Is that from a source which shows the cases across the country, which add up to the current total, or is it just an out of date figure?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GingerBeerMan
- Start date
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,398
It’s from this page, not sure if it’s updated for today yet but Argus haven’t reported anymore cases today.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ae5dda8f86814ae99dde905d2a9070ae
Thanks. So we have about a third as many cases as you'd expect for our population. Presumably London has more than its share.
Although the number is really low, that is of course just those who've needed hospital treatment.
33 severe cases. Of course, the actual number is far, far higher than that.
Prof Ferguson reckons possibly as many as 2-3% of population are/have been infected - ie millions.
Brighton was one of the first places COVID-19 landed.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Italy down to 4000+ infections for the second day in a row now. Last week it was running at about 8,000+ a day.
Medwayseagull
JCB
I don't think they can all be odd.
driddles
Well-known member
Case reporting is bizarre to me. A friend of mine in Bobcaygeon (Ontario, Canada) is a doctor there. 7 days ago she sent me a message saying 2 people in a seniors home had it and that it would be reported as 2 for now.
She went on to say that in reality 20 other residents and 8 staff have the symptoms but they can't test everyone. Fast forward 7 days, 9 have died and others will die today and tomorrow. Clearly the numbers on this won't be accurate until after the fact.
It's too bad there wasn't an 'assumed cases' total being reported with this virus.
She went on to say that in reality 20 other residents and 8 staff have the symptoms but they can't test everyone. Fast forward 7 days, 9 have died and others will die today and tomorrow. Clearly the numbers on this won't be accurate until after the fact.
It's too bad there wasn't an 'assumed cases' total being reported with this virus.
2,107 according to BBC.
Birdie Boy
Well-known member
- Jun 17, 2011
- 4,254
From BBC website
Posted at 16:44
UK coronavirus death figures released by PHE
Here is an update to the latest figures for people who have died with coronavirus in the UK, according to official figures released by Public Health England.
Some 1,789 patients have died in UK hospitals after testing positive for coronavirus as of 17:00 BST on Monday, according to the Department of Health.
According to PHE's figures, that is up by 381 from the day before - the biggest day-on-day rise by some way. But this may not include any deaths that have happened after 17:00 on 30 March.
That day-on-day death figure was 27% higher than the previous day.
No mention of if this is hospital deaths only or if this includes homes deaths...
Posted at 16:44
UK coronavirus death figures released by PHE
Here is an update to the latest figures for people who have died with coronavirus in the UK, according to official figures released by Public Health England.
Some 1,789 patients have died in UK hospitals after testing positive for coronavirus as of 17:00 BST on Monday, according to the Department of Health.
According to PHE's figures, that is up by 381 from the day before - the biggest day-on-day rise by some way. But this may not include any deaths that have happened after 17:00 on 30 March.
That day-on-day death figure was 27% higher than the previous day.
No mention of if this is hospital deaths only or if this includes homes deaths...
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
I wonder why it’s different. This is BBC report:
I don't know. Whatever the figure it looks like Italy is finally getting on top of this.
Let’s hope so.
Well, it is Brighton so there is a fair chance that quite a few are odd. Just look at NSC.
I thought this was interesting and potentially quite promising:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52095331
I recall they used similar technology, albeit in a predictably more draconian way, in Wuhan to great success. Something like this could well be a big part of the answer to the question “how do we get out of lockdown?”. I imagine we’re still a minimum 6 weeks away from being able to deploy it though; we need to get the case numbers down and testing capability up first.
Still, on the latter, I’m sure the boffins could come up with a reasonably accurate probability test, based on the number of carriers you’ve recently been exposed to, in what proximity and for how long.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52095331
I recall they used similar technology, albeit in a predictably more draconian way, in Wuhan to great success. Something like this could well be a big part of the answer to the question “how do we get out of lockdown?”. I imagine we’re still a minimum 6 weeks away from being able to deploy it though; we need to get the case numbers down and testing capability up first.
Still, on the latter, I’m sure the boffins could come up with a reasonably accurate probability test, based on the number of carriers you’ve recently been exposed to, in what proximity and for how long.
Another professor said it was 50% a week ago.
No they didn’t. They said up to as many as 50% - ie a very wide range of infection level.
It's still vastly different to "Prof Ferguson reckons possibly as many as 2-3% of population are/have been infected"
Solid at the back
Well-known member
Wouldn't be in this mess if we'd acted in Jan or early Feb. Entire world was in denial all along and didnt want to disrupt the economy.
Look how well that's turned out, could of saved hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.
Look how well that's turned out, could of saved hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.
Mtoto
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,853
And both are estimates - educated guesses, to some extent - which have been fed into hugely complicated models filled with no end of other variables.
It could also be argued that both have, for different reasons, been leapt upon and taken as something much closer to fact when they are nothing of the kind.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...make-a-good-covid-19-model/?ex_cid=538twitter