Coronavirus Thread

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Here's a link for you.  The table can be found in section 2, the xlsx download.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending18september2020#deaths-data

 

In summary, the 6 weeks covering August and the first half of September (to 18th Sept.) showed 55,128 deaths registered in England and Wales, of which 694 mentioned Covid or Covid and pneumonia, and 6,389 mentioned flu and/or pneumonia but not Covid.

 

Obviously we know that a fairly high proportion - perhaps two thirds of flu/pneumonia deaths are were not primarily caused by flu/pneumonia, there was another underlying cause and flu/pneumonia just happened to be the final straw.  But the same is also true of Covid.  What's the proportion?  I can't find any statistics to say.  

 

But that's the rationale for saying flu and pneumonia are currently killing more people than Covid.  It's taken from death certificates.  

The most important word in that post.

 

The point is, as it has been all along, that we don't know enough about how many cases would spring up (with the associated social and economic upheaval) if restrictions were lifted. As such, it might be a good idea to know more about that before proceeding.

[joachim1965]

5 hours ago, zorro en españa said:

I have a lot of sympathy with the general point you are trying to get across - but do you have any proof for that highlighted?

 

My view is that your point about flu, along with the one about “people being run over a bus” (who have tested +ve for Covid and thus a Covid statistic), are two arguments oft cited.  And, typically, if you read/ hear it often enough you begin believing it (and want others to believe it to support that position).
 

That is my reason for questioning you.  I suspect you are wrong but happy to be proved wrong myself.

 

all deaths quoted are people who died for any reason but tested positive within 28 days.

I seriously suggest you stop watching BBC project fear and do a little bit of research.

[joachim1965]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The most important word in that post.

 

The point is, as it has been all along, that we don't know enough about how many cases would spring up (with the associated social and economic upheaval) if restrictions were lifted. As such, it might be a good idea to know more about that before proceeding.

As an intelligent person and someone who takes science seriously, you must realise that the pcr test is not supposed to be used for diagnosis. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

As an intelligent person and someone who takes science seriously, you must realise that the pcr test is not supposed to be used for diagnosis. 

I do and I do (though the way the PCR test is used is a debate in itself).

 

However, I'm not sure how that supports an argument that we have enough information to suggest that more relaxed measures wouldn't, to the degree of certainty necessary, result in a spike in Covid that could result in more serious economic and social consequences.

[joachim1965]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I do and I do (though the way the PCR test is used is a debate in itself).

 

However, I'm not sure how that supports an argument that we have enough information to suggest that more relaxed measures wouldn't, to the degree of certainty necessary, result in a spike in Covid that could result in more serious economic and social consequences.

of course it does,  the spike isn't real, false positives account for most cases, surely you must see that.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

of course it does,  the spike isn't real, false positives account for most cases, surely you must see that.

I'm sorry, I see nothing of the sort.

 

I see an theory uncorroborated by peer review that the testing may be flawed and as such false positives may be getting out, and ergo Covid would not kill more people than flu and pneumonia should "normal" life resume.

 

It's possible and I'm not going to discount it out of hand, but taking a colossal chance on it without harder evidence and more research when the penalty for getting it wrong is likely so dire? No.

[joachim1965]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, I see nothing of the sort.

 

I see an theory uncorroborated by peer review that the testing may be flawed and as such false positives may be getting out, and ergo Covid would not kill more people than flu and pneumonia should "normal" life resume.

 

It's possible and I'm not going to discount it out of hand, but taking a colossal chance on it without harder evidence and more research when the penalty for getting it wrong is likely so dire? No.

Do you doubt the word of Kary Mullis ?

Pcr is an analytical tool and should not be used to diagnose. 

[zorro en españa]

@dsr-burnley thank you for the reference - appreciated.

 

52 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

all deaths quoted are people who died for any reason but tested positive within 28 days.

I seriously suggest you stop watching BBC project fear and do a little bit of research.

 

dearie me - touchy, touchy.  Another oft cited comment - the fear-mongering MSM .... keep going 🙂

 

To be quite honest with you I tend to use my own instinct before accepting anything.  It has done fine by me in my many years.
 

