A few more days like today and they'll be changing their mind. Today's UK daily death rate was more than the combined total of any two other European countries. The UK also came close to achieving that nadir using yesterday's figures.
The stats seem to show that it's not only Germany that has turned things around in Europe. There's a clear downward cumulative trend in deaths in Italy, Spain and France as well.
There is a clear downward trend in the UK too. Its been going on for 2+ weeks.
If there is its pretty minimal looking at the Worldometer charts and it certainly doesn't compare with the pace of the fall in those other countries. Hence the current disparity in daily death rates between the UK and elsewhere in Europe seems to be widening.
Head desk...thud.....take no notice of the daily announced headline figure (or the ones on Worldometer). Use the ones from the official government source that provides them by actual date of death. Once you do that...you get the actual picture, and our decline looks a bit than the likes of Spain, France and Italy.
ut others failing to understand things that are blindingly obvious to me.
Also worth noting that even the likes of David Paton are missing that you need to look at the speed of the whole reporting pattern, not just compare results after x days and hope they're comparable.
'Speed' is all over the place with loads of backfitted cases. Quite how George Elliot added a death that occured on 11th March to its 25th April figures I'm not sure but it's now in the data and wasn't on the 24th April.
My standing assumption for life insurance claims is that it takes on average 8 weeks for the estate to notify the insurer of the claim. Granted, this isn't quite the same thing, but it's sort of close. I actually think the reporting's been pretty ok, given the difficulties of co-ordinating with all the trusts all over the country, and the stresses they're under. Particularly that the ones with the most to report are probably the ones under most stress.
It wouldn't make a significant difference either way. The important thing is having it in place once transmission is under control.
Shouldn't that be happening in the first week of lockdown, ie you go into lockdown and the only transmission is to people you're locked down with, then no more after that (assuming a perfectly-functioning lockdown).
It wouldn't make a significant difference either way. The important thing is having it in place once transmission is under control.
Shouldn't that be happening in the first week of lockdown, ie you go into lockdown and the only transmission is to people you're locked down with, then no more after that (assuming a perfectly-functioning lockdown).
I don't think it's perfectly functioning. How many millions are still going to work, for example?
Fascinating Sunday Times front page. Leads with the claim that grandees are wanting an end to lockdown and then proceeds to skewer them by describing them all as billionaire financier, millionaire banker and so on. Very unsubtly it plays on people’s suspicions that a lot of rich men want those less well off to put themselves at risk to save those fortunes.
Even after 15,000 returnees to the Republic from the murderous Cheltenham Festival?
Just done some insomniac number crunching on GB Vs Italy at local level. I wouldn't yet read much into RoI Vs NI.
So, Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in areas with higher, up to 4x, incidence than any single GB low level area - the hotspot area has drifted a bit west relative to the initial outbreak to incorporate Piedmont, Liguria and mostly exclude Veneto, whilst still centred on Lombardy and Northern Emilia. I think mostly regelects that Italy is further on, but some impact of how far local spread went before lockdown.
Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in low incidence areas (<100 cases per 100000, covering most areas south of Rome and none north). The equivalent UK cool spots in SW England, Fen counties and Highlands & (most) Islands, cover about 10% of the population.
Very low incidence areas (<50 per 100000) cover 10% of Italy, mainly south and west facing coast areas south of Rome. In the UK only Orkney, Western Isles and Rutland still showing at this level.
So, RoI Vs NI: areas South and SW of hot spots/cities, SW facing coasts and areas much further from large population centres could all.be relevant factors.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ClancyNeil/status/1254014377046544384
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-9-more-charter-flights-from-pakistan-to-return-thousands-of-stranded-brits
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/25/two-weeks-quarantine-travelling-uk/
So, Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in areas with higher, up to 4x, incidence than any single GB low level area - the hotspot area has drifted a bit west relative to the initial outbreak to incorporate Piedmont, Liguria and mostly exclude Veneto, whilst still centred on Lombardy and Northern Emilia. I think mostly regelects that Italy is further on, but some impact of how far local spread went before lockdown.
Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in low incidence areas (<100 cases per 100000, covering most areas south of Rome and none north). The equivalent UK cool spots in SW England, Fen counties and Highlands & (most) Islands, cover about 10% of the population.
Very low incidence areas (<50 per 100000) cover 10% of Italy, mainly south and west facing coast areas south of Rome. In the UK only Orkney, Western Isles and Rutland still showing at this level.
So, RoI Vs NI: areas South and SW of hot spots/cities, SW facing coasts and areas much further from large population centres could all.be relevant factors.