Covid

[alec]

lens - if you read the links you've posted, and then see this - www.reuters.com/world/china/what-is-chinas-zero-covid-policy-how-does-it-work-2022-11-03/ you can see that China was operating more or less normally, unless you were tied up in a quarantine order. WHO estimates that around 250,000,000 Chinese people were subject to lockdowns at some point or other, but the other 1.2bn didn't see much in the way of physical restrictions. The differences were more about having to have mobile phone apps, proof of a clean covid profile to enter buildings, transport etc. China's biggest mistakes were to neglect their hospital capacity, a lax approach to vaccines and basic vaccine nationalism, only using Chinese made vaccines which in this instance weren't very good.

None of the articles you cite actually show understanding of what the Chinese restrictions actually were. Yes, there were demonstrations in Shanghai, which suffered I think the longest period of strict lockdown, but that's 26m people out of 1.412bn. Most Chinese only suffered 16 days of lockdowns. The Guardian is as guilty as pretty much every other western outlet at misrepresenting what really happened.

The containment measures were mainly built around testing, tracking and tracing and quarantine, but done in a typically heavy handed Chinese manner. Given that China was the source of the disease in the first place, and given the living conditions within China, the fact that they managed to run on a more normal basis in most places, most of the time in 2020 - 2022 compared to the west, I think they did OK in this regard. But they really screwed up the vaccine roll out and like everyone else, did nothing on the long term public health improvements we're going to need to get out of this.

[lens]

alec - you originally said: ".....with both countries benefiting from very short, limited periods of controls in most areas, while the rest of the world suffered long periods of disruption.

Neither country could contain covid indefinitely, but this wasn't because of what happened inside their own borders, where effective elimination was achieved. Both suffered from externally seeded infection once the inevitable reopening......"

Whatever the controls were, China absolutely did not come anywhere close to it's measures achieving "effective elimination". It kept cases relatively low - but nowhere close to "effective elimination". Remove the controls (in late 2022) and bang! the lid was off, there were enough cases within China to cause an explosion. "Zero Covid" as a policy didn't work, and hasn't worked anywhere in the world once the virus had established a foothold.

As for the Chinese controls, then to quote from the link you just gave:

"Each person's PCR test result is electronically logged on government databases, as well as one's travel history, which is tracked by mobile phone signals.
People must keep a "normal" COVID profile with continual negative test results, no contact with infected people and no visits to risky places. Profiles are maintained on mobile phone "health kits".
An abnormal profile bars access to public venues and mass transit, and can even require home quarantine for days with electronic seals attached to doors to enforce isolation.
Profiles can without warning turn abnormal - indicated by a change in colour or the dreaded appearance of a pop-up window - if one was at a mall visited by an infected person or if one was a contact of a close contact. Sometimes profiles become abnormal even if all the requirements are met.
Visits to other cities or provinces may require quarantine on arrival.

WHAT IS A LOCKDOWN, WHAT TRIGGERS IT?
Lockdowns, which can be at the building level or much wider, can be sudden.
A single case can trigger the lockdown of a building or residential compound, which means people cannot leave. Some lockdowns have lasted for months.

Entire cities can be locked down with only hours of notice."

Yet you seem to be downplaying just how strict these measures are!? Come on! Reliant on mobile phone tracing? Well, that worked really well in the UK, didn't it!!? (Sarcasm) No chance of false pings through ceilings etc? Oh wait..... that was a problem in the UK..... (together with many others)

As far as testing goes, then I heard from the people who were there that they were subject to PCR testing daily (!), but it was done very "thoroughly" - such that nose bleeds were common, and the testing equipment was set to a higher level of amplification than normal in the rest of the world. (It was believed to be 43 cycles rather than 40.) That led to a greater level of sensitivity - at the expense of a much greater level of false positives. And there, as your own link states, such errors could lead to "A single case can trigger the lockdown of a building or residential compound, which means people cannot leave. Some lockdowns have lasted for months.A single case can trigger the lockdown of a building or residential compound, which means people cannot leave. Some lockdowns have lasted for months."

Yet you think "China was operating more or less normally"? Sheesh. Did you ever stop to wonder just why it got to riots in the streets, and the eventual sudden abandonment? Maybe fair enough if it ever had come even close to "effective elimination", at least within national borders - it didn't.

[alec]

lens - quite right - I meant to talk about lockdowns, rather than more general 'controls'. Yes, they were pretty heavy handed in there application, but I think China would still have ended up miles better than we did had they married their contaiment strategy with a much better vaccine roll out. That's the bit they really screwed up on.

[lens]

Nov 28, 2023 20:09:43 GMT alec said:

..............lens I think China would still have ended up miles better than we did had they married their contaiment strategy with a much better vaccine roll out. That's the bit they really screwed up on.

I'm afraid China comes out of the whole Covid affair about as badly as possible. It's all very well to give "if......", but the fact is they got virtually everything wrong!

From the start, the initial responses were overwhelmingly to try to cover up, and what came out of China early on was by and large inspite of the authorities. That destroyed any chance of containing the virus in the early stage, when it may well have been possible to actually achieve zero Covid. All the initial measures also showed a complete disregard for any individuals rights and freedoms, even if possibly necessary.

And then the drive for zero Covid, which virtually everywhere else in the world had concluded was impossible. (As it eventually proved in China.) And they kept at it for well over two years! Way beyond the time at which it should have been obvious it could never work. And then they just removed virtually all restrictions overnight, and with large swathes of the population unvaccinated - and those who had been vaccinated were with the inferior Chinese vaccine, again well after it was proven the alternatives were far more effective. And the abrupt end meant the inevitable surge left the health services and hospitals unable to cope, making the final end even worse than necessary. (I believe the only thing left at the end was to urge general use of face masks - and the rapid spread doesn't say much for the effectiveness of that.)

So no. They really screwed up on virtually everything. And it all really needs to be judged not just on the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths, but in the round - on harm to the economy, the effect on individuals, and especially regarding such as mental health. And China also scored badly on all the non health factors as well.

Zero Covid would have been a great thing to have achieved, but the Chinese measures - harsh, long lasting and extensive though they were - didn't even come close to eliminating the virus, even within China itself. And I don't see zero Covid ever happening without the development of a vaccine which gives 100% protection. (And even then it will be an uphill task unless takeup is near 100% worldwide.)

So what's the alternative? And ultimately we are back to the idea of herd immunity - albeit via hybrid immunity - not just relying on immunity from prior infection, as was thought about right back at the start. No, not a perfect state of affairs, and I'm not claiming any infection is good - but I think it's only now that the true costs of restrictions are being accepted in terms of mental health and financial harm. A line has to be drawn to get the best overall balance. There is no perfect solution, it's a question of the best overall that's realistically possible. And with hindsight, I still maintain that restrictions and even lockdowns were very justifiable up until vaccination happens, but after that do more harm financially and to mental health than good in terms of infection control. Together with being slow at starting vaccinations, keeping the borders closed for far too long was where New Zealand went wrong. They had a lucky start, did very well in the early stages, but failed to open up at what is now realised to would have been the right time. That may have done their economy a great deal of harm, but at least they didn't have to endure the personal draconian measures that the Chinese did.

