RugbyRebels

If all countries adopted the same measures for Covid that would mean some big changes and costs in many admin processes, and also adversely affect how many of those countries might have their measuring set up to record details relevant to them worsening results outside of covid.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:What is going on in Belgium? It's stormed past both Italy and Spain in the per capita deaths, and has almost taken 2nd place from Andorra.

However, it may all be down to the way they count the deaths. Belgium's numbers will be boosted because (per Wikipedia):

Belgium counts deaths occurring both in hospitals and elsewhere, like in care homes. Deaths with clinical symptoms of the coronavirus disease are considered as "suspicious" and are included in the figures of COVID-19 deaths, even if they were not tested.

They're obviously in a bad place, but where they really stand vs Spain, Italy, France, UK and Holland, who knows?

Third most densely populated country (major - not including the likes of Jersey, Monaco etc) in Europe with 98% of the population living in urban areas. Nearly 20% of the pop in Brussels.
Also, as you say diligent counting on care home deaths - a higher number than hospital deaths. Part of this, so I’ve read in a couple of places, is that Belgian culture means that the elderly are more reticent than most to be admitted into hospital. Bizarre. Not seen any evidence to confirm this mind.

It would be good if all countries could adopt the same definitions for Covid-19 cases and deaths. Or gave both confirmed and probable numbers. The USA has recently widened its definition to include "probable" cases and deaths:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/us-data/

A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19"

I posted the link to the uk one. But basically Cv19 is put down as cause of death if any of the symptoms are present, no need for a +ve test

fivepointer wrote:i can think of a few......

Great article from Peter Foster about the ventilator supply issue https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5 ... 6efbc575ec

Can't read through paywall- but Germany have minimised use of ventilators interestingly. I don't hear any reports that we are short of them, or ICU beds either- but caveated that is the local calls I go on.

Deferential to China or not, the WHO have to called this one completely and utterly wrong:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topic ... g-lockdown

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Third most densely populated country (major - not including the likes of Jersey, Monaco etc) in Europe with 98% of the population living in urban areas. Nearly 20% of the pop in Brussels.
Also, as you say diligent counting on care home deaths - a higher number than hospital deaths. Part of this, so I’ve read in a couple of places, is that Belgian culture means that the elderly are more reticent than most to be admitted into hospital. Bizarre. Not seen any evidence to confirm this mind.

It would be good if all countries could adopt the same definitions for Covid-19 cases and deaths. Or gave both confirmed and probable numbers. The USA has recently widened its definition to include "probable" cases and deaths:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/us-data/

A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19"

I posted the link to the uk one. But basically Cv19 is put down as cause of death if any of the symptoms are present, no need for a +ve test

Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: It would be good if all countries could adopt the same definitions for Covid-19 cases and deaths. Or gave both confirmed and probable numbers. The USA has recently widened its definition to include "probable" cases and deaths:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/us-data/

A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19"

I posted the link to the uk one. But basically Cv19 is put down as cause of death if any of the symptoms are present, no need for a +ve test

Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

It’s another 10% or so.

Mellsblue wrote:Deferential to China or not, the WHO have to called this one completely and utterly wrong:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topic ... g-lockdown

It doesn't seem completely crazy to me:
Existing rules and regulations to protect health and reduce harm caused by alcohol, such as restricting access, should be upheld and even reinforced during the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency situations; while any relaxation of regulations or their enforcement should be avoided.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Deferential to China or not, the WHO have to called this one completely and utterly wrong:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topic ... g-lockdown

It doesn't seem completely crazy to me:
Existing rules and regulations to protect health and reduce harm caused by alcohol, such as restricting access, should be upheld and even reinforced during the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency situations; while any relaxation of regulations or their enforcement should be avoided.

