What stil missing is the numbers vaccinated in each age group and the incidence for each age group calculated from that.
OK, but that's not what you asked for. You asked for "the UK equivalent of the German numbers I posted above, i.e. a number reported up to a date?" I can't find the German numbers you refer to, and I can't find an actual how many vaccinated per age group and how many clots, but I can easily find this which I assume comes from that data* and which was covered by I think JVT two nights ago, and then posted on here a day ago
singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wheres-the-coronavirus-were-all-going-to-die-conspiracy-thread/page/699/#post-11834028
* assumption, etc, but I trust that the data being presented is based accurately on the raw data. You may need to see it to have that level of acceptance, I don't. There is a link in the Winton Report to the MHRA report and that might in turn lead to the data, I haven't had time to excavate.
and to CW, I ask again
You brought the chart which showed that severity of lockdown has no effect on death rates, can you answer the questions posed around the derivation of that term?
A lot of talking points from the 'Fatmountain' era being regurgitated on the thread.
The NHS is not overwhelmed every winter, whatever the media says, at least not to the extent that it produces an insane waiting time for many types of elective surgery.
The government should be encouraged not to repeat the mistakes it made last summer. The prize is avoiding another wave of infections from autumn onwards. Everything we're doing now is to try to avoid more disruption and restrictions later on. The NHS needs to start recovering and working through its backlog of non-essential work, if we can give them five to six months of low covid levels it will help enormously.
From the powerpoint, that data is "Numbers of cases of the blood clot reactions provided by MHRA up to March 31st in five-year age-bands. Observed rates smoothed using a Poisson regression on age, with log-link"
It would be nice to see confidence intervals and sample sizes (number vaccinated per age group). I tried to look for numbers vaccinated but the NHS data I found curently lumps all under 50s together in some tables and doesnt report under 50s in others.
@TiRed , or the other statistical modellers - presumably some correction is made for the larger sample sizes in the older age brackets?
Personally, I'm feeling very anxious about this. I was feeling really positive a couple of weeks ago but no longer. I feel like I need a better grasp on the data and risk before having the AZ vaccine.
As for the allowing abroad travel thats f-ing ridiculous. Can't even see my folks at the moment and in a month everyone can go to magaloof, share shots and neck strangers. Makes no sense!
A few weeks back we had a debate around the word "serious". ICU entries I can relate to and even divide by five and get deaths but then there's the Covid incidence for the 16 week period which is base on "2/10 000 for March" when today's number is 3.7 and March was much higher and I'm left thinking the blue column tells me not very much. Then I read "serious" harm in the right hand column and wonder waht that means. Does it mean blood clots? I can cope with raw data, really I can, it's better than second guessing what they mean and having to guess a level of Covid circulation that might give that 16 week figure. I also hate things with nicely smoothed numbers for risk decreasing with age when they claim to only have 80 cases to work from.
Edit: perhaps I should be clear about what I suspect here, that the numbers are being massaged to convince people AZ has a net benefit for over 30s when if you take the European numbers the threshold is much older. On th elast page you said that 4/6/12 wer all the same number really. Now multiply the right hand column by 12/4 and see how it looks.
It would be nice to see confidence intervals and sample sizes (number vaccinated per age group). I tried to look for this but the NHS data I found curently lumps all under 50s together in some tables and doesnt report under 50s in others.
as I said, you might need/want to see it, I trust the summary
The PRIMARY purpose of lockdowns is to lower admissions to hospitals so that by spreading them out the NHS can cope better, the SECONDARY purposes is to slow the spread of the disease. Astonishing isn’t it that by doing one thing, it has multiple good outcomes. The R rate is still pretty high, and the total infections are is still pretty high, if we simply ended lock down we’d very quickly be back into uncontrolled transmission.
I'm sorry but you are very conveniently ignoring the huge damage caused by lockdown. Also the R rate being high cannot be true since cases have been falling here since January. Florida and Texas have proved that ending lockdown completely, it does not mean that we'd quickly be back to into chaos.
I'm sorry but logic and reason seem to have gone out of the window here! Does anyone look at the actual data anymore?
I’m sorry but you are very conveniently ignoring the huge damage caused by lockdown
It's not a zero sum game. If you want there to be anything approaching "normality" to return, you sometimes have to take measures protect the most important part of it. That's the people in it, by the way...In case you were wondering. You can't have normality while at the same time have a pandemic overwhelm it.
So government now saying foreign travel back on post may 17th, prior to most under 50s having been vaccinated. Testing in place before and after travel but simple fact is many selfish cxxxs will simply ignore a positive result and fail to self isolate.
3rd wave of South African/Brazilian variant on its way and probably more lockdown. All because folks are desperate for a week’s holiday in the midst of a global pandemic.
