Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

with highest number of deaths reported today, based on the graphs
The Oracle of Delphi 08 Jan 21 19:02
Reply |

looking at the pattern deaths r now quite accurately following the pattern of confirmed daily cases

it seems to show c.13 day lag between cases and deaths based on the rises in the chart since august

do u reckon we can more or less guess, then, with 490 deaths (7-day average) on 25 nov and 25k reported cases (7-day average) on 12 nov, the morbidly interested amongst us can approxim7 2% deaths on the case reports?

that means we would have a 7-day moving average of 1,200 in just under 2 weeks’ time (which would roughly equate to a peak reporting date on thurs of c.1,800

and the case report chart is still rising str7 up. so that still won’t be peak for this wave.

at wot point does the vaccine start 2 make a difference? i’m beginning to wonder whether the approvals have basically been awfully timed (no finger pointing) cos we will have had the l7est surge and on a downward trajectory b4 the number of vaccin7ed is high enough to take effect

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

The whole pandemic is a bit unfortunate. But the vaccines and lockdown should really start to show at the same time and then it's a constant downwards spiral...

 

 

54 Million people in UK

15% classed as elderly and vunerable - 8 million in that group

Total expend on Covid 19 likley to be 600bn assuming that most of 2021 is blighted by the virus

Therefore total expend on each vunerable person will be of the order of £75,000

Surley we could have used that money more carefully on really ring fencing that vunerable group - a number will be couples and therefore we would have a budget of £150k per couple to spend on looking after them

We know that 377 people without underlying health issues under the age of 65 have died from covid 19 in the last 9 months - dreadful but remember 200 people a month are killed on the roads 

I am sure in hindsight we will know what we should hav edone and be very bitter at the money that has been spent 

 

 

Hehheh

Earlier someone asked if I wanted data for my local authority and I said ok yes please then gave him my deets and he said oh we don't do Scotland and I was FUMING

Imagine how awkward it is when clients call up saying "we want to do a development in Aberdeen" and I have to say "you're going to need a Scottish lawyer as, apparently, the law is different". 

The trouble I have is the pathosy juxtaposition with real life

In real life Sir Humphrey would be managed out and replaced with a goon

Brexit could not have occurred under Sir Humphrey

ok so it now looks like there may have been a peak on 10 jan (at least for the seven-day moving average)

that’s slightly odd because it happens to be six days after lockdown started, and there ought to be a lag of about 5-7 days from when measures start, with a corresponding period to pick up the seven-day moving average

that really suggests that actually this third lockdown was brought in after the infection rate was dropping - meaning that actually it was the end of the chrimbo period which coincided with lower transmission 

from a death rate perspective, that implies we may see peak deaths round about 23 january or so. i.e another two weeks from now

based on the percentage estimate above, the 7-day moving average death rate at that point would still be in and around the 1,200 mark, as estimated above, but actually it would represent the peak. so thursday or friday perhaps peak death day

interesting to see if that is how it plays out (morbidly, apologies)

One thing I don't really understand with all of this is people going "oh it's all terrible", but then them going out is fine and they don't think to question a government that doesn't attempt to enforce its rules. In most other areas of law e.g. tax, govt guidance is issued because you think you are caught and they are trying to make you feel better while reserving the right to stick a poker up your arse. Here it's an attempt to please be nice, because if we make you do it you might not vote for us.  

If you are in the 70% in favour of all this, you should be staying in your house and accepting that Trudie and Myles will have to just watch Netflix, understanding that rules aren't designed for you, they're designed for the tax dodgers, burglars, rapists etc. on the understanding they'll have someone really clever trying to get them off the hook.

