- Location
- London
The only people saying "Nothing to see here" are the people taking orders at the Burgundy En PrimeursAll good sense, but I still find it hard to believe that nothing is happening.
The only people saying "Nothing to see here" are the people taking orders at the Burgundy En PrimeursAll good sense, but I still find it hard to believe that nothing is happening.
Is this true? we were rather low down the rankings a few weeks ago, in spite of repeated claims to the contrary, but perhaps the booster programme has improved things.We .... have better vaccination rates
There have not been over 300 deaths a day since Feb 2020 Antoine. Please see previous posts about the rather important difference between the date reported and the date of the actual death. The date reported is a really misleading figure.Still a lasting peak over 300 deaths a day is quite a lot with most people at risk vaccinated... and weakest people already gone...
The times and others continue to quote the number with 1 shot which skews the statistics towards those vaccinating children.Is this true? we were rather low down the rankings a few weeks ago, in spite of repeated claims to the contrary, but perhaps the booster programme has improved things.
Antoine it is simply that you don't seem to understand the data. There were not 393 deaths yesterday, nor 335 today. I and others have explained the difference between deaths by date and deaths by date reported, the latter of which you use. It is an absolutely useless statistic. As previously put in a post above by your count Covid takes time off for the weekend, often on Mondays and rarely works a bank holiday. You are misrepresenting the data by saying there were 393 deaths yesterday. There weren't.Gareth,
There are at least 3 sets of data in UK so ... let me clarify my numbers
- I took the Guardian number for deaths and it relates to UK: 393 yesterday and 335 today (and was over 300 the day before)... they indeed are a counting for death within 28 days of testing positive for the UK (and new medicines allow a lot of people with Covid to survive later these days...as you know)
- The ONS data on number of people having Covid was about England, hence the confusion.
- Your graph illustrates very clearly that we are peaking (we went from 100 to 200 daily deaths within a few weeks) and obviously, the grey bars do show incomplete data. (not sure what your source is).
2 or 300 deaths a day with full vaccination is very very high indeed by any standards. Especially after 2 years (having culled the most fragile and after vaccination and booster for many)
This was basically my message. What is yours? Pandemic over?
I agree Tom over 200 is a lot and a great loss. But it is not nearly twice that (at 393). Nor is it very very high. We are in a much better position than last year. As for modelling I realise I am super critical. But when the data used to help HMG decide what restrictions to impose, lift, keep et al it is imperative that the modelling at least bears some resemblance to the reality that emerges otherwise it brings into the question the accuracy of their data and method they are using as inputs. Of course it will never be spot on but to be out on every count by a minimum of more than 50% is worrying.I think what Antoine is saying is that even if it's 'only' 200 that is still a lot, which seems a perfectly reasonable position to me.
It is curious that models which predict the possibility of an even larger number of deaths should be so criticised. It is responsible to consider and if possible ameliorate that possible outcome; and if a gamble that it wouldn't happen happily turns out to be successful it remains just that, a gamble.
Surely the worst case scenario needs to be realistic. Otherwise it is not a scenario. Otherwise the worst case scenario would be the universe ceasing to exist. But obviously that is not included as it is not realistic.I don't think it's worrying at all-surely the important thing is to act on the worst likely scenario, not the best. What happens next time if a variant just as contagious as Omicron emerges but which is ten times more deadly? there needs to be thought given to this very real possibility.
Of course, hence my qualification 'likely'.Surely the worst case scenario needs to be realistic. Otherwise it is not a scenario.
Probably not, but all those that enter hospital before dying probably are for obvious reasons.Are all dead people tested for covid?
I guess it depends on what you want modelling to do. As I said before I would want the modelling to offer a best guess at the most likely scenario and then a higher and lower from that. What we have ended up with across most of the SAGE modelling is a very high top end and a typically too high bottom end. That is not good modelling. As it means ministers will have taken the best case presented as optimistic and the middle case a perhaps the baseline.Gareth,
Your 200 is average England only, my 300 for 3 days in a row is UK so both numbers are high and show an increase on previous weeks. This we agree.
I know and understand your point about reporting making irregular daily reports. But this does not change the picture.
The modeling was right: Max Forecast by SAGE indicated assuming Omicron as potent as Delta (it was clearly indicated and they expected this to be a worst case scenario as they hoped it would be less potent, it is unfair to accuse them of misleading, they indicated premise and result). It has been confirmed as less potent (thankfully) and more contagious as expected. It is relatively good news and consistent with what they said but media wanted the worst to make headlines..
This almost deserves its own thread. Not conclusive but - very important news the potential cause of MSor vaccine technology continues to advance to the extent that currently debilitating illnesses can be vaccinated against.