Covid 19

cap n chris

cap n chris

Well-known member
[gmod]Posts from https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=27342.0 split to this new Topic [/gmod]



Laurie said:
ditzy said:
Let's hope 2021 is a better year for all  :)
Click to expand...
Better? Could it possibly be any worse?  :o
Click to expand...

By a huge margin, yes. UN have already forewarned of ~200+m suffering starvation/famines from the economic knock-on effects, the latter still having to kick in with a vengeance in 1st world countries, as well as everywhere else. 15% of the world's economy/jobs is international tourism and that's not returning anytime soon, if at all. etc. etc. I anticipate 2021 being significantly worse than this year. Governments have no published exit plans; there doesn't appear to be much of a plan other than continuing to scare people to a level where suicide is shockingly commonplace. The lag effect means no-one noticed and continues to think everything's OK when it most certainly isn't. "Free money" isn't free - we've all been given something in the order of a ?16K debt, and counting. The Global depression commences in 2021 and will continue probably to 2023. Wildly negative prognostications suggested 50-70 years of austerity but it probably won't be quite that bad. Shutting down economies kills people.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12294.doc.htm
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-true-cost-of-coronavirus-on-our-economy
 
I fear that you may be right.

While the restrictions may ease over the course of the year, the impact of the lockdown will be felt for very much longer and the mental health problems will continue as long as the recession and does. Before lockdown, I could happily say that I didn't know anyone who had committed suicide...
 
There are lots of public information requests floating around the internet where people have written to their local health authority and requested the number of deaths with the sole cause as Covid, the numbers across the UK are very very low. I'm yet to see one with more than 100 deaths with covid as the sole cause since March begging the question what the real cause of the pandemic is, so far we are all victims.

Whether you agree with the route the government has taken or not everyone wants the same thing really and that is an end to the situation, some believe that wearing masks, strict adherence to rules, mass testing is the way out, some believe otherwise
 
I think Cap'n Chris is probably correct.  Looks like a fair number of us in my department are now looking at 100% free time early next year.  The real knock on effects both economically and health wise are probably immense.
It would be nice to have some accuracy and detailed factual transparency instead of the continual project fear spread by the media to pep up their viewing figures.
 
I'm yet to see one with more than 100 deaths with covid as the sole cause since March
Click to expand...

This is a dangerous distortion of the statistics that downplay the seriousness of the pandemic.  No, it doesn't beg[raise] the question of what is causing the pandemic, in the UK almost 10% of known cases have had the virus sequenced (which allowed the new variant to be described and tracked). COVID is real and is killing people.

https://fullfact.org/online/deaths-only-from-coronavirus/
 
This will certainly help if it gets the attention it should:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/29/four-day-week-would-be-affordable-for-most-uk-firms-says-thinktank

As for the mass redundancies, there was another stressed NHS executive on the news recently reminding folks that there are 80,000 vacancies in the service at present and they're desperate for staff. Obviously they must have money set aside as wages to pay those 80,000 people. Granted not all are 'start on Monday' jobs, but even so, there is work out there. The care sector is going to need tens of thousands of workers and they will have to be paid appropriately.

One reason so many people are dying 'not just with Covid' is because there are so many people who are extremely unhealthy going into old age - with one or more of many dangerous conditions, all of which are much, much worse with a bad infection. Covid is particularly nasty, but it's only highlighting the terrible condition many British people are in physically, and if they're old too they just don't have the resources to fight it off.

Also there were over 60 million prescriptions of anti-depressants last year in Britain. That's almost one per person. Obviously we don't all have a prescription, and many many millions are children, hopefully not all on them either, which means there must be about 2 prescriptions per person for the ones that are taking them. Again, Covid may be exacerbating the situation but it seems like the problem was already seriously entrenched long before this turned up. So why are so many people depressed? Life's never been so easy.
 
aardgoose said:
I'm yet to see one with more than 100 deaths with covid as the sole cause since March
Click to expand...

This is a dangerous distortion of the statistics that downplay the seriousness of the pandemic.  No, it doesn't beg[raise] the question of what is causing the pandemic, in the UK almost 10% of known cases have had the virus sequenced (which allowed the new variant to be described and tracked). COVID is real and is killing people.

https://fullfact.org/online/deaths-only-from-coronavirus/
Click to expand...
b

You could label it as dangerous distortion of statistics or call it sensible personal risk assessment, I prefer the latter.
 
