Coronavirus (OLD)

Originally Posted by Chris

That we’re the best and most honest at collating the figures, apparently.

https://order-order.com/2020/05/03/h...ely-reporting/

Head of British Statistics say British Statistics are best, even though Belgium and France started counting COVID-19 deaths outside of hospitals long before we did...

Also, an example of evolution in action...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's currently a lot closer than I thought. Your chat with Mr K made me look the stats up - the countries with the most deaths in Europe are the UK with 28,446 and Italy with 28,884. (I appreciate that countries may measure CV-19 deaths in different ways and with different timeliness of data.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52524001

The stats mean nothing at present unless you think we are on the downside of this.

As with Mr K I'll discuss this with you this time next year.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Seeing at the rates vary widely within Germany itself, testing cannot be the reason.

That's a 7.5 fold difference between lowest and highest. Did Bayern do anything wrong?

Put into the full light, it's all perfectly explainable.

1/
Bayern

Population 13m people
Land density: 70552/Sq. km
Deaths: 3266/million
Munchen alone: 1.2m people so will have a similar profile to Hamburg

2/
Hamburg

Population 1.8m people
Land density: 2439/Sq. km
Deaths: 2515/million
Munchen would thus account for at least 2525 out of Bayern's 3266

1/
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Population 1.6m people
Land density: 69/Sq. km
Deaths: 434/million
Not exactly densely populated.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Put into the full light, it's all perfectly explainable.

1/
Bayern

Population 13m people
Land density: 70552/Sq. km
Deaths: 3266/million
Munchen alone: 1.2m people so will have a similar profile to Hamburg

2/
Hamburg

Population 1.8m people
Land density: 2439/Sq. km
Deaths: 2515/million
Munchen would thus account for at least 2525 out of Bayern's 3266

1/
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Population 1.6m people
Land density: 69/Sq. km
Deaths: 434/million
Not exactly densely populated.

So still totally unconnected to testing.


You cannot compare population densities by simply dividing the population by land area. Populations are not spread in a uniform manner. Geography of the land tends to get in the way. Eg Mali looks big, but it has a large chunk of the Sahara desert.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The stats mean nothing at present unless you think we are on the downside of this.

As with Mr K I'll discuss this with you this time next year.

The fact that the two countries are apparently so close in numbers does mean that Mr K's assertion that "We'll soon have the most deaths in Europe" is possible even if it is for a short period of time.
What this data indicates is another matter entirely.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So still totally unconnected to testing.


You cannot compare population densities by simply dividing the population by land area. Populations are not spread in a uniform manner. Geography of the land tends to get in the way. Eg Mali looks big, but it has a large chunk of the Sahara desert.

Nomad, you put the question: "Did Bayern do anything wrong?".

Hamburg is one big city; Bayern is a highly populated area with a city (Munich) the size of Hamburg accounting for a similar number of deaths per million and the rest being down to the people distribution in the remainder of Bayern. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is barely populated by comparison.

I think my representation of the statistics totally explains the variances in deaths per million. How you can deny that leaves me bemused.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Nomad, you put the question: "Did Bayern do anything wrong?".

Hamburg is one big city; Bayern is a highly populated area with a city (Munich) the size of Hamburg accounting for a similar number of deaths per million and the rest being down to the people distribution in the remainder of Bayern. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is barely populated by comparison.

I think my representation of the statistics totally explains the variances in deaths per million. How you can deny that leaves me bemused.

My point is that it highlights the fact that testing wasn't the reason for that and other variations. You simply cannot compare countries or areas by population size or area.

My point about population density also still stands. Doesn't matter what the size of the country or population, the population can still be crammed into small areas. Eg is the population of Australia uniformly spread, or is there heavy concentrations in cities? Around 1.4m of the 5.5m population of Scotland live in just 4 cities.



There are examples around the world where small and remote areas have been heavily infected compared to the larger surrounding area.

Gallup, a city of 22,000, is a shopping hub for the bordering remote Navajo Nation and McKinley County

• Under the Riot Control Act, anyone who fails to comply with restrictions is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction of a second offense is guilty of a fourth-degree felony
• In McKinley County, which covers Gallup, there are 1,064 cases of the virus and there have been 20 deaths, more than 30 percent of the state's total cases

The numbers may be relatively small, but the proportion is high.

