Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): The Disease & Its Spread (Per Se)

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Just in case anyone missed it in the daily update of numbers I posted earlier;
Just 14% of the 202 NHS Trusts in England reported 'new' deaths today.
A total of 59 'new' deaths.
All but 4 were over 60 years old.

My previous 'green line' graph that I created on May 19th using the ONS data which itself was 2 weeks old (which was a rather 'blunt tool'), projected that deaths from all settings would be zero by the 25th. Well, it's pretty damn close.
 

Ogdred Weary

Drag Queen of Dragons
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
5,653
Reaction score
10,713
Points
289
Just in case anyone missed it in the daily update of numbers I posted earlier;
Just 14% of the 202 NHS Trusts in England reported 'new' deaths today.
A total of 59 'new' deaths.
All but 4 were over 60 years old.

My previous 'green line' graph that I created on May 19th using the ONS data which itself was 2 weeks old (which was a rather 'blunt tool'), projected that deaths from all settings would be zero by the 25th. Well, it's pretty damn close.

The thin green line is clearly an inaccurate tool, you would have been better off scrawling a knob on it.
 

Ringo

Musky Sly Old Foxy Stoat
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
4,930
Points
189
Location
Stockholm
meanwhile in the Gaurdian a few days ago -
Just 7.3% of Stockholm had Covid-19 antibodies by end of April, study shows
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...dies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus
Tegnell, our State Epidemiologist at the Swedish Health Authority (FHM) has refuted their own study. He claims that the group FHM used turned out to be biased in favour of not having contracted it in the first place. He suggests that the actual number is much, much higher and they will be repeating the test asap.

I've been a firm supporter of FHM, Tegnell and the Swedish model but I must admit that even I now am getting sick of balls ups, lack of testing, improper tests and retracted statements. I don't think we have an incorrect strategy, I just think we don't have anything else to follow it up with. There are no plans for large scale testing, it just feels as if this is it an we have to just ride it out to wherever we end up.

It also raises the question that if the the highest Health authority in the country can't even conduct their own test correctly then how much confidence should we put into their interpretations of other tests and studies?

Life here is not back to normal. The same restrictions we have had since March still apply but people are getting lazy and dropping their guard. Distances are shortening, stores are busy again and people are out and about.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
30,889
Reaction score
47,484
Points
289
Life here is not back to normal. The same restrictions we have had since March still apply but people are getting lazy and dropping their guard. Distances are shortening, stores are busy again and people are out and about.

I know a lot of people (people with a brain) agree with you mate because they've told me and I've watched it: people walking up into my personal space, a couple of women who were having a 2ft apart 'meet up chat' a couple of weeks ago that caused one man to just smile at me and shrug .. people are dropping their guard .. people need to take this situation seriously.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Todays (26/5/20) NHS England 'new deaths' figures released.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Todays figures and notable statistics;
116 reported 'new' deaths today;
Daily cumulative totals have not gone above 100 since Friday.
163 of the 202 trusts today reported 0 new deaths (That's 81%)
The greatest number of 'new' deaths is 9 from East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, the oldest being 5 from May 22nd
13 'new' deaths are over a week old - the oldest being 2 from Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust from April 8th (more than 6 weeks ago).
Monday this week (yesterday) showing 23 - however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.

Todays deaths by age group;
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 0
40-59 = 6
60-78 = 42
80+ = 68

Below I show my running totals for;
Existing deaths + New deaths = New totals (If no 'new' to add then no calculation has been entered)
(since Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released).

T 811
F 615
S 1107 (Saturday April 4th)
S 1094
M 940
T 808
W 889+2=891
T 778+1=779
F 735+1=736
S 770 (April 11th)
S 715
M 690
T 644
W 683
T 631
F 605
S 567 (April 18th)
S 518
M 558
T 479
W 490
T 448
F 433
S 386 (April 25th)
S 378
M 342
T 340
W 319
T 301+1=302
F 302
S 264 (May 2nd)
S 245+2=247
M 251+1=252
T 247
W 249+1=250
T 242
F 199+1=200
S 194 (May 9th)
S 188
M 156
T 175+1=176
W 152
T 157
F 154+1=155
S 158+1=159 (May 16th)
S 131
M 131
T 133+2=135
W 137+1=138
T 123+1=124
F 75+11=86
S 56+25=81
S 19+40=59
M -------------23