[Danny]

If you look at Uk deaths from covid, there are three distinct phases. About 60,000 deaths in the first wave spring 2020. A pause for three months. About 90,000 deaths in the second wave winter 20/21. A pause for three months. Then a steady rate of deaths every day from jul 21 to now, amounting to another 80,000. The last segment tailing off over time somewhat, but still continuing now. Noting that the last segment came entirely after the completion of the vaccination program, and the second wave overlapped with the vaccination program. If you look at the cumulative deaths, it looks like two classical epidemic outbreaks, but then a third wave which is very not a classical wave, still killed as many as the first two, but somehow was changed into a daily attrition while huge numbers of people were infected throughout the two years, 1-2 million at any one time, 100-200 million symptomatic infections in total. Based on deaths, the second wave seems to have been entirely unaffected by vaccinations and ended as did the first when herd immunity was achieved. Quite how we describe the third wave beats me so far, but since as many have died more or less as in either of the first two waves - it doesnt suggest the vaccines actually worked!


Although the cumulative data for the first two waves doesnt exactly look like it exhibits exponential growth. Rather deaths stepped up to a linear rate for two months in the first example, and 4 months in the second. Although the second shows a point of inflection about half way through, which could be due to changes in lockdown regime, or could be due to the arrival of the next wave of covid overlapping the demise of the original wuhan strain.

But whatever happened in the middle wave,the third wave simply didnt show a success for western vaccines. So its dubious to claim the chinese would have done better using them. I also seem to recall the chinese used denatured live virus traditional vaccines, which in general have in the past been shown to give broader protection against mutated strains than more modern manufacturing techniques. So even though head to head they didnt succeed as well in early trials, they may have done better over the longer term.

Incidentally, per head of population China has one of the lowest death rates in the world. All this arguing about whether their measures were effective, far fewer died than in the UK. This is part of the pattern of all countries in that part of the world having way lower death rates than Europe. Whatever they did or didnt do. They could have had just as many cases as anywhere else, they just didnt die from them.

As to how to interpret the overall effectiveness of vaccines or lockdowns, it depends entirely on how you interpret the ending of the epidemics. Did the first wave essentially complete, killing as many as if no interventions had happened? Did the second wave complete, much as the same if no vaccinations had yet taken place?

This is where examples of places without interventions or without vaccines become important. On this score, maybe I should remind people of South Africa, which only ever vaccinated 40% of its population, and where covid deaths seem to have stopped dead from approx the start of 22 onwards. At that time, Japan and S korea were just getting going and the Uk still on its more than two year constant steady deaths third wave. It sounds like whatever strains were out and about around the world from the start of 22, S Africa was already well and truly immune without recourse to vaccinating most of the population, but these places with early success were susceptible to the new strains. This might suggest S africa is better protected from deaths now because it relied upon natural infections rather than vaccines.

The November 2020 lockdown seems to have halted the rise of new cases for about a month, it created a stop in the rise of new deaths for about the same time as its duration. But it really didnt drop deaths as it was claimed it would. Presumably therefore it failed as a 'circuit breaker' as claimed for it. It was intended to drop cases so they stayed at the same rate. Well, it looks like it halted further rise, but that does not seem to have achieved anything in the end.

[Danny]

Recently the question of early estimates of the covid death rate came up, and I said that at the start this was around 20%. Someone disputed this. Anyway, heres an exert from a paper talking about modelling, where it actually argues that Ferguson et al modelling the epidemic argued there must be far more cases in china than they were reporting, and the 20% rate was way too high. The irony of course is that even though modellers may have seen that at outset the claimed death rate was impossibly high, they still accepted rates more like 2%. Well, thats x10 lower than China was sugesting, but its still pushing x10 higher than actually happened in Europe. And maybe still another x10 higher than what really happened in China. Japan death rate was more like 0.01%, especially in the first two years they had hardly any deaths compared to others despite no lockdowns etc.

" From reporting modellers’ estimates of how many people were already infected, press discussion soon moved on to estimates of mortality rates. In that respect, the suggestion that case numbers were being systematically under-reported provided grounds for a degree of reassurance. Writing in The Telegraph on 10 February, global health security correspondent Anne Gulland questioned reports that had been circulating of a 20% mortality rate for Covid cases. This figure was hugely inflated, she suggested, ‘because only the most severe cases of the disease in China are being tested’. According to Ferguson, she noted, a similar failure to record cases with mild symptoms had characterized ‘the influenza pandemics of the 20th century’, leading to under-estimates of the true infection rate. If that was true of Covid too, she observed, it would likely indicate a much lower mortality rate than reported (TE001). She reiterated that view a week later: While concern was mounting that Covid might now be spreading undetected outside China, ‘mathematical modellers at Imperial College, London believe that only one in 10 cases of the disease are being recorded in China and the true death is likely to be much lower’ (TE002). ."

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03063127221126166 Domesticating models: On the contingency of Covid-19 modelling in UK media and policy
Lukas Engelmann orcid.org/0000-0002-2175-0156 [e-mail], Catherine M Montgomery orcid.org/0000-0002-5829-6137, […], and Cristina Moreno Lozano

Its funny how UK researchers could spot the mote in Chinese eyes, but not the beam in their own.

[Danny]

And on how many deaths and cases might have been expected in hospital in Hastings winter 19/20 if the town had the disease then instead of spring.

 Here's a chart from the ONS showing where excess deaths took place in 2020. Which said the majority of extra deaths were in care homes. Which agrees perfectly with the stats above about how few people were really admitted to hospital with covid. If you look at the shortfall of hospital deaths after the surge passed, and subtract that from the surge of cases, there really wasnt much at all excess death in hospital that year. Which mirrors a rise in deaths at home over the same period post the epidemic.  Care homes returned to baseline after the covid surge, but it looks as though the rise in private home deaths for the rest of the year was more than the fall in hospital deaths. Which suggests again that the disruption caused by the epidemic led to excess deaths too. Any place which didnt have that disruption would not have had those excess deaths.

 

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19in10charts/2020-09-24

So one possible answer to your contention, if there was a surge of deaths in Hastings winter 19/20 from covid, why didnt it show up in hospital admissions, may be found in that half the people who died in that spring from covid were already living in care homes or hospices, and they died there without ever going to hospital. And nor would they have gone to hospital in Hastings winter 19/20. It was assumed the NHS was turning away covid patients from care homes, and maybe it was. But the truth might be care homes just do not send elderly and already frail people to hospital at all, considering it better they die in their home than go through hospital admission if they get that sort of disease.

Theres another interesting ONS page about excess deaths March 2020 to december 2021 at www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessdeathsinenglandandwales/march2020todecember2021

Amongst other things it says there was a shortfall of non-covid hospital deaths of about 50,000 over that period. Small shortfalls in deaths in care homes and hospices. An increase in deaths in private homes, which about balances out. In numbers they say there was a shortfall of female non covid deaths about 4000, but a surplus 12000 men.