In any event, from my perspective, we are now in the "vaccine just round the corner, let's stop making any attempt to balance economics and health and ignore the fact that the NHS is fooked every winter because you won't pay 5% extra in tax." Still seems that old people are the ones dying, and only 10% more than normal in the worst pandemic for a century, leaving 99% of the population untouched, having creamed off society to reach 80 getting £9k for free plus 50% of health spending per annum since they retired. Hopefully it doesn't turn out this way, but I think 2m that had jobs will be unemployed by June, and the equivalent of a 5% increase in the basic rate will be levied on the camels of tax burden, the middle class, to pay for all this. 

Buzz, I appreciate the hyperbole. I assume all your SIPP contribution rebates are going towards charities eliminating the 6 Wembleys(ish) of infants dying of malaria every year? Are you writing frequently to your MP to get more money poured into free health club memberships and fat taxes increased to prevent a seventh of a million dying of heart disease? 

canadians article is interesting 

It turned out that the costs of lockdowns are at least 10 times higher than the benefits. That is, lockdowns cause far more harm to population wellbeing than COVID-19 can.

sounds bad

It is important to note that I support a focused protection approach, where we aim to protect those truly at high-risk of COVID-19 mortality, including older people, especially those with severe co-morbidities and those in nursing homes and hospitals.

*bangs head repeatedly against wall*
 

it’s just the fvcking great barrington declaration repurposed isn’t it? ok what plans does he have for shielding the vulnerable this time?

We should focus on protecting people at high risk: people hospitalized or in nursing homes (e.g., universal masking in hospitals reduced transmission markedly), in crowded conditions (e.g., homeless shelters, prisons, large gatherings), and 70 years and older (especially with severe comorbidities) – don’t lock down everyone, regardless of their individual risk.

sure sure but how?

.....

oh there’s nothing else?

shocker

when someone like this from team sane proposes:

  • a reasonable UBI so that nobody vulnerable is forced to go to work when they may get sick (again remember, the plan is to allow the virus to spread uncontrolled among the “healthy” population) 
  • free childcare for anyone whose children are looked after by a vulnerable person who needs to shield
  • free rehousing of any vulnerable person who needs to shield
  • mass employment of medical staff (from overseas if necessary) to deliver healthcare safely to vulnerable people in their homes 
  • a state sponsored food/essentials delivery service to deliver goods to vulnerable peoples’ doors nationwide to ensure they don’t have to go to the supermarket (which, again, deliberately swimming with covid)

then i will judge the benefit (and tbh likely agree)

though you still have millions of people locked inside their homes indefinitely because there is absolutely no evidence covid would burn itself out or reach herd immunity naturally (no other virus has done so). so they’d be locked inside for years - they can’t leave, the rest of the country is swarming with infected people

but everyone else gets to meet up so i guess that’s fine

Chill, you keep saying no other virus has burned itself out but how else did several other flu pandemics disappear, 1918 being the main one? Also many viruses become less severe over time - it’s why we aren’t all dead from the first common cold virus 

i mean I agree with your basic premise (shielding 14 million people is a ridiculous undertaking) but let’s not pretend something is a certainty to back up an argument that already stacks up. 

i asked this recently crowley to team sane - has any virus achieved herd immunity in a population naturally (ie without a vaccine)

answer came there none

1918 is an interesting case but the concept of herd immunity didn’t exist back then so nobody has any evidence that’s what happened. just as possible (as it is expected to have mutated to become more deadly) that it mutated to become less deadly (ie we were lucky)

most other viruses - HIV, measles, even Ebola which is crazy transmissible - haven’t reached natural herd immunity anywhere

No we won’t do that chill, because we’re not communists. Sorry to disappoint.  Why don’t you take us through your lockdown everyone totally fro three months plan again?

I'm not clear on what the objection is to the shielding argument. Is it: 

You don't believe, fundamentally, it would produce better health outcomes than Lockdowns; or, it would produce better health lockdowns but is impossible to implement? 

