Are you saying that the additional 3000 to 6000 deaths at Xmas is okay when compared to the total deaths?
No, not in the slightest, not sure where you think I said that. It was surprise at the absolute number against the 130K total
BTW it’s a log scale. So area is challenging. I can calculate the total above the mean too.
Yes, I accept mine is a fairly coarse approximation and of course acting sooner would mean that the decline would have shifted further to the left as well. But compared to other EU countries the Christmas debacle was not as expensive as I thought it would have been - I had in my mind before that graph 10's of thousands.
Still have 40,000 “in my mind”. Nothing on this page so far has moved me away from that figure. Assuming 20,000+ post xmas deaths couldn’t have been avoided by locking down earlier seems generous enough to the government.
Yes, you're right TiRed, thanks. Although I had noted that the graph is log scaled, and got the approx numbers of the base and the apex right, I hadn't calculated that the triangle (approximation) is not equally weighted - each horizontal slice is weightier than the one before.
Proves one of my arguments from earlier pages though. If you analyse your data and get an unexpected result, first check your calculation - have an idea what answer you expect. I was surprised at 3000-6000, I was right to be.
I had in my mind before that graph 10’s of thousands.
It's 2-3 10's of thousands. You have to calculate the absolute difference on the log scale, sum those up and multiply by 66. Very hard on that plot. But 25k is a solid estimate given we were so close to the mean on the way up.
Or as someone else would put it. A pile of bodies.
Still, better than another lockdown :rollseyes:
What a ****ing clown
@kelvin one could shift the second bump down and back to the left match the first small bump from lockdown2 then calculate the excess from that . It would not be kind...
I'm booked for my 1st jab tomorrow 🙂
However, I have to cycle 16 miles to St Helens for it.
Good news. Take it easy on the way home. Treat yourself with cake.
You'll be fine. Its normally the day after you feel a bit meh.
Or as someone else would put it. A pile of bodies.
Still, better than another lockdown :rollseyes:
What a **** clown
It sounds very unflattering. However, I think some 'critics' on the Left are, in bad faith, looking to frame all deaths as preventable in order to form a stick to beat the government with. Personally, I believe some level of death is tolerable so that life can go on. Put it this way, most of the care home residents 'saved' last year are now dead anyway of old age-related illnesses.
Well, I have to work the next 3 nights so not sure how that's going to pan out. If I feel really bad will have to phone in sick.
Anyway, I'm just glad to be able to significantly reduce the risk of morbidity. I had to hunt around for an early appointment because some locations were booked up for 2 weeks.
most of the care home residents ‘saved’ last year are now dead anyway of old age-related illnesses.
And the winner of today's "Idiotic things to say award" is....
Shifting the bump and rescaling the exponential decline roughly doubles the bad news...
No modelling was used to create the plot below. I just rescaled Lockdown3 and moved to Lockdown2 (November 5th). It isn't a prediction as there was no vaccine roll-out available, but it looks persuasive.
Shifting the bump and rescaling the exponential decline roughly doubles the bad news…
I think that is making the case too strongly, as it doesn’t allow for the ‘fact’ that the graph would have fallen less quickly… assuming the same lockdown measures introduced but fewer of the most at risk vaccinated at that point. Either way… it was still a very odd choice, on a political as well as human cost level, do delay that third lockdown, knowing that we were so close to vaccinating so many of the people most at risk. And, of course, late into lockdown means longer in lockdown… so even if your goal is to avoid lockdown use as much as possible, it was an odd choice to delay. Still, you get to ‘battle the boffins’ and accuse your political opponents of wanting to cancel Christmas… so there’s that ‘benefit’, if those kind of games are important to you.
^ this discussion is hugely important.
I think everyone would have sympathy with any world leader who suddenly finds themselves having to steer the country through a crisis like this. Some have done consistently well, some consistently badly - but most have done something in between. Australia (for example) have done consistently well, but there have still been some pretty significant cock-ups along the way.
Boris and chums have done consistently terribly and have revealed themselves to be exactly what many of us believed they were from day-one: utterly incompetent and morally bankrupt.
Vaccine procurement is the one thing that they seem to have done well, but that mustn't allow Boris and the government off the hook for the tens-of-thousands of extra deaths resulting from their staggering incompetence in literally every other action that they either took or didn't take. Much of which was done actively against scientific advice.
