Also fewer road deaths of course.
A predominantly stay at home population should have a remarkably low mortality rate initially.
Until all the cancelled operations and untreated non-Covid19 diseases and general lack of access to routine/preventional medical care start having an effect.
1 Like
Sorry to put a damper on the celebratory mood folks -
Personally I think a lot of these studies aren’t far off the “fake news” category.
The scientists who are worth their salt IMHO are the ones that are trying to find a way to combat the virus. Not the smug academic windbags who hypothesise and argue over who’s built the best model. Gag the lot of 'em 
I agree with @geoff_faulkner on that at least.
1 Like
My dental treatment postponed indefinitely and eye test rescheduled for September.
Better safe than sorry 
Am I to take it that you don’t think statisticians are real scientists? 
1 Like
Not the kind of scientist who work to futher science, which is what we need right now.
I suppose they are to scientists what literary critics are to poets and playwrights.
1 Like
That’s tough for you then, because when governments decide to end the lockdown, they will be taking advice from statisticians rather than virologists.
Tough for all of us, I fear.
Lies, damned lies, and… oh I’ve forgotten, remind me what the third was?
2 Likes
… and information from Downing Street 
7 Likes
A phrase of unknown origin, frequently mistakenly attributed to Mark Twain, so unfortunately we know nothing of the scientific qualifications of the originator.
I will say no more on this subject. We will have to wait and see. But I am very glad that I live in France rather than the UK.
1 Like
But a phrase that’s resonated wth enough people down the years to become a familiar saying.
I’ve nothing against statisticians as long as they stick to analysing statistics. It’s when they start adding 2 and 2 and getting 8 that I lose patience. Leave that to arithmeticians.
According to the projection France will only have 4700 more deaths between now and August which is roughly 30 a day, utter crap. I don’t know which is worse, the study itself or The Guardian for publishing it.
Whatever your view of them, statistics is the cornerstone of most medical research, used wisely they are indispensable for interpreting data.
3 Likes
“Salaries for experienced government statisticians range from £44,000 to £50,000. Salaries for those based in London are higher.”
Seems like we could save a shedload of dosh if we got rid of some of those guys - or would we?
Yes but they’re only as good as the data they use.
When the data is limited, and/or not reliably collected, as is the case now, statistics can be dangerously misleading.
Ultimately, yes.
UK 8th April 5491 new cases and 938 new deaths.
There was a midweek surge in cases last week, maybe some lag in reporting but, as ever it is disappointing to see it go up.
The number of deaths continues its almost predetermined rise.
The French numbers are a puzzle as well, they seem to be all over the place at present.
This one is for the Staticians:
1 Like
I think you seem to follow ( interpret) the info similar to myself Paul ( also with an insight that i do not have).
I was thinking of the reporting lag, and possibly total deaths, instead of segregating CVid from all others ( depending on what is read. But cannot be too far off, for a small % fudge factor.
I think people get confused when informed that perhaps the “lockdowns” are starting to have an effect to flatten the curve, yet we see many more deaths and still on an upward trend.
What they fail to understand is the timescale factor; in the current days mortality, relate to infections anything from 2 to 4 weeks prior. And it is that part of the graph to look at the mortality in days to come.
IF the government had managed to introduce a much more stringent testing, then that forecast of mortality would be a little more accurate.
But as we can only go on those that have been tested ( in hospital), the graphs of those infected to mortality is probably 7 to 10 days ?
So how you interpret infection to mortality, from country to country; will depend on their method of testing back along.
1 Like
I do not know what is wrong with today’s update - it is very late, and it is always yesterdays figures which makes it more “odd”.
The source for the UK numbers in worldometer is here :- https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
And there are 3 separate para’s, with 3 different days on them . I’m sorry but i am sure this is actually designed to confuse. I mean just look at this nonsense, could have been written by a 10 yr old.
"As of 9am on 8 April, 282,074 tests have concluded across the UK, with 14,682 tests carried out on 7 April. Some individuals are tested more than once for clinical reasons.
232,708 people have been tested, of whom 60,773 tested positive. Today’s figure for test data does not include Charing Cross and Southampton due to a data processing delay. The tests concluded figure excludes data from Northern Ireland.
As of 5pm on 7 April, of those hospitalised in the UK who tested positive for coronavirus, 7,097 have died."
“9am on 8 April, 282,074” . Yes those were yesterday ( Wednesday) current tested figure.
“7 April … 7,097 have died.” Yes those were the figures for Tuesday - released about 2 pm on Wednesday !!
France’s stats look quite worrying, but they do look inconsistent. I would read between the lines that the reports are not coming in, in time to be correlated correctly.