If it's a rejection of the former, then why bother arguing against the latter?

as it is expected to have mutated to become more deadly

i believe that’s the exact opposite of what’s expected if viruses - again, if it weren’t, we’d all be dead 

I would be in favour of lockdown if it was short and sharp. You can kill off Covid doing that. We then needed a fit for purpose track and trace system to eradicate it completely over the Summer. That’s been and gone now, but it looks like the vaccines will be as good.

The reason lockdown isn’t working is because  the vast majority of key workers and other exempt people think they are special and the rules don’t apply to them. They screech “stay at home!” and “You’re only being asked to sit on your arse” at the rest of us, as if we have the easier side of things, but then most of them don’t even bother to social distance. The police are the worst, but medics aren’t much better. Now the rest of us have got so sick at the slow progress of lockdown thanks to these cretins that we can’t be bothered to comply anymore. There’s nothing to gain from it. 

Ebola won’t reach herd immunity because so few people survive it with some strains killing 90% of people who catch them.  For the herd to become immune large numbers need to survive with antibodies.

just speaking for myself pinkus i think the latter which leads to the former

ie any proposal the uk made to “shield the vulnerable” would be doomed to fail because they wouldn’t put in place the necessary measures to actually enable the vulnerable to shield

so you’d end up just letting it rip through everyone which would be catastrophic 

and tbh i think some of team sane (not all tbf) know this and are hiding behind “but it would be everyone’s choice” to absolve themselves of just letting tens of thousands of people die when they know it wouldn’t be their choice at all

and as i say, even best case scenario you end up with millions of people locked inside their homes with no exit strategy other than vaccinating the entire world

So let's try the question again: 

Do you think shielding the vulnerable would produce better health outcomes or not? 

This isn't a trick question, it's a 'why bother having this argument if there's a fundamental disagreement on outcomes?' question.

"and as i say, even best case scenario you end up with millions of people locked inside their homes with no exit strategy other than vaccinating the entire world"

That's where we are now tho. And your 14 million people who couldn't possibly realistically shield themselves are trying to do exactly that, with the rest of the population locked down as well. 

mutations are random 

Mutations are random, but the most beneficial ones will confer evolutionary benefit. That has different outcomes dependent on situation and setting - for e.g. mutations that cause evolutionary benefit in, say, bats will be different from those in humans. 

Do you think shielding the vulnerable would produce better health outcomes or not?

as i say pinkus if someone from #teamsane proposed a ‘shielding the vulnerable’ plan that covered some of my bullet points above i would likely agree with it

if they start talking about sweden (or more commonly just use the phrase ‘shield the vulnerable’ with absolutely no implementation plan whatsoever) i am confident it would not lead to a better health outcome

herd immunity has happened countless times chill

across countless species

since the dawn of living creatures

it’s impossible to prove, of course, because we do not know - eg - exactly what caused the “black death”. it might have been bacterial (and general belief is that it is was), but if it were a virus then it’s likely that each wave over a few years left the population with herd immunity to the virus. so it came back as a mutation in later waves

but u don’t need specific examples - herd immunity theory basically is the theory of how viruses are forced to mutate; of course some will mutate accidentally - but many have mutated as a means to continue, because without the mutation they would die out. there are also of course different measures of immunity - common african blood types confer resistance to malaria

so you are asking the wrong question: the right question is, should we wait for, or even encourage, herd immunity? that’s a moral question based on the death toll vs the downsides of societal restrictions, not a scientific one. the “black death” may have killed as much as 40% of europeans in the c14th, but it may also have destroyed feudalism... tricky

And your 14 million people who couldn't possibly realistically shield themselves are trying to do exactly that, with the rest of the population locked down as well.
 

The fact that the rest of the population are also locked down makes it easier for the vulnerable to avoid contracting the virus. That’s because it limits spread of the virus generally, so the people they do inevitably come into contact with are less likely to be infected.

Mutations are random.

Well what pinkus said. The message from HMG through SAGE aimed at the not exactly bright is one of the most galling things about this, the anthropomorphism of something which most scientists don't even agree ought to be considered alive. It's completely random, whether a mutation becomes the prevalent strain is the result of environmental factors post that mutation.

