In July people on Leicester were 40 times less likely to be hospitalised than the WHO suggests

[Treesofwood]

So apparently only 7 out of over 1300 confirmed with Covid in July in Leicester were hospitalised. According to WHO that should be closer to 250. So what's their secret? How does this measure up to hospitalisation rates for other illnesses?

On any match up with influenza, Covid doesn’t really come out well anyway does it? As long as you are comparing apples with apples.

[quote Porcupineinwaiting]@LaurieMarlow Florida "beat" cv and started opening up in May, pretty much ditching any attempt at virus control at the same time.

By end June the number of cases was noticable riding rapidly - but this was apparently ok because rates of hospitalizations weren't. At this point the virus was predominantly spreading amongst the young.

By mid July the age of people catching COVID was increasing and huge numbers of people were getting infected every day. At this point the number of hospitalizations started to increase- but that was apparently ok because the death rate was stable/falling.

Now, a month later, they have just recorded their highest ever weekly death rate.

^^luckily this is nothing like what is happening here as here we are actively trying to control spread.[/quote]
Currently actively trying to control it, once senior schools go back with no SD and then the rates will rise with minimal hospitalisation (never mind other issues) and we will all clap ourselves on the back and say how well we are doing whilst the virus gets hold again.

I’m not sure why we’re comparing everything to Florida. This disease has behaved very differently across geography, previous infection rates, measures taken, etc, etc.

However, California is reporting lower death rates too. This article suggests better treatments are playing a role.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-09/covid-19-coronavirus-survival-rate-improves%3f_amp=true

And this article is U.K. based, noting lower death rates but not drawing any conclusions as to why

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/14/britains-coronavirus-death-rate-is-down-but-the-unanswered-question-is-why

In Ireland, case incidence per population is high enough. But in the first wave, deaths followed a week or so after. This corresponding surge hasn’t happened this time. Perhaps it will, I don’t know.

However in Ireland, many of the early infections were among young people too. It didn’t hit the nursing homes until a while later.

@IloveJKRowling

Thank you derbygerbil for that explanation of what the flu/pneumonia statistics can cover in terms of different diseases.

As far as false negatives go, it's been bugging me that there is so little info about this despite the fact the rate of false negatives seems high. I've had a number of friends with mild covid symptoms pretty much carry on as normal (i.e. going out etc) once they've had a negative test, which I find a bit worrying if the false negatives is truly this high. Why are they not recommending more than one test?

I think false positives are just as big an issue. Its fair to say tests are unreliable

The tests used are much less likely to provide a false positive than a false negative.

Which is a bigger problem depends on your prevalence level. If you’re testing people on their way out of hospital and into carehomes in the middle of an epidemic then those 30% false negatives can be lethal. But if you’re doing widespread random testing to keep the virus under control and doing shutdowns based on the results then even 1 in a thousand false positives can cause havoc.

@Derbygerbil

I understand your point and am not arguing against it.

My point is that the actual number of deaths from Covid now versus other causes such as Flu is very low. Yet we have half the population still afraid to come out of their houses / go to work / send kids to school because they see Covid as an uncontrollable mass killer outweighing all other dangers.
This is due to Government/media scaremongering and a failure to put Covid into context against other life threatening illnesses / conditions.
That approach has and will continue to seriously damage this country.

The false positive level is imoprtant for understanding the virus spread. At the moment the ONS survey is coming back with about 1 in 2000 people having covid, so that gives a maximum false positive rate of 0.05%. If you applied that to the more targeted pillar 1/2 tests for 16th August (where there were 175,000 tests) that would mean at most 88 false positives, out of a total number of positives of around 1000. So, not as bad as might be thought, especially as that is assuming the all of the ONS results are false positives.

In trying to find out some info about it, the most prominent result is an article by Carl Heneghan in the Spectator, and I'm rapidly losing trust in his judgment. He uses the ONS prevalence survey information, but then claims that a specificity of 99.9% (1 in a 1000) is too high, despite the ONS prevalence survey being at about 1 in 2000.

[quote Noextremes2017]@Derbygerbil

I understand your point and am not arguing against it.

My point is that the actual number of deaths from Covid now versus other causes such as Flu is very low. Yet we have half the population still afraid to come out of their houses / go to work / send kids to school because they see Covid as an uncontrollable mass killer outweighing all other dangers.
This is due to Government/media scaremongering and a failure to put Covid into context against other life threatening illnesses / conditions.
That approach has and will continue to seriously damage this country.[/quote]
I'm not sure you're fully understanding how much more widely covid would spread if we went back to 'normal'. If it spreads widely again it will become a 'mass killer' again.

It just feels that you don't understand why scientists and doctors see covid differently.

@Morfin

Yes there is a big spectrum and nobody would or should underestimate the difficulties faced by people who have had a bad case of Covid and survived.
As someone who had pneumonia followed by heart attack followed by blood clot on lung and lung damage I have some experience / understanding of the problems they face.
But just as (rightly) the world didn’t stop for me it shouldn’t be stopping for Covid either.

