For people who like 'following the science' - what research shows about the impact of human relationships on health and life expectancy

[TheDailyCarbunkle]

Research with tens of thousands of people showed that it wasn't weight, alcohol consumption or even whether or not you smoked that was the greatest predictor of how long a person lives. In second place in the top ten factors that contribute to health and long life is close relationships, people you can rely on and talk to. In first place as in, the number one predictor of health and survival is the range of both strong and weak connections a person has, ie the extent to which they chat to people day to day - the person in the coffee shop, the cleaner at work, your neighbours. Conversely, not interacting with other people day to day, not having incidental conversations with people, has a massive impact on health. It is the primary factor that makes the difference.

This is an excellent talk about the effect of relationships on health, I'd recommend watching it: www.ted.com/talks/susan_pinker_the_secret_to_living_longer_may_be_your_social_life/transcript?language=en

There is a massive erroneous assumption in this thread.

This is that ex lockdown, nothing else would be affected bar extra deaths from corona and it is a simple trade off.

It assumes that there would be zero effect on the economy or mental health from family and friends being ill, nursing dying patients, staying at home from work to look after sick relatives. It assumes that people would shop and eat out as normal even though they would be almost certain to get sick etc etc

All of the above has been shown, by plenty of good research on previous epidemics, to be false.

There were no good options. Lock down is the least bad.

How will lockdown create tragedies for years to come?

@titchy

So it's a numbers game? Are you happy to be one of the 10? As in, would you be happy to be a person who has nothing to fear from covid but who is killed in exchange for those who are?

Well I've a far lower chance of being the one in 10 than I have of being the 1 in 2000!

But yes, it is a numbers game. It can't be anything else. For the 10, it's nothing but a tragedy. But bluntly - better 10 tragedies than 2000 tragedies.

If you have children what you're choosing is for them to take on the risk. They are almost guaranteed not to be personally affected by covid. But lockdown will create problems for their entire lives.

@TheReluctantPhoenix

There is a massive erroneous assumption in this thread.

This is that ex lockdown, nothing else would be affected bar extra deaths from corona and it is a simple trade off.

It assumes that there would be zero effect on the economy or mental health from family and friends being ill, nursing dying patients, staying at home from work to look after sick relatives. It assumes that people would shop and eat out as normal even though they would be almost certain to get sick etc etc

All of the above has been shown, by plenty of good research on previous epidemics, to be false.

There were no good options. Lock down is the least bad.

Agree

@titchy

The number one predictor of death, beyond the behaviours referenced in the research I mentioned, is poverty.

I'm glad you've realised the error of your opening post where you said:

In first place as in, the number one predictor of health and survival is the range of both strong and weak connections a person has, ie the extent to which they chat to people day to day

I stated in later post that it was about behaviour

Poverty is not a behaviour, it is a socio economic status. I thought the distinction was clear, but some people need it explained to them.

Twice.

@titchy

How will lockdown create tragedies for years to come?

As I said already, poverty, mass unemployment, poor educational outcomes, lack of business and industry - there are all massive predictors of poor health and death.

If you have children what you're choosing is for them to take on the risk. They are almost guaranteed not to be personally affected by covid

Well that's just wrong.

@TheReluctantPhoenix

There is a massive erroneous assumption in this thread.

This is that ex lockdown, nothing else would be affected bar extra deaths from corona and it is a simple trade off.

It assumes that there would be zero effect on the economy or mental health from family and friends being ill, nursing dying patients, staying at home from work to look after sick relatives. It assumes that people would shop and eat out as normal even though they would be almost certain to get sick etc etc

All of the above has been shown, by plenty of good research on previous epidemics, to be false.

There were no good options. Lock down is the least bad.

Really? Lockdown is the 'least bad'?

I don't understand this 'lockdown or nothing' attitude. Lockdown is extreme - it denies people basic rights - to education, work, socialising. It causes suffering and death. As a measure it is a very very poor one - very blunt, with almost no nuance and no recognition of the potential for harm.

@TheDailyCarbunkle,

So, how do you honestly think schools would have fared had there been zero lock down?

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@TheDailyCarbunkle,

So, how do you honestly think schools would have fared had there been zero lock down?[/quote]
I'm not sure what this question is asking?

Are you saying what would have happened if everyone just carried on as normal and didn't take covid into account at all? Or another scenario in which there are mitigation measures (good hygiene, control of large events etc) but no lockdown?

@TheDailyCarbunkle,

I think that you are being highly disingenuous here. You know exactly what the question is asking.

How about, more specifically, had we just let things run from September onwards (with all the measures in place then) without the November or any subsequent lockdown?

Is that clear enough?

@titchy

but there is no way to determine if the Covid contributed to their death there fore should not be down as a secondary cause

Of course there is. Doctors use their judgement and experience to determine the cause.

