstandard
Check out the new Rare and Scarce Birds Ireland Facebook group exclusively for Irish birders. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1002951019867735/
Pariah is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 11:15   #14
James Lowther
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weymouth
Posts: 2,856
mortality rates and excess death rates are very illuminating but don't really tell you anything about the deadliness of the virus, rather the severity of the outbreak. Anyway a few quick observations about the case fatality rate

a) UK recorded rate is likely considerably higher than the true rate for the reasons already described
b) however, as well as factors that will tend to artificially increase the apparent rate, there are factors that will tend to artificially decrease it (e.g. some people who are currently infected and tested positive but alive, will sadly go on to die as a result of their infection)
c) there are reasons why CFR might vary from place to place (prevalence of co-morbidities, availability and quality of medical care for the worst affected people)
d) in some of the worst affected places in the world (Lombardy, Madrid, New York City), more than 1 in 1000 of the total population (0.1%) has died from/with COVID-19. You might reasonably conclude therefore that this level would be an absoloute baseline for CFR
e) however, in some countries (Qatar, Singapore) fewer than 1 in 1000 positive cases have resulted in death (although in the big majority of countries the number is more than 1 in 100 - more than 1%)

so, make of that what you will

James
James Lowther is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 11:38   #15
Xenospiza
Undescribed
 
Xenospiza's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In a drawer
Posts: 11,069
The mortality rate in the worst-affected Dutch municipalities is about 2/1000:
• 120-195/100,000 confirmed Covid-19 deaths, with only 605-930/100,000 cases reported.

Did I say already Dutch testing is woefully inadequate?
Xenospiza is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 12:04   #16
lewis20126
Registered User
 
lewis20126's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,480
Excess mortality is useful as outlined. However, only when you run that over a longer period will it have any real meaning - all short run UK data indicate A&E admissions greatly down. cancer diagnosis massively down and so on. A huge amount of excess capacity in hospitals - correctly freed up for CV, but now and in the short-term with no patients; delayed elective surgery with 18mo delays.

Let's revisit Sweden vs Denmark (or vs UK..) in a year and see where we are.

cheers, alan
lewis20126 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 17:31   #17
opisska
Jan Ebr
 
opisska's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Warszawa
Posts: 1,775
4500 "new" deaths in UK today, after finally admitting all the deaths in care homes. Why the hell did someone decided to just not count those is still beyond me ...
__________________
Final life lists:
Birds: world 2168, WP 563, gWP 600, bird photos
Mammals: 257, mammal photos
opisska is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 17:46   #18
tenex
Registered User
 
tenex's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnboro John View Post
I notice apropos of the possible super-vulnerability of BAME patients, that Vitamin D (which apparently they do not manufacture to the same extent as Caucasians) was being touted as possibly helpful. Bet you can't find it in the shops today!
I've read recent conjectures that women survive better than men because estrogen has some protective effect, but I hope that's not going anywhere. Such grasping at straws really is not helpful, hardly better than taking Trump's advice on quinine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opisska View Post
4500 "new" deaths in UK today, after finally admitting all the deaths in care homes. Why the hell did someone decided to just not count those is still beyond me ...
Does anyone know a country that hasn't had a shocking number of deaths in care homes, even half of the total? That was so completely foreseeable it's hard to understand why avoiding it wasn't made a priority, regardless of overall virus management strategy.
tenex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 18:13   #19
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 17,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by opisska View Post
4500 "new" deaths in UK today, after finally admitting all the deaths in care homes. Why the hell did someone decided to just not count those is still beyond me ...
Don't forget that some of these were transferred to care facilities, from hospital, that's the scandal, the potential introduction of the virus to the old and vulnerable, not the actual number.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the deceased showing long term, existing residents against those tranferred from hospital.
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 18:15   #20
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 17,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenex View Post

Does anyone know a country that hasn't had a shocking number of deaths in care homes, even half of the total? That was so completely foreseeable it's hard to understand why avoiding it wasn't made a priority, regardless of overall virus management strategy.
Maybe foreseaable but also preventable, staff should have been required to 'live in' to continue their employment, those who couldn't fo family or other reasons, should have been furloughed and replaced with others who could.
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 18:17   #21
dantheman
Bah humbug
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 13,036
Blog Entries: 2
I seem to recall some on this forum saying 4 or 5 weeks ago that the priority was protecting the elderly (almost at all costs) and the idea being poo-poohed ...