Twas merely a glib aside.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: It would be good if all countries could adopt the same definitions for Covid-19 cases and deaths. Or gave both confirmed and probable numbers. The USA has recently widened its definition to include "probable" cases and deaths:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/us-data/

A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19"

I posted the link to the uk one. But basically Cv19 is put down as cause of death if any of the symptoms are present, no need for a +ve test

Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

somewhat confusing then...............https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... vid-19.pdf

There is a school of thought in the NHS that deaths due to CV19 are being overstated, oddly. Hopefully this will get cleared up when someone has time to do it properly.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Deferential to China or not, the WHO have to called this one completely and utterly wrong:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topic ... g-lockdown

It doesn't seem completely crazy to me:
Existing rules and regulations to protect health and reduce harm caused by alcohol, such as restricting access, should be upheld and even reinforced during the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency situations; while any relaxation of regulations or their enforcement should be avoided.

Twas merely a glib aside.

I'm a responsible drunkard and shouldn't have my rights infringed!

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I posted the link to the uk one. But basically Cv19 is put down as cause of death if any of the symptoms are present, no need for a +ve test

Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

somewhat confusing then...............https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... vid-19.pdf

There is a school of thought in the NHS that deaths due to CV19 are being overstated, oddly. Hopefully this will get cleared up when someone has time to do it properly.

Meh. All that matters is the number of excess deaths.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I posted the link to the uk one. But basically Cv19 is put down as cause of death if any of the symptoms are present, no need for a +ve test

Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

It’s another 10% or so.

You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Deferential to China or not, the WHO have to called this one completely and utterly wrong:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topic ... g-lockdown

It doesn't seem completely crazy to me:
Existing rules and regulations to protect health and reduce harm caused by alcohol, such as restricting access, should be upheld and even reinforced during the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency situations; while any relaxation of regulations or their enforcement should be avoided.

Twas merely a glib aside.

Had me thinking they were calling for prohibition.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

It’s another 10% or so.

You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

Are you saying it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions?

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I posted the link to the uk one. But basically Cv19 is put down as cause of death if any of the symptoms are present, no need for a +ve test

Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

somewhat confusing then...............https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... vid-19.pdf

There is a school of thought in the NHS that deaths due to CV19 are being overstated, oddly. Hopefully this will get cleared up when someone has time to do it properly.

Your link is for death certificates. But the numbers reported by the government do not include all deaths where the death certificate gives Covid-19 as a cause of death, only those from hospitals where there is a positive test result.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: It’s another 10% or so.

You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

Are you saying it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions?

Not at all. I'm sure the info is there, even if the extra numbers would lag behind the hospital positive test figures a little. But that's no excuse for not giving them as they become available. I don't think I'm being overly cynical to see political gain as a possible motive for excluding them.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

somewhat confusing then...............https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... vid-19.pdf

There is a school of thought in the NHS that deaths due to CV19 are being overstated, oddly. Hopefully this will get cleared up when someone has time to do it properly.

Your link is for death certificates. But the numbers reported by the government do not include all deaths where the death certificate gives Covid-19 as a cause of death, only those from hospitals where there is a positive test result.

i know. I'm confused as to why you'd have overlay death recording system. Conversely, putting down CV19 as cause of death without confirming the presence of CV19 is also.....something or other

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

Are you saying it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions?

Not at all. I'm sure the info is there, even if the extra numbers would lag behind the hospital positive test figures a little. But that's no excuse for not giving them as they become available. I don't think I'm being overly cynical to see political gain as a possible motive for excluding them.

So, you have a ‘feeling’ it’s near 50% and also happy to draw definitive conclusions. You’re relying on your feelings to draw definitive conclusions.
You’re happy that the political gain is a ‘possible’ motive and you’re happy to draw definitive conclusions.
You’re happy that the info is there, ie in black and white on the ONS website, and you think that the govt is under-reporting for political gain. That the govt is under-reporting for political gain despite Hancock stating in public that he had a “high degree of confidence” that care home deaths are greater than realised?
The ONS is giving the true number as they get them. That’s assuming they are the true number. As per Banquo’s link, and his post previous to this, a death certificate should state COVID as the reason for death if symptoms of COVID were present, not if there is proof COVID caused death. Therefore, any elderly person with a cough is counted as a COVID victim. This could lead to inflated COVID deaths outside of hospitals. None of that screams of politically motivated under-reporting.
Again, it’s seems you are happy to believe the figures from the CCP but not the ONS. Strange.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

It’s another 10% or so.

