I find it interesting that the impact on Africa has been minimal, according to Worldometer. South Africa, the worst-hit, ranks 31st in the world in terms of deaths per million, and Cabo Verde, the second worst hit ranks 58th.
Nigeria, with a population of over 200,000, 000 has reported only 1.135 deaths.
I have heard it suggested that African countries have younger, less dense populations, but that doesn't explain the low rate in cities such as Lagos.
I find it interesting that the impact on Africa has been minimal, according to Worldometer. South Africa, the worst-hit, ranks 31st in the world in terms of deaths per million, and Cabo Verde, the second worst hit ranks 58th.
Nigeria, with a population of over 200,000, 000 has reported only 1.135 deaths.
I have heard it suggested that African countries have younger, less dense populations, but that doesn't explain the low rate in cities such as Lagos.
Suggestions?
Lack of diagnosis? How are the excess death figures?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
There's also the possibility that deaths are not being accurately counted. I imagine getting an accurate count is difficult in many places, and we certainly know that true numbers have been suppressed for political reasons in other parts of the world.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The quality of "infrastructure" support is variable across the African continent and it is quite likely to be a factor in some countries more than others. But I think for example that the countries affected by Ebola epidemics have developed systems now (as the BBC link indicated). And they have learned good lessons about public protection as well.
I'm somewhat biased, as we have a former Shipmate who is trying to support a woman working in her more-or-less locked-down village in Kenya, where she reports people on the verge of starvation because they cannot go out to work and have no other provision available. If those circumstances are at all widespread, I can see how they would affect statistics as well (as in, the non-keeping thereof).
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Lamb Chopped
I’ve always regarded the running totals we have as the best available approximations to what is really going on. To be taken seriously but not necessarily literally.
Speaking of which, yesterday’s daily totals were grim overall, particularly for Europe and the USA. The number of daily cases topped half a million for the first time (504 thousand) and the day’s deaths totalled 7099. Europe’s daily cases totalled almost half of that at 245 thousand and there were 2504 deaths. The USA totals were over 81 thousand daily cases and 1030 deaths.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Some pretty startling numbers as worldometer heads to the close of 29 October.
Firstly global. A massive record 545 thousand new cases and 7167 deaths.
Secondly Europe. 279 thousand new cases, another record, and 2566 deaths.
Thirdly USA. A record 91 thousand new cases and 1047 deaths.
That's nuts. If they know you need to do it, they should make it sooner rather than later.
We think your guy is worse than our guy; but it's a matter of opinion as to whether the guy who doesn't have a moral compass or grip on reality is worse than the guy who doesn't care about his moral compass or grip on reality.
Agreed. And it sure looks essential now. Probably would have been prudent a couple of weeks ago.
From the article I linked above, the government have been sitting on the SAGE forecasts for at least two weeks:
But an official Sage document, dated 14 October and published Friday, reveals we are in a worse position than expected.
Scientists crunching the numbers estimated that, by mid-October, there were between 43,000 and 74,000 people being infected with coronavirus every day in England.
And they really need to stop floating trial balloons on this issue.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Agreed, chrisstyles, re trial balloons. I don’t think our politicians are used to making decisions before the need becomes obvious. It’s the old Sir Humphrey rule about courageous and far-sighted. The problem is that when it becomes obvious, the consequences are already inevitable.
It’s the stitch in time saves nine issue - they are so reluctant to do it they delay, delay, delay and the end result is far worse.
And the unpredictability does as much damage as anything else. We could have, for example, from April, locked down (strict lockdown) the 4th the week of every month on a plan to do that till vaccine rollout.
It would make it much easier for businesses and individuals to plan, and would probably keep the R number low enough.
It’s the stitch in time saves nine issue - they are so reluctant to do it they delay, delay, delay and the end result is far worse.
And the unpredictability does as much damage as anything else. We could have, for example, from April, locked down (strict lockdown) the 4th the week of every month on a plan to do that till vaccine rollout.
It would make it much easier for businesses and individuals to plan, and would probably keep the R number low enough.
When schools went back I suggested a two week lockdown, with schools closed, every school holiday. In the same way as @Doublethink suggests, people could plan and hopefully it would keep the R number low enough.
The U.K. govt has been reactive instead of proactive from the beginning. Reacting to the effect of the virus rather than nipping it in the bud is plain stupid.
On October 1 - the global 7 day average was 295,311
On October 30 - the global 7 day average was 485,956
A rise of nearly 2/3rds in a month.
