Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Ethan]

Is there a view of what ‘more pressed down endemic numbers‘ are?

It is proportional. The more you can restrict Covid while vax numbers rise, the lower the peak of the inevitable rebound. The risible Freedom Day occurred at a point when there was too much headroom for Covid, and like we saw last summer, case numbers can stay stable for a while then rebound. The Govt moved to a sort of informal herd immunity among the young policy, against scientific advice, without full realising the risk. Had they pressed on with faxing young people before doing so, might have put us in a better place.

 

[Ethan]

That's pedantic, I think you understand what I meant .
Forecast is a calculation or estimate of future events.
Prediction is the act of declaring or indicating something in advance.
Usage
Forecast is specially used with weather and economic trends.
Prediction can be used in almost any context.

You can respond to advice about health risks and people often do, you can't change the weather. A lot of people here moan about forecasts having been wrong without realising the intent of the forecast was to prevent the forecast becoming true.

I could point to a few other forecasts/predictions in another area of you know what which were very wrong, but they don't mention those.

 

[SocketRocket]

You can respond to advice about health risks and people often do, you can't change the weather. A lot of people here moan about forecasts having been wrong without realising the intent of the forecast was to prevent the forecast becoming true.

I could point to a few other forecasts/predictions in another area of you know what which were very wrong, but they don't mention those.

It's perfectly proper to use 'Prediction' to explain how someone gave a considered view on how infection rates could possibly multiply in the future.

 

[PNWokingham]

Not sure what the next year holds for Australia and NZ. This disease will invade anywhere and a no covid strategy seems doomed to failure - albeit they have done a great job of keeping deaths down so far but that isolationist strategy surely cannot contniue much longer

 

[Pants]

How many people actually die of covid? Rather than with or having had covid.

And that's a question that I can't see that you will get an answer to and, to my mind, is where the "stats" are flawed. I personally know of 3 people, two relatives and the wife of a close friend, who were deaths recorded as within 28 days of testing positive blah blah blah. All three were on their last legs and were taken into hospital because their condition couldn't be managed in the care home/at home. Basically, taken into hospital to die - and they did, although possibly a few days later than they otherwise would have done. Surprise, surprise. They all "tested positive" so were, we assume, included in the Covid related deaths.

 

[BubbaP]

And that's a question that I can't see that you will get an answer to and, to my mind, is where the "stats" are flawed. I personally know of 3 people, two relatives and the wife of a close friend, who were deaths recorded as within 28 days of testing positive blah blah blah. All three were on their last legs and were taken into hospital because their condition couldn't be managed in the care home/at home. Basically, taken into hospital to die - and they did, although possibly a few days later than they otherwise would have done. Surprise, surprise. They all "tested positive" so were, we assume, included in the Covid related deaths.

This has likely been debated on here previously. Really is the question you and @BiMGuy actually answerable? There will be cases at either end of the spectrum, likes the ones quoted above, and say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-58080116
But a lot of uncertainty in between.
Disagree on the stats comment though - it is clear what they are, it is more how people choose to interpret them. Perhaps a stat better suited is to look at the excess mortality compared to the 5 year average - maybe that is closer to the question.
Incidentally, the last couple of weeks (Eng&Wales) it has been running at over 1 thousand a week above that average. There were some "under" weeks at various points, like a couple of months back but I think it's easy to see trends.

There are several places like gov, ons, I think these give some good options -
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1131428/excess-deaths-in-england-and-wales/

 

[Backache]

Had they pressed on with faxing young people before doing so, might have put us in a better place.

Don't think many young people would know what a fax is.

 

[Ethan]

Don't think many young people would know what a fax is.

Ah, good point.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

This has likely been debated on here previously. Really is the question you and @BiMGuy actually answerable? There will be cases at either end of the spectrum, likes the ones quoted above, and say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-58080116
But a lot of uncertainty in between.
Disagree on the stats comment though - it is clear what they are, it is more how people choose to interpret them. Perhaps a stat better suited is to look at the excess mortality compared to the 5 year average - maybe that is closer to the question.
Incidentally, the last couple of weeks (Eng&Wales) it has been running at over 1 thousand a week above that average. There were some "under" weeks at various points, like a couple of months back but I think it's easy to see trends.

There are several places like gov, ons, I think these give some good options -
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1131428/excess-deaths-in-england-and-wales/

The problem with stats is that they can show what you are looking for, rather than what you should be looking at(ie. not looking for confirmation bias in what you believe is the case before looking)

Thats the hardest bit with data/trials etc, is missing what you should think about.