You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

Why do you have that feeling? Genuine question.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: It’s another 10% or so.

You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

Why do you have that feeling? Genuine question.

He’s politically motivated.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

somewhat confusing then...............https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... vid-19.pdf

There is a school of thought in the NHS that deaths due to CV19 are being overstated, oddly. Hopefully this will get cleared up when someone has time to do it properly.

Meh. All that matters is the number of excess deaths.

...on what time frame?

Scotland, who are counting their care home deaths are finding that it's about 25% of their total last I heard.

The ONS are producing figures. Their analysis for March. It contains the basis for inclusion in their stats.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... nmarch2020

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Whereas the UK numbers are for hospitalised cases who also tested positive for the virus. So a significant underestimate of the total number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... the-public

It’s another 10% or so.

You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

I’m basing on figures released the other day that pointed toward 1600 deaths in care homes. That’s about 10% of the total, but I’m sure it will move on once accurate figures are available.

We need to do a lot of things right now and it’s the same people who are trying to keep those plates spinning. There are greater priorities than the public’s alleged need to know.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You seem remarkably sure that adding all non-hospital and all probable (but untested) cases and deaths would only add 10% to the total.

My feeling it that it would be much higher, nearer 50%.

But the point is, we don't know how much the reported numbers underestimate the truth.

Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 50%, maybe it's something else. But it's definitely an underestimate. We need to know what it is.

Are you saying it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions?

Not at all. I'm sure the info is there, even if the extra numbers would lag behind the hospital positive test figures a little. But that's no excuse for not giving them as they become available. I don't think I'm being overly cynical to see political gain as a possible motive for excluding them.

Or it could be that PHEnand other civil servants are a bit busy at the moment to be trawling through ONS stats and seeing if they are accurate enough to be released? The figures are being released retrospectively so it’s not a cover up, just a case of prioritisation. The government wants figures to be accurate so they can plan against them, waiting days for care home results to come in isn’t helping the crisis management side.

If you think that this is a political thing then I won’t bother arguing with you any further.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Are you saying it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions?

Not at all. I'm sure the info is there, even if the extra numbers would lag behind the hospital positive test figures a little. But that's no excuse for not giving them as they become available. I don't think I'm being overly cynical to see political gain as a possible motive for excluding them.

So, you have a ‘feeling’ it’s near 50% and also happy to draw definitive conclusions. You’re relying on your feelings to draw definitive conclusions.
You’re happy that the political gain is a ‘possible’ motive and you’re happy to draw definitive conclusions.
You’re happy that the info is there, ie in black and white on the ONS website, and you think that the govt is under-reporting for political gain. That the govt is under-reporting for political gain despite Hancock stating in public that he had a “high degree of confidence” that care home deaths are greater than realised?
The ONS is giving the true number as they get them. That’s assuming they are the true number. As per Banquo’s link, and his post previous to this, a death certificate should state COVID as the reason for death if symptoms of COVID were present, not if there is proof COVID caused death. Therefore, any elderly person with a cough is counted as a COVID victim. This could lead to inflated COVID deaths outside of hospitals. None of that screams of politically motivated under-reporting.
Again, it’s seems you are happy to believe the figures from the CCP but not the ONS. Strange.

Sigh. Exactly. Meanwhile some very harried civil servants are trying to make sense of this data and are under pressure to ensure they provide accurate stats to minister on a daily basis so they can manage the crisis and make decisions, such as lockdown easing or hardening. Waiting for a week for ONS data isn’t going to help that, nor is changing the statistical reference midway through.

Whilst the overall total of dead will be important to understand in the aftermath, the care home numbers aren’t that important in managing the crisis. Whatever measures the government enacts in the next 3 weeks to get the country moving again, care homes will remain in lockdown. The key metric is whether the NHS can cope with hospitalisation numbers, the those in hospital is the key metric for planning purposes.