And if that continues - we will be looking at 7 day averages of nearly 800,000 at the end of November if my maths is correct - and then 1.32m at the end of the year. I hope it doesn't.
That 'Eat out to help out' contributed to the infection rate that will ultimately lead to a second lockdown for restaurants does show to what extent 'the economy' vs 'measures to prevent Covid' is a false dichotomy.
That 'Eat out to help out' contributed to the infection rate that will ultimately lead to a second lockdown for restaurants does show to what extent 'the economy' vs 'measures to prevent Covid' is a false dichotomy.
Surely this will have made very little difference overall - unless the virus had been completely eliminated, we would be seeing the same exponential growth under current conditions.
There's only one thing that makes me a bit hopeful, which is that whatever chart you look at (cases, hospitalisations, deaths) the gradient is smaller for the same height than it was in the spring. That suggests a slower spread to me.
That 'Eat out to help out' contributed to the infection rate that will ultimately lead to a second lockdown for restaurants does show to what extent 'the economy' vs 'measures to prevent Covid' is a false dichotomy.
The article is interesting. It seems to me that the alternative policies mentioned such as the extension of the furlough scheme are also aimed at stimulating demand. Having said that the retention of skills by businesses may also be a supply side benefit.
What I would like to know is whether there is any research into the health costs of a lock-down. It seems very likely to me to have had an impact on mental health and the knock-on effect on physical health seems likely. I undertook the Holmes-Rahe test the other day and the changes to my lifestyle stemming from the pandemic alone predict a 50
% chance of a major health issue in the next two years:
A 2nd national lockdown may entail greater health risks than the first because it increases the chance of job losses and inflation. Is it possible that more people could die from the economic and stress impact than from the pandemic itself? Moreover if the economic crisis ultimately reduces funding for the NHS might that not also cause deaths?
It seems likely that some austerity measures will also be necessary and this will also surely result in deaths. If austerity does not occur that doesn't necessarily mean that people are better off, as it would be likely to simply increase unemployment and inflation. At some point the number of deaths resulting from the economic impact of the measures taken in response to the pandemic may exceed those resulting from it. I'm not sure how you go about assessing that though or whether there has been any research. I'm only speculating here and can;t be sure that a 2nd lockdown would not lead to optimal outcomes.
Yes, even if no austerity measures are taken the hit to GDP will still arguably result in a large number of deaths. I think it is very very likely that the deaths caused by the economic and health impacts of the lockdown will exceed those of the pandemic, even though the pandemic is causing lots and lots of deaths and will continue to do so.
There would certainly be costs, including additional deaths not directly related to Covid, from the lockdown. Though, the economic and stress impacts of no lockdown would also be significant, along with other indirect deaths (eg: from the economic hit, or from treatments not possible because the NHS was swamped with Covid). The question is what would be greater:
1. Lockdown: reduced deaths from covid + increased indirect deaths, economic costs of shutdown, cost to government of furlough and similar.
2. No-lockdown: Many more deaths from covid + indirect deaths, economic costs of people voluntarily not going out or businesses closing from too many staff being ill (or dead), cost to government of increased benefits claims etc.
It seems likely that some austerity measures will also be necessary and this will also surely result in deaths.
Either austerity measures or tax rises. Admittedly only one is likely under the present government, but you never know: it's not as if Johnson has any misguided principles to stop him doing the right thing.
Aren't people terrified of the reduplicative effects of the virus? I mean, if you have no restrictions, it runs out of control. When I say people, I include scientists, politicians. I can't calculate the deaths that would ensue, but they keep doubling, and choke the health system. Can any govt tolerate that? I think in Italy, people freaked out at seeing people choking to death in corridors, at home, and so on.
That's nuts. If they know you need to do it, they should make it sooner rather than later.
We think your guy is worse than our guy; but it's a matter of opinion as to whether the guy who doesn't have a moral compass or grip on reality is worse than the guy who doesn't care about his moral compass or grip on reality.
As you say, it's a matter of opinion -- but your guy is actually going to institute a lockdown, while ours is holding super-spreading events and thinks wearing masks is for losers. It seems, though, that what passes for leadership in Belgium is saying, "Hold my beer."
When people start talking about the mental health costs of lockdown, I think yes definitely there are - but I think the mental health impact on me of both my elderly parents dying of Covid at the same time would probably be greater.
Likewise, economically, if a lot of people die in a short time, it will significantly disrupt the economy.
There are 65 million people in the country, roughly, about 10% have had it. If we let the virus spread exponentially without intervention, that’s another 58 and a half million to catch it. About 1 in 5 of those would need hospital care, and approximately 1% of the 58 and a half million will die.
