Finally some good news.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Can anyone explain how 1 in 8 is about a third, and 1 in 25 is about a fifth?

I already did. You're using the wrong denominator, or to be more precise making the mistake of thinking they are the same denominator.

1 in 8 of people treated and 1 in 3 of those who'd die. You're making the mistake of thinking everyone who gets treated dies of they don't get treatment.

Sorry IT Minion, I think you're waffling.
See below for the explanation.

 

[JohnD]

One of his rather unusual ideas is that ok you have said you are going to do it so now do it.

It will be great to see the extra £350 million a week going to the NHS. When do you suppose Boris will start to fulfil his promise?

 

[Deleted2797112]

It will be great to see the extra £350 million a week going to the NHS. When do you suppose Boris will start to fulfil his promise?

I suspect they've had that and a lot lot more.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Can anyone explain how 1 in 8 is about a third, and 1 in 25 is about a fifth?

As you have misunderstood / misheard / misquoted the reported results, it is no wonder that "your" maths do not add up.
For clarity, the reported results were "a reduction in risk of death for ventilated patients, of a third", and "a reduction in risk of death for oxygen-assisted patients, of a fifth".

https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/...-severe-respiratory-complications-of-covid-19

I think Brigadier is also waffling, but he's closer to the explanation.
The reported reduction in deaths, as Brigadier explained is where the third and fifth fractions come from.
Going forward, the expected beneficial effect is 1 in 8, and 1 in 25.
Which suggests why the estimated benefit could have been up to 5,000 fewer deaths in the pandemic, in UK, so far, or about one twelfth, (some calculated average from the 1 in 8 and 1 in 25 perhaps?)

It is there, in the articles, but it seems only Brigadier highlighted it, and it is not explained properly until you read the link from ceres.

But thank you to all that contributed, especially to those who gave your personal insults and pointless remarks. They were of no use whatsoever.

https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/...-severe-respiratory-complications-of-covid-19


It cut (past tense) the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators. For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth.

Had the drug had been used to treat patients in the UK from the start of the pandemic, up to 5,000 lives could have been saved, researchers say.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281​

 

[Brigadier]

I think Brigadier is also waffling, but he's closer to the explanation.
The reported reduction in deaths, as Brigadier explained is where the third and fifth fractions come from.
Going forward, the expected beneficial effect is 1 in 8, and 1 in 25.
Which suggests why the estimated benefit could have been up to 5,000 fewer deaths in the pandemic, in UK, so far, or about one twelfth, (some calculated average from the 1 in 8 and 1 in 25 perhaps?)

It is there, in the articles, but it seems only Brigadier highlighted it, and it is not explained properly until you read the link from ceres.

But thank you to all that contributed, especially to those who gave your personal insults and pointless remarks. They were of no use whatsoever.

View attachment 196331
https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/...-severe-respiratory-complications-of-covid-19


It cut (past tense) the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators. For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth.

Had the drug had been used to treat patients in the UK from the start of the pandemic, up to 5,000 lives could have been saved, researchers say.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281​

If six words and two short, quoted, factual sentences is "waffling" in your opinion, it is no wonder you couldn't make any sense of the figures.

 

[ajohn]

A little point needs making. The majority of deaths in hospital were on ventilators. Fewer on oxygen. Since care home deaths have been added it's hard to split those off but there are indications that some people treated in hospital were from care homes. Some clearly not from the change where drugs intended for a specific patient could be used on others. Morphine etc was mentioned. On oxygen may mean HDU patents.

Based on these results, 1 death would be prevented by treatment of around 8 ventilated patients or around 25 patients requiring oxygen alone.

 

[ajohn]

Forgot to add this
Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in ventilated patients (rate ratio 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.88]; p=0.0003) and by one fifth in other patients receiving oxygen only (0.80 [0.67 to 0.96]; p=0.0021). There was no benefit among those patients who did not require respiratory support (1.22 [0.86 to 1.75]; p=0.14). B

PHE surveillance deaths is 36,750 total last Thurs. 1/3 = 12,250

 

[durhamplumber]

But thank you to all that contributed, especially to those who gave your personal insults and pointless remarks. They were of no use whatsoever.

