Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[dsr-burnley]

DT extract (30/6) :

Britain should stop publishing daily figures on Covid-19 case rates because the virus is now a “long way from being an important cause” of death, a vaccine advisor has said.

Prof Robert Dingwall, a member of the UK Government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, urged people to stop panicking about the current rising infection levels, which may only be reflecting a “last wave of mild infections” among unvaccinated youths.

“It is well past time to panic about infection rates and to publish them obsessively. Even hospitalisation rates are increasingly misleading as better therapy reduces length of stay. Covid is now a long way from being an important cause of mortality,” the Nervtag scientist tweeted.

He joins a growing number of MPs and leading scientists, including Prof Tim Spector, of King’s College London, warning the daily slew of Covid statistics are terrifying people and they lack any context, such as figures on flu, heart disease and cancer.

Conservative MPs are pressing Downing Street to follow officials in Quebec, Canada, and Singapore by moving to weekly updates or similar, ahead of the July 19 unlocking.

Prof Dingwall added: “A reminder: medicine cannot deliver immortality and it is profoundly damaging to society to imply that it can, if only we try hard enough.”

What we need to know is, who is dying. If the 113 deaths last week are virtually all people who were dying anyway and coronavirus made no difference, or people whose heart was old and worn out and the next infection would kill them anyway, or people who could and should have had the virus and chose not to - then all restrictions should lift. It's only if the people dying are the healthy young or the healty-and-vaccinated old that we (as a nation) need to worry.

 

[Rugrat]

What we need to know is, who is dying. If the 113 deaths last week are virtually all people who were dying anyway and coronavirus made no difference, or people whose heart was old and worn out and the next infection would kill them anyway, or people who could and should have had the virus and chose not to - then all restrictions should lift. It's only if the people dying are the healthy young or the healty-and-vaccinated old that we (as a nation) need to worry.

Totally, it's just headline numbers that are readily published. Would really like to see hospitalisations/deaths with some context around it e.g 1/2 vaccination/age

 

[A1X]

We last hit 7,000 daily cases on 25th Feb (7,712) to be exact, at that time around 15,000 people were in hospital, over 2,000 on critical care and the death rate 250+ a day. Cases are currently over 20k, even allowing for lag we are nowhere near those numbers, infact for both hospitalisations and critical care the numbers are almost 90% lower.

Is that not a disingenuous figure given that us clearly on the downward trend of a wave whereas we’re now on an upward trend, and the lag between cases and hospitalisation is well established?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Is that not a disingenuous figure given that us clearly on the downward trend of a wave whereas we’re now on an upward trend, and the lag between cases and hospitalisation is well established?

Yes the current wave is going upwards so I suppose it may not be 100% fair to compare to the cases etc in Feb as it was coming down. It's always going to be difficult to compare two separate dates or periods because things change as we go on, more testing, different restrictions, vaccine effect, and the lag meaning we don't quite know how today's figures are going to play out.

That said I do think September last year and June are good for a bit of a comparison. From a restriction point of view I think things were fairly similar to what they are now (from what I can remember). Also we have two triggers, September it was the return of schools and colleges, June was when we saw the Delta variant really take hold.

On the 29th September we recorded 7,143 cases from 232,212 tests, a positive rate of 3.1%. Yesterdays rate 26,068 from 881,805 a positive case rate of 2.9% so the case rate is comparable and we are carrying out 3.7 times the number of tests and finding approx 3.6 times the number of cases. So comparable numbers from that point of view.

The rolling 7 day average for cases today is 19,166 compared to 11,354 for the previous 7 days, an increase of 68%. Back on 29th September the average was 6,068 compared to 4189 the previous week an increase of 45%. So case growth rate is higher at the moment by quite a lot. Even if we compare back a couple of weeks in June to allow for the lag between positive test and needing hospital care the week on week increase is still 43%

If we look at hospitalisations the current 7 day average is 1,583, the previous 7 days it was 1,385 an increase of 14%. On 29th September the 7 day rate was 2,091 compared to 1,340 the previous week a rise of 56%. So despite the cases rising more sharply at the moment we are not seeing the same increase in people going into hospital as we were back on the September rise.

Critical care sees the current 7 day average at 265, the previous 7 days it's 220, an increase of 20%. Again going back to 29th September the average was 268 compared to 155 for the previous 7 days an increase of 73%. Again despite the current rise in cases critical care is not seeing the same level of rises, showing people are not getting as seriously ill as they were previously.

So despite the fact the growth in cases is at a higher percentage week on week than it was in September we are not seeing anywhere near the same rate of rises in people going into hospital or needing critical care. The key difference between the two periods as far as I can tell is the vaccine.

