Whitty says 50000 cases a day will lead to 200 deaths a day. So 0.4% fatality rate.

[Treesofwood]

Or have I misunderstood? I thought it was much higher than that?

No, it's not. Still supporting another lockdown and soldiers policing you now?

Sounds pretty consistent with most of the stuff I have read. Bit on the lower side but assume that is to allow for the improved treatment options.

Surviving with serious kidney/heart/lung damage still counts as survival though. But the majority of those deaths are at older ages.

What did you expect the rate to be?

I commented about that on a thread yesterday. I don't get it. They said at the peak 100,000 cases a day led to over 1000 deaths a day. So either they underestimated the cases during the first wave or other factors are keeping deaths lower now e.g treatments etc

It’s because the virus has already killed off a lot of the most vulnerable (and therefore most likely to die). Yay for a reduced fatality rate!

Also, as PP has pointed out, “Surviving” the virus just means you aren’t dead. People could be left with life-long severe health issues from this virus - that’s something that needs to be reported more, but due to the nature of it it’s difficult to get decent statistics so early on.

Latest from the cdc in America suggested 0.6 percent - I think it came down a bit due to at lest having some treatment options. Whitty does seem to suggest slightly lower I am assuming because he is assuming higher transmission in less vulnerable groups than in the first wave (because those who are more vulnerable such as care home residents “should” be better protected this time round)

@Jrobhatch29

I commented about that on a thread yesterday. I don't get it. They said at the peak 100,000 cases a day led to over 1000 deaths a day. So either they underestimated the cases during the first wave or other factors are keeping deaths lower now e.g treatments etc

Yes I wondered the same

Meanwhile my friend is suicidal because her business is near to folding /young mum losing her fight with cancer due to lack of treatment

Let's hope you or those you know are not in that 0.4% or are you willing to take your chances?

If it's 50,000 cases at the same time as 200 deaths per day, you would have to work out how many cases that was 14 days or so earlier, because you don't die the day you test positive.

I don't get it. They said at the peak 100,000 cases a day led to over 1000 deaths a day

But testing then was only of people in hospital and healthcare workers. The real number was many many times more than the number of positive tests (the FTs stats team estimate up to 8 times). Now testing is vastly more widespread, even if quite craply executed, so it's picking up lots of the younger people in good physical condition who'll never see the inside of a hospital.

@Nellodee

If it's 50,000 cases at the same time as 200 deaths per day, you would have to work out how many cases that was 14 days or so earlier, because you don't die the day you test positive.

They said estimated cases of 50k in mid October, with those cases leading to 200 deaths a day by around mid November.

No they said 50,000 cases a day by October 13th would lead to 200 deaths a day in November

Cross posted sorry @MadameBlobby

Ah, sorry.

He said "200 plus". So 0.4% minimum. My understanding is the current accepted rate is 0.6%

@Nellodee

If it's 50,000 cases at the same time as 200 deaths per day, you would have to work out how many cases that was 14 days or so earlier, because you don't die the day you test positive.

I thought Chris Whitty/Patrick Valance said 50,000 infections a day by 13 Oct and upwards of 200 deaths a day by mid Nov.

At the beginning of the pandemic I thought the WHO were saying mortality rate of 1-2% and then they revised it to 0.5-1% a couple of months ago - maybe because of new treatments?

@RockieRoadie

Let's hope you or those you know are not in that 0.4% or are you willing to take your chances?

I dont understand the need for responses like that. Are people not allowed to discuss data without being accused of not caring

I’m willing to take my chance with a 0.4% chance of dying.

You do know we all have a 50% chance of getting cancer these days? How does 0.4% look now?

What gets me is the significant lack of attention in the stats to Long COVID - it's so binary, either a count of cases or a count of deaths.

The catastrophic longer term impacts of the infection on people's health outcomes should be discussed openly and publicly (factually, not as a scare tactic), to highlight to the doubters who minimise Covid as "just a bad dose of cold/flu" that organ damage, compromised breathing, etc is no trivial matter.

@RockieRoadie

Let's hope you or those you know are not in that 0.4% or are you willing to take your chances?

Yes I think I would.

You do know we all have a 50% chance of getting cancer these days? How does 0.4% look now?

You'd need to know the cancer survival rates to be able to risk assess it though. Things like BCC are very high survival rates yet never really tend to get the publicity like breast, pancreatic, lung cancers.

@RockieRoadie in case you wanted actual answers to that ridiculous question: yes I am. Just like I'm willing to take my chances when I drink, sit in the sun, cross the road, sky dive etc etc

I'm also very at peace with the idea that one day, all of my loved ones will die of something because I am a rational and intelligent woman capable of critical thinking.

Remember it's 0.4% with measures...with no one pulling their weight it'd be sky high.

Previously it has been stated as 1% or even higher as people have said above. The fatality rate of flu is not much different to that depending on the types circulating I thought.
Dyrne there have been 40000ish deaths. Definitely not most of the vulnerable people in our society, whilst still obviously very sad.

It’s because the virus has already killed off a lot of the most vulnerable

No it hasnt. The shielding group is estimated to be 2.5million people. Deaths are at under 50,000 so even if they were all shielding people thats less than 2%. And that 2.5 million people doesnt include the elderly or people who have milder underlying health conditions such as diabetes or asthma, just the most vulnerable.

There are many reasons for reduced fatality rate such as better treatments e.g. dexamethasone, catching it earlier rather than waiting for people to be at deaths door before admitting to hospital, and the fact that many vulnerable people are still shielding or isolating so not catching it.

Nonetheless the mortality rate is far lower than original predictions.