Vaccine anyone?

[fisicx]

Ultimately it is about the death rate.

No, you could have zero deaths but hospitals overflowing with people on ventilators. The NHS has got very good at keeping people alive. The problem they now have is a lack of resources (staff, beds and equipment).

 

[Mr D]

@The Byre , Jonathan's a good guy, I once hosted a seminar with him at Mansion House in London, and some years ago I wrote a long article for his website. (Neither of those were about god or demons, the article was about how to choose a business broker to sell your business).

But he's not alone. There are other lawyers, senior people in corporate finance, doctors, and the like who are not just frustrated, they are angry at the cancer operations cancelled, the damage to children's mental health etc etc. And they believe Covid's been overblown, the government's over-reacting, politicians are using it as an excuse to get more control over the (dumbass) population.

But I've learnt a long time ago to not believe what the government - or government's medical professionals - say. They are liars. For example, millions of people around the UK are going around wearing dust masks thinking they'll be protected. Those masks do nothing to protect the wearer, it's to protect everybody else. I bet you, most wearers don't know that!

And remember the washing of the hands? Hand washing does sweet b*gger all (relatively speaking). But because there was a shortage of masks back in the day the government wanted to take people's focus off the acquiring of masks. There lies public panic. So they told people to wash their hands, wash their hands and wash their hands. That would make Joe Public feel they were protecting themselves. The sheeple duly followed, singing happy b/day while they were washing their hands for 20 seconds, all the while inhaling the virus by the bucketload in the confined spaces of their office or a restaurant's bathroom.

For people who believe restrictions will be lifted at the right time - you are the sheeple. Coronavirus has fried your brain (whether you've been infected or not). The restrictions will never be lifted, they will be modified in some way, shape or form but they will continue. Governments don't easily give up control over the population (not even conservative governments). The only thing that will force real change is social uprising.

Remind us again why people wash their hands after going to the toilet, before eating food, before doing a medical procedure etc.

Could it be that washing properly with soap and water is a good thing?
What could soap possibly kill? Not going to post a link, if you won't believe scientists on one thing why should you believe them on another.

Social uprising tends to be brutal affairs. The strong rise to the top, take what they want.

They beat you up, rob your house, set fire to your possessions that they bother to leave you. Don't at that point bother asking government agents - the police, the courts etc - for help. Odds are the people doing all that to you will, if they survive, become part of the new society if it succeeds.
Or you could be one of the ones taking what you want from others.

 

[Mr D]

Ultimately it is about the death rate.

We all die. Well, with a few exceptions.
Death rate isn't the reason why the past 2 lockdowns have been put in place, probably not more than a minor factor in the first lockdown.

Its not the deaths that can prevent you being treated in the future. Its not the deaths taking the NHS resources.
Its the living.
Occupying beds, requiring staff time, needing cleaning, needing drugs, needing patient notes updating, needing feeding.
And for some, needing intensive care.

Drop the deaths to zero as @fisicx says, NHS still in trouble. Still be lockdown, still be a need for lockdown.

 

[Mr D]

He is not a conspiracy theorist, he just thinks it's a big over reaction, and the "cure" is worse than the disease. It certainly will be if it goes on for months and months after the death rate drops.

So you are saying he's not a conspiracy theorist he just spouts conspiracy theories.
Catch the virus, be ill for a while, then say the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[jpjj]

Prime example of media filtering the news and giving false sense of hope that the vaccine will work...(link removed)

If you'd read the full KSM article you will find out KSM Maccabi Research cherry picked data here and ignored the bulk of it to make it look good on paper

KSM "After analysing data from more than 50,000 patients" that's 25% cherry picked data compared to prior report "A preliminary report from the Clalit Research Institute compared the infection data of 200 000 people aged 60 and over who were not vaccinated with the infection data of 200 000 people of the same age group who received one vaccine dose and were monitored for at least 11 days from the date of vaccination"


If I cherry picky 50000 out of 20000 with results I want to see we would be at about 25% effective rate and even worst off than the initial report.

All you did here is showing a media tagline without actually taking 10 minutes time to read both in full and see how they were measured and setup.