So do nothing is 585000 excess deaths inside a very small window of time - that’s roughly 100% more than usual in a single year and doesn’t include people dying because everything that is disrupted by the process. I mean I am not even sure we’d be able to manage the bodies.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Plus the long term sicknesses of various kinds which appear to affect a quite high proportion of those who get the virus.
Relying on remedial care in order to keep the economy open would bust the NHS and lead to increased medical deaths from other causes.
It’s not an option.
Plus on the Trump/Johnson dimension, I support Ruth’s view. Trump is still in the race though the odds are against him. But I think the current COVID-19 experiences in the key battleground States will ultimately count against him. He’s ignored the science and the numbers, he’s lied and he’s failed. He deserves to lose for those reasons alone.
BTW, I see that our beloved Nigel Farage is re-branding his *Brexshit Party* (you know - the lot which gained a wonderfully round number of Parliamentary seats at the last General Election).
I can't find a link just at the moment, but apparently it's to be called *Reform UK*, and its main platform is Anti-Lockdown...
The opposite of Lockdown is Lockup, which is where these people should be, for their own and everyone else's safety. I know it's wicked of me, but I really hope that they become some of the 25000 new cases per day. That might make them think - I don't wish them dead, just sensible for once.
You really couldn't make it up, but I expect there are Unicorns, and Sunny Uplands, involved.
I really hope that they become some of the 25000 new cases per day
Is there no Ship rule about wishing people, in this case including a named individual, to fall ill? OK you soften it a bit by not wishing them dead, but Nigel F is about my age, and probably quite vulnerable.
I'm anti lockdown, so presumably you'd like me to get COVID too? Have you finished your intercessions for today?
None of us wish someone else gets ill but if the predictions on numbers affected turn out to be correct, it's not unreasonable to hope it mostly affects those who won't take precautions to protect other people's health rather than those who do make that effort.
(The latter are those putting aside their selfishness and ignorance for the common good).
Let's not have anyone wishing anyone else gets ill please. That's different to warning of the consequences of ignoring medical advice.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Noted, and I apologise for overstepping the mark.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
As the count heads towards its close on 6 November, with about another hour of data to collect, it looks like setting further record counts for new cases. Global daily totals are already over 600k, European already over 311k and USA over 121k.
Global case totals will probably top 50 million tomorrow. The USA has now topped 10 million cases overall,
9 thousand more have died throughout the world, over 4300 in Europe and over 1100 in the USA.
It is worth repeating that these numbers are being set at the same time as cases and deaths in India and Brazil have declined significantly.
Drat. I've just been notified that our city is up to a 30% positivity rate by someone working in our hospitals. I hope they're wrong but fear not. Lord, have mercy.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Records were indeed set.
The global new case total for 6 November was 623k.
The US daily total was 132k. 37 States reported more than a thousand new cases. The virus is widespread and spreading wider. R numbers are above 1 for every State apart from Mississippi.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Keeping the record straight. Worldometer totals for November 7.
Global: new cases 598k, deaths 7436
Europe: new cases 307k, deaths 3189
USA: new cases 124k, deaths 1032.
Milestones: Globally, total cases topped 50 million.
Based on history, there will be reduced numbers on 8 and 9 November (Sunday and Monday) caused by reduced availability of data at weekends.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
After the weekend lull (not that much of a lull anyway) here is the bad news for 10 November as day reaches its close in the worldometer count.
Global 542k new cases, 9190 deaths
Europe 235k new cases, 4863 deaths
USA 136k new cases, 1,345 deaths
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Totals at end November 11.
Global: 613k new cases, 10,130 deaths.
Europe: 269k new cases, 4,781 deaths
USA: 143k new cases (new high), 1,479 deaths
In Europe, the UK topped 50k total deaths, the worst in Europe.
In the USA, 26 States had more than 2 thousand new cases, 37 had more than a thousand new cases.
I notice that, according to Worldometer, Uruguay is claiming to have had 18 deaths per million, despite being bordered by Brazil (767 deaths per million) and Argentina (761 deaths per million).
They refer to 'Matrix Pool Testing', which is a neat idea - I heard an article on Radio 4 about it a couple of weeks ago. If anyone wants a summary...:
In the war it was worked out that when routine-testing squaddies for syphilis, it was more efficient to combine (say) 10 samples, and clear all 10 individuals when the batch came back negative. If it came back positive, one would re-test all 10 individually. More recently someone had the idea that if B62, M-in-M, NEQ etc etc all had their tests (for covid, natch ) pooled, we could also assemble another batch of pools where some of B62's sample went in (but not the others), and another pool with only M-in-M, another with only NEQ etc. If you set it up carefully then the pattern of positive pools in the total matrix points you exactly to the infected individual - or if the prevalence of positives in the population is a little higher, there might remain a little ambiguity. Then more separate testing is required to finish off - so the technique works most efficiently for mass-screening of low-incidence populations.
