Covid 19
- Thread starter cap n chris
- Start date
kay
Well-known member
Speleofish said:
Is there any evidence for this statement?
I've seen people compare life expectancy at birth with average age of death by Covid, but that is the wrong comparison. The comparison should be with remaining life expectancy having managed to reach a certain age. For example, an 85 year old woman has a remaining life expectancy of more than 7 years even though she is already older than the life expectancy from birth.
The idea that most people dying of Covid are in their last year or two of life has been seized upon by many on social media to argue we should just get on with life, because those who die "would have died anyway in a few months".
NewStuff
New member
At this point anyone in that position is not going to change it with a reasoned argument. We're long past the point of being nice. Being nice drags this out and reinforces the position that they can do whatever they please if they make enough noise to make it awkward. Worse still is people who have been begrudgingly doing things to prevent the spread seeing them doing what they damn well please, and emulating that.Pitlamp said:
aardgoose
Member
The years life lost argument is certainly disputed.
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/05/28/coronavirus-and-lost-life-three-million-years/
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/05/28/coronavirus-and-lost-life-three-million-years/
Stuart Anderson said:
I made my comment because surrounding the situation is the idea that we can all help stop people dying early by limiting our own lives to save others and help the NHS as we have been doing in various lockdowns for the best part of last year and will likely be doing for some of this year too at least.
Life is not just lost to corona virus however, some causes are out of our hands but some we have direct control over like whether we choose to drink alcohol or not, a guick Google suggests that around 25,000 lives are lost every year due to alcohol. You might say that this is preventable. Maybe some of the corona deaths might have even been prevented as a knock on effect of improving the poor health of those who succumbed for such reasons.
Lots of people are completly against the idea of preventive loss of life because of recent events yet probably are not T total themselves so are part of another problem that isn't being so well highlighted right now (I'm not T total for reference).
There also lots of online shaming about anyone who has an alternative view point to current events, I saw one article stating 'blood on the hands' of people who don't comply with rules (again for reference I have been and will be complying).
I hope those doing the current shaming about those taking a different view (based on evidence from other doctors and scientists* in my case) are so careful with other aspects of their life which might cause un-necessary burden on the health services due to their choices. It would seem to be double standards if they weren't.
If we really must prevent all preventable loss of life then we would be in a very boring world.
"And there is a sizable portion of these across the World not just one or two making noise.
aardgoose
Member
I can guess which ones you will be referring to. A small group of outliers who have been shown to be wrong repeatedly, but are still given media exposure and not questioned on their previous statements.
I won't attribute the quotes, they have enough publicity, for example:
And from May 2020:
Stu
Active member
maxf said:
Now we're getting somewhere, thanks to your much better expanded point.
That's one of the issues with social media and what appear to be flippant one liners such as your original post (which smacked of "whatabout-ism"). They only do service to people who for whatever reason, don't or won't face up to the part they play in this covid situation - usually in a negative self-centred way. This, obviously, isn't you because like myself, we've been following the guidance (I've got skin in the game - wife works clinical NHS and my livelihood has gone down the pan so I need this resolved as soon as possible).
You do seem to be conflating personal risk taking and putting others health at risk though. Not sure I've seen any NHS guidance on not going running, caving, rock climbing etc. The Dr. who made the claim of 'blood on the hands' is articulating what quite a few medical/clinical personnel are thinking. Whether he should have said it? Maybe it's the shot across the bow quite a few people need - quick yank on the chain - because there are still people taking the piss based on spurious whataboutism.
Speleofish
Active member
In reply to Kay's question, many of those who died from Covid were residential or nursing home residents who have an average life expectancy of less than 2 years (the British Geriatrics Society quotes 1 year average survival for nursing home residents, 2 years for residential homes). Most of those in hospital with severe respiratory failure who were deemed unlikely to benefit from mechanical ventilation were so categorised because they had major, life-limiting co-morbidities.
There was also a cohort of patients with severely impaired physiological reserve - bad lung or heart disease, severe dementia, major neurological impairment for example. These people can live for considerably longer than two years if they avoid getting severe infections but lack the reserve to survive a prolonged period of intensive care and the slow rehabilitation that follows. Many of these people die every winter, whether from 'flu, bacterial pneumonia or, this year, Covid. One can't say any individual in this group is in the last year or so of life but, statistically, many of them are.
There was also a cohort of patients with severely impaired physiological reserve - bad lung or heart disease, severe dementia, major neurological impairment for example. These people can live for considerably longer than two years if they avoid getting severe infections but lack the reserve to survive a prolonged period of intensive care and the slow rehabilitation that follows. Many of these people die every winter, whether from 'flu, bacterial pneumonia or, this year, Covid. One can't say any individual in this group is in the last year or so of life but, statistically, many of them are.
PeteHall
Moderator
NewStuff said:
God you are eloquent NewStuff!
The reality is that lockdowns are not a long term solution. WHO says so, as do a great number of virologists and epidemiologists.
Unless militantly enforced, they are pretty ineffective, but either way, they are incredibly damaging to the economy and hence to people's livelihoods, health and wellbeing.
Social distancing might prevent the spread of Covid, but it also slows the spread of other viruses and infections that keep our immune system healthy. There is a real risk that by isolating ourselves in a bubble, we are storing up problems for the future.
Questioning the rationale of a government who seem to have no direction or exit plan, and in Theresa May's words have 'picked the science to suit their decisions' hardly makes someone a c*nt.
To my mind, trying the same failed tactic again and again is madness. People are quite reasonably getting worn down by the situation and want to see a coherent strategy to recovery, not a constantly changing set of rules, inconsistent from one area to the next, with no apparent direction, let alone an end goal in sight.
From a personal perspective, I've had it fairly easy I suppose. I've not lost my job. Nobody I know has died or even had a bad case of Covid. But I'm bloody sick of the same 4 walls, where I spend most of my waking hours sat in front of a computer screen, seeing nobody, before going to sleep in the same room. The only face to face social interaction (beyond my household) I see in a typical week is asking the delivery guy to 'move the boxes off the front step because the door opens outwards'. I'm going slowly mad!
Getting out caving after the kids are in bed is pretty much the only thing keeping me going these days. I've got no idea if I'm 'breaking the rules' and quite frankly I'm beyond caring. I leave home at 7pm, I'm home shortly after midnight. Either I cave alone and see nobody, or I occasionally meet one other person. Rules or not, there is no chance that I'm contributing to the spread of any virus through these activities and I don't think anyone has the right to stop me.
I'm not trying to avoid some personal 'inconvenience' I'm trying to survive with my mental health intact and I don't give the slightest sh*t if you think that makes me a c*nt, NewStuff.
Right so here goes, here are some of the things that have led me to believe the statistics issued each day and presented on the news are not wholly accurate and easily lead people to believe the situation is worse than it actually is.
First we have the number of people who tested positive stated as 'cases'. Mostly results from PCR testing. Now when questioned Mathew Hancock said the false positive rate was less than 1%, all tests are subject to 'false positives' nothing is perfect and no doubt the more you test the larger the chances of it going wrong will be, and of course there may be false negatives also.
Here is the information:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/accuracy_of_rt_pcr_test_in_the_c
Please follow the link contained to this document to see the response.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/695879/response/1667544/attach/2/1460%20FOI%20Community%20prevalence%20of%20SARS%20CoV%202%20false%20positve%20rate%20it%20rate%20given%20to%20SAGEMPs.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
So if the false positive rate is under 1% then how can the following examples be explained ?
https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/documents/pooled_testing_report_30nov-6dec.pdf
By reading that document you will note that 10 positive tests were originally found, were then re-tested for completeness, none of the original positive tests were able to be repeated so 10 out of 10 were false positives. A bit higher than the less than 1% you have to admit.
I'm not saying that every case tested is wrong but even a small percentage of 55,000 cases we are being told are 'new covid cases' today is quite a lot of cases that potentially are not, people isolating at home for nothing, triggering colleagues/ friends to get a test for nothing and potentially adding further chance for false case numbers to rise triggering more people to get tested.
Another example where a difference has been found between PCR testing and another form of test the LFT was in Liverpool during the mass testing that happened (Liverpool being one of the hard hit areas around the time).
PCR results found that the prevalence across 47,270 people to be 2.98% positive (1,407 cases)
LFT results found that the prevalence across 65,792 people to be 0.61% positive (402 cases)
Of course these two datasets are from separate groups of people using different tests but that is a very large difference, a 3% positive population might be in the right territory to help justify a lock down whilst I think you would have a hard time convincing Joe public that there was a pandemic happening if just 0.61% tested positive.
There is other evidence in Scotland where LFT tests have been carried out along with PCR testing and again they paint a vastly different picture, `I cannot find where I saw it a few weeks ago.
PCR testing has the ability it is clear to detect very small amounts of virus, current or old in a person it cannot tell you, only a second test after a certain amount of time might be used to detect how the viral load is changing based on the cycle threshold required to achieve the original result. Lower cycle threshold on the second test would be more virus present, higher cycle threshold would mean less viral load in the sample.