In contrast, if everyone but the vulnerable are living as normal, the virus will rapidly spread through them. It becomes very difficult to prevent the vulnerable from contracting it. Those people then make their way to hospitals where they require beds.

That’s why “shield the vulnerable” strategies would be very difficult to make work. It’s not just “they do what we’re all doing now, the rest of us go back to normal”.

ms radlett - you keep saying this like it’s a gotcha but it’s not

nobody is currently locked inside their homes

we don’t need permits to leave the house like in Europe during LD1

we aren’t forced to remain in our flats like in wuhan

the uk “lockdown” (as you rightly say - takeaways are open so we must be allowed to go to them) is not anything like the most restrictive lockdowns the world has seen in the last 12 months 

and more importantly nowhere near as restrictive as “shielding the vulnerable” would need to be if it was implemented. 

no trips to starbucks for them, they can’t even go to tesco because the virus is being deliberately spread there by the government.

need a gp appointment, let alone a hospital visit for necessary tests? nope, all swarming with covid because of the governments strategy 

live with someone else who needs to work in a public facing job? better get used to living in one room and bleaching the bathroom every time you use it - the government expects your housemate to get covid but somehow you have to fend for yourself (again, no hospitals, good luck!)

 

Fc for the bazillionth time :

  • You can't say its cruel to shield 15million people then say the answer is to have 66million effectively "shielding " in some form (ie existing rather than living to try and not get the virus)
  • The scenario of shielding indefinitely until such time as herd immunity is conferred is reality now anyway for shielders. Most are not going outside except for very limited reasons and being extremely careful when they are. Herd immunity would be reached eventually , however it will now have to come through the needle as achieving it naturally would lead to a number of deaths deemed unacceptable (although the number we have anyway is still pretty high and we have massive second order damage from lockdown anyway)
  • I agree that there would be big practical issues with the shielding strategy but they would certainly not be bigger than the ones posed by shutting schools and the economy down for months on end .
  • Your objection seems to me to be a moral one rather than a practical one because of this 
  • Sweden

yes, i agree it’s random, i didn’t mean to suggest that there was a conscious mutation

what i mean is that there are two effects of a mutation - some may make no difference to the virus (they happen all the time) or might even make the virus more deadly even though the virus is thriving, others happen and become dominant because they fortuitously (for the virus) get round defences

serge sorry but that is bollocks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

The term "herd immunity" was coined in 1923.[78] Herd immunity was first recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon in the 1930s when A. W. Hedrich published research on the epidemiology of measles in Baltimore, and took notice that after many children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among susceptible children.[79][8] In spite of this knowledge, efforts to control and eliminate measles were unsuccessful until mass vaccination using the measles vaccine began in the 1960s.

i have other links if you want them - as far as I can tell natural herd immunity has never been identified (if you have a counter example that isn’t based on supposition, plz let me know)

it doesn’t work without vaccines

cannot believe we need to agree basic evolutionary theory

mind u, some people do believe that computer games will result in humans having gigantic thumbs in 500 years’ time

others believe we were made by god in his image

mind u, some people do believe that computer games will result in humans having gigantic thumbs in 500 years’ time

others believe we were made by god in his image
 

heh

chill, your question was whether any other viral pandemic in history has resulted in a population gaining herd immunity

your question was not “when since the coining of the phrase “herd immunity” has a population gained herd immunity”

but if u want a post-1923 example, pick any influenza virus from, i dunno, any year a good few before a flu vaccine. i would bet my bottom dollar that various populations gained herd immunity to it in that form

  • You can't say its cruel to shield 15million people then say the answer is to have 66million effectively "shielding " in some form (ie existing rather than living to try and not get the virus)

LG - “effectively” is doing a hell of a lot of work in that sentence

as i literally just said above, “shielding” in a scenario where the virus is deliberately spreading throughout the country is a completely different kettle of fish to the “lockdown” we are currently under, where everyone suffers some restrictions to ensure the infection rate is kept low and people have some comfort that they can leave the house without catching it 

it is a moral question (i don’t like the society we’d have to live in if that happened) but it is also a practical one

It's completely random, whether a mutation becomes the prevalent strain is the result of environmental factors post that mutation.