[alec]

Keep digging Danny. Totally pointless, but grimly amusing to those of us watching the scale of the rabbit hole you are excavating now.

You really do take missing the point and elevate it to an art form.

Forget where deaths occurred for now. Just concentrate on deaths. We've already been through the Hastings expected death totals, and those expected from respiratory infections, and we've already proven that any additional death toll from an undiscovered covid outbreak would have blown apart the average annual expected deaths in your small town. Doesn't matter if they were admitted to hospital or died in care. If they died, they would have been counted.

[lens]

Nov 29, 2023 1:42:45 GMT Danny said:

If you look at Uk deaths from covid, there are three distinct phases. About 60,000 deaths in the first wave spring 2020. A pause for three months. About 90,000 deaths in the second wave winter 20/21. A pause for three months. Then a steady rate of deaths every day from jul 21 to now, amounting to another 80,000............. Based on deaths, the second wave seems to have been entirely unaffected by vaccinations and ended as did the first when herd immunity was achieved. Quite how we describe the third wave beats me so far, but since as many have died more or less as in either of the first two waves - it doesnt suggest the vaccines actually worked!

Danny You've really excelled yourself there. Wow. You've pointed out how the second wave "seems to have been entirely unaffected by vaccinations" and conclude that "it doesnt suggest the vaccines actually worked!" What insight!

Errr. Well, it would be if it wasn't for the fact that the second wave largely happened *BEFORE* the vaccination was even underway!! Remember Christmas being cancelled in 2020? Yet even the very first vaccinations didn't start until January 2021. So yes, you're right when you say the second wave was unaffected by vaccinations - even the strongest vaccine advocate would never claim they can work before they could ever have been given. For God's sake......

And do you not understand the importance of trying to compare like with like? Or at least to make allowances if you can't? What's the sense of comparing the first two waves (of maybe a couple of months each) with a period of nearly 30 months up until now? Not only that, with vastly different circumstances. The deaths in the first two waves happened *in spite of* a raft of measures designed to limit such deaths - remember lockdown in Spring 2020? Remember Christmas 2020 being cancelled, restaurants etc shut? Yet what you describe as the third wave was not only over a much longer time period, but against a backdrop of no restrictions at all - theatres, pubs and restaurants open, crowded trains....... Hardly like for like. If you did have an ounce of insight, you may conclude that such is a pretty good suggestion that vaccines actually work pretty well. Not 100%, but pretty good. (Seatbelts likewise don't save 100% of car crash vistims, but they do save a hell of a lot.)

{EDIT} Oh, and while we're at it, don't forget that later in 2021 and into 2022, the figures for deaths and hospitalisation were overwhelmingly biased towards the totally unvaccinated! I don't have any recent figures, but from memory for that period, I believe it was a vaccination rate of around 90%, yet of those in hospital with Covid it was about 90% who had not been vaccinated. If nothing else does, that latter fact strongly suggests to me that vaccines worked pretty well, if not 100%.

Nov 29, 2023 1:42:45 GMT Danny said:

Incidentally, per head of population China has one of the lowest death rates in the world. All this arguing about whether their measures were effective, far fewer died than in the UK. This is part of the pattern of all countries in that part of the world having way lower death rates than Europe. Whatever they did or didnt do. They could have had just as many cases as anywhere else, they just didnt die from them.

But do you believe the Chinese figures!? Because I don't. They are widely believed to have been grossly downplayed, the real figure being more embarrassing to a totalitarian regime. Even within European countries any exact comparison is difficult, owing to differeing methodologies (the died from or with chestnut, again) but that's without any deliberate intent to massage the figures.

Nov 29, 2023 1:42:45 GMT Danny said:

This is where examples of places without interventions or without vaccines become important. On this score, maybe I should remind people of South Africa, which only ever vaccinated 40% of its population, and where covid deaths seem to have stopped dead from approx the start of 22 onwards. ...................... This might suggest S africa is better protected from deaths now because it relied upon natural infections rather than vaccines.

Or alternatively, it might suggest the age profile in South Africa is reponsible? Or the climate? For South Africa the age distribution is given as "roughly 22.12 million were aged 0-19, while 609,000 people were 80 years or older." for a total population of about 60 million. In the UK it's reckoned there are well over 3 million people over 80, and about 600,000 over 90, for a total population less than 10 % greater! You are frequently mentioning just how much more at risk an elderly person is if they catch Covid - do you not think age distribution may be a far more likely explanation for the discrepancies you describe than your theories of how infection induced immunity is somehow better than from vaccines.

As I've said before, for heaven's sake just try to compare like with like, rather than plucking numbers from thin air without thought, just because they seem to support your wild hypotheses.

[Danny]

Nov 29, 2023 11:00:02 GMT alec said:

Forget where deaths occurred for now. Just concentrate on deaths. We've already been through the Hastings expected death totals, and those expected from respiratory infections, and we've already proven that any additional death toll from an undiscovered covid outbreak would have blown apart the average annual expected deaths in your small town.

And who would know? There are no published figures how many people died in Hastings winter 19/20. We only have such numbers published now because they began doing this because of covid. And those are only for deaths from covid. We have no way to know if there was a surge of hastings deaths, or not. But we have established most of those deaths would have been in care homes, and most of those people it seems likely would never have been taken to any hospital.

I spoke to someone from a care home who said they did have a wave of deaths. I have no idea the scale. But nor would anyone in authority in Hastings know. Wonder if they keep count at the local cemetary?

What is certain however, is there was no wave of bodies anyone noticed. And no reason why there should have been one, based upon actual experience of deaths from covid anywhere on the planet. I keep mentioning, you never respond with any examples of massive covid death, because it just never happened. Our rates were pretty typical for a country like us in Europe, 0.1% per wave, about 0.4% over 4 years, so 0.1% per year. That is a ceiling for how bad it could have been in Hastings. The Japanese policy of having few special measures beyond alerting the public achieved 0.01%. Our actual outcome was pretty bad. The big secret here is that what was done may have made outcome worse.

Doesn't matter if they were admitted to hospital or died in care. If they died, they would have been counted.

Yes. I dare say its in a book somewhere. Who knows what the total is? No one at all? Tell me who knows how many people died in Hastings winter 19/20? Where are the stats?

Incidentally, it strikes me its quite likely people in care homes with dementia (I looked that up before, most do have dementia), who have a very limited life expectancy, might very well not wish to be transferred to a hospital if they get flu, they and their relatives might see it as a merciful release.

It raises the question whether the fight to prevent covid death amounted to denying people a death they and their families wanted.

[Danny]

Nov 29, 2023 15:32:24 GMT lens said:

Well, it would be if it wasn't for the fact that the second wave largely happened *BEFORE* the vaccination was even underway!

They started on 8 december, officially with 90 year old Margaret Keenan. 15 million first doses were given by 14 feb (approximateley all high risk and over 70s, should have covered most deaths). 1 million by end of December. (thats the million at greatest risk)

! Remember Christmas being cancelled in 2020?

Yes...