One of the problems with interpreting death certificates is that if they're filled out correctly, they're quite comprehensive. The first part lists the immediate cause of death and those conditions that led to it. The second part lists all the other co-morbidities that might have been relevant. Most of the people dying of Covid are relatively elderly and will have co-morbidities that should be listed in part two. Therefore it would be most unusual to have a correctly completed death certificate where the only entry was Covid.

For example, an elderly man with diabetes and high blood pressure admitted to intensive care with Covid pneumonia might die after four weeks mechanical ventilation from a second, bacterial pneumonia. I would write his death certificate as 

1a Ventilator-associated pneumonia
1b Covid 19 pneumonia

2 Diabetes and hypertension

This is a relatively simple cause of death in covid. Many are much more complex.

Therefore, I'm not surprised there are few 'pure Covid' death certificates. If people have been filling them in correctly, there should be very, very few!
 
maxf said:
You could label it as dangerous distortion of statistics or call it sensible personal risk assessment, I prefer the latter.
Click to expand...

I'd call it wilful misrepresentation of statistics to suit an agenda. If there is a death certificate which says death due to confirmed Covid-19 leading to pneumonia, how is it reasonable to exclude that? I suspect if you tried the same 'analysis' on cancer or HIV you would find remarkably few people apparently died from them...

If it isn't Covid, what are all these excess deaths from?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55411323
There's no evidence there that a significant number of 'normal' deaths are being misrepresented as Covid deaths; probably there were Covid deaths that were not recorded as such since the excess mortality in the first peak exceeded the number of recorded Covid deaths. In the second wave, there appears to be a slight reduction in the 'normal' deaths, which could be that _a small fraction_ of 'Covid' deaths are from something else, but there are other better explanations such as reduction of seasonal flu deaths from a better flu vaccination program this year and social distancing. Or it could just be random variation, since the death rate varies a bit every year.
 
maxf said:
There are lots of public information requests floating around the internet where people have written to their local health authority and requested the number of deaths with the sole cause as Covid, the numbers across the UK are very very low. I'm yet to see one with more than 100 deaths with covid as the sole cause since March begging the question what the real cause of the pandemic is, so far we are all victims.
Click to expand...

Also: what is a 'local health authority'? It's not a term that means anything any more, I think (at least in England). There are 135(?) clinical commissioning groups. If you meant 'local authority' as in local councils, then there are around 343 (including district and county councils). There should be, on average, around 500 deaths per CCG, but you would expect only a small fraction of those to be poorly recorded as just 'Covid' if, as Speleofish says, people are doing their job properly. So not finding 100 deaths with Covid as the sole cause for a CCQ means most death certificates are not being bodged, which is good.
 
andrewmc said:
maxf said:
There are lots of public information requests floating around the internet where people have written to their local health authority and requested the number of deaths with the sole cause as Covid, the numbers across the UK are very very low. I'm yet to see one with more than 100 deaths with covid as the sole cause since March begging the question what the real cause of the pandemic is, so far we are all victims.
Click to expand...

Also: what is a 'local health authority'? It's not a term that means anything any more, I think (at least in England). There are 135(?) clinical commissioning groups. If you meant 'local authority' as in local councils, then there are around 343 (including district and county councils). There should be, on average, around 500 deaths per CCG, but you would expect only a small fraction of those to be poorly recorded as just 'Covid' if, as Speleofish says, people are doing their job properly. So not finding 100 deaths with Covid as the sole cause for a CCQ means most death certificates are not being bodged, which is good.
Click to expand...

But it supports my position of personal risk assessment ? I dont believe I am at much risk if i was to catch it...
 
I think you're confusing two things. You may well be right that your personal risk is low (I assume you're young, slim, fit and don't have any interesting co-morbidities). If so, you're unlikely to die. You may be lucky and have minimal symptoms or you may be less fortunate and have something that feels like a cross between bad flu and dengue (ie you're pretty sure you're not going to die but you rather wish you could).
However, your argument seems to be based on denying Covid is a big thing in itself. Anyone who's cared for Covid patients would disagree.
 
