- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
Incidentally, as regards Boris
archive.vn
It seems like it's based on the ICNARC figures
These are
Figures are slightly different but that could just be journalistic innumeracy
If you Google it the media are reporting this 'If he doesn't need a ventilator in the first 24 hours his chances go from [low] to [high]" factoid and not citing a source and often coming up with slightly different figures
E.g.
https://archive.vn/wip/qSe6n
Look at this
archive.vn
There's something seriously wrong if people working as journalists can't get this sort of thing right. It's from 33.7% to 80.3% if you just change the 'needed advanced ventilation in the first 24 hours' variable. Sure you can round to the nearest percent if you want but it's depressing how many journos are quoting different figures and not citing their source, especially when many of them are doing it on the web. If people don't cite, you might as well assume they heard it from one of their buddies who probably remembered it incorrectly.
Also as a few people have alluded to in this thread the UK, being the UK, it may very well be that if Boris is on a ventilator we would not be told immediately because the UK's political system is not perfectly transparent about things which have national security implications like a sick PM in a crisis. Historically UK governments have covered this situation up. And honestly, looking at the state of the media do you blame them?

Coronavirus: What do the figures tell us about Boris Johnson's chance…
archived 7 Apr 2020 20:39:04 UTC
But anyone wondering specifically about Mr Johnson can find hope in another statistic.
According to his official spokesperson, the prime minister has not been placed on a mechanical ventilator, instead receiving "standard oxygen treatment", most likely using a device which blows air into the lungs.
Patients who don't go on a ventilator in the first 24 hours in an ICU survive 83% of the time.
Those who are put on a ventilator in that period have a much lower survival rate - just 32%.
It seems like it's based on the ICNARC figures
These are
Figures are slightly different but that could just be journalistic innumeracy
If you Google it the media are reporting this 'If he doesn't need a ventilator in the first 24 hours his chances go from [low] to [high]" factoid and not citing a source and often coming up with slightly different figures
E.g.
https://archive.vn/wip/qSe6n
Look at this

Boris Johnson: What coronavirus hospital data says about ICU patients…
archived 7 Apr 2020 20:51:44 UTC
Half of Covid-19 patients moved to the ICU survived in a recent report from the U.K.’s Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, but the survival rate rose to 70% if they didn’t require mechanical ventilation in the first 24 hours.
There's something seriously wrong if people working as journalists can't get this sort of thing right. It's from 33.7% to 80.3% if you just change the 'needed advanced ventilation in the first 24 hours' variable. Sure you can round to the nearest percent if you want but it's depressing how many journos are quoting different figures and not citing their source, especially when many of them are doing it on the web. If people don't cite, you might as well assume they heard it from one of their buddies who probably remembered it incorrectly.
Also as a few people have alluded to in this thread the UK, being the UK, it may very well be that if Boris is on a ventilator we would not be told immediately because the UK's political system is not perfectly transparent about things which have national security implications like a sick PM in a crisis. Historically UK governments have covered this situation up. And honestly, looking at the state of the media do you blame them?