Yet even the very first vaccinations didn't start until January 2021.

No. Astra zeneca vaccinations began Jan, but pfizer began december. Although the second doses intended to be 1 month later were delayed to allow more peope to get their first dose. I seem to remember it was reckoned about a month was needed to get to full strength, but presumably even days before you were exposed would grant a head start in developing antibodies.  This issue was all analysed at the time.  Wiki says 18 Jan they started on over 70s, whereas in december they began with over 80s, care home residents and their carers. See other posts though, how 1/4 to 1/2 of all first wave deaths were from care homes, so thats them all done by Jan? ought to have slashed the deaths. Deaths from that wave started to tail off mid feb, clearly ending end of March. Theres really no indication in the deaths figures that the November lockdown, or similar as you say from christmas, made any difference at all to the deaths rate. (eg world in data, ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/finland?country=JPN~GBR~DEU~KOR~SWE~ZAF#what-is-the-cumulative-number-of-confirmed-deaths)

On this timescale and assuming half of deaths were coming from care homes as per first wave, the December vaccination campaign ought to have had a noticeable effect on deaths before the end came, but it isnt evident from deaths numbers. Unless it didnt actually make much difference?

And do you not understand the importance of trying to compare like with like? Or at least to make allowances if you can't? What's the sense of comparing the first two waves (of maybe a couple of months each) with a period of nearly 30 months up until now?

I'd say thats obvious. Its the same basic virus. Did each wave turn out the same? Looking at it, the first two had pretty much the same outcomes despite different interventions. The third was very different. And this pattern is repeated all over the world. (although on that link, as I mentined before i picked South Africa as an example of countries where covid seems to have ended at the start of 2022, after the country allowed it to run its course not vaccinating 60% of the people. Its a bit disconcerting if nations which vaccinated everyone created an all year round epidemic, and those who didnt did not experience this.

Not only that, with vastly different circumstances. The deaths in the first two waves happened *in spite of* a raft of measures designed to limit such deaths

Alec raised some interesting questions whether the normal treatment for many of those who died, would have been to just let them die whatever they happened to pick up in the next few months. Because they were so close to death anyway and with terrible quality of life (ie dementia). Which begs the question why we changed normal policy and tried to keep them alive - oh, no, we didnt change normal policy, they never went to hospital to try to save them, they were just allowed to die at home (ie care home/hospice) as normal. But then this all got rolled into the 'terrible' toll of covid.

Yet what you describe as the third wave was not only over a much longer time period, but against a backdrop of no restrictions at all - theatres, pubs and restaurants open, crowded trains....... Hardly like for like. If you did have an ounce of insight, you may conclude that such is a pretty good suggestion that vaccines actually work pretty well. Not 100%, but pretty good.

Two things. Frst, still 80,000 and climbing died in this third wave. So the death toll is much the same. It just that instead of one big peak, we got pretty much constant every day disease. You are arguing that absent restrictions and absent vaccine the deaths would have been much worse. Only in wave 2 interventions didnt make much difference. That on again/off again stuff should have made a difference to deaths, it didnt. I have explained the evidence that we achieved herd immunity in parts of the UK in the first wave before lockdown. The people who die are mostly the old and infirm. They cannot die unless there is an active outbreak, so they catch it from someone else (usually much younger). What we have achieved in the third wave is a constant active outbreak 2 years long amongst the young, which picked off people at a steady rate amongst the old.

Oh, and while we're at it, don't forget that later in 2021 and into 2022, the figures for deaths and hospitalisation were overwhelmingly biased towards the totally unvaccinated!

But who were these people? I have yet to see any proper analysis why these people were not vaccinated. Do you know of one?

It seems likely, very likely, most people in risk groups who refused vaccinations did so for medical reasons. And so we are going round in circles that the people who died from covid were always those in high risk groups, for whom vaccines would be least effective if they got sick (ok, every little helps), and some of whom were recommended not to have vaccines. And for people who couldnt have a vaccine so needed to isolate, we created the very worst possible national situation with permanent million circulating cases at all times for two years. How could they successfully shield?

Oh, and remember the trials data showing vaccines succeeded in suppressing covid cases and deaths were never conducted on these high risk groups of sick pensioners. Medical trials never are, for fear of killing someone.

I don't have any recent figures, but from memory for that period, I believe it was a vaccination rate of around 90%,..

I'm not sure it wasnt more like 95 or 99% in high risk groups advised to vaccinate. Fell off a bit with additional doses.

...yet of those in hospital with Covid it was about 90% who had not been vaccinated.

Indeed. But its all very reminiscent of the saga in Wuhan back at the end of 2019, where they claimed up to 20% mortality rate because the small groups they were looking at had many deaths. Here we might be looking at the small group of sick people who therefore didnt get vaccinated, and then surprise surprise succumbed to covid. Just as in the first wave the death rate amongst care homes was massive, but therefore the risk was proportionatly far smaller even for people of the same age still fit enought to be living independently. This entire epidemic has been characterised by people highly vulnerable to just about anything...dying from covid too. And then claims we all shared that same risk.

Nov 29, 2023 1:42:45 GMT Danny said:

Incidentally, per head of population China has one of the lowest death rates in the world. All this arguing about whether their measures were effective, far fewer died than in the UK. This is part of the pattern of all countries in that part of the world having way lower death rates than Europe. Whatever they did or didnt do. They could have had just as many cases as anywhere else, they just didnt die from them.

But do you believe the Chinese figures!? Because I don't.

I believe the Japanese figures. However medical disbelief in the Chinese figures has prinicpally been led by arguments they couldnt possibly be as low as claimed, because firstly of the original western claims covid is so deadly even though it never has been anywhere ever, and then secondly because the west did so badly compared to the pacific rim. (ie, they must be lying, to justify how come we did so badly)

They are widely believed to have been grossly downplayed, the real figure being more embarrassing to a totalitarian regime.

I have no doubt they massively under counted cases. But thats easy to do. Not counting deaths is harder. As an example, the west has been counting how many russian soldiers have been killed not from official figures but from funeral notices. Well maybe no one notices funerals of Grannies unlike young soldiers)

Nov 29, 2023 1:42:45 GMT Danny said:

This is where examples of places without interventions or without vaccines become important. On this score, maybe I should remind people of South Africa, which only ever vaccinated 40% of its population, and where covid deaths seem to have stopped dead from approx the start of 22 onwards. ...................... This might suggest S africa is better protected from deaths now because it relied upon natural infections rather than vaccines.

Or alternatively, it might suggest the age profile in South Africa is reponsible? Or the climate? For South Africa the age distribution is given as "roughly 22.12 million were aged 0-19, while 609,000 people were 80 years or older." for a total population of about 60 million. In the UK it's reckoned there are well over 3 million people over 80, and about 600,000 over 90, for a total population less than 10 % greater! You are frequently mentioning just how much more at risk an elderly person is if they catch Covid - do you not think age distribution may be a far more likely explanation for the discrepancies you describe than your theories of how infection induced immunity is somehow better than from vaccines.