(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the past 24 hours)
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Numbers of NHS England deaths are getting lower and lower (....good).
Once the figures drop below 10 'new' deaths for the preceding day I will stop producing a daily update.
I will however continue to remark on any significant statistical info, like an unusually high number from one NHS Trust, or a sudden increase somewhere.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Todays (27/5/20) NHS England 'new deaths' figures released.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Todays figures and notable statistics;
183 reported 'new' deaths today;
Plus another 66 deaths reported today as (unusually) "awaiting verification". I'm not sure what that means. Checking that they're actually dead?
None of the 202 trusts today reported 0 new deaths, which is extremely odd.
I'm sensing a NHS figures f**k up today, so I will have to go with they have confirmed so far, hopefully a correction will be issued later.
I am not able to provide a breakdown of 'new' deaths as the supplied numbers from the NHS figures is not verified yet.

Tuesday this week (yesterday) showing 24 - however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.

Todays deaths by age group (not yet verified);
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 0
40-59 = 16
60-78 = 63
80+ = 104

Below I show my running totals for;
Existing deaths + New deaths = New totals (If no 'new' to add then no calculation has been entered)
(since Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released).

T 811
F 615
S 1107 (Saturday April 4th)
S 1094
M 940
T 808
W 891
T 779
F 736
S 770 (April 11th)
S 715
M 690
T 644+1=645
W 683
T 631
F 605
S 567 (April 18th)
S 518
M 558
T 479
W 490+3=493
T 448
F 433+2=435
S 386 (April 25th)
S 378
M 342
T 340
W 319+1=320
T 302+2=304
F 302
S 264 (May 2nd)
S 247
M 252
T 247
W 250
T 242
F 200
S 194 (May 9th)
S 188
M 156
T 176
W 152
T 157
F 155+2=157
S 159 (May 16th)
S 131+1=132
M 131+6=137
T 135+1=136
W 138+6=144
T 124+7=131
F 86+16=102
S 81+16=97 (May 23rd)
S 59+28=87
M 23+64=87
T ------------24

(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the past 24 hours)
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Todays release of the NHS data was updated at about 5pm, removing the 'unverified' data, and including a line about there being an error in the reporting system.
Fortunately my aversion to using unchecked data meant that my update (only including the 'verified' data) is accurate.
Normal service will be resumed tomorrow (hopefully), but I get a little concerned when the release of the official data is beset by errors.

My reading of the excel data today led me to believe that there were two issues;
The 'totals' column included data from 'hidden' columns that it shouldn't have (common when a spreadsheet has been created by one person, and then populated with data by another person who doesn't fully understand the formulas).
Data was received late and then an attempt was made to include it in todays figures at the last minute (asking for trouble).
Both my suspicions appear to have been borne out.

These issues with todays report though also highlighted another 'inclusion' that I hadn't noticed before.
At some point the NHS data also started including reports from (I think they are) private hospitals operating under an NHS direction.
There is something like an additional 16 facilities reporting into this dataset now, which isn't really very much of a problem, only that it means that where (for example) I have spoken about "81% of 202 hospital trusts", it's more like 85%.

As you were!
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Oh and plenty of Trusts DID report zero new deaths today (I think about 120) as the dataset shown on todays report only had about 80 facilities giving data.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
22,881
Reaction score
33,627
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
This Smithsonian Magazine article provides an overview of the reasons why issues of COVID-19 immune responses, resulting immunity, and antibodies' viability as treatments are complicated and still murky.
Why Immunity to the Novel Coronavirus Is So Complicated

Some immune responses may be enough to make a person impervious to reinfection, but scientists don’t yet know how the human body reacts to this new virus

Even before the blood left his arm, André Valleteau suspected he knew what his doctors would find.

Just weeks before, the 27-year-old from Toronto had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. The symptoms hit him hard: headache, cough, sore throat and fatigue that relegated him to his bed 15 hours a day. “It didn’t matter how many times I napped,” he says. “I was tired until the next time I napped again.”

Valleteau, a researcher coordinator at a pharmaceutical company, spent two weeks self-isolating and recovering, then decided he wanted to help others do the same. He contacted a local researcher and offered up his blood—along with the disease-fighting antibodies that likely teemed within. Indeed, Valleteau’s blood tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and a team of scientists is now studying molecules from patients like Valleteau in the hopes they can inform the development of drugs or vaccines to vanquish the virus.