If you're going to be completely reductive you ocould also argue that they died because their heart stopped beating. So how does the doctor know that the pneumonia caused that? There's no way to tell is there. Maybe the heart randomly stopped...

except of course the doctor is experienced enough to say the pneumonia caused the heart to stop. Same as they're experienced enough to say that the patient would normally have been expected to survive the pneumonia with treatment, but that because their respiratory function was impaired due to Covid they didn't.

Doctors using their experience and judgments so guess work then? If that what they're actually doing.

Even though I shown you the data from the national statistics, you still cant believe it can you?

Ramble on all you like. There it is in black and white. How many deaths where Covid is mentioned on the death certificate in comparison to how many it wasnt an actual underlying cause. It's around 30% for each of these months so imagine that on a wider scale.

You cant argue with stupid so I wont reply to you anymore.

You can see the impact of restrictions/lockdowns without school closures and school closures on the infection rates in school-aged children in these graphs.

The red line on the first graph is Y7 to 11 and shows just how out of control covid was in that age group before schools closed.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@TheDailyCarbunkle,

I think that you are being highly disingenuous here. You know exactly what the question is asking.

How about, more specifically, had we just let things run from September onwards (with all the measures in place then) without the November or any subsequent lockdown?

Is that clear enough?[/quote]
I wasn't sure if you meant in March or recently.

Interestingly, a detailed statistical analysis of accurate data from early last year showed that infections and deaths had reached a peak before lockdown, without any lockdown: www.bristol.ac.uk/maths/news/2020/peak-lockdown.html
So infections and deaths dropped of their own accord. This pattern has been shown across the entire world - infections reach a natural peak regardless of lockdowns. So, following the science, it seems likely that without lockdown the same thing that happened previously and that has happened all over the world would happen again, ie a natural peak would be reached and infections and deaths would come down and schools would be much like they were in September, with children being sent home due to 'bubbles bursting.'

Strangely there is evidence to show that lockdowns don't make any difference to the prevalence and mortality of covid. Even I find that odd - I don't know why it is. But that's what the research says:
eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-020-00456-9

In terms of schools, what I find hard to take is the fact that some children are getting to interact with other children on a daily basis (I'm aware the level of education provided to those in school is variable). So some children have access to a very key part of development and stress relief, a proven and necessary part of their growth and health, while others don't. The inequity of it is hard to stomach.

@noblegiraffe

You can see the impact of restrictions/lockdowns without school closures and school closures on the infection rates in school-aged children in these graphs.

The red line on the first graph is Y7 to 11 and shows just how out of control covid was in that age group before schools closed.

The scale is a bit hard to read - is the peak level for the y7-11 3%?

@TheDailyCarbunkle

In terms of covid deaths, the thing that people seem to miss is that your risk from covid is pretty much pre-determined, so if you're young and healthy then the chances of you being badly affected by covid (ie very ill or dying) are practically zero. TO EMPHASISE FOR PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO JUMP ON THIS - THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT NO YOUNG AND HEALTHY PEOPLE GET ILL, JUST THAT THE NUMBERS ARE LOW. That's not speculation, that's just fact, supported by the data. So for some people, covid is not a personal health threat to them. IT MAY BE A HEALTH THREAT TO PEOPLE THEY LOVE I AM AWARE OF THIS SO DON'T SAY IT.

In contrast, lockdown is a health threat to literally everybody, including children, whose susceptibility to covid is extremely low. So lockdown takes a threat that is specific to some and spreads it to the entire population. On top of that, while covid is one specific threat, the threats posed by lockdown - the effects of longterm isolation, poverty, job losses, etc - are multiple.

So what lockdown does is guarantees that everyone suffers.

What a fantastic solution.

This is what I was trying to say on another thread but got shot down in flames.

I know 1 person (a friends grandad) who has died of Covid. I know 1 person who has been admitted to hospital because of Covid (shes 56).

Where as I know a lot lot more people from my work, family and my social media, who are affected by lockdowns. Redundancies, poverty, mental health, children's mental health, education. The list is endless.

@DuchessofHastings1
I'm not disputing the figures at all - just your interpretation of them. I'm not sure why you'd think having covid as a secondary cause is the same as not mentioning it at all. I've shown you the guidance quite clearly - if the clinician thinks covid contributed to the death it is added to the certificate. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. The person may have died of something else, but if they hadn't had covid they'd have lived.

And I don't understand why you dismiss the experience and judgement of doctors as 'best guesses'. If you're admitted to hospital presumably you'd quite like the treating doctor to have quite a lot of experience and be able to use that to judge what could be the matter with you and order the appropriate tests?

Odd.

yes, lockdown and restrictions are shit. Suffocating with covid is more shit and it can happen to anyone. Infrastructure collapse because too many people are off sick is pretty shit too.

everyone knows that lockdown is harmful. Your suggestion that avoids the other problems, please?

The scale is a bit hard to read - is the peak level for the y7-11 3%?

Peaked at 3.77% on 25th and 26th December, a week after schools closed. The most infected subset of the population by some way, and now after 5 weeks closed, one of the least infected subsets of the population (behind 70+ year olds).