I think the population adjusted deaths pattern is the same. Those grannies they do have, didnt die at our rate. Although I do think even amongst the old, it wasnt age per se which saw them off, but infirmity, and in S Africa its very likely the few oldster survivors were fit ones. However this still leaves us with the conclusion it was a tiny groups truly at risk from covid, and in the Uk many who died were barely living anyway. Remember Terry Pratchet campaigning for the right to suicide rather than wait for alzheimers to get him?

As I've said before, for heaven's sake just try to compare like with like, rather than plucking numbers from thin air without thought, just because they seem to support your wild hypotheses.

We cannot compare like with like because no one ever did a controlled trial to really find out how many covid would kill absent interventions. Such situations as we have suggest it would have been at worst no worse to have had fewer interventions, and at best potentially significantly better.

[Danny]

Heres a nice graph from the ONS for covid deaths sep 20 to aug 21. It divides results by region. from webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20221108220140/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-to-31-august-2021-report#cfr-by-age


This usefully illustrates a couple of things about the second wave. For starters, it was really two waves. The graph shows two peaks, the first smaller one (November) only happens in certain areas, broadly N England, and is the resumed original wuhan strain when schools reopened. There is a good argument therefore that a number of deaths from this wave, those in the first peak, should have been accounted to the original wuhan strain, not the new kent strain. This would even up the death rates from the two strains. The lesson from this peak is that the S achieved herd immunity to the first strain before or during lockdown, whereas the N, not so much. Potentially this peak was cut off by the November lockdown, but in the S there was nothing to cut off. The implication is S England had covid in spring as badly as it ever could have happened, even without interventions. The other implication, interventions only delayed the ultimate outcome, they never prevented them (but that one has always been accepted).

The lowest rates of all happened in SW region, which I have argued also had covid in 2019. Note that its Jan peak is delayed compared to other regions, presumably reflecting the new Kent wave began in, er, Kent, and had to spread across the country just as far to reach the SW as the North. And considering travel patterns, would have fairly readily entered London and then spread from there more easily N than SW. Makes sense it would be slower to reach SW. The peak is one of the lowest, though Yorkshire and Humber is lower which also had the highest peak in the November Spike. The fact these are so low compared to eg London, suggests something cut them off. The obvious thing would be the vaccination campaign commencing December. Because the SW rise began later as the disease spread, there was more time for vaccination to work before it hit.

London then had the worst of the second strain wave. Didnt get much resumption of the wuhan strain beause of herd immunity, butit was one of the earliest to get Kent strain before vaccination began. Looks as though the November lockdown was inadequate to reduce spread of cases, but did stave off rise of cases. This suggests it was far less effectual than the experts claimed, it could never have worked as a 'circuit breaker' dropping back cases to a lower leel, all it mnaged was to keep them steady. And that begs the question how it could have done this back in April, when it was unable to do it in November. WHich in turn suggests it didnt do so in April either. Which coupled with the fact from above that the S achieved herd immunity back in April, it suggests the spring outbreak in the south simply ended more or less naturally and lockdown was irrelevant.

Yorkshire, NE and NW are interesting in that the two peaks are more merged into one plateaued constant outbreak. While this may still have an element of the Kent wave being cut off by vaccination, its also possible that immunity from the renewed Wuhan strain after schools reopened is depressing cases of the Kent strain. Immunity remains high for a month or two after infection/vaccination, so these people would probably have been the best protected in the UK at that point in time from the new strain. 

We now know that neither infection or vaccination immunity last, and reinfection becomes possible although severity seems to remain reduced. Although this looks to me evidence the vaccination program halted deaths from the kent strain up to that summer, it doesnt tell us whether the exact same strain of covid could not have resumed killing after the vaccine effects had waned. This graph shows deaths rising again from July.

Oh, and also note that if this wave was indeed cut off by vaccinations before it could run its course, that was only vaccinating approximately people over 70. Consitent with the S African position on never vaccinating tthe lower 60% of the population. The rest was a waste of money and might even have made matters worse, certainly S africa has been doing better than us for a couple of years now.

[lens]

Nov 29, 2023 20:24:45 GMT Danny said:

Nov 29, 2023 15:32:24 GMT lens said:

Well, it would be if it wasn't for the fact that the second wave largely happened *BEFORE* the vaccination was even underway!

They started on 8 december, officially with 90 year old Margaret Keenan. 15 million first doses were given by 14 feb (approximateley all high risk and over 70s, should have covered most deaths). 1 million by end of December. (thats the million at greatest risk)
........Astra zeneca vaccinations began Jan, but pfizer began december. Although the second doses intended to be 1 month later were delayed to allow more peope to get their first dose. I seem to remember it was reckoned about a month was needed to get to full strength, .........

I do stand corrected on the Pfizer vaccinations, I was tied up with Astra-Zeneca widespread rollout, but it doesn't substantially change the argument. It took a couple of weeks at least for them to start to have any effect, and was limited without the second dose. Even with the Pfizer December vaccinations, there would be little effect before at least the end of December, and likely late February-March before it was substantial in the population.

And it's Thursday, time for this weeks statistics of patient admissions! coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England And this week another drop, this time of 7%. But look at the historical graph, and especially the second wave. It's pretty obvious the peak comes for the figures of the 15th January. Oh, almost as if the vaccination programme might be starting to have some effect after that! Whatever, I'd still maintain the "second wave largely happened *BEFORE* the vaccination was even underway".

Nov 29, 2023 20:24:45 GMT Danny said:

Nov 29, 2023 15:32:24 GMT lens said:

And do you not understand the importance of trying to compare like with like? Or at least to make allowances if you can't? What's the sense of comparing the first two waves (of maybe a couple of months each) with a period of nearly 30 months up until now? Yet what you describe as the third wave was not only over a much longer time period, but against a backdrop of no restrictions at all - theatres, pubs and restaurants open, crowded trains....... Hardly like for like.

I'd say thats obvious. Its the same basic virus. Did each wave turn out the same? ............ The third was very different. .......Its a bit disconcerting if nations which vaccinated everyone created an all year round epidemic, and those who didnt did not experience this.

Danny - again just look at the graph of hospital admissions. It's not a case of "three waves". Rather two strong peaks, then what you call the "third wave" is a succession of further peaks or waves, decreasing in amplitude throughout. You just can't lump in total figures from a period many times longer than your first two "waves", and a period with virtually no measures in force, find it comparable to a number for a period of just a couple of months and try to do a like for like comparison.

Nov 29, 2023 20:24:45 GMT Danny said:

Nov 29, 2023 15:32:24 GMT lens said:

Oh, and while we're at it, don't forget that later in 2021 and into 2022, the figures for deaths and hospitalisation were overwhelmingly biased towards the totally unvaccinated!

But who were these people? I have yet to see any proper analysis why these people were not vaccinated. Do you know of one?

It seems likely, very likely, most people in risk groups who refused vaccinations did so for medical reasons. And so we are going round in circles that the people who died from covid were always those in high risk groups, for whom vaccines would be least effective if they got sick............