Are you sure that Maccabi and Clalit aren't separately reporting on different data sets, based on the data each provider has collated from their own customer vaccination programme?

 

[The Byre]

Really @Clinton, I was hoping that you would get the two rather elegant PG Wodehouse references I built-in (Meet Mr. Mulliner and Without the Option) !

But he's not alone. There are other lawyers, senior people in corporate finance, doctors, and the like who are not just frustrated, they are angry at the cancer operations cancelled, the damage to children's mental health etc etc. And they believe Covid's been overblown, the government's over-reacting, politicians are using it as an excuse to get more control over the (dumbass) population.

It has rather conveniently moved massive amounts of wealth from the middle-classes to the wealthy as a byproduct of all that QE. This was happening anyway, but the movement has become a flood as stimulus cheques and furlough schemes have been feeding the retail trade in stocks - now the OTC stock trades are ten-times what they were just a year ago!

But I doubt that politicians as a breed set out to gain more control - rather, the media loves bad news. People dying of some mystery illness and in their thousands? Wow! Now that's what I call really good bad news!

In the Winter of 1968-9 (or a year earlier, not sure) 87,000 people died of flu in the UK. Hardly anyone noticed. Other flu epidemics had even worse outcomes. We all now know that the Winter of 1918-19 saw the deaths of 50m people worldwide, but at the time, it was hardly reported and it was only in the 70s that any really took notice of what had happened all that time ago.

Flu is a serious illness. It kills. I had flu once in my life and had a temperature of 105F - 40.5C. I was delusional for three days. But we do not make a big deal out of flu. Nearly everybody gets over it. We used to not make much of a deal out of most illnesses.

Conversely, I caught C19 and for a couple of weeks, I had an annoying cough and could not smell my dog's farts.

Today, every illness and every social problem is blown out of all proportion by the media industry looking desperately for 'issues' that it can put alarmist headlines on. Although I used to run 'just' a trade and market news agency, I know how the gig works - the first question is always "How many are dead?"

If nobody died and there are no pictures of people crying, riots and injured puppies, it ain't a story!

Politicians are cowards. They cannot stand up to the media. Every call for more funding is met. Every illness must be cured. Every social need must be met. Every opinion poll is reason to whip-up hysteria. "They must do something!"

Every crime in every city is reported and people are then afraid to go out of their houses. Every plane-crash is shown in gory detail and people are afraid to fly.

So people, get your BMI below 25, do some proper hard physical work for a change and stay away from all processed foods and drinks and you'll be just fine, though you might miss the occasional dog fart.

 

[Justin Smith]

We all die. Well, with a few exceptions.
Death rate isn't the reason why the past 2 lockdowns have been put in place, probably not more than a minor factor in the first lockdown.

Its not the deaths that can prevent you being treated in the future. Its not the deaths taking the NHS resources.
Its the living.
Occupying beds, requiring staff time, needing cleaning, needing drugs, needing patient notes updating, needing feeding.
And for some, needing intensive care.

Drop the deaths to zero as @fisicx says, NHS still in trouble. Still be lockdown, still be a need for lockdown.

Absolute rubbish, quite apart from anything else if deaths really were close to zero most people wouldn't take any notice of the restrictions, they would become a laughing stock.

 

[Clinton]

@The Byre , not everyone is as lucky as you were with Covid, some have symptoms far more serious. And then there's long Covid (there's no long flu to the best of my knowledge). But I agree, something smells fishy. Actually, a lot smells fishy.

The S&P hit a new all time high, the FTSE is doing pretty well, the Coronavirus Corporate Funding Facility and CLBILS are funneling money into the wrong asset classes (ones that are already inflated), directors of those listed firms whose shares are down - travel, hospitality, care - are using this opportunity to carve themselves lucrative reward structures that'll pay them huge bonuses if the shares recover (even if that's driven by a general recovery in operating environment), private companies are being paid hundreds of millions for all kinds of consulting services and data analysis in relation to Covid ...

Yes, there a lot of cash flow going on, and it's not to Sharon in her one bed Basildon council flat.

