Forum menu
The virus does pose a tiny risk to large amounts of the population, that is fact. Yes, the risk is that you pass it on to someone of higher risk, but from a purely personal point of view, the risk for many is low.
Low until you absolutely must have healthcare and there's no bed for you, no fit medic and you die from the effects of COVID not from COVID.
It's not hard to understand, even the Government Ministers understand it and these are people that would have problems finding both arse cheeks with their own hands in a well lighted room!
That REACT study is shocking, an absolutely terrible bit of analysis. Their observational strategy and analysis could not possibly have detected the effect of the current lockdown, to present their results as if they tells us that lockdown isn't working is just...awful. As bad as any of the nonsense coming from the lockdown sceptics.
Lockdown is actually working very well and the effect on deaths will soon be very clear. Keep with it!
Low until you absolutely must have healthcare and there’s no bed for you, no fit medic and you die from the effects of COVID not from COVID.
Not a dig at @Sandwich, but:
If, at 9-10 months into a pandemic, with 90,000+ UK dead and wall to wall coverage of a straining health system AND health care professionals crying out the healthcare system is on its knees, then you, trying to explain this issue to somebody, is twice wasted: You are not going to inform them and, lor' bless 'em, they are never, ever be going to be informed.
Thanks @thecaptain. This place is a welcome source of reassurance at times when what's left of our national media is sadly lacking.
@ marinhutch, See it worries me that 'muh freedoms' are so casually swept aside. Freedoms are hardwon but easily lost. Freedom is fundamental. We fought wars over freedoms. Millions died for them. How many are dying now? Not that many that wouldn't have died otherwise as far as I can see. Each death is a tradegy for someone, of course, but objectively, an eighty year old passing on in a nursing home is not a tradegy, that's just life. People die all the time. Last year 4 million died of aids. 18 million died of cancer. 4 million died of air pollution (governments not so worried about those deaths, however). We try to mitigate the risks. No one wants to lose loved ones, but life can't be sacrificed because of death. That's not the way we should live.
Now imagine what our hospitals would look like right if we weren’t so ‘hysterical’ and let people just get on with it.
Yes, but for how long? Is another 4-5 years of this acceptable under current measures? Also, when the Health Secretary says it is a "deadly threat to us all", that to my mind is hysterical. Police using drones and then nameing/shaming people who went for a walk is hysterical. Police dying lakes red is hysterical. Fining two young women for meeting and then saying that a hot drink consitutes a picnic is hysterical. The media coverage is hysterical.
I totally agree with all your points about the healthcare system martinhutch otherwise - but I'd like to see the evidence that, as I said on page 606, is it a chronic shortage of staff and mismanagement, that is the problem rather than covid-19 alone (biggest ICU ward built in London but empty since no staff to take care of it - how much of that is the Tory-tabloid driven 'hostile environment' and Brexit?) That's not to say C-19 is not a disaster for the NHS, but if that's the main reason I'm not allowed to live my life, I want to see evidence of that. I want to understand it because the accepting these measures when there seems to be no acceptable reason for doing so is detrimental to one's mental health.
So I currently have zero **** to give about people whinging, looking for loopholes or trying to manoeuvre the statistics to make this look like anything other than the utter shitshow it is
I think you undermine what was otherwise a pretty reasonable response. I am not manoevuring the statistics, I'm trying to understand them. I questioned in my last post why 2020 only saw 2,000 more deaths than in 2018 - I think that's important to understand. Hospital admissions seem stable. The NHS is a shitshow every January/-March. What I'm interested in is what is the future of it given the fact that vaccines are likely not going to have the impact the general population is hoping for? C-19 is clearly not going away anytime soon.
if you are of the opinion that what we have is an elective dictatorship, then yes, you’re indulging in fantasy conspiracy horse shit.
nickc, of course it is - this government routinely flouts and breaks the law with total impunity. Please see the Goodlaw Project who are about the only people trying to challenge the government. "Chumocracy" is misleading. It's outright corruption. It's completely illegal. Breaking it's own laws is a hallmark of a dictatorship. Acting with impunity is.
The vaccine rollout is clearly positive, but what’s the solution if it doesn’t work as we hope? Lockdown forever? Increased NHS capacity? Indefinite shielding for the elderly.
