Number of Deaths

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Here are my latest calculations and everything remains the same. Everywhere the ratio of cases to deaths is getting smaller and closer to one another from one nation to another, and the difference between one ratio and the next from one dat to the next (or a couple of days - not all nations update at the same time) is ubiquitously positive, implying the rate of increase of cases is falling (if we assume the death rate in those infected is a constant in each country, albeit a different constant in each owing to local factors). Anyway, I explained all that previously....the bottom line is there is no appreciable change; it isn't likely to get any worse, but it isn't really getting better, like the end of last season.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Numbers update. Across the world my statistic on change in rate of new cases to deaths is still very slighty positive but getting close to zero. This means that unless every country in the world has a smart nmber faker and a plan to pretend we have reached a peak in the rate of new cases in the next couple of days, we have now just about reached a peak in the rate of new cases across the world. So will that rate now reverse? If that happens then for the following 2 weeks my statistic will go negative as the rate of change of deaths will take that long to catch up with the rate of change (a fall) in new cases.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Same trends.



After reporting no changes for days Ecuador suddenly reports a doubling of cases. Bullshit. The further you go down the list of nations the more you can roll your eyes....

Also...

I edit a science journal. The country that submits the most papers that get rejected without peer review because the papers don't fit the journal criteria in terms of subject (I won't reveal the subject but imagine it is lamp posts and these jokers keep sending papers on park benches)? **** me, it's India.

And the biggest nation from which I have never recieved a single paper for consideration for publication (in 20 years)? No, not Brazil or Iran or Egypt (or even Iraq).

A few smaller nations in this category: Zimbabwe, Zambia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Qatar, Yemen, Ecuador......

Yes, yes, it is Russia.

Russia and India. For big nations these are off the map. Non manistream. Arrogant. Deluded.

 

[dazzer6666]

329 England, 13 Scotland and 8 Wales announced today.

 

[Weststander]

329 England, 13 Scotland and 8 Wales announced today.

NI throwing their weight around, by always announcing last.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Taking the data released by the ONS and then comparing against the Government daily announcements I believe that we can now more accurately predict the effect of the time lag on the reporting of actual fatalities.

I have taken the figures from 17th March (when daily fatalities were 100) through to April 10th (last day for which the ONS have released detailed figures).

On average, over that period the Government announced daily death rate has been between 38% and 70% of the actual death rate (Average 52%).
The most recent 2 weeks of that period the accuracy has improved to an of Average 58%.

If the figures were to continue to become more accurate at the same rate yesterday's total fatalities announced would be 64% of the actual fatalities so the 18,100 announced would be in the region of 28,281. Hopefully, if numbers are falling, the effect of the time lag may not be quite as great, but I may be clutching at straws.

Sorry

The ONS have released their latest detailed data today and the last Government announced figure on 17th April of 13,917 was actually 21,284 (last day for which detailed figures are available).

That means that the accuracy of the daily figure over the last 2 weeks has been a fairly consistent 63% (1% less than I estimated). So yesterday's total of 21,092 is least 33,479 fatalities.

Bad news is that I can't see anyway this first wave of fatalities will be less than 45,000. Good News is cases and fatalities appear to be reducing.

Note: These figures are only for England

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Latest assessment from the Faversham wine lake:

 

[WATFORD zero]

Today I realised that I have only been taking the ONS figures for England. The equivalent for Wales (released yesterday) shows an accuracy of 52% Government announced figure to actual fatalities. This means that yesterday's announced figure of 769 is actually 1,478.

This makes total fatalities across England and Wales 34,957.

National Records of Scotland publish their detailed figures tomorrow, they reported 1,262 deaths yesterday.

 

[Machiavelli]

Latest assessment from the Faversham wine lake:

View attachment 122879

Your comparative chart is really coming into its own now, and showing positive signs. It might even make it on to the CV Good News thread but, I suspect that'll mean that you'll need to explain your workings a fair few times.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

The ONS have released their latest detailed data today and the last Government announced figure on 17th April of 13,917 was actually 21,284 (last day for which detailed figures are available).

That means that the accuracy of the daily figure over the last 2 weeks has been a fairly consistent 63% (1% less than I estimated). So yesterday's total of 21,092 is least 33,479 fatalities.

Bad news is that I can't see anyway this first wave of fatalities will be less than 45,000. Good News is cases and fatalities appear to be reducing.

Note: These figures are only for England

How does this fit into the equation? From ONS.

CQC notifications data are available more quickly than death registration data, we have included CQC notifications up to 24 April in this article; from 10 April to 24 April, CQC had been notified of a total of 4,343 deaths from COVID-19 in care home settings.

 

[Blackadder]

Looks like we have the worst figures in Europe, second only to the USA.

(or heading that way).

 

[Jim D]

Looks like we have the worst figures in Europe, second only to the USA.

I don't think that we have the full picture from other EU countries yet - Spain and Italy at least.