And the more the public are frightened, the more they'll believe the politicians, the more compliant they are, the more tolerant of restrictions on freedoms.

The extent of restriction of liberty is not warranted. There are MPs even within the governing party who are against the current level of restrictions. It's not just the conspiracy theory lot.

Could it be that washing properly with soap and water is a good thing?

To ask that question you're either very thick or you haven't read my post properly and assumed, strangely, that I don't subscribe to the view that hand washing is a good thing.

 

[Aniela]

They are not lying (apart from "that person in the park is highly likely to have Covid" - it's actually between 1 in 40 and 1 in 50) but they are presenting the "facts" in a biased manner to further their own agenda. Which is keep everyone scared to "encourage compliance" :

If we say 1 in 50 people, that's very high odds?

You have to remember that 1 in 50 does not mean that literally 1 person in a group of a 50 people have it. It does not mean a 2% chance of catching it.

 

[Aniela]

Absolute rubbish, quite apart from anything else if deaths really were close to zero most people wouldn't take any notice of the restrictions, they would become a laughing stock.

The death rate of covid and the death rate of everything, overall, due to the NHS being overloaded, are two completely different things.

You could bring covid related deaths down to 1 a day but if hospitals were over-run with people who have got covid, and surviving it, deaths overall would be much greater. You wouldn't be able to survive a car crash that you normally would, because there's no beds etc.

They wouldn't become a laughing stock because people would understand that basic concept.

 

[Justin Smith]

The extent of restriction of liberty is not warranted. There are MPs even within the governing party who are against the current level of restrictions. It's not just the conspiracy theory lot.

I'm pretty sure they're doing the wise thing and keeping their powder dry. They know now is not the time to be making waves and they probably even agree with the lockdown at the moment, but wait till the death toll starts falling then they really will be some fireworks from them, and most of the population come to that.

 

[Justin Smith]

If we say 1 in 50 people, that's very high odds?

You have to remember that 1 in 50 does not mean that literally 1 person in a group of a 50 people have it. It does not mean a 2% chance of catching it.

Government advert : "that person you pass in the park is highly likely to have Covid"

The actual odds are probably less than 1 in 50 and that is not "highly likely" by any reasonable definition of the words. The Govt are running a real risk of losing the trust of a great many people with this kind of inaccurate stuff which is bordering on lying.

As you allude to, actually catching Covid off someone outside is not that easy anyway. I would love to know the chances of catching it by passing someone outside who is infected (even within inches), I'd have thought thousands to one.

 

[Justin Smith]

The death rate of covid and the death rate of everything, overall, due to the NHS being overloaded, are two completely different things.

You could bring covid related deaths down to 1 a day but if hospitals were over-run with people who have got covid, and surviving it, deaths overall would be much greater. You wouldn't be able to survive a car crash that you normally would, because there's no beds etc.

They wouldn't become a laughing stock because people would understand that basic concept.

If they bring deaths down they will bring hospitalisations down, they're two sides of the same coin.

 

[Jeff FV]

If they bring deaths down they will bring hospitalisations down, they're two sides of the same coin.

Not necessarily.

Perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, but from a purely numbers point of view, bringing the death rate down could result in an increase in hospital occupancy.

Let us say that in March ‘20, if you were admitted to hospital with COVID, in 12 days you would either be dead or discharged, thereby releasing your bed for the next patient.

Now, with a better understanding of the disease and improved treatment, some of those that would have died don’t, but need to stay in hospital beyond the 12 days. This means beds are freed up less quickly.

So if you are admitted to hospital with COVID in Jan ‘21 you could be dead or discharged (freeing up your bed) or still hospitalised, but you don’t die (unlike March ‘20), occupying your bed for longer.

I have no idea if this is the case, and I have made those figures up for illustrative purposes, but hopefully it explains why a reducing death rate doesn’t necessarily free up space in hospitals.

 

[DontAsk]

I thin the lunatics have taken over the thread.

 

[Justin Smith]

Not necessarily.

Perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, but from a purely numbers point of view, bringing the death rate down could result in an increase in hospital occupancy.

Let us say that in March ‘20, if you were admitted to hospital with COVID, in 12 days you would either be dead or discharged, thereby releasing your bed for the next patient.

Now, with a better understanding of the disease and improved treatment, some of those that would have died don’t, but need to stay in hospital beyond the 12 days. This means beds are freed up less quickly.

So if you are admitted to hospital with COVID in Jan ‘21 you could be dead or discharged (freeing up your bed) or still hospitalised, but you don’t die (unlike March ‘20), occupying your bed for longer.

I have no idea if this is the case, and I have made those figures up for illustrative purposes, but hopefully it explains why a reducing death rate doesn’t necessarily free up space in hospitals.

You are right on the margin, but if far fewer people are dying (which is what most people expect once large numbers of the vulnerable are vaccinated) then almost certainly that is because far fewer people are becoming seriously ill with Covid, surely that's unarguable ?

 

[Mr D]

Absolute rubbish, quite apart from anything else if deaths really were close to zero most people wouldn't take any notice of the restrictions, they would become a laughing stock.

Absolute rubbish?
So we don't all die?

You focus on the deaths to pretty much exclusion of everything else.
The government appear to be focusing on saving the NHS. Very different strategy to employ.

 

[Mr D]

To ask that question you're either very thick or you haven't read my post properly and assumed, strangely, that I don't subscribe to the view that hand washing is a good thing.

Then perhaps you should clarify as that appears to be what you are suggesting in your post.

 

[Aniela]

You are right on the margin, but if far fewer people are dying (which is what most people expect once large numbers of the vulnerable are vaccinated) then almost certainly that is because far fewer people are becoming seriously ill with Covid, surely that's unarguable ?

Again, not necessarily. It's hard to answer without the data.

Depends on the amount of seriously ill people vs how many people die and what load each of those two categories puts on the system.

People dying might be helping the NHS cope at the moment. Which sounds awful but harsh reality.

 

[Mr D]

If they bring deaths down they will bring hospitalisations down, they're two sides of the same coin.

No.
You improve treatment of those with the virus, you reduce impact of the virus on the person by say having them vaccinated - and you reduce the deaths.
Does not reduce the numbers going into hospital. You are confusing effect with process.
Some of those who enter hospital will die from the virus. Not all.

 

[Aniela]

Government advert : "that person you pass in the park is highly likely to have Covid"

The actual odds are probably less than 1 in 50 and that is not "highly likely" by any reasonable definition of the words. The Govt are running a real risk of losing the trust of a great many people with this kind of inaccurate stuff which is bordering on lying.

As you allude to, actually catching Covid off someone outside is not that easy anyway. I would love to know the chances of catching it by passing someone outside who is infected (even within inches), I'd have thought thousands to one.

1 in 50 is not 'highly likely' - Right. So if you had a 1 in 50 chance of getting hit by a car when crossing the road, you would tell people that it doesn't mean all that much as the chances are low and just to carry on as normal?

Very much doubt that.

Also, if your wording is correct, they're only saying it's highly likely they have it. Not that it's highly likely you will catch it from them. Very different meaning.

 

[Mr D]

You are right on the margin, but if far fewer people are dying (which is what most people expect once large numbers of the vulnerable are vaccinated) then almost certainly that is because far fewer people are becoming seriously ill with Covid, surely that's unarguable ?

No.
Far fewer of those who have been vaccinated will be dying from the virus. The rest of the population that have not been vaccinated are still able to get it exactly like they do now.

The vaccinated can still be ill - same way that having a vaccination for other stuff does not always prevent you even getting it. And so far only a small portion have had 2nd injection - so you have maybe a few thousand who currently have vaccination at the expected level of protection. Remember, weeks after 2nd injection to be covered to the higher level.

So a reduction of the death rate from those vaccinated will come along. But makes no difference whatsoever to those not yet vaccinated - they'll still die, they'll still be hospitalised.