Clearly the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths at this moment does not justify the restrictions on our lives. That is not debatable, it is just a fact.
Back in March we just didn't know what we were facing so the measures were proportionate to the risk.
The problem the government have now is striking a balance between the real (not much worse than any number of other viruses that can trigger pneumonia or sepsis etc) risk to the majority of people and not being accused of abandoning the vulnerable to their deaths.
At the end of the day this virus now endemic it is going nowhere and at some point the restrictions must end and we must all take our chances like we have our whole lives. Live isn't safe - death is inevitable.
I wouldn't like to be the PM who has to stand up and say that to the country though, I suspect neither does Boris so we will limp on with the restrictions until the population as a whole has enough of it.
I can see Christmas being that time because how many people do you know that would be prepared to sacrifice what could be the last Christmas with a loved one for 'the greater good'.

@FaithinWashing

Clearly the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths at this moment does not justify the restrictions on our lives. That is not debatable, it is just a fact. Back in March we just didn't know what we were facing so the measures were proportionate to the risk. The problem the government have now is striking a balance between the real (not much worse than any number of other viruses that can trigger pneumonia or sepsis etc) risk to the majority of people and not being accused of abandoning the vulnerable to their deaths. At the end of the day this virus now endemic it is going nowhere and at some point the restrictions must end and we must all take our chances like we have our whole lives. Live isn't safe - death is inevitable. I wouldn't like to be the PM who has to stand up and say that to the country though, I suspect neither does Boris so we will limp on with the restrictions until the population as a whole has enough of it. I can see Christmas being that time because how many people do you know that would be prepared to sacrifice what could be the last Christmas with a loved one for 'the greater good'.

Whilst I one hundred percent agree with you about the virus, nothing is undebatable,

If it was anything like undebatable, then the restrictions would stop.

There are still far too many investing in the sunk cost fallacy. The original lockdown plan was good and did what it was supposed to do - but all the fear mongering that went on worked to well and now far too many people won't be happy until - well, until forever because it won't be eradicated. Yes, a vaccine will help protect the vulnerable but magic it isn't.

Stating a viewpoint as fact though rarely helps an argument. Having said that, I doubt anything would affect the argument. Once people have made up their minds, and argued their opinion little will change it.

Luckily I think/hope the people that are fixed on the disaster scenario are in the minority and most people, will as you say, get fed up and/or realise that more people are dying because of the reaction to the virus rather than the virus itself/

The original WHO figures from Wuhan were based on people hospitalised divided by total number of people with diagnosed covid. The diagnosed covid were those symptomatic and at that time symptoms wouldn't have included loss of smell for example.

Testing now is uncovering all the people who feel fine or just slightly under the weather but would not have thought they had covid in Spring.

Commoncarder but our reaction was based on those figures. If they are wrong, especially wildly wrong, 10, 20 40 times out then why are we still behaving in the same way. Why are we still announcing daily covid deaths and not all the other (sometimes avoidable) ways people sadly die.
I think the hospitalisation rate is the news here, not the number of cases.

If the numbers get out of control then it makes protecting the vulnerable people very difficult. And it can happen very quickly. But everyone has a different idea on what the apropriate balance is. I think schools reopening is a must, whereas on other threads on here you'd think we were lining teachers up to be shot by suggesting that.

That is not debatable, it is just a fact.

I think pretty much every thread on here shows it is debatable.

Plus the fact governments are taking different approaches around the globe.

@latticechaos

That is not debatable, it is just a fact.

I think pretty much every thread on here shows it is debatable.

Plus the fact governments are taking different approaches around the globe.

I don't think there is a single fact relating to corona that isn't debatable.

The figures are not "wrong".

The categories of patients are different.

Wuhan showed that beyond a point too many people catching covid need medical care. Far more than in a flu season.

At the moment symptomatic cases are low.

Which is fine up to a point..

I think the hospitalisation rate is the news here, not the number of cases.

This is a common refrain but the risk from covid has not reduced, the virus has not changed and if it starts to spread widely amongst older people again the hospitalisation rate will go up.

We will have to see wait and see what happens in the Winter months. When you can’t see anyone in your life sick and those contacts don’t know anyone who is ill, you begin to question why we have changed so much of our daily routine. People won’t stick to the rules unless they are made to or the virus is severely affecting there health and those around you. Schools going back will be a big test.

Sorry but some of the restrictions placed on us now are just simply not proportionate to the risk to the elderly / infirm. Let's not forget that many of the over 65's who died picked up their infections IN HOSPITAL - not by passing someone on the street who wasn't wearing a mask!!

When I go to France in September the infection rate per 100,000 of the overall population is not something that will concern me because I'll taking sensible precautions / socially distancing etc (as I would in the UK).

But Mr 'Sledgehammer to crack a nut' Johnson has been panicked into a blanket travel ban because he is not capable of properly assessing risk and taking only proportionate measures. And his 'yes men' don't have the balls to argue with him!

a blanket travel ban

Travel isn't banned to most countries now, there are quarantines on return.

You dont have to wear a mask in the street in the UK @Noextremes2017 Only in enclosed spaces.

The reason for this is that the virus is very good at spreading in enclosed spaces - like hospitals fi (it's the lack of air circulation that is critical, it's not like it cares whether it's a hospital or a pub).

Porcupineinwaiting Or a school?

The schools are all making sure parents can't congregate outside school incase it spreads. Outdoors! Staggered start and leaving times up to 40 minutes. But the children are in poorly ventilated classrooms all day. And actually there is not a 20 percent chance of school children or parents needing any sort of hospital care. Nowhere near that.