Madness
But it has been reported that the vaccination is effective agains those strains. The elderly and vulnerable, who make up around 99% of people most susceptible have now been vaccinated. The vaccines work with more efficacy than was ever dreamed possible. So I fail to see what the problem is?
Or should we hide away and be cautious forever, making peoples lives miserable - you know, just in case!
We were promised that once the over 70's were vaccinated then restrictions would be lifted. Then it became the over 50's. Now it's the over 30's, and possibly the kids. Oh and when we meant back to normal we now mean that normal we need to test everyone twice a week and introduce vaccine passports and keep social distancing, travel restrictions and mask wearing.
Can you not see how the goal posts keep moving, despite the data not seeming to back this up? This is the madness!
It’s not a zero sum game. If you want there to be anything approaching “normality” to return, you sometimes have to take measures protect the most important part of it. That’s the people in it, by the way…In case you were wondering. You can’t have normality while at the same time have a pandemic overwhelm it.
But UK all cause mortality is now below average for the time of year? So where is the pandemic?
But it has been reported that the vaccination is effective agains those strains.
You really don't know what you are talking about do you..
But UK all cause mortality is now below average for the time of year? So where is the pandemic
Suppressed because we've been in lockdown. Wish you'd stop this.
Whilst not so extreme in my demands I see where you are coming from curlywhirly on the restrictions front. Today's rate is 37/100 000. The pressure on hospitals is no longer a limiting factor it's time to start lifting restrictions. but how far do you go?
Some restrictions cost nothing and cause no economic pain. So keep masking the kids in school, especially as they aren't vaccinated. Mask wearing in public transport ditto, and mask wearing indoors. Home working, keep that up where possible.
Then there are the economically damaging restrictions, I think that's the place to start a progressive opening up. But with new and hopefully temporary restrctions. You want to go to the cinema, fine, wear a mask. You want to travel within the UK, fine. You want invite 50 people to your wedding, fine, but everything is done outside, rain or shine.
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Putting venous blood clots into perspective<br><br>Astra-Oxford vaccine risk = 4 people in a million <br><br>Women taking combined contraceptive pill risk = 5 to 12 per 10,000 per year<br><br>Women not using pill=2 cases per 10,000 per year@SusanMichie @chrischirp @hssood @NikkiKF @PHE_uk @rcgp</p>— Kamlesh Khunti (@kamleshkhunti) April 9, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But it has been reported that the vaccination is effective agains those strains.
Pretty sure that all the reports say that it is less effective against those strains, though still some effectiveness.
No one is disputing the economic damage of lockdown. But dead and seriously ill people are pretty bad for the economy too. And Delhi has succinctly summed up the all cause mortality. If you do less, fewer people die in the process.
I'm assuming from some of curlywurlys comments you are US based?
I’m assuming from some of curlywurlys comments you are US based?
No, from Devon actually.
And the madness continues. So it costs between £600m and £800m to build a major new hospital. The government pledge to supply the UK population with 2 tests per week will cost £1b per week. Could we all have a think about that for a second?
Could we all have a think about that for a second?
Its pretty obvious - Dido Harding won't get a Knighthood if a new hospital is built, so what's the point eh?
Does anyone look at the actual data anymore?
I've looked at it but I don't understand it. Can you explain the data in your chart from earlier please?
So it costs between £600m and £800m to build a major new hospital. The government pledge to supply the UK population with 2 tests per week will cost £1b per week. Could we all have a think about that for a second?
option A takes probably the best part of a decade, and does that cost include the subsequent increase in doctors, nurses and other staff to run it?
option B a short term solution to the current short term problem. 100bn spent on furlough, if we can end that quicker at the cost of 1bn a week, then I'm all for it.
It would be nice to see confidence intervals and sample sizes (number vaccinated per age group)
When the numbers are this big, you don't really need the confidence intervals for proportion vaccinated. Confidence interval for incidence of thrombotic events is another matter.
Meanwhile, effective measures that should have been taken last year, such as prioritising our resources into the protection for the elderly and vulnerable, were not.
We fail at this annually for influenza. When an even larger hazard appears, why would we expect to me even MORE successful? Lockdown has the desired effect on force of infection in a relatively naive population. Hence relaxation led to a second wave which was brought under control by three months of intervention (95% reduction in cases, admissions and soon to be deaths). THE big question is whether the vaccination will control future spread once we unlock again. Models predict an increase in epidemic, likely smaller than the wave that just passed.
Dido Harding won’t get a Knighthood
Made me laugh anyway 😉 She's got one (well the equivalent), and I doubt she'll want the surgery. Nor am I sure of the precedent.
Does anyone look at the actual data anymore?
Yes of course. Currently mono-exponential declines across the board. Slight stabilizing of cases at the moment. Deaths fell faster than in the first wave. That may be partly explained by vaccination.
