We had 456 on 11/3. And your 456 x 5 implies 2280 real infections then. Yet we've seen 463 deaths 14 days later. Implying CV kills 20% or 1 in 5 of everyone infected? I just don't understand how we can get this many deaths without many more real infections 2 weeks back.
-
-
Replying to @JamieWoodhouse @devisridhar
Because you can't just extrapolate from the median length of time. It's an average. That's why we use a case-fatality ratio, because this kind of extrapolation can be extremely misleading
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It also depends on your demographics. COVID-19 does indeed kill ~30% of those aged 80+. If you have a disproportionate number of elderly people infected (as in Italy), you see much higher death rates
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @devisridhar
Of course. So are you suggesting that every one of the ~2,280 people infected (not just tested positive) in the UK two weeks ago were in the most vulnerable demographic - so ~30% IFR? That would explain the 463 deaths to date.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamieWoodhouse @devisridhar
This is getting incredibly tedious. No, I'm not saying that, but I will say that it might be worth wondering why no pandemic experts are making this kind of back-of-the-envelop calculation to guess at the true number of cases
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @devisridhar
Sorry. I get the "we just don't know" approach, but it's concerning that you think 50k are infected in UK, other experts (govt.) imply 500k and others suggest 35 million. Wouldn't conducting a random representative test sample of gen pop answer the question?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'll leave you alone, but to close, using your ~50k current infected estimate, interested in your view of: - Total infected estimate 14 days ago - Infection doubling rate since then - IFR% that implies given actual deaths to date. Just trying to understand (as are the public)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamieWoodhouse @devisridhar
I don't extrapolate from enormous uncertainty, hence the conversation. We don't know the 'true' rate 14 days ago or today, and the CFR% is easily calculable from public data but is estimated to be ~1%
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @devisridhar
Agree that any estimates of course need wide ranges + low confidence. I remain mystified as to how we can get so many deaths from the ~50k total infected today you've suggested. Would a YouGov style general population sample test run help? Anyway - Thanks for your patience.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Jamie Woodhouse Retweeted Jamie Woodhouse
Neil Ferguson now estimates 5 to 10% of Londoners may be infected. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/up-to-one-in-10-londoners-may-be-infected-with-coronavirus-expert-warns/ar-BB11HBdk … Here's my updated amateur estimate from yesterday's figures.https://twitter.com/JamieWoodhouse/status/1243282373686542338?s=20 …
Jamie Woodhouse added,
Jamie Woodhouse @JamieWoodhouseHow many
people have #COVID19? ~1.9m (~3%) ~1 in 15 Londoners (~7%) Assume: 578 deaths IFR 0.9% Days to death 17.5 (h/t@cheianov) So ~64k infected 17.5 days ago 3.5 days to double so 5 doublings So infections to date: 2.1m Recovered 7%? Infected today: 1.9m#Lockdown https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1243237209039396872 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You've misread. He said that IN SIX MONTHS TIME "up to" 5-10% MAY be infected
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @devisridhar
Thanks. Talks about this being "over six months" (and we're 2 months in?) - but peaking in 2-3 weeks. That peak would be the 5-10%? I'll have a listen to the session to see if I can understand more.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is the text in Hansard?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.