[jonbxx]

Is the German testing question to do with public health being a Länder/State responsibility? Germany is super federal compared to most countries.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

My point is that it highlights the fact that testing wasn't the reason for that and other variations. You simply cannot compare countries or areas by population size or area.

My point about population density also still stands. Doesn't matter what the size of the country or population, the population can still be crammed into small areas. Eg is the population of Australia uniformly spread, or is there heavy concentrations in cities? Around 1.4m of the 5.5m population of Scotland live in just 4 cities.



There are examples around the world where small and remote areas have been heavily infected compared to the larger surrounding area.
The numbers may be relatively small, but the proportion is high.

I accept the point you are making above about testing.

But your original post in this aspect used a loose basis for putting your question.

The bit I've highlighted in red is precisely what I was addressing.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I accept the point you are making above about testing.

But your original post in this aspect used a loose basis for putting your question.

The bit I've highlighted in red is precisely what I was addressing.

I'm trying to highlight the fact that testing isn't the factor certain people are trying to make out. So many other factors are in play. The concentrations of population, again highlight that you cannot compare areas/countries of similar population. Certain people are trying to claim country X did better, when there can be no possible way of comparing them. Even Germany has PPE and testing shortages, and they haven't been as badly affected as other countries.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I'm trying to highlight the fact that testing isn't the factor certain people are trying to make out. So many other factors are in play. The concentrations of population, again highlight that you cannot compare areas/countries of similar population. Certain people are trying to claim country X did better, when there can be no possible way of comparing them. Even Germany has PPE and testing shortages, and they haven't been as badly affected as other countries.

I'm only addressing the statistical basis for assessment.And you seem to be disagreeing yet your analogies (Sahara etc) are the same as my arguments.

I've addressed concentration of population in the examples you gave. And, of course I can compare Hamburg with Munich; that's in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

I'd like to know who else disagrees with me. My good friend jfman, for example and, of course my postcode compatriot - OB.

Because these things are not stand-alone - as the Imperial College paper stated, it's the combination and number of factors/things you do that affect the infection/sickness/death rate.

Also, socio-economic factors have an effect as well - deprived communities have higher infection/death rates.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I'm trying to highlight the fact that testing isn't the factor certain people are trying to make out. So many other factors are in play. The concentrations of population, again highlight that you cannot compare areas/countries of similar population. Certain people are trying to claim country X did better, when there can be no possible way of comparing them. Even Germany has PPE and testing shortages, and they haven't been as badly affected as other countries.

Testing was a major factor in the early stages. Countries that went big on it early on were able to track and isolate cases eg. Germany and S Korea.
By the time we realised the importance of testing it was too late, the disease was out of control. We gave up testing all but the seriously ill, which was a bit late to put it politely.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because these things are not stand-alone - as the Imperial College paper stated, it's the combination and number of factors/things you do that affect the infection/sickness/death rate.

Also, socio-economic factors have an effect as well - deprived communities have higher infection/death rates.

The above is absolutely right. For example, are the deprived communities deficient in vitamin D? And is vitamin D important in providing resistance to the virus, or does the virus overcome the protection of vitamin D?
Is it proved that the virus suppresses the messenger cells that stimulate the body to provide anti-bodies?

Or is it that the deprived communities don't as fully respect lock down?Or a combination of both that & vitamin D deficiency?

One thing I've picked up in all the scientific explanation is that the deaths are basically a form of drowning or suffocation in so far as oxygen cannot reach the vital organs.

The balls are in the air and that's why it'll take some time to sort it all out and provide a vaccine or two.


---------- Post added at 11:20 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Testing was a major factor in the early stages. Countries that went big on it early on were able to track and isolate cases eg. Germany and S Korea.
By the time we realised the importance of testing it was too late, the disease was out of control. We gave up testing all but the seriously ill, which was a bit late to put it politely.

All you're interested in is slagging the Guvmin off. It's a tiresome record. Try being constructive.

[Carth]

Testing HA!

There are people out there going to work every day in shops, factories, warehouses, public transport etc, that cannot request a test kit unless they have symptoms . .


bit bloody late then isn't it, considering they've had a few days to spread it around more