ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Population density of The Faroe Islands: 34.5 per KM2
Population density of The UK: 430 per KM2
Population density of The UK: 430 per KM2
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GingerBeerMan
- Start date
Even if the actual figure was doubled that would only be 3% of the population. We need to hope that the actual death rate for those infected is much lower than 1%, closer to 0.1%.
Its not that useful unless you live on i.e. the Shetland Islands. Maybe if you only look at Torshavn, you could get something out of it. But a lot of people living on the Faroe Islands are people who dont mind a calm, lonely life. A lot of more socially active people find the islands too small and boring and move to Denmark or other Scandinavian countries.
You’ve missed the point of why I posted it, I suspect. Nothing to do with living on the Faroe Islands at all.
This would be verrry optimistic extrapolation, but the Faroes numbers suggest as many as 500-1,500 may have been infected there, with 0 deaths so far.
Blue line represents number of IC beds, the red staple is people with Covid-19 getting intensive care and the wannabe-red staple people getting intensive care but not infected Covid-19. One bad week and we're ****ed.
I really like this graph though, very straight forward. Anyone found similar for UK or other countries?
Bob'n'weave
Well-known member
This may be why we are hearing about extra quarantine measures to ensure that when the 'peak' happens, we stay under the blue line?
Very good. I will take that as a piece of evidence that would suggest we and elsewhere are massively underestimating the number of people infected. I am assuming that the study you quote is where the people tested (10% of the population) are a random sample of people who are well? It seems to suggest that of those tested 184 were ill, so they can't have been a random sample of those that were well. Or did they get sick after they were tested? If so what did the tests show? I can't quite fathom the data as presented.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 13,054
Source of that image here - https://e-markets.nordea.com/#!/art...ut-some-potential-new-epicentres-are-emerging
Interesting reading.
Indeed. I find that astonishing. It is (presently) a zero death rate, and not only that, 89% have recovered (meaning only 11% are still ill, and none of them dead). I find that astonishing, and suspect that the numbers have not been explained properly. On the face of it, the data predict that the 11% still ill will all recover since everybody else who was ill has recovered, and there is no reason to assume those still ill are uniquely vulnerable to the virus' effects, if you see what I mean.
What was the source of that? In my uneducated view stricter quarantine measures will be essential in dealing with this ******* so I'd be really interested to know that our so called leadership have cottoned on
Rodney Thomas
Well-known member
I'm not a statistician but I'd a hazard a guess that those numbers are not statistically significant to tell you anything about the mortality rate.
Agreed. At this stage, it’s merely another hint or nudge in a certain direction, not anything approaching hard fact.
RossyG
Well-known member
- Dec 20, 2014
- 2,630
I’m expecting a three week extension to the lockdown and then a slow winding down of restrictions from mid May onwards.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
I think whether these are random samples is the key issue on these country-/large-scale figures. You'd imagine in the situation that we're in, that those being tested are those putting themselves forward for tests (which will largely comprise those that suspect they have/have had the virus, and front-line workers).
This.
184 had the virus. Were they all ill? Did they all become ill? Had they all been ill? Or were they a mix of these ('the ill') and folk who never became ill? It doesn't say.
163 have recovered from the illness. I assume this means of the 184, 163 became ill and they all recovered.
21 are still ill. I assume this means that 21 of the 184 are still ill and have yet to recover or die.
0 have died. That means that so far the death rate is zero.
If all 21 who are still ill die the mortality rate, 21/184, is still less than our current 1 in 8
The odds of 21 consecutive patients dying after 184 consecutive patients have survived is vanishingly small. It is a bit like throwing a dart at a dart board and getting the dart to land 163 times in a row then, for no reason at all, missing the board every time with the next 21 throws. What you would expect is the last 21 throws would also hit the board.
There is something wrong with these numbers. It isn't just about small sample size and low statistical power. Even if one patient dies in the next 21 the death rate would still be way below that reported by the lying Russians.
I have tried to make sense of this....
The tweet does not report how many of the 10% of the population who were tested were 'positive' but never got ill. Our great hope at the moment is that the majority who will be found to have been positive when tested (when we start mass testing) were never ill (so the death rate changes from the current horrific 1 in 8 to something that gives us more hope - 1 in 184 would be more in line with the 20,000 deaths that Vallance said would be a 'good result').
So I am confused. I assume that the testing was done only in people who had been ill. If the testing (done in 10% of the population) was done on people who had not been ill, and there was a huge number of these testing positive yet who had never been ill, surely the tweeter would have mentioned this? It would have been the key bit of data - that the majority of people who get infected don't get ill.
So I am assuming they either tested only people who are already ill, or the majority of people who test positive become ill. If the former, their recovery rate is astonishing. If the latter, we are in deep trouble.
I don't disagree but my instinct says that we will be bowing to the obvious social and economic pressure versus what might be right for the safety of many. I hope I'm wide of the mark
I was specifically asking about the quarantine comment .. I think it's a key element to successfully dealing with the virus but I've not seen anything officially communicated