Hence relaxation led to a second wave which was brought under control by three months of intervention (95% reduction in cases, admissions and soon to be deaths)
What caused the waves and reduction in cases in those countries that did not lock down or have vaccines?
in those countries that did not lock down?
such as ?
Pretty sure that all the reports say that it is less effective against those strains, though still some effectiveness.
Absolutely, but far from as effective as against the current uk strains according to all the reports I've read
Hopefully he's read some fascinating insight into its effectiveness against the South African variant in the Devon Gazette..
I won't hold my breath however ...
Find me a country with zero restriction in movement to compare. What caused the resurgence in the UK (despite skeptic calls that the epidemic was over), complete with dip prior to Christmas from the Nov 4 lockdown, followed by a subsequent peak in cases a week after the third lockdown? The timing of interventions and expected changes in cases, admissions and deaths is now causally well established (and why we have a five-week decision cycle). The debate has shifted from "do they have an effect" to "whether such interventions are worth it".
@TiRed -
Confidence interval for incidence of thrombotic events is another matter
That was what i was getting at. Given a presumably low number of people under 50 having been vaccinated, I would have thought the confidence intervals on incidence of thrombotic events would be pretty large? Is that information presented anywhere?
Can you not see how the goal posts keep moving,
Would these be the goal post Boris concrete into the ground despite saying he wouldn't do.
effective measures that should have been taken last year, such as prioritising our resources into the protection for the elderly and vulnerable, were not.
Water under the bridge, can't go back in time, don't see how what happened last year is relevant to the route out if restrictions.
Some of us who look outside the mainstream media
You actually wrote that! Last defence of a conspiracy nut is to claim they have the inside track on knowledge everyone else has missed.Lockdowns worked, infection rates came down. And you're from Devon, one of the least affected areas in terms of infection, unfortunately many parts of the country are a lot more urban and have had much higher infection rates, that's straight from the data, not the main stream media or even social media.
Some of us who look outside the mainstream media for our news have realised that all lockdowns are was a dramatic and panicked public response designed to convince the electorate that our governments were acting decisively to address the perceived threat of Covid-19.
Water under the bridge, can’t go back in time, don’t see how what happened last year is relevant to the route out if restrictions.
To a point, but if we don't learn from past mistakes we will keep repeating them. On our third lockdown now aren't we?
Some of us who look outside the mainstream media
know that the earth is flat, the moon landings were faked, the lizard people at the centre of the earth are controlling everything, and the virus both doesn't exist and was made in a CIA lab in China.
Doc's just phoned, AZ 19:00 this evening. Time to put my arm where my mouth is. 🙂
The vaccines work with more efficacy than was ever dreamed possible. So I fail to see what the problem is?
Long covid for one thing. An estimated 1.1 million people of all ages with it right now. Horrendous debilitating symptoms. No treatments. No idea of how long it will last. No current evidence on whether vaccination prevents it.
Find me a country with zero restriction in movement to compare. What caused the resurgence in the UK (despite skeptic calls that the epidemic was over), complete with dip prior to Christmas from the Nov 4 lockdown, followed by a subsequent peak in cases a week after the third lockdown? The timing of interventions and expected changes in cases, admissions and deaths is now causally well established (and why we have a five-week decision cycle). The debate has shifted from “do they have an effect” to “whether such interventions are worth it”.
It should not be up to people who think lockdowns don't work to prove anything. More the burden of proof should be on the protagonists of lockdown, since they are the ones in charge of the nation and they are the ones dictating the measures. The lockdown proposers need to justify why they work, with risk and impact statements to prove why it is the best cause of action. So far I have seen no evidence that they work, baring some mild correlation which does not always bear out when you look at other nations.
Are you aware of any risk or impact assessments that have been made by the government to try and quantify the harms caused by lockdown? If you are then please share these because I haven't seen any.
Lockdowns are a big and unproven experiment which we are all subject to. And without a comprehensive risk assessment or impact assessment having been carried out, then they should probably be considered negligent in the extreme. Particularly when the first principle of medicine is "first - do no harm".
But in answer to your point, Sweden have maintained a fairly constant and sustainable level of mild restrictions throughout this crisis. They did make the same mistake with care home residents we did in the UK, but regardless of their success or otherwise, which is a separate debate, their Covid journey has had similar peaks and troughs to the UK, the first peak declining without imposing a strict lockdown like we did in the UK.
So why did their first peak decline in Sweden in the spring without lockdown? Why did a resurgence come again for Sweden in the autumn much like it did in the UK? Why has their second peak declined despite only 16% of the population being vaccinated?
Long covid for one thing. An estimated 1.1 million people of all ages with it right now. Horrendous debilitating symptoms. No treatments. No idea of how long it will last. No current evidence on whether vaccination prevents it.
