One-*** efficacy questions

[Trainee neophyte]

It is rather odd that the govt get advice from some 80 odd leading scientists, yet there are a few on here that KNOW lockdowns don't work.

How could the govt get it so wrong?

Here are some more alternative facts to keep the pot boiling. Please note that I don't necessarily subscribe to the following, but I do allow for the possibility that the science may not be settled, and that things may not be as clear and incontrovertible as you inevitably insist.

https://principia-scientific.com/so-far-27-studies-prove-lockdowns-have-little-to-no-effect/

 

[Jonm]

Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection.
A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?

The previous definition was anyone who died after a positive COVID test. Fine at the start of the pandemic but as time went on it was ridiculous, it meant that someone who had a positive test and died 5 years later would classify as a COVID death. The definition is now “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test“. At least it is consistent, quick and easy to apply, rather than waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them. Perhaps in time researchers will trawl through all the coroners reports, look at excess deaths etc and come with a better understanding of what has happened. Of course, just because someone has tested positive in the last 28 days for COVID it does not mean that is what killed them.

So far COVID case numbers in the community, number of hospitalisations, and COVID deaths (as currently defined) have followed a pattern. The vaccine should break that pattern so we will see if the vaccines work.

You and others can argue till the cows come home about the number of deaths due directly to COVID and indirectly, what would have happened if the nhs had been overwhelmed etc but I think we have to wait until the research has been done and peer reviewed.

 

[Peterm1000]

Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection.
A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?

I think it's important to have a consistent method of categorising covid deaths, but I'm not sure it's important that the current method has flaws. You are saying that some "Covid" deaths are not really deaths caused by Covid. Imagine an extreme example. I get a positive Covid test. The next day I am in the garden and a bolt of lightning kills me - classification = Covid death. Or another - I have Covid. On my way to the test, I cough and trip over a paving slab falling into the path of an oncoming bus. Covid caused my accident, but classification = road traffic accident. Or another, I have Covid. I struggle through 28 days of illness after the test and die on the 29th day. Classification = pneumonia. Providing the classification is consistently applied, I'm not sure any of this matters. You still ended up with 3 dead people.

The significance of the lockdown is that it is supposed to slow the spread of the disease to the point where people in the NHS can cope with the number of cases coming in. When there aren't beds available, people die in the streets for all kinds of reasons. I have friends who are doctors in other countries. One told me a very sad story of a 20 year old who had a motorbike accident. There were no emergency beds available at the hospital so he died of an injury that would have been easily survivable. When you reduce the number of contact points, the spread of any disease is reduced.

I don't think anyone's arguing that locking up healthy people didn't come with a load of other negative impacts.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Absolutely, it's very important we clarify what is/isn't a covid death. Just look at what happened last year when the government had to change the reporting and a huge number of deaths dropped off the charts. If for example someone is dying with terminal cancer and has maybe weeks to live, but then catches Covid, is that really a covid death? While technically it fits the category, in the past we would have still classed them as a cancer death even though it isn't usually the cancer that actually ends their life, it's a secondary infection.
A family member died of dementia, but it wasn't the dementia that "killed" them, it was a combination of pneumonia and infected bed sores because the dementia made them bed bound and eventually their heart gave up from the stress and the doctors didn't resuscitate him. So what killed him? If he had a positive covid death within 28 days it would have been a covid death. Do you see my point?

I agree with your general point - the actions taken need to lead to the best outcome overall. It then gets difficult to put into practice and balance all the factors which is perhaps where we have different views on how to balance things ... which is okay as this is a woodworking forum and neither of us are in the cabinet

 

[Rorschach]

@Peterm1000 I think the classification is important if you are using that as a justification for lockdown. Same goes for age of those dying. It's an unpopular opinion I know and will probably get me complained about, but if your average age of death from covid is 83 rather than say 23, you need to act differently I am afraid. Saying that "every death is a tragedy" while it may be popular with voters it is not a rational way to decide government policy and causes those negative consequences for the healthy that you mentioned. I agree no-one seems to be arguing that lockdown hasn't had negative consequences (though some seem to be very close to it) but they certainly don't seem to realise just how negative those consequences are, maybe that's just because they are not thinking about it, maybe it's selfish because if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal.