We know the cases are dropping in all age groups above 30 from this post by [MENTION=1933]Yoda[/MENTION] https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...ssion-Thread&p=9911690&viewfull=1#post9911690

We also know that the ratio of people being admitted to hospital compared to case numbers is still falling as per this post by [MENTION=4573]Green Cross Code Man[/MENTION] https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...ssion-Thread&p=9912280&viewfull=1#post9912280

Over the last few weeks there have been reports that the age of people in hospital is younger, they are needing less critical care and the length of hospital stays are shorter which tallies up with us not seeing a huge rise in the hospital figures despite the current rise in cases.

Just looking at the daily case rate is no longer giving a clear picture of the current situation in the UK and others have said still announcing the figure without the context of what is happening within hospitals.

No vaccine is ever going to be 100% effective but we are clearly seeing evidence that it is probably doing better than expected in preventing serious illness and death.

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1410270841636597765[/tweet]

 

[Billy the Fish]

[tweet]1410270841636597765[/tweet]

What's the point of this?

*EDIT* Just had a quick look though that guy's tweets, he's basically obsessed with looking for bad news because he doesn't like the government and then a load of other people lap it up. I don't think he understands the stuff he's sharing!

 

[darkwolf666]

What we need to know is, who is dying. If the 113 deaths last week are virtually all people who were dying anyway and coronavirus made no difference, or people whose heart was old and worn out and the next infection would kill them anyway, or people who could and should have had the virus and chose not to - then all restrictions should lift. It's only if the people dying are the healthy young or the healthy-and-vaccinated old that we (as a nation) need to worry.

Define healthy, does a 60 year old with no other health conditions than cancer meet your criteria. Someone who could possibly live for another 20 years if they don’t catch Covid, or is it ok if they die and you don’t need to “worry” as they have a comorbidity - and yes I am being touchy as I am sick of seeing people dismissed so easily as just statistics.

I fully understand we have to get back to normal and we need to live with Covid and that people will die, but I can’t stand this glib dismissal of people’s lives...

 

[darkwolf666]

Yes the current wave is going upwards so I suppose it may not be 100% fair to compare to the cases etc in Feb as it was coming down. It's always going to be difficult to compare two separate dates or periods because things change as we go on, more testing, different restrictions, vaccine effect, and the lag meaning we don't quite know how today's figures are going to play out.

That said I do think September last year and June are good for a bit of a comparison. From a restriction point of view I think things were fairly similar to what they are now (from what I can remember). Also we have two triggers, September it was the return of schools and colleges, June was when we saw the Delta variant really take hold.

On the 29th September we recorded 7,143 cases from 232,212 tests, a positive rate of 3.1%. Yesterdays rate 26,068 from 881,805 a positive case rate of 2.9% so the case rate is comparable and we are carrying out 3.7 times the number of tests and finding approx 3.6 times the number of cases. So comparable numbers from that point of view.

The rolling 7 day average for cases today is 19,166 compared to 11,354 for the previous 7 days, an increase of 68%. Back on 29th September the average was 6,068 compared to 4189 the previous week an increase of 45%. So case growth rate is higher at the moment by quite a lot. Even if we compare back a couple of weeks in June to allow for the lag between positive test and needing hospital care the week on week increase is still 43%

If we look at hospitalisations the current 7 day average is 1,583, the previous 7 days it was 1,385 an increase of 14%. On 29th September the 7 day rate was 2,091 compared to 1,340 the previous week a rise of 56%. So despite the cases rising more sharply at the moment we are not seeing the same increase in people going into hospital as we were back on the September rise.

Critical care sees the current 7 day average at 265, the previous 7 days it's 220, an increase of 20%. Again going back to 29th September the average was 268 compared to 155 for the previous 7 days an increase of 73%. Again despite the current rise in cases critical care is not seeing the same level of rises, showing people are not getting as seriously ill as they were previously.

So despite the fact the growth in cases is at a higher percentage week on week than it was in September we are not seeing anywhere near the same rate of rises in people going into hospital or needing critical care. The key difference between the two periods as far as I can tell is the vaccine.

We know the cases are dropping in all age groups above 30 from this post by [MENTION=1933]Yoda[/MENTION] https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...ssion-Thread&p=9911690&viewfull=1#post9911690

We also know that the ratio of people being admitted to hospital compared to case numbers is still falling as per this post by [MENTION=4573]Green Cross Code Man[/MENTION] https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...ssion-Thread&p=9912280&viewfull=1#post9912280

Over the last few weeks there have been reports that the age of people in hospital is younger, they are needing less critical care and the length of hospital stays are shorter which tallies up with us not seeing a huge rise in the hospital figures despite the current rise in cases.

Just looking at the daily case rate is no longer giving a clear picture of the current situation in the UK and others have said still announcing the figure without the context of what is happening within hospitals.

No vaccine is ever going to be 100% effective but we are clearly seeing evidence that it is probably doing better than expected in preventing serious illness and death.