 

[Justin Smith]

It has occurred to me that even if the vaccines do actually eliminate virtually all serious illness from Covid infection, but do not stop you actually getting it (or at least not at the same nearly 100% effectiveness), we will never get down to hardly any deaths from Covid.
Why ?
Because people die of other stuff but may just happen to have Covid at the time they die. So, using the present definition of a death with Covid (death from whatever cause within 28 days of a positive Covid test), a certain percentage will still have Covid, even if they almost certainly did not die of it.
It is thus imperative we adjust the definition of a Covid death because the stats will be way out particularly once all vulnerable people are vaccinated.

 

[Aniela]

It has occurred to me that even if the vaccines do actually eliminate virtually all serious illness from Covid infection, but do not stop you actually getting it (or at least not at the same nearly 100% effectiveness), we will never get down to hardly any deaths from Covid.
Why ?
Because people die of other stuff but may just happen to have Covid at the time they die. So, using the present definition of a death with Covid (death from whatever cause within 28 days of a positive Covid test), a certain percentage will still have Covid, even if they almost certainly did not die of it.
It is thus imperative we adjust the definition of a Covid death because the stats will be way out particularly once all vulnerable people are vaccinated.

Lucky we already do then, isn't it.

Death certificates already differentiate and therefore stats already reflect this.

Died with covid and died from covid are already separate. (In the UK at least.)

If you get your head ran over by a car tomorrow, but have covid, it's not classed as dying from covid in any sort of capacity.

If tested and they have covid, it would be died with covid.

 

[DontAsk]

if far fewer people are dying ... then almost certainly that is because far fewer people are becoming seriously ill with Covid, surely that's unarguable ?

Of course it's arguable and It was clearly explained earlier.

Fewer people are dying because we have got better at keeping them alive, whether it be plasma infusion (which seems to be falling out of favour), steroids, the two mono-clonal antibodies that were in the news recently, or some other therapy or treatment.

 

[DontAsk]

Lucky we already do then, isn't it.

Death certificates already differentiate and therefore stats already reflect this.

Died with covid and died from covid are already separate. (In the UK at least.)

If you get your head ran over by a car tomorrow, but have covid, it's not classed as dying from covid in any sort of capacity.

If tested and they have covid, it would be died with covid.

Not quite.

The headline stats that we see in the media every day are all deaths within 28 days of a positive test plus those after 60 days where covid is mentioned on the death certificate.

 

[Interestedobserver]

Of course it's arguable and It was clearly explained earlier.

Fewer people are dying because we have got better at keeping them alive, whether it be plasma infusion (which seems to be falling out of favour), steroids, the two mono-clonal antibodies that were in the news recently, or some other therapy or treatment.

Although there's clearly a lot of concern that the new variants coming in to play may be more deadly

So the Govt is having to stay on their toes

 

[Aniela]

Not quite.

The headline stats that we see in the media every day are all deaths within 28 days of a positive test plus those after 60 days where covid is mentioned on the death certificate.

There is no 'not quite' about it.

The stats media/news website show and the stats that governments use and look at to make decisions are two different things.

 

[Mr D]

Of course it's arguable and It was clearly explained earlier.

Fewer people are dying because we have got better at keeping them alive, whether it be plasma infusion (which seems to be falling out of favour), steroids, the two mono-clonal antibodies that were in the news recently, or some other therapy or treatment.

Plus - and its a big help apparently - getting people into hospital sooner.

Back in March the public did not know much about the virus - now at the first sign of breathing difficulties some families are calling an ambulance - and getting their relative into hospital 3 or 4 days sooner than they'd go if left up to their own choice.

Fighting pneumonia while on oxygen is a tad easier with much greater chance of living than waiting until half the lungs are not working due to massive inflammation and then going into hospital.

 

[Justin Smith]

There is no 'not quite' about it.

The stats media/news website show and the stats that governments use and look at to make decisions are two different things.

The media are always getting the definition wrong, TBH it's actually rare they give the correct definition, which is "deaths from whatever cause within 28 days of a positive Covid test". The Beeb are very guilty of this, half the time they don't even say deaths with Covid much less the full (and critical) definition, they just say deaths from Covid. I have complained to them numerous times but, unsurprisingly (for they are as keen as the Govt on promoting fear "to encourage compliance"), to no avail.