 

[Rorschach]

I agree with your general point - the actions taken need to lead to the best outcome overall. It then gets difficult to put into practice and balance all the factors which is perhaps where we have different views on how to balance things ... which is okay as this is a woodworking forum and neither of us are in the cabinet

It is indeed a very difficult area and there is no perfect balance. My argument is simply that we made the balance tip the wrong way, others are arguing the same, expect they think it tipped a different way.

 

[ey_tony]

@Peterm1000 if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal.

Really?

 

[Peterm1000]

@Peterm1000 I think the classification is important if you are using that as a justification for lockdown. Same goes for age of those dying. It's an unpopular opinion I know and will probably get me complained about, but if your average age of death from covid is 83 rather than say 23, you need to act differently I am afraid. Saying that "every death is a tragedy" while it may be popular with voters it is not a rational way to decide government policy and causes those negative consequences for the healthy that you mentioned. I agree no-one seems to be arguing that lockdown hasn't had negative consequences (though some seem to be very close to it) but they certainly don't seem to realise just how negative those consequences are, maybe that's just because they are not thinking about it, maybe it's selfish because if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal.

The every life is equal approach is a feature of our current method of government. I was locked down in an area of the country that had next to zero Covid cases when we could have taken a tiered approach. However, it was deemed "unfair" that I should be let out and others should be locked up and we needed to behave according to the average rather than the individual situation. The reality there I think is that the UK does not have the policing resources necessary for the more regional types of lockdown in place in other countries. Personally, I would have preferred a more regionalised lockdown that was much tougher, but also much shorter than the one we had.

The lockdown had terrible consequences on many pensioners. My stepfather started lockdown a very active 80 year old who could easily walk 15 miles. Now, he has spent a year largely locked in his house without visitors and without any of the activities he used to enjoy. Many pensioners have seen friends die and have not been allowed to say one last goodbye at their funerals. I don't think you should minimise the impact of lockdown on them. It might not have been financial, but it has been very difficult for other reasons.

 

[Rorschach]

The lockdown had terrible consequences on many pensioners. My stepfather started lockdown a very active 80 year old who could easily walk 15 miles. Now, he has spent a year largely locked in his house without visitors and without any of the activities he used to enjoy. Many pensioners have seen friends die and have not been allowed to say one last goodbye at their funerals. I don't think you should minimise the impact of lockdown on them. It might not have been financial, but it has been very difficult for other reasons.

You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.

 

[Rorschach]

Really?

Yep. Feel free to disagree and point out where I might be wrong.

 

[ey_tony]

Yep. Feel free to disagree and point out where I might be wrong.

'Might be'?....hmmmm!

 

[Rorschach]

'Might be'?....hmmmm!

Yeah, that's not actually putting forward your opinion or anything.

 

[Jonm]

And the point is we have never recorded deaths like that before either!

I think that coroners are recording deaths where Covid is a factor in the same way as any other death.

In a fast moving pandemic there has to be a way of counting deaths which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly. Waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them would be far too slow.

The current definition for this purpose is “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test”. This is clearly stated when the government reports the numbers and is prominent in bbc reports of the numbers.

No method is perfect so can you suggest a better way of reporting deaths related to Covid which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly?

 

[D_W]

In the US, those deaths are reported similarly to the way they were before, unless something has changed. That is, there's no one standard form across the US and what happens is in some states, there's one line for cause of death, and in others, there are two or three (for example "FAT" with CHF and morbid obesity and CHF maybe listed, but heart failure may be the only item listed elsewhere and the bigness is a lost detail).

