To think these are the stats noone talks about

[TMIincoming]

Just that really. Deaths aren't really any higher than usual and hospital beds are less occupied than usual. Or are people going to say these figures aren't accurate

I’m sorry you have no evidence whatsoever, you appear to making it up as you go along. Try places like ONS for facts and figures or look at the full fact post I linked to earlier.

@TMIincoming

I just said its a massive under-estimate. There will be far far more than that. It was a figure to make a point.

Tens of millions of people are scared to death of something which loads of them have already unknowingly had.

Not sure what's so hard to understand. I have already said there aren't real figures as there is no way anyone could measure.

I reality its probably more likely hundreds of millions of not billions

So what your saying is: there is no data, this is my gut feeling about it and so that's fact and you should accept it. Well I can just as easily state that only 10,000 people are scared to death of catching it and dying - so it's not as big a problem as you believe. There's no evidence that it's 10,000 people, that's just what I think it's a likely figure based on my experience.

@Gilead

I’m sorry you have no evidence whatsoever, you appear to making it up as you go along. Try places like ONS for facts and figures or look at the full fact post I linked to earlier.

No evidence for what?

Are you disputing that loads of people have had it without knowing? If so how do you explain the outbreak in Guernsey? Or the fact that me and my family had it and didn't know?

This is mind numbing . You crack on, OP and I'll leave you to it.

Your MN poll isn't evidence of anything - maybe you should look up what a self-selecting sample is, and why it isn't generally approved of in real research.

Nobody disputes that a lot of people have COVID and are asymptomatic. We don't yet know what % that is, but we will have data on that - mass testing in Slovakia should help.

However, none of that matters. We know that Long COVID is real. The more we allow COVID to spread, the more (in terms of absolute numbers) people with Long COVID we will have - people who will see their lives changed for the worse, people who will require financial support for many months and in some cases years. The cost in £ to the Exchequer of that will be phenomenal. I do not understand why you are unable to understand that. Well, I do, but saying it would get me banned.

@pointythings

Your MN poll isn't evidence of anything - maybe you should look up what a self-selecting sample is, and why it isn't generally approved of in real research.

Nobody disputes that a lot of people have COVID and are asymptomatic. We don't yet know what % that is, but we will have data on that - mass testing in Slovakia should help.

However, none of that matters. We know that Long COVID is real. The more we allow COVID to spread, the more (in terms of absolute numbers) people with Long COVID we will have - people who will see their lives changed for the worse, people who will require financial support for many months and in some cases years. The cost in £ to the Exchequer of that will be phenomenal. I do not understand why you are unable to understand that. Well, I do, but saying it would get me banned.

In your opinion would the cost to the exchequer be greater for supporting those with long convos than supporting those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by the restrictions, and all the other associated costs?

Lockdowns do more harm than good (world health organisation say that) all lockdowns do is push the problem further down the road which was understandable in March when nobody new anything about this virus it helped to slow thing’s down so they could get all the PPE and hospital capacities sorted but to be in a further lockdown now on top of all the other restrictions which most have been proven to have had little to no effect on infection rates is not only wrong but bordering on criminal. There is no significant increase in respiratory deaths than there has been in previous years at this time of year (flu season) a good proportion of the reported COVID deaths are not deaths due to COVID they’ve just tested positive for it within 28 days (cases in the spring would’ve likely been more due to contracting the virus as figures were counted differently then) nobody can argue that death’s that are not directly due to COVID but deaths from lockdown and restrictions on our lives whether it is an inability or fear of seeking medical attention when needed, mental health, economic struggles which always has an impact on personal health will dwarf the actual COVID deaths in the years to come. The question I ask people is if you said 1 year ago that in a years time we would have a new virus that if u catch it has a 99% survival rate but we’re going to lockdown and restrict people’s freedoms, millions of jobs/businesses will be lost, schools will close for 4 months, can’t see the doctor or go to hospital unless of absolute emergencies everybody would have said you are crazy.

Lockdowns do more harm than good (world health organisation say that)

The WHO position is actually a lot a little more nuanced than that.
Your focus on respiratory deaths only is disingenuous in the extreme - compared to normal non-pandemic years, there are clearly excess deaths, and we know that COVID makes people who have underlying health conditions more vulnerable. So if you are immunocompromised, have diabetes or COPD and so on, COVID is more likely to kill you than if you are healthy. Arguing that 'COVID did not kill those people' is again twisting the facts - if these vulnerable people had not contracted COVID, they would not have died.

We don't know how many additional deaths there will be from lockdown and from hospital services being suspended. There will be additional deaths, that much is clear. But there is currently no evidence that suicide rates are up significantly on normal years.

