At what point do we stop testing and including deaths 'with Covid' as opposed to 'from Covid'?

[lightattheendofthetunnel2021]

With a large proportion of the population vaccinated, and certainly most of those in vulnerable groups, it appears that those who still catch Covid after being double jabbed seem to mostly suffer with mild symptoms (or no symptoms at all).

If vaccines are essentially making Covid more like a cold, should we not start thinking about:

• stop routine testing of asymptomatic or mild cases (in the community), e.g. school children
• stop announcing publicly number of infections (we don't do this with other illnesses)
• stop testing NHS/healthcare staff who are asymptomatic (a lot of the capacity problems in the NHS is due to staff self-isolating)
• stop including all deaths within 28 days under 'Covid'

Or else we will be in this nightmare forever.

• it would be premature to stop testing until levels are low and stable

• yes, we do announce case numbers. Flu gets its own weekly report (last year merged with the covid report) every flumseason, and all other notifiable disease numbers are publisshed weekly year-round (it's called the NOIDS report)

• not testing NHS staff that would be very unfair for vulnerable patients, who deserve the safest possible environment (even those normally in good health might be more susceptible when unwell with something else)

• all factors in a death need to be reported and I don't think any change is needed to death certificates - indeed I can see considerable downsides in not doing so

If vaccines are essentially making Covid more like a cold

But they don't and it isn't.

By the way, where can we see deaths from covid 28-60 days? As many covid deaths happen after 28 days? And certainly at one point the overall total appeared to be if anything an underestimate.

No
HTH

Most NHS staff absences due to self-isolation are due to close contact isolation, or children isolating and needing a parent at home with them. So you could reduce that without having covid-positive staff working themselves.

*indeed I can see considerable downsides in doing so

(sorry about the interloping 'not' - no idea how I managed to add that by mistake!)

The death certificate data includes all factors which in the attending a doctor’s opinion contributed to the death, regardless of date since any test was carried out, and occasionally despite a negative test.
They are the gold standard but they are slower to report than the daily “within 28 days of a positive test” figures.
If and when the pandemic moves to a quieter phase the daily figures will become less important.

Covid might not be the exact, direct primary cause of death, but if it weakens someone's heart, or makes their kidneys fail, then the fact that they die from a heart attack or from kidney failure would not have happened without covid. That's why it's named. Doctors don't put that kind of thing on there on the off-chance.

If you follow Lawrence Gilder on Twitter, he prints stats every single day, with the running average for the week, and against last week's stats, so you can see what's going on.
Yesterday, for example, 50 people died within 28 days, but 60 people did within 60 days. As we never hear the 60 day ones, it makes the death figures sound much less, even though people can now be ill for quite some time before dying from it.

Stopping testing doesn't bring down numbers. It means that we have no idea of what's going on, so therefore can't take the responsibility the government is asking us to take in being careful.
Lawrence Gilder shows cases by small region, too, so I've been using that to guage how safe it is around us. Having less information is never a good thing.

The figure that really tells us about the impact covid is having is the numbers against the five year average. This takes into account deaths with and off covid and the collateral damage of things like untreated other conditions and over time will include increased poverty etc.

I think it's difficult to separate out the with/of thing because the cause of someone's death isn't always totally clear. Especially for older people who might have a spectrum of life-impacting conditions.

And of course unless there's a post mortem which there generally isn't unless the coroner/PF requests one, or the death is violent or unexpected there isn't always going to be a definitive answer.

I get that the with/of thing suggests some vagaries but I also don't believe that it's a deliberate fudge.

But colds weaken our immune system, so do viruses. No equating them to Covid but we can't continually test and have a lockdown on-off scenario, can we?

The excess mortality in all age groups in the UK has since March been below the normal range/baseline for the last five years. It's currently way below the 'normal' range since 2016 (no data from before)!

Of course flu numbers are recoreded/published but I certainly can't remember PMs and governments having press conferences and papers publishing a running tab on numbers. I'm not saying we should stop capturing the data, just no need to go out so forcefully with numbers. The UK is particuarly bad at scaremongering when compared with many other countries (I speak to senior level pharma/medics thought leaders daily across the globe - most of them can't believe we have these restrictions).

@echt

If vaccines are essentially making Covid more like a cold

But they don't and it isn't.

I would like to see more data on this. I.e. number of double jabbed people (without significant underlying conditions) who have ended up in hospital with Covid as the main source of disease.

Euro Momo - data on excess deaths

www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

Numbers are published whoever there is a major public health issue - it happened for swine flu, for the Wales measles outbreak, and others, and they make the headlines

When covid is no longer a pandemic, it will become akin to that. I do not think we are yet close to that

@echt

If vaccines are essentially making Covid more like a cold

But they don't and it isn't.

But that's exactly what vaccines are doing... Yes, some people will get very ill but the cold Is a dangerous bug if you are severely immune-compromised.

My opinion is that until most of the world is vaccinated, we should keep the statistics being published, and any change in the clear method of reporting will only undermine confidence and lead to a belief that things are being hidden.

I would guess that testing on the current scale will stop when covid stabilises for a long period and we can have a reasonable expectation of knowing whether or not the NHS will cope with stable numbers.

The problem with relying on judging whether the NHS can cope with data reported by GP’s and hospital admissions is that once it’s apparent through those avenues covid will be spreading in the meantime and higher numbers will follow no matter what restrictions might be implemented.

Perhaps when people stop dying because of covid?

Doctors don't put that kind of thing on there on the off-chance.

Well Macular Degeneration was mentioned on my Mum's death certificate and I don't think that killed her or contributed to her death.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

Doctors don't put that kind of thing on there on the off-chance.

Well Macular Degeneration was mentioned on my Mum's death certificate and I don't think that killed her or contributed to her death.

Exactly, agree. I know several doctors who feel the same - they would like the data sorted 'by' and 'of'...

That's supposed to say 'by' and 'with'...

I disagree with pretty much everything in the OP, and have no idea where this "covid is just like a cold now" nonsense is coming from, but I would support more detail on the death data being reported.

A weekly announcement of the total deaths by what was mentioned on the death certificate on the news perhaps?

And I think deaths that take longer than 28 days but less than 60 days should be on the dashboard at least. It's another metric.

@BIoodyStupidJohnson

I think it's difficult to separate out the with/of thing because the cause of someone's death isn't always totally clear. Especially for older people who might have a spectrum of life-impacting conditions.

And of course unless there's a post mortem which there generally isn't unless the coroner/PF requests one, or the death is violent or unexpected there isn't always going to be a definitive answer.

I get that the with/of thing suggests some vagaries but I also don't believe that it's a deliberate fudge.

Absolutely agree. These decisions are not always clear cut and where do you draw the lines between with and of? Often vulnerable patients can have multiple co-morbidities so it can be very difficult to say with any certainty