Mortality data is tracked by cause, though, and it's very easy to look at the causes in the top 12 and note that none of the non-covid items were really down in 2020, meaning that the excess deaths attributable to covid are very unlikely to be scabbed from other causes and be misqualified.

Excess deaths were about 100k higher than covid deaths last year to my understanding. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the covid deaths weren't reported as nursing homes, etc, had an incentive to underreport them to avoid bad publicity. This has reared itself in criticism of governors more than once.

 

[Rorschach]

No method is perfect so can you suggest a better way of reporting deaths related to Covid which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly?

Since we were told lockdowns were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, which was a lie but anyway. How about deaths excess to the 5 year average for each week. That would then not only encompass Covid deaths but any increase in general mortality.

 

[D_W]

Since we were told lockdowns were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, which was a lie but anyway. How about deaths excess to the 5 year average for each week. That would then not only encompass Covid deaths but any increase in general mortality.

mortality rates generally improve about 1% per year over time. Not consistently across ages, but in the aggregate. On top of that, the population age changes, so the applicable rates change. It's not quite as simple as just looking at the average deaths per capita or the 5 year average at each age as that would overstate mortality expectations. The data from last year would still blow it out of the water, though.

The CDC posts excess mortality in the style you're mentioning, but with proper age and improvement adjustment (i'd guess- not totally sure). That kind of thing leads people to respond that "oh, they're just doctoring the expected number, then", which ignores the fact that the aggregate number of deaths itself is up enormously despite population not changing much.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Note that we look low now, but there may be reporting lag in may. 2018 must've been a bad flu season or something.

 

[Selwyn]

The every life is equal approach is a feature of our current method of government. I was locked down in an area of the country that had next to zero Covid cases when we could have taken a tiered approach. However, it was deemed "unfair" that I should be let out and others should be locked up and we needed to behave according to the average rather than the individual situation. The reality there I think is that the UK does not have the policing resources necessary for the more regional types of lockdown in place in other countries. Personally, I would have preferred a more regionalised lockdown that was much tougher, but also much shorter than the one we had.

The lockdown had terrible consequences on many pensioners. My stepfather started lockdown a very active 80 year old who could easily walk 15 miles. Now, he has spent a year largely locked in his house without visitors and without any of the activities he used to enjoy. Many pensioners have seen friends die and have not been allowed to say one last goodbye at their funerals. I don't think you should minimise the impact of lockdown on them. It might not have been financial, but it has been very difficult for other reasons.

This is exactly why there should not have been a lockdown. People were and are quite capable of arranging their own lifestyles according to risk we don't need government to tell us we are only allowed out for 30 minutes of every day

 

[Selwyn]

I think that coroners are recording deaths where Covid is a factor in the same way as any other death.

In a fast moving pandemic there has to be a way of counting deaths which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly. Waiting for coroners reports and interpreting them would be far too slow.

The current definition for this purpose is “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test”. This is clearly stated when the government reports the numbers and is prominent in bbc reports of the numbers.

No method is perfect so can you suggest a better way of reporting deaths related to Covid which is consistent, quick and easy to apply so that trends can be established very quickly?

Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.

I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things

 

[RobinBHM]

Do you see my point

No.

The data is available if you we're interested in facts rather than conspiracy theories.



Deaths due to Covid 119,000

Deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive test 133,000

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...fapositivecovid19testwhodiedsolelyfromcovid19
And by week
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...19ratherthandeathswithin28daysofapositivetest

 

[Peterm1000]

You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.

I didn't say that they didn't. I have relatives at both ends of the spectrum and both suffered. My elderly parents suffered by losing their entire social lives and (unlike me) could not fill the gap with work. My teenage children suffered also by losing their entire social lives but also having their GCSEs & A Levels cancelled (remember being 16? I wouldn't have been able to think of anything worse than being locked up with my parents!). The only group that I don't think suffered particularly are those who have comfortable homes and could work from home. For many of them, the new lockdown existence is arguably better than what existed before.