We know that Covid and influenza are both respiratory diseases (and I see you have had to throw pneumonia into the mix to back up your argument - petty observation by me I accept).  This is what my instinct tells me: To the best of my knowledge influenza kicks in big time with the deterioration of the weather (has it been that bad in the UK?) - so, given that at this stage of the year it is probably quite early in the cycle, could you possibly conceive that, just maybe, the high number of people your graph shows dying from flu & pneumonia could have another proponent.  Just asking .......

 

It is the kind of counter-argument to Covid being cited when the proverbial bus hits them.

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Do you doubt the word of Kary Mullis ?

Pcr is an analytical tool and should not be used to diagnose. 

Until it is corroborated by peer review, I doubt the word of any person in the scientific field. That's the basis of the method.

 

Other people, are, of course, free to do as they please.

[joachim1965]

7 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

@dsr-burnley thank you for the reference - appreciated.

 

dearie me - touchy, touchy.  Another oft cited comment - the fear-mongering MSM .... keep going 🙂

 

To be quite honest with you I tend to use my own instinct before accepting anything.  It has done fine by me in my many years.
 

We know that Covid and influenza are both respiratory diseases (and I see you have had to throw pneumonia into the mix to back up your argument - petty observation by me I accept).  This is what my instinct tells me: To the best of my knowledge influenza kicks in big time with the deterioration of the weather (has it been that bad in the UK?) - so, given that at this stage of the year it is probably quite early in the cycle, could you possibly conceive that, just maybe, the high number of people your graph shows dying from flu & pneumonia could have another proponent.  Just asking .......

 

It is the kind of counter-argument to Covid being cited when the proverbial bus hits them.

 

Fine, we are all entitled to our own opinion and I respect the fact that you have yours, but please tell me where all the deaths are, because we are making people destitute and are killing countless people due to undiagnosed and untreated cancer , all for what , cases, cases, cases.

Most of which will be false positives.

[joachim1965]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Until it is corroborated by peer review, I doubt the word of any person in the scientific field. That's the basis of the method.

 

Other people, are, of course, free to do as they please.

Kary Mullis is the inventor of the test, a nobel prize winner, if any one should know , he should.

[joachim1965]

32 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

@dsr-burnley thank you for the reference - appreciated.

 

dearie me - touchy, touchy.  Another oft cited comment - the fear-mongering MSM .... keep going 🙂

 

To be quite honest with you I tend to use my own instinct before accepting anything.  It has done fine by me in my many years.
 

We know that Covid and influenza are both respiratory diseases (and I see you have had to throw pneumonia into the mix to back up your argument - petty observation by me I accept).  This is what my instinct tells me: To the best of my knowledge influenza kicks in big time with the deterioration of the weather (has it been that bad in the UK?) - so, given that at this stage of the year it is probably quite early in the cycle, could you possibly conceive that, just maybe, the high number of people your graph shows dying from flu & pneumonia could have another proponent.  Just asking .......

 

It is the kind of counter-argument to Covid being cited when the proverbial bus hits them.

 

I don't quite get your point with regards to pneumonia,  are you aware of how covid kills you? yep severe pneumonia,  and as covid is a coronavirus it is also seasonal so not getting your point there.

I would imagine that as influenza and covid only tend to kill elderly and people with underlying issues the death rate over the winter will be split between the two, but the total will probably be pretty much the same as an average winter. 

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Kary Mullis is the inventor of the test, a nobel prize winner, if any one should know , he should.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But still I'd like to see what he says corroborated by more study before being certain enough to stake as much as is needed to be staked on it.

[joachim1965]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But still I'd like to see what he says corroborated by more study before being certain enough to stake as much as is needed to be staked on it.

"you'd think so " come on , I credit you with more intelligence than that.

If I invented a procedure to do a specific thing and it did the specific thing extremely well, then people started to use it for another purpose,which it didn't do very well do you not think that me telling them it was not suitable for what they are using it for should hold some credence? would it take others to make that decision or come to that conclusion?

No it would not.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

"you'd think so " come on , I credit you with more intelligence than that.

If I invented a procedure to do a specific thing and it did the specific thing extremely well, then people started to use it for another purpose,which it didn't do very well do you not think that me telling them it was not suitable for what they are using it for should hold some credence? would it take others to make that decision or come to that conclusion?

No it would not.

...in the opinion of the original inventor only, yes.

 

They could well be right, in fact given the balance of probability they likely are right. But balance of probability isn't enough, not on this one. Which is why I'm very much standing by what I said - more time is needed for-

 

Hang on:

 

https://in.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

 

"False. The quote undermining PCR tests is misattributed to Mullis and taken out of context. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient."

