Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Torper]

38 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Well, if the top Prof can’t cite that figure, I’m definitely giving-up looking for it.

 

Yes, what Prof Bauld said was that they "don't report the ICY figures in bulletins routinely".  One wonders why not as even the Prof didn't seem to have access to them.  They're certainly available abroad - as I said in an earlier posting "From the USA: "the Michigan Health & Hospital Association (MHA) has found that three out of four COVID patients are unvaccinated (76%), 87% of COVID ICU patients are unvaccinated and 88% of COVID ventilator patients are unvaccinated." 

 

There's also an excellent and highly detailed government report for New South Wales (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/in-focus/covid-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf) which found "The vast majority of COVID-19 cases, and cases with more severe disease (classified as those hospitalised, admitted to ICU or who died) were not vaccinated. Only 5.7% of cases who were hospitalised and 5.8% of those who were admitted to ICU or who died had received 2 doses of vaccine. The proportion of cases and serious cases who were vaccinated increased with age, but this likely relates to vaccination coverage, which due to the nature of the rollout was substantially higher in older people".  It went on to say "In the peak fortnight, the case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 whilst in unvaccinated people it was 561 per 100,000; a more than 10-fold difference. Rates of COVID-19 ICU or deaths peaked in the fortnight 8 September to 21 September 2021 at 0.9 per 100,000 in 2-dose vaccinated people compared to 15.6 per 100,000 in unvaccinated people; a greater than 16-fold difference".

 

I don't see any real reason why it should be an awful lot different here.

 

DT

[john new]

45 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

This probably explains why our leaders are looking a bit tense about Omicron:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59621029

Just been watching the local footy team live on Bt Sport (Wrexham - Weymouth), yes it is outdoors but no distancing in the packed main stand seating area and not a single spectator noticeably wearing a mask.  Seeing that it is hardly surprising a second wave is predicted, much of society either think it is all over or give the impression they have no idea they are at some risk.

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by john new

[andyman7]

8 minutes ago, john new said:

Just been watching the local footy team live on Bt Sport (Wrexham - Weymouth), yes it is outdoors but no distancing in the packed main stand seating area and not a single spectator noticeably wearing a mask.  Seeing that it is hardly surprising a second wave is predicted, much of society either think it is all over or give the impression they have no idea they are at some risk.

 

I think for many people the risk is now 'priced in' to their lives. The 'counterfactual' is to imagine that masks, social distancing, limiting contact somehow mean this will go away. It won't - what those measures do is slow the spread so that (for example) ICUs can cope better. But on an individual basis, once you accept that you will get it at some point, and continue getting future versions of it (as with flu/colds) it's a much less clear cut rationale to limit your life to put off something that will happen anyway.

Edited December 11, 2021 by andyman7
Spelling

[Andy Hayter]

14 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

I think for many people the risk is now 'priced in' to their lives. The 'counterfactual' is to imagine that masks, social distancing, limiting contact somehow mean this will go away. It won't - what those measures do is slow the spread so that (for example) ICUs can cope better. But on an individual basis, once you accept that you will get it at some point, and continue getting future versions of it (as with flu/colds) it's a much less clear cut rationale to limit your life to put off something that will happen anyway.

 

In the broadest terms I cannot disagree but taking your argument to the extreme, we will all die so let's slit our throats tonight.

 

We are not yet at a point IMO where throwing caution to the wind will end up with a good result for a significant number of people.  Omicron and its apparent ability to reduce the efficacy of vaccines makes the virus again more dangerous even for the vaccinated.  Until we have a combined vaccine and medicine regime that means that 40-50,000 people per year are no longer going to die I am afraid we do need to continue taking action.

 

If that were the road death statistic there would be cries of outrage.

If that were the death rate (even worldwide) of air crashes, people would stop flying.

 

But we are  becoming desensitised and write off the real death toll of Covid as an inconvenience.  

[Not Jeremy]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

This probably explains why our leaders are looking a bit tense about Omicron:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59621029

 

 

 

Really?

 

A "study" of "some" experts have suggested a "worse case scenario" - big deal.

 

And it doesn't suggest or predict any outcome as far as I can see, having read it.