Comments
Nigeria, with a population of over 200,000, 000 has reported only 1.135 deaths.
I have heard it suggested that African countries have younger, less dense populations, but that doesn't explain the low rate in cities such as Lagos.
Suggestions?
Lack of diagnosis? How are the excess death figures?
I’ve always regarded the running totals we have as the best available approximations to what is really going on. To be taken seriously but not necessarily literally.
Speaking of which, yesterday’s daily totals were grim overall, particularly for Europe and the USA. The number of daily cases topped half a million for the first time (504 thousand) and the day’s deaths totalled 7099. Europe’s daily cases totalled almost half of that at 245 thousand and there were 2504 deaths. The USA totals were over 81 thousand daily cases and 1030 deaths.
Firstly global. A massive record 545 thousand new cases and 7167 deaths.
Secondly Europe. 279 thousand new cases, another record, and 2566 deaths.
Thirdly USA. A record 91 thousand new cases and 1047 deaths.
Trends look ominous.
It looks like the government has been aware of this for at least two weeks.
Yes ... likely tomorrow as we are now at 989,745 with over 20k cases coming in a day.
And apparently now too late for a short lockdown (which was dismissed by the government) and we are facing a long lockdown.
End of 30 October according to worldometer.
Global. New cases 573 thousand, new deaths 7485
Europe. New cases 300 thousand, new deaths 3029
USA. New cases 101 thousand, new deaths 983
Ominous upward trend continues
There will probably be a bit of a lull over the weekend and Monday. That's just measuring reductions, occurring most weekends in many countries.
From the article I linked above, the government have been sitting on the SAGE forecasts for at least two weeks:
And they really need to stop floating trial balloons on this issue.
And the unpredictability does as much damage as anything else. We could have, for example, from April, locked down (strict lockdown) the 4th the week of every month on a plan to do that till vaccine rollout.
It would make it much easier for businesses and individuals to plan, and would probably keep the R number low enough.
When schools went back I suggested a two week lockdown, with schools closed, every school holiday. In the same way as @Doublethink suggests, people could plan and hopefully it would keep the R number low enough.
The U.K. govt has been reactive instead of proactive from the beginning. Reacting to the effect of the virus rather than nipping it in the bud is plain stupid.
On October 30 - the global 7 day average was 485,956
A rise of nearly 2/3rds in a month.
And if that continues - we will be looking at 7 day averages of nearly 800,000 at the end of November if my maths is correct - and then 1.32m at the end of the year. I hope it doesn't.
Surely this will have made very little difference overall - unless the virus had been completely eliminated, we would be seeing the same exponential growth under current conditions.
The article is interesting. It seems to me that the alternative policies mentioned such as the extension of the furlough scheme are also aimed at stimulating demand. Having said that the retention of skills by businesses may also be a supply side benefit.
What I would like to know is whether there is any research into the health costs of a lock-down. It seems very likely to me to have had an impact on mental health and the knock-on effect on physical health seems likely. I undertook the Holmes-Rahe test the other day and the changes to my lifestyle stemming from the pandemic alone predict a 50
% chance of a major health issue in the next two years:
https://www.thecalculator.co/health/Holmes-And-Rahe-Stress-Scale-Calculator-983.html
A 2nd national lockdown may entail greater health risks than the first because it increases the chance of job losses and inflation. Is it possible that more people could die from the economic and stress impact than from the pandemic itself? Moreover if the economic crisis ultimately reduces funding for the NHS might that not also cause deaths?
It seems likely that some austerity measures will also be necessary and this will also surely result in deaths. If austerity does not occur that doesn't necessarily mean that people are better off, as it would be likely to simply increase unemployment and inflation. At some point the number of deaths resulting from the economic impact of the measures taken in response to the pandemic may exceed those resulting from it. I'm not sure how you go about assessing that though or whether there has been any research. I'm only speculating here and can;t be sure that a 2nd lockdown would not lead to optimal outcomes.
1. Lockdown: reduced deaths from covid + increased indirect deaths, economic costs of shutdown, cost to government of furlough and similar.
