10/n Now, as I've repeatedly said, this is VERY CRUDE For example, deaths are so rare in the under-5s that it's hard to estimate any realistic number of cases in this age group. It's likely that they are underrepresented to an extent
-
Show this thread
-
11/n But we can go further even than this. What if we graphed the PROPORTION of infections in each age band, inferred from deaths? It looks something like this Now the waves barely look different at allpic.twitter.com/IozFDdIxpu
1 reply 2 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
12/n In particular, if I put the two graphs side-by-side, you can see how a TINY change in the proportion in older people being infected can lead to a HUGE numerical increase in deathspic.twitter.com/QUyfQQh9z7
1 reply 4 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
13/n But broadly speaking, using this (again, VERY CRUDE) method, there appears to be little difference between waves 1 & 2 in the US It's simply that our testing changed, not that the disease itself was different
2 replies 4 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
14/n Indeed, as you can see, the FIRST wave in the US PROBABLY HAD MORE CASES THAN THE SECOND despite having fewer confirmed casespic.twitter.com/20lUU4KuOR
1 reply 0 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
15/n Interestingly, this also gives us a very crude number of total cases in the US roughly in line with
@youyanggu's modelled estimates, with about 12-15% of the country infected by late September5 replies 2 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
16/n Another point - people have said that this is flawed because the IFR in the second wave is less than that of the first If you reduce the IFRs in the second wave by 35%, this is what the graph looks like. Still not very different!pic.twitter.com/cuE89EVxps
3 replies 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Fascinating thread. Looking at deaths cf ICU admissions, former seem to be rising much less quickly (or much later) & the rate of rise seems to be falling (while the rise of admissions & ICU nos continues). Seems different from before...
https://twitter.com/Laconic_doc/status/1323327697947418625 …pic.twitter.com/eZC0C4Rnwb
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Laconic_doc @GidMK
Dr Kit Byatt Retweeted Dr Kit Byatt
FWIW, I had some thoughts as to other factors that might be having an effect...https://twitter.com/Laconic_doc/status/1322661032762986497 …
Dr Kit Byatt added,
Dr Kit Byatt @Laconic_docReplying to @CadoretSeveral possibilities: a) younger pts (thus lower mortality) b) better treatments c) more vulnerable people died in first wave d) better PPE e) care homes better protected f) NHS not under excess pressure (yet), so good care g) something else h) a combination of the above1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Laconic_doc
I'm confused - the chart shows an exponential increase in all parameters, that's pretty steep!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The chain of events is infection->hospitalization->ICU->death so we'd expect cases to rise first, followed by the rest in succession
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
That's true of those hospitalized; the deaths data = 'all deaths' (incl at home or in nursing homes, & I don't know if the proportion admitted is the same as earlier). I suspect the inflection in the deaths curve (*before* admissions/ICU start rising) might represent NH deaths.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.