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

[Bantamzen]

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.

Its worth keeping in mind that hospital admissions are of suspected cases, that is people either tested positive for or suspected as having it. They may not be admissions of people because of covid. A more insightful figure is the number of people in hospital being treated for it which currently is around 780 & falling with 68 on ventilators. So either people are being treated a lot quicker, or a number of those average 100 admissions a day are eventually being admitted for other reasons.

Official UK Coronavirus Dashboard

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

 

[MikeWM]

Its worth keeping in mind that hospital admissions are of suspected cases, that is people either tested positive for or suspected as having it. They may not be admissions of people because of covid.

I'm still not entirely sure if it also includes admissions for other reasons, who get tested for Covid just as part of a standard process, even if they have no or mild symptoms of Covid.

If so, as hospitals get back to elective treatments - and given we also know the tests can pick up Covid weeks, possibly months, after a person has actually recovered from it - then these numbers will stay a lot higher than is 'accurate'.

Does anyone know the answer to whether those are being counted as part of these figures?

 

[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......

It's now up to 21%.... Assuming those voters are not taking the **** I'm deeply worried about how far from reality people's perceptions of risk are. Let's remind ourselves, that 21% are saying that if "only" 999 out of every 1000 people who are infected with Covid live, that's too risky to get rid of all these appallingly damaging anti Covid measures. A 1 in 1000 risk would equate to the risk of death from about 15 to 20 years car usage. And that is a one in one thousand (average) risk for those unlucky enough to actually be infected. Most people would have odds significantly greater than 1 in 1000. If the average death rate was reduced to 1 in 1000 then people under about 50 with no previous health conditions would probably have odds in their favour comfortably over 1 in 10,000.....
How safe do these people think they have to be ? It's no wonder nearly all Heritage lines have shut their sheds to all but pre-arranged tours !

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm still not entirely sure if it also includes admissions for other reasons, who get tested for Covid just as part of a standard process, even if they have no or mild symptoms of Covid.

If so, as hospitals get back to elective treatments - and given we also know the tests can pick up Covid weeks, possibly months, after a person has actually recovered from it - then these numbers will stay a lot higher than is 'accurate'.

Does anyone know the answer to whether those are being counted as part of these figures?

I can't imagine any with, or suspected of having covid would be missed off even if covid was not the main reason for admission. It is still a notifiable disease.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

Which I think is one that very much makes sense - a hairdresser can't distance, they have to be within 1m to do their job. So theoretically they catch it from one customer then give it to all their customers that day - potentially a very high R from one person.

 

[MikeWM]

I can't imagine any with, or suspected of having covid would be missed off even if covid was not the main reason for admission. It is still a notifiable disease.

Well, indeed. But if we're not distinguishing between people who require hospitalisation due to a severe case of Covid, and someone who has Covid (or maybe *had* Covid, weeks or months before) without severe symptoms but has gone into hospital for some other reason, then we can't infer much from the hospitalisation figures either

 

[45107]

It's now up to 21%.... Assuming those voters are not taking the **** I'm deeply worried about how far from reality people's perceptions of risk are. Let's remind ourselves, that 21% are saying that if "only" 999 out of every 1000 people who are infected with Covid live, that's too risky to get rid of all these appallingly damaging anti Covid measures. A 1 in 1000 risk would equate to the risk of death from about 15 to 20 years car usage. And that is a one in one thousand (average) risk for those unlucky enough to actually be infected. Most people would have odds significantly greater than 1 in 1000. If the average death rate was reduced to 1 in 1000 then people under about 50 with no previous health conditions would probably have odds in their favour comfortably over 1 in 10,000.....
How safe do these people think they have to be ? It's no wonder nearly all Heritage lines have shut their sheds to all but pre-arranged tours !

Would you believe that others have a different opinion to you (and are entitled to that) ?

 

[geoffk]

Anyone see a link with the the end of the Brexit transition period? If we end up with food, medicine and fuel shortages in January, it's very convenient for the Govt to be able to say it's illegal to gather in large numbers, to stage protest marches etc., but I guess those will happen anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone see a link with the the end of the Brexit transition period? If we end up with food, medicine and fuel shortages in January, it's very convenient for the Govt to be able to say it's illegal to gather in large numbers, to stage protest marches etc., but I guess those will happen anyway.

