"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- Thread starter The Old Ruminator
- Start date
Speleofish
Active member
Two points. First, in reply to Mikem's comment about people dying of bacterial infections rather than
the virus itself, there's some truth that in 'normal' flu years, the initial flu is often followed by a bacterial pneumonia. In the generally elderly, frail population who are most prone to die of flu, this can be lethal. It was less true of swine flu - most of our sickest patients had a viral lung infection, often leading to multi-organ failure (though very few died on ICU).
Most of the patients dying of Covid on our intensive care unit do so because of the virus itself - either the lung inflammation or failure of other organs (especially heart failure and blood clots, predominantly affecting the lung or brain though they can occur anywhere). The survivors are left extremely weak with significant lung damage and are prone to further infections.To date, most of these seem to be surviving.
These figures are distorted because those most vulnerable to lethal infections or complications are the very frail who tend to do so badly if they're put on ventilators that we tend not to offer the treatment.
The second point relates to testing. There are two tests, the antigen test looking for the presence of the virus and the antibody test, looking for evidence that one has encountered the virus in the past. Neither is sufficiently accurate to apply reliably to individuals. At the time the lockdown was being considered, the antigen test was showing false negative results in up to 30% of subjects. Data for the various antibody tests aren't yet available. Some are extremely accurate, others little better than spinning a coin.
The government is coming under sustained criticism for not doing enough antigen tests. I understand the value of testing aggressively when there are very few cases in the country and it is possible to contact trace but it needs to be used in conjunction with some sort of targeted lockdown. Testing and contact tracing alone without a lockdown using an inaccurate test, can't be effective when you're missing 1/3 of positive cases (especially when the R number is above 3, which it was initially). Similarly, once the infection has become widespread there is little point in contact tracing because the problem is too big and too complex. There is some value in testing hospitalised patients and symptomatic health care staff but a large number of infected people will be missed so all one can say is the risk the person presents to the surrounding community is reduced, not absent.
I don't think antigen testing will become valuable for the general population until we've reduced the number of infected people to manageable, traceable numbers, ideally combined with a sophisticated app-based contact tracing device. This will become essential during the relaxation of lockdown.
Antibody tests may become sufficiently accurate and convenient to get an idea of the number of patients who've encountered the infection. This will give some indication of the degree of herd immunity we have developed. IF infection leads to long-lasting immunity, it may allow people to feel reassured (or otherwise, if they test negative!). It's also essential during the initial vaccine trials if we are to separate immunity due to vaccination from immunity due to previous exposure to the virus.
the virus itself, there's some truth that in 'normal' flu years, the initial flu is often followed by a bacterial pneumonia. In the generally elderly, frail population who are most prone to die of flu, this can be lethal. It was less true of swine flu - most of our sickest patients had a viral lung infection, often leading to multi-organ failure (though very few died on ICU).
Most of the patients dying of Covid on our intensive care unit do so because of the virus itself - either the lung inflammation or failure of other organs (especially heart failure and blood clots, predominantly affecting the lung or brain though they can occur anywhere). The survivors are left extremely weak with significant lung damage and are prone to further infections.To date, most of these seem to be surviving.
These figures are distorted because those most vulnerable to lethal infections or complications are the very frail who tend to do so badly if they're put on ventilators that we tend not to offer the treatment.
The second point relates to testing. There are two tests, the antigen test looking for the presence of the virus and the antibody test, looking for evidence that one has encountered the virus in the past. Neither is sufficiently accurate to apply reliably to individuals. At the time the lockdown was being considered, the antigen test was showing false negative results in up to 30% of subjects. Data for the various antibody tests aren't yet available. Some are extremely accurate, others little better than spinning a coin.
The government is coming under sustained criticism for not doing enough antigen tests. I understand the value of testing aggressively when there are very few cases in the country and it is possible to contact trace but it needs to be used in conjunction with some sort of targeted lockdown. Testing and contact tracing alone without a lockdown using an inaccurate test, can't be effective when you're missing 1/3 of positive cases (especially when the R number is above 3, which it was initially). Similarly, once the infection has become widespread there is little point in contact tracing because the problem is too big and too complex. There is some value in testing hospitalised patients and symptomatic health care staff but a large number of infected people will be missed so all one can say is the risk the person presents to the surrounding community is reduced, not absent.