Antibodies, which the body makes in response to dangerous microbes like SARS-CoV-2, are crucial for defending against disease. Many can glom onto pathogens and subdue them before they have a chance to encounter vulnerable human cells. Antibodies are also evidence: Some COVID-19 tests target these molecules because they show that someone has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. (And as previously reported, the possibility of false negatives or false positives, which are more common with some tests than others, can sometimes muddle attempts to pinpoint past infections.)

Even then, while a positive antibody test (also called a serology test) can say a lot about the past, it may not indicate much about a person’s future. Researchers still don’t know if antibodies that recognize SARS-CoV-2 prevent people from catching the virus a second time—or, if they do, how long that protection might last.

Immunity isn’t binary, but a continuum—and having an immune response, like those that can be measured by antibody tests, doesn’t make a person impervious to disease. “There’s this impression that ‘immunity’ means you’re 100 percent protected, that you’ll never be infected again,” says Rachel Graham, an virologist studying coronaviruses at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. “But having immunity just means your immune system is responding to something”—not how well it’s poised to guard you from subsequent harm. ...

FULL STORY: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/coronavirus-immunity-complicated-180974970/
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Todays (28/5/20) NHS England 'new deaths' figures released.
Hopefully they haven't completely messed it up like they did yesterday.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Todays figures and notable statistics;
185 reported 'new' deaths today;
Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust reported 13 'new' deaths, (the largest number reported in this release) and also has the oldest death, from April 10th.
I have to estimate the number of trusts that report no new deaths as they are hidden on this release.
117 of the 202 trusts today appear to have reported 0 new deaths (58%)
19 'new' deaths are over a week old.

Wednesday this week (yesterday) showing 29 - however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.

Todays deaths by age group;
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 1
40-59 = 14
60-78 = 65
80+ = 105

Below I show my running totals for;
Existing deaths + New deaths = New totals (If no 'new' to add then no calculation has been entered)
(since Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released).

T 811
F 615
S 1107 (Saturday April 4th)
S 1094
M 940
T 808
W 891
T 779
F 736+1=737
S 770+2=772 (April 11th)
S 715
M 690+1=691
T 645
W 683
T 631+1=632
F 605+1=606
S 567+1=568 (April 18th)
S 518
M 558
T 479+1=480
W 493
T 448
F 435+1=436
S 386 (April 25th)
S 378
M 342
T 340
W 320
T 304+1=305
F 302
S 264+1=265 (May 2nd)
S 247
M 252
T 247
W 250+1=251
T 242
F 200
S 194 (May 9th)
S 188
M 156
T 176+1=177
W 152
T 157+1=158
F 157
S 159 (May 16th)
S 132
M 137+3=140
T 136
W 144+2=146
T 131+5=136
F 102+14=116
S 97+14=111 (May 23rd)
S 87+12=99
M 87+19=108
T 24+73=97
W --------------29

(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the past 24 hours)
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
22,881
Reaction score
33,627
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
The evidence available to date supports the Chinese claim that the COVID-19 outbreak didn't actually begin at the oft-accused wet market in Wuhan. It will probably be a long time before a soundly-supported origin trail can be established, assuming a reasonable such trail is ever found.
The coronavirus didn't really start at that Wuhan 'wet market'

Early reports blamed a market where live animals were sold, but evidence now shows they were wrong.

The first case of SARS-CoV-2 didn't emerge from a Wuhan wet market, according to experts at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Instead, the live animal market may have been the site of a superspreader event, where one person spread the virus to many other people, one US-based expert told Live Science.

Since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, reports have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) jumped from animals to humans in Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Now, experts at the WIV have said publicly that the theory was wrong, and that the virus must have originated elsewhere, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

"I haven't seen anything that makes me feel, as a researcher who studies zoonotic disease, that this market is a likely option," said Colin Carlson, a professor at Georgetown University who studies the spread of such zoonotic viruses, which transmit between animals and humans. Carlson does not work for the WIV. ...

The theory was plausible, he said. ... Wet markets, where lots of different species of live animals are clustered, and lots of humans come into contact with them, offer opportunities for that sort of transmission. And the outbreak of another coronavirus, dubbed SARS, began at a similar market in 2002, after that virus spread from bats to civets.