My thoughts exactly. When is this going to stop? It is said a government loves a good crisis. The thin democracy we have in the UK is under threat - protesting now made illegal because of covid. I don't like the direction this is going at all. People talk about the reasons. Well passing laws willy-nilly, no parlimentary oversight, revoking fundamental rights and freedoms, using C-19, a generally mild disease for the vast majority, to kick in people's doors? How about restructuring the economy? The uber-rich are absolultey creaming it in. Tory donors are having a field day. And don't get me wrong, I'm saying this was planned. I'm not saying this is a conspiracy. What I'm saying is that if you start to question it you immediatley get shutdown, insulted, etc. I'm glad other people are starting to question it to. Such momumental changes to the way we live need questioning.
Fat mountain. How many old peoples deaths are acceptable to you?
I've no idea that can actually be answered but normally we don't close down society and destroy peoples' livlihoods and mental health because people get old, sick and die. Young people are paying immensely for this crisis. Even in my demographic (medium/high income, middle-class, white, male, mid-30s) my mates are all depressed and saying their children are suffering too. The students I work with are all sat at home in what should have been the best years of their life. 1/4 are report feeling 'dispair' and 'hopelessness'. Students are being fined life-changing sums of money for seeing their mates. Some of my (international) students are sat in empty halls of residences, totally isolated and alone. There is virtually no mental health support whatsoever. Like I said, C-19 seems here to stay and we're going to have to learn to live with it. The question is how.
Millions don't die in the UK every year. It's about 600,000. Excess deaths by the time we are a year into this will probably be pushing an extra 100,000 on top of that.
And that is with these restrictions.
Roughly 1 in 750 people in the UK have died as a result of Covid in the last 9 months. We are well on the way to that being 1 in 500.
And that is with these restrictions.
If I don't get my freedoms back when this is over, I'll take to the streets quite happily. But in the meantime, they can have these freedoms and quite a few more, if it gives the NHS a chance to get back on top of the situation and stop people dying.
Well, clearly that's worldwide! And good luck taking to the streets now it's illegal.
questioned in my last post why 2020 only saw 2,000 more deaths than in 2018
Ah... one of you "interesting questions" that isn't trying to "trying to manoeuvre the statistics to make this look like anything other than the utter shitshow it is"?
Show us your figures, and sources, please.
I questioned in my last post why 2020 only saw 2,000 more deaths than in 2018
Google "uk deaths 2020"
First result: Link
Are you tying or lashing out (Edit: p'raps "venting" might be a more appropriate word)? Lashing (venting) out, right now, is (mostly) fine by me, given the times.
I posted them on page 606
I’m looking at the death rates for the UK annually (source ONS).
In 2018, there were 541,589 deaths registered in England and Wales, an increase of 1.6% compared with 2017 (533,253); this is the highest annual number of deaths since 1999.
In 2019, there were 530,841 deaths registered in England and Wales, a decrease of 2.0% compared with 2018 (541,589 deaths). Taking into account the population size and age structure, age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) in England and Wales decreased significantly, by 3.7% for males and 4.7% for females.
In England, the number of deaths up to 11 December 2020 was 543,335, which is 65,251 (13.6%) more than the five-year average. Of these, 68,341 deaths (12.6%) mentioned COVID-19.
ONS. Correct me if I'm wrong. I am happy to be informed, to be wrong, to have been mistaken since it aligns me a bit closer to what we call consensus reality.
Perhaps fatmountain could quantify exactly what he would be like to be doing so we can assess how many life years for other people's mums/dads/grandparents etc are expendable to help him 'live his life'. I feel we need a yardstick for his individual tragedy which makes all these other tragedies worthwhile.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Well, one of those figures isn't a complete year, is it.
this suggests that 2020 is >600,000
Perhaps fatmountain could quantify exactly what he would be like to be doing so we can assess how many life years for other people’s mums/dads/grandparents etc are expendable to help him ‘live his life’. I feel we need a yardstick for his individual tragedy which makes all these other tragedies worthwhile.
Emotive empty rhetoric designed to shame rather than engage with the questions raised in my last post.
Kelvin, I noticed, but it's most of the year. Got any other explanations?
Google “uk deaths 2020”
First result: Link
@BaronVonP7 Have you read the article?
Its conclusion is:
VERDICT
False. The figures cited in this post are partially inaccurate and do not demonstrate that there were fewer deaths in 2020 than 2019, nor that the pandemic is fake. Age-standardised mortality rates in England are “statistically significantly higher than in all years between 2009 and 2019”, according to ONS. Figures registered by Dec. 5 show there were 43,987 more deaths between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30 in England than the five-year average and 1,981 more deaths in Wales.