I don't think antigen testing will become valuable for the general population until we've reduced the number of infected people to manageable, traceable numbers, ideally combined with a sophisticated app-based contact tracing device. This will become essential during the relaxation of lockdown.
Antibody tests may become sufficiently accurate and convenient to get an idea of the number of patients who've encountered the infection. This will give some indication of the degree of herd immunity we have developed. IF infection leads to long-lasting immunity, it may allow people to feel reassured (or otherwise, if they test negative!). It's also essential during the initial vaccine trials if we are to separate immunity due to vaccination from immunity due to previous exposure to the virus.
alastairgott
Well-known member
population (2019)=66million (give a few thousand)andrewmc said:
Deaths per 1000 people per annum stand at around 9.
source: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/death-rate
therefore deaths 2019 should be approx. =(66mill/1000)*9=594,000
death rate per week from 594k is approx. =11,500
I'd conclude that the underlying data for the diagram which Andrew posted probably gives a pretty accurate representation.
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
Yes of course Rebutting. Its too early for me to get my wording quite right. Well, I have read it. Its called " The Grand Delusion " written by an eminent pathologist. Of course, the Daily Mail does not come tops as a source of reference but again in the account we have some interesting statistics.
After this, a lot of you reading this will not have a job to return to. We lost 80,000 people in the UK to HK Flu in 1968 with little disruption to the economy. In 2015 more than 28,000 died in the UK from seasonal Flu. Today the under 50's, ie the main workforce in this country, are largely unaffected. Having oxygen forced into your lungs by a ventilator is damaging. The scientist largely responsible for today's modeling has an appalling track record of predictions. My wife is still waiting for the result of an important MRI scan done in Dec. My brother in laws follow up investigation for colon cancer cancelled. The mortality rate for Covid-19 could be as low as %0.1. By actually confining the virus we might be making it more effective by slowing down its mutation rate and stopping immunity. We wait for the " magic bullet " in terms of a vaccine but that might never arrive or be less effective as time moves on.
Back in Feb this year I had a really odd illness. All of the symptoms of Covid-19. I coughed for four days. My brother had the same. I had to lie on the couch for a long while I felt so ill as did my brother. Covid-19 ? Who knows without testing ?
The government knows that their control is slipping away. I am visiting relatives and so is everyone else I know. The Churchillian stance will not last much longer last. Already the mantras are wearing thin " Save The NHS ". That was saved weeks ago if ever it really needed " saving ". As the account says we have become anaesthetised from reality. The patient is in a coma. Our lives will never be the same again. Maybe the cost will be seen as far too high. Its a young person's future. We oldies can just sit back and watch you struggling to repay the massive debts that occurred by all of this. No I am not enticing rebellion. I am just asking people to question everything that they hear. As was once said " The first casualty of war is Truth." We are being fed propaganda and emotional blackmail. We must sift though what statistics and evidence we see and hear and form our own opinions rather than like I said being led by the nose.
After this, a lot of you reading this will not have a job to return to. We lost 80,000 people in the UK to HK Flu in 1968 with little disruption to the economy. In 2015 more than 28,000 died in the UK from seasonal Flu. Today the under 50's, ie the main workforce in this country, are largely unaffected. Having oxygen forced into your lungs by a ventilator is damaging. The scientist largely responsible for today's modeling has an appalling track record of predictions. My wife is still waiting for the result of an important MRI scan done in Dec. My brother in laws follow up investigation for colon cancer cancelled. The mortality rate for Covid-19 could be as low as %0.1. By actually confining the virus we might be making it more effective by slowing down its mutation rate and stopping immunity. We wait for the " magic bullet " in terms of a vaccine but that might never arrive or be less effective as time moves on.
Back in Feb this year I had a really odd illness. All of the symptoms of Covid-19. I coughed for four days. My brother had the same. I had to lie on the couch for a long while I felt so ill as did my brother. Covid-19 ? Who knows without testing ?
The government knows that their control is slipping away. I am visiting relatives and so is everyone else I know. The Churchillian stance will not last much longer last. Already the mantras are wearing thin " Save The NHS ". That was saved weeks ago if ever it really needed " saving ". As the account says we have become anaesthetised from reality. The patient is in a coma. Our lives will never be the same again. Maybe the cost will be seen as far too high. Its a young person's future. We oldies can just sit back and watch you struggling to repay the massive debts that occurred by all of this. No I am not enticing rebellion. I am just asking people to question everything that they hear. As was once said " The first casualty of war is Truth." We are being fed propaganda and emotional blackmail. We must sift though what statistics and evidence we see and hear and form our own opinions rather than like I said being led by the nose.
Stu
Active member
The Old Ruminator said:
My wife's colleague (NHS consultant) was buried three weeks ago. His family not in attendance at the funeral. Our very good A&E doctor friend is just coming through it, with much misery and anguish for his wife and two young children who thought he was done for.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/doctors-nurses-porters-volunteers-the-uk-health-workers-who-have-died-from-covid-19
Kindly f*** off with your "did it ever really need saving".
Speleotron
Member
The Old Ruminator said:
You can't compare death numbers of Covid-19 to the HK flu. We didn't lock down to HK flu. We did for Covid. We 30 - 40 k dead from Covid in 7 weeks of lockdown. That is serious. Imagine the deaths if we didn't lockdown.
You really can't compare this to past epidemics which we didn't lock down for. The death numbers for past epidemics are also the final figures. This pandemic has only just begun!
Comparisons to flu are also missleading because flu is generally in a steady-state whereas Covid has the potential to grow exponentially through a non-immune population. And again, we don't lock down for flu so comparing the number of dead is meaningless. How many would die of flu if we locked down for it? A few hundred?
The economy would also crash if we didn't lock down. How strong do you think consumer confidence would be if this was happening in the UK? https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-burial-pits-iran-grown-so-fast-see-from-space-2020-3?r=US&IR=T
P.S. Sorry for the rant!
aardgoose
Member
what on earth is "By actually confining the virus we might be making it more effective by slowing down its mutation rate and stopping immunity." meant to mean. It's nonsensical. Rapid mutation is what defeats immunity.
As to the Daily Mail as a source of information on anything (or the Mail on Sunday), it is better regarded as an indication of what is not true. And appeal to authority doesn't wash, see also Linus Pauling.
As to the Daily Mail as a source of information on anything (or the Mail on Sunday), it is better regarded as an indication of what is not true. And appeal to authority doesn't wash, see also Linus Pauling.
Speleotron
Member
A lot of the press are desperate for this lockdown to end. Presumably the owners want their portfolios to be protected by their workers going in and risking their lives while they remain isolated at home. We have 30 - 40 k dead in 7 weeks of lockdown, they don't seem to get the magnitude of this.
We hear rubbish like 'we didn't lock down for the blitz', well the blitz killed as many in a year as this and has done in 7 weeks, and bombs don't spread from person to person. Comparisons to flu are also rubbish as I've explained a couple of posts above.
We hear rubbish like 'we didn't lock down for the blitz', well the blitz killed as many in a year as this and has done in 7 weeks, and bombs don't spread from person to person. Comparisons to flu are also rubbish as I've explained a couple of posts above.
JoshW
Well-known member
The Old Ruminator said:
Definitely fallen down the daily mail hole there TOR..
The doctor who wrote the article seems to be playing down Coronavirus saying that the economy should take precedence, that is people should be put putting theirs and their families lives on the line so that millionaires can get closer to being billionnaires
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
I am sorry to upset anyone including Stuart above. Every death for any reason is a tragedy. Those views are the view of a correspondent in a national newspaper. My comment about the NHS was put forward as such by the correspondant suggesting that initial statistics made by a person with a flawed record might have been an exaggeration leading to a political panic regarding the ability of the NHS to cope with figures of maybe 500,000. Perhaps the NHS was in a better place to cope being the best-organised healthcare system in the world. By all means, refute any of that in the newspaper but don't blame me for it. My view is pretty much on the fence but as yet I don't know which side.
