Coronavirus

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Carth

Still, we've got that nice cheap HS2 to look forward to . .

Health Service 2?

[tweetiepooh]

The NHS is full of hard working, dedicated people who often go the extra mile. It's too often run by those either promoted from where they do well to positions they don't do well in or those more interested in their own positions than those they are in charge of. It also has too much dead weight that is hard to get rid of.


It also does too much but that is hard to quantify and since lives are involved you can't simply stop and try to restart with better focus.


A big drain at this time are those who require treatment for Covid but have refused (as opposed to can't) get vaccinated or take other precautions. Shame there isn't an easy way to charge them but that is too easy to expand to charging for other treatment that was (possibly) preventable. (I don't want to get into all the ins and outs of that in this topic.)


And a further problem at this time is not just levels of patients but levels of staff off sick. Some are likely at or close to limits of exhaustion.

[1andrew1]

Will probably not get so much attention today but this news has just broken:

VIP lane for PPE found to be illegal

The High Court has found that the Government's VIP lane - that channelled riches to its friends, donors and associates - was illegal

https://t.co/txxRhfPLS9

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Will probably not get so much attention today but this news has just broken:

VIP lane for PPE found to be illegal

https://t.co/txxRhfPLS9

I found this reassuring:

The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I found this reassuring:

The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway.

Now do this for Michelle Mone’s pal and Matt Hancocks landlord.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I found this reassuring:

The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway.

Disappointing, OB, that you choose to make this statement. There should be no reassurance from greasing their mates' palms. Bortis's administration stinks.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Disappointing, OB, that you choose to make this statement. There should be no reassurance from greasing their mates' palms. Bortis's administration stinks.

Dare you to say that to his face.

[Taf]

..

[papa smurf]

Is this taking the piss

Covid horror as anti-vaxxers drinking urine after claiming it's more effective than jab

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...ective-vaccine

[jfman]

He’s even suggested a recipe:

When I tell you this, please take it with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by Taf

..

Context is everything (as is an appropriately-scaled graph).





On 6 January 2021 a case spike of almost 58,000 (rolling average) resulted in a peak rolling-average of deaths of around 1,200, 3 weeks after the new case peak.

On 6 January 2022 the rolling 7 day average of new cases peaked at a whopping 181,000. Now, we are likely still a fortnight from the death peak associated with that, however with the rolling average presently sitting at 238 it’s fanciful to think it’s going to get anywhere near where it did last year. For comparison, one week post-peak last year, rolling average deaths were 985, I.e. already 75% of the way to their peak. If we are similarly 75% of the way to the peak death rate associated with omicron, then we’re looking at a rolling 7-day average in the region of maybe 320. And that’s assuming deaths climb for the next two weeks at the same rate they did last January, which so far in this wave they simply have not done.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Chris

Context is everything (as is an appropriately-scaled graph).





On 6 January 2021 a case spike of almost 58,000 (rolling average) resulted in a peak rolling-average of deaths of around 1,200, 3 weeks after the new case peak.

On 6 January 2022 the rolling 7 day average of new cases peaked at a whopping 181,000. Now, we are likely still a fortnight from the death peak associated with that, however with the rolling average presently sitting at 238 it’s fanciful to think it’s going to get anywhere near where it did last year. For comparison, one week post-peak last year, rolling average deaths were 985, I.e. already 75% of the way to their peak. If we are similarly 75% of the way to the peak death rate associated with omicron, then we’re looking at a rolling 7-day average in the region of maybe 320. And that’s assuming deaths climb for the next two weeks at the same rate they did last January, which so far in this wave they simply have not done.

Chris, let us not also not forget that the official metric is still "death within 28 days of a positive test".


So anyone who dies, but has tested positive for covid in the preceding 28 days, counts as this. Even if their covid illness was mild or asymptomatic, and irrespective of how they have actually died.


It isn't surprising that with 100k+ positive tests a day for the last 2-3 weeks we're now seeing an increase in "deaths" but how many of those deaths were caused by covid?

Originally Posted by nffc

Chris, let us not also not forget that the official metric is still "death within 28 days of a positive test".


So anyone who dies, but has tested positive for covid in the preceding 28 days, counts as this. Even if their covid illness was mild or asymptomatic, and irrespective of how they have actually died.


It isn't surprising that with 100k+ positive tests a day for the last 2-3 weeks we're now seeing an increase in "deaths" but how many of those deaths were caused by covid?

Given how few deaths are being recorded off the back of the whopping omicron infection wave, I’d say that’s a moot point. Whether because of vaccines, a mutation making omicron less dangerous, natural immunity or a combination of the above, it is now abundantly clear that the risk to life from omicron covid is minimal.

The public health messaging won’t go big on that because its transmissibility creates serious resource issues for the NHS, but in the long run that’s a political question, not a public health crisis.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Chris

Given how few deaths are being recorded off the back of the whopping omicron infection wave, I’d say that’s a moot point. Whether because of vaccines, a mutation making omicron less dangerous, natural immunity or a combination of the above, it is now abundantly clear that the risk to life from omicron covid is minimal.

The public health messaging won’t go big on that because its transmissibility creates serious resource issues for the NHS, but in the long run that’s a political question, not a public health crisis.

I'd disagree with you on that one.


Given that it is a milder, and as you say a "minimal risk to life" illness, this in actuality, means that the discrepancy between hospitalisations and deaths with or of covid matters more than at any stage previously in the pandemic.


In other words, has this person died because they had covid? Or have they died from some other reason but at some point in the recent past they tested positive for covid, which had no influence on their death?


Or, this person coming to hospital, because they can't stop coughing and can't breathe because they have covid, or because they broke their leg at a football game, and tested positive?


Yes, I do get that a covid-positive patient, whether or not they are in because they have covid, perhaps requires additional barrier methods, but, the detail is still important here.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Chris, let us not also not forget that the official metric is still "death within 28 days of a positive test".

So anyone who dies, but has tested positive for covid in the preceding 28 days, counts as this. Even if their covid illness was mild or asymptomatic, and irrespective of how they have actually died.

It isn't surprising that with 100k+ positive tests a day for the last 2-3 weeks we're now seeing an increase in "deaths" but how many of those deaths were caused by covid?

As much as everyone loves a good OF Covid or WITH Covid debate the number of “incidental” deaths can reasonably be calculated.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...31december2021

In the week ending 31 December 2021 (Week 52), 8,477 deaths were registered in England and Wales; this was 4,536 fewer deaths than the previous week (Week 51) and 6.6% above the five-year average (523 more deaths).

In the UK between 1st and 28th December there were 2.4m positive cases on the UK dashboard. If you take off 15% for Scotland and NI (actual figures are available) the chances the proportion of the population of England and Wales testing positive is 2m(positive)/58m population give or take. Statistically the chances of incidentally dying within 28 days of a positive test for those dates is about 1 in 30. Of those 8477 deaths it’d be expected that about 1 in 30 would die incidentally following a Covid test - or 40 a day (280 a week E&W). In the same period 767 (UK) were recorded on the dashboard subject to the arbitrary 28 day cutoff.

It remains the case that the vast majority of people dying within 28 days of a Covid test appear - statistically at least - to have that as some factor within their death.

Greater accuracy could be achieved - for anyone with the time or inclination - by comparing age/sex stratified infection rates with death rates. E.g. if Covid infection rates were significantly higher in younger age groups (which I believe was the case) but people were mainly dying in older age groups (reasonable assumption) this would record more incidental Covid deaths in my model.