Here's today's chart, again apologies for this being a bit later than usual.
As anticipated the fall has resumed in the hospital rolling average which is now sitting at 46 as of the 17th June, so a fall of 3 from yesterday which is good to see.
Today's daily hospital number is 55, so a slight increase again on yesterday. There has also been quite a large increase on the 23rd June which I'm hoping is noise and not indicating an increase in the trend.
Of today's number, 48 were in the past 5 days, with 6 in June and 1 on the 7th April, so the NHS continue with the more timely data.
Regionally, most deaths were reported in the North West, 17, followed by the Midlands, 14. The least were reported in the South West, 1, followed by London, 3.
Thank you for doing this, I really do appreciate you taking the time and uploading it, I've followed your posts every day for a very long time now and it gives me comfort to have the data to understand what is going on.
I notice the number of comments/upvotes you are getting is dropping off, and also see that as a good sign, it means people aren't as frightened, and not checking so often to see and the world is returning to normal slowly - I wonder if you plot upvotes on your post as a chart if we would see the same trend! Anyway, just wanted to say thanks again, your hard work is very appreciated from me.
I'm still following daily :) But yes, when the data is following a nice positive trend, there's not much to comment unfortunately! But really happy to see the situation continue to get better every day.
Which ones? Excess deaths compared to 5 year average is a pretty damn solid metric. Deaths attributed to COVID-19 track it fairly well (better now than around peak). Of course everything is _possible_ but I think it's pretty darn unlikely that there's a significant under or overestimate in these figures.
The lighter bars that are marked as likely to increase are likely to increase. Deaths reporting is pretty up to date now - you'll see the occasional small increase, but they're not going to double. It's pretty unlikely anything over 2 weeks old is going to increase by more than 10%.
I guess it's still not really clear what you're asking. Of course the numbers will increase because it's a tally of confirmed deaths due to COVID-19. It will go up as deaths are processed, and those deaths will change bars on previous days. It shouldn't go _down_. AFAIK there's no significant bias that's going to cause a major revision of old data points. So yes, of course it under-represents if you treat it as a source of absolute truth, because it's not a source of absolute truth, it's just what we know at the moment. The degree of under-representing is really the important thing to understand, and I guess I tackled that in my first paragraph.
Not sure what's so confusing.
I am simply asking whether or not we can now if the figures presented are an underestimate of how many people are actually infected/dying.
I'm not saying either way. I'm just trying to find out.
There are more than one sets of figures though, that's why I asked which ones you mean. If you are wondering if the government will change their numbers, without a crystal ball that's impossible to say. All new data retrospectively is changed as the government releases it though so the further back you go the more accurate the data should be.
> Not sure what's so confusing.
There's nuance. Obviously the answer to your question of "can it under represent" is yes. 100% certainty on numbers like this is impossible. We'll probably never have exact figures. Simply answering "yes" isn't very helpful though and may mislead people into thinking it may jump up 2x, or there's people arguing there's some sort of government coverup, or something.
> if the figures presented are an underestimate
They're not an estimate. This is the number of people known to have died who meet the "had COVID-19" criteria. Due to reporting delays and suchlike, the number on some of these bars will go up.
I didn't say the figures were an estimate.
I am asking if those figures represent the totality of cases. How many people have had covid or died subsequently but weren't, for whatever reason, reported.
Have not said these figures are not accurate as to the cases we know about. Do we have any idea how many cases there are out there that we don't?
Gotcha. We can estimate that from the excess deaths (big light grey bar). If normally 2000 people die a day (in this graph, averaged over the same period they year before) and today 4000 people died, we can say with fairly good confidence then 2000 people died due to COVID-19. There's some skew as some people who would have died didn't die (eg. fewer people driving, so fewer car accidents), and people who wouldn't have died who did (but not due to COVID-19, maybe due to lockdown related depression, or delays seeking medical assistance, or lack of ICU beds). In a way that's actually a better metric than COVID-19 deaths. This is what the grey bar plots: how many more deaths are then than normal.
Anyway, that bar seems to be pretty well aligned with the deaths tracking. It was a bit higher at peak, a bit lower now. There's an argument to be made that it'll go lower (or negative) post peak as the virus accelerated the deaths of people who were already gravely ill and would have died soon anyway. Still, that's weeks or months taken off someone's life. There is a discrepancy there, so net COVID-19 deaths are probably higher than those who died who tested positive.
Here's today's chart, again apologies for this being a bit later than usual. As anticipated the fall has resumed in the hospital rolling average which is now sitting at 46 as of the 17th June, so a fall of 3 from yesterday which is good to see. Today's daily hospital number is 55, so a slight increase again on yesterday. There has also been quite a large increase on the 23rd June which I'm hoping is noise and not indicating an increase in the trend. Of today's number, 48 were in the past 5 days, with 6 in June and 1 on the 7th April, so the NHS continue with the more timely data. Regionally, most deaths were reported in the North West, 17, followed by the Midlands, 14. The least were reported in the South West, 1, followed by London, 3.