Speleotron
Member
You didn't upset me (not that I think the apology was for me) I'm just posting out of boredom, sorry if I came across as ranting I just have a bee in my bonnet about stats. I don't think the prediction of 500 k was that far out. If we're on 30-40 k with lockdown then 500 k without seems reasonable.
alastairgott
Well-known member
It is a really difficult one to resolve, with almost everyone in the UK affected in some way by the crises. I think what OR is saying (and forgive me for putting words into your mouth), is "should it have ever needed saving".
The wake up calls were there when people were bussed from the airports straight to the Wirral back in, was it February?
The softly softly approach that we saw at the start, oh there's one case over there another over there, you could already see that the web was far too big for it to be a handful of cases and a handful of deaths.
I believe there should have been a pause button pressed far earlier. Food Rationed, and a ban on all financial transactions with the stock market closing.
But those are just my strange ideals, a far better strategy is to have an autocratic democracy where you tell the rest of the world everything is back to normal and send everyone back to work in Hubei.
It's an awful situation and the only way to make it better is Hindsight. I don't think I know anyone who has died from Covid, but then it's never too far away, and I may not even know yet if anyone I know has died from it. At the moment i'm in a bubble of disconnection from the rolling headlines of Covid.
The wake up calls were there when people were bussed from the airports straight to the Wirral back in, was it February?
The softly softly approach that we saw at the start, oh there's one case over there another over there, you could already see that the web was far too big for it to be a handful of cases and a handful of deaths.
I believe there should have been a pause button pressed far earlier. Food Rationed, and a ban on all financial transactions with the stock market closing.
But those are just my strange ideals, a far better strategy is to have an autocratic democracy where you tell the rest of the world everything is back to normal and send everyone back to work in Hubei.
It's an awful situation and the only way to make it better is Hindsight. I don't think I know anyone who has died from Covid, but then it's never too far away, and I may not even know yet if anyone I know has died from it. At the moment i'm in a bubble of disconnection from the rolling headlines of Covid.
Speleotron
Member
I mostly agree apart from closing the stock market! This would mean that people on defined contribute pensions can't retire until all this is over. Imagine what would happen when you re-open the market, everyone would be in a mad rush to sell as many indexes were near all-time-highs just before what is possibly a massive recession kicked in during a market pause. Those people waiting to retire would then be wiped out in a few seconds.
In an ideal world the stock market is for efficient allocation of capital, and anyone with a pension benefits from it. You can't say that we shouldn't be thinking about which companies will do well and which will do badly during a massive event like this. Even morally dubious things like short selling are often done to hedge your pension pot against other risks. Anyway I'm probably derailing things a bit.
In an ideal world the stock market is for efficient allocation of capital, and anyone with a pension benefits from it. You can't say that we shouldn't be thinking about which companies will do well and which will do badly during a massive event like this. Even morally dubious things like short selling are often done to hedge your pension pot against other risks. Anyway I'm probably derailing things a bit.
Doing nothing was never an option, but isolating those at risk was and is an option. There has been considerable failure to achieve that. No-one in my Dads care home has been tested yet, and it?s certainly not a money issue. The hospital tried to send untested patients to his home, but they were refused and is probably why they are still heads above water. Many others are not. Most care homes do not have the capability to do rigorous infection isolation for long periods with the accommodation, kit and staff they have. I?m assuming everyone in a care home will be exposed to it eventually this year, and they either die or they don?t. I?ve send my Dad some some baccy for his pipe. He might as well die from that instead, and apparently pre-screwed lungs might actually keep you alive. The irony is not lost on me after decades of trying to get him to stop.
We are heading for many millions being unemployed before this year is out. It is currently hidden. The US has rocked past 20% in weeks. It?s a disaster and the consequences will dwarf the virus if it is not checked. That?s just in rich countries. In poorer countries millions are going to die of poverty. Something has to give. It would be nice if it was a treatment, but still.
We are heading for many millions being unemployed before this year is out. It is currently hidden. The US has rocked past 20% in weeks. It?s a disaster and the consequences will dwarf the virus if it is not checked. That?s just in rich countries. In poorer countries millions are going to die of poverty. Something has to give. It would be nice if it was a treatment, but still.
Speleotron
Member
I completely agree with you Fjell even though I am pro-lockdown.