Yes! Finally someone understands this. 

From a purely mathematical point of view if you keep the rate of infection artificially low, then the fitness function will increase giving a higher probability of multiple 'useful' mutations. This means increased generations/prevelance of mutations. 

Worth noting this is a probability point (the beneficial mutations can happen in fewer generations but it's less likely) but from a pure maths point of view it's perfectly possible we're creating our very own more infectious disease by trying to avoid it. 

Just an interesting thought (to me, at least). 

at some point, though, a mutation will have occurred. and that lucky (for the flu virus) mutation will just happen to avoid the protections of the existing immunity

and then that new one will spread. maybe a few different new ones. each creating little bubbles of herd immunity. until, by chance, they mutate. and many mutations will fail. but one or two further lucky ones will be able to get round the previous herd immunity because that mutation is impervious to the protection.

chill, do u need me to go on?

i think we need elton to sing about the circle of viral life

heh serge i promise i wasnt trying to be clever

there’s no proof any virus has achieved herd immunity in the sense that antibodies have made a population immune

i accept of course that some viruses mutate to become less deadly

flu viruses now have vaccines and do recur every few years - we don’t become naturally immune to them

the idea we could all become immune to covid by getting it a lot and just letting people die is fantasy land

Or equally by allowing infections to continue or rather not tryinf to suppress infection rates we're increasingly the aggregate number of reproductions which increases the chances of imperfect reproductions ie mutations which mutations could be adverse in their effect, neutral or beneficial on the human population infected. It's quite fascinating. 

the idea we could all become immune to covid by getting it a lot and just letting people die is fantasy land

If anyone with power over us is trying to get to a point where this is anything but endemic, by way of vaccine or infection, we are fooked. 

 

 

it's perfectly possible we're creating our very own more infectious disease by trying to avoid it. 

Just an interesting thought (to me, at least

true. though it’s also perfectly possible (and equally a matter of mathematical chance) that by “artificially” limiting the spread, the successful mutations will be the one which makes the virus less obvious and less deadly, whether or not it makes them more infectious (though of course if they are less obvious, they are probably more likely to spread even if they are not infectious, but i guess that’s the point of a successful mutation)

feelingchill Reply| 

Report

heh serge i promise i wasnt trying to be clever

there’s no proof any virus has achieved herd immunity in the sense that antibodies have made a population immune

i accept of course that some viruses mutate to become less deadly

flu viruses now have vaccines and do recur every few years - we don’t become naturally immune to them

the idea we could all become immune to covid by getting it a lot and just letting people die is fantasy land

sorry chill, that’s just wrong.

human populations have undoubtedly achieved herd immunities countless times across countless generations - it is statistically impossible for it to be any other way. that’s my point.

the problem is, u r suggesting that a virus which mutates is the same as the un-mutated virus. now of course it is indeed a philosophical question how many mutations create a new virus, but i think most scientists will agree that, at a certain point, the mutations are sufficiently significant to mean there is a new type of virus (a new breed, if u will)

so u r wrong about the flu virus - it is different strains, different breeds. human populations have and will continue to develop herd immunities to certain strains of flu viruses and other viruses. but mutations will continue to get round them

Fc just to be clear i don't really like the world well have to live in either under shielding .

