Please just look at the charts. You wanted to know if people would be happy to see people dying in hospital corridors, I showed you data from another country that has had a longer & higher rise which showed little or no change in mortality rates. if that still doesn't explain, I really don't know what will. Sorry.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave
- Thread starter Justin Smith
- Start date
- Status
Please just look at the charts. You wanted to know if people would be happy to see people dying in hospital corridors, I showed you data from another country that has had a longer & higher rise which showed little or no change in mortality rates. if that still doesn't explain, I really don't know what will. Sorry.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The WHO data says there hasn’t been ANY rise in deaths and hospitalisations??
Maybe maybe maybe , isn’t killing lots of people YET.
We aren’t sure, that’s why the restrictions are still rather minimal - you can still get on a train to go to the pub.
Please do as @Bantamzen has suggested and look at the charts. It will take you 5 seconds. The correlation between infection and death in the first wave is stark and obvious. It just isn't there at all in the second wave.
We are being lied to when the government cites significant deaths in these countries as justification for extra restrictions here.
And if the French data isn't enough, they can try other European countries by entering them in the search bar at the top. Others show almost exactly the same trends. Mortality rates follow a similar track to cases around 3-5 weeks after cases during March - April, but when cases start to increase in June - July there is no similar increase in deaths even more than 5 weeks subsequently.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...daily-covid-19-cases-hit-record-idUSKBN25V2E5
Certainly not massive, but a new and continuous rise.
Its a small rise but then the new restrictions here are trivial
That's America, parts of America are still in the first wave.
Eh? The link takes me to an article about France!
Sorry, my mistake.
These are statistically insignificant single day increases. The charts posted up thread show it just isn't happening.
Class 33
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,362
Matt Hancock has contradicted himself this week regarding the surge of new cases. On Sunday he said "This is extremely concerning.". But yet in a short snippet of an interview with him on Sky News I seen on Monday I noticed he said "The surge in cases is due to a significant rise in daily testing. And it's mostly the young who are testing positive.".*
* Not his very exact words, but wording to that effect he did say.
* Not his very exact words, but wording to that effect he did say.
Single day increases eight days in a row?
Silverlinky
Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 876
Death figure back down to single figures (8) after yesterdays rise to 30.
Case figures today are 2659 which is up on last Wednesdays figure on the Worldometer site of 1,508
Case figures today are 2659 which is up on last Wednesdays figure on the Worldometer site of 1,508
Not sure where you got 2860 from, the number last Wednesday was 1,508.
More sensible comments from France:
What it boils down to is protecting the vulnerable and making sure that people self isolating really do.
What it boils down to is protecting the vulnerable and making sure that people self isolating really do.
bramling
Veteran Member
Two things which this country didn’t really do.
The latest government advice to labs is that if a low level of virus is detected, a person needs to be tested a second time later to see if the amount present has increased significantly (infectious now) or reduced/stayed the same (they were infectious in the past). The only puzzle is why this is dated 7th September - such obvious advice could have been issued right at the start, but like everything else with this sorry saga, instead of anticipating and getting ahead of events, the government response lags weeks behind the reality and fails to adapt.
Last edited:
Capacity, for one
Silverlinky
Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 876
Yes, I amended it just after writing it!
When you look at the Gov website it shows 2860 on the 2nd September by specimen date, but only 1508 on the date (2nd) reported. I presume they retrospectively add to the dates, ie a test result received on the 9th will be reported on the 9th then added to the figure from say the 6th if that was when the test was actually taken.
Correct. The 1508 for the 2nd would have been the results of tests where the sample was taken up to around a week previously. The daily announced figures then adds to the tests when done by specimen date, for example the tests announced on the 7th (2948 total) had 402 positive samples that were taken on the 2nd
scotrail158713
Established Member
What hope do we really have? All the chopping and changing makes it a geniune possibility that the 6 person rule could still be scrapped - although it’s still fairly unlikely IMO.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think the idea of consistency is probably sensible, to be honest, I just think 6 is too low, I'd go with 10.
Ten people in one room of a house is pretty tight.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If you have it in one room, and not, say, in a garden, park or indeed you just have a big lounge!
My parents' lounge-diner is big enough to have 10 people in it with them 2m apart.
The highest rates have been in places with large families and small houses. That issue will only get worse in winter.
Have you read the following post?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ssible-second-wave.208012/page-4#post-4755615
Yep - “could be”. Until we can be fairly sure we know why it is different it is very risky to assume it will stay different.
But how BAD were those cases ? we really only need to be told of serious cases, a mild infection does not need to advised to all and sundry, we do do that when we have a flu epidemic, or any other 'epidemic' ! imagine if they gave flu numbers everyday in the winter ?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Surely the more people you test, the more the figure will rise ? seem obvious to me, but many think that is not so, and that numbers should go down the more you test ?
Stay different to what exactly?
Are you denying the clear and obvious fact that multiple millions of people have been exposed to the virus in the UK and that the vast majority did not develop severe (if any) symptoms and were never tested?
Class 33
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,362
Indeed. And with Boris Johnson saying yesterday they aim to ramp up testing to about 500,000 per day over the coming weeks, he also said he hopes to get the numbers of new cases right down! Well with such a large increase in daily testing, how an earth does he expect to get the numbers of new cases right down?? It's absolutely bonkers.
Different from the first wave, when a rise in cases lead to a rise in deaths.
There are a number of things that COULD explain it, but do they tell us that we definitely CAN let cases grow exponentially without overloading the health service?
I think he means get the number of actual infections down (not the number of detected cases) on the basis that if you identify more people, then you get less spread from those people than you would if you had not identified them.
But, regardless of how many tests are done, it sounds like many (most?) are asymptomatic and many of those will never be detected.
Given we were only testing people who were seriously ill, it makes no sense to suggest that there is going to be any correlation in the number of deaths per case in the early stages of the pandemic compared to now. If that is what you are suggesting, this demonstrates a lack of understanding. If you are not suggesting this, then I really don't know what you are saying.
How do you define a "wave"?
What's your proposal exactly? I'm unclear what you are advocating
- Status