Do you think other things should be taken into account when looking at excess deaths ? (ie. try to pick holes in the graph above or at least ask questions to see if they change the look of the data). I can see matters from a quick look(unless I have read the summary wrong)

1) why use the five year average ? [for your personal interest, you may wish to look at the last say 20-30 years. Tends to shine a different light on some of it]
2) why is not adjusted it for the age in the population [as the age of the population can vary this quite a bit, as a naturally ageing population shews your graph, ie. if everyone lives five years longer now than 20 years ago, then you are going to see an increase in excess deaths but isnt when compared to the age]
3) Have you looked at the excess deaths being recorded at home week on week, throughout this period.

May not fit what you want it to fit and makes you ask other questions.

Excess deaths will also increase in the follow years, due to the early lack of treatment being provided by the NHS, have a read of a few cancer specialist twitter feeds to hear about it, Ive come across one case like that(who knows if it would have saved that person). Think of beast scanning, as an early intervention.

So many sides to all of this, which in many years to come will be unfolded and picked on. I agree many people have died purely due to covid, I know of some but also know of some who have been put as died with covid like pants says(really down to old age/end of life problems).

All in its a complete poo picture, edit death is depressing.

 

[Ethan]

The problem with stats is that they can show what you are looking for, rather than what you should be looking at(ie. not looking for confirmation bias in what you believe is the case before looking)

Thats the hardest bit with data/trials etc, is missing what you should think about.

Do you think other things should be taken into account when looking at excess deaths ? (ie. try to pick holes in the graph above or at least ask questions to see if they change the look of the data). I can see matters from a quick look(unless I have read the summary wrong)

1) why use the five year average ? [for your personal interest, you may wish to look at the last say 20-30 years. Tends to shine a different light on some of it]
2) why is not adjusted it for the age in the population [as the age of the population can vary this quite a bit, as a naturally ageing population shews your graph, ie. if everyone lives five years longer now than 20 years ago, then you are going to see an increase in excess deaths but isnt when compared to the age]
3) Have you looked at the excess deaths being recorded at home week on week, throughout this period.

May not fit what you want it to fit and makes you ask other questions.

Excess deaths will also increase in the follow years, due to the early lack of treatment being provided by the NHS, have a read of a few cancer specialist twitter feeds to hear about it, Ive come across one case like that(who knows if it would have saved that person). Think of beast scanning, as an early intervention.

So many sides to all of this, which in many years to come will be unfolded and picked on. I agree many people have died purely due to covid, I know of some but also know of some who have been put as died with covid like pants says(really down to old age/end of life problems).

All in its a complete poo picture, edit death is depressing.

The problem with looking at 25-30 years as a baseline for death rate is that bigger societal effects kick in, for example smoking bans and cessation, and the demographics of the population changes more, i.e. "ages". Using a 5 year baseline reduces the effects of those, but amplifies the effect of short term external effects. Life expectancy does not increase 5 years over a 20 year period, more like 2 years.

On the issue of dying "with" rather than "due to" Covid, two points.

First, the background risk of death within the next 28 days (the window for the period where a Covid test classifies a death as a Covid death), is really pretty low, even for older people. The one month risk of death for the average person aged 60 is less than 0.1%, and even at age 80 no more than 0.5%. So the number of people who have an unrelated heart attack, get hit by a bus or have an aircraft engine fall on them whilst they are in the 28 day period following a positive Covid test are vanishingly small.

Second, older people often/usually die from multiple causes. They may have a heart attack or get pneumonia, but the outcome of that illness mizes with their frailty,. dodgy renal function, poor lung function, all of the above and precipitate a hospital admission or death. Exactly the same happens with older people who die from the flu every winter, or people who fractured their neck of femur (hip) and end up in hospital and never come out. Covid can therefore be the straw that breaks the camels back, even a mildish case that a young person would manage with a few paracetamol. In epidemiology, there is a term called 'attributable risk'. What this basically means is that if Covid contributes to increasing a baseline death rate from 10000 people to 11000 people, it is considered to be responsible for 1000 deaths even though you can't say it was the sole or main cause in any of the 11000.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Life expectancy, ONS and also attach the statista which shows similar.

Amazing when you look back to the 1765, a doubling of the average age after childbirth.

A miracle of the modern day medicine/life. Don't really have anything else to add, but always interesting putting bits of the equations together.



Returning to cases, (I know this will go down badly here), but If you believe that the virus will go endemic and lets say everyone is going to catch it on average once every four years on average(appears to be part of the course for some other viruses in some long term studies, still hard to get my head around that), that probably means something like an average of 45,000-50,000 cases a day forever(edit. probably lower in summer, higher in autumn etc), if we test/pick up all cases.......

 

[Ethan]

View attachment 38066
View attachment 38067
Life expectancy, ONS and also attach the statista which shows similar.

Amazing when you look back to the 1765, a doubling of the average age after childbirth.

A miracle of the modern day medicine/life. Don't really have anything else to add, but always interesting putting bits of the equations together.



Returning to cases, (I know this will go down badly here), but If you believe that the virus will go endemic and lets say everyone is going to catch it on average once every four years on average(appears to be part of the course for some other viruses in some long term studies, still hard to get my head around that), that probably means something like an average of 45,000-50,000 cases a day forever(edit. probably lower in summer, higher in autumn etc), if we test/pick up all cases.......

The virus will become endemic and be part of the mix of viruses which people get exposed to pretty often. But if immunity, through vaccination, and evolving immunity in people (like we now have for flu), gets to a decent level, then we will not see pandemics unless a new bad variant arises, and that will be fairly uncommon. Most people will get minor exposure, get a cold, perhaps a bad cold, but recover and have a relatively low risk of onward transmission.

Most of the life expectancy gain above has come through public health measures - clean water, better food, less environmental pollution. Apart from antibiotics, the contribution of other medicines has been much less in comparison, although they contribute to quality of life quite a bit. Even in the early part of this century, perinatal and infant death rates, often due to cholera, and youngish death due to TB and others, were very common.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

They're a whole lot betting than the numerous models that predicted horrendous numbers up to 200,000 or so infections a day with the deaths etc that would go along with it. Whilst they present numbers aren't ideal they're still an awful lot better than the predictions and I'm not entirely sure what the alternative is.

Do you understand statistical estimation, predictions and associated levels of uncertainty in system state modelling? I am sure that most here do, but some choose to spin worst case estimates with significant levels of uncertainty as ‘promises’…and that is simply disingenuous and designed to confuse the public and undermine confidence in those trying to help us understand the dynamics of coronaviral spread to find a way through and out of our current situation.

 

[jim8flog]

The number of cases in Bridgewater has double during the past week. They are putting it down to outside visitors

 

[SocketRocket]

The number of cases in Bridgewater has double during the past week. They are putting it down to outside visitors

Must have been Tash ?

 

[PhilTheFragger]

The Mexican variant?

Sorry Tash me man, couldn’t resist ?

 

[GB72]

Just scary reading some American attitudes. Mentioned in another post that a resort I love in Antigua has gone vaccinated only. The venom and vitriol from some in the states on their Facebook group is an eye opener. The 'how dare a resort group or country tell Americans what to do' how it cannot be legal as they are threatening their freedom of choice, how they want the hotel to fail and go bust and that is before the issues about the vaccine itself. I have never read a more self centred diatribe with no care or concern about the country they are visiting.

Having seen some of the attitudes to tests etc to travel there previously (demanding to be able to use at home tests where they can waive a swan within ten feet of their nose and claim they are clear) then this, I can see a US ban coming up now that more of Europe can travel.

Hope this is not seen as political, people have the right to chose if they want to be vaccinated, just a comment if selfish attitudes

 

[Ethan]

Just scary reading some American attitudes. Mentioned in another post that a resort I love in Antigua has gone vaccinated only. The venom and vitriol from some in the states on their Facebook group is an eye opener. The 'how dare a resort group or country tell Americans what to do' how it cannot be legal as they are threatening their freedom of choice, how they want the hotel to fail and go bust and that is before the issues about the vaccine itself. I have never read a more self centred diatribe with no care or concern about the country they are visiting.

Having seen some of the attitudes to tests etc to travel there previously (demanding to be able to use at home tests where they can waive a swan within ten feet of their nose and claim they are clear) then this, I can see a US ban coming up now that more of Europe can travel.

Hope this is not seen as political, people have the right to chose if they want to be vaccinated, just a comment if selfish attitudes

The Gov of Florida has made it illegal to issue mask mandates, employers to demand compulsory vaccination, testing as a condition for anything, even asking someone if they are vaccinated. It is all culture war stuff.

 

[drdel]

The Gov of Florida has made it illegal to issue mask mandates, employers to demand compulsory vaccination, testing as a condition for anything, even asking someone if they are vaccinated. It is all culture war stuff.

Intelligence is not a criteria for politicians

 

[Tashyboy]

The number of cases in Bridgewater has double during the past week. They are putting it down to outside visitors

?purely coincidence. I mean am from Mansfield which has the second highest rate of infections in the country ??