A number of early cases of the outbreak in Wuhan were tied to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Later, researchers took environmental samples that suggested the virus had landed on surfaces in the market. But in the period since, tissue samples from the market's animals have revealed no trace of the virus. For the virus to jump from animals to humans, the animals have to actually be carrying it.

"None of the animals tested positive. So since January, this has not actually been particularly conclusive. But this has developed into a narrative," he said. ...

"This is an animal-origin virus that made the leap, maybe from bats to humans, maybe through… another animal, maybe through livestock. And we don't have the data yet to know where or how," he said. "That takes time. The study that really definitively showed the bats that SARS came from was published in 2017," roughly 15 years after the outbreak first occurred.

"It took that long to go through caves, to go through samples, and build an evidence base where we could confidently say: 'This was the sort of bat, in this cave, at this time," Carlson said.

So when will we know for sure where SARS-CoV-2 came from? Ruling out one site took a few months. Finding the definitive origin site will likely take much longer, he said.

FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-wet-market.html
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
18,400
Points
314
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's best estimates using currently available stats:

a) If you contract the virus:

35% of infections are asymptomatic, i.e. you have C19 but it doesn't affect you at all.

b) If you contract the virus and develop symptoms, age-related fatality rates are as follows:

0-49: 0.0005

50-64: 0.002

65+: 0.013

Overall: 0.004

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#box

In simple terms, we have destroyed society for a disease that will kill 0.4% of those who actually develop symptoms.

For everyone who contracts the virus, symptoms or no, the case/fatality rate is even lower at 0.26%

God help us if a serious disease comes along.

maximus otter
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Todays (29/5/20) NHS England 'new deaths' figures released.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Todays figures and notable statistics;
149 reported 'new' deaths today;
Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust reported 14 'new' deaths, (the largest number reported in this release)
The oldest death reported today is from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust from March 19th (over 9 weeks ago - where are they finding these deaths???)
There are 67 trusts/facilities that have reported 'new' deaths today.
I have to estimate the number of trusts that report no new deaths as they are hidden on this release.
At least 135 of the 202 (or more) trusts/facilities today appear to have reported 0 new deaths
19 'new' deaths are over a week old.

Thursday this week (yesterday) showing 36 - however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.

Todays deaths by age group;
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 0
40-59 = 12
60-78 = 50
80+ = 87

Below I show my running totals for;
Existing deaths + New deaths = New totals (If no 'new' to add then no calculation has been entered)
(since Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released).

T 811
F 615
S 1107 (Saturday April 4th)
S 1094
M 940+1=941
T 808
W 891
T 779
F 737
S 772 (April 11th)
S 715
M 691
T 645+1=646
W 683
T 632
F 606
S 568 (April 18th)
S 518
M 558+2=560
T 480
W 493
T 448
F 436
S 386 (April 25th)
S 378
M 342
T 340
W 320
T 305+2=307
F 302
S 265 (May 2nd)
S 247+1=248
M 252
T 247+1=248
W 251+1=252
T 242+1=243
F 200
S 194 (May 9th)
S 188
M 156
T 177
W 152+1=153
T 158
F 157
S 159+2=161 (May 16th)
S 132+1=133
M 140
T 136+2=138
W 146+1=147
T 136+1=137
F 116+1=117
S 111+3=114 (May 23rd)
S 99+4=103
M 108+10=118
T 97+17=114
W 29+59=88
T ------------36

(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the past 24 hours)
 

Ladyloafer

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
2,407
Points
154
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's best estimates using currently available stats:

a) If you contract the virus:

35% of infections are asymptomatic, i.e. you have C19 but it doesn't affect you at all.

b) If you contract the virus and develop symptoms, age-related fatality rates are as follows:

0-49: 0.0005

50-64: 0.002

65+: 0.013

Overall: 0.004

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#box

In simple terms, we have destroyed society for a disease that will kill 0.4% of those who actually develop symptoms.

For everyone who contracts the virus, symptoms or no, the case/fatality rate is even lower at 0.26%

God help us if a serious disease comes along.

maximus otter
It is a serious disease. It may not have the death rate predicted but those who do become ill can be serious, horribly ill.

Spending a week on a ventilator followed by several weeks in icu and maybe months recovering and rehabilitating is better than being dead but certainly serious.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
32,310
Reaction score
20,055
Points
314
I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people who have died will be relieved to know it wasn't that serious.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
18,400
Points
314
...those who do become ill can be serious, horribly ill.

