Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Interesting that they stated currently 6000 new daily cases. Zoe reports post 10,000 now. 

It was refreshing to hear scientists rather than politicians. I think we will have tighter restrictions nationally or I am unsure how people will take heed of those strong words. Folk on regional TV are reporting a degree of confusion at all the rules and variability. Given those scenario charts, then the messaging needs to be clear and very simple.

6000 to 10000 is about 4 or 5 days worth of growth. That's the problem. It's fast once the djinn is out of the bottle. 

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


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

thanks,  i dont thi k it goes quite as far as you imply (ie that if it were not for covid these people would still be walking around) but it also doesn't go as far as saying anything that supports Jools.

My assessment (based on nothing more than 6 months of interest in the subject) is that in the overwhelming majority of reportrd cases covid was a significant contributory factor.

 

Actually it does, they specifically describe the cause of death as Covid-19. It's the underlying condition that is described as a contributory factor insofar as it makes the patient more vulnerable to being killed by Covid-19. But Covid-19 is definitely regarded as the cause of death in these statistics (hence the title). This point has been explained very clearly by a scientist in one of the "More of Less" radio episodes that I mentioned (I'm afraid I don't recall which weeks episode). I think we can trust the NHS here to label their statistics as "Covid-19 daily deaths" only if the statistics record precisely that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually it does, they specifically describe the cause of death as Covid-19. It's the underlying condition that is described as a contributory factor insofar as it makes the patient more vulnerable to being killed by Covid-19. But Covid-19 is definitely regarded as the cause of death in these statistics (hence the title). This point has been explained very clearly by a scientist in one of the "More of Less" radio episodes that I mentioned (I'm afraid I don't recall which weeks episode). I think we can trust the NHS here to label their statistics as "Covid-19 daily deaths" only if the statistics record precisely that.

The point BB is making surely is that the stats are silent on whether or not they would have died a few weeks later from their underlying condition anyway. So it isn’t accurate to say they would definitely still be alive now if it wasn’t for covid or that “they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions” - how do you know that?. (But it definitely also isn’t accurate to say they definitely would have been dead, which is what Jools is saying.)

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


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

Actually it does, they specifically describe the cause of death as Covid-19. It's the underlying condition that is described as a contributory factor insofar as it makes the patient more vulnerable to being killed by Covid-19. But Covid-19 is definitely regarded as the cause of death in these statistics (hence the title). This point has been explained very clearly by a scientist in one of the "More of Less" radio episodes that I mentioned (I'm afraid I don't recall which weeks episode). I think we can trust the NHS here to label their statistics as "Covid-19 daily deaths" only if the statistics record precisely that.

This seems to be common ploy by those that wish to downplay the effects of Covid. It's no different to flu deaths reported annually that we treat as flu deaths - or indeed many other ailments. We all have underlying issues - even if we don't know them (yet) which will be contributory factors - over-weight, diabetes, immuno-compromised, alcoholic - the list is endless.

 

Share this post


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

The point BB is making surely is that the stats are silent on whether or not they would have died a few weeks later from their underlying condition anyway. So it isn’t accurate to say they would definitely still be alive now if it wasn’t for covid. (But it definitely also isn’t accurate to say they definitely would have been dead, which is what Jools is saying.)

Oh dear! I'm afraid you have totally missed the point again. The statistics state very clearly that they died from Covid-19. That is why they are labelled "Covid-19 Daily Deaths". They make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned where there were also underlying complicating conditions. The absolutely crucial point you need to be clear on is that in these cases the underlying conditions were NOT the cause of death, Covid-19 was. So for example (to use a real case I know of), a patient with angina was made more vulnerable to the virus because of his condition, but it wasn't the angina that killed him, it was Covid-19, and that is why it was recorded as a death from Covid-19. Exactly the same principle and practice applies to all those deaths recorded as Covid-19 deaths in the statistics quoted. 

Edited by horsefly
extra explanation

Share this post


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

This seems to be common ploy by those that wish to downplay the effects of Covid. It's no different to flu deaths reported annually that we treat as flu deaths - or indeed many other ailments. We all have underlying issues - even if we don't know them (yet) which will be contributory factors - over-weight, diabetes, immuno-compromised, alcoholic - the list is endless.

 

I think you're probably right about this, because it really shouldn't be that hard to understand these statistics (Even the Government is not stupid enough to conflate underlying conditions with the actual cause of death).

Edited by horsefly
spelling check
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! I'm afraid you have totally missed the point again. The statistics state very clearly that they died from Covid-19. That is why they are labelled "Covid-19 Daily Deaths". They make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned where there were also underlying complicating conditions. The absolutely crucial point you need to be clear on is that in these cases the underlying conditions were NOT the cause of death, Covid-19 was. So for example (to use a real case I know of), a patient with angina was made more vulnerable to the virus because of his condition, but it wasn't the angina that killed him, it was Covid-19, and that is why it was recorded as a death from Covid-19. Exactly the same principle and practice applies to all those deaths recorded as Covid-19 deaths in the statistics quoted. 

Yes, I know they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned.

You stated that they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions.

If they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions? 

The point you’re otherwise making is correct. Calm down.

Share this post


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

Yes, I know they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned.

You stated that they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions.

If they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions? 

The point you’re otherwise making is correct. Calm down.

Sorry but you really are being quite silly now. I'm not sure whether you are just trying to be provocative or genuinely don't understand how to read health statistics. You say "if they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions?". 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. We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age. I really don't know how to make this any easier for you to understand. You need to stop conflating underlying conditions and life expectancy with the actual cause of death. Even this Government is not crass enough to do that and quite rightly accepts the statistics the NHS provides. It's simply a matter of science.

Share this post


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

Sorry but you really are being quite silly now. I'm not sure whether you are just trying to be provocative or genuinely don't understand how to read health statistics. You say "if they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions?". 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. We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age. I really don't know how to make this any easier for you to understand. You need to stop conflating underlying conditions and life expectancy with the actual cause of death. Even this Government is not crass enough to do that and quite rightly accepts the statistics the NHS provides. It's simply a matter of science.

This is getting worse than the Brexit thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aggy said:

This is getting worse than the Brexit thread.

so you don't have an answer then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  4588 - 56

Germany  1169 - 4

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

Edited by ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...