As it happens, yes. In the one particular case I know well, it's for pretty extreme religious views and due to a connection with tissue from an abortion many decades ago. It's a very extreme view, and way beyond the views of the Catholic Church. I disagree with it, but it is I suppose more logical than the real conspiracy theorists who believe it's all down to 5G and Bill Gates supposedly injecting microchips. A more common reason seems to be fear of side effects, and failure to comprehend the whole balance of risk equation. There are occasional side effects from vaccines - but for the vast majority of people the benefits grossly outweigh any risk.

I don't think it's on i-player anymore, but a very good programme looking at this was made by Hannah Fry a while ago - www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jul/20/unvaccinated-review-the-most-infuriating-tv-show-of-the-year-so-far And all my personal experience was that on the whole, older and those with known medical conditions were LESS likely to refuse the vaccine - they tended to realise there was more at stake!

A particularly memorable part of the programme was taking one of the participants to a hospital and going through the data on the patients on the wards with them. It gave exact data on the hugely disproportionate percentage ill in the hospital who were unvaccinated, compared to the population as a whole. Danny - vaccines work. End of.

There are numerous other studies showing similar. I especially remember a study alec gave which correlated death rates compared between Republicans and Democrats, and showed how the rates were very similar up until vaccination started - then diverged, with excess deaths amongst (less likely to be vaccinated) Republicans being much higher. (Interestingly, there was little difference in the previous 6 months, which tends to indicate that community masking had little or no effect - Republicans also being far less likely to wear a mask than a Democrat.)

Danny - vaccines work.

Nov 29, 2023 20:24:45 GMT Danny said:

Nov 29, 2023 15:32:24 GMT lens said:

As I've said before, for heaven's sake just try to compare like with like, rather than plucking numbers from thin air without thought, just because they seem to support your wild hypotheses.

We cannot compare like with like because no one ever did a controlled trial to really find out how many covid would kill absent interventions. Such situations as we have suggest it would have been at worst no worse to have had fewer interventions, and at best potentially significantly better.

And if you bothered to take note, then that is exactly why I have brought up New Zealand countless times. Nobody COULD do a formal controlled trial for very valid ethical reasons. But the circumstances of New Zealand compared to the UK, with substantially **similar** ethnic make ups of population, and with NZ having virtually no exposure to Covid until well post vaccination rollout is pretty close to exactly such a controlled trial!

And - eventually - the cumulative death toll is roughly only a third per capita of that in the UK, and would have been a lot less if NZ had had a 100% vaccine takeup. All else equal, if the UK population could have (magically) been vaccinated before the first case was in the country, it's likely the UK death rate would have been roughly a third of what it was.

No, that doesn't give any information about other interventions - lockdown, mask mandates, the app, LFT tests, T&T etc etc - and I'm sceptical about how much real benefit some of those gave myself, certainly on a value for money basis. But a different story with vaccines.

Danny - vaccines work. End of.

[Danny]

Dec 1, 2023 0:42:30 GMT lens said:

It took a couple of weeks at least for them to start to have any effect, and was limited without the second dose.

yes to some benefit after 2 weeks, but the point of the second dose is I think about durability as much as instantaneous effect, ie the antibody reaction at that time would have been significant.

Even with the Pfizer December vaccinations, there would be little effect before at least the end of December, and likely late February-March before it was substantial in the population.

What I originally said is that it was unclear whether vaccines would have had an effect or not in the second wave. The spread of deaths looks much like the first wave, as if it was essentially the same, and very different to the third wave which is clearly post vaccinations for the nation.

But look at the historical graph, and especially the second wave. It's pretty obvious the peak comes for the figures of the 15th January.

I looked at deaths figures, and they come later than cases being reported, maybe you might expect another ten days, its hard to tell. A big issue is that 1/3 to 1/2 of the deaths in the first wave came from care homes, who were top priority for vaccination and so should have been done in December, and should therefore have made a massive change to deaths, but not to cases. Cases in england peaked 3 Jan, deaths 19 jan. On the other hand, this is misleading because its a summation of local effects, so eg Manchester had cases peak 3 Jan, but deaths 5 Feb. In Manchester however there were two clear peaks of deaths, with a preceding one at 27 Nov. If the entire first two tranches of all over 70 was vaccinated, it should have hugely cut deaths if effective, but had negligble effect on overall cases (because young people have always had most of the cases and fewest of the deaths). If vaccines worked, we would expect a big reduction in the deaths but no change in the general number of cases. Vaccination of over 65s began 15 feb, so I guess thats also the endpoint for the older groups finishing. It ended before vaccines could have cut cases.

Oh, almost as if the vaccination programme might be starting to have some effect after that! Whatever, I'd still maintain the "second wave largely happened *BEFORE* the vaccination was even underway".

Someone from the high risk group should have had decent vaccine efect by end Jan. So fall of deaths end feb. According to the national archives chart of cases for second wave (posted above), they were already well falling by then. But thats worst case, you surely would have expected some effect on deaths by End Jan.  On the whole however I agree with you, because if we look at local figures there are at least some example where all this is happening earlier compared to the national vaccination program. Its not clear to me we really know how many deaths have been prevented by vaccinations. There is a case here that they didnt prevent any deaths in waves one or two because too late.  But there might be evidence they should have had an impact on the deaths in wave 2, with the total falling off before cases fell off. And we didnt see it. 

again just look at the graph of hospital admissions. It's not a case of "three waves". Rather two strong peaks, then what you call the "third wave" is a succession of further peaks or waves, decreasing in amplitude throughout. You just can't lump in total figures from a period many times longer than your first two "waves", and a period with virtually no measures in force, find it comparable to a number for a period of just a couple of months and try to do a like for like comparison.

yes, I can. I would define one epidemic (or outbreak or wave or whatever word we are using) as the period of time in which a specific pathogen was circulating and killing people. Thus I define the first outbreak as from early 2020 to about November 2020 (leaving aside the issue of 2019), with the first strain, which came back in northern england but not southern. This overlapped the second epidemic of the new kent/alpha strain,  with both together in its early stages. So from maybe October 2020 to mid 21. I dont know without checking whether cases of the kent strain continued later or resumed. I gather all the deaths from the third wave are down to the same strain, and so they are also one epidemic. Note, it is possible to have more than one epidemic with different viruses at the same time! The definition of a 'different' virus is a bit arbitrary, for example earlier sars corona viruses also create immunity which works against this covid 19, and vice versa. They arent as different as it might seem. Its like a construction set where the same parts are used in slightly different ways. However the namers seem to have taken a definition of sufficient changes to be able to reinfect when a previous strain had failed due to established immunity.

The evidence is we achieved herd immunity to the first strain, and thats why it has disappeared. Viruses do not compete with each other as if they were seats on a train, only one person at a time can sit there. Its more like each virus is issued with a one time ticket, every virus could be attacking at the same time, but once one has used its ticket it cannot travel again. Obviosly thats a simplification and reinfection occurs over time. But for the first two waves we do not seem to have had much reinfection with that same strain. It was pretty classic rise and fall, even briefly exponential rise as advertised. But both times it halted way below seemingly infecting most of the population. We dont really know if thats true, because we have no real measure on completely asymptomatic cases, where it just bounced, used its ticket, but there no symptoms. The big mistake in all of this has been lack of knowledge of how many people just never got ill and would never have got ill.  