Of course we're not the ones in power, but still.
__________________
stithiansreservoirbirding.blogspot.co.uk/ - last update 10/11/15 - really rather remarkable still!!!
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 18:32   #22
John Cantelo
Registered User
 
John Cantelo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canterbury, UK
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadcock View Post
.... staff should have been required to 'live in' to continue their employment, those who couldn't fo family or other reasons, should have been furloughed and replaced with others who could.
On paper that sounds like a good idea and I know that some staff have done so on a voluntary basis out of concern for their charges. However, I doubt that there would be sufficient numbers of people with relevant qualifications and experience to replace all of those unable or unwilling to 'live in'. Further, in my experience of visiting care homes, I think that many wouldn't have sufficient accommodation to house all of their clients and the number of staff needed to care for them. Nor am I sure how long such a system could be sustained without staff being so fatigued, mentally and physically, that they could not do their job.
__________________
John

Please support Andalucia Bird Society www.andalusiabirdsociety.org Visit my website & blog on birding in SW Spain at http://birdingcadizprovince.weebly.com/
John Cantelo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 18:41   #23
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 17,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cantelo View Post
On paper that sounds like a good idea and I know that some staff have done so on a voluntary basis out of concern for their charges. However, I doubt that there would be sufficient numbers of people with relevant qualifications and experience to replace all of those unable or unwilling to 'live in'. Further, in my experience of visiting care homes, I think that many wouldn't have sufficient accommodation to house all of their clients and the number of staff needed to care for them. Nor am I sure how long such a system could be sustained without staff being so fatigued, mentally and physically, that they could not do their job.
The precentage of qualified staff compared to minimum wage, forgive me 'bum wipers', is miniscule. I know, my daughter is in a low level management position, her first job out of Uni having taken a totally unrelated degree, although she did get a 1st
__________________
Andy A

Last edited by andyadcock : Wednesday 29th April 2020 at 18:45.
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 18:42   #24
opisska
Jan Ebr
 
opisska's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Warszawa
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
I seem to recall some on this forum saying 4 or 5 weeks ago that the priority was protecting the elderly (almost at all costs) and the idea being poo-poohed ...

Of course we're not the ones in power, but still.

That's a misconstrued version of the discussion. The idea that some were pushing was that we need to protect the elderly while everyone else goes around as usual and gets 'herd imunity'. I was one if the people saying that it's impossible. And now look how many elderly people are dead even as the virus is nowhere as rampant in the open world as many would have it, so I feel like my opinion is validated.
__________________
Final life lists:
Birds: world 2168, WP 563, gWP 600, bird photos
Mammals: 257, mammal photos
opisska is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th April 2020, 18:43   #25
Farnboro John
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 14,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadcock View Post
Maybe foreseaable but also preventable, staff should have been required to 'live in' to continue their employment, those who couldn't fo family or other reasons, should have been furloughed and replaced with others who could.
Many of these places rely on locum staff to be fully staffed (many of whom are in fact NHS staff moonlighting in downtime from their regular jobs in the vicinity). Many care homes are in a permanent state of crisis at the best of times. There aren't the people to do what you suggest.

John
Farnboro John is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rate my tortrix InternetMan Butterflies and Moths ID 3 Tuesday 18th July 2017 19:03
False Death Cap and Death Cap Confirmation John P Lee Fungi & Lichens 2 Wednesday 26th October 2016 18:00
Rate -/10 please? first ever serious attempt Fast_falkon Wildlife Art 8 Tuesday 13th November 2007 17:31
Going rate for old birdmags?? matt green Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 1 Friday 2nd March 2007 09:18
How To Rate A Hangover. Gill Osborne Ruffled Feathers 13 Tuesday 18th April 2006 19:31

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26836705 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46.