Symptomatic Case Hospitalization Ratio, stratified by age:

0–49 years: 0.017
50–64 years: 0.045
65+ years: 0.074

Overall: 0.034


GNC said:
I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people who have died will be relieved to know it wasn't that serious.

About 365,000 if you believe the dubious statistics. (Died of? Died with? Displayed symptoms similar to?) Or, in other terms, very close to twice the number who die, just in the UK, from cancer alone, each year.

maximus otter
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
22,881
Reaction score
33,627
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
These releases seem to be urgent ... Survey studies since the first of the year have found that people infected with COVID-19 risk a significanlty heightened mortality following surgery - including elective surgery.
COVID-19 patients who undergo surgery are at increased risk of postoperative death

Patients undergoing surgery after contracting coronavirus are at greatly increased risk of postoperative death, a new global study published in The Lancet reveals. Researchers found that amongst SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who underwent surgery, mortality rates approach those of the sickest patients admitted to intensive care after contracting the virus in the community.

Researchers examined data for 1,128 patients from 235 hospitals. A total of 24 countries participated, predominantly in Europe, although hospitals in Africa, Asia, and North America also contributed.

Experts at the University of Birmingham-led NIHR Global Research Health Unit on Global Surgery have now published their findings that SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who undergo surgery experience substantially worse postoperative outcomes than would be expected for similar patients who do not have SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Overall 30-day mortality in the study was 23.8%. Mortality was disproportionately high across all subgroups, including elective surgery (18.9%), emergency surgery (25.6%), minor surgery such as appendicectomy or hernia repair (16.3%), and major surgery such as hip surgery or colon cancer surgery (26.9%).

The study identified that mortality rates were higher in men (28.4%) versus women (18.2%), and in patients aged 70 years or over (33.7%) versus those aged under 70 years (13.9%). In addition to age and sex, risk factors for postoperative death included having severe pre-existing medical problems, undergoing cancer surgery, undergoing major procedures, and undergoing emergency surgery.

Report co-author Aneel Bhangu, Senior Lecturer in Surgery at the University of Birmingham, commented: "We would normally expect mortality for patients having minor or elective surgery to be under 1%, but our study suggests that in SARS-CoV-2 patients these mortality rates are much higher in both minor surgery (16.3%) and elective surgery (18.9%). In fact, these mortality rates are greater than those reported for even the highest-risk patients before the pandemic; for example, the 2019 UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit reported 30-day mortality of 16.9% in the highest-risk patients, and a previous study across 58 countries reported a 30-day mortality of 14.9% in patients undergoing high-risk emergency surgery."

"We recommend that thresholds for surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should be raised compared to normal practice. For example, men aged 70 years and over undergoing emergency surgery are at particularly high risk of mortality, so these patients may benefit from their procedures being postponed." ...

FULL STORY: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/uob-cpw052920.php

See Also:

Please see special handling
Clinicians must carefully balance risk of complications linked to SARS-CoV2 infection with risks of delaying surgery, but study suggests threshold for surgery should be raised compared to normal practice ...

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/tl-pss052920.php
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Todays (30/5/20) NHS England 'new deaths' figures released.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Todays figures and notable statistics;
It truly baffles me that we are still seeing deaths which occurred several weeks ago only just being reported now.
146 reported 'new' deaths today;
Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust reported the most 'new' deaths, 12, the oldest one being from April 11th.
The oldest death reported today is from North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust from April 3rd (over 7 weeks ago - where are they finding these deaths???)
There are 72 trusts/facilities that have reported 'new' deaths today.
I have to estimate the number of trusts that report no new deaths as they are hidden on this release.
At least 130 of the 202 (or more) trusts/facilities today appear to have reported 0 new deaths
41 'new' deaths are over a week old.

Friday this week (yesterday) showing 20 - however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.

Todays deaths by age group;
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 0
40-59 = 6
60-78 = 55
80+ = 85

Below I show my running totals for;
Existing deaths + New deaths = New totals (If no 'new' to add then no calculation has been entered)
(since Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released).