(I tried to list all Boris's failings here, but deleted it because it got too long/ranty)
All governments must be held to account for their failings during the pandemic - and as above, some of which can be excused on the basis that nobody really knew how to deal with the situation as it was unfolding. But this is not 53m for a stupid bridge, or however-much redecorating a flat, or even over 100,000 of public money to a woman with whom he was having a 4 year secret affair..... this is tens-of-thousands of extra dead people.
The good news is that every epidemiologist in the world is going to be pulling apart the Covid data for decades to come - and so Boris's catalogue of errors is going to be quantified (if only to be able to actually write the playbook for the next pandemic). However, the British public have got to have the will to hold him to account - in the way that they inexplicably haven't for the shit****ery that is/was Brexit.
Aaaaaaand breathe.
Now I'm back at work in my barber shop I'm hearing mostly sympathy for Boris. The gamble on vaccines and then on going to 12 week jabs might have been the save of the century. Short memories...
😉
I haven't been to a barber's shop since my mother last dragged me into one. Before I bought a hair trimmer I went to the hairdresser's. However, a Birmingham Mail and Daily Mail reading relative has always been to the barber's and so have his mates.
I realise society has changed and there are now classy barber's shops for trendy hispter types (are they the future gammons? ) However, the barber's shop seems to attract a certain type of client. There are exceptions of course. There's a thesis to be written here.
Note that I have nothing against barber's, they are not responsible for the politics of their clients.
😉
One doses of vaccine reduces transmission by 39-49%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56904993
Would be nice if it was higher, maybe it will be after a second dose. But it does seem to work, so whether an individual feels they need the vaccine or not based on their own covid risk, they should still get it "for the team"
I met my first real-life anti-vaxer yesterday, over 60 and has already had Covid with mild symptoms. Everyone else I've talked to about it has either had at least their first jab or is waiting impatiently. My social contact is more limited than usual but that's around 20:1 in favour of vaccination.
The gamble on vaccines and then on going to 12 week jabs might have been the save of the century.
Absolutely. Johnson's government got that part right.
They also did well in ramping up testing to start with but made bad decisions around lateral flow. Test and trace has been a privatised debacle but is now being fixed.
BIG BUT they got the timing of lockdowns repeatedly wrong. The first time is perhaps excusable, after that there's no excuse. We've seen around the world that early, hard lockdowns save lives and reduce economic impact.
Also met my 1st real life anti vaxxer last week, chap down the road that I've chatted with many times and attended street BBQ's and drinks with, recently retired policeman, he was walking up the road as I left to pick my daughter up from school, he had his litter picker and bag and was going litter picking at the park, what a good citizen I thought. We chatted about life and cancelled plans/holidays, I then asked him if he'd had his jab as he's 55ish I think, his reply was "it's not for me, I won't bore you with my reasons". He then bored me with his reasons, classic "I've done my research, it's been rushed, I know NHS workers and the hospitals were never that busy". "I'll take my chances". Was so shocked I barely knew what to say, just wasn't expecting it. If my sister in law was with me (NHS worker) I think I'd have had to hold her back from inserting the litter picker somewhere. Everyone else I've spoke to, family/friends/work colleagues are chomping at the bit to get jabbed. Day of my jab I was excited and I hate needles!
^ that to me is not an anti-vaxxer particularly. Misinformed, misguided, certainly in my opinion. I'd hope to convince them but as we did a few pages ago, that's not easy when in their mind a bloke down the pub with a twitter account carries as much weight as a scientist with 25 years of experience and a peer reviewed paper.
Anti-vaxxers - are a different breed entirely. Setting out to misinform and mislead. I'm sure some of them are convinced they're right and everyone else is wrong, but some are just doing it to stir trouble, thinking they're sticking it to the man, or whatever.
Is it possible for a person to refuse the cv19 vaccine at the current point in time and not be labelled an antivaxxer?
I think its a perfectly reasonable position for a person to take to decide that the vaccine has not been tested enough (yet!) - and that you will wait a bit longer before taking it, especially if you are relatively young.
I think it is unreasonable to refuse the cv19 vaccine because you think that bill gates is using it to implant microchips to control people via 5g signals.