Anytime Rizla.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Forgot to add this
Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in ventilated patients (rate ratio 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.88]; p=0.0003) and by one fifth in other patients receiving oxygen only (0.80 [0.67 to 0.96]; p=0.0021). There was no benefit among those patients who did not require respiratory support (1.22 [0.86 to 1.75]; p=0.14). B

PHE surveillance deaths is 36,750 total last Thurs. 1/3 = 12,250

I asked my question because I couldn't understand how one third, and one fifth could translate into 1 in 8, and 1 in 25.

You've just proved that maths is not your strong point either, neither is comprehension of articles, or reports.

I will repeat the conclusion I arrived at after much requesting for an explanation, and some searching of the links.

The one third and one fifth relates to the results experienced so far.
It does not relate to the expected results going forward!
The expected results, going forward have been predicted as 1 in 8, and 1 in 25.
It cannot relate to the deaths already occurred therefore. One must apply the same projected results to the cumulative deaths so far.
I assume that a 1 in 12 average has been arrived at, bearing in mind that the 1 in 8, and 1 in 25 refer to different subsets. I assume that by the number of deaths that could have been saved. Approx 60,000 deaths, of which 4,000 to 5,000 could have been saved.
Several journals have done this for you, and come up with a figure of 4,000 to 5,000. 5,000 being the maximum, in UK, if the drug had been used from the start of the pandemic.

Yet after several times being corrected you still insist on working on your erroneous figures!
Which puts your calculations out by a factor of 2.5.

 

[Brigadier]

I asked my question because I couldn't understand how one third, and one fifth could translate into 1 in 8, and 1 in 25.

You've just proved that maths is not your strong point either, neither is comprehension of articles, or reports.

I will repeat the conclusion I arrived at after much requesting for an explanation, and some searching of the links.

The one third and one fifth relates to the results experienced so far.
It does not relate to the expected results going forward!
The expected results, going forward have been predicted as 1 in 8, and 1 in 25.
It cannot relate to the deaths already occurred therefore. One must apply the same projected results to the cumulative deaths so far.
I assume that a 1 in 12 average has been arrived at, bearing in mind that the 1 in 8, and 1 in 25 refer to different subsets. I assume that by the number of deaths that could have been saved. Approx 60,000 deaths, of which 4,000 to 5,000 could have been saved.
Several journals have done this for you, and come up with a figure of 4,000 to 5,000. 5,000 being the maximum, in UK, if the drug had been used from the start of the pandemic.

Yet after several times being corrected you still insist on working on your erroneous figures!
Which puts your calculations out by a factor of 2.5.

Fek off, why doncha

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Fek off, why doncha

Can I suggest you take your own advice.

Calm down; stress kills, you know.

 

[Brigadier]

Can I suggest you take your own advice.

That's not stress ; quite cathartic, actually.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

That's not stress ; quite cathartic, actually.

Really?
If I was reduced to telling someone to 'fek off', I'd be quite ashamed of my inability to address someone, however disagreeable, in a polite manner.

 

[Brigadier]

Really?
If I was reduced to telling someone to 'fek off', I'd be quite ashamed of my inability to address someone, however disagreeable, in a polite manner.

Really.
And I gave you a concise explanation to your question, to be accused of waffling.
And, given your multiple previous identities, I venture that you are the one who bears the cross of shame. Well deserved too, imho.

Don't expect a further response from me on this subject ; the last word is all yours, if you wish.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

If I recall you started with an attempt at a put down.

As you have misunderstood / misheard / misquoted the reported results, it is no wonder that "your" maths do not add up.

And I gave you a concise explanation to your question, to be accused of waffling.

This was your supposedly explanation of how one third translates into 1 in 8, and how one fifth translates into 1 in 25.

For clarity, the reported results were "a reduction in risk of death for ventilated patients, of a third", and "a reduction in risk of death for oxygen-assisted patients, of a fifth".

Hardly an explanation. You never addressed the heart of the problem, and your explanation in no way explains the problem.
It is clear now. The third and fifth relates to results seen so far.
The 1 in 8, and 1 in 25 relates to expected results going forward.

And, given your multiple previous identities, I venture that you are the one who bears the cross of shame. Well deserved too, imho.
Don't expect a further response from me on this subject ; the last word is all yours, if you wish.

Now you are resorting to personal retorts.
You appear to have an anger management problem.