 

Forget I said anything, this whole discussion is redundant if Mullis himself didn't say that the PCR test didn't do the job.

[joachim1965]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...in the opinion of the original inventor only, yes.

 

They could well be right, in fact given the balance of probability they likely are right. But balance of probability isn't enough, not on this one. Which is why I'm very much standing by what I said - more time is needed for-

 

Hang on:

 

https://in.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

 

"False. The quote undermining PCR tests is misattributed to Mullis and taken out of context. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient."

 

Forget I said anything, this whole discussion is redundant if Mullis himself didn't say that the PCR test didn't do the job.

It is made for virus detection, it was developed to establish the link between HIV and aids.

It cannot tell you what virus you have and also detects old and inactive virus.  Kary Mullis actually said that a pcr test cannot tell you if you are sick nor can it tell you if you are going to be sick, therefore it is not suitable for diagnosis, please do your research.

 

[joachim1965]

 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

It is made for virus detection, it was developed to establish the link between HIV and aids.

It cannot tell you what virus you have and also detects old and inactive virus.  Kary Mullis actually said that a pcr test cannot tell you if you are sick nor can it tell you if you are going to be sick, therefore it is not suitable for diagnosis, please do your research.

 

I have, and I'm satisfied that the PCR test is good enough for at least telling if the Covid virus in any form (as opposed to an intact and infectious form) is within a patient, which works as at least a rough-and-ready diagnostic IMO. It would be nice to have a better and faster diagnostic for picking between different types of Covid in peoples bodies, but seeing as that isn't on the table right now the more risk averse strategy - assume everyone who has the virus within them is infectious - is fair enough.

 

If anything, not being able to tell accurately who is and who isn't infectious, merely who has it, is a bigger argument against opening things up because a more targetted approach isn't possible.

 

If peer-reviewed, detailed scientific literature comes along saying otherwise - nothing less - I will reconsider. But it's good to have chewed the fat with you.

[Chrysalis]

On 25/09/2020 at 09:44, Jon the Hat said:

It's almost like the scientists know **** all about economics and don't have to worry about the country not being completely ****ed, and are only answering medical and epidemology based questions with no political lens whatsoever.  On this basis you would ban ****ing everything. Smoking; drinking; driving; meeting other people at all.

They not there to advise on the economy and politics, they there to advise on the virus to be fair.

 

Its the government themselves who decides if to listen to them, or prioritise the economy over it, and we can see which direction they have gone.

 

I expect they give projections based on course of actions the government choose to take, possibly a recommendation to go with that as well.  I believe with hospitality the government was going to close it up, but the chancellor threatened to resign so we got the curfew instead.

 

Of course we already have bans in place for the things you listed, smoking in cars with kids, cant smoke in open enclosed public areas (designated smoking areas), seat belts required in car, they likely advise on all sorts of things pre covid.

[Chrysalis]

On 25/09/2020 at 09:49, Jon the Hat said:

Feel free to move to China if you want to live in a police state!  FFS the death rate is miniscule and you want to hand over your freedoms.  Un ****ing believable.

No need for the swearing, I have never said I want to hand over my freedom either, but I am observing a lot of selfishness amongst the population, I see it time and time again, as long as its someone else affected, people don't care.  Also I wouldn't call the affects on mortality minuscule either.  If this was a long term disease I expect the life expectancy would be nowhere near where it is today.

 

If you think that is a police state, I dread to think how you would react to been in war conditions.

 

Regardless of what you think, laws are not there to be broken, if business's are showing blatant disregard to safety guidelines of course action should be taken.

Edited 3 October 2020 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

On 26/09/2020 at 09:41, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

One of the few sensible things Tubby Johnson (older folk remember him from Viz?) is for people to lose weight, obesity is one of the main factors for being in the vulnerable category and also one of the few factors that can be changed.

People should take responsibility for themselves and lead a healthier lifestyle.

This is probably one of the biggest assumptions made right now, that been overweight is always down to no effort been made to get rid of it.  There is various reasons someone can be overweight, and there can be various reasons why people struggle to lose weight.  Of course some cases might be remedied by effort, but this should not be assumed to be for every case.

