How low would the (average) death rate for Covid have to fall for us to totally get back to normal ?

[Justin Smith]

How low would the (average) death rate for Covid have to fall for us to totally get back to normal ?

Nobody actually knows what the death rate for those exposed to Covid is in this country, it's probably between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000. What we do know is that treatment for Covid side effects is improving all the time and drugs are coming out which are also reducing the death rate. It is possible that a new drug may come out to reduce the death rate still further, but the question is how effective would that, or the other advances, have to be before we thought it's time to get back to normal and abandon all these "anti Covid" measures entirely.

To put this into perspective :

The risk of death from a car accident throughout your life is about 1 in 240

(Bandolier)

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Depressingly, I can see no end to this madness. Let’s look at the evidence (something the government are failing to do)
Face coverings made mandatory on public transport, with no review date or forecast end date
Face coverings in shops, ditto.
Face coverings in schools now starting; ditto.
Deaths from covid now in low double or even single figures.
Hospitalisations very low.
Patients in ICU very low.
Deaths from flu and pneumonia now 5-7 times greater than those from Covid19, and have been for several weeks.
Deaths from all causes now back in line or lower than the weekly average in previous years, and have been for some time.
If ever there was a time to try to get back to normal, it’s now.
But, if anything, the petty restrictions are increasing!

 

[Crossover]

Voted based on a cynical view going by the current ‘carry on’

I have to say that, whilst the restrictions may be increasing, the abidance feels like it’s waining!

 

[Freightmaster]

How low would the (average) death rate for Covid have to fall for us to totally get back to normal ?

Nobody actually knows what the death rate for those exposed to Covid is in this country, it's probably between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000.

The overall IFR (infection fatality rate) since the start of the outbreak is in the region of 0.5% (1 in 200),
but it is massively skewed by all the care home deaths back in April, so the current IFR will be much lower,
I would say more like 1 in 2000, but it is impossible to say for sure without testing everyone in the country
on the same day!



MARK

 

[Smidster]

There will be no "back to normal" (although I think normal will look quite different even after all restrictions are lifted) will only happen when there is either a vaccine deployed at scale, a highly effective therapeutic or cases fall to zero for a sustained period.

 

[birchesgreen]

Way things are going 1 in a trillion most likely, we have to keep SAFE after all

 

[Richard Scott]

Government has backed itself into a corner and cannot see a way out of it. They're frightened to say this isn't as bad as first thought due to the Facebook reactions. They need to get a pair and tell everyone to get on with life but that isn't going to happen, unfortunately.

 

[Mag_seven]

All the above assumes we are all totally rational when it comes to risk calculation which most of us are not as clearly evidenced by our empty trains.

 

[Bantamzen]

I haven't voted on this because I honestly don't believe any one measure should be the difference between restrictions & normality. Originally, and seemingly forgotten, was the aim to create additional capacity within the NHS to deal with the worst affected. That was achieved and should have signalled the start of the end of restrictions. But ever since we (as in the decision makers) have flipped between various measures such as the dreaded 'R' rate, cases per 100,000, and of course mortality rate. But all of these are only part of the bigger picture, and we need to stop fixating on one or another and concentrate on what is really happening. And what we know is that despite a small uptick in cases (many of which we can track to very specific places), hospitalisation & mortality rates continue to fall. So that should be the primary driver, not whatever the media picks up as their favourite measure.

Note to @Justin Smith - You might want to be a bit more specific with your poll, is it deaths per capita or by confirmed infections?

 

[talldave]

Half of deaths were in care homes. So only ~20k deaths elsewhere. A significant chunk of infections came from hospitals. The "panic" is not in proportion to the problem. If you're healthy (ie: not elderly, not obese, no underlying conditions) the chance of it killing you is minute.

More people are dying on the roads each day than of Covid.

I'm with @Bantamzen, the poll's not clear!

 

[big_rig]

All the above assumes we are all totally rational when it comes to risk calculation which most of us are not as clearly evidenced by our empty trains.

Quite. Or the other week when Public Health England revised their death total down 10%. Did that lead to any real discussions about how things weren't as bad as originally thought, or whether it gave us any of the precious and nebulous wriggle room to 'open up' any closed or restricted premises or activities (e.g how the R value could supposedly be judged at such a precise level to determine whether pubs should close to open schools)? Not that I can recall.

I think with how things are going now that the mask 'wars' have largely been won (though we are still not as bad as Belgium where they must be equipped immediately upon leaving ones house) the next aim for the lockdown lot will be the 'zero covid' target, achieving which would require much less back to normal than more in the short/medium/long term, depending on how realistic you think that is..