 

[Notters]

Latest assessment from the Faversham wine lake:

View attachment 122879

Loving the analysis but not sure of the ultimate explanation - if it's basically the same everywhere, does that mean the interventions aren't doing very much and the disease is essentially running its course? Does this tie in with the peak of infections occurring before lockdown (in this country?)

 

[WATFORD zero]

How does this fit into the equation? From ONS.

CQC notifications data are available more quickly than death registration data, we have included CQC notifications up to 24 April in this article; from 10 April to 24 April, CQC had been notified of a total of 4,343 deaths from COVID-19 in care home settings.

I am assuming the ONS figures are the more accurate, but recognise that they are definitely not the total figures and will still be understated, hence I always say 'at least' on my figures. But the more accurate and timely the ONS figures are, the more accurate my total figures will be.

I believe that my figures are still an underestimate, but far more accurate than those the government are announcing on a daily basis.

Looking at the CQC figures over death registration figures, it's only 31 in total in the data which is published by the ONS (up to 17th April), so any effect will be minimal.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Loving the analysis but not sure of the ultimate explanation - if it's basically the same everywhere, does that mean the interventions aren't doing very much and the disease is essentially running its course? Does this tie in with the peak of infections occurring before lockdown (in this country?)

I have no explanation. I can speculate though....now the ratio of rate of new infections to the rate of deaths is constant across the world (you get my drift), well in the Northern Hemisphere, despite massive variation in everything from honesty to lockdown, to culture, to wealth suggests to me that some other force is working, the most obvious being that this is actually a seasonal virus after all. I have no proof of this of course, but it would be quite something (good) if it is.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I have no explanation. I can speculate though....now the ratio of rate of new infections to the rate of deaths is constant across the world (you get my drift), well in the Northern Hemisphere, despite massive variation in everything from honesty to lockdown, to culture, to wealth suggests to me that some other force is working, the most obvious being that this is actually a seasonal virus after all. I have no proof of this of course, but it would be quite something (good) if it is.

I must admit, the seasonal thing is what I keep coming back to from your stats, even though we have had significant scientific groups tell us it isn't.

*edit*
And it looks like the press have finally realised that the fatalities announced daily are a huge understatement, but don't know why or by how much

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/28/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-total/
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/28/coronavirus-death-toll-35-higher-daily-figures-given-government-12619929/
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0428/1135310-uk-covid-19-death-toll/

As I said on another thread, the standard of investigative journalism has plummeted the last few years, but give them another week or two and they might get there

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sorry, it wan't a question, it was a statement.

Yesterday at the daily briefing the Government understated the total fatalities up to 10th April by over 25% from the actual fatalities by introducing a further 7 day delay in reporting. (The long winded explanation being above).

The question I am asking is if anyone would have any idea why they would do this ?

If you find or know there are missing numbers then when you add them in is an issue. Look at the France data. They are clearly not updating using a constant rubric. Our government gets its death data from at least two sources, updated differently. I don't think they are attempting to hide anything here. I'd be inclined to not sweat the small stuff.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I must admit, the seasonal thing is what I keep coming back to from your stats, even though we have had significant scientific groups tell us it isn't.

*edit*
And it looks like the press have finally realised that the fatalities announced daily are a huge understatement, but don't know why or by how much

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/28/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-total/
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/28/coronavirus-death-toll-35-higher-daily-figures-given-government-12619929/
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0428/1135310-uk-covid-19-death-toll/

As I said on another thread, the standard of investigative journalism has plummeted the last few years, but give them another week or two and they might get there

You need only my data. No point dwelling too long on absolute numbers or you'll go blind.

 

[WATFORD zero]

If you find or know there are missing numbers then when you add them in is an issue. Look at the France data. They are clearly not updating using a constant rubric. Our government gets its death data from at least two sources, updated differently. I don't think they are attempting to hide anything here. I'd be inclined to not sweat the small stuff.

As far as statistical reporting and trends go, I quite agree.

However, as of yesterday, the Government told Britain that there were a total of 21,092 fatalities in Britain. This is despite the Government issuing detailed data yesterday that shows we actually passed the 21,092 figure on the 14th April, two weeks ago.

The true figure yesterday was over 35,095 fatalities.

I don't think that is small stuff. I believe that understating to this degree is, at best incompetence.

Now, where's my glasses

 

[darkwolf666]

In a very simplistic analogy - when I used to work for The Met I was tasked at looking at daily figures for burglaries, during the summer we used to have strange spikes of offences occurring, in particular after the weekend, which our senior officers used to jump up and down about, and were all for sending squad cars to the hotspots - it was only when it was pointed out to them that these offences had occurred over a two week period, as the owner of the house had been on holiday, that they calmed down!

My point being the figures need to be looked at over time, and not daily as a snap shot, otherwise you will tie yourself in knots and send out the squad cars to the wrong location.