Its also very clear this should have been modelled as a split herd always, whether special measures were in force or not. Roughly the young spreading the disease and having most cases but little disease needing medical intervention. The old not sustaining transmission between them ever, but when infected  by the young, getting the cases which needed medical treatment. And even amongst them deaths are hugely concentrated amongst those already in poorest health for their age.

So yes, the third wave is one continuous wave, two years long. A million cases at any time, rising to two million in the peaks. A massive continuous outbreak, just little severe disease.  That takes some explaining and I have yet to hear any official explanation.  And in total at its slow day by day rate, its killed just as many as the first two waves each did. If what we did simply swapped big peaks for all round steady death, thats handy I guess for the NHS, but it hasnt saved anyone.

Nov 29, 2023 20:24:45 GMT Danny said:

But who were these people? I have yet to see any proper analysis why these people were not vaccinated. Do you know of one?

It seems likely, very likely, most people in risk groups who refused vaccinations did so for medical reasons. And so we are going round in circles that the people who died from covid were always those in high risk groups, for whom vaccines would be least effective if they got sick............

As it happens, yes. In the one particular case I know well, it's for pretty extreme religious views and due to a connection with tissue from an abortion many decades ago. It's a very extreme view, and way beyond the views of the Catholic Church. I disagree with it, but it is I suppose more logical than the real conspiracy theorists who believe it's all down to 5G and Bill Gates supposedly injecting microchips. A more common reason seems to be fear of side effects, and failure to comprehend the whole balance of risk equation. There are occasional side effects from vaccines - but for the vast majority of people the benefits grossly outweigh any risk.

You are citing anecdotes. I also cited anecdotes of people saying they were not vaccinated because of mainstream medical advice it was dangerous for them. Noteably people who are immune compromised, of which there seem to be a surprising number, and who therefore might also be especially susceptible to covid. A group you might argue doomed to die and become covid statistics, because doctors told them vaccines would not help, but we have this constant circulating virus - the exact opposite of what vaccines were hoped to create by eradicating the disease.

Myself I didnt get vaccinated, on the basis of the arguments I set out why I believe I had covid in 2019. When I did eventually get a test confirmed covid infection, it was just a mild cold.  Nothing to even  notice beyond a mild nuisance, would never have bothered about it pre 2020. The only possible serious covid infection I had was the one back in November 2019. So I was right in not being vaccinated, it would have done me no good whatever.  Amongst those who  chose not to be vaccinated, some will have chosen correctly because  they knew they had already been infected.

It gave exact data on the hugely disproportionate percentage ill in the hospital who were unvaccinated, compared to the population as a whole. Danny - vaccines work. End of.

I just gave an example why they would not work. Because vaccines work best for the young, who never needed them anyway against covid. The sicker you are already, the less well vaccines work. That isnt just a problem with covid but all similar illnesses, same with flu. It seems likely the common cold kills such people every year.  Coming back to the million vaccinations performed in 2020 on the the highest risk patients particularly in care homes, this group was also probably  the group who had least effect from the vaccines they received in the whole population. Which isnt to say even a weaker effect didnt help them, but because their immune systems were no longer working well it both made them susceptible to covid and getting least benefit from vaccine.  There is always going to be a group who cannot be helped by vaccines. And this group has always accounted for many of the deaths, and presumably is doing so now.

Danny - vaccines work.

yes, but it is also unarguable they have failed to deliver on their more optimistic outcomes. They failed to create herd immunity to covid in general. They failed to prevent repeat infections, best you can say is they created milder disease for some.  So the question is how much they helped those who would have died or been hospitalised without them. I dont know any evidence of how much that was? (hint: the ongoing deaths at about half the annual rate in the third wave compared to 1 and 2, is not encouraging.) 

Nov 29, 2023 20:24:45 GMT Danny said:

We cannot compare like with like because no one ever did a controlled trial to really find out how many covid would kill absent interventions. Such situations as we have suggest it would have been at worst no worse to have had fewer interventions, and at best potentially significantly better.

And if you bothered to take note, then that is exactly why I have brought up New Zealand countless times. Nobody COULD do a formal controlled trial for very valid ethical reasons. But the circumstances of New Zealand compared to the UK, with substantially **similar** ethnic make ups of population, and with NZ having virtually no exposure to Covid until well post vaccination rollout is pretty close to exactly such a controlled trial!

No. My contention is that populations in this region already had significant immunity to covid from previous related infections, and thats how they succeeded in blocking it. Ethnically they may be similar to UK, but not in past history. Its not a coincidence I suggest this, its because there was evidence that cross immunity exists, evidence of corona virus infections in these countries in recent years and it accounts for the otherwise odd fact how come its only this region of the world where countries managed to keep out covid.  Its interesting Japan and S Korea started getting more cases from the start of 22. Most of their deaths have been since then. Japan never having had lockdown or special rules such as banning big gatherings, and you recall was so not fussed it held the olympics. China too has a tiny death rate despite being the originating point of all covid so you cannot claim they were prepared from the outset. They must have had their first cases mid 2019 or earlier.  Its likely that by now the new strains have evolved to overcome immunity which worked against the first two strains. Well, obviously they have. But thats why Japan started getting infections.  Following this, had NZ or indeed S Korea never locked down, their outcomes would have been more like Japan than Europe.   If you dont believe this, then at least for Japan you have to explain how come their society had minimal covid without doing more than warn people. But began getting cases two years later. Its like Hastings having minimal disease during the first official wave period, but then going back to the same as everywhere else when the new strain came along. Because it had covid over winter 19/20 without noticing.

And actually, the ethics of carrying out a controlled study on a population of a few million would not have been so clear cut as it might seem. Having the information this would have provided would have optimised actions for populations of billions. The classic problem of weighing the benefits for one lot against potential harm for another.

And - eventually - the cumulative death toll is roughly only a third per capita of that in the UK, and would have been a lot less if NZ had had a 100% vaccine takeup. All else equal, if the UK population could have (magically) been vaccinated before the first case was in the country, it's likely the UK death rate would have been roughly a third of what it was.

I dont disagre that vaccination back in 2019 would have slashed the death rate (in Europe). My issue is after two waves where I think you agree we had the deaths anyway, it was already too late for vaccines to do much good. The epidemiologists thought this too, thats why they tried to suppress covid, so there would not be cases before the vaccine arrived. But if you agree we had those two waves which ended by herd immunity, then it was already too late. Subtract away those first two waves, and suddenly we have the same death rate as you say for NZ? Which would still be way above the rate for Japan. ie, we had the first two waves anway depite all the costly interventions. Once the Uk was infected it was already too late and we might as well have just got on with managing it, as per the traditional national epidemic plan. There would have been far less economic cost, far less loss of liberty, schoolling, other care,  and the same ultimate outcome as NZ- aside from those two waves we couldnt stop anyway.