 

[talldave]

I think with how things are going now that the mask 'wars' have largely been won (though we are still not as bad as Belgium where they must be equipped immediately upon leaving ones house) the next aim for the lockdown lot will be the 'zero covid' target, achieving which would require much less back to normal than more in the short/medium/long term, depending on how realistic you think that is..

Well the only certainty for an unachievable target is that you'll never achieve it.

 

[Ianno87]

Face coverings made mandatory on public transport, with no review date or forecast end date

I thought the legislation for public transport was required to be reviewed within 6 months?

 

[Justin Smith]

As of this moment 11% (out of only 18 votes to be fair) say that even if treatment got the death rate down to 1 in 1000 (i.e. 999 out of 1000 would survive) that would not be good enough for them for us to abandon social distancing and face masks. I find it deeply worrying that there are significant numbers of people who think like that, we may end up being in this nightmare for far longer than I could even have dreamt.

I'd have thought there a a fair number of other infectious disease that kill more than 1 in 1000, but smoking, obesity, alcohol and driving certainly do, and we don't make them illegal.

We really are are in a post rational world......

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we would need to be looking at a death rate similar to a normal winter flu with all measures removed. What people forget is that the present low case and death rate is because there are measures in place suppressing cases.

 

[Justin Smith]

There will be no "back to normal" (although I think normal will look quite different even after all restrictions are lifted) will only happen when there is either a vaccine deployed at scale, a highly effective therapeutic or cases fall to zero for a sustained period.

Is even a vaccine more effective than 1 in 1000 ?
I am sick to death of the phrase "the new normal", why do people just accept all this Covid Cobblers ?
I think lessons in risk probability should be made compulsory in all schools.....

 

[Bantamzen]

I think we would need to be looking at a death rate similar to a normal winter flu with all measures removed. What people forget is that the present low case and death rate is because there are measures in place suppressing cases.

But also remember that there have been several events such as people going to the beaches, protests, pubs opening etc all of which were supposed to be "super-spreader" events, and none of which were.

 

[Justin Smith]

I think we would need to be looking at a death rate similar to a normal winter flu with all measures removed. What people forget is that the present low case and death rate is because there are measures in place suppressing cases.

No, it's the chances of death if you are infected by Covid, not the chances of you catching it. Thus the efficacy (or not....) of measure designed to stop you catching Covid are irrelevant for the purposes of this poll.

But also remember that there have been several events such as people going to the beaches, protests, pubs opening etc all of which were supposed to be "super-spreader" events, and none of which were.

Absolutely. Time after time the "experts" have said doing this or that will lead to an increase in the death rate, and time after time they have been wrong. The only thing that surprises me (nay, shocks me) is that so many people still believe them and give them an easy ride when they come out with their "expert predictions".

 

[Ianno87]

I am sick to death of the phrase "the new normal", why do people just accept all this Covid Cobblers ?

"New normal" should be about the positive changes we adopt for future life, e.g. commuting less, getting more exercise, that sort of thing.

Loads of people seem to be behaving as if we're going to spend the rest of our lives protecting ourselves from viruses.

 

[Justin Smith]

I haven't voted on this because I honestly don't believe any one measure should be the difference between restrictions & normality. Originally, and seemingly forgotten, was the aim to create additional capacity within the NHS to deal with the worst affected. That was achieved and should have signalled the start of the end of restrictions. But ever since we (as in the decision makers) have flipped between various measures such as the dreaded 'R' rate, cases per 100,000, and of course mortality rate. But all of these are only part of the bigger picture, and we need to stop fixating on one or another and concentrate on what is really happening. And what we know is that despite a small uptick in cases (many of which we can track to very specific places), hospitalisation & mortality rates continue to fall. So that should be the primary driver, not whatever the media picks up as their favourite measure.

Note to @Justin Smith - You might want to be a bit more specific with your poll, is it deaths per capita or by confirmed infections?

It's deaths per infection, perhaps Yorkie could alter it to clarify the question ?

 

[Bantamzen]

It's deaths per infection, perhaps Yorkie could alter it to clarify the question ?

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Yew]

The IFR for seasonal influenza is in the range of influenza at about 0.1%, which is 1/1000. If it turns out that Covid is similar to that, then surely we must simply accept it. My understanding is that some sources are suggesting covid has an IFR 0.3% when looking at antibody testing. Hopefully with T-cell surveillance testing we will see that drop to similar levels.

Equally, we must consider if all this damage is worth it for something that's three times worse than flu, based on data that's liable to over-predict.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it's the chances of death if you are infected by Covid, not the chances of you catching it. Thus the efficacy (or not....) of measure designed to stop you catching Covid are irrelevant for the purposes of this poll.

