choking to death affects people for the rest of their lives

The Swedish Public Health Agency made international headlines yesterday by estimating that one-third of Stockholm residents would be infected with the coronavirus by May 1. Less than 24 hours later, the Agency has taken a dramatic u-turn and withdrawn the report.

The decision was announced via Twitter: "We have discovered an error in the report and so the authors are currently going through the material again. We will republish the report as soon as it is ready."

Error not explained, yet
While the nature of the error was not disclosed, the Agency also said they would share more information about it once the revised report was complete.

During yesterday’s press conference, the deputy state epidemiologist Anders Wallenstein announced the report based on data models that indicated the spread of the coronavirus was much higher than previously thought. Among the claims were that for every one person tested positive for COVID-19, up to 999 others could also have the infection without knowing.

Swedish journalist Emanuel Karlsten queried this during a Q&A session at the press conference. Given there are more than 15,000 confirmed cases, the Agency’s estimate would mean that the total number of likely infections would be greater than the entire population of Sweden.

I didn't pick at those numbers  I just asked for a breakdown in terms of how many people exactly have died
from/with, how many with underlying/no underlying health issues, how many with it on their death certificates/confirmed after post mortem, all fair and relevant questions, it's pedantic to try to counter that by questioning something like a rise in domestic abuse numbers as that's quite simple, The National Domestic Abuse helpline saw a 25% increase in calls. It's happening all around the world, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/28/lockdowns-world-rise-domestic-violence

too much obsession with models and peaks as if nothing else should be considered or nothing else matters, I would imagine there would be a rise in suicide rates as well although I don't have those numbers. There's lot of other issues as well, drugs and alcohol, there's been a rise of 291% in alcohol sold, according to global data analytics, 1/5 in UK drinking more according to Opinium. Cancer referrals fell by 80% last month, Cancer Research UK says 2300 cancers a week are being missed every week and 400 cancers every week for for breast, cervical and bowel cancer as screening has been been suspended - health trusts stopped sending out letters, the charity also said  "many hospitals have stopped carrying out diagnostic tests, particularly chest X-rays for lung cancer and colonoscopy procedures for bowel cancer. In another worrying development, hospitals have also paused operations to try to cure early-stage cancers including those affecting the bowel, stomach and lungs."

well how many lives will this cost in the long run?

then there's child abuse numbers as stated in another post, though don't know numbers, again it's a lockdown, inevitable that would increase.

TBF It's a pretty huge fcuk up when your model states that more people are already likely to have been infected by the virus than your entire population.

Of course, these are clever guys, and it is likely that they are aware of individuals being infected on multiple occasions

these claims were withdrawn two days ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/04/22/sweden-health-agency-withdraws-controversial-coronavirus-report/#3e1f62054349


stanford university's john ioannidis is another one engaged in some very dubious 'science'.

Imperial college report had to allowance that ICU capacity could be increased and assumed a mortality rate of 0.9%

Was not peer reviewed.

Also no sign of the code being put into the public domain.

I assume the mortality rate would have been based on the the NHS collapsing in their models?

Have you got a link to the report or your source?

Oops the report was Stockholm not all of Sweden.

Thanks JS

Where was it dissed?

In other words, Denmark and Norway have far more in common with Sweden than do the UK or France.

Imperial college report had NO allowance that ICU capacity could be increased and assumed a mortality rate of 0.9% ?

'The age-stratified proportion  of infections  that  require  hospitalisation and  the  infection  fatality  ratio(IFR)were obtained  from  an analysis  of  a  subset  of  cases  from  China12.These  estimates  were  corrected  for  non-uniform  attack rates by age and when applied to the GB population result in an IFR of 0.9% with 4.4% of infections hospitalised(Table  1). We  assume  that  30%  of  those  that  are  hospitalised  will  require  critical  care (invasive mechanical  ventilation  or  ECMO)  '

Simple case of GIGO I am afraid. If they were building models to bet on Betfair they would be bankrupt inside a month.

Shocking thing is UK government and Trump quoted his 2.2m (USA) and 500k (UK) numbers and changed policy as a result.

on page 5 they give an infection fatality ratio of 0.9%, i presume this is what trader is thinking of.

on about 11/12 march the government were all systems go for not doing too much (herd immunity), this was based on ferguson research which had either certain assumptions for icu admission or used chinese data. over the following weekend ferguson ran the model again with actual italian icu data. this resulted in the change of plan to suppression as 510,000 dead were predicted if they stayed with doing zip.


https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions

(this is definitely not what trader is thinking of) ferguson et al did not model testing and tracing.

Another issue with the Imperial report I believe was they came with that 510,000 figure without factoring the usual deaths that would occur

maybe some from oxford too????

stridingedge
24 Apr 20 22:07
Joined: 14 Sep 10
| Topic/replies: 56,347 | Blogger: stridingedge's blog
What would your IFR figure be?

^

This is a THE key question.

This is why we need to test to see who has had the virus and work it out.

I imagine Oxford are closer to the mark of below 0.5%. Probably actually between 0.1% and 0.2%.

But the key thing is who actually gets infected.

At the moment in the UK the young and fit are in quarantine and the old and vulnerable are living in large numbers together in carehomes where people come and go all the time.

If the people infected are disproportionately older people and sick people getting infected in hospital then the rate will be far far higher.

The original idea was to let young people (who have 0.1% or less chance of dying)  slowly build immunity whilst you protect the old properly.

If anyone is to be infected you want it to be the young. They then 'shield' the old and vulnerable because they are immune.

50% of deaths in Europe in care homes. If a disproportionate number of cases are there too we have inverted this whole thing with tragic consequences.

Just to clarify even imperial saw that younger people have a lower IFR than older people by a massive margin.

Some private companies in UK are using antibodies tests but there's no collection of the data, and they might not be accurate. My work bought some, 3 people have tested positive out of around 10 tests so far. I might get a test next week.

Mexico

To follow up on your reply to my post on 22nd April

Why do you say there would be 'hundreds of thousands' more deaths if the virus was to be 'let rip'?

Perhaps you are forgetting herd immunity?

But you may also be making the mistake of blindly believing the various 'statistical models' which our government has relied upon.

They may be right, and probably there would be many, many more deaths if social distancing was eased too quickly.

BUT, in the end, no government on earth can allow their economy to be wrecked for too long over this because that will cost more lives in the long term - or even medium term. Also, without a vaccine to stop, or medicine to ease, the virus no country - however noble their intent - will be able to impose social distancing for too long.

The economies won't stand it and people will begin to disobey in larger and larger numbers. Hence, I suspect that the UK government, which started off apparently favouring herd immunity anyway, is looking longer term and trying to arrive at a point where we can treat all patients who become critically ill with CV19. At that point, I would not be surprised if the virus was then allowed to take its course much more than now - although I accept my term 'let it rip' was too strong.

And, BTW, why the remark about younger people going to the pub and football? If it was a sarcastic remark towards me then forget it because I am almost 60!

We need to have a good look at China. The State has draconian powers. will they be able to contain further outbreaks? Good luck managing Herd Immunity with 1.3 Billion people.