Kelvin, I noticed, but it’s most of the year. Got any other explanations?
Yes it's not a valid number to compare - download the data for 2020 from the ONS
Add up the 2020 columns for England and Wales, compare to the 5 year average and maxima then come back and find a recipe for humble pie.
Thanks Jam-bo, but the other stats are also from the same source. I can't explain the difference.
Got any other explanations?
you only want to 'understand the statistics' if they fit your narrative. classic conspiracy theorist bullshit.
how about next time you get paid, you only get 95% of what you were expecting, its most of a paypacket eh.
Not sure what Fat Mountain is trying to prove, but wasn't 2018 a particularly bad flu year?
That being so, the fact that 2020 with all it restrictions is higher indicates this is a nasty pandemic indeed.
Apologies if I've missed the point.
Have you read the article?
Yes.
fatmountain offered (I think) the figure of 541,589 for 2018.
Following the links in the article to the data, provided updated figures for 2020.
Number is >600, 000 for "Weekly provisional figures on deaths registered in England and Wales1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11" - figure is >600,000 regardless if you use 52 weeks or 53 weeks.
Thanks Jam-bo, but the other stats are also from the same source. I can’t explain the difference.
i can, quite easily.
the numbers you quoted on p606 and again on this page compared deaths in 2018 to deaths in 2020 up to 11 dec.
so you werent comparing like with like and when this was pointed out, countered with, 'its close enough'
well, funnily enough it isnt, another 50,000 people died in that three weeks...
thepurist,
I have no problems with being humbled by reality. It tends to happen a lot. It's better to be wrong about stuff rather than carry on in a delusion. I'm happy to admit that. Still, I argue my questions/points remain valid whether it's a "excess" 100,000 deaths or not.
I can’t explain the difference.
Why not? One was a provisional figure with data available in early December, one is a provisional figure based on data available at the end of December. The final figure will be revised up higher still, once all deaths at the end of December are reported and included.
All you need to know... is that this pandemic is real, and with all the measures in place, has killed thousands upon thousands of people... yes extra deaths... without those measures we'd be looking at it killing about 1 in every 200 people. Thank god we avoided that... but why have we done as poorly as we have?
"another 50,000 people died in that three weeks…"
Did they really? All of covid-19?
Did they really? All of covid-19?
No, not all of covid-19.
Still, I argue my questions/points remain valid whether it’s a “excess” 100,000 deaths or not.
It is. Why do you think it is not? If you want to avoid "emotive" arguments, and just understand the stats... where does this idea that these aren't excess deaths come from?
Still, I argue my questions/points remain valid whether it’s a “excess” 100,000 deaths or not.
OK, so back to my emotive rhetoric. How many excess deaths would it take before you would stop mewling about lockdowns? Bear in mind that the current 100,000 would be multiplied significantly in the absence of lockdowns.
Give us a figure of what is acceptable in population terms.
All you need to know, is that this pandemic is real, and with all the measures in place, has killed thousands upon thousands of people… without those measures we’d be looking at a it killing 1 in 200 people.
I didn't say it wasn't real and I'm questioning the long-term practicality of those measures. I'm questing how much you can stop life becasue of death. But we're going in circles now so I'll check out. I wish everyone the best of luck with handling this nightmare.
Perhaps fatmountain could quantify exactly what he would be like to be doing so we can assess how many life years for other people’s mums/dads/grandparents etc are expendable to help him ‘live his life’. I feel we need a yardstick for his individual tragedy which makes all these other tragedies worthwhile.
That doesn't help. Were you clamouring for lockdowns two years ago when we had 50,000 excess deaths? It's not black and white.
you only want to ‘understand the statistics’ if they fit your narrative. classic conspiracy theorist bullshit.
That doesn't help either. It is better to explain than dismiss.
Fatmountain: At the end of the day we have 100,000 excess deaths and a government that has nothing to gain from lockdowns. The statistics beyond that are often confusing, inconsistent, contradictory and unhelpful, but the big picture is clear.
^^^
more conspiracy classics, get proven to be wrong. change the subject.
I’m questioning the long-term practicality of those measures.
Sounds fairy 'nuff.
I’m questing how much you can stop life becasue of death.
