Feeling a bit duped about the seriousness of Covid....

[mostwonderfultime]

Found out my district of 55,000 people there have been 156 confirmed covid cases since March. Now I hear there is an enquiry into the over reporting of Covid deaths in England. Average death rate has now lower than average indicating many people who died from Covid would probably died in the next month or so. No surge in Covid cases or deaths since relaxing lockdown measures (I know about Leicester, but we all know reasons why they have more cases and again they haven't had a spike in deaths).
In the meantime, the economy is screwed, Kids have been off school for months, best friends business has gone bust.

That would be when I gave the basis for my estimate, Jrob. I'd need to double-check your posts but I suspect I'd be more worried if you agreed with me.

Long and short is we don't really know how or why, we just know that we don't build long-term immunity to endemic human coronaviruses

Indeed. And I believe that a large number of the vaccines being developed are mRNA vaccines, even though no RNA vaccine has ever been approved for use outside the lab. Maybe Covid will be the tipping point for that but, if so, I imagine that the testing phase will have to be longer than normal.

It's funny to see myself -as an HCP who is reasonably optimistic that we will get a vaccine (albeit probably not one that will confer long-term immunity) - slated on here for pessimism. Most biological research scientists I know think that I am overly optimistic.

For anyone who wants to read more about the challenges, here is a good summary by Bill Gates. He is an optimist - but even he thinks it will take 18 months.

@Zilla1

That would be when I gave the basis for my estimate, Jrob. I'd need to double-check your posts but I suspect I'd be more worried if you agreed with me.

No idea what that even means. Do you actually think its 1-2%?

Covid does seem to be under better control in the UK RIGHT NOW, though who knows how long for. But that doesn't mean that the risk was overestimated; it means that the precautions are to some extent working. The number of excess deaths during the first half of the year was about 65,000. Not all may have been due to Covid - some, for example, may be due to people with other serious health problems avoiding hospitals for fear of catching Covid - but it certainly suggests that something was happening. And even at the lowest estimate, 'only' 29,000 people in the UK died of Covid so far. Let's compare that with 3000 killed on 9-11; 3500 killed in the Troubles; 454 British troops killed in Afghanistan; 457 UK deaths from swine flu. 774 total deaths worldwide from the more lethal but much less contagious SARS. All of these were rightly taken very seriously; so we should certainly take Covid deaths seriously, even if it turns out to be true that there were 'only' 29000 deaths here so far!

44000 extra people died in 2015 and similar in 2000, and 2010 was 28000 so there is additional figures some years.

... but there was no lockdown in those years. It’s a bit like saying a Nissan Micra is as fast as a Ferrari!.... when the Ferrari’s been stuck in 2nd gear.

JRob,

you said 'No idea what that even means'.
well when I said 1-2%, I gave the basis for my estimate' I find it's helpful to give references or a basis for other posters to understand, the contents of which I try to have understood first. So here, either my arithmetic is wrong, the all cause excess deaths is significantly wrong or the estimate for the incidence of infection in the population is significantly wrong. I'm happy to be wrong and learn. If it turns out there are better estimates then the % mortality would then change. It's helpful to understand things before using data and not deciding the destination and then picking things to get there and saying anything else is being negative. Much like understanding the difference between the Oxford vaccine progressing to the next stage and it being a 'working' vaccine.

Do you want me to explain 'I suspect I'd be more worried if you agreed with me".

"Never mind critical thinking, I suspect some people have just stopped thinking completely."

Definitely.

The last person I saw claiming the NHS had "shut down" was tasked with finding statistics to prove it - and they showed the opposite. Not only did the NHS continue with emergency care and maternity care it actually did quite a bit of elective work. And all the work it did was not being counted because people made more phone calls and did video appointments. Yes activity reduced because - well do try and engage a brain cell if you have one - a lot of staff were off sick, a lot of beds were occupying with Covid patients and we are not yet at the stage of putting 2 infected patients in one bed (though no doubt some would wish we did), the laboratories were busy processing tests, the X-ray departments were X-raying lungs because the test werent too reliable, the theatres were sometimes turned into ICUs because these patients require intensive support, so you cant do surgery in them.

@Zilla1

JRob,

you said 'No idea what that even means'.
well when I said 1-2%, I gave the basis for my estimate' I find it's helpful to give references or a basis for other posters to understand, the contents of which I try to have understood first. So here, either my arithmetic is wrong, the all cause excess deaths is significantly wrong or the estimate for the incidence of infection in the population is significantly wrong. I'm happy to be wrong and learn. If it turns out there are better estimates then the % mortality would then change. It's helpful to understand things before using data and not deciding the destination and then picking things to get there and saying anything else is being negative. Much like understanding the difference between the Oxford vaccine progressing to the next stage and it being a 'working' vaccine.

Do you want me to explain 'I suspect I'd be more worried if you agreed with me".

Ah jeez, no wonder you are so worried. You have accidently time travelled to 1918 where the mortality was actually 2%...

There are so many studies on the IFR now. Not one puts it above 1%, even in the hardest hit areas.

My Wakefield example was one I thought tou would recognise.

You can't have been speaking to me at that point as I hadn't posted on the thread then. You must be confusing me with someone else you were trying to patronise. I don't buy your backtracking, by the way. Very disingenuous.

Just one comment about the 65k who died. Why did they when other countries managed to keep the number of deaths in the 100s??

Because the Government paid too much heed to those with @etopp ‘s outlook back in early March.

This. And yet they're still going.

JRob, By the tone and content of your post and your previous posts, you've confirmed I'd be more worried if you agreed with me.

Carry on posting about things you don't understand. Does it make you feel better?

@Zilla1

JRob, By the tone and content of your post and your previous posts, you've confirmed I'd be more worried if you agreed with me.

