Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

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
1 minute ago, Aggy said:

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.

what he said

Share this post


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

   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 bk matter.

 

I see your point now. Certainly the statistics in the chart we are considering do not deal with such cases

Share this post


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

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). 

Well, you do - you say they weren’t expected to die from their other conditions.

Edit: can see your response to BB, so looks like we’re all agreed!.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aggy said:

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.

I have already dealt with this earlier, for e.g.

"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."

No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions. The statistics do not attempt in any way to do this. Thus your examples do not in anyway shape or form undermine the fact that they record circa 29,000 deaths from Covid-19. They are entirely consistent with accepting the point of your examples, because of this.

 

Share this post


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

Well, you do - you say they weren’t expected to die from their other conditions.

Edit: can see your response to BB, so looks like we’re all agreed!.

YESexactly! if they had not got Covid-19 they were not expected to die from those underlying conditions at the point at which they died. That is why the doctor concerned records the death as caused by Covid-19. I think you're missing the point that a doctor's recording of death is an indexical statement. It rightly makes no reference to what they might have died of later if they hadn't died of Covid-19 (just think about this for a moment and you will see that it would be absurd to do so)

Share this post


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

I have already dealt with this earlier, for e.g.

"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."

No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions. The statistics do not attempt in any way to do this. Thus your examples do not in anyway shape or form undermine the fact that they record circa 29,000 deaths from Covid-19. They are entirely consistent with accepting the point of your examples, because of this.

 

I’m not disputing the statistics or saying they aren’t consistent with the examples.

I’m saying your statement that:

“No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions“

is contradicted by your statement that:

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

 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys and girls - does it really matter if its 'just'  41,000 deaths or 65,000 deaths due to Covid in some manner.

Its way way more than the average flu year of 7,000 and shows very clearly in excess deaths.

The question is how do we stop it repeating ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The question is how do we stop it repeating ?

 

You can't until an effective vaccine appears. In any event it won't  be repeating to the same extent as March / April, even Whitty was careful not to make that claim.

There were lots of ifs and maybe's in yesterdays announcement which seemed mainly focused on frightening people into being more observant of the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I look at then and now thw more I wonder just how early we got it.  Had it already been in mass circulation long before we realised?   How far bacm have we dated it in the UK/ Europe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to back-trace it? 
 

Ive got a vague recollection of an article on here about Dutch sewers which I’m sure said something about being able to tell how long it had been around but I might have completely made that up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson, knowing how badly his world beating T&T has failed, is now saying the reason it is spreading is because of close contact. He is fed up with Labour criticising the system.

Yes we know that mop head, but you said your baby would reduce it. And people involved in the system are criticising it.

So once again, he maintains he is in control and has nothing to be sorry four.

Cornwall just had its biggest daily rise since the middle of the crisis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m not disputing the statistics or saying they aren’t consistent with the examples.

I’m saying your statement that:

“No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions“

is contradicted by your statement that:

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

 

Read my whole statement accurately and you will see there is absolutely no contradiction in my position. If it helps you out let me amend the first statement that you have taken out of context to the following:

"No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions other than they would not have died (of those underlying conditions)at the moment they did if they had not caught Covid-19."

In other words Covid-19 killed them, and we do not speculate at all how long they would have survived with their underlying conditions if it had not.

No doubt future studies utilising statistical analysis will seek to do just that, but this set of statistics doesn't. 

If this isn't clear enough for you then I'm afraid I do not know how to make it any simpler.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Cornwall just had its biggest daily rise since the middle of the crisis.

Is it spread by pasties?

Share this post


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

What Gross Govt. Incompetence looks like ..... NO TESTS.

 

Gross Incompetence.png

Its much the same everywhere, a six day wait in parts of France and testing in Spain is collapsing. Sometning to do with the supply of re-agents apparently.

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...