Sounds a tinsy bit Harold Shipman...
Bear in mind that the current 100,000 would be multiplied significantly in the absence of lockdowns.
What if we'd just locked down the elderly?
There's a great Indy Sage video posted way back in this thread explaining why the "just lock down the elderly" would still result in a very high death rate, in the elderly and the wider community.
We are looping... and you keep prompting the loop chrispo. Why?
Bit late for 'what ifs', might have worked OK, but we'd have a load of 70-year-olds going 'only 500 have died, give us our FREEDUUMMM'.
Got a link to that? I must warn you I'm fully prepared to view it and then ignore it if it doesn't fit in my worldview. 🙂
I can't find the Indy Sage video, which is a shame as it explained the issues very well, in a way that I could easily follow.
Here's a much drier report from Sage covering it though: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spi-m-o-summary-of-sage-advice-on-segmentation-15-october-2020
Thanks - that all makes perfect sense.
Thanks Jam-bo, but the other stats are also from the same source. I can’t explain the difference.
If you don't like those stats or they don't fit within your narrative then im sure you'll find what you need on Facebook.
Jesus Christ I can't believe were still discussing this sort of shite
If you don’t like those stats or they don’t fit within your narrative then im sure you’ll find what you need on Facebook.
Jesus Christ I can’t believe were still discussing this sort of shite
The longer we have to live with restrictions, the more folk will question the value of them. There's a legitimate discussion to be had. It must, though, be based on hard facts.
Jesus Christ I can’t believe were still discussing this sort of shite
A kinder response would be to post a little cut-and-paste list of useful links to simple and credible information that would help allay people's fears, rather than exclude and ridicule them.
I still stick my head above the parapet from time to time and it still gets blown off every time, but some of the helpful responses have been, well, helpful.
The longer we have to live with restrictions, the more folk will question the value of them.
This is so true.
Outside of the prism of this STW a lot of people are asking how long the restrictions can go on for and when they'll release.
Few have definitive answers, but people are getting restless whether they should be or not.
It's in English and worth a read.
The longer we have to live with restrictions, the more folk will question the value of them. There’s a legitimate discussion to be had. It must, though, be based on hard facts.
This
Covid will never go away (it took 200 to eradicate Small Pox), so at some point we’re going to have to say x amount of deaths a year is acceptable, and just get on with things.
Just like Brexit, the public will get fed up with talking about it and just want to move on with life.
just get on with things
Er... no.. we're going to have to use vaccinations and improved treatments to seriously improve the outcomes for those that are currently most at risk of long term damage or death.
There will be continued measures for some time to reduce prevalence... but the current restrictions are only short term. We might have to use them again for a brief period next winter, but not longer term.
Sadly it looks like we may be able to mitigate the majority of the effects of severe disease for now. But longer term this is going to have a hangover.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a small increase in excess deaths for a number of years to come.
This is due to covid not necessarily as a result of direct covid infection, but it will have an effect.
Er… no.. we’re going to have to use vaccinations and improved treatments to seriously improve the outcomes for those that are currently most at risk of long term damage or death.
I said:
at some point we’re going to have to say x amount of deaths a year is acceptable, and just get on with things
I didnt say that that is today.
How long do you want to wait?
Please give me an indicative timescale (months/years)?
I'll answer the other question:
How many old peoples deaths are acceptable to you?
20,000 per year in the UK
These are the typical number of annual deaths related to Flu, and we dont go into Lockdown every winter because of these.
20,000 per year in the UK
These are the typical number of annual deaths related to Flu, and we dont go into Lockdown every winter because of these.
In the future I wonder if flu deaths will drop, as some people who would otherwise have died due to flu end up dying due to Covid.
The same will be true of other causes of death. 165,000 per year due to cancer. That includes all of those who might have succumbed to something else previously but were saved due to advancements in other areas. We might see that number drop if deaths are marked down to Covid and the Excess Deaths figure will decrease as the average we measure it against will start to include Covid years.
Quite possibly, but as this is currently much more infectious and more deadly than flu, we can't realistically expect the annual overall total to be smaller than this. Additional measures could well be the norm in future - it could be that at least winter mask usage and enhanced hygiene around shops, public transport and care homes are here to stay. Annual vaccination in the run-up to winter is a given - as we already do for flu.
I'm not prepared to go on like this indefinitely, at some point you have to move on from lockdowns and accept there is a rational debate on the balance of our way of life versus excess deaths.
