Please help me understand this data

[Mummabeary]

Musing on something I saw tonight....

The WHO released a statement on 5th October saying they anticipated 1 in 10 people globally have had Coronavirus. So assuming global population of 7.8 billion people, 10% of this is 780 million people have had Coronavirus. There have been 1.15 million deaths recorded so this assumes a global death rate of 0.15%.

Furthermore, if we have had 50, 000 deaths already in the UK, at the death rate above this means 33 million people must have already had this in the UK (about half the population).

www.bbc.com/news/world-54422023

What am I missing?

[KitKatastrophe]

Could it be that there are more than 1.15 millions deaths from covid across the world, they just weren't all reported.
For example in developing countries, do they officially report deaths of people who die in slums? And if so would the cause of death be accurate?

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

The death rate doesn’t have to be the same in the U.K. as the average in the rest of the world. We have more elderly people and more obese people than many countries so it is possible more people die of it here.

[starfro]

Likely many deaths missed, but it's looking like the IFR will be under 0.3%. This will vary by country and an accurate figure won't be available for years.

Most deaths occur in those who are highly susceptible to any infection.

[ragged]

50% of humanity are 30 yrs old or younger. They have very low risk of dying from covid. Only 9% of the whole world population is age 65+ (and really, you need to be age 80+ to be truly high risk of dying from covid).

I read, World Bank Data, only 1.4% of world population might be age 80+ & male.

[Mummabeary]

Thank you! These are all really good points. I guess it's not as simple a calculation as I had done due to the reasons mentioned. Just seemed like the article framed the news in such a negative way "so 90% of the world are still susceptible" and made no mention of what this meant for the IFR.

[Mistigri]

There have been 1.15 million deaths recorded so this assumes a global death rate of 0.15%.

Unfortunately, deaths are significantly undercounted in most countries, including many developed countries.

Credible estimates for the IFR are between 0.5% and 0.8%.

[110APiccadilly]

Has anyone seen a reputable excess global deaths figure? Because that would be a good place to start with estimating the IFR.

But as noted above, the UK IFR is likely to be higher than the global one, because our population is older. That said, I think the proportion who've had it in the UK is higher than the antibody tests suggest (not as high as 50%).

[PineappleUpsideDownCake]

I find it frightening that if only 1 in 10 people have had it there's already 50000 deaths.

This suggests we could end up looking at 500 000 deaths in total if we don't get a vaccine

[Regulus]

These deaths have been after a massive change in our behaviour. The deaths would have been much higher if (when?) hospitals were overwhelmed. If hospitals become overwhelmed - which they would have done on March if we continued with no Social distancing then more people would have died from causes that are completely recoverable (asthma, sepsis, rta, heat attacks etc)

[Regulus]

@PineappleUpsideDownCake

I find it frightening that if only 1 in 10 people have had it there's already 50000 deaths.

This suggests we could end up looking at 500 000 deaths in total if we don't get a vaccine

More frightening is that there is no proof those that already have had it will maintain any immunity.

[Lougle]

You can't take global figures and apply them to a single country, as approaches are different in each country and the demographics are also different. In many developing countries, there will be little or no available treatment, so the death rate will be higher.

[KitKatastrophe]

@PineappleUpsideDownCake

I find it frightening that if only 1 in 10 people have had it there's already 50000 deaths.

This suggests we could end up looking at 500 000 deaths in total if we don't get a vaccine

We have much better idea of how to treat it now, so the mortality rate is less than it was in March/April.

Also your maths is too simple. It doesnt account for the fact that lots of elderly people got it earlier on in care homes. The 10% wont be evenly weighted across the world and across demographics.

However even if your maths was right, 500,000 deaths isnt necessarily a problem on a society level (that many people die per year anyway) if they are spread out over a long period of time. Its excess deaths which are the issue.

[Porcupineinwaiting]

If you look at data from countries such as Brazil you'll find that the average age of death (with COVID and in general) is far lower than 80. That makes sense - if people dont normally live past 70 then 50 is old.

In countries where HIV is common, that's a lot of people of all ages who are vulnerable.

It's a complex calculation. You cant just extrapolate from the UK.

[HIVpos]

@Porcupineinwaiting

If you look at data from countries such as Brazil you'll find that the average age of death (with COVID and in general) is far lower than 80. That makes sense - if people dont normally live past 70 then 50 is old.

In countries where HIV is common, that's a lot of people of all ages who are vulnerable.

It's a complex calculation. You cant just extrapolate from the UK.

Just to clarify, there’s currently no evidence that people living with HIV are at higher risk of being worse affected by coronavirus than anyone else.

However what does increase the risk is not being on treatment with low CD4 (compromised immune system), opportunistic infections and/or other health conditions.

[Porcupineinwaiting]

Sorry @HIVpos I should have made it clearer that I was referring to the many HIV positive people across sub saharan Africa that are HIV positive and not receiving treatment of any kind.

[HIVpos]

Thanks Porcupine. HIV gets mentioned a lot on MN in relation to coronavirus - in one sense a good thing in raising awareness, however good to keep in context.