@TheReluctantPhoenix

There is a massive erroneous assumption in this thread.

This is that ex lockdown, nothing else would be affected bar extra deaths from corona and it is a simple trade off.

It assumes that there would be zero effect on the economy or mental health from family and friends being ill, nursing dying patients, staying at home from work to look after sick relatives. It assumes that people would shop and eat out as normal even though they would be almost certain to get sick etc etc

All of the above has been shown, by plenty of good research on previous epidemics, to be false.

There were no good options. Lock down is the least bad.

Exactly this.

Start from the point of someone having mild covid, which could cause the individual to have symptoms from between 5 and 15 days, some periods of which would be too bad for them to be able to work or go to school (whether this is sensible or not). 3 days before these symptoms appear, we know they are also infectious and have the potential to infect at least 2 other people who go on and do likewise.

The case numbers that we have seen have been WITH lockdown and other measures. A lot of people, whether by choice, compliance, or by
living circumstances, will have cut down contacts to groups of below 6 people. Anyone with 2 kids in school can expect household contacts to be at least 60, 5 days a week, though.

If enough people over all age and health levels are sick enough at once, probably in rolling waves, then this gives millions more opportunities for new mutations to pass quickly around sick to healthy people and animals, which won't have any advantages to tracking their severity. The mutations so far don't look great. With this feature alone, one scenario is wasting massive investment in (eg) vaccines that isn't going to make a dent in the mutation spread or case rates.

So we have rolling waves of people falling ill and not knowing how severely they will be affected, or whether the early mitigation measures will mean any kind of protection. People off work in clusters will include: healthcare professionals, surgeons, GPs, nursery workers, teachers, police, foodchain producers and delivery networks, supermarket chains, prison officers, banks/payroll, power and water providers, those who keep the internet and virtual working tools ahead of current demand, sanitation workers, funeral and crematorium workers, mental health support.

Basically - er - any workers. Not all who work are the mythical 'young and with no underlying conditions'. Some who do fit that description are seeing with surprise how 'mild' this virus is when it catches up to them. Some of these roles that are being affected will mean that many others can (or eventually, can't) reliably do their jobs, eat, and live in reasonably safe and lawful circumstances.

@TheDailyCarbunkle,

Your 'evidence' that lockdowns do not have much effect is very much cherry picked. You have found one mathematician from Bristol who, for some obscure reason chose to back model fatal infections only (why fatal infections? Surely all infections is a bigger sample and uses less assumptions) , using a 'black box' model, and came to the conclusion that cases would have peaked regardless of lockdown.

Here are some other statisticians opinions of the effectiveness of lockdown:

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.586899/full

www.imperial.ac.uk/news/211673/covid-19-england-analysis-first-waves/

www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-12-11-national-covid-19-infections-survey-reveals-changes-pandemic-over-time

www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/tackling-covid-19/nowcasting-and-forecasting-of-covid-19/

As for the country comparisons, here is one published in Nature:

www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0

To quote a part of the conclusion:

'Among the six full-consensus NPI categories in the CCCSL, the largest impacts on Rt are shown by small gathering cancellations (83%, ΔRt between −0.22 and –0.35), the closure of educational institutions (73%, and estimates for ΔRt ranging from −0.15 to −0.21) and border restrictions (56%, ΔRt between −0.057 and –0.23). The consensus measures also include NPIs aiming to increase healthcare and public health capacities (increased availability of personal protective equipment (PPE): 51%, ΔRt −0.062 to −0.13), individual movement restrictions (42%, ΔRt −0.08 to −0.13) and national lockdown (including stay-at-home order in US states) (25%, ΔRt −0.008 to −0.14).'

And here is another study published in the BMJ:

www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2743

See the image linked to below to find the most effective interventions.

www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m2743/F4.large.jpg?width=800&height=600

It is not a surprise that I can come up with 10 studies for every one you can come up with that suggest that interventions make a massive difference. The mathematics of epidemic modelling are pretty much the same as a nuclear chain reaction.

If you don't absorb some neutrons with a moderator, each fission reaction (infected patient) produces around three neutrons (virus infection) that can cause three more fission reactions (infected patients). You get a chain reaction which only stops when most of the Uranium has decayed (most of the population has become infected and, thus, immune).

And, as to what would have happened in schools, many were already closing independently of government advice in November, due to there being too many absent staff for the schools to open. This would just have increased until there were more closed schools than open ones, and many many sick staff and pupils-so, a de facto school closure anyway.

Many staff were sick and many were just staying away, thinking risking their long term health (and possibly life) was not worth a teaching salary (clue: they are not that high relative to teachers' abilities and qualifications).

If Covid had been allowed to run wild in either December or January, hospitals would have been overrun (they pretty much were anyway), schools would have closed anyway (and no essential worker service would have been available) and society (and the economy) would have ground to a halt.