Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 07-10-2021, 17:01   #7446
nffc
cf.mega poster
 
nffc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: chavvy Nottingham
Age: 41
Services: Freeview, Sky+, 100 Mb/s VM BB, mega i7 PC, iPhone 13, Macbook Air
Posts: 7,432
nffc has a nice shiny star
nffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny starnffc has a nice shiny star
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 View Post
They don't count in the later ONS stats though.
I know. They are two different studies, like the ONS infection was revealed earlier to be as high as January. Quite how this can be the case with hospitalisations nowhere near is presumably only possible if it's mainly kids getting it now, or simply that the vaccine has reduced the illness in most jabbed people to be mild enough not to require it.



Given that they tend to work such studies by extrapolating from a stratified sample of the population, it is often likely to lead to something inaccurate. But then, the official figures only count the first positive test.


I don't think there's a significant variance between the ONS and Gov death figures though, despite the metrics being different, or wasn't at least last time I looked between them.


Suppose there's a reasonable assumption in most cases that someone who has died within 28 days of a positive test has probably died because of something related to catching covid, and if they do even include the car accident after recovering in the figures, these are unlikely to be high enough to be statistically significant anyway.
__________________


nffc is offline