2. No-lockdown: Many more deaths from covid + indirect deaths, economic costs of people voluntarily not going out or businesses closing from too many staff being ill (or dead), cost to government of increased benefits claims etc.
As you say, it's a matter of opinion -- but your guy is actually going to institute a lockdown, while ours is holding super-spreading events and thinks wearing masks is for losers. It seems, though, that what passes for leadership in Belgium is saying, "Hold my beer."
Likewise, economically, if a lot of people die in a short time, it will significantly disrupt the economy.
There are 65 million people in the country, roughly, about 10% have had it. If we let the virus spread exponentially without intervention, that’s another 58 and a half million to catch it. About 1 in 5 of those would need hospital care, and approximately 1% of the 58 and a half million will die.
So do nothing is 585000 excess deaths inside a very small window of time - that’s roughly 100% more than usual in a single year and doesn’t include people dying because everything that is disrupted by the process. I mean I am not even sure we’d be able to manage the bodies.
Relying on remedial care in order to keep the economy open would bust the NHS and lead to increased medical deaths from other causes.
It’s not an option.
Plus on the Trump/Johnson dimension, I support Ruth’s view. Trump is still in the race though the odds are against him. But I think the current COVID-19 experiences in the key battleground States will ultimately count against him. He’s ignored the science and the numbers, he’s lied and he’s failed. He deserves to lose for those reasons alone.
I can't find a link just at the moment, but apparently it's to be called *Reform UK*, and its main platform is Anti-Lockdown...
The opposite of Lockdown is Lockup, which is where these people should be, for their own and everyone else's safety. I know it's wicked of me, but I really hope that they become some of the 25000 new cases per day. That might make them think - I don't wish them dead, just sensible for once.
You really couldn't make it up, but I expect there are Unicorns, and Sunny Uplands, involved.
I'm anti lockdown, so presumably you'd like me to get COVID too? Have you finished your intercessions for today?
(The latter are those putting aside their selfishness and ignorance for the common good).
FWIW, I'm 69, in poor health, and fairly vulnerable. I don't much like lockdown, either, but it may be for the benefit of many, not just me.
Let's not have anyone wishing anyone else gets ill please. That's different to warning of the consequences of ignoring medical advice.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
The last two days have been bad days for the world, and particularly for Europe and the USA.
For the world.
4 November: 570k new cases, 9056 deaths
5 November: 609k new cases (new high), 8771 deaths
For Europe.
4 November: 288k new cases, 3916 deaths
5 November: 314k new cases (new high), 3706 deaths
For USA
4 November: 108k new cases, 1200 deaths
5 November: 118k new cases (new high), 1127 deaths
The autumn surge continues and things are getting worse in Europe and the USA.
Noted, and I apologise for overstepping the mark.
Global case totals will probably top 50 million tomorrow. The USA has now topped 10 million cases overall,
9 thousand more have died throughout the world, over 4300 in Europe and over 1100 in the USA.
It is worth repeating that these numbers are being set at the same time as cases and deaths in India and Brazil have declined significantly.
Another very grim day.
The global new case total for 6 November was 623k.
The US daily total was 132k. 37 States reported more than a thousand new cases. The virus is widespread and spreading wider. R numbers are above 1 for every State apart from Mississippi.
Global: new cases 598k, deaths 7436
Europe: new cases 307k, deaths 3189
USA: new cases 124k, deaths 1032.
Milestones: Globally, total cases topped 50 million.
Based on history, there will be reduced numbers on 8 and 9 November (Sunday and Monday) caused by reduced availability of data at weekends.
Global 542k new cases, 9190 deaths
Europe 235k new cases, 4863 deaths
USA 136k new cases, 1,345 deaths
Global: 613k new cases, 10,130 deaths.
Europe: 269k new cases, 4,781 deaths
USA: 143k new cases (new high), 1,479 deaths
In Europe, the UK topped 50k total deaths, the worst in Europe.
In the USA, 26 States had more than 2 thousand new cases, 37 had more than a thousand new cases.
Shocking figures.
Google led me to this fascinating article in the BMJ:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3575
Uruguay has succeeded by a) swift action b) listening to scientists and c) testing, testing, testing.
They refer to 'Matrix Pool Testing', which is a neat idea - I heard an article on Radio 4 about it a couple of weeks ago. If anyone wants a summary...:
In the war it was worked out that when routine-testing squaddies for syphilis, it was more efficient to combine (say) 10 samples, and clear all 10 individuals when the batch came back negative. If it came back positive, one would re-test all 10 individually. More recently someone had the idea that if B62, M-in-M, NEQ etc etc all had their tests (for covid, natch