Both these result in the same thing - a person doesnt have the vaccine, but for different reasons.
Just interested in how tolerant people are of different peoples views and decisions?
For full disclosure (in case this post sets the mob loose on me) - I have had my first vaccine dose a couple of weeks ago, and will be following up with the second in july.
I think so, yes. As per my post above.
I think they're wrong, but I am sympathetic to why they are wrong (broadly, don't understand the situation properly or been misled into not understanding the situation)
I personally wavered over the AZ, i was first vaxed about 4 weeks ago when clots were first being mentioned. I wavered, did some reading, asked some questions on here and listened to the answers, and then on reflection realised the balance of risk - benefit was still heavily on Yes. Others are presumably doing the same and coming down on No - why? As above, but convincing someone to admit they are wrong is difficult, we seem to have lost the ability.
[edit - address a specific point]
'It's reasonable to believe it hasn't been tested enough - yet'
I think it's reasonable for someone to have that as a concern, but if you read (and trust) the information about how this has been managed at such speed, using proper sources and credible commentary, then that can be addressed. If they are willing to listen. It's not reasonable IMHO to continue to believe that after you've properly understood the situation.
Put it this way, most of the care home residents ‘saved’ last year are now dead anyway of old age-related illnesses.
Surprised this has come up again when the stats have been mentioned elsewhere to disprove it? Statistically if you reach 80 you are likely to reach 90?
Batfink again absolutely nails it. Thought about running for office over here?
I think its a perfectly reasonable position for a person to take to decide that the vaccine has not been tested enough (yet!)
Except it was one of the most widely tested vaccines ever as everyone was focused on it? Its taken literally millions of doses of AZ to throw up the clotting issue because the risk was so (relatively) small.
Except it was one of the most widely tested vaccines ever as everyone was focused on it? Its taken literally millions of doses of AZ to throw up the clotting issue because the risk was so (relatively) small.
Any (negative) long term consequences of the vaccine cannot be fully known yet - as the vaccine has only been in existance for a few months - we can take a very educated guess that it is safe over the long term (based on other vaccines etc ), but until its been around for a long time (however you define that) , we cannot be certain.
there are different levels of antivaxxing, for sure. But if someone takes this stance:
I think its a perfectly reasonable position for a person to take to decide that the vaccine has not been tested enough (yet!)
They had better have good information and strong views on exactly what constitutes adequate testing of any and all vaccines and other food and drugs; rahter than just "too quick dont trust it"
Any (negative) long term consequences of the vaccine cannot be fully known yet – as the vaccine has only been in existance for a few months – we can take a very educated guess that it is safe over the long term (based on other vaccines etc ), but until its been around for a long time (however you define that) , we cannot be certain.
Absolutely true. Risk benefit though....
It's like a motorcyclist in a crash. You're told don't move them to protect the neck and the spinal cord. But they aren't breathing. So you have to turn them over and remove their helmet; you do it as carefully as you can in the circumstances, but you do it.
On the balance of all the similarities to other vaccines, the testing that has been done, the data being gathered daily (it's not just thrown out there and get on with it; a clinical trial would probably not have revealed the clotting until much later) it's clearly in favour of vax. Others disagree.
Surprised this has come up again when the stats have been mentioned elsewhere to disprove it? Statistically if you reach 80 you are likely to reach 90?
You arent discussing the same thing there though. That applies to the wider population and not care homes which, pretty much by definition, will have the more vulnerable people.
Someone entering a carehome will on average live another 2 years so whilst the claim of "most" is incorrect its not debunked by the average life expectancy across the entire population figure.
@dissonance - even if you put all your eggs in that basket your 2 years is 3x the expectancy of those needlessly saved last summer as the cake scoffer heartlessly commented
I’d hope to convince them but as we did a few pages ago, that’s not easy when in their mind a bloke down the pub with a twitter account carries as much weight as a scientist with 25 years of experience and a peer reviewed paper.
This is that competence/incompetence, conscious/unconscious, four stages thing.