The reality is that many (but by no means all) people who have died of Covid have been in their last year or two of life. Therefore, the impact on overall mortality statistics is relatively small. However, this is in the context of strict lockdowns and massive changes in population behaviour. Lockdown protects elderly, frail people from all sorts of infections so may have reduced non-Covid mortality in this age group.

530-540,000 people die in a 'normal' year in the UK. The prediction for Covid deaths if we hadn't locked down was approximately 500,000 in the first wave. Perhaps 50% would have fallen into the cohort with limited life expectancy, the other 50% would have been expected to live much longer. Therefore, without a lockdown, we might have expected 750,000+ deaths, a 50% increase in annual mortality.

The other problem is the complexity of this disease. People become extremely sick and spend a long time in hospital - much longer than they do with 'flu. Most years, the NHS is stretched over winter. Several times in my career I've seen it approach breaking point. This year, it's much worse. If you get bad Covid, you can only be treated in hospital as you will probably die without oxygen. If the NHS breaks and admissions become impossible (or if hospitals run out of oxygen, which happened to two or three in the first wave), many patients who could have survived with hospital care will die. The effect on mortality will then be enormous.
 
sensible personal risk assessment, I prefer the latter
Click to expand...

Note the "personal", you aren't the only person at risk, your actions aren't risk free to for other people. If you think 'OK. then just shield  the vulnerable' .  How do you do that? It just isn't practical.  The vulnerable may have careers or live in multigenerational families, so now you have to shield the careers and families, and their contacts.  Some vulnerable people do not know they are vulnerable.  People aren't divided into nice isolated groups but messy networks.


Mortality rates really aren't that unusual this year. Sure,  higher than last year, the worst in 10 years even (by 3%), but lower than 2008 and I don't remember that making headline news or forcing a national lockdown.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the counterfactual.  if no measures had been taken, what would the death toll have been? Additionally, some deaths from no covid causes are lower than expected because of the lockdown measures (increased hygiene, reduced contacts etc).

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html


Death isn't the only outcome, some people who survive have long lasting problems which include lung, brain and heart damage.


 
The answer isn't lock down and the answer isn't do nothing but so far it has been heavily biased towards lockdowns for which the negative results of non covid patients is seldom reported in the news along side the fear and scare graphs and stats...

Redundancies
Economic ruin
Dental crisis
Lack of access to what is deemed non essential health care
Mental health crisis
Education crisis
General negative well being of population
Masses of single use plastics etc

To name a few

 
I think, unfortunately, the answer right now is another lockdown (and, once again, we're making it too late). The alternative is that the NHS breaks with totally unacceptable consequences. I agree with you that lockdowns produce misery. If we didn't have vaccines, I'd argue we shouldn't lockdown as we would all have to encounter the virus and until enough of us have had it to create population immunity, the pandemic would continue. However, with vaccines the problem is finite. if we can get through the next few months, enough high-risk people will have been vaccinated that the problem will start to disappear.

I suggest we need another few months of fairly intense restrictions with significant government support to allow people who can't work to survive. We then need to focus on all those who have been affected psychologically etc. AND, before the memories fade, we need to reassess all those aspects of healthcare that have been historically underinvested. Critically, this includes ICU (OK, this is special pleading on my part); Public Health (a combination of a government imposed poor organisation and huge underinvestment meant that track-and-trace never had a chance); Mental Health services - again, historically very poorly resourced and unable to cope with the present workload. Probably several other areas too...
 
From what went on here in the Peak District, I'm not at all sure that the 2nd lockdown actually happened. The place was mobbed, and it's still mobbed after the introduction of Tier-3 following the "lockdown". It will be interesting to see what difference the new Tier-4 makes.

Maxf is quiite correct - the answer isn't lockdown ... well not unless there are some measures of enforcement.

It's tempting to believe that the lack of enforcement is a built in excuse for when it doesn't work. You know ... covidiots etc, something to splash on the front pages of the tabloids. (Unless it's Verbier or Barnard Castle or similar of course.)
 
Lockdown won't work, imo, because if it is pronounced as being reintroduced there will be massive civil disobedience. It worked the first two times. Not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top