I think it may well be used to "bury bad news" but I think to suggest that Bozza and Cummings are clever enough to achieve that is overstating, to be honest.

 

[MikeWM]

Anyone see a link with the the end of the Brexit transition period? If we end up with food, medicine and fuel shortages in January, it's very convenient for the Govt to be able to say it's illegal to gather in large numbers, to stage protest marches etc., but I guess those will happen anyway.

I'm still intrigued by the idea things are to potentially change in November, which is apparently still policy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...avirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do

In November, our ambition is to scale back remaining social distancing measures, but this is contingent on a number of factors, including consideration of the specific challenges as we move into winter.

I still don't see the logic there (surely should be either *sooner* or *later* than November?).

I suppose it may be possible they're setting up a return to 'normal' at that point in order to make our post-Brexit future seem especially happy and rosy?

(The alternative is to put stock in the theories related to the US elections, but they don't seem very coherent (they can't seem to decide if the aim is for Biden or Trump to win...))

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still don't see the logic there (surely should be either *sooner* or *later* than November?).

Schools are a big thing. I think we will need to see what effect reopening them has before making any other significant moves. A month and a half or so to watch that filter through to deaths (or not) and then design measures going forward is sensible.

OTOH, Bozza is probably making it up.

 

[MikeWM]

Schools are a big thing. I think we will need to see what effect reopening them has before making any other significant moves. A month and a half or so to watch that filter through to deaths (or not) and then design measures going forward is sensible.

We already have quite a lot of evidence from other countries who reopened schools in late Spring - and indeed countries that never closed them. As I see it, the evidence is that is doesn't make much difference. The only country I've seen that had an issue after schools reopened was Israel, and there were other apparent factors in play there.

OTOH, Bozza is probably making it up.

Well there is that likelihood, yes :-/

 

[Howardh]

I think the Tories' biggest worry is Christmas, (in)conveniently just before Brexit. If people can't have a "normal" Christmas - parties, hugging, nocturnal exercises etc, then they will get hammered. But if Covid hasn't gone away, and there probably won't be a vaccine by then, the rate of infections will rise again and then possibly a rise in deaths. So if we have a "normal" Xmas we could be entering the new year in lockdown again; at a time when the supply of foods and goods from the EU *MAY* be affected leaving (a) lockdown and (b) shortages in shops and therefore (c) queuing outside in the middle of winter.

Q - if ther was a general election tomorrow. what would Labour's covid policy be?

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the Tories' biggest worry is Christmas, (in)conveniently just before Brexit. If people can't have a "normal" Christmas - parties, hugging, nocturnal exercises etc, then they will get hammered. But if Covid hasn't gone away, and there probably won't be a vaccine by then, the rate of infections will rise again and then possibly a rise in deaths. So if we have a "normal" Xmas we could be entering the new year in lockdown again; at a time when the supply of foods and goods from the EU *MAY* be affected leaving (a) lockdown and (b) shortages in shops and therefore (c) queuing outside in the middle of winter.

Q - if ther was a general election tomorrow. what would Labour's covid policy be?

I'm not so sure Christmas will concern them as much as you might think. They still have enough people shouting for lockdowns and masks in the population to allow them to suddenly declare Christmas a "risk". Indeed many countries may have been pleasantly surprised at how compliant their populations were, places like Spain didn't have armed Police roaming the streets looking for lockdown breakers because they expected the public there just to sit back and take it. And after months of central governments ruling quite literally in people's homes, they are not likely to give up their new found powers easily. So a second wave, maybe a third & forth might just prove useful to get past Christmas & Brexit without a peep of protest from the British public.

 

[talldave]

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

There's something seriously misleading about the admissions figure, because the number of people in hospital is around the 780 mark and only varying by single digit numbers each day. Since the number of deaths is low single digits, there must be around 100 hospital discharges per day as well? Otherwise hospitals have turned into black holes!!

Get things into proportion - more people are dying on the roads each day than of Covid. The death rate from cancer is hundreds of times the Covid figure.