 

And its a report on a study written by the BBC, who do tend to the "We're doomed" side of things.

 

So OK, maybe you are all right to quake in your boots, and we should cancel Christmas and tell all those naughty naughty footballers and supporters (all out in the open air, enjoying themselves, mixing - whatever next?) not to be so wicked.

 

I don't think so.

 

Of course I could be proved wrong when we are all wiped out by the plague and troops start shooting unvaccinated rioters trying to get their sick brethren into the barricaded A& E departments already full of sick and dying people! What japes!

 

I have just been boosted and Flu jabbed by my local surgery, for which I am grateful.

 

I fully intend to continue to have a life through this pandemic - have "fun" in your bunkers of disapproval you all and I'll try not to be put off by the hand wringing and catastrophising.

 

Have any of you built any small trains while this is all going on?

 

Just a thought.....

 

Simon

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

35 minutes ago, john new said:

Just been watching the local footy team live

….. at the stadium. A fair few people wearing masks, more than I expected actually. But still very much a calculated risk based on the want to give my son some of his pre-pandemic joys back.

[Nearholmer]

2 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Just a thought.....

A very strange one, if I may be so bold, given the provenance of the figures.

[andyman7]

1 minute ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

In the broadest terms I cannot disagree but taking your argument to the extreme, we will all die so let's slit our throats tonight.

 

We are not yet at a point IMO where throwing caution to the wind will end up with a good result for a significant number of people.  Omicron and its apparent ability to reduce the efficacy of vaccines makes the virus again more dangerous even for the vaccinated.  Until we have a combined vaccine and medicine regime that means that 40-50,000 people per year are no longer going to die I am afraid we do need to continue taking action.

 

If that were the road death statistic there would be cries of outrage.

If that were the death rate (even worldwide) of air crashes, people would stop flying.

 

But we are  becoming desensitised and write off the real death toll of Covid as an inconvenience.  

Well indeed, and therein lies the trade-off. The truth is that throughout history, human beings do become desensitised to the everyday. Nowadays we do not expect anyone to die of an infected wound but 150 years ago it was a risk people lived with. We are still at the stage in the pandemic where measures of some sort make sense because further vaccination and better therapies can be achieved and an overall number of lives saved.

 

But there comes a point where a certain number of deaths from Covid will be considered the better trade off against other deaths and diminished lives cause by those same measures. Comparison with road or air deaths is not really a valid comparison as these result from activities that people have some degree of choice in undertaking. Given that life itself is invariably 100% fatal in the long run, the better comparison is with other non-accidental causes of death, which in the UK are, for example, 166,000 per year for cancers; 160,000 for heart attacks and circulatory diseases; 25,000 flu deaths per year. This doesn't diminish Covid deaths but puts them in context. That point of view is eventually concluded by society as a whole rather than by what you, I or anyone else thinks on an individual basis. 

[Nearholmer]

The big, unanswered by anyone who advocates not taking collective precautions, including those MPs who are fervently opposed to doing so is: when we don’t, and the hospitals fill up, then what?

 

Its a question that had been dodged, ducked, and dived by self-styled libertarians from the outset, and it deserves an answer.

 

”Then what?” Involves describing how the first person who arrives in desperate need of medical care at a full hospital should be dealt with (all the others are full by now too), then the second, and the third etc.  What actions are we to instruct medical staff to take on our behalf’s?

 

Which isn’t, BTW, aimed at Andyman7, because I understand where he is coming from to some degree. It’s more aimed at those who chafe against precautions in general, and advocate leaving everything to that well known salvation “individual common sense”.

 

 

[Andy Hayter]

AS I have pointed out before the Cancer death rate is a false comparison since cancer is many types of disease.  The two major ones - breast and lung - both rate just below or about the same as Covid.

 

If you want o make the true comparison then add Covid, flu, pneumonia and other respiratory problems.

 

Equally as others have pointed out you don't catch cancer or heart problems from someone else - unless you want to blame parents for those that are  genetically promoted.    

 

You are however right.  There is a point where we have to accept Covid deaths as "something that just happens".  Is that 5K deaths per year, 10k, 15k even 20k?  Possibly - but not in my view 50k.

[Andy Hayter]

Just to make the point.  346 people died in 2 Boeing 737 Max crashes and got quite close to closing the company* and yet 50,000 UK Covid deaths are being treated as "nothing".  

 

* certainly caused major ripples in the airline industry.

 

The first is a possible over reaction.  The second a consequence of Covid fatigue and desensitisation.

[Not Jeremy]

12 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The big, unanswered by anyone who advocates not taking collective precautions, including those MPs who are fervently opposed to doing so is: when we don’t, and the hospitals fill up, then what?

 

Its a question that had been dodged, ducked, and dived by self-styled libertarians from the outset, and it deserves an answer.

 

”Then what?” Involves describing how the first person who arrives in desperate need of medical care at a full hospital should be dealt with (all the others are full by now too), then the second, and the third etc.  What actions are we to instruct medical staff to take on our behalf’s?

 

Which isn’t, BTW, aimed at Andyman7, because I understand where he is coming from to some degree. It’s more aimed at those who chafe against precautions in general, and advocate leaving everything to that well known salvation “individual common sense”.

 

 

 

Well you take precautions and have contingency plans for coping with the worst if it happens, obviously.

 

Which is what the UK has so far done very well, so again I don't see what point you are making here?

 

Stop fretting about it for heavens sake.

[Hobby]

A comment concerning the posts about "acceptable" numbers...

 

Nearly 30k died of Flu and Pmeumonia in 2018 and 2019. That's between the two worst figures in Andy Hayters post... I'd also suggest that Covid is actually killing in the main the same people that Flu/Pneumonia were.

 

So what is acceptable...

Edited December 11, 2021 by Hobby
Spelling

[Nearholmer]

The only way I can rationalise it is to look at it in terms of reduction of average life-span, given that the major (not exclusive, but certainly dominant) impact of Covid is to take years off the back-end of lives. 
 

Are we as a society prepared to countenance a further reduction of average life-span in exchange for not implementing precautions, and if so by how much?

And, another awkward question that has to be answered in parallel: how should that decision translate into action (or more likely inaction) when a patient over, say, 75yo presents with Covid (or indeed anything else)? 

[Nearholmer]

20 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Stop fretting about it for heavens sake.

If my “fretting” bothers you, don’t read it.

 

20 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Well you take precautions and have contingency plans for coping with the worst if it happens, obviously.

The obvious contingency plan being to restrict freedom of association to restrict spread of the disease, which is the very thing the libertarians chafe against.

 

The one contingency plan we can’t have is “inflatable hospitals”, because there aren’t any inflatable doctors or nurses available.

 

The only viable contingency plan to cover the eventuality of complete hospital overload is one which I’m sure exists: triage the patients who have lowest probability of surviving into palliative care (painkillers and sympathy) and either set a jcb to dig graves on the nearest sports field, or hire in some reefer trucks to store them until decent funerals can be arranged.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Hobby]

Flu and Pneumonia already do that and last year were virtually replaced by Covid. They are controlled in the main by vaccines, as now is Covid. A pandemic will affect life-span when it appears but then we learn to live with it and control it with vaccines, which then sees life-spans start to increase again. It's happened with flu and is now happening with Covid. I believe that the scientists have already begun to control it like they've done flu, 

 

(Reply to Nearholmer's previous post, first paragraph.)

Edited December 11, 2021 by Hobby
Another post made at same time.

[Nearholmer]

12 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Flu and Pneumonia already do that and last year were virtually replaced by Covid.

Replaced and exceeded. Average lifespan in the U.K. fell last year. 
 

 

[Hobby]

I've changed my post, NH, sorry!

 

"A pandemic will affect life-span when it appears but then we learn to live with it and control it with vaccines, which then sees life-spans start to increase again."

[Not Jeremy]

7 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If my “fretting” bothers you, don’t read it.

 

The obvious contingency plan being to restrict freedom of association to restrict spread of the disease, which is the very thing the libertarians chafe against.

 

The one contingency plan we can’t have is “inflatable hospitals”, because there aren’t any inflatable doctors or nurses available.

 

What on earth are you talking about with "inflatable hospitals" what does that mean?

 

I'm talking about planning and resourcing of the hospitals and medical side of things, I'm not thinking about your "restrictions". Personally I believe this has been carried out well in the UK and continues to be well thought out and prepared for different eventualities

 

I do wonder whether you haven't created a bit of a straw man or straw men with your concern about a group of people who you say want to throw away all precautions.

 

Apart from possibly a very few raving nutters(?) I do not believe that such a group of people actually exist.

 

And as to the extent that this mythical group of ill intentioned bogeymen/women would be able to influence what happens - well even if they existed they haven't, they can't and they won't.

 

I certainly do not advocate any such approach, ie throwing away all precautions.

 

But, dare I say it, people not wearing masks at a football match, in a supermarket, on a train are not necessarily uncaring assassins out to wipe out octogenarians.

 

I am just less worried by it all I think and don't really see too much point in over analysing everything as some here seem to do.

 

It is what it is.

[Hobby]

2 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

I am just less worried by it all I think and don't really see too much point in over analysing everything as some here seem to do.

 

That is the problem, certainly on this thread!

[Andy Hayter]

It is indeed what it is NJ.

 

A&E specialists who seem to be suggesting that if things get worse the cost in fresh underwear is going to go through the roof.

 

Non urgent operations put off until.....?

 

 

It will take very little to push this house of cards over but it seems you don't agree.

[Neil]

22 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

..... I'm talking about planning and resourcing of the hospitals and medical side of things, I'm not thinking about your "restrictions". Personally I believe this has been carried out well in the UK and continues to be well thought out and prepared for different eventualities ....

 

Sorry Simon I'm not so sure that hospitals and the medical side of things have been properly resourced in the UK for some time. GP numbers falling, ambulances waiting outside A&E until their patients can be admitted, increasing waiting times for routine treatments, vulnerable patients well enough to be discharged but unable to because of a shortage of care home beds or home care workers all suggest to me that there's been a lack of resources/funding for some time.

[Nick C]

23 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

I'm talking about planning and resourcing of the hospitals and medical side of things, I'm not thinking about your "restrictions". Personally I believe this has been carried out well in the UK and continues to be well thought out and prepared for different eventualities

 

 

Except that the fundamental problem is that it hasn't, and isn't. Years of underfunding meant that in early 2020 our health system was in no way prepared for dealing with a pandemic (nor, indeed, were most others). We already had a chronic shortage of medical staff, headlines of long waiting lists etc have been around for years.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

”Then what?” Involves describing how the first person who arrives in desperate need of medical care at a full hospital should be dealt with (all the others are full by now too), then the second, and the third etc.  What actions are we to instruct medical staff to take on our behalf’s?

 

Sadly, I suspect for many of those advocating such a position, it'd depend on whether that person in need was one of "us" or one of "them", where "us" and "them" are various segments of society depending on which newspaper they read...

[Hobby]

Or the NHS isn't set up correctly for today's society which is very different to what it was in 1948. Trouble is it's the Sacred Cow and no government dares touch it (other than plough more and more money into it with no visible improvement). It's not underfunded but it is long overdue for a complete overhaul but whilst it continues to be used as a political football that just won't happen unfortunately. Previous two comments illustrate the issue very well, "don't try to change it, just plough more and more money into it". Sorry, chaps, but that is not the answer if you want to improve health care.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Hobby

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

do wonder whether you haven't created a bit of a straw man or straw men with your concern about a group of people who you say want to throw away all precautions.

 

Apart from possibly a very few raving nutters(?) I do not believe that such a group of people actually exist.

Well, forecast number of MPs likely to vote against Plan B vary, and doubtless many who do vote against it will be in favour of some parts, but unable to stomach others. But, I certainly heard an interview on the radio with one MP (IIRC from Essex), who seemed against all restrictions, and was talking big about leaving his party over it. Mind you, he did strike me as what you call a raving nutter, so maybe it is just raving nutters.

 

Out of interest, you can actually read what the MPs against Plan B think here 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

But, dare I say it, people not wearing masks at a football match, in a supermarket, on a train are not necessarily uncaring assassins out to wipe out octogenarians.

You must be mixing-up posters, because you will look in vain for me using language that colourful.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Nearholmer