T 811
F 615+1=616
S 1107+1=1108 (Saturday April 4th)
S 1094
M 941+1=942
T 808
W 891
T 779
F 737
S 772+1=773 (April 11th)
S 715
M 691
T 646
W 683+1=684
T 632
F 606+1=607
S 568 (April 18th)
S 518+2=520
M 560+1=561
T 480
W 493+2=495
T 448
F 436
S 386+1=387 (April 25th)
S 378
M 342
T 340
W 320
T 307+1=308
F 302+1=303
S 265 (May 2nd)
S 248+1=249
M 252+1=253
T 248
W 252+4=256
T 243+2=245
F 200+2=202
S 194+3=197 (May 9th)
S 188+2=190
M 156+3=159
T 177+1=178
W 153
T 158+1=159
F 157
S 161+1=162 (May 16th)
S 133
M 140+1=141
T 138
W 147+1=148
T 137+2=139
F 117+1=118
S 114+1=115 (May 23rd)
S 103+5=108
M 118+6=124
T 114+9=123
W 88+14=102
T 36+51=87
F --------------20

(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the past 24 hours)
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Numbers plummeting now.

Todays (31/5/20) NHS England 'new deaths' figures released.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Todays figures and notable statistics;
Friday 29th May (2 days ago) now has a total figure of x51. This is a big drop from the day before which had a total of x87.
It truly baffles me though that we are still seeing deaths which occurred many weeks ago only just being reported now.
85 reported 'new' deaths today;
Luton and Dunstable University Hospitals NHS Trust reported the most 'new' deaths, 8, the oldest one being from April 7th.
The oldest death reported today is from Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust from March 25th (over 8 weeks ago - where are they finding these deaths???)
There are only 43 trusts/facilities that have reported 'new' deaths today.
I have to estimate the number of trusts that report no new deaths as they are hidden on this release.
At least 159 of the 202 (or more) trusts/facilities today appear to have reported 0 new deaths
21 'new' deaths are over a week old.

Saturday this week (yesterday) showing 15 - however, as the daily figure is communicated to NHS England at 5pm each day the total for the whole of yesterday is not complete.

Todays deaths by age group;
0-19 = 0
20-39 = 0
40-59 = 5
60-78 = 33
80+ = 47

Below I show my running totals for;
Existing deaths + New deaths = New totals (If no 'new' to add then no calculation has been entered)
(since Thursday April 2nd, the date I started logging the numbers officially released).

T 811
F 616
S 1108 (Saturday April 4th)
S 1094+1=1095
M 942
T 808+2=810
W 891+1=892
T 779
F 737
S 773 (April 11th)
S 715
M 691+1=692
T 646
W 684
T 632
F 607
S 568 (April 18th)
S 520
M 561+1=562
T 480
W 495+2=497
T 448
F 436+1=437
S 387 (April 25th)
S 378
M 342
T 340
W 320
T 308
F 303
S 265 (May 2nd)
S 249
M 253
T 248
W 256
T 245
F 202+2=204
S 197+1=198 (May 9th)
S 190+1=191
M 159+1=160
T 178
W 153+1=154
T 159+1=160
F 157+1=158
S 162 (May 16th)
S 133
M 141+2=143
T 138
W 148+1=149
T 139+1=140
F 118
S 115 (May 23rd)
S 108
M 124+4=128
T 123+2=125
W 102+4=106
T 87+7=94
F 20+31=51
S --------------15

(Figures supplied by NHS England date back to the beginning of March when the UK recorded it's first day with more than 50 deaths.
The figures released daily include deaths from the day on which they happened, so can be from any previous day NOT from just within the past 24 hours)
 

Ogdred Weary

Drag Queen of Dragons
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
5,653
Reaction score
10,713
Points
289
You could have told me that it was some sort of statistical magick and I would have believed you.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
11,304
Points
224
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Oh.

It is some sort of statistical magick.

Done deliberately to make people notice it and question it.
That way I know that somebody is reading it.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
33,012
Reaction score
41,815
Points
314
Location
East of Suez
I posted similar charts a month ago and the picture remains the same: young children mostly don't get it/display symptoms; young adults are very likely to be infected as they are the most gregarious and 'ranging' in behaviour; older folks are less likely to contract (owing to lifestyle) but are massively more likely to suffer badly and die. Total sample for this data (South Korean) is 11,441. There have been only 3 or 4 cases of the as yet hazy 'multisystem inflammatory syndrome' in children, but the cases were mild and recoveries were all quick.

Screenshot 2020-06-01 at 11.57.12.png
 
Top