 

[Howardh]

There's something seriously misleading about the admissions figure, because the number of people in hospital is around the 780 mark and only varying by single digit numbers each day. Since the number of deaths is low single digits, there must be around 100 hospital discharges per day as well? Otherwise hospitals have turned into black holes!!

Get things into proportion - more people are dying on the roads each day than of Covid. The death rate from cancer is hundreds of times the Covid figure.

The BBC's website a copule of days ago said the average deaths per day due to covid was 9. To me that looks remarkably low, how many die on the roads each day, through accidents at home, or even through "normal" influenza? Of course it's 9 more than if covid didn't exist.....but how many of those 9 had underlying causes and a dose of flu would have caused their deaths?
On writing that, I admit that if you have a serious case of covid, hospitalised or at home, it's awful, far worse than even the worst flu, but my question is - how many of the new cases are that bad now? I can't find those stats anywhere, and if the vast majority of covid patients have moderate symptoms at worst - ie a bad cough/high temperature for a few days, then what is the purpose of all these protections?
I've no idea as a layman whether we need full lockdown or to be completely released, or any station inbetween. All I see as that layman is I can't find anyone - be it a polititian, scientist, reporter etc that doesn't have an agenda one way or the other.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

Correct - getting in a car and driving on the M1 has risk for example. Human beings are not rational it really is that simple sadly.

Get things into proportion - more people are dying on the roads each day than of Covid. The death rate from cancer is hundreds of times the Covid figure.

All I see as that layman is I can't find anyone - be it a politician, scientist, reporter etc that doesn't have an agenda one way or the other.

And trust me -in the USA it is worse because we have the horrible toxicity politics of a US election year.

 

[Justin Smith]

Would you believe that others have a different opinion to you (and are entitled to that) ?

Of course I understand that people can have a different opinion to me, and in this case there is no right and wrong answer.
But there is provable inconsistency. Some people have a high risk aversion, but they still drive (or get driven), so, for whatever reason, they are being highly inconsistent.
If someone came along to me and said I never use the roads they're too risky, and I don't think we should unwind any more of this lockdown until a 100% effective vaccine is found, I'd be concerned how much unnecessary worry (about risk) they have in their lives, but at least they were being consistent.
But anyone who says we should only unwind these anti Covid measures when we have a 100% safe vaccine, but drives (or allows themselves to be driven), is misinformed about risk probability. They are inconsistent, and, in plain words, wrong.

 

[jumble]

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 : (Bandolier)

This poll is flawed

No one knows how many false positive or false negative test results exist
No one knows how many people have had the virus but have not been tested.
No one knows how many of the people who died with Covid actually died of Covid

By definition if my understanding Covid deaths are calculated as the number of people who died in the 28 days after having a positive test the quantity of Covid deaths is bound to be overstated

 

[Justin Smith]

This poll is flawed

No one knows how many false positive or false negative test results exist
No one knows how many people have had the virus but have not been tested.
No one knows how many of the people who died with Covid actually died of Covid

By definition if my understanding Covid deaths are calculated as the number of people who died in the 28 days after having a positive test the quantity of Covid deaths is bound to be overstated

What we are interested in is the average death rate for those infected with Covid. I fully agree that determining that is very difficult unless everyone in the country is tested every day (although that did not stop "experts" claiming, at the start of this back in March, that the average death rate was 1 in 100).
The poll is still valid as research as to how lethal the virus has to be for people to consider the anti Covid measures to be justified. Whether the exact death rate can ever be known is not entirely the point, as regards this poll.

 

[6Gman]

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

All of the legislation is time-limited.

But that doesn't stop certain conspiracy theorists coming up with . . . conspiracy theories.

 

[MikeWM]

All of the legislation is time-limited.

The Prevention Of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was time-limited to 6 months. Yet most of what was in it has been law ever since, and still is, 46 years later.

The state, having taken powers, doesn't like giving them away again! If we only learn one universal lesson from history, it should be that.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Which I think is one that very much makes sense - a hairdresser can't distance, they have to be within 1m to do their job. So theoretically they catch it from one customer then give it to all their customers that day - potentially a very high R from one person.

