Print

Print


Am I correct in assuming that CFR is only the direct deaths from Covid-19 rather than the larger fatality rate that would incorporate people who die of other conditions due to the fact that their health care needs won't be met when the health care system is overwhelmed, or who may go hungry, or may not be able to get needed medications because pharmacies are shut down, or who die in the future because of reduced numbers of health professionals.

I am thinking it is really hard to imagine the total death count caused by Covid-19.

Thomas Cox PhD RN
[log in to unmask]


On Wednesday, March 25, 2020, 09:58:57 AM EDT, John Whittington <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


At 11:12 25/03/2020, Greg Dropkin wrote:
>explicitly, the unmitigated scenario, once again assuming the
>parameters are right and I've set this up correctly, is that on day
>136 (end of the 12 weeks) there would be 1.28m deaths (and not many
>after that). I can't tell you the age distribution of deaths, as the
>model is pooled - some day, maybe.

In terms of the number of deaths, one presumably does not need a
model, nor even a calculator, to get that sort of number for a 'very
worst case' scenario ('do absolutely nothing', wait for the entire UK
population to get infected') - given only a guesstimate of the CFR, I
can easily do it in my head ...

... given an estimated overall CFR of 1%, the UK would then see about
0.66 million deaths, so if one guessed an overall CFR of 2%, one
would get 1.32 million deaths, very close to your modelled figure.

Does your "unmitigated scenario" amount to something other than
taking absolutely no steps to restrict spread and waiting for
everyone to get infected?

As for the 'when', yesterday I did some very hasty, 'rough and
ready', simulations of totally unrestricted spread, and ended up with
figures about half of what you suggest - nearly all the population
infected by about Day 45 and hence (assuming 20days from infection to
death), the deaths nearly all occurring by about Day 65.  However,
since it was naive (and involving a good few assumptions and
simplifications), and done in haste, I'm going to try to check it
this afternoon before saying any more, or trying to claim that it is
even remotely correct.

Kind Regards,


John

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington,      Voice:    +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services      Fax:      +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford,    E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Buckingham  MK18 4EL, UK

----------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************