Quantifying an acceptable number of deaths is sadly impossible as you will never get a country of 65 million people to agree, so the real question is who makes that decision for us and when.
For example 450,000 British people died as a result of our involvement in WW2, which was a direct result of attempting to protect our freedom and way of life. Not many people would say those deaths were in vain. I'm not saying I agree with this, but is there not an argument that at some point if vaccinations dont get a grip on Covid, that getting on with life and the resultant excess deaths are simply as a result of protecting our freedoms and way of life?
I dont know what my stance on this is to be honest, but to dismiss it as a debate is plain wrong. Massively undeniably wrong.
I agree that it's going to be an important debate, but it's not one to have at the moment, when people are itching to get "free" and there's all this misinformation about "lockdowns not working" and about how it's all just about "control" etc, all of which would be empowered and encouraged by the debate. Also, we're really at the start of what should be one of the biggest influences on that decision, there are still major unknowns about the long term effect of the vaccine that will start to become knowns and that'll be critical to know what the right steps are.
Ultimately we live with the flu; we'll almost certainly have to do the same for covid, once it gets into the same league as the flu, I think it's fair to say we just don't have the tools to eradicate it. Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- "living with it" doesn't mean "just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead", it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality. But even just "living with it" is a very dangerous term right now.
165,000 per year due to cancer.
not all at the same time though, Covid deaths are short term all at the same time. Cancer takes years and that threat isn’t going to go away
I think there is a spectrum between what is acceptable because you have no option, and what is acceptable because it's expensive financially, inconvenient personally, and a bit depressing. Currently we're somewhere between the two.
If we were genuinely in a position where vaccination was not an option, and significantly improved treatments were not approaching, then yes, hard decisions would have to be made.
But presently we are only just over the threshold of a mass vaccination programme, which offers at least the prospect of protecting most of our most vulnerable citizens. The alternative to lockdown right now is avoidable death on an even greater scale, and people who disingenously proffer 'facts' suggesting the impact of Covid isn't that great because they want their 'freedom' are unhelpful, to put it mildly, because there really isn't any alternative over the next couple of months.
Personally, I'm hopeful that by next winter, we will not be needing to have a debate about lockdowns because vaccines alongside some behavioural changes will be enough to limit deaths to something approaching a 'bad' winter.
How many old peoples deaths are acceptable to you?
20,000 per year in the UK
These are the typical number of annual deaths related to Flu, and we dont go into Lockdown every winter because of these.
So back to pre-COVID levels? Still controls on mixing until then?
Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- “living with it” doesn’t mean “just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead”, it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality.
Agreed, its finding that balance that will be key. I'm certainty not in favour of reaching a certain point and giving up and removing all restrictions. But I really do think they should be gradually removed once we have scientifically established the impact of vaccination.
I don't think we're getting back to pre-Covid levels of winter mortality for a good few years.
I'm not sure about controls on mixing, but I'm hopeful that the idea that you don't go to work, or go and see elderly relatives, with a fever and a cough will gain some traction, along with wearing masks on public transport and shops during the winter peak. I think care homes may have to be locked down a bit at some points as well.
The NHS will also need to be funded properly to cope with winter activity...which will be the ultimate challenge given the number of staff who I predict will be out of the door this coming year.
I'd be willing to bet that flu deaths are substantially reduced this year, due to lockdown. Which makes the excess deaths number even worse.
Also, it appears that the IFR is still around the 1% it was estimated to be back before lockdown 1. That means that without measures we would be looking at something like 680,000 deaths - almost all of which would have happened by now given the exponential spread we saw in March. Just take a minute to imagine what that would have been like for the NHS, mortuaries, and of course the families, and see if you still think lockdown was an excessive response.
So back to pre-COVID levels?
My suggestion was that 20.000 annual deaths for a similar type of disease is currently "acceptable", so 20,000 annual Covid deaths would be at a similar level of acceptability.
Its complicated as deaths are usually a mixture of different issues, but I was just stating a number to get the debate moving.
Still controls on mixing until then?
In some form or another.
Theres a balancing act between allowing people to mix and live there lives and controlling the disease spreading.
That could be Lockdown until prevalence drops below x% of the population, and then a sliding scale of what restrictions/mixing are allowed until we get to a level where deaths are seen as "acceptable"
Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- “living with it” doesn’t mean “just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead”, it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality.