Then my view would be you are asking the wrong question. What is relevant is not that raw figure, but the level of overall deaths it is causing.

 

[talldave]

The excess deaths figure vs 5yr average has been negative for at least 3 months of the year, so that'll balance some of the Covid deaths. It'll be interesting to see the net result at year end.

 

[Class 33]

Depressingly, I can see no end to this madness. Let’s look at the evidence (something the government are failing to do)
Face coverings made mandatory on public transport, with no review date or forecast end date
Face coverings in shops, ditto.
Face coverings in schools now starting; ditto.
Deaths from covid now in low double or even single figures.
Hospitalisations very low.
Patients in ICU very low.
Deaths from flu and pneumonia now 5-7 times greater than those from Covid19, and have been for several weeks.
Deaths from all causes now back in line or lower than the weekly average in previous years, and have been for some time.
If ever there was a time to try to get back to normal, it’s now.
But, if anything, the petty restrictions are increasing!

I absolutely agree. Deaths are very low now, hospital admissions are very low now, patients in ICU are very low now. Now is the time to get back to normal. We just can't go on with this madness for too much longer now. And it is absolutely ridiculous beyond belief now that every few weeks the government comes up with yet more bloody restrictions! Boris did say in one of his press conferences last month that he hopes to have the country back to "near normal" by Christmas. Well the way things are going with all these ridiculous restrictions and laws he keeps introducing, that's not going to happen at the rate this is going. This madness looks like it's going to last well into next year. And incidentally about a week or so after he said "We hope to have the country back to near normal by Christmas" he then said "We may be able to relax restrictions around the middle of next year."!!!!! He keeps chopping and changing his mind!!

The daily deaths on a 7-day rolling average basis are very near to ZERO as you can get now. Last week it was 7. Fingers crossed this week, it will be lower still. But no, the government aren't really taking any notice of this and are instead taking notice of the numbers of new cases and the R rate, and deciding we must keep going with these restrictions and introducing even more restrictions every couple of weeks or so!!!

Boris and the government don't seem to consider the mental health implications all these damn restrictions are having on people. All this is wearing a lot of people down, and some people may decide they just can't take all this any longer......

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I think we would need to be looking at a death rate similar to a normal winter flu with all measures removed. What people forget is that the present low case and death rate is because there are measures in place suppressing cases.

Ah, the ‘elephant repellent’ argument resurfaces.
‘Wanna buy some elephant repellent?’
‘We don’t get elephants around here’
‘That’s your proof that it works!’

 

[richw]

The excess deaths figure vs 5yr average has been negative for at least 3 months of the year, so that'll balance some of the Covid deaths. It'll be interesting to see the net result at year end.

I read somewhere online (source and facts unverified by myself) that around 96% of deaths were people with other terminal conditions that have just been accelerated, so deaths will be below average for sometime as these people were likely to die anyway albeit not quite yet. Balance of probability Is that the other 4% had a condition undiagnosed too.
On the plus side it will save the NHS money on their ongoing medical care if that is correct!

 

[Yew]

Perhaps related, but a german preprint study has found that:

Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed preexisting T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity[9] in SARS-CoV-2 infection[10,11]

 

[30907]

Deaths are very low now, hospital admissions are very low now, patients in ICU are very low now. Now is the time to get back to normal. We just can't go on with this madness for too much longer now. And it is absolutely ridiculous beyond belief now that every few weeks the government comes up with yet more bloody restrictions

Ballpark figures per day are:
1000 cases
100 hospital admissions
<10 deaths

The totals are distorted by the significant spread in poorer urban areas.
The fact that 1 in 10 cases are linked to hospital admissions is concerning, particularly as (it is widely said that) we are diagnosing a greater percentage of cases and that the increase is largely among younger adults who are supposedly less vulnerable.
As an older and vulnerable person I am not over concerned, but equally I do not wish to be too exposed.

The only new national restrictions in the last few weeks I can think of are extensions to the mask requirements - most recently for hairdressers.

As to the original question: the ratio of hospital admissions to deaths has been consistent at 10 to 1 IIRC from the earliest days in Lombardy.
It seems unlikely that the ratio cases: deaths will drop significantly below 1:200 unless the virus mutates. Reducing the number of cases is far more to the point.

PS and I would like to get back to near-normal soon too; even without local measures my preferred leisure activities - apart from this forum! - are seriously restricted.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps related, but a german preprint study has found that:

That sounds like one for the good news stories thread !