Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes but it's correct that you have to understand how your figure is measured.


If you look, for example, at a common quoted official death metric for a covid-19 death, it's simply counted as a death within 28 days of a positive test; the implication that this is significant time to count the death as due to covid is likely in a lot of cases. What it could also potentially include is someone who tested positive with mild symptoms, recovered within a week but then died in a car accident or something within 28 days, presumably that would still count on the official figures. But you do have to have a metric which can be measured consistently and doesn't depend on a more objective view of someone who has processed the paperwork, where in some cases, it's difficult to say whether covid has contributed to the death significantly or not.



Given that different countries have different measuring criteria you need to look at what they are actually measuring and how they are measuring it. The Austria comparison is interesting if they are doing more tests but maybe we are targeting them better. If for example they are just slinging tests at everyone and expecting them to do this twice a week and record it, which is registering a high number of tests which are unlikely to come back positive, as opposed to targeting testing capacity at unvaccinated school kids who are highly likely to have it and likely with mild or no symptoms. Or if they are counting LFTs and/or PCRs and what cycle they run at.



The observation is interesting because they have, superficially at least, higher testing capacity and a similar vaccination rate but are still registering fewer new cases and fewer deaths/people in hospital. But even those figures aren't necessarily measuring the same thing everywhere. Whereas you'd be clear that say looking at figures from London or Manchester are likely to be using the same testing basis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Only those deaths with COVID as the underlying cause are counted, not any death within 28 days of someone who has COVID.

As I showed on the previous page of this thread

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=7437

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet the government website says:


https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths


It is absolutely silly though. People who haven't died of covid shouldn't count.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They don't count in the later ONS stats though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know. They are two different studies, like the ONS infection was revealed earlier to be as high as January. Quite how this can be the case with hospitalisations nowhere near is presumably only possible if it's mainly kids getting it now, or simply that the vaccine has reduced the illness in most jabbed people to be mild enough not to require it.



Given that they tend to work such studies by extrapolating from a stratified sample of the population, it is often likely to lead to something inaccurate. But then, the official figures only count the first positive test.


I don't think there's a significant variance between the ONS and Gov death figures though, despite the metrics being different, or wasn't at least last time I looked between them.


Suppose there's a reasonable assumption in most cases that someone who has died within 28 days of a positive test has probably died because of something related to catching covid, and if they do even include the car accident after recovering in the figures, these are unlikely to be high enough to be statistically significant anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All hail glorious private healthcare.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ic-says-report

Re: Coronavirus
 

And people who died after 28 days should.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, 28 days is plenty of time to be in ICU and then die. It's silly on plenty of levels.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...efore-pandemic

We did this analysis on a potential MERS outbreak but didn't think it was relevant. Ooer....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some further 'benefits' of lockdowns, distancing (and masks, obviously) ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

From what I understand, they are saying that your natural immunity to some viruses wanes over time (potentially as they mutate - I don't think they've ever really been sequencing things like noroviruses or colds as much as they have with covid-19) which means that the longer you're not exposed to a cold virus the more likely you are to get ill with one (and probably the more you are the more likely your immune system will be able to recognise it and fight it off.


The viruses are still circulating as they have reservoirs in other species (which may or may not cause the same illness) for example noro is in shellfish and oysters so even if humans aren't getting them they're still out there.


I suppose one possibility is that if we say that it takes 20 mutations of a cold virus to make it swerve your immunity, and that it does 1 mutation every month, if you get exposure to a cold virus 5 months after your previous one your immune system will recognise it from the one it saw 5 months ago and know what to do, so you either don't get ill or don't get it as badly; but if you've gone the full 20 months then it's unrecognisable (in the theoretical situation) so you'll get the full effects of it.



So if the measures put in place to combat covid (whether or not they actually worked, we have mixed less with others) stop other viruses spreading too (which is logical) it's entirely correct that you'll see a spike in other things, which is exactly what the CMO said in the summer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Add to that the 5 month infection "resets" the clock to the next 20 providing the mutations are "linear". So if you are infected say every 8 months your immunity may give protection from serious illness each time and each time you body learns a bit more.