With the terrible news of a further 46 deaths, the mortality rate in Scotland has risen from 4.8% to 5.7%.
The UK average mortality rate is 9.4%.
The rate in Spain is 12%.
The number recorded as infected, however, rose by 399 up from 292 the previous day but down from the peak of 430 three days ago and by no means ‘soaring’, suggesting some careful optimism.
Lyrics by John Robertson music by suno AI
Campaigning for climate jobs and a just transition
...searching for truth in the world.
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/talking-up-scotland
News, politics, insights, inside information from the left
A Son of Scotland
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/talking-up-scotland
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/talking-up-scotland
Media That Disrupts
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
John, they’ve changed the reporting criteria – so anyone dying of anything and also happens to test positive for Covid-19 is reported in these stats. That is, if you are fatally run over by a bus, but also happen to be Covid-19 positive, you are included. These figures are just not ‘mortality from Covid-19’ percentages.
Also, from yesterday:
“The current fatality rate *from confirmed infections* in Scotland is 4.84%. However, the *actual* fatality rate will likely be much lower, as there will be many unconfirmed infections. ”
(asterisks are my own addition)
from: https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/
So, it isn’t really a mortality rate of Covid-19 in any real sense: percentage positive cases are unknown, and how a death is recorded has changed half-way through recording the data (sorry for being so blunt about real deaths! None of this is pleasant, but it isn’t a big monster with a dystopian future to look forward to, it is on par with a bad flu epidemic. Horrible, but these large numbers are not realistic).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, its bad Contrary—perhaps a bad flu epidemic X 10.
Sweden is interesting. They are going for a slightly different strategy, mitigating and allowing a slow spread, hoping not to overwhelm the health system. Obviously has risks for the older population, but the Swedes are socially aware people to whom responsible behaviour (reporting symptoms etc) has been around for decades. Herd immunity for an adult-acting population. Though no one knows if immunity will last, or the virus mutate yearly–or like SARS and MURS simply mutate out of existence.
I read (New York Times) that the seriousness of the infection is related to how much contact with the virus you get. Limited contact—fairly low dose. High contact–potentially fatal.
The article referenced a SARS outbreak in a block of flats in Hong Kong which, because of a common ventilation system, killed 19 people. So stay clear of infection. Stay away from people, especially in a closed environment.
Keep fingers well crossed—round a wine glass, perhaps.
LikeLike
Welllll, I think you’ll have to find some evidence for fluX10 epidemic status – so far the figures are indicating that of just 1Xflu epidemic bad. It may change, but I doubt it will be by much. That is bad enough, no dystopian devastation though.
Sweden is indeed interesting – and it will be good to see what the comparison is between them and Norway that has introduced extensive lockdown etc. And it could be that Swedes tend to be more socially responsible – are the Norwegians that different, or is it just the level of trust shown by government that makes them responsible? I don’t know enough about either culture to say.
A coronavirus is a cold virus and is most likely to mutate fast and often – it is most likely to mutate into a less-lethal version I’d say (that IS the survival strategy for colds), but who knows. I’m not a virologist or epidemiologist though.
On that point – I find the ‘level of contact = severity of symptoms’ idea of a virus very very suspect – that isn’t usually how viruses work. It might speed up or slow down the initial rate of you getting infected, but it is your own body reaction that determines how the virus is dealt with, not the level of contact, or amount of virus, exactly. No, honestly, you can be in a room full of seething masses of virus for 15 days, and it is not going to be any more fatal than if you poked a few into your eye on one day – probably. Also, the coronavirus isn’t airborne – you wont be catching it through common ventilation systems. Gavin – are you sure the NYT is the best source…?
But yes, avoid contact with people – it’ll spread like a cold!
LikeLike
Lets take an example of some statistics. From here:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
So, in the UK:
total CLOSED cases = 3056. Of those 135 recovered/discharged (4%) and 2921 deaths (96%).
If you took those stats, you’d have a 96% mortality rate.
Worldwide:
total CLOSED cases = 274 487. Of those 220023 recovered/were discharged (80%) and there were 54464 deaths (20%)
(from here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)
So, then, do we believe that 96% of all people that contract the coronavirus will die?? No! Of course not – the UK is only testing very ill people already in hospital – not good stats for them, but not a realistic number for a whole population. And it seems that the 135 recovered number is just nonsense. I don’t think we can really tell anything at all from these numbers.
Look at the table on that website and compare deaths per million of population. Does anyone know what the equivalent is for heart disease? I don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It all gets confusing. 5.7% of what ?
How many of Scotland’s population have been tested – how many have tested positive – how many have died ?
Then we might have some idea of what is going on
LikeLike
That percentage is of the people that have tested positive. So, out of the number of people tested, a certain percentage will be positive (but because it isn’t random testing, that is, it is always people that have bad symptoms that are tested – so this number is high), and then of those already ill people, 5.7% of them have died.
You can compare it with the previous days figures – mostly – but it isn’t a useful absolute. It isn’t a ‘percentage of the population’ or ‘percentage of actual cases of coronavirus’.
399 new infections since yesterday (well, ones tested for anyway) and 46 new deaths since yesterday:
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/
LikeLike
I am in favour of the measurement – that the fatalities are a percentage of known infected people. That way you can exercise some judgement about the efficacy of SNHS treatment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. My intention.
LikeLike
As something like 25% of covid-19 infections are asymptomatic, this virus will inevitably work its way round the population.
Old people in the main will die—look at the stats for Italy. Without a vaccine we simply cannot protect ourselves with the totality we need. I’m 70 years old. If I catch it, I hope its mild. I live in a rural village; am out every day for the paper and a good walk several times, main shop once a week, and try not to get too near people. I’m pretty sure most of us will get it. But maybe not.
I MIGHT have had flu….. once, but I might never have had it at all.
LikeLike
If you couldn’t even lift yourself out of bed to go for a pee, then you had flu. I’ve had measles once and the flu once – both have very similar symptoms – and you can’t eat or lift yourself out of bed for a few days, then you start to get better ,,, I was young at the time! Otherwise it’s probably just a really nasty cold.
The stats for Italy were really bad because it was centred around an area of very high pollution and an outbreak of pneumonia last year – they think those are causal factors anyway – so a clean air rural area is in your favour Gavin. 70 is not that old these days – it’s underlying health conditions that are usually more prevalent in older people that can be the issue. Keep doing what you are doing and you’ll be fine!
LikeLike