The decision to send un-tested people to care homes can only be described as psychopathic. I also agree that we are looking at the biggest recession for hundreds of years and this will kill millions around the world. The thought terrifies me. My only point is that this is because of the virus and not because of the lockdown: this damage would happen anyway. Our economy, supply chains and civilisation itself is a house of cards, sooner or later a not-so-black swan (pandemics are bound to happen sooner or later) was going to bring it tumbling down. Less strict lockdowns wouldn't change the economic carnage as consumer spending would dry up if we were digging mass burial pits as other countries have been doing. It doesn't matter if the CFR is only 0.2 % or whatever it's enough to bring the machine to a halt however you respond to it. This could have been stopped in Wuhan for the cost of a few million dollars.
A partial lockdown of the most vulnerable is probably what we will try and do but it will be very hard as the vulnerable will have to interact with the non-vulnerable. Also, if you were 75 and had to stay indoors, would you do that if your 74 year old friend could go caving?
Rather than debating lockdown etc our politicians and business leaders should have been aware that pandemics do happen and should have designed the system to be more robust.
The decision to send un-tested people to care homes can only be described as psychopathic. I also agree that we are looking at the biggest recession for hundreds of years and this will kill millions around the world. The thought terrifies me. My only point is that this is because of the virus and not because of the lockdown: this damage would happen anyway. Our economy, supply chains and civilisation itself is a house of cards, sooner or later a not-so-black swan (pandemics are bound to happen sooner or later) was going to bring it tumbling down. Less strict lockdowns wouldn't change the economic carnage as consumer spending would dry up if we were digging mass burial pits as other countries have been doing. It doesn't matter if the CFR is only 0.2 % or whatever it's enough to bring the machine to a halt however you respond to it. This could have been stopped in Wuhan for the cost of a few million dollars.
A partial lockdown of the most vulnerable is probably what we will try and do but it will be very hard as the vulnerable will have to interact with the non-vulnerable. Also, if you were 75 and had to stay indoors, would you do that if your 74 year old friend could go caving?
Rather than debating lockdown etc our politicians and business leaders should have been aware that pandemics do happen and should have designed the system to be more robust.
PeteHall
Moderator
alastairgott said:
For any "pause" to be effective it needs public support. If the road outside my house (in the south west) or my brother's house (in London) is anything to go by, public support for the lockdown is already dwindling.
Had these, or more draconian measures as you suggest above, been introduced too early, I can't imagine the same level of public support as there has been so far and I can't imagine it would have lasted so long either. Ultimately this could have lead to more deaths, not fewer, but this is pure speculation.
Regarding deaths from the inevitable recession, it's very hard to speculate what measures could be put in place now to reduce that. The furlough scheme is clearly helping out some people who can't work, but how long can it be kept up for? What next? The economy, as it has been built, relies on consumer confidence and spending. If people are out of work, or worried about work, they don't spend, therefore they don't create jobs and the cycle continues. I can't see this being over any time soon
Speleotron
Member
mikem said:
That seems to be true for most of the western world where the past 75 years of nothing really bad happening to most of us has resulted in some serious normalcy bias!
JoshW
Well-known member
PeteHall said:alastairgott said:
For any "pause" to be effective it needs public support. If the road outside my house (in the south west) or my brother's house (in London) is anything to go by, public support for the lockdown is already dwindling.
Had these, or more draconian measures as you suggest above, been introduced too early, I can't imagine the same level of public support as there has been so far and I can't imagine it would have lasted so long either. Ultimately this could have lead to more deaths, not fewer, but this is pure speculation.
Regarding deaths from the inevitable recession, it's very hard to speculate what measures could be put in place now to reduce that. The furlough scheme is clearly helping out some people who can't work, but how long can it be kept up for? What next? The economy, as it has been built, relies on consumer confidence and spending. If people are out of work, or worried about work, they don't spend, therefore they don't create jobs and the cycle continues. I can't see this being over any time soon
There is of course other things the government could have put in place that aren?t ?draconian measures?. Things like a mandatory self isolation for those travelling into the UK from abroad. Things like testing those who would be working with the vulnerable. I wouldn?t consider either of these draconian
Speleotron
Member
You're being unfair Josh, we did all we could: when travellers landed from infected areas we gave them a leaflet!