What does that actually look like in proctice - having some specific limited number of beds for covid patients and then leaving the rest to die at home? Given that this thing spreads like wildfire even in the absence of pubs, cinemas, shops etc., doesn't that lock us in to a ever-growing mountain of dead bodies?
Well that escalated quickly 😉
I've spent nine months analysing the weekly mortality figures for the UK and elsewhere. My work was presented at SAGE. I am sorry to say, that despite the significant restrictions put in place to control the spread of SARS-CoV2, the UK recorded about eight weeks more death than typical for the past ten years, and five weeks more than the largest number seen over the same period. That kind of outlier (WITH controls) is, to say the least unusual.
Now the first rule in epidemic land; EVERYTHING is more complex that the headline would lead you to believe. Yes, average age of death is over 80 - they'd have died anyway. Except they would not - actuarial analysis has definitively shown this. In fact, these deaths are in people not treated. The healthcare service is doing a very good job of treating a continuous tsunami surge of hypoxic patients. And their mortality is actually relatively low. Pray it stays that way. Half of patients in UK hospitals are being treated for COVID19. Oxygen supply pressures have had to be lowered to maintain demand in some hospitals. Think about that. This is unprecedented.
As for MORBIDITY, this is the big factor. Will there be a surge in cardiovascular disease in previously healthy young who have not cleared the virus effectively? As one of those (well youngish), this area is the one most likely to yield surprises in long-term studies. The vaccine is most definitely a protection against this bottom of the iceberg (deaths being the tip).
And the good news. I agree with @thecaptain REACT analysis looks wrong (again), the ONS is showing, together with ZOE, daily cases and now admissions, that the lockdown controls work. Deaths will follow presently. They are expensive measures and have many other consequences. But the evidence that they are effective in controlling spread is now unequivocal. Skepticism needs to move on to other matters of debate like economics and education, because efficacy in not one - "No second wave"?
With regards to cancer and CV deaths, these are LINEAR, predictable. Infectious diseases are not linear, they run on a surge and can easily overwhelm resource. That's transmission for you.
When this is over, I'll be out marching for my rights is not returned. I think this is very, very unlikely
[tl:dr] Things are always more complex than they appear. Deaths are not the only story, but the one they tell is unequivocal. And does not make good reading.
Lockdown is actually working very well and the effect on deaths will soon be very clear. Keep with it!
Agreed based on the numbers so far.
Again, it's just a feeling - but the Lanchester equations Army intelligence were using during the Vietnam war told them they were winning as well. They weren't and didn't. Lockdown is the best of a very poor bunch of tools in the context of keeping deaths down until the vaccines become effective. No one has responded to my worries about the vaccines though.
We do as a nation need to have a debate about how we improve the health and fitness of the population, it's an inescapable fact that if you are overweight and suffering from some of the illnesses that come with that then you are far more likely to succumb to this virus, one of the reasons why the idea that those who are vulnerable should self isolate and the rest of the country get on with their lives is a none starter is that there so many that this applies to. A lot of people are taking drugs to treat illnesses that could also be treated with changes in lifestyle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://news.sky.com/nhs-in-numbers
The Sky news page is certainly an eye opener, some of the figures in the common conditions section are staggering
The Sky news page is certainly an eye opener
8.4% compound annual growth rate for expenditure. Unadjusted for inflation.
We do as a nation need to have a debate about how we improve the health and fitness of the population,
See my point about cancer deaths. While cancer may not be infectious, it IS possible to reduce the incidence through behavioural and societal change.
Overall lifestyle and diet changes have to be promoted more after this you would hope.
Trouble is there will be an awful lot of people fighting back calling it fat shaming. They see it as their right to be fat and unhealthy.
That being said I don't want this to derail this thread.
Let's hope that any restriction reading is carefully controlled so the NHS can get back to treating everyone as soon as they can
We do as a nation need to have a debate about how we improve the health and fitness of the population,
It's not really a debate it's a fundamental change in values and putting people above profit and consumption. Unfortunately that other thing and the resultant strive for deregulation suggest a move towards increasing triggers for ill health rather than decreasing them.
So the UK variant is 30-40% more deadly as well as being more infectious? Just as well we had a strict lockdown as soon as it was identified..
Don't listen to today's government briefing if you're relaxing nicely into the weekend...