Carry on posting about things you don't understand. Does it make you feel better?

I don't understand? I'm not the one scare mongering that the mortality rate is 2% based on your simple maths when it is absolutely not true....

when anyone claims to be a doctor and have put something unreliable on a death certificate ask them their name. If there are a genuine doctor they'll know they are required to give it. Then check offline with that doctor if they have posted on mumsnet, because you'll probably find they are not telling the truth.

There was no official guidance to put Covid-19 if it was even suspected, or any of the other fantasies people make up. You didnt / dont have to have a positive test result but you did/do have to use clinical judgement. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck you call it a duck, if it looks like a cow and moos you dont.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf

@Jrobhatch29

It's already been demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels decline far more quickly than they did for either SARS or MERS. SARS saw an average decline of 2 years, and yes antibodies were measured in some people 17 years later, but the average was 2. Most recovered MERS patients have antibodies over one year later.

However, we are already seeing that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 disappear in a matter of weeks. This makes it very different to SARS and MERS. Instead it seems to be similar to the HCoV endemic 229E. I suspect reinfection will become a real problem for COVID-19 patients, with ADE as an aggravating feature.

www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

And for full disclosure, the reason I know so much is because I'm part of a scientific team working on a COVID-19 treatment.

I am more concerned about catching it now than I was in March

Yes, me too. I was less worried early on. Now I know a fair few people who had it 'mildly', weren't in hospital, but are still ill 12 weeks on and still can't walk to the end of their driveway without getting out of breath. Luckily they are people for whom this doesn't affect their ability to work too much as they can work from home, for many it would mean they couldn't carry on with their jobs.

Covid deaths are not more hurtful.

I think you missed the point. It's the obnoxious attitude that was being pinpointed as exacerbating the pain. If you have lost someone to cancer, you will be able to imagine how painful it would be if someone, anyone, announced that something could have been done but they couldn't be arsed as it wasn't worth it for the cost benefit. When you're bereaved, it matters very much that everyone else recognises the enormity of the loss and would have changed the outcome if they could. That's human emotion. Which you're wilfully misunderstanding, it seems.

when anyone claims to be a doctor and have put something unreliable on a death certificate ask them their name. If there are a genuine doctor they'll know they are required to give it.

Well they also would have known that were going AWOL in the matter of the death certificate and that's clearly not an issue, so.

This makes no sense "*Well they also would have known that were going AWOL in the matter of the death certificate and that's clearly not an issue, so." Are you a Russian bot, your language suggests it.

[quote ClimbDad]@Jrobhatch29

It's already been demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels decline far more quickly than they did for either SARS or MERS. SARS saw an average decline of 2 years, and yes antibodies were measured in some people 17 years later, but the average was 2. Most recovered MERS patients have antibodies over one year later.

However, we are already seeing that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 disappear in a matter of weeks. This makes it very different to SARS and MERS. Instead it seems to be similar to the HCoV endemic 229E. I suspect reinfection will become a real problem for COVID-19 patients, with ADE as an aggravating feature.

www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

And for full disclosure, the reason I know so much is because I'm part of a scientific team working on a COVID-19 treatment.[/quote]
This is presumably very concerning if it means that people who had it in Spring may very well be susceptible to it again this Winter? So no one can assume that because they've had it they are now immune?

@Derbygerbil

That's not what I thought, in fact.

I thought lockdown was a monstrous error because I thought the casualties of lockdown (in terms of mental health, as well as actual deaths from causes other than Covid) would outweigh the casualties of Covid.

I have never said, or believed, that it's a "little flu". It is an entirely different illness.

I still maintain that lockdown has been a social, economic and health disaster.

Unfortunately the government paid to little heed to any particular 'school of thought' about Covid, hence the knee-jerk, woolly, 'OMG, people might not vote for us if we don't signal our virtue', last-minute approach to it all.

And I say that as a lifelong Conservative voter (until the last election).

^too, not to. Obviously.

@853690525d

My Wakefield example was one I thought tou would recognise.

You can't have been speaking to me at that point as I hadn't posted on the thread then. You must be confusing me with someone else you were trying to patronise. I don't buy your backtracking, by the way. Very disingenuous.

Not disingenuous at all.

Merely pointing out that something being published in the Lancet doesn't make it true.

Show me where I deviated from that point?

Well yes of course, silly us getting all concerned about a harmless virus that SHUT DOWN THE WORLD. All those daft people dying for no reason.

[quote alreadytaken]when anyone claims to be a doctor and have put something unreliable on a death certificate ask them their name. If there are a genuine doctor they'll know they are required to give it. Then check offline with that doctor if they have posted on mumsnet, because you'll probably find they are not telling the truth.

There was no official guidance to put Covid-19 if it was even suspected, or any of the other fantasies people make up. You didnt / dont have to have a positive test result but you did/do have to use clinical judgement. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck you call it a duck, if it looks like a cow and moos you dont.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf[/quote]
Yes. The Chief Coroner issued guidance on 26 March. Basically, doctors were told to use the same level of judgement as for any other death certificate.

Unless there is an autopsy (and sometimes even then), there is almost always an element of doubt as to cause of death. Even if someone has a terminal cancer, they may actually die of a heart attack or blood clot. The only way to remove the uncertainty would be to autopsy everyone who dies.

Covid wasn't treated any differently from any other diagnosis, in terms of the level of certainty required. .

ClimbDad thanks so much for your contribution to these threads - I'm learning a lot.

Can you explain ADE or link to a source that doesn't require a degree in immunology to understand? I'm trying to get my head around it because it seems counterintuitive - I've heard of vaccines that were in development and in clinical trials showed they could also produce this response too (and so were abandoned) - is this something that will likely affect some coronavirus vaccine candidates, do you think?