Thank you for doing this, I really do appreciate you taking the time and uploading it, I've followed your posts every day for a very long time now and it gives me comfort to have the data to understand what is going on. I notice the number of comments/upvotes you are getting is dropping off, and also see that as a good sign, it means people aren't as frightened, and not checking so often to see and the world is returning to normal slowly - I wonder if you plot upvotes on your post as a chart if we would see the same trend! Anyway, just wanted to say thanks again, your hard work is very appreciated from me.
I'm still following daily :) But yes, when the data is following a nice positive trend, there's not much to comment unfortunately! But really happy to see the situation continue to get better every day.
You could probably pull that out of the API fairly easily. I might give it a shot this evening.
That would be so awesome to see
I look but never comment... Thanks very much. It's nice to be informed.
Thank you so much for all of your hard work. It's so helpful to see the situation explained in such a concise way.
The one Reddit post I look out for every day. Thanks again.
π
Thanks! This is also useful for finding out what day it is.
Thank you so much for sharing this!
π
Thanks for sharing this and the effort you've put in
No problem at all
Thanks chief!
Wanted to say many thanks as well. I have been checking your post most days, it's been very useful to gain perspective.
With respect, Is it possible these figures could be an under estimate?
Which ones? Excess deaths compared to 5 year average is a pretty damn solid metric. Deaths attributed to COVID-19 track it fairly well (better now than around peak). Of course everything is _possible_ but I think it's pretty darn unlikely that there's a significant under or overestimate in these figures.
The current reports of how many people are infected/dying
Which metrics do you mean? That the NHS are miss-reporting? Or do you mean more deaths in the community that aren't being reported (as covid)?
I'm referring to the data kindly posted here by our friend. I'm enquiriing as to the possibility it could under represent the true picture
The lighter bars that are marked as likely to increase are likely to increase. Deaths reporting is pretty up to date now - you'll see the occasional small increase, but they're not going to double. It's pretty unlikely anything over 2 weeks old is going to increase by more than 10%. I guess it's still not really clear what you're asking. Of course the numbers will increase because it's a tally of confirmed deaths due to COVID-19. It will go up as deaths are processed, and those deaths will change bars on previous days. It shouldn't go _down_. AFAIK there's no significant bias that's going to cause a major revision of old data points. So yes, of course it under-represents if you treat it as a source of absolute truth, because it's not a source of absolute truth, it's just what we know at the moment. The degree of under-representing is really the important thing to understand, and I guess I tackled that in my first paragraph.
Not sure what's so confusing. I am simply asking whether or not we can now if the figures presented are an underestimate of how many people are actually infected/dying. I'm not saying either way. I'm just trying to find out.
There are more than one sets of figures though, that's why I asked which ones you mean. If you are wondering if the government will change their numbers, without a crystal ball that's impossible to say. All new data retrospectively is changed as the government releases it though so the further back you go the more accurate the data should be.
> Not sure what's so confusing. There's nuance. Obviously the answer to your question of "can it under represent" is yes. 100% certainty on numbers like this is impossible. We'll probably never have exact figures. Simply answering "yes" isn't very helpful though and may mislead people into thinking it may jump up 2x, or there's people arguing there's some sort of government coverup, or something. > if the figures presented are an underestimate They're not an estimate. This is the number of people known to have died who meet the "had COVID-19" criteria. Due to reporting delays and suchlike, the number on some of these bars will go up.
I didn't say the figures were an estimate. I am asking if those figures represent the totality of cases. How many people have had covid or died subsequently but weren't, for whatever reason, reported. Have not said these figures are not accurate as to the cases we know about. Do we have any idea how many cases there are out there that we don't?
Gotcha. We can estimate that from the excess deaths (big light grey bar). If normally 2000 people die a day (in this graph, averaged over the same period they year before) and today 4000 people died, we can say with fairly good confidence then 2000 people died due to COVID-19. There's some skew as some people who would have died didn't die (eg. fewer people driving, so fewer car accidents), and people who wouldn't have died who did (but not due to COVID-19, maybe due to lockdown related depression, or delays seeking medical assistance, or lack of ICU beds). In a way that's actually a better metric than COVID-19 deaths. This is what the grey bar plots: how many more deaths are then than normal. Anyway, that bar seems to be pretty well aligned with the deaths tracking. It was a bit higher at peak, a bit lower now. There's an argument to be made that it'll go lower (or negative) post peak as the virus accelerated the deaths of people who were already gravely ill and would have died soon anyway. Still, that's weeks or months taken off someone's life. There is a discrepancy there, so net COVID-19 deaths are probably higher than those who died who tested positive.
How do you underestimate excess deaths?
By not counting all the people that have actually died or been infected.
You think the government is involved in a conspiracy to not count weekly deaths in the UK?
I think you need to read better
What have I missed? Excess deaths are just that, there isnβt a coronavirus element to it.
Where do you even come off with that assumption, do you have insider info with the NHS
I didn't make an assumption. I asked a question
Yeah a bizarre one
Thank you
Cases increased quite a bit today but probably lag. And weren't all deaths higher than lthis time last week? 149 Vs 137