You mean what commonly used to be called 'post viral fatigue' with many other serious viruses until it was renamed for Covid to generate that extra fear factor?
I had something similar with Glandular Fever. Strange symptoms, constantly knackered and unable to concentrate on work, not nice, lasted around 18 months before I felt properly right again.
, I would have thought the confidence intervals on incidence of thrombotic events would be pretty large?
Assuming a Poisson distribution, then the standard deviation is the square root of the number. So 100 cases would have an interval of about 60 to 140. Rare events always carry uncertainty.
More the burden of proof should be on the protagonists of lockdown
We've had three so far. After two cases rose again. After the third, there is an expectation that vaccination will have imparted sufficient immunity so as not to see a third surge.
We are not Sweden. We do not have the healthcare of Sweden. Why not choose Brazil? Or Mexico? For reference, probably our closest country statistically is France. Edukator knows exactly how things are looking in France - about the same as UK three months ago.
Air-borne viruses transmit more in stagnant damp air. In dry air the droplets contining the virus dry (the water droplet changes phase) and the virus loses its transport medium. That's why flu and colds are seasonal. Much has been made of the regional diffferences here in France. I'm happy to live in one of the least affected areas, the SW, which hasn't seen the third wave, it's an area that enjoys mild and relatively dry Winters. However the second wave which happened during our Autumn "monsoon" period filled the local hospitals fast. So the Swedish Spring decline can be put down to the weather - nad th emeasures they did take which weren't insignificant.
Edit: I confirm France is where the UK was a couple of months back, TiRed but it's very regional, Brittany and the SW have barely felt the third wave.
measures they did take which weren’t insignificant
Like closing schools.
We’ve had three so far. After two cases rose again. After the third, there is an expectation that vaccination will have imparted sufficient immunity so as not to see a third surge.
That is correlation, not causation and can be discredited by comparing to the curves in other countries with different measures in place.
We are not Sweden. We do not have the healthcare of Sweden. Why not choose Brazil? Or Mexico? For reference, probably our closest country statistically is France. Edukator knows exactly how things are looking in France – about the same as UK three months ago.
I doesn't matter whether we are Sweden or not, or or any other country for that matter. The facts are that many nations or regions have had their Covid cases reduce without lockdowns or other significant restrictions in place. Therefore I would be grateful if you could just answer the questions relating to this since it is material to your point, namely:
Why did their first peak decline in Sweden in the spring without lockdown? Why did a resurgence come again for Sweden in the autumn much like it did in the UK? Why has their second peak declined despite only 16% of the population being vaccinated?
Incidentally Sweden have less hospital beds than the UK per capita. I am sure there are other variations but this disproves the point you made about capacity to some extent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_hospital_beds
Even Macron has had to accept closing schools aften holding out as long as possible. Four days before the school holidays and five days after. Hopefully by then things will be under control again. Teaching windows open and masks on has kept classroom transmission down but the problem has been the canteens. The kids have to take the masks off to eat. In Madame's schol the head put up a big tent outside to feed some of the kids and spread luchtime over a longer period. Inner city schools didn't have the space to do that.
Like closing schools.
Not during the first wave they didn't yet cases declined in Sweden with their schools open at a similar rate to the UK with all of our schools shut. No masks either.
School closures during the Sweden second wave came about because of international and media pressure and it was only high schools that closed. Primary have been open throughout. Again no masks.
Seems some people have been mis-informed!
Analysis of latest imperial REACT data shows some evidence of flattening of prevalence. I fit an exponential polynomial through four contiguous surveys. This and ONS missed the peak in January.
EDIT - postimage seems to be borked. But there is not a lot to see. Yet...
Wouldn't waste your time on this thread, all reason went out of the window months ago.
Seems some people have been mis-informed!
Well, you’re trying to misinform us. Deliberately. Sweden moved all older children to distance learning in March 2020.
Anyway, we’ve covered Sweden 2020 in great depth already in this thread, often when engaging with new accounts created to troll on this subject, just like yours. We shouldn’t bother doing it all again to entertain you, and I have no idea why your new account is still active.
Incidentally Sweden have less hospital beds than the UK per capita. I am sure there are other variations but this disproves the point you made about capacity to some extent:
And yet spends significantly more per capita on healthcare, has far lower rates of obesity, higher life expectancy and a massively lower population density.
There are lots of reasons why any point about how well/badly Sweden has done compared to us need to be qualified or treated with caution. In health terms, you are comparing apples with a bag of chips.
Casting around for any reason to argue against lockdown is fine, but there is clear evidence that the introduction of lockdown here made a difference in terms of case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths. The Great Barrington stuff is beyond ridicule now, most of its proponents were saying in November that the pandemic was basically over in the UK.