Your headline figure of 99% survival is also disingenuous - you know full well (unless you have been living under a rock) that age is the strongest predictor of COVID recovery. So unless you think people over 70 have no value, you need to look at survival rates by age, not just throw out dishonest statistics.

@pointythings

Lockdowns do more harm than good (world health organisation say that)

The WHO position is actually a lot a little more nuanced than that.
Your focus on respiratory deaths only is disingenuous in the extreme - compared to normal non-pandemic years, there are clearly excess deaths, and we know that COVID makes people who have underlying health conditions more vulnerable. So if you are immunocompromised, have diabetes or COPD and so on, COVID is more likely to kill you than if you are healthy. Arguing that 'COVID did not kill those people' is again twisting the facts - if these vulnerable people had not contracted COVID, they would not have died.

We don't know how many additional deaths there will be from lockdown and from hospital services being suspended. There will be additional deaths, that much is clear. But there is currently no evidence that suicide rates are up significantly on normal years.

Your headline figure of 99% survival is also disingenuous - you know full well (unless you have been living under a rock) that age is the strongest predictor of COVID recovery. So unless you think people over 70 have no value, you need to look at survival rates by age, not just throw out dishonest statistics.

Most elderly people I know would rather take their chances with COVID than continue living in the isolated world they live in now

What’s the point of eking out a few more years of life stuck in and unable to do your social activities etc. It’s beyond miserable for millions of people

And again you go with the anecdata! Most of the elderly people I know want to live and are looking forward to getting vaccinated and getting their lives back. So there we are, one-all.

And just as I don't speak for everyone, neither do you.

@pointythings

And again you go with the anecdata! Most of the elderly people I know want to live and are looking forward to getting vaccinated and getting their lives back. So there we are, one-all.

And just as I don't speak for everyone, neither do you.

Ah yeah. Let’s all look forward to the vaccine that hasn’t been approved for use yet. I keep talking to people who seriously seem to think they will have it by Christmas and everything will be back to normal by March. Nutters

@pointythings

Lockdowns do more harm than good (world health organisation say that)

The WHO position is actually a lot a little more nuanced than that.
Your focus on respiratory deaths only is disingenuous in the extreme - compared to normal non-pandemic years, there are clearly excess deaths, and we know that COVID makes people who have underlying health conditions more vulnerable. So if you are immunocompromised, have diabetes or COPD and so on, COVID is more likely to kill you than if you are healthy. Arguing that 'COVID did not kill those people' is again twisting the facts - if these vulnerable people had not contracted COVID, they would not have died.

We don't know how many additional deaths there will be from lockdown and from hospital services being suspended. There will be additional deaths, that much is clear. But there is currently no evidence that suicide rates are up significantly on normal years.

Your headline figure of 99% survival is also disingenuous - you know full well (unless you have been living under a rock) that age is the strongest predictor of COVID recovery. So unless you think people over 70 have no value, you need to look at survival rates by age, not just throw out dishonest statistics.

First of all I am not suggesting COVID isn’t a dangerous disease for the vulnerable and like I said the vast majority of covid deaths that happened in the spring would most likely of been due to the virus so don’t twist my words but since the summer they changed the way they recorded the statistics anybody who died within 28 days of a positive test no matter the cause got added to the COVID deaths toll this is not up for dispute just this morning sir Iain Duncan smith being interviewed on talk radio with Julia Harley brewer mentions a friend of his who had dementia and went into hospital and died of a heart attack but because he tested positive it gets added to covid. Next point no worldwide My issue is with this lockdown there is no facts/statistics to justify the need for a lockdown

sir Iain Duncan smith being interviewed on talk radio with Julia Harley brewer

Oh, you're funny! So the guy who lied about his degrees plus a notorious Tory and Brexit poodle say it's true - it must be true.

It's impossible to know whether or not COVID contributed to making the deceased's heart disease more dangerous, but it's known that cardiac impacts happen in Long COVID. So bit of a non-argument there.

I actually agree that this second lockdown could have been avoided - but only if our shitshow of a government had implemented proper Test and Trace instead of handing sweetheart contracts to their incompetent mates.

TMIncoming I'm going to have the vaccine and it will likely be before Christmas, the first dose anyway. NHS worker here. With research experience, so don't spout bollocks about how it's been 'rushed'.

What is your agenda with this thread? Spreading COVID disinformation, or just venting your frustration? We're all frustrated, welcome to the world. Being a COVID denier doesn't achieve anything though.

@pointythings

Lockdowns do more harm than good (world health organisation say that)

The WHO position is actually a lot a little more nuanced than that.
Your focus on respiratory deaths only is disingenuous in the extreme - compared to normal non-pandemic years, there are clearly excess deaths, and we know that COVID makes people who have underlying health conditions more vulnerable. So if you are immunocompromised, have diabetes or COPD and so on, COVID is more likely to kill you than if you are healthy. Arguing that 'COVID did not kill those people' is again twisting the facts - if these vulnerable people had not contracted COVID, they would not have died.

