Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,211
It takes about 19 days on average from infection to death.
We introduced restrictions on 24 March, so the spread should have been slowed down as that was 22 days ago.
We went into lockdown on 27 March , which was 19 days ago.
So the underlying true rate of infection should have slowed down, should it not?
Were there not more people infected on one day, 29 days ago than 19 days ago?
A confounding factor would be the care homes.
The rate of deaths in the community excluding care homes, could well have fallen dramatically, but these would be obscured by a rise in deaths in care homes, where the lockdown wouldn't have had much impact.
Brendan
Some deaths may not be reported / confirmed / tallied on day of death.
there has been a large drop in the growth rate of deaths over the past two weeks.
That is very interesting and I am trying to get my head around it.
If 100 people are infected and there are no measures in place, the growth rate could be 35% a day, but that would be only 35 new cases in the first day.
If 1,000 people are infected, but due to measures in place, the growth rate is down to 10%, that is still 100 cases.
So the number of cases is increasing while the growth rate is falling.
But I don't think that the growth rate is that important. It should be the absolute number of new cases.
Brendan
But I don't think that the growth rate is that important. It should be the absolute number of new cases.
Last week his group estimated that the r value was close to 1 but they could not be exact about it. Once it is less than 1 the rate of infection will drop and they can look at easing the restrictions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?