Are people dying of Covid, or with Covid?

[lightand]

As they are different things.

Does anyone actually know?

There will always be people dying with Covid, as the elderly, especially, die, and some of them, like the rest of us, will always die whilst having Covid.

So could 180 per day per winter be an average number going forward, forever now? [and the NHS should well be into the process of gearing up for that?]

It’s more likely a blunt tool to give information to the public and there’ll be more detailed information available as it’s collected and sorted.

There are complications that are only just beginning to emerge. Different people are looking at different aspects.

@Needtostopfretting

It's just weird though, all this cowering from death. People getting all offended because the deaths of elderly people are being discussed?My Dad is almost 90, I accept he will probably die in the not too distant future which makes me very sad but it's hardly unexpected. Of course I could drop dead of a heart attack this afternoon ahead of him but generally it will go chronologically. Why do people get so faux offended as though you're being personally insulted ?

The issue isn't "cowering" though?

An uncontrolled pandemic will saturate healthcare systems. People who require hospital treatment can't just be turned away because it's COVID. They have to go somewhere. Equally, staff with COVID have to isolate, and measures must be put in place to isolate COVID+ patients from other patients, which takes up more space.

You might personally be low risk of COVID, but you aren't immune from being in a car crash or needing an emergency appendectomy. I think you'd be pretty upset if a loved one died of a non-COVID emergency because they weren't able to recieve life saving treatment.

I heard a medic say the other day that if the bodies of people who'd died because they didn't get medical help fast enough (because of the huge delays at the moment) were counted then there'd be a public outcry.

If the Tories hadn't starved the NHS of cash for years, if there weren't so many nurse and doctor vacancies, if we bothered wearing masks so there were fewer covid patients in ICU, then this might not be happening, but it is.

But people are really good at sticking their heads in the sand.

No-one who's talking about it is cowering from death, the medics certainly aren't, they deal with it every day. They know that death is sometimes inevitable. They're wanting to avoid unnecessary and avoidable early death. That's a bit different.

Dear all I agree the idea of health services being overwhelmed is worrying. You are aware however that Chris Whitty himself (who appears to be one honest man trying to tread a very difficult path) has said that he believes cases of Covid had already peaked before the first and second lockdown were implemented. The assumption there was 0 population immunity was wrong. Therefore the lockdowns did not reduce the number of people dying of Covid.
The difficulties under which the health service is struggling now is in fact partly related to the lockdowns. During both lockdowns people drank more alcohol and got fatter. Scotland has the worse levels of premature mortality in Western Europe for years not due to respiratory viruses but alcohol disease and obesity. Yet we are still expected to think lockdowns are a wonderful public health tool? Why.

@LaVieilleDameIndigne it must have been very scary for you but why do you think your chances with Covid are as low as 80%?
Most of the population have been exposed now and most people on immunosuppressive drugs survive this virus, far more than 80%. The biggest risk factors for mortality are age and obesity related.
Again remember we never pcr tested everyone for respiratory viruses before but young healthy people still occasionally got sick in a seemingly random way. Unfortunately there is no way of living that’s completely safe.
Remember that poor children’s educational outcomes have taken a hit they may never recover from from the missed schooling, that deaths of despair related to drugs and alcohol have risen again and that our children will be poorer by far from the economic havoc this has wreaked (including allowing billionaires to amass wealth at the expense of British businesses (Jeff bezos and local shops) and tell me it has still been a great idea. Also as if it needed said 100000 in Africa hungry because of the impact of global lockdown policies. If ever there was a cause for BLM I thought it would be that but MSM not interested.

@theemperorhasnoclothes your comment about masks assumes masks in a community setting actually reduce transmission. Spoiler - they don’t.

[quote Hotcoffee10]@theemperorhasnoclothes your comment about masks assumes masks in a community setting actually reduce transmission. Spoiler - they don’t.[/quote]
Yes they do. Please name one (credible) expert who believes masks make no difference to transmission in the wider community.

And by credible I mean someone with expertise in this area, and who's views are backed up by robust evidence.

Please site some of these robust studies of which you speak? As far as I’m aware there is one RCT of community mask wearing published which showed some reduction in transmission that was barely statistically significant (Bangladesh). The other published RCT in Denmark showed no difference. Bear in mind there is a publication bias so it’s possible other nil effect studies were not published.
Meanwhile in the real world there is clearly little difference between countries and states which have mask mandates and those that do not. Scotland/England, Florida/California. I would suggest mask wearing is now a political symbol and as such experts are not unbiased to the actual evidence.

Are biased

Confused @Hotcoffee10, not sure who you're replying to?

You said masks make no difference to community transmission. I said:

Yes they do. Please name one (credible) expert who believes masks make no difference to transmission in the wider community.

And by credible I mean someone with expertise in this area, and who's views are backed up by robust evidence.

Cherry picking a study that proves your point and then attempting to compare raw figures between US states is meaningless. You cannot do robust epidemiologal research with no training and a little 10 min websearch.

Hmmm. How do you know I have no epidemiology training? People are entitled to weigh up evidence for themselves we don’t always have to listen to top down pronouncements from so called experts who are only people and therefore subject to the same pressures and cognitive bias as all the rest of us.
Open your eyes. Masks have negligible effect on community transmission. In hospitals maybe yes, not in the community Experts know this too I think but there is a very powerful media narrative about mask wearing that makes it difficult for people to present facts simply.

Not a ten minute web search. I’ve been following the data about masks from the beginning, always wondered if they would be ineffective in the community, so many variables and such imperfect use.

@Hotcoffee10

Hmmm. How do you know I have no epidemiology training? People are entitled to weigh up evidence for themselves we don’t always have to listen to top down pronouncements from so called experts who are only people and therefore subject to the same pressures and cognitive bias as all the rest of us. Open your eyes. Masks have negligible effect on community transmission. In hospitals maybe yes, not in the community Experts know this too I think but there is a very powerful media narrative about mask wearing that makes it difficult for people to present facts simply.

How do you know I have no epidemiology training?

Because you think that comparing raw figures from states/countries (i.e., florida versus calforinia) can give you a causal estimate regarding masks and COVID transmission.

Obviously it cannot - the situations are not comparable (otherwise known as "exchangeable") and there's a huge number of confounders anyone with data science training would attempt to contol for, before attempting to draw any such conclusions.

People are entitled to weigh up evidence for themselves we don’t always have to listen to top down pronouncements from so called experts
Everyone is entitled to an opinon, but is unlikely to be correct if they have no relevant tranining or expertise, and are disagreeing with hundreds of people who do?

As I said, name one credible expert who believes masks make no difference to transmision?

open your eyes
I think you're revealing youself here a tad

HotCoffee no sure why you think it 'must have been scary' for me. This is a very concerning for immunosuppressed people now (in the present tense) as levels are very high here, in comparison with similar countries with masks and other protective measures.
As to my risk I said I had 1in 4/5 chance of dying which is not 80%, but 20-25%. My condition and drugs put me in a subset of immunosuppressed people who don't respond to vaccine, so in the most risky 10% of those 500,000 needing the third primary dose.
There are drugs which could be used preventatively but the gov are so far only going to use them in care homes. That's a bit frustrating as it looks like a possibility for a more normal life.
As to your comment about 'anyone thinking it's a great idea' not sure what you are referring to but if it's lockdowns, I think they only have to happen if gov has failed to control covid by the means other similar countries use. I want my children and extended family to live normally.

HotCoffee
The stats on survival are based on the study the JCVI used when they decided to give third primary jab, and another study on my condition, not just my belief. I have a medical background and have seen plenty of death so not under any illusions that people don't die of all sorts all the time. I'm fit and you wouldn't know I had a problem and I'm keen to stick around to see my kids grow up.

There are some university prof types with medical or epidemiology degrees who are openly critical of community mask wearing. They have had a lot of abuse for it. Carl Heneghan is an example. I have a feeling anyone I name you will jump in and tell me is “widely discredited”. There are a lot more who are not speaking out but keeping their powder dry.
If masks work so well incidentally why aren’t the English mandating them? Could it be because their CMO is rather brighter than some of the so called experts for all there is a party line to toe.
I’ve provided some evidence why masks don’t work. Convince me they do?
Why am I revealing myself by saying “open your eyes?” Revealing myself to be a conspiracy theorist you mean?
I don’t believe the pandemic is a conspiracy and I am certain covid is real. I do believe there are many vested interests at work. Having a Phd or a university professorship does not make you a saint, experts are as keen on their own self interest as anyone else. It also doesn’t make you always right. Remember fortunes and careers have been made through lockdowns and vaccinations. The very idea from lockdown came from and was directly promoted by a dictatorial regime - China.

Through lockdown the poor have got poorer and will die sooner, the effect on disease transmission was negligible and yet still middle classes think they are the good guys by demanding more and more restrictions.

There are some university prof types with medical or epidemiology degrees who are openly critical of community mask wearing. They have had a lot of abuse for it.
Who? Repeatedly claiming you have examples of all these "university prof types" who do not believe masks make a difference to transmission is meaningless unless you're actually able to state who they are.

Carl Heneghan is an example. I have a feeling anyone I name you will jump in and tell me is “widely discredited”.
Not sure what you mean by me "jumping in", but his views were due to an incorrect interpretation of the Danish mask study which has since been corrected. This view was not evidence based, hence why people do not agree with it. This isn't saying he is "widely discredited", but that his claims regarding masks are not based on robust evidece.

