Genie Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 China’s vaccine has scraped over the 50% minimum for regulatory approval at 50.4% effective. So they probably aren’t holding much secret data back if that’s the best they can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Happy thousand Coronavirus pages everyone. (assuming everyone's page view settings are the same as mine, anyway) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 10 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Happy thousand Coronavirus pages everyone. (assuming everyone's page view settings are the same as mine, anyway) It rounds off with the U.K. recording 100,000 deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) The extract from the Guardian liveblog quoted in this tweet is absolutely infuriating: Imagine putting down, in writing, that Johnson is 'better briefed today' when you yourself clearly have no idea what No Recourse to Public Funds is or means. EDIT: Guardian liveblog post here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/jan/13/uk-coronavirus-live-hospital-admissions-covid-boris-johnson-latest-updates?page=with:block-5fff1e4d8f08f301ebd54d91#block-5fff1e4d8f08f301ebd54d91 Edited January 13, 2021 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCU Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 How on earth can they get those numbers so wrong? It’s either 84/85k or over 100k. Media is corrupt as ****. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, MCU said: Media is corrupt as ****. Corrupt? What do you think they're doing? Inventing numbers themselves? They're different metrics. They could perhaps express it a bit more clearly, and they do in full in the article 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Corrupt? What do you think they're doing? Inventing numbers themselves? They're different metrics. They could perhaps express it a bit more clearly, and they do in full in the article I thought it was a joke Out of interest what’s the difference between the 2 lines? Edited January 13, 2021 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bannedfromHandV Posted January 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, Genie said: I thought it was a joke Out of interest what’s the difference between the 2 lines? One’s red and the other one’s yellow.... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 If there was a joke, I admit it's gone over my head. As I understand it, the higher number is just a death where the patient had covid. 84k is the number where the patient had a positive test and the clinician who signed the death certificate identified it as the cause of death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: If there was a joke, I admit it's gone over my head. As I understand it, the higher number is just a death where the patient had covid. 84k is the number where the patient had a positive test and the clinician who signed the death certificate identified it as the cause of death. The lower number was already deaths for any reason, this image was from the 30th December. I’m not sure what the difference between “deaths involving Covid-19” and “deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive test” are. I’d expect the latter to be the bigger number too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Genie said: The lower number was already deaths for any reason, this image was from the 30th December. I’m not sure what the difference between “deaths involving Covid-19” and “deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive test” are. I’d expect the latter to be the bigger number too. Ah, what you're seeing in that image is a third category. Don't take this as gospel, but from doing some research on this previous, my understanding is that we have 3 numbers. 1. The numbers shown in your image above. the daily death number. This does NOT need to be a direct death attributed to covid, it is simply someone with a positive test who has died within 28 days of that test. These numbers are compiled and reported within a day, and that's the best we can do at such short notice 2. Confirmed deaths where the patient had a test, and the clinician recorded it as the cause of death. These numbers take longer, about a couple of weeks, but are more accurate. Bizarrely, they track the above number reasonably well, a few weeks ago when I last checked these, they were within a few hundred of each other. 3. Any deaths "involving" covid, which simply means that the patient, at some point, had covid, or was suspected of having covid. This is the one above 100k. They don't need to have tested positive, it can be merely "suspected", and it just needs to be mentioned in the chain of events of the patient dying rather than being the certified cause of death. Edited January 13, 2021 by Davkaus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 7 minutes ago, Genie said: The lower number was already deaths for any reason, this image was from the 30th December. I’m not sure what the difference between “deaths involving Covid-19” and “deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive test” are. I’d expect the latter to be the bigger number too. It’s best explained by example. Type 1. I die due to COVID and it’s mentioned on my death certificate. Type 2. I crash my car and suffer massive head injuries. As standard I get a COVID test. I am positive but I didn’t have any symptoms. I die after the test because of my head injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 2 hours ago, sidcow said: But were still rely on China actually disclosing everything. There could be all sorts of information they haven't made available. It's unlikely that they have any magic information. It's everywhere now, and so many groups will be close to any new answer, if there is one. Do they have info. that may help us understand the full story eventually - probably. Do they have information that would meaningfully improve the global situation today - unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 2 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: It’s best explained by example. Type 1. I die due to COVID and it’s mentioned on my death certificate. Type 2. I crash my car and suffer massive head injuries. As standard I get a COVID test. I am positive but I didn’t have any symptoms. I die after the test because of my head injuries. I wonder how many there are that die after 29 days or more because they were weak after having had covid and had no resistance to existing conditions? Could potentially be that those in ‘2’ are compensated to some extent by group ‘3’, the death at 29 days plus. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 13, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2021 3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: One’s red and the other one’s yellow.... I’m going to start a campaign to get you on the next live bulletin from Downing Street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I wonder how many there are that die after 29 days or more because they were weak after having had covid and had no resistance to existing conditions? Could potentially be that those in ‘2’ are compensated to some extent by group ‘3’, the death at 29 days plus. That appears to be absolutely the case. The numbers aren't as close as I remembered them, but the counts two methodologies can be seen here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths 89,243 deaths where a clinician has recorded covid as the cause of death on the death certificate, but only 84,767 recorded in the daily number (any deaths within 28 days). Very few people indeed are dying of a car accident but being recorded as a covid death, and while people try to push that kind of narrative, it seems that the methodology used for the daily numbers underreports deaths rather than overreports them. What doesn't help is the unclear messaging by both the government and the media that there are these two numbers, plus the third number mentioned above, the 100k. And then there's the excess death number too. Each of these methodologies have their own benefits and drawbacks and need to be understood in the context of how they're calculated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 New daily cases in Wales are very roughly half of what they were when our lockdown started on 23rd December. Still not great, around 1,500 where they were at 3,000 and to put that in to perspective, in the summer it was regularly just double figures. My county is now daily in the 70’s and 80’s where just before Christmas it was 240. In the summer we were regularly scoring a zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 If you want to let her know what you think . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 2 hours ago, Follyfoot said: I’m going to start a campaign to get you on the next live bulletin from Downing Street Perhaps I’ve been there the whole time and you just haven’t realised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 14, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 14, 2021 4 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: Perhaps I’ve been there the whole time and you just haven’t realised JVT? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts