Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Positives remain below 2% of tests

Latest UK Numbers  continue to hovver in the same area

4368 - 11

Inpatients  1081  as Saturday so I pressume no update yet

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European.

Italy   1587 - 15

France 10569 - 11

Spain  no update since friday

Germany  1169 - 4

All not a million miles from what they were a week or more ago.

The French figures are interesting - there was a point where it looked like the deaths were going to take off, but they’ve dropped right back down again for a little while now. Cases still going up though. Not sure if there has been any change in policies over there or perhaps was the spike in deaths due to a specific event or similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the figures from 10 days ago

UK 3539 - 6

Inpatients  863

Italy   1597 - 10

France 9843 - 19

Spain   10764  - 71

Germany  1758  - 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Aggy said:

The French figures are interesting - there was a point where it looked like the deaths were going to take off, but they’ve dropped right back down again for a little while now. Cases still going up though. Not sure if there has been any change in policies over there or perhaps was the spike in deaths due to a specific event or similar?

Bouncing about a lot and a small uptick is about all you can devine at the moment.

I thought it very telling that even Whitty couldn't bring himself to talk about future fatalities in the multi hundreds or thousands per day. We are not going to see a repeat of March / April if recent evidence is anything to go by. I think most sensible people have developed a natural wariness of crowded situations and have adjusted their lifestyles, the vulnerable especially so.

It is easy enough to continue with life as long as you remain careful. I have been out all day in the fine Autumn sunshine and had a nice meal in a restaurant garden with widly spaced tables etc. Stay out of pubs, shops and enclosed spaces and any risk is vastly reduced.

Edited by ricardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Bouncing about a lot and a small uptick is about all you can devine at the moment.

I thought it very telling that even Whitty couldn't bring himself to talk about future fatalities in the multi hundreds or thousands per day. We are not going to see a repeat of March / April if recent evidence is anything to go by. I think most sensible people have developed a natural wariness of crowded situations and have adjusted their lifestyles, the vulnerable especially so.

It is easy enough to continue with life as long as you remain careful. I have been out all day in the fine Autumn sunshine and had a nice meal in a restaurant garden with widly spaced tables etc. Stay out of pubs, shops and enclosed spaces and any risk is vastly reduced.

Yes i took a fair amount of positive from Whitty’s comments. Statements such as “if, and it’s a big if” when talking about the virus’ rate of spread, he made it very clear this wasn’t a prediction of what is actually going to happen but was a very worst case possibility etc. And 200 deaths a day by mid -November as a very worst case prediction if literally nothing changes at all gives me fairly strong hope that without the need for much more than minor changes to and local tightening of restrictions, we should be able to keep things much better under control and avoid anything like the 1400 a day we had earlier in the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Whether they were expected to die from their underlying conditions or not is utterly irrelevant. The relevant point is that it was Covid-19 that killed them. I really fail to see what is so hard to grasp here.

I'm sorry for being stupid here but I really dont see it. 

 The data notes say that the spreadsheet:

"contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate...where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process"

There is no requirement that where a test is positive the disease must be the direct cause of death as far as i can see.  This makes sense to me, generally (though I may be wrong) if we die of disease it is because our organs pack up.   It could be that this failure is a consequence of covid, it could be that covid was a contributing factor or it could be that it was largely inconsequential.  And i bet its very difficult to tell which given the result is the same, the organ has packed up.

I'm not seeking to dismiss anythimg here. This is the worst dosease for a century and comes at a time when we had largely forgotten that the vast majority of humans ever born have subsequently died of disease.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Van wink said:

They are trying to wake people up to what we could face very quickly if attitudes and behaviours don’t change now.

was far too basic for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the low number of positive cases who have antibodies and the mention that it is possible for reinfection.

So surely those who have had it should now be on the at risk list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm sorry for being stupid here but I really dont see it. 

 The data notes say that the spreadsheet:

"contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate...where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process"

There is no requirement that where a test is positive the disease must be the direct cause of death as far as i can see.  This makes sense to me, generally (though I may be wrong) if we die of disease it is because our organs pack up.   It could be that this failure is a consequence of covid, it could be that covid was a contributing factor or it could be that it was largely inconsequential.  And i bet its very difficult to tell which given the result is the same, the organ has packed up.

I'm not seeking to dismiss anythimg here. This is the worst dosease for a century and comes at a time when we had largely forgotten that the vast majority of humans ever born have subsequently died of disease.

 

 

I think we're splitting straws here.

For the vast majority of those that test positive for CV-19 and then go onto die within 28 days I'm sure CV-19 will be the challenge that eventually proved too much for the person concerned.  CV-19 will be the immediate cause of death whatever the eventual failure was. 

There will be some for which CV-19 is largely unrelated - suicide or whatever - but then again there will also be many, possibly many more who will die of CV-19 and its effects well after the 28 days.

The current definition is as good as any. I see no reason to challenge it - it's already been 'tweaked' once to try and give a true & balanced picture.  

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Interesting that the low number of positive cases who have antibodies and the mention that it is possible for reinfection.

So surely those who have had it should now be on the at risk list.

Many unknowns - in many ways its our own immune response that actually in excess causes if I recall many of the symptomatic issues - hence the asymptomatic bunch (or children). Those that have it bad have high numbers of AB. Chicken or egg ?

It might be that if you have a recurrence it's less severe - but then again for some it might be much worse. There are after all many a childhood disease that you really don't want to revisit or catch as an adult! The real problem with Covid is that it affects many organs and we have little to zero long term data apart from some anecdotal evidence of 'long covid'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what changes or public guidance might be introduced after the scientists' briefing this morning? Reports are for a 10pm close for pubs/clubs/ restaurants etc but would that make much difference in the scheme of things?

I've wondered if two days in a week as a form of lockdown might  (say, on a Saturday/Sunday) might offer the 'circuit break' we need? (with some guidance on certain necessary activity). The 5 day working week might then remain to allow the economy to continue ....but such a measure might exert some brake for 2 days. Any thoughts or is this plain daft? It's not perfect but nothing is. Any other ideas on measures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/09/2020 at 21:10, Aggy said:

A recurring theme today of people ignoring questions and ‘not continuing the discussion’ when faced with points they don’t like or asked to explain their theories. Perhaps I’ll give the thread a miss for a while.

You owned them, mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sonyc said:

So what changes or public guidance might be introduced after the scientists' briefing this morning? Reports are for a 10pm close for pubs/clubs/ restaurants etc but would that make much difference in the scheme of things?

I've wondered if two days in a week as a form of lockdown might  (say, on a Saturday/Sunday) might offer the 'circuit break' we need? (with some guidance on certain necessary activity). The 5 day working week might then remain to allow the economy to continue ....but such a measure might exert some brake for 2 days. Any thoughts or is this plain daft? It's not perfect but nothing is. Any other ideas on measures?

One interesting idea I heard was the full on circuit break or mini lockdown in the school 1/2 term for 2 weeks in October. Limits the damage to schooling.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

One interesting idea I heard was the full on circuit break or mini lockdown in the school 1/2 term for 2 weeks in October. Limits the damage to schooling.

That idea has been doing the rounds for a few days now. As I have said before, what’s crucial is the use the Government make of any time that is bought by a circuit break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Van wink said:

That idea has been doing the rounds for a few days now. As I have said before, what’s crucial is the use the Government make of any time that is bought by a circuit break.

Yes, but what I hadn't considered is that if this was needed in a few weeks it could be a total shutdown as in March but only for 2 weeks. A real not 1/2 baked breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm sorry for being stupid here but I really dont see it. 

 The data notes say that the spreadsheet:

"contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate...where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process"

There is no requirement that where a test is positive the disease must be the direct cause of death as far as i can see.  This makes sense to me, generally (though I may be wrong) if we die of disease it is because our organs pack up.   It could be that this failure is a consequence of covid, it could be that covid was a contributing factor or it could be that it was largely inconsequential.  And i bet its very difficult to tell which given the result is the same, the organ has packed up.

I'm not seeking to dismiss anythimg here. This is the worst dosease for a century and comes at a time when we had largely forgotten that the vast majority of humans ever born have subsequently died of disease.

 

 

Perhaps the easiest way to grasp it is think from the perspective of the doctor filling in the death certificate. She is effectively saying that if the patient had not contracted Covid-19 then she wouldn't have died (i.e. Covid-19 killed her). It's worth remembering that death certificates are a legal document and filling them in falsely can result it severe punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes, but what I hadn't considered is that if this was needed in a few weeks it could be a total shutdown as in March but only for 2 weeks. A real not 1/2 baked breaker.

Is half baked the same as oven ready?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm sorry for being stupid here but I really dont see it. 

 The data notes say that the spreadsheet:

"contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate...where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process"

There is no requirement that where a test is positive the disease must be the direct cause of death as far as i can see.  This makes sense to me, generally (though I may be wrong) if we die of disease it is because our organs pack up.   It could be that this failure is a consequence of covid, it could be that covid was a contributing factor or it could be that it was largely inconsequential.  And i bet its very difficult to tell which given the result is the same, the organ has packed up.

I'm not seeking to dismiss anythimg here. This is the worst dosease for a century and comes at a time when we had largely forgotten that the vast majority of humans ever born have subsequently died of disease.

 

 

Would agree three possibilities - covid the main cause, covid a contributing factor (but could also have died without it or died slightly later without it), covid pretty irrelevant.

Excess deaths a pointer perhaps to how many fall into each banding.

Deaths in June, July and August from “covid, flu or pneumonia” were below the five year average. ONS itself suggests this is because a number who would have died in those months actually died in March/April. If they would otherwise have died two months later, fairly safe bet that covid was little more than a contributing factor. Yes, it might have sped death up by a month but they were going to die soon anyway.

Roughly the amount equal to the “normal” flu and pneumonia deaths (ie the five year average from those causes of death) are likely to be people who had covid but actually were going to die in March and April anyway even if they never had covid. 

The number of excess deaths left after you deduct the above are solely attributable to covid.

My guess (and this definitely isn’t scientific) is that the proportions are probably something like this. Assuming 200 deaths a day as the five year average for flu/pneumonia deaths in a normal March (a figure I’ve said is not uncommon for daily deaths in flu season), and saying 1200 deaths with covid on the death certificate on that date. Covid largely irrelevant in 200 of those deaths - would have died anyway. Covid sped up deaths for 100 who would otherwise have died a month or two later. Covid the main reason that approx 900 of the 1200 died. Again, no scientific basis to that but I’d guess it’s probably about right roughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps the easiest way to grasp it is think from the perspective of the doctor filling in the death certificate. She is effectively saying that if the patient had not contracted Covid-19 then she wouldn't have died (i.e. Covid-19 killed her). It's worth remembering that death certificates are a legal document and filling them in falsely can result it severe punishment.

If its on the death certificate the doctor feels that covid was material .  What we sont know is how many people have had a positive test and are on the stats but covid is not listed on the certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

If its on the death certificate the doctor feels that covid was material .  What we sont know is how many people have had a positive test and are on the stats but covid is not listed on the certificate.

Also fair to say, I think, in horsefly’s example that the doctor would only in that situation be saying “the patient wouldn’t have died right now.” If covid hadn’t been there, the patient might still have died two days later, but covid was the thing that actually caused the final organ failure or whatever. Had they not had covid, something else might have done the same thing two days later - common with elderly people, they have a lot of things which could cause the final blow and just because one of them does it first doesn’t mean that was the only (or even the main) reason for death.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

If its on the death certificate the doctor feels that covid was material .  What we sont know is how many people have had a positive test and are on the stats but covid is not listed on the certificate.

 

12 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Also fair to say, I think, in horsefly’s example that the doctor would only in that situation be saying “the patient wouldn’t have died right now.” If covid hadn’t been there, the patient might still have died two days later, but covid was the thing that actually caused the final organ failure or whatever. Had they left it two days, something else might have done the same thing.