We don't know how many additional deaths there will be from lockdown and from hospital services being suspended. There will be additional deaths, that much is clear. But there is currently no evidence that suicide rates are up significantly on normal years.

Your headline figure of 99% survival is also disingenuous - you know full well (unless you have been living under a rock) that age is the strongest predictor of COVID recovery. So unless you think people over 70 have no value, you need to look at survival rates by age, not just throw out dishonest statistics.

Obviously we don’t know the how many additional deaths from lockdowns and indirect covid there will be and we’ll probably never know the exact number but I’m sorry you must be living under a rock if you don’t think they will vastly exceed the actual virus deaths. You seem to be missing my point with the 99% (every death is tragic to the individual and their family) but when you shut down economies and society for the best part of the year with catastrophic effects for years to come the evidence needs to be bullet proof and frankly it’s not, if you can supply some irrefutable evidence to say this lockdown is the only way forward then I’ll gladly look at it

@pointythings

sir Iain Duncan smith being interviewed on talk radio with Julia Harley brewer

Oh, you're funny! So the guy who lied about his degrees plus a notorious Tory and Brexit poodle say it's true - it must be true.

It's impossible to know whether or not COVID contributed to making the deceased's heart disease more dangerous, but it's known that cardiac impacts happen in Long COVID. So bit of a non-argument there.

I actually agree that this second lockdown could have been avoided - but only if our shitshow of a government had implemented proper Test and Trace instead of handing sweetheart contracts to their incompetent mates.

TMIncoming I'm going to have the vaccine and it will likely be before Christmas, the first dose anyway. NHS worker here. With research experience, so don't spout bollocks about how it's been 'rushed'.

What is your agenda with this thread? Spreading COVID disinformation, or just venting your frustration? We're all frustrated, welcome to the world. Being a COVID denier doesn't achieve anything though.

Are you saying what Ian Duncan smith said is untrue about non COVID related deaths being counted just because someone tested positive?

I tested politics and was fine. If I had been killed in a car crash three weeks later I would have been included in the figures announced on the news.

That’s fact. You can’t dispute it. It’s written right on the graphic on BBC news every single night

And I would put money on you not getting a vaccine by Christmas

Pablo as an NHS worker who worked 14 hour days in the early days of the pandemic supporting our Trust's operations, I can only say that you're clueless. We were on our knees then, we're subterranean now - and that is before we start vaccinating our population whilst still delivering clinical care. If the volume of COVID cases then nearly broke us, what do you think would have happened without a lockdown?

And it isn't all that much better now. We have had more black alerts in our acutes so far this winter than we had the whole of 2018/19. And it's only November. We've had to close beds on our rehab wards because of infection control requirements - let the virus run free and we would have had to close more beds. Lockdowns are bad. They are catastrophic. I get it. Sadly, there are no better alternatives if we want to maintain some form of NHS provision.

And I'm not missing your point with the 99% survival rate. If you're going to throw out statistics, you need to be honest and make it clear that 99% survival does not apply to everyone. Because it doesn't.

@pointythings

Pablo as an NHS worker who worked 14 hour days in the early days of the pandemic supporting our Trust's operations, I can only say that you're clueless. We were on our knees then, we're subterranean now - and that is before we start vaccinating our population whilst still delivering clinical care. If the volume of COVID cases then nearly broke us, what do you think would have happened without a lockdown?

And it isn't all that much better now. We have had more black alerts in our acutes so far this winter than we had the whole of 2018/19. And it's only November. We've had to close beds on our rehab wards because of infection control requirements - let the virus run free and we would have had to close more beds. Lockdowns are bad. They are catastrophic. I get it. Sadly, there are no better alternatives if we want to maintain some form of NHS provision.

And I'm not missing your point with the 99% survival rate. If you're going to throw out statistics, you need to be honest and make it clear that 99% survival does not apply to everyone. Because it doesn't.

Plus it way more than 99% survival. It 99% of people who have tested positive, which isn’t anywhere near the same as 99% of people who have been infected because we will never know how many that is since loads don’t notice or weren’t tested.

Why do you think vaccination of NHS staff won't start before Christmas? Because I know what the vaccination programme in my Trust looks like. I work on supporting it. The priority is health workers (including back office) first, then general population by age. It's likely to be the Oxford vaccine rather than the Pfizer one, because the latter is more difficult to store and none has been imported yet.

I might not get it until early January because of the festive season and because I'm not front line, but it will be soon. Why do you think otherwise?