 

[The Byre]

In the UK the average age for those dying with Covid is 82.4 whereas the average age of people dying of everything else is 81.2, which is 1.2 years younger.
Be alert (for misleading information).

On a point of order, but an important point - it is not the average age, but in both cases, it is the median age.

 

[Bob Morgan]

On a point of order, but an important point - it is not the average age, but in both cases, it is the median age.

You beat me to it! Many think that they are both the same - Rather like 'Tax Avoidance' being the same as 'Tax Evasion!'

 

[Aniela]

The media are always getting the definition wrong, TBH it's actually rare they give the correct definition, which is "deaths from whatever cause within 28 days of a positive Covid test". The Beeb are very guilty of this, half the time they don't even say deaths with Covid much less the full (and critical) definition, they just say deaths from Covid. I have complained to them numerous times but, unsurprisingly (for they are as keen as the Govt on promoting fear "to encourage compliance"), to no avail.

You're on here constantly posting incorrect information, linking to false information websites, not understanding basic graphs/information etc and refusing to listen to even basic information that shows how completely wrong you are...

Yet you have the audacity to say the media are always getting it wrong and complain to the BBC?

Come on, Justin.

 

[Justin Smith]

You're on here constantly posting incorrect information, linking to false information websites, not understanding basic graphs/information etc and refusing to listen to even basic information that shows how completely wrong you are...

Yet you have the audacity to say the media are always getting it wrong and complain to the BBC?

Come on, Justin.

What you really mean is I put stuff on here which you don't want to hear or do no want others to hear because you believe in the current no risk maximum suppression strategy irrespective of the social and economic cost.

I very much object to you saying I link to false information, I have never linked to any site like Facebook or whatever, almost always it's the BBC. Could you please give an example of when I "linked to false information" ?
It certainly wasnt' here :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757369

Which included a direct quote from that BBC page :

In the end, it is going to come down to what society is willing to tolerate.
UK chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty has spoken about "de-risking" Covid.
His point is that we will reach a situation at which the level of death and illness caused by Covid is at a level society can "tolerate" - just as we tolerate 7,000 to 20,000 people dying from flu every year.
Sociologist Prof Robert Dingwall, who advises the government on the science of human behaviour, believes that point will be reached sooner rather than later.
"I think we will see a pretty rapid lifting of restrictions in the spring and summer.
"There are some sections of the science community that want to pursue an elimination strategy - but once you start seeing fatality levels down at the level of flu I think the public will accept that."

But you "accused me of "taking it out of context" !

 

[Aniela]

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

What meaning does that hold?

It doesn't say a full investigation was made and it doesn't say there was no evidence. It says a lot without actually saying much.

 

[MBE2017]

Spain have suspended all vaccinations for two weeks, they have run out of them, just as they are suffering increases again in mortality etc. They are likely to take the number one spot from the UK at this rate.

The UK ordering its vaccines early seems to have been a very wise move now, indeed the EU response is poor by comparison for vaccinations at least.

 

[Ian J]

The UK ordering its vaccines early seems to have been a very wise move now, indeed the EU response is poor by comparison for vaccinations at least.

I'm sure that Keir Starmer and Jonathan Ashworth will be fulsome in their praise for the Government for their prompt action

 

[gpietersz]

On a point of order, but an important point - it is not the average age, but in both cases, it is the median age.

To get the terminology exactly right, what you mean is that is that it is the median age, not the arthmetic mean age - both are average age, just different averages: as are the mode and geometric mean.

The UK ordering its vaccines early seems to have been a very wise move now, indeed the EU response is poor by comparison for vaccinations at least.

A benefit of Brexit: not having to wait for the EU cumbersome processes.

 

[Newchodge]

A benefit of Brexit: not having to wait for the EU cumbersome processes.

No, every member state had the choice to order when they wished to.

 

[Clodbuster]

No, every member state had the choice to order when they wished to.

No they were pressured to deal with Brussels.