Coronavirus

[Graham Breeze]

It's not me, just the updated ONS report which came out a few weeks ago. How unlike the Telegraph to use superceded data in order to have a rant....

Ah The Daily Telegraph.

It still has a broad red band along the top of its CORONAVIRUS pages lest we miss anything (4 in yesterday's edition).

[Witton Park]

Not "the conclusion" but one of 10 "main points" made at the end of a summary on a webpage.

"from March 2020 to more than five years from now, the impacts of lockdown and a resulting recession are estimated to reduce England’s health by over 970,000 QALYs – the health impacts of contracting COVID-19 are still unclear in the long term, but between March 2020 and March 2021, these represent 570,000 lost QALYs."

and the Telegraph piece is from yesterday, so I'm not sure, but I'd expect it was working from the up to date report that is 188 pages long and can be found here if anyone is nerdy enough and has the time to do so.

As the report worked on a 2 month lockdown, and many lockdown measures are still in place 5 months on then it will be interesting to see how the picture changes.

[Dave_Mole]

As I said above, the report you link to has been superseded by one published earlier this month, which I linked to. If you read the first paragraph of it, rather than looking for things which appear to confirm your predudices, you will have seen this mentioned, alongside the reasons why and how it differs from the earlier report.

The paragraph I quoted takes into account the earlier paragraph you quoted, once again talking material out of context in order to make some kind of "point". Rather like the Telegraph piece, which uses out of date data in a similar way.

[Dave_Mole]

.....and, having looked at the earlier report I found this sentence:

"Without mitigations, a far larger number of people would have died from COVID-19 such that
the QALY impact from COVID-19 deaths would be more than three times the total QALY impact of all
the categories (mortality and morbidity impacts) for the CSS mitigated scenario presented here."

[Witton Park]

I've got work to do Dave.
Good isn't it though. You can't resist can you

"the conclusion" - that was you. Both words actually incorrect. 2 out of 2 is pretty good going

The Telegraph piece was written 27th August.

The report was discussed by SAGE 23td July and published 7th August.

"But a month ago, the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) quietly published an analysis which came to the stark conclusion that lockdown could end up costing more lives than the virus."

That suggests that Ross Clark used the up to date report to construct his article.

Have a nice day - resist the temptation.

[Derby Tup]

Spot on Graham above re death certs and doctors ^

[Dave_Mole]

You can't resist can you

I see that you're chosing to ignore the statements in the report about the far larger impact on mortality and morbidity without "measures" which included a lockdown. It's easy to have a go at someone rather than admit you're wrong, isn't it?

Article in Telegraph posted 27 August referring to a report "a month ago", so mid-July. ONS website updated 7th August: "Today, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) released a paper estimating the impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on England’s mortality and morbidity".

And don't tell me to "resist temptation": the "data" that you're posting here, as has just been shown, is mostly tosh. And you seem to be having trouble defending it....

[Mike T]

I'm surprised you could mention cigarettes. Cigarettes / smoking aren't a condition even if they are a contributory factor, because otherwise you could go back in to someone's life in real detail.

For example if someone committed suicide, I'd expect perhaps overdose of cocodamol (for example) but not "following earlier loss of spouse".

It would seem a a step farther than was appropriate for a death ecrtificate.

When it comes to cigarette smoking, I would disagree - smoking is an addiction, a medical condition in itself. But yes, what goes on a death certificate has subjective elements to it, and for decades smoking was never mentioned.
In the unfortunate case of a suicide, this verdict would be decided at a Coroner's inquest, and the possibility of a bereavement contributing to this would be discussed.

[Witton Park]

I see that you're chosing to ignore the statements in the report about the far larger impact on mortality and morbidity without "measures" which included a lockdown. It's easy to have a go at someone rather than admit you're wrong, isn't it?

Article in Telegraph posted 27 August referring to a report "a month ago", so mid-July. ONS website updated 7th August: "Today, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) released a paper estimating the impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on England’s mortality and morbidity".

And don't tell me to "resist temptation": the "data" that you're posting here, as has just been shown, is mostly tosh. And you seem to be having trouble defending it....

Paper was discussed at SAGE 23rd July. Over a month ago. I'm not surprised that you want to nit-pick over someone saying "a month ago".

What SAGE are in a nutshell saying is that the knock on negative consequences of the lockdown measures are forecast to be greater than the lockdown positives.

They justify that by saying - ah well but without lockdown...... and many believe that without lockdown the outcome would not be as SAGE and Ferguson thought.

[Witton Park]

When it comes to cigarette smoking, I would disagree - smoking is an addiction, a medical condition in itself. But yes, what goes on a death certificate has subjective elements to it, and for decades smoking was never mentioned.
In the unfortunate case of a suicide, this verdict would be decided at a Coroner's inquest, and the possibility of a bereavement contributing to this would be discussed.

cheers Mike