Well put together - it does appear that the vaccines are really doing their job. Less daily focus needs to be given to the daily case numbers, though clearly with a weather eye on them as the NHS could still get very stretched even without the deaths seen previously.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Define healthy, does a 60 year old with no other health conditions than cancer meet your criteria. Someone who could possibly live for another 20 years if they don’t catch Covid, or is it ok if they die and you don’t need to “worry” as they have a comorbidity - and yes I am being touchy as I am sick of seeing people dismissed so easily as just statistics.

I fully understand we have to get back to normal and we need to live with Covid and that people will die, but I can’t stand this glib dismissal of people’s lives...

Unfortunately the government has to work with statisitcs, not individuals. The government must say we will release (or not release) lockdown based on what is best for people as a whole. They cannot base it on Mrs Smith at number 17 who is likely to die if she gets coronavirus.

I didn't think the concept of "people who would have died anyway" was all that difficult, but I will happily explain. If someone had a terminal illness that was going to kill them, and then they caught coronavirus and died, they would be among the category of people who would have died anyway. If they had a non-terminal illness that was not going to kill them but they caught coronavirus and died, they would not be in the category of people who were going to die anyway.

How do you feel about the annual flu and pneumonia death toll? Over 100,000 die of flu/pneumonia every year. The reason this is glossed over and not a cause of lockdown etc., is precisely because over 90% of those cases are people who were already old and sick and going to die fairly soon. The government has to make an assessment of the greatest good of the greatest number, and they cannot do this purely by assessment of what helps the oldest to live longer. There has to be a limit to what we all have to give up, just so that large numbers of people in nursing homes can keep breathing for a few extra weeks.

This is why we need to know who is dying of coronavirus, and (like it or not) whether the value of saving their lives is worth the price we would have to pay.

 

[darkwolf666]

Unfortunately the government has to work with statisitcs, not individuals. The government must say we will release (or not release) lockdown based on what is best for people as a whole. They cannot base it on Mrs Smith at number 17 who is likely to die if she gets coronavirus.

I didn't think the concept of "people who would have died anyway" was all that difficult, but I will happily explain. If someone had a terminal illness that was going to kill them, and then they caught coronavirus and died, they would be among the category of people who would have died anyway. If they had a non-terminal illness that was not going to kill them but they caught coronavirus and died, they would not be in the category of people who were going to die anyway.

How do you feel about the annual flu and pneumonia death toll? Over 100,000 die of flu/pneumonia every year. The reason this is glossed over and not a cause of lockdown etc., is precisely because over 90% of those cases are people who were already old and sick and going to die fairly soon. The government has to make an assessment of the greatest good of the greatest number, and they cannot do this purely by assessment of what helps the oldest to live longer. There has to be a limit to what we all have to give up, just so that large numbers of people in nursing homes can keep breathing for a few extra weeks.

This is why we need to know who is dying of coronavirus, and (like it or not) whether the value of saving their lives is worth the price we would have to pay.

Again, I understand where you are coming from, but it is your glib use of phraseology, like “would have died anyway” and “keep breathing for a few extra weeks” that sticks in my craw.

Also, where on earth do you get 100,000 annual deaths from flu/pneumonia from - and yet again there you go with “old and sick and going to die soon” - maybe I could use that in my defence if I knocked an OAP down with my car - “what’s the problem, they were going to die soon”!

I fully understand how government policy and decisions will be made, based on statistics and analysis, but would hope they would use more compassionate language then you do!

Finally, are you some sort of stalker, or psychic - if the former, why would you do that, if the latter, can I have this weeks lottery numbers, please?

 

[dazzer6666]

Schools told to stop closing/sending whole year groups home when one child tests positive…….common sense prevails

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...le-bubbles-isolation-one-positive-covid-test/

 

[dsr-burnley]

Also, where on earth do you get 100,000 annual deaths from flu/pneumonia from - and yet again there you go with “old and sick and going to die soon” - maybe I could use that in my defence if I knocked an OAP down with my car - “what’s the problem, they were going to die soon”!

100,000 annual deaths from flu/pneumonia comes from death certificates. I can only find the England and Wales figure which consistently shows 90k, but when Scotland and N.Ireland are added it would be over 100,000 unless their flu/pneumonia deaths are disproportionately much less.

Your vehicle defence is absurd. The point about the death of an old person that could have been delayed is a matter of whether or not it is worth it. A better analogy would be that with the number of old people being knocked down by cars, would it be proportionate to ban motorised transport to save their lives? Very few of the people who die of flu/pneumonia because they are "old and sick and going to die soon" would be on the roads anyway. They would more likely be in nursing homes. My grandmother was, and I wouldn't have lifted a finger to help her live a day longer. We could have sent her to hospital to have a drip fitted to feed her, but chose just to let her die in the home. It was not possible to ask her if she approved because she was no longer able to communicate or move. You still seem to be struggling with the concept of "old and sick and going to die soon" - in at least two thirds of flu/pneumonia deaths, flu/pneumonia is the secondary casue and they were dying anyway, and were absolutely not fit to be on the roads. Flu/pneumonia speeded it up the death.