I think you are both going down a rabbit hole here. Nobody else is trying to seriously undermine the numbers / Covid excess deaths.

I will however add one little counter intuitive fact.

The same restrictions that suppress Covid will also suppress i.e.work for flu and other communicable diseases. Hence such seasonal deaths due to these should also be suppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I think you are both going down a rabbit hole here. Nobody else is trying to seriously undermine the numbers / Covid excess deaths.

I will however add one little counter intuitive fact.

The same restrictions that suppress Covid will also suppress i.e.work for flu and other communicable diseases. Hence such seasonal deaths due to these should also be suppressed.

I think you’re reading into posts things that aren’t there. Certainly I haven’t tried at any point to downplay numbers or to make covid look less bad than it is. You seem to want to be having a “covid is worse than flu” argument about every post. Nobody has suggested the same shouldn’t be applied to flu.

People can think covid is worse than flu and still point out when one statement used to support that view is incorrect. Horsefly’s initial post stated nobody who died with covid on the death certificate was expected to die from anything else. That isn’t quite right and undermines the otherwise correct point he or she was trying to make (namely that, as both BB and I have also said, Jools’ argument was very wrong). 

I’ve used some very rough numbers in post above to suggest that at least three quarters of covid deaths probably were caused exclusively/mainly by covid - and my dodgy examples suggest covid is at least three times worse than flu.

Earlier in the week there were claims flu doesn’t affect multiple organs - incorrect. Claims two people in their twenties with no underlying health conditions were in icu in Birmingham - incorrect. Pointing out things are factually incorrect doesn’t mean covid isn’t as bad as or is only equally as bad as flu. If someone came on here and said “flu kills 400,000 every year” I’d point out that’s factually incorrect as well. 


Edit: and I actually think there is value in discussing the points in recent posts. The thread used to be about trying to understand covid. Given it’s highly probable that not everyone who has covid on the death certificate died literally just from covid and nothing else, discussing it seems sensible. Ignoring that and suggesting something which isn’t correct seems less sensible.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

I think you’re reading into posts things that aren’t there. Certainly I haven’t tried at any point to downplay numbers or to make covid look less bad than it is. You seem to want to be having a “covid is worse than flu” argument about every post. Nobody has suggested the same shouldn’t be applied to flu.

People can think covid is worse than flu and still point out when one statement used to support that view is incorrect. Horsefly’s initial post stated nobody who died with covid on the death certificate was expected to die from anything else. That isn’t quite right and undermines the otherwise correct point he or she was trying to make (namely that, as both BB and I have also said, Jools’ argument was very wrong). 

I’ve used some very rough numbers in post above to suggest that at least three quarters of covid deaths probably were caused exclusively/mainly by covid - and my dodgy examples suggest covid is at least three times worse than flu.

Earlier in the week there were claims flu doesn’t affect multiple organs - incorrect. Claims two people in their twenties with no underlying health conditions were in icu in Birmingham - incorrect. Pointing out things are factually incorrect doesn’t mean covid isn’t as bad as or is only equally as bad as flu. If someone came on here and said “flu kills 400,000 every year” I’d point out that’s factually incorrect as well. 


Edit: and I actually think there is value in discussing the points in recent posts. The thread used to be about trying to understand covid. Given it’s highly probable that not everyone who has covid on the death certificate died literally just from covid and nothing else, discussing it seems sensible. Ignoring that and suggesting something which isn’t correct seems less sensible.

I appreciate your effort to explain yourself but I'm afraid you're still making a fundamental mistake. I think the best way to demonstrate this is as follows:

You said: "Horsefly’s initial post stated nobody who died with covid on the death certificate was expected to die from anything else."  Now let's look at what I actually said: "They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus." By NOT quoting me accurately and missing out the crucial conditional "...if they had not caught the virus..." you radically misrepresent the point I made and thus confuse the statistics. The point is they were not expected to have died from the effects of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus. Thus in the example I presented, the individual was not expected to die from angina, and while the angina contributed by making it harder for him to recover from Covid-19, it was the Covid-19 that killed him and not the angina. If he had not had Covid-19 he would not have died. That is why the doctor correctly recorded the death as caused by Covid_19 and not angina.

