COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Somethings up with that, I looked at that data last week and I imagine I would have remembered if it projected the UK with 60,000 deaths, 3/4 of the US total. There are notes saying EU countries were updated yesterday. It projects us with a peak of 3,000 deaths per day. The range for estimates for deaths is from 55,000 up? I'm pessimistic, but I really don't know about that.

If you look at the prediction graphs, they look a little counter intuitive. Every trajectory sharpens very steeply for a long period of time. Right from where the actual data ends. We're looking at a sharper increase than we had two weeks ago? Is something off with our reporting? Yes, there are issues. Is something up with the way this model handles that? I bloody well hope so.

As much as I feel the death figures are clearly lagging, and 'We're not at ICU capacity' sounds better than it is, it's a hell of a job to extrapolate a situation 3, 4 times as bad as any other European country unfolding.

I'd suggest they are underestimating the number of ICU beds as they mention this is key to their calculations, under 800 is low. I wouldn't have thought we'd be vastly different than Spain and France to be honest in the end numbers but this is a difficult virus to predict and analysis needs to be done at more localised levels to get an accurate picture.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Thank God, that site has some profound and fundamental errors which make me question its validity completely.

For example, look at their projected daily death toll (UK):



The bottom end of their estimates is circa 1,000 per day. At the top end, it's circa 10,000 per day. A HUGE difference.

Now look at their project death totals:



The range of possible outcomes in now way correlates with the first graph. Their basic maths are wrong. The area under the curve (1st graph) gives the total number of deaths, and the difference between the top curve (highest daily death rate projection) and the bottom one (lowest rate) is huge. But this is not reflected properly in the 66,000 total deaths calculation.

Yeah I was going to post somthing similar.

 

[Summerbuzz]

No, I don't think it can be.

Uhhh.... it might be worth considering that they are projecting a massive over demand for ICU beds, and failing to meet that need over a sustained period could reasonably be expected to result in an situation where several times as many people die by percentage of positive tests. Quick reaction is that the model may be 'catastrophising', extrapolating outcomes exponentially worse, whereas it's possible it overlooks information about how 'excessive' demand would be managed?

Anyway....have they got that figure for beds correct?
(as TheRemainsOfTheDave points out)

 

[domalino]

I'm not asking you to prove a negative.
I'm asking, for example to show proof that the 61% in Spain or 50% in Italy of doctors prescribing it are doing so as part of a trial.

Show proof they are prescribing it? The only source on that was a shitty survey which claimed 15% of doctors in the UK were also breaking UK medical regulations to prescribe it, which is completely farcical.

Here's what we know. No western government has said they are using it outside trials except Trump. WHO have said there's no evidence it works. UK advisory board says do not use it outside trial.

 

[George Hannah]

Queen has sent a personal message of support to his partner and family - just reported

 

[Nellies left peg]

Well we both know there are articles out there saying there will be UK trials, but instead of asking me to prove a negative (although I can, official communication here), why don't you come up with a shred of proof that they're being prescribed as a treatment outside of trials.

Fucking trials and NICE is a load of bollocks. If people want to try and the doctor is happy to prescribe it let them sign a disclaimer. My wife has been refused access to plenty of possible treatment for her Ms because clinical trials take so long or are inconclusive apparently and nice say it is cost prohibited

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

The figure reported today is much more accurate of how many people are losing their lives on a daily basis.

still aren’t reporting people outside of hospitals though- could add atleast another 200 on to the figure

 

[grunge]

Spotted this, 2nd tweet. UK now changing to show total number of tests run, not number of people tested.

 

[Summerbuzz]

Right, I'm out, fuck all this shite. I've dabbled in understanding treatment w/r/t other things before. Statistics, off-label use, qualitative outcomes. I vividly remember my brain leaving the room when I tried to resolve the philosophical implications of the validity of calculating differential diagnoses w/r/t individual presentations, and I'm not sure I ever recovered from that, let alone my actual condition. Dr's T, H, and G - I'm sorry. You were right, it's not my job.

 

[SWP's back]

Well we both know there are articles out there saying there will be UK trials, but instead of asking me to prove a negative (although I can, official communication here), why don't you come up with a shred of proof that they're being prescribed as a treatment outside of trials.

Show proof they are prescribing it? The only source on that was a shitty survey which claimed 15% of doctors in the UK were also breaking UK medical regulations to prescribe it, which is completely farcical.

Here's what we know. No western government has said they are using it outside trials except Trump. WHO have said there's no evidence it works. UK advisory board says do not use it outside trial.

“And that’s the match to Domalino and means Gelson’s Father has to return to watching Fox News for an update from Trump.”