1, unconscious incompetence - so bad at something, you're not in possession of the necessary tools to even know you're awful at it
2, conscious incompetence - now you are aware of how bad you are, and have some idea to improve
3, conscious competence - being able to do something, when you concentrate on it
4, unconscious competence - you can do it in your sleep, everything is reflex, expert
w.r.t. critical thinking as applied to vaccine studies, bulk of population is at stage 1
a mountain to climb before they even realise how bad they are at making decisions
my concern is with 2a - aware of how bad you are, but unwilling to admit any sort of weakness and so keep on with shouting ever more angrily to cover it up
an entirely different problem altogether...
Put it this way, most of the care home residents ‘saved’ last year are now dead anyway of old age-related illnesses.
Typical residency in a nursing home is two years. So about a third to a half have died. To be replaced by new resident who have not died. Mortality from COVID in the 85+ has fallen dramatically.
Buying future vaccines that may not materialise uses a lot less political capital than shutting down an economy. No surprise that we succeeded on the first (where vaccine success was not guaranteed) and failed on the second. Conservatively, 25k additional deaths might have been avoided this year with prompt and consistent intervention. Mortality always peaks in mid-January due to Christmas interactions. This year shows the same. The comparison is with Europe, not historic UK (which looks more favourable due to reduced other mortality).
Any (negative) long term consequences of the vaccine cannot be fully known yet
Sadly the same is true for infection. Speaking to my consultant yesterday, she has seen a large number of mildly infected otherwise healthy people, who have subsequently gone on to develop Long COVID symptoms. Vaccines will afford protection from morbidity. As I have said previously, everyone will catch SARS-CoV2 eventually. It will be better if one has some pre-existing immunity of any form.
even if you put all your eggs in that basket your 2 years is 3x the expectancy of those needlessly saved last summer
And I did say they were wrong. Its just I am not a fan of trying to beat bad figures with equally bad ones.
Speaking to my consultant yesterday, she has seen a large number of mildly infected otherwise healthy people, who have subsequently gone on to develop Long COVID symptoms.
How are you doing TiRed?
Surprised this has come up again when the stats have been mentioned elsewhere to disprove it? Statistically if you reach 80 you are likely to reach 90?
I was specifically talking about care home residents. The average stay is about 2 years IIRC. Assuming a normal distribution this means anyone resident at a given time has about a year to live on average?
And what about new residents? And staff? They were also protected (to an extent) by trying to keep the virus out of care homes... do their lives not count?
At one point it looked as if the winter wave would take my Aunt with it (she's in charge of nursing at a care home, and is, er, quite senior) but her hospital stay was quite short in the end, and she recovered at home with remote monitoring. They lost people... some of whom weren't in the home in March last year. All the testing, monitoring, and limited access that had kept the virus out for months wasn't enough when we failed to stop the entirely predictable, and long predicted, winter wave from spreading though the wider community.
I think my general point is that I understand where some of the lockdown sceptics are coming from. Kids have lost over a year of school (which is massive for them), many young peoples' life changes are severely diminished by being in the 'covid cohort' and thousands of business have been trashed. The logic of the lockdowns was not so much about reducing covid to 'livable' levels but on the basis that all lives must be saved.
you're failing the empathy test again
The logic of the lockdowns was not so much about reducing covid to ‘livable’ levels but on the basis that all lives must be saved.
Well, that isn't true, is it. At no point has the government claimed this, or aimed to make it so. I mean, look at the UK's death toll from covid "with" our lockdowns. It's not exactly zero.
Well, that isn’t true, is it. At no point has the government claimed this, or aimed to make it so. I mean, look at the UK’s death toll from covid “with” our lockdowns. It’s not exactly zero.
It's certainly implicit within certain circles. The Guardian, for example, is campaigning for inquests into certain individual deaths.
The Guardian, for example, is campaigning for inquests into certain individual deaths.
Can you provide examples?
Although I cant see why wanting some inquests somehow translates into "all lives must be saved".
For example you could say there needs to be an inquest into some of the public transport workers deaths. That isnt "all lives must be saved" but just "were some basic safeguards missed which could have saved lives".
The Guardian, for example, is campaigning for inquests into certain individual deaths.
You claimed the lockdowns were on the basis that all lives must be saved, rather than to reduce deaths. Inquests into why so many died, and why certain people died, aren't precluded by the fact that the government accepted, and told us, that many would die, even with lockdowns.