Getting our vulnerable population vaccinated is expected to take us until early June with the resources we have. Again, why do you think that won't happen?

Is it because all non routine operations not happening?

@pointythings

sir Iain Duncan smith being interviewed on talk radio with Julia Harley brewer

Oh, you're funny! So the guy who lied about his degrees plus a notorious Tory and Brexit poodle say it's true - it must be true.

It's impossible to know whether or not COVID contributed to making the deceased's heart disease more dangerous, but it's known that cardiac impacts happen in Long COVID. So bit of a non-argument there.

I actually agree that this second lockdown could have been avoided - but only if our shitshow of a government had implemented proper Test and Trace instead of handing sweetheart contracts to their incompetent mates.

TMIncoming I'm going to have the vaccine and it will likely be before Christmas, the first dose anyway. NHS worker here. With research experience, so don't spout bollocks about how it's been 'rushed'.

What is your agenda with this thread? Spreading COVID disinformation, or just venting your frustration? We're all frustrated, welcome to the world. Being a COVID denier doesn't achieve anything though.

Don’t be childish it was one example that I happened to have heard this morning are you honestly telling me you believe that every COVID death in the official death toll is because of contracting the virus? Look I’m no conspiracy theorist at all it’s a dangerous virus to the elderly and vulnerable and less dangerous to the rest but in my humble opinion and that of many scientists professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford university Carl Heneghan, professor of theoretical epidemiology Sunetra Gupta to name 2 believe the statistics and modelling that has been driving the policies is wrong and it’s been proven to be wrong by saying unless we lock down (end of October) 4000 people a day will die, this got debunked by the experts that the information was at least 3 weeks out of date within hours of Boris announcing it.

@pointythings

Why do you think vaccination of NHS staff won't start before Christmas? Because I know what the vaccination programme in my Trust looks like. I work on supporting it. The priority is health workers (including back office) first, then general population by age. It's likely to be the Oxford vaccine rather than the Pfizer one, because the latter is more difficult to store and none has been imported yet.

I might not get it until early January because of the festive season and because I'm not front line, but it will be soon. Why do you think otherwise?

Getting our vulnerable population vaccinated is expected to take us until early June with the resources we have. Again, why do you think that won't happen?

Let’s see when it actually gets sign off to be used. Personally I can’t see that happening and people starting to have it administered in a matter of weeks

I'm fully aware that there is no scientific consensus on fatality modelling - it would be very surprising if there were. However, the fact remains that even now, with 200 - 400 deaths a day, hospitals are struggling in many places. How 'wrong' the modelling is doesn't really matter. What matters is that if cases were significantly higher - though not necessarily 4000 deaths a day - the health system would be at serious risk of collapse.

No, I don't believe that every excess death last winter was down to COVID. But a substantial proportion will have been (not those dying in car crashes, unless you really want to speculate). There's a difference between COVID as the cause of death and COVID as a contributing factor in a death - not counting the latter is a distortion.

@pointythings

I'm fully aware that there is no scientific consensus on fatality modelling - it would be very surprising if there were. However, the fact remains that even now, with 200 - 400 deaths a day, hospitals are struggling in many places. How 'wrong' the modelling is doesn't really matter. What matters is that if cases were significantly higher - though not necessarily 4000 deaths a day - the health system would be at serious risk of collapse.

No, I don't believe that every excess death last winter was down to COVID. But a substantial proportion will have been (not those dying in car crashes, unless you really want to speculate). There's a difference between COVID as the cause of death and COVID as a contributing factor in a death - not counting the latter is a distortion.

Read my original post carefully at no point did I say the cases last winter/early spring were not down to COVID back then it was added to the death toll if covid was mentioned as a contributing factor on the death certificate but since the summer they changed the way they recorded them to positive test within 28 days so it skews the figures, and let’s not ignore the false positive rate, with the low prevalence and high test volume the false positive will be in the thousands

@pointythings

I'm fully aware that there is no scientific consensus on fatality modelling - it would be very surprising if there were. However, the fact remains that even now, with 200 - 400 deaths a day, hospitals are struggling in many places. How 'wrong' the modelling is doesn't really matter. What matters is that if cases were significantly higher - though not necessarily 4000 deaths a day - the health system would be at serious risk of collapse.

No, I don't believe that every excess death last winter was down to COVID. But a substantial proportion will have been (not those dying in car crashes, unless you really want to speculate). There's a difference between COVID as the cause of death and COVID as a contributing factor in a death - not counting the latter is a distortion.

I also disagree entirely when you say ‘what the modelling says doesn’t matter’ of course it matters because that’s what the government is basing all its covid policies on, you can’t set policies on the back of inaccurate/wrong information hence what happened with Brexit promising all the money that we send to Europe to the nhs if you vote leave now that was complete lies.