But if this vaccine doesn't work then I don't think carrying on as we are for another winter is really an option . The effects on society at large are simply too great and we will have to try something else. Thats my view 

*have developed

as i said above though, it is not a question of whether humans develop herd immunities. that is the wrong question because the answer is obviously, statistically, yes

the question is whether we should encourage it in relation to this specific virus

let’s be clear on one thing (hopefully we can agree):

it is statistically likely that sars-cov-2 mutates at some point in a way which gets round the existing vaccines 

when? will it be more deadly? will it be near harmless? will it matter? no-one knows

but it’s likely. and if so, feelingchill and i can debate whether that means even with a vaccine we will never have achieved herd immunity to sars-cov-2

human populations have undoubtedly achieved herd immunities countless times across countless generations

yes i do get u serge - i am saying there is no way for you to possibly know this as a fact, as there is no proof it has ever happened with any virus (again without a vaccine).

there is no evidence for what you are saying as opposed to “viruses generally mutate and become less deadly over time (if we are lucky)”

as i said above, HIV measles and Ebola haven’t hit herd immunity. flu mutates very rapidly - why is my proposal re: mutation less convincing than your herd immunity one?

the problem is, u r suggesting that a virus which mutates is the same as the un-mutated virus. now of course it is indeed a philosophical question how many mutations create a new virus

Trigger: And that's what I've done. Maintained it for 20 years. This old broom’s had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.

Fc just to be clear i don't really like the world well have to live in either under shielding .

But if this vaccine doesn't work then I don't think carrying on as we are for another winter is really an option . The effects on society at large are simply too great and we will have to try something else. Thats my view 

politically? i completely agree LG - we won’t take another year of this

but i really don’t like the idea of the world we would have to live in if eg priti patel starts enforcing shielding of the vulnerable

whereas some in team sane (yes clergs) appear to relish it

fine, but to be clear i think ur position is silly

the whole idea of evolution is that, at a certain point, a species has evolved sufficiently to distinguish it from its ancestors

if u agree with that, the same must be true of viruses. i know those poor viruses get slagged off with the pejorative “mutation”, but it’s the same thing in essence

and, if so, then it has to be accepted that if sufficient numbers of a specific population have resistance to a strain of the virus such that it dies out while a mutated version survives, then that means there is herd immunity - just not to the mutated version

it has to be accepted that if sufficient numbers of a specific population have resistance to a strain of the virus such that it dies out while a mutated version survives, then that means there is herd immunity

my view serge is that if a virus mutates such that it is less deadly but more transmissible (as i think we both accept certain flu viruses tend to) that doesn’t mean the less transmissible virus has reached herd immunity - there’s no correlation to “sufficient numbers of a specific population have resistance to” it. it just got out-competed

and again my broader point is there’s no reason to think this will happen with covid as so many other viruses haven’t 

“herd immunity” as an inevitable natural endpoint to a virus’ transmission doesn’t exist (in my view and by evidence).

it could just as easily mutate like it has to become more transmissible but not more deadly, or simply find an endemic endpoint forever like HIV until science comes up with better treatment / vaccinations

i am afraid, then, u r at odds with the prevailing view

virus strains do not compete with each other per se. they reproduce or they do not. if a virus mutates and the mutation succeeds, then it is because the previous, un-mutated version was unable to reproduce by finding new hosts, not because it has been defeated by the new version

now of course that may be partly because of a physical barrier - only one person with the virus who is completely isolated will of course prevent infection of others and cause the virus to die out - but that’s statistically unlikely if the other virus is thriving because that implies there are transmission points

and indeed u r wrong about there being no proven examples in recent history

see this as an example:-

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436511000570

but u really only need to search for her immunity threshold studies for more examples throughout the last sixty years of natural, vaccinated and hybrid herd immunities

but it is clearly a matter for debate, so up to u

sorry this needs the following clarification:

“if a virus mutates and the mutation succeeds where the previous version does not, then it is because the previous, un-mutated version was unable to reproduce by finding new hosts, not because it has been defeated by the new version”

it is of course perfectly possible that both strains could keep spreading, indeed multiple strains (depending upon ur definition of distinct strains...)