= :87(
Higher viral load = higher infectious dose = more severe illness in more patients. Not surprising, sadly. 🙁
It’s not really a debate it’s a fundamental change in values and putting people above profit and consumption
It's also creating a culture where exercise and fitness is seen as normal for everyone and it is prioritised in education and across local government (ask me how difficult it was to get my local council to help start a parkrun...).
We also need to be prepared to upset a few people (prepares for backlash) where we ensure obesity is not normalised and arguably not accepted in society.
I suspect we will end up with a jab like MMR for flu and corona.
Unsure with rnai type of vaccines if thay can be combined with a denatured virus, or giving both could illicit an auto immune response aa i am not an epidemiologist
Then everyone over 50 say gets both, if corona and flu both mutate slightly, and enough people carry enough active T cells it would quickly become a new normal
Well, so much for mutating to lower severity.
I might start putting good money down on my hunches now.
I really ****ing need to move sideways from Pharma into finance.
IIRC that in 'nature' viruses often mutate to be less deadly because natural selection favours viruses that enable hosts to spread rather than crawling away into a corner and dying. One issue with our civilisation is that severely ill people are transported to a central point (hospitals) promoting a natural selection of more deadly mutations.
IIRC that in ‘nature’ viruses often mutate to be less deadly because natural selection favours viruses that enable hosts to spread rather than crawling away into a corner and dying
Yup and this is what I've been saying, the evolutionary drive isn't there for it to mutate into a less deadly form.
Everything we have learned from the history of epidemics is wrong in this case, the last time we had a big one was too long ago as was the last time we had a possible coronavirus epidemic (1890s) for the same rules to apply now.
I'm beginning to become convinced that we're in the same kind of turning point that the introduction of the machine gun and guerrilla warfare had on the course of history and leaderships ability to comprehend what was afoot - it was only obvious with hindsight. Then again I might have had too much to drink.
scotroutes
Full MemberSo the UK variant is 30-40% more deadly as well as being more infectious? Just as well we had a strict lockdown as soon as it was identified..
Can you please consider your vocabulary when posting in here - there are anxious people reading this thread:
"Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said with the initial variant that out of a 1,000 people over 60 infected with it, 10 would die. With the UK variant, the available data suggests that 13 or 14 people out of 1,000 from the same age group would be expected to die, he added"
Thats 1% to 1.4% max or 0.4% in context.
Thanks
Yup and this is what I’ve been saying, the evolutionary drive isn’t there for it to mutate into a less deadly form.
Shall we say it again… this virus is already transmissible asymptomatically, and has a long period where that can occur, even in the cases when it ultimately kills. The evolutionary pressure to become less deadly is weak, and we should not be planning based on that happening in the next 18 months.
Can you please consider your vocabulary when posting in here – there are anxious people reading this thread
The “vocabulary” was correct. If you have the new variant, you are slightly more likely to die from it than if you had the previously understood variant. Sounds like 10% to 50% more likely when comparing old and new variants. This still means a less than 1.5% likelihood that infection with the new variant will result in death, and of course that varies greatly based on age.
Anyone else think those press conferences would be a lot better if they got rid of the podium in the middle?
Can you please consider your vocabulary when posting in here – there are anxious people reading this thread:
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Ultimately we live with the flu; we’ll almost certainly have to do the same for covid, once it gets into the same league as the flu, I think it’s fair to say we just don’t have the tools to eradicate it. Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- “living with it” doesn’t mean “just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead”, it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality. But even just “living with it” is a very dangerous term right now.
Living with flu as a society, concretely, means virtually nothing because all we do is offer a vaccine to the vulnerable and the old. Very, very occasionally some measures may be put in place IIRC if a hospital has a lot of cases or a school. I think?
With covid as it is, I can't see any way to live with it that doesn't cause so much pain that the price isn't worth it. I hope I don't sound hyperbolic when I say that should this continue indefinitely, we will have a revolution in no short order because there will be so many destitute and unemployed.
In my non-medical opinion, in the long term, should a vaccine be largely ineffective, one may as well let it burn. It worked for Spanish flu.
I imagine the conspiracy forums are melting down...
https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1352662770416664577?s=19
In my non-medical opinion, in the long term, should a vaccine be largely ineffective, one may as well let it burn. It worked for Spanish flu.
That is a very non-medical opinion. And this is not flu.
I'm fond of Bill, good to see he's getting the jab.