Coronavirus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

- the let's wait and see approach is so often followed by dramatic increases in the really ill.

---

Unless, of course, you think the virus is essentially a hoax and that well known public health procedures of dealing with pandemics don't work.

But then, who'd be that stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

The old method also includes those who died of Covid beyond 28 days - of whom there seem to be plenty. Funny how it was an acceptable counting method for so long. It is not perfect, but continuing to use/display it lets us compare the numbers since counting began. When they changed the counting method they did say both numbers would be shown - but the old method has quietly become harder and harder to find. A bit like getting a test in some parts of the country - harder and harder to do.

---

How can assuming an IFR of 100% ever be an acceptable method?

The fact that PHE were counting deaths this way was discovered by Carl Heneghan, who is director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. So it didn't come from the Government. It was clear that Hancock had no idea this approach was being taken, which admittedly doesn't put him in a good light.

The approach was never used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who have always adopted the 28 days approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

The old method also includes those who died of Covid beyond 28 days - of whom there seem to be plenty. Funny how it was an acceptable counting method for so long.

---

I don't think it was acceptable and hence that's why it was discontinued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

From my reading, if you allow for the age of those currently being infected, there is not a lot left to explain. Risk of infection/death at 65 is 10 times that at 45, which is 10 times that at 25. And the risk at 85 is 10 times that at 65. So a very steep increase with age. Those at high risk of exposure and of dying died early; we still have plenty who are at high risk of dying, but they are mainly able to socially distance/isolate/quarantine, so the new cases are much younger than before. There has also been some improvement in treatment - delaying ventilation, steroids, avoiding hydroxychlororquine. There is a mutation that some think is more infectious but less lethal, but it has been around for months, and it is not taking over from the other variant. The different age profile seems to be the main thing.

---

So when the virus first hit UK do you think it almost exclusively targeted the elderly and ill?

It must have been circulating in all of the population. Young and old.

That the younger ones in my home town who have been testing positive have avoided contact with older relatives is hard to believe. You only need to see some of the local press reports on large gatherings to realise that some think there is little to no risk AND act accordingly.
I think there is little to no risk, but still play ball with the regulations.

So if these spikes are genuine spikes, there should be a knock on effect by now.

We have been waiting and seeing for over 3 months since the first easing of lockdown measures and we are still waiting and seeing diddly-squat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

I'd make that very concerned - by then we will be in real trouble - that is the problem - the let's wait and see approach is so often followed by dramatic increases in the really ill.

---

A calm and balanced approach should be taken. While we have to be wary of Covid-19 escalating again, we also have to look at the huge backlog of cases that have built up for other conditions.

The majority of hospitals in this country currently don't have a single case of covid but services are nothing like back to normal as Graham illustrated a few days ago. You're just as dead from cancer or a heart attack as you are from covid.

meanwhile, whilst everyone is debating the efficacy of lockdown....

https://www.sueryder.org/news/bereav...st-a-statistic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

So when the virus first hit UK do you think it almost exclusively targeted the elderly and ill?

It must have been circulating in all of the population. Young and old.

That the younger ones in my home town who have been testing positive have avoided contact with older relatives is hard to believe. You only need to see some of the local press reports on large gatherings to realise that some think there is little to no risk AND act accordingly.
I think there is little to no risk, but still play ball with the regulations.

So if these spikes are genuine spikes, there should be a knock on effect by now.

We have been waiting and seeing for over 3 months since the first easing of lockdown measures and we are still waiting and seeing diddly-squat.

---

It had access to the elderly/ill in care homes/nursing homes via the need for frequent face to face care with multiple agency staff and absent/inadequate PPE. So they were highly likely to contact the virus, and then they were highly likely to succumb to it. Sending back cases to these homes despite positive tests also contributed, as did deciding not to admit some cases for more active care.

The age breakdown of positive cases has plummeted, but the numbers are drifting up. I hope I am wrong, but I think we will soon see an increase in hospitalisations.

And we must not ignore those non fatal cases that result in prolonged illness - harder to measure of course.

Quote:

---

non fatal cases that result in prolonged illness

---

Harder to measure and largely ignored by those obsessed by graphs of fatalities.
We simply don't know the long-term impact of infection: there is some talk of permanent lung damage, brain issues, heart damage, chronic fatigue etc etc....

It's not simply a case of getting it and getting better or dying....

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3218

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...arm-scientists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

It had access to the elderly/ill in care homes/nursing homes via the need for frequent face to face care with multiple agency staff and absent/inadequate PPE. So they were highly likely to contact the virus, and then they were highly likely to succumb to it. Sending back cases to these homes despite positive tests also contributed, as did deciding not to admit some cases for more active care.

The age breakdown of positive cases has plummeted, but the numbers are drifting up. I hope I am wrong, but I think we will soon see an increase in hospitalisations.

And we must not ignore those non fatal cases that result in prolonged illness - harder to measure of course.

---

It had to get to the elderly/ill from the general population coming back directly from the Far East or their ski holiday in the Dolomites.

And here is where I think we have the main issue. We do not know how many cases we had in March.

6 months in we really don't have any history on this virus that holds water.

The stats that you want to see are largely meaningless as are the stats that we are being given are similarly meaningless because any comparisons with the early stages of the virus are impossible to make.

We had a panic lockdown in Blackburn because they found just over 100 positive cases in 2 weeks.

Had they tested at the same level in March they might have found 10,000 positive cases in 2 weeks.

I rarely watch Sky News these days, but had Sophie Ridge on this morning.

With regards to COVID the discussions are all one way.

If we consider the Govt way the middle way, there is no probing whatsoever towards the lockdown sceptic side of the argument.

The probing of Raab for example is all about testing more, testing at airports, a looming second wave.....

It would be refreshing if at least something along the lines of

"all the measures we have indicate that the virus is fading away and many academics are now aligning with that point of view. None of the recent spikes identified have led to a rise in hospital admissions. Can the Govt still justify all the lockdown measures that are still in place and are restricting the speed at which the economy can bounce back?"

Whether you come from my point of view or not, a balanced approach to scrutiny should ask those sort of questions.