ok so the seven day moving average for cases is now down to 53.5k (as of yesterday) just under 10% below the peak on 10 jan, but more importantly a continuing steady decrease in case averages over the last four days

the 7-day average daily death rate is now 1,060 (as of yesterday) and continuing to rise, which is almost bang on 2% of the daily case rate 13 days before (just under 2%, as the stats were for the november dates above)

so all this continues to imply that we hit peak infections just before new year, peak positive test results just as lockdown three came in, and so peak actual deaths will be this weekend

it also continues to imply peak reported deaths will probably be next thursday at around 1,800 and a peak seven-day moving average (and actual deaths) of around 1,200 on around saturday 23 jan

that means lockdown three was shutting the door after the horse had bolted - new infections were already falling - but would accelerate the plummet in cases (hopefully). if new positive tests continue falling at the current rate, we should have seven-day moving average deaths below 200 a day by around feb 12 (with highest deaths reported on feb 11 in and around the 300 mark)

right so there’s some funny business on the uk govt dashboard, which means some of the figures seem to have moved. all in a positive direction though (ie down). it’s now suggesting that peak cases reported occurred a couple of days earlier based on the 7-day average (7/8 January)

that suggests that peak death day should be thursday on a 7-day average measure. we won’t find that out for another ten days or so though

it’s pure coincidence that this will likely coincide with peak reported deaths on a daily basis - c.1,600 today and i still expect that to go higher - maybe around 1,800 on thursday as predicted above, but it could be a bit lower

thats still consistent with the 7-day average for deaths peaking in the next few days at the 1,200 mark - it’s just under that as of 17 jan. again, almost bang on 2% of the 4 jan figure

think we are just about over the worst of it m7s!

though it won’t show for a few days yet 

Ah chill, thank you for reinvigorating the thread where you proposed locking everyone down.

risky m8 I didn’t say this or anything like it 

u can read the thread it’s right there

Lord Gaga summarizes your plan in his post above. And then on one of the other threads which I think has now been deleted you eventually admitted you did say it after first having denied it. Convenient how all these threads keep disappearing isn’t it

so we’ve hit 1820 deaths today, a day earlier than i predicted twelve days ago

i would think it will go higher tomorrow

but i still don’t think the 7-day average death r7 will be much above 1,200 

this is the peak m7s, it should be downwards from here, and fast because by next wednesday the 7-day moving average for deaths should be around the 926 mark, which means wednesday 27/thursday 28 will see deaths reported at in and around the 1400-1500 mark.

that’s basically a week on week fall of more than 20%

this is based on past performance of course,  it it stacks up based on 7-day average test results

and if deaths r falling at 20% a week, we should see calls for lockdown to be lifted v v soon

so based on the govt dashboard 20 jan was indeed the 7-day moving average peak (i am using the data as the actual average shown is clearly wrong, which is a bit odd)

and in fact 20 jan also happened to be the peak reported death day (within 28 days of a positive test), 1,820, tho the actual peak death day was 19 jan, with 1,311

so the peak 7-day average was 1,248 people a day - a bit higher than predicted by the suppositions above as i thought it would be just above 1,200

since then the trajectory has been firmly down, with a current 7-day average of 1,148 (on 29 jan - most recent date) for the reporting date, which is quite slowly compared to the fall in positive tests 13-days prior to that. only 8% below peak, whereas positive tests had fallen to 25% below peak by the same date. however if u look at actual deaths the 7-day average is at 996.7 at the most recent stat (25 jan), which is actually a bit of a quicker rate than the fall in death rates over the same period, but matches the prediction of under 950 deaths on a 7-day average by 27 jan above - perhaps we will do better

as it is averages, they should even themselves out shortly (and it looks like the deaths reported figures r about to fall dramatically)

this all suggests we r in line to be around 350 deaths on average a day by perhaps 12 feb. that makes my prediction above of 200 deaths per day average by 12 feb look very ambitious, but is still possible

Join the discussion

Login Register