[Chrysalis]

On 28/09/2020 at 22:48, Rob1742 said:

Time to turn this on it’s head. So of 67m population we have deaths Of 42,000. Let’s say this gets to 67,000, then we are saying it has taken 0.1% of the population.

 

So 99.9% of the population are facing restrictions, the economy is on its ass and implications with regards to people’s future is increasingly worrying. We are in a devastating situation, yet we are trying to protect maybe 20,000 people.

 

We need to turn this on its head. We need to isolate those at risk, put money in the pot to help them, and let the rest get on with their lives. With social distancing where possible to keep these 99.9% of people’s lives going forward.

 

The government have got this drastically wrong. It should be the old 80/20 rule, but this is 99.9 / 0.1 yet we are causing issues for the majority.

 

At 53 I am not a youngster who would walk through the virus without trouble, but I fully understand the implication this is having on millions of people and we have to keep the country going and livelihoods protected.

 

People are missing operations, mental health is suffering, education is being affected for millions and millions and we are accepting what the government say and just watching people’s futures diminish. 
 

I supported the government initially as it was something they couldn’t ever predict, but they are watching futures go down the toilet rather than have a plan to protect the most vulnerable.

 

 

I sort of agree, but the problem is, its how people are categorised, you have lots of people who have undiagnosed illness, right now people are been categorised based on their medical files and age only.   For your idea to work fairly, the NHS needs sorting out so people can get properly diagnosed, and the scheme would need to be more lenient to not just be reliant on medical files to get people in the vulnerable group.  They would for sure need to open up an application system for people to be recognised as vulnerable.

 

Also bear in mind the death figures are now much lower primarily for two reasons.

 

1 - Most of the cases are now from community testing, actual hospital cases are much lower than spring, and this is something I have said in dozens of older posts, I don't like, my opinion is and remains they should not be locking people down for community testing.  But everyone in here who is now moaning, doesn't know I posted that because they couldn't give a crap before as long as they were not locked down.  So I think none of the local lockdown's in the summer should have happened and most of the local lockdown's in place shouldn't be there.  On the flip side I don't think everything should be fully open either, the reason deaths are lower now is because of the national restrictions still in place and the earlier national lockdown.

 

2 - The national restrictions, there is still some in place, and I think especially certain people, such as those in care homes are been wrapped in cotton wool.  Attendance at sporting events and other things are all likely having an impact.

 

I think we heading in this direction, stories of anyone over 45 potentially been asked to shield with everyone else on free reign to live how they please.

[Chrysalis]

On 29/09/2020 at 12:12, Babylon said:

That's a very big maybe when 11.8m people were over 65 in 2016

Also predicted 30% of population has hypertension.

[The Horse's Mouth]

When the obese 74 year old POTUS survives it, how can we keep making the arguments to continue this madness 

[Chrysalis]

On 29/09/2020 at 13:18, Cardiff_Fox said:

I just looked up the last Covid-19 watchlist report 

 

Leicester is 90.9 positive tests per 100,000. 
 

So correct me if I’m thick here 

 

90.9 / 100,000

9.09 / 10,000

0.909 / 1,000 

0.0909 / 100 

 

So that’s like 1 person has Covid in every 1,100? Over the last seven days on average 

One thing you need to bear in mind, these are "confirmed" cases.  In the medical world, people are only considered to be ill of something if they have been tested and confirmed by a HCP, this however is flawed.  We have to remember many people can have all sorts of illnesses butits not official unless a HCP confirms it, this can go from anything like cancer, to of course covid.  I expect probably 100s of thousands had covid in march but because there was no community testing none of them were confirmed.

 

So I expect a lot more than 1 person in a 1000 actually has covid.

 

On the flipside death rates are a more real statistic, if someone is dead, they dead.  Dont need a HCP to know that.  Personally I think we should just concentrate on hospital cases and deaths, which in practice means we are more lenient, but at the same time however we shouldn't let the tap flow freely.  Also bear in mind as I have seen it mentioned about op's and other f2f been cancelled in hospitals and GP surgeries, this is a real problem, but the problem is when people are ill they are also more vulnerable to covid, so if we opened up hospitals again, then death rates are likely to shoot up as you then have very ill people entering virus hot spots.  I think the solution to that is isolate hospitals for specific patients, covid free hospitals only treat anyone who has been tested negative before entry (routine appointments, ops etc.).  Then covid hospitals for a&e and covid patients.