Information here for those unfamiliar:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf
LFT detects active proteins present in someone who is likely to be ill and infectious so of course will report lower numbers as you could argue that PCR is overly sensitive.
For myself that few examples I have highlighted above where PCR testing has shown 10/10 false positives or a large amount more cases than a test which can detect live proteins is enough to make me doubt the very large number of cases reported each day especially when the government should know and be able to tackle any such questions accurately to put people like myself's mind to rest over such matters.
I mean couple of pdf's from the proper evaluation of laboratories they surely have could silence most of social media and gain a lot of people onside from a political point of view.
What I would like more transparency over is where the cut off is set, I don't doubt the methods ability to detect very small amounts of virus, but is this person actively ill and are they a threat to others ?
It also seems like the number of PCR determined cases is highly correlated with the number of PCR tests made, more tests is more cases.
Onto hospital figures, we are told there are xxxx people in hospital with covid, yet to me this conjures up xxxx people on deaths door having their breathing done for them.
An audit was done in Scotland in August and the results were quite striking, of the 384 patients labelled as covid cases in hospitals only 8% were actual current covid cases.
https://blogs.gov.scot/statistics/2020/09/15/counting-people-in-hospital-with-covid-19/
About halfway down under audit findings.
For the lazy the summary is here:
Statistics
Counting people in hospital with COVID-19
September 15, 2020 by Office of the Chief Statistician | Category Uncategorized
We are changing the way we count people in hospital with confirmed COVID-19 as of 15 September 2020. The new figures are lower than the previous published management information and we have a break in the time series. This blog explains why and how.
Current situation
Every day since mid-March, the Scottish Government has been collecting data on the number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital from across NHS Scotland. This data collection was set up quickly to meet an immediate need to understand the impact this new illness was having on our NHS hospitals. It was important to take a pragmatic approach to this in order to avoid any additional work for hospital staff, so while an approach was defined, local areas adopted the best way to extract this from their information systems.
The measure showed a rapid increase in the number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital to over 1,500 in mid-April, reflecting the situation at the time. However, the measure stabilised at around 250 into July and August. Data published daily on coronavirus.data.gov.uk shows that on 26 August, for example, there were 442 COVID-19 patients reported in hospitals in England, 48 in Wales and 17 in Northern Ireland, compared to 249 in Scotland.
In addition, data from Public Health Scotland shows that the numbers of new hospital admissions where COVID-19 was confirmed were relatively low through July and August. In early July, additional information on hospital onset
cases became available, and it was apparent that there were different types of inpatients being included in the figures provided each day by NHS boards, including those who have tested positive for COVID-19 at some point but are no longer being treated for COVID-19.
Investigation
On 26 August, we carried out a snapshot clinical audit to find out more about the relative contribution to the numbers of these different categories of patients (see below). In addition to using the available administrative information, this work involved clinicians in order to fully understand the status of current inpatients. The audit confirmed that the majority of COVID-19 inpatients reported in the daily published statistics were in hospital for an ongoing condition following a resolved COVID-19 infection, or for a condition unrelated to COVID-19. The majority of these were in the two largest Health Boards (Greater Glasgow & Clyde and Lothian), while some other Boards had previously adapted their own definitions to only include current cases, for example Fife did this in June resulting in a decrease in their figures.
Audit findings
The audit of inpatients identified 384 patients in hospital at 1am on 26 August across Scotland who had previously tested positive for COVID-19.
The majority of these patients (87%) were in hospital for a condition unrelated to COVID-19:
45% were hospital onset cases who were no longer being isolated or treated for COVID-19;
25% had recovered from COVID-19, been discharged and then readmitted for an unrelated condition;
9% had a previous positive COVID-19 test in the community, and were admitted for an unrelated reason
8% had been admitted for COVID-19, had recovered but were still in hospital for other reasons.
The audit showed that 8% of patients were either receiving treatment for COVID-19, were in rehabilitation after their treatment for COVID-19 was completed, or were in hospital for COVID-19 related complications. (5% of patients could not be classified into the above categories.)
Obviously we are at a different time of the year now compared to August and they have now decided to report differently based on this but again quite a lot different from the headline of '384' hospital cases when only 8% of them have and were actively being treated for Covid. Not sure where England stands on this reporting and breakdown of hospital cases.