But wait... if all their customers are wearing the impenetrable face coverings you are so keen on, how exactly do they catch it from him/her?
I didn’t know coronavirus obeys one-way systems - you are postulating it can’t get through a hairdresser’s mask, but can get through the customer’s?

All of the legislation is time-limited.

But note: it doesn’t say the measures are time-limited to six months. Only that they’ll be reviewed.
We only have a few weeks until that 6 months is reached...

 

[Bletchleyite]

But wait... if all their customers are wearing the impenetrable face coverings you are so keen on, how exactly do they catch it from him/her?
I didn’t know coronavirus obeys one-way systems

With regard to masks it basically does. They are much more effective at stopping larger droplets emitted by the wearer than they are at stopping smaller, more dispersed ones coming from the outside. So yes, they effectively are a one way system.

 

[Yew]

But wait... if all their customers are wearing the impenetrable face coverings you are so keen on, how exactly do they catch it from him/her?
I didn’t know coronavirus obeys one-way systems - you are postulating it can’t get through a hairdresser’s mask, but can get through the customer’s?


But note: it doesn’t say the measures are time-limited to six months. Only that they’ll be reviewed.
We only have a few weeks until that 6 months is reached...

Who knows what will happen there, I struggle to see how single-digit deaths constitute and emergency. But asking politicians if they want give back their unrestrained power is a question that only has one answer.

 

[trebor79]

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,

You're assuming that the thousand positive test results amounts to 100% of infections. It's widely assumed to account for only around 20% of infections in the community.
You'd expect the hospital cases to be tested as they are showing symptoms. People they have contact with will also be tested and some of those will be positive, but may well be asymptomatic. Asymptomatic people, and people who feel mildly ill but don't realise they've got covid who aren't captured by track and trace will not be tested so aren't captured as cases.

Which I think is one that very much makes sense - a hairdresser can't distance, they have to be within 1m to do their job. So theoretically they catch it from one customer then give it to all their customers that day - potentially a very high R from one person.

But the customer is facing away from the hairdresser, so they are unlikely to pass anything onto the hairdresser.
That said my barber has insisted on masks since they reopened and she wears a visor. She test temperatures too. Last time she said "32.8 degrees, perfect"

 

[DorkingMain]

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.

Agreed with this. The government got pushed into a full lockdown, collapsed the hospitality, retail and various other industries in the process, and are now scrambling to justify why they did it in the first place when it turned out COVID-19 wasn't much worse than a bad strain of seasonal flu.

For reference - I've had COVID-19. I'm not probably the healthiest or most slim person in the world. It was a few days of intense flu like symptoms, very slight reduction in breathing capacity since. The danger to anyone who isn't seriously ill or very old is basically non-existent.

 

[al78]

Boris did say in one of his press conferences last month that he hopes to have the country back to "near normal" by Christmas.

Did he say Christmas of which year?

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!’

He could easily be right. Your response was not a logical counterargument.

Of course I understand that people can have a different opinion to me, and in this case there is no right and wrong answer.
But there is provable inconsistency. Some people have a high risk aversion, but they still drive (or get driven), so, for whatever reason, they are being highly inconsistent.

You are pulling out the same flawed argument. It is not about the risk to the individual, but about the population scale consequences. Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of people with very individualistic mindsets, that cannot distinguish between the self and social consequences. Hence why it has been said that such people should stare at a mirror all day, because what stares back is the only thing that matters to them.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

He could easily be right. Your response was not a

He could be wrong, too.
The assertion that deaths have fallen because of the measures taken is an assertion. It doesn’t make it fact.
Do you see a huge difference in the shape of these graphs? Sweden has not imposed the same harsh measures, yet daily deaths there are also now at low levels. The pattern is low deaths ~ high deaths ~ low deaths, irrespective of measures taken

 

[Yew]

You are pulling out the same flawed argument. It is not about the risk to the individual, but about the population scale consequences.

What are population scale risks but a summation of individual risks?

It always seems to me that those who take about the population scale consequences of COVID, based on shaky predictions and statistically "interesting" combinations of reasonable worst case scenarios, seem almost oblivious of the very definite and measurable harms that these measures have caused.