Edited by horsefly
missing word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

If its on the death certificate the doctor feels that covid was material .  What we sont know is how many people have had a positive test and are on the stats but covid is not listed on the certificate.

Sorry but I just don't get what your trying to say here or what is supposed to be its significance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, horsefly said:

. The point is they were not expected to have died from the effects of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus.

Apologies if you think I was misrepresenting your point. I hadn’t intended to - your point as I understood it was that nobody was expected to die of anything else if they hadn’t caught covid and that does appear to be what you said and meant.

The point is that you cannot possibly know that from the data in Jools’ chart. It doesn’t give you any information on the severity of the other conditions. It doesn’t tell you whether they might have died a day later from something else. 

If covid is the thing that finally stopped the organs from working, it doesnt mean that whatever else they had wouldn’t have stopped their organs from working a week later. So they could still have been expected to die from something else, but covid effectively sped it up. That is supported by the lower than average deaths in June, July, August - people who would otherwise have died in those months (ie were expected to die of something else) died a few weeks earlier because of covid. 

I accept that is likely to be true in only a fairly small proportion of cases. But the fact deaths were lower than the five year average for three consecutive months after the main “wave” of covid deaths does suggest there was a decent number who were expected to die from other things but covid got to them slightly sooner.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As two examples to follow on from that:

1. A man has terminal cancer and is given three weeks to live. The next day the man is in a car crash and dies from his injuries. Cause of death is the injuries from the crash. But it is inaccurate to say he was not expected to die from anything else. He was expected to die from cancer within three weeks.

2. An 85 year old man has multiple illnesses and doctors think that one of them will cause his organs to stop working within the next four weeks. He has caught covid and dies after only two weeks. Covid could have been the thing that stopped his organs from working. But it isn’t true to say he wasn’t expected to die from anything else. He was expected to die from something else within four weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Sorry but I just don't get what your trying to say here or what is supposed to be its 

   Eg Man has a heart attack and is admitted whilst there they have a positve test and dies of heart failure 7 days later.  

I was musing on the significance of events like this that get recorded. I dont suppose we have enough data to really analyse this so no matter.

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Apologies if you think I was misrepresenting your point. I hadn’t intended to - your point as I understood it was that nobody was expected to die of anything else if they hadn’t caught covid.

The point is that you cannot possibly know that from the data in Jools’ chart. It doesn’t give you any information on the severity of the other conditions. It doesn’t tell you whether they might have died a day later from something else. 

If covid is the thing that finally stopped the organs from working, it doesnt mean that whatever else they had wouldn’t have stopped their organs from working a week later. So they could still have been expected to die from something else, but covid effectively sped it up. That is supported by the lower than average deaths in June, July, August - people who would otherwise have died in those months (ie were expected to die of something else) died a few weeks earlier because of covid. 

I accept that is likely to be true in only a fairly small proportion of cases. But the fact deaths were lower than the five year average for three consecutive months after the main “wave” of covid deaths does suggest there was a decent number who were expected to die from other things but covid got to them slightly sooner.

Thanks for the apology, but it's not that I just "think" you misrepresented me, it's that you "actually" misrepresent my claim. And I'm afraid you are continuing to misrepresent the statistics shown in the chart.

You say: 

"your point as I understood it was that nobody was expected to die of anything else if they hadn’t caught covid.

The point is that you cannot possibly know that from the data in Jools’ chart. It doesn’t give you any information on the severity of the other conditions. It doesn’t tell you whether they might have died a day later from something else. 

If covid is the thing that finally stopped the organs from working, it doesnt mean that whatever else they had wouldn’t have stopped their organs from working a week later."

 

The point is that the statistics are not remotely attempting to make such claims and I certainly don't either (just re-read my contributions).  It is not the point of the statistics to make any sort of claims about the life-expectancy of the individuals recorded as a result of their underlying conditions. The statistics simply record that the individual died from the effects of Covid-19. That's it, period. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...