I am not sure what the reporting requirement is for hospitals with covid patients but the numbers can be found here, page 14 out of 15:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948507/NOIDS-weekly-report-week52-2020-1.pdf
To me that says in last week of 2020 we had 85 new covid cases reported (actual clinical cases perhaps not just positive tests ?) , I'm sure someone can put me on the right track as to why many thousand were reported yet only 85 were in the document above.
As for one or two tin foil hat experts dictating all alternate theory, you have to question what they have to gain for doing so and what they have to loose by being so publicly wrong (possibly their whole career?)
I count over 13,000 medical and public health experts world wide and over 39,000 medical practitioners who have bravely signed the Great Barrington Convention.
https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/
Whilst it doesn't offer a way out of the Winter it shows the worldwide support and willingness of qualified people to speak out.
And my final point, looking at the UK deaths graph so far it appears we are nearly reaching the level now we were at in March or April, if we keep this trend or level then somehow with umpteen lock downs the same amount of people will be apparently dying due to Covid as did in the spring, when we didn't have a lock down until it was quite late so either lockdowns are not effective, or deaths are being or were incorrectly diagnosed either then or now.
Flak jacket on...change my mind with numbers and reports not whining about apparently not caring about people dying. As I have said this has not changed my actions with regard to lockdown compliance just my already dim view of those apparently in charge and their 'science based' approach.
First we have the number of people who tested positive stated as 'cases'. Mostly results from PCR testing. Now when questioned Mathew Hancock said the false positive rate was less than 1%, all tests are subject to 'false positives' nothing is perfect and no doubt the more you test the larger the chances of it going wrong will be, and of course there may be false negatives also.
Here is the information:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/accuracy_of_rt_pcr_test_in_the_c
Please follow the link contained to this document to see the response.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/695879/response/1667544/attach/2/1460%20FOI%20Community%20prevalence%20of%20SARS%20CoV%202%20false%20positve%20rate%20it%20rate%20given%20to%20SAGEMPs.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
So if the false positive rate is under 1% then how can the following examples be explained ?
https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/documents/pooled_testing_report_30nov-6dec.pdf
By reading that document you will note that 10 positive tests were originally found, were then re-tested for completeness, none of the original positive tests were able to be repeated so 10 out of 10 were false positives. A bit higher than the less than 1% you have to admit.
I'm not saying that every case tested is wrong but even a small percentage of 55,000 cases we are being told are 'new covid cases' today is quite a lot of cases that potentially are not, people isolating at home for nothing, triggering colleagues/ friends to get a test for nothing and potentially adding further chance for false case numbers to rise triggering more people to get tested.
Another example where a difference has been found between PCR testing and another form of test the LFT was in Liverpool during the mass testing that happened (Liverpool being one of the hard hit areas around the time).
PCR results found that the prevalence across 47,270 people to be 2.98% positive (1,407 cases)
LFT results found that the prevalence across 65,792 people to be 0.61% positive (402 cases)
Of course these two datasets are from separate groups of people using different tests but that is a very large difference, a 3% positive population might be in the right territory to help justify a lock down whilst I think you would have a hard time convincing Joe public that there was a pandemic happening if just 0.61% tested positive.
There is other evidence in Scotland where LFT tests have been carried out along with PCR testing and again they paint a vastly different picture, `I cannot find where I saw it a few weeks ago.
PCR testing has the ability it is clear to detect very small amounts of virus, current or old in a person it cannot tell you, only a second test after a certain amount of time might be used to detect how the viral load is changing based on the cycle threshold required to achieve the original result. Lower cycle threshold on the second test would be more virus present, higher cycle threshold would mean less viral load in the sample.
Information here for those unfamiliar:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf
LFT detects active proteins present in someone who is likely to be ill and infectious so of course will report lower numbers as you could argue that PCR is overly sensitive.
For myself that few examples I have highlighted above where PCR testing has shown 10/10 false positives or a large amount more cases than a test which can detect live proteins is enough to make me doubt the very large number of cases reported each day especially when the government should know and be able to tackle any such questions accurately to put people like myself's mind to rest over such matters.
I mean couple of pdf's from the proper evaluation of laboratories they surely have could silence most of social media and gain a lot of people onside from a political point of view.
What I would like more transparency over is where the cut off is set, I don't doubt the methods ability to detect very small amounts of virus, but is this person actively ill and are they a threat to others ?
It also seems like the number of PCR determined cases is highly correlated with the number of PCR tests made, more tests is more cases.
Onto hospital figures, we are told there are xxxx people in hospital with covid, yet to me this conjures up xxxx people on deaths door having their breathing done for them.