There are a lot more who are not speaking out but keeping their powder dry.
If they are not speaking out then how do you know they think this?

I’ve provided some evidence why masks don’t work. Convince me they do?
You've already posted quite a few COVID minimising posts, alongside the usual scaremongering about vaccines and now that "masks don't work", so I feel there's little point.

Through lockdown the poor have got poorer and will die sooner, the effect on disease transmission was negligible and yet still middle classes think they are the good guys by demanding more and more restrictions.
Not sure how this relevant to mask wearing? As I said in my last post, masks are a way of reducing transmission, with little burden on the individual compared to other NPIs. These are what will prevent the need for further, more stringent restrictions which disproportinately effect poorer and lower SES communities.

^@Hotcoffee10

Danish study wasn’t discredited. Some people said the data was inconclusive and some said it might show a likely benefit. It certainly didn’t provide evidence community mask wearing is effective.

Since I’ve posted “covid minimising” posts you don’t see any point sharing this evidence of which you speak with me. So no point in engaging further I guess.

I don’t view myself as covid minimising more mad about the harm that Covid control policies have done to the most vulnerable globally with very very poor evidence of benefit. But the thing seems to have a momentum of its own now and almost religious fervour among the adherents. Good night, thanks for the chat.

@Hotcoffee10

Danish study wasn’t discredited. Some people said the data was inconclusive and some said it might show a likely benefit. It certainly didn’t provide evidence community mask wearing is effective.

Since I’ve posted “covid minimising” posts you don’t see any point sharing this evidence of which you speak with me. So no point in engaging further I guess.

I don’t view myself as covid minimising more mad about the harm that Covid control policies have done to the most vulnerable globally with very very poor evidence of benefit. But the thing seems to have a momentum of its own now and almost religious fervour among the adherents. Good night, thanks for the chat.

You don't seem to want to answer this - how does mask wearing disproportinately effect poor or lower SES populations? Why don't you appreciate that a reduction in transmission will lower the risks of more stringent policies being needed, that will disproportinately effect these groups?

Who are these "university profs" who aren't speaking out about masks being useless, and if they're not speaking out how do you know they're saying it?

I never said the Danish study was "discredited" (I suggest you read my post again), I said his interpretation of it was incorrect. The authors themselves had to commuicate with him about it as he had so wildly misunderstood it's conclusion. This was an article by him from July 2020, which has since been corrected.

you don’t see any point sharing this evidence of which you speak with me

@Hotcoffee10

I am not going to do a websearch and pull up articles to try and prove a point.

Why? Because this isn't how robust evidence based decisions are made. To properly assess the evidence takes weeks - with multiple scientists with expertise in the area. It involves sytematically searching for all relevant studies, critiquing the methods, asessing risk of bias, testing for publication bias and oodles of other epidemiological checks.

Globally, teams of scientists have done this to inform on mask-wearing policies, and have found enough evidence to demonstrate efficacy and recommend their use.

In comparison to this, me pulling up a single study, which I'm not going to have the time to take to read through and assess (to do properly takes 6+ hours), is irrelevant.

Seems to me, pandemics cause a huge amount of harm to the most vulnerable whether you do a lot to try to control them or bugger all. Anyone would think the most vulnerable in any society will always be the most vulnerable to anything bad that happens, almost like they are called the most vulnerable for a reason. There certainly doesn’t seem to me to be any evidence to date that a country like Brazil has handled the pandemic better than a country like South Korea or China. Every country has had its own context to deal with.

@LaVieilleDameIndigne sorry just to clarify I meant 80% chance of survival. I’ve not seen the JCVI stats and obviously don’t know your condition. I get it must be worrying. The problem is measures to control covid broadly haven’t worked very well and even if they did I would still argue a risk/benefit analysis should always be conducted. (No formal risk/benefit analysis ever undertaken of lockdown) I suspect based on clinical experience that if you are fit and under 60 your chances are somewhat better than you estimate. Not expecting you to take anything from an Internet random but wait and see what comes out later. Remember much much more of the population was exposed in the first wave than we thought, also we know more about how to treat covid now.

Open your eyes.

😂😂

I was talking about lockdowns and the economic social and educational impact more broadly not just masks. Masks do impact on poor people more though. People living in poverty are more likely to have chronic respiratory disease, more likely to have been victims of abuse, which can make mask wearing difficult. Also people in poor areas are much less likely to even wear the bloody things than middle class people in the first place, and probably get stigmatised for not doing so.
@Walkaround that kind of assumes pandemic control measures reduced infections and deaths though doesn’t it. If they didn’t and just let rich get richer and our children get a huge tax burden to pay for.