And that is why it is important to know who is dying now of coronavirus. Are we busting a gut and damaging the economy and marring peoples' lives, simply to add a few weeks to the very old, and to rescue the people too foolish to get jabbed?

 

[darkwolf666]

The point about the death of an old person that could have been delayed is a matter of whether or not it is worth it.

Very few of the people who die of flu/pneumonia because they are "old and sick and going to die soon" would be on the roads anyway. They would more likely be in nursing homes. My grandmother was, and I wouldn't have lifted a finger to help her live a day longer. We could have sent her to hospital to have a drip fitted to feed her, but chose just to let her die in the home. It was not possible to ask her if she approved because she was no longer able to communicate or move.

So my vehicle analogy was absurd (maybe), but you continue to paint the picture that all those that die from Covid were about to draw their last breath anyway, so it doesn't matter!

At the very outset of the pandemic, when announcing the daily deaths, they used to tell you how many had pre existing conditions, as if that made it OK for them to die. This narrative was abruptly halted as I believe it was sending out a poor picture to people - that only the old a d sick could be affected - you clearly still follow that original narrative.

Yes I know the average age of Covid death is 83, yes I know that the large % of those had comorbities - doesn't mean they should be so glibly dismissed as "going to die soon anyway" - did you write Boris' infamous bodies piled high in the streets quote?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Can I suggest a few steps back and reflection ..before it turns into a slanging match ..clearly heartfelt views and what seems to be the case over the last year..no middle ground.

 

[dsr-burnley]

... but you continue to paint the picture that all those that die from Covid were about to draw their last breath anyway ...

No, I continue to ask the question as to who is currently dying of covid. Are they the old and desperately ill, are they the young and healthy, are they the people who should have been jabbed but chose not to be? The answer is vital to decision making about what to do next.

 

[e77]

100,000 annual deaths from flu/pneumonia comes from death certificates. I can only find the England and Wales figure which consistently shows 90k, but when Scotland and N.Ireland are added it would be over 100,000 unless their flu/pneumonia deaths are disproportionately much less.

Are you talking about UK deaths from flu? If so it is incorrect as in the particularly bad flu season of 17-18 it was 22,000 (I should remember as I had it)

Source

 

[darkwolf666]

Can I suggest a few steps back and reflection ..before it turns into a slanging match ..clearly heartfelt views and what seems to be the case over the last year..no middle ground.

I'm cool, I'm done - polar opposite views with regards language used so little point in continuing.

Thanks for stepping in though

 

[dsr-burnley]

Are you talking about UK deaths from flu? If so it is incorrect as in the particularly bad flu season of 17-18 it was 22,000 (I should remember as I had it)

Source

No, I am talk about UK deaths from flu and pneumonia, I am not restricting it to deaths from flu. I am including deaths from pneumonia as well because the official stats merge the two; this is because the two have very similar symptoms and one often leads to the other.

This table is for England only, 2015-17, and it shows that an average of 93,000 people per year had flu and/or pneumonia on their death certificate.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...inggroupsinenglandregisteredbetween2015to2017

About one sixth of UK deaths involve flu or pneumonia. Most of them are not because of flu or pneumonia. I want to know, does that apply to current coronavirus cases?

 

[e77]

No, I am talk about UK deaths from flu and pneumonia, I am not restricting it to deaths from flu. I am including deaths from pneumonia as well because the official stats merge the two; this is because the two have very similar symptoms and one often leads to the other.

This table is for England only, 2015-17, and it shows that an average of 93,000 people per year had flu and/or pneumonia on their death certificate.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...inggroupsinenglandregisteredbetween2015to2017

About one sixth of UK deaths involve flu or pneumonia. Most of them are not because of flu or pneumonia. I want to know, does that apply to current coronavirus cases?

As you say Pneumonia has a variety of risk factors, not just viral. However if someone dies in hospital with pneumonia having caught Covid-19 it is fair to assume they would have lived longer if they hadn't caught Covid-19 to start with.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ould-have-gone-ahead-flawed-modelling-admits/

Modelling that helped persuade the Government to delay the June 21 reopening was overly pessimistic and the lockdown lifting should "possibly" have gone ahead on time, a government adviser has admitted.

Dr Mike Tildesley, an epidemiologist from Warwick University, said Britain had been in a "much better situation than we thought" when his group released models suggesting third wave deaths could hit 72,000.

In an interview with the Unherd website, Dr Tildesley admitted the modelling had underestimated vaccine effectiveness and misjudged how cautious the public would be after earlier restrictions were lifted.