An audit was done in Scotland in August and the results were quite striking, of the 384 patients labelled as covid cases in hospitals only 8% were actual current covid cases.
https://blogs.gov.scot/statistics/2020/09/15/counting-people-in-hospital-with-covid-19/
About halfway down under audit findings.
For the lazy the summary is here:
Statistics
Counting people in hospital with COVID-19
September 15, 2020 by Office of the Chief Statistician | Category Uncategorized
We are changing the way we count people in hospital with confirmed COVID-19 as of 15 September 2020. The new figures are lower than the previous published management information and we have a break in the time series. This blog explains why and how.
Current situation
Every day since mid-March, the Scottish Government has been collecting data on the number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital from across NHS Scotland. This data collection was set up quickly to meet an immediate need to understand the impact this new illness was having on our NHS hospitals. It was important to take a pragmatic approach to this in order to avoid any additional work for hospital staff, so while an approach was defined, local areas adopted the best way to extract this from their information systems.
The measure showed a rapid increase in the number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital to over 1,500 in mid-April, reflecting the situation at the time. However, the measure stabilised at around 250 into July and August. Data published daily on coronavirus.data.gov.uk shows that on 26 August, for example, there were 442 COVID-19 patients reported in hospitals in England, 48 in Wales and 17 in Northern Ireland, compared to 249 in Scotland.
In addition, data from Public Health Scotland shows that the numbers of new hospital admissions where COVID-19 was confirmed were relatively low through July and August. In early July, additional information on hospital onset
cases became available, and it was apparent that there were different types of inpatients being included in the figures provided each day by NHS boards, including those who have tested positive for COVID-19 at some point but are no longer being treated for COVID-19.
Investigation
On 26 August, we carried out a snapshot clinical audit to find out more about the relative contribution to the numbers of these different categories of patients (see below). In addition to using the available administrative information, this work involved clinicians in order to fully understand the status of current inpatients. The audit confirmed that the majority of COVID-19 inpatients reported in the daily published statistics were in hospital for an ongoing condition following a resolved COVID-19 infection, or for a condition unrelated to COVID-19. The majority of these were in the two largest Health Boards (Greater Glasgow & Clyde and Lothian), while some other Boards had previously adapted their own definitions to only include current cases, for example Fife did this in June resulting in a decrease in their figures.
Audit findings
The audit of inpatients identified 384 patients in hospital at 1am on 26 August across Scotland who had previously tested positive for COVID-19.
The majority of these patients (87%) were in hospital for a condition unrelated to COVID-19:
45% were hospital onset cases who were no longer being isolated or treated for COVID-19;
25% had recovered from COVID-19, been discharged and then readmitted for an unrelated condition;
9% had a previous positive COVID-19 test in the community, and were admitted for an unrelated reason
8% had been admitted for COVID-19, had recovered but were still in hospital for other reasons.
The audit showed that 8% of patients were either receiving treatment for COVID-19, were in rehabilitation after their treatment for COVID-19 was completed, or were in hospital for COVID-19 related complications. (5% of patients could not be classified into the above categories.)
Obviously we are at a different time of the year now compared to August and they have now decided to report differently based on this but again quite a lot different from the headline of '384' hospital cases when only 8% of them have and were actively being treated for Covid. Not sure where England stands on this reporting and breakdown of hospital cases.
I am not sure what the reporting requirement is for hospitals with covid patients but the numbers can be found here, page 14 out of 15:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948507/NOIDS-weekly-report-week52-2020-1.pdf
To me that says in last week of 2020 we had 85 new covid cases reported (actual clinical cases perhaps not just positive tests ?) , I'm sure someone can put me on the right track as to why many thousand were reported yet only 85 were in the document above.
As for one or two tin foil hat experts dictating all alternate theory, you have to question what they have to gain for doing so and what they have to loose by being so publicly wrong (possibly their whole career?)
I count over 13,000 medical and public health experts world wide and over 39,000 medical practitioners who have bravely signed the Great Barrington Convention.
https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/
Whilst it doesn't offer a way out of the Winter it shows the worldwide support and willingness of qualified people to speak out.
And my final point, looking at the UK deaths graph so far it appears we are nearly reaching the level now we were at in March or April, if we keep this trend or level then somehow with umpteen lock downs the same amount of people will be apparently dying due to Covid as did in the spring, when we didn't have a lock down until it was quite late so either lockdowns are not effective, or deaths are being or were incorrectly diagnosed either then or now.
Flak jacket on...change my mind with numbers and reports not whining about apparently not caring about people dying. As I have said this has not changed my actions with regard to lockdown compliance just my already dim view of those apparently in charge and their 'science based' approach.
