Coronavirus

Originally Posted by daveeb

A valid argument which will no doubt be called out simply due to the platform.

For the reasons I’ve outlined above, the platform upon which one speaks is significant. Twatter is all too often a moralising echo chamber and this particular user has spoiled what was a very promising summary of the relevant facts by using them as an excuse for a fulminating rant.

There are people of my acquaintance I’d like to share the data with but I’m not going to do it by linking to him because I don’t think you win anyone round by hating on them.

Of course he’s not really trying to win anyone round, he’s trying to prove he truly belongs in the club formed of people who he follows/follow him, and express similar, correct views. He’s preaching to the choir and getting off on re-tweets.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

The first half of his comments, grounded in science, statistics, and good old all round evidence, is fantastic. The second half, in which he indulges in the tired old “if you say … then what you’re really saying” fallacy, was a lot of tiresome self righteous nonsense. Not being well read, not understanding how to use evidence and even making pronouncements beyond one’s expertise do not make someone “morally repugnant”.

The tone could be far, far better in the second half and he does get into lecture mode which is going to switch people off. He doesn't however call anyone morally repugnant. He says "The argument being made is that only the lives of people with no pre-existing health conditions count. This is obviously repugnant."

[jonbxx]

This article which I posted some time back really brings things home. Many of the co-morbidities are those which are only seen in old age or are more serious in old age.

After about 5 years old, your chances if dying in any particular year will continuously go up due to general diseases. After about 5 years old, the risk if dying of COVID pretty much follows the same path. It probably isn't fair to say that the risk of dying in a particular year is doubled if you get COVID as the severity of co-morbidities will have an effect but the risk of death across the population at any given age is increased by a factor of between 1 and 2 if you get COVID

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The tone could be far, far better in the second half and he does get into lecture mode which is going to switch people off. He doesn't however call anyone morally repugnant. He says "The argument being made is that only the lives of people with no pre-existing health conditions count. This is obviously repugnant."

In addition to the portion you quoted, his next-to-last tweet in that thread says “I hope it's obvious that that is an utterly repulsive and morally indefensible position.” Given the totality of what he said, I think my brief summary of his position is accurate though I accept reported speech shouldn’t go in quotes, which are reserved for directly quoted speech only.

So basically, 17,371 people died just from covid, for the rest - it [possibly] contributed to their death, but they may (or may not) have died anyway - is that about right ?

Doesnt seem like anything new, we have always known that some people classed as dying from the virus may have died anyway, or died in an unrelated manner (e.g. accident).

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Paul

Doesnt seem like anything new, we have always known that some people classed as dying from the virus may have died anyway, or died in an unrelated manner (e.g. accident).

But we haven't always known how many people without underlying conditions have died. It puts paid to the "I don't have any underlying conditions so I've got nothing to worry about" myth.

[Sephiroth]

What is an "underlying condition"? Seems to be a convenient but ambiguous coat-hook onto which to hang statistics.

Is an "underlying condition" within the meaning of the death stats a respiratory condition? Does that cover, for example, asthma normally controlled by 4 puffs a day of Fostair? Does it cover people with a stomach ulcer, etc?

All too vague for this stage of the pandemic.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What is an "underlying condition"? Seems to be a convenient but ambiguous coat-hook onto which to hang statistics.

Is an "underlying condition" within the meaning of the death stats a respiratory condition? Does that cover, for example, asthma normally controlled by 4 puffs a day of Fostair? Does it cover people with a stomach ulcer, etc?

All too vague for this stage of the pandemic.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/trans...volvingcovid19

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...isticsjuly2017

Section 9, paragraphs headed "Underlying cause of death versus contributory causes" and "final cause of death".

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Paul

So basically, 17,371 people died just from covid, for the rest - it [possibly] contributed to their death, but they may (or may not) have died anyway - is that about right ?

Doesnt seem like anything new, we have always known that some people classed as dying from the virus may have died anyway, or died in an unrelated manner (e.g. accident).

Not quite, the ONS statistics files are pretty clear that the only count deaths where COVID is an underlying cause. From their 2020 summary report;

We use the term “due to COVID-19” when referring only to deaths with an underlying cause of death as COVID-19.

For underlying conditions, the following definition is used;

We define a pre-existing condition here as the last health condition mentioned on the first part of the death certificate (the direct sequence of events leading to death) when it is recorded on a lower line to, and therefore clearly preceding, the coronavirus (COVID-19); and all mentions in the second part, which are independent contributory factors in the death. Mentions of fatigue and ‘old age’ (with ICD-10 codes R53, R54) were excluded as these are generally not valid medical conditions for death certification on their own.

Yeah, you could have COVID and then get run over by a truck but COVID would not be a cause of death on the death certificate

Originally Posted by Paul

So basically, 17,371 people died just from covid, for the rest - it [possibly] contributed to their death, but they may (or may not) have died anyway - is that about right ?

Anyone might die anyway but there is a difference between someone with serious co-morbidity who really were within months of death and someone with manageable diabetes or a mild heart condition. The latter camp can live for decades.

So I don't think it's fair to exclude them from the death tolls.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Anyone might die anyway but there is a difference between someone with serious co-morbidity who really were within months of death and someone with manageable diabetes or a mild heart condition. The latter camp can live for decades.

So I don't think it's fair to exclude them from the death tolls.

Do other countries do that, or just us?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Do other countries do that, or just us?

Why should the UK be different from the rest of the World?

[papa smurf]

'Never before has so much harm been done to so many by so few... based on dodgy data':

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...modellers.html

A blistering verdict on Covid 'experts' from MP BOB SEELY in a landmark speech

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Why should the UK be different from the rest of the World?

Where did I say it should? I asked if the rest of the world was calculating deaths in the same way. Trust you to get the wrong end of the stick - again.

The significance of what I am saying is that if we don’t count deaths the same way in all countries, we cannot compare how we are all doing. And yet we see people doing just that all the time.

I suspect they are counting people who had other health conditions. It would be mad not to do so.