The grand experiment in trying to suppress covid until a vaccine arrived...failed.

 Deaths have continued after the  second wave  at maybe half the annual rate, but steady day by day. (however, in other countries they do seem to have halted, so there is a chance this slowly falling covid permanent circulation in the Uk will end eventually).  We should have used a split herd model, it doesnt matter if the safe 2/3 get vaccinated, its only the high risk who will benefit from vaccines. So no, 100% takeup is no better than maybe 30% overall, but it needed to be concentrated in the high risk. But the very highest risk will still die vaccination or no. (I seem to recall the porportion of deaths amongst the unvaccinated  compared to vaccinated has fallen steadily. The vaccinated have been catching up...it is those for whom it doesnt work)

[Danny]

By the way lens (and Alec). Thanks for replying. Its very useful to be challenged on this stuff to figure out where my model is wrong.

[Danny]

Interestingly Hancock agreed in enquiry evidence that the November 2020 lockdown failed to prevent increase in the then spreading Kent strain. No surprise it worked in places where the wuhan strain had resumed folloeing schools return, because many areas just had not shown growth then anyway, and the implication has to be we had lots of immunity already to that one.

[Danny]

Dec 1, 2023 0:42:30 GMT lens said:

And it's Thursday, time for this weeks statistics of patient admissions! coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England And this week another drop, this time of 7%. But look at the historical graph, and especially the second wave.

Actually what i find curious is the first wave. The data here for number of admissions to hospitals is approximately x4 as many as in the data set published by the NHS April 2021 for that period at www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/02/Covid-Publication-06-04-2021-up-to-200731-DQnotes.xlsx. Curious?

Which do you believe and why??

[alec]

More alarm bells sounding about covid here - www.nature.com/articles/d43978-023-00179-5

This is very recent, but potentially quite worrying. The authors have identified an alternative entry method for SARS-CoV-2 to enter cells, through what is known as RAGE receptors. This is potentially significant, as monocytes, a type of white blood cell and a key part of the immune system, don't possess ACE2 receptors but instead have RAGE receptors. Quoting the authors - “RAGE activation in monocytes was already known to correlate with more severe inflammatory outcomes, diabetes and obesity, but had never been observed in the context of viral infection."

We've already seen evidence suggesting covid exacerbates and causes diabetes, and there has also been some recent work suggesting exposure to covid during pregnancy can lead to childhood obesity. Again, it's not great news. Any inflammatory response is bad news for the body, but covid keeps surprising in it's methods.

[Danny]

Dec 1, 2023 16:40:58 GMT alec said:

This is very recent, but potentially quite worrying. The authors have identified an alternative entry method for SARS-CoV-2 to enter cells, through what is known as RAGE receptors.

Ah, calm yourself and stop worrying. However they do it, we got it covered now. Evolution doesnt rely on understanding a process to devise counter measures.

[alec]

Danny - "However they do it, we got it covered now. Evolution doesnt rely on understanding a process to devise counter measures."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232212/

"The extinction of species (and larger groups) is closely tied to the process of natural selection and is thus a major component of progressive evolution."



You really are quite clueless, aren't you.

[Danny]

Dec 1, 2023 22:14:41 GMT alec said:

"The extinction of species (and larger groups) is closely tied to the process of natural selection and is thus a major component of progressive evolution."

You really are quite clueless, aren't you.

Yep, I have no idea what you meant in this post?

The battle with viruses is a very longstanding one stretching back millions of years to our far ancestors well before the emergence of humans as a distinct species. We are very very good at it. But dont forget, any virus that kills too many, or indeed any, of its hosts is actually a failure itself as a virus. There are feedback mechanisms which prevent a virus getting too deadly, because its just plain bad strategy.


But in the case of covid, its done its worst and here we all still are. The debate now is whether our own cocky clever human interventions actually made the oucome worse by interfering in a natural process which would already have optimised our survival. I take it you are not on the side of Terry Pratchett and his right to die for those already moribund, because you seem to believe it was right to force them to stay alive a bit longer when covid offered them release?

[alec]

Danny - "The battle with viruses is a very longstanding one stretching back millions of years to our far ancestors well before the emergence of humans as a distinct species. We are very very good at it."

That's utter horseshit Danny. No, humans are actually very, very bad at dealing with viruses. That's why there are so many that cause us illness. Other species within the great apes branch of evolution are only infected by a handful of viruses, (chimps around 20) but there are hundreds of viruses that cause humans severe damage because our immune systems are not well suited to combating viruses.

You are completely clueless, and you don't have the basic self awareness to go and do some research before you post anything.

[leftieliberal]

So now we know who recommended to the Government moving patients out of hospitals and into care homes without testing them.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/02/she-sacrificed-care-home-residents-health-chief-jenny-harries-under-fire-after-uk-covid-inquiry-revelations

Dame Jenny Harries - another example of someone failing upwards under the Tories.

 

[lens]

Dec 2, 2023 8:58:00 GMT Danny said:

Dec 1, 2023 22:14:41 GMT alec said:

"The extinction of species (and larger groups) is closely tied to the process of natural selection and is thus a major component of progressive evolution."

You really are quite clueless, aren't you.

The battle with viruses is a very longstanding one stretching back millions of years to our far ancestors well before the emergence of humans as a distinct species. We are very very good at it. But dont forget, any virus that kills too many, or indeed any, of its hosts is actually a failure itself as a virus. There are feedback mechanisms which prevent a virus getting too deadly, because its just plain bad strategy.

I really have got a lot of things to do other than this board, with Christmas coming, but.......!

The "battle with viruses" is not one with an intelligent entity, using cunning to try to defeat it's human foe. It's a case of random mutations - sheer luck, bad and good.

If a virus mutates in an advantageous way to itself, it's an accident - albeit one which may help it along. If a disadvantageous way, equally an accident - it's likely to die off.

But a random mutation *could* occur that is serious enough to a host to lead to the extinction of the latter. Maybe unlikely, and especially to lead to complete extinction, but........ Just think of rabbits and myxomatosis? Of course, if you are around later, you may say to the virus (just before it itself becomes extinct), "I say, virus! That was very silly of you! Mutating to get too deadly to your host! Don't you realise that it was just plain bad strategy!!? Why did you do it? Don't you realise it makes you a failure as a virus?"

And the response? Well, not a lot. Because viruses can't think, let alone hold a conversation. Let alone engineer what any mutation to themselves is. They are purely random changes. The rest is down to luck.

[Danny]

Dec 2, 2023 18:01:01 GMT alec said:

there are hundreds of viruses that cause humans severe damage because our immune systems are not well suited to combating viruses.

Yet oddly we survive dozens of infections by viruses each year without obvious harm.

And how many times are year are we actually infected but brush it off straight away? Every time we go into a busy workplace?

[alec]

Danny - "Yet oddly we survive dozens of infections by viruses each year without obvious harm."

It's that word 'obvious' again. Just because you don't see it or understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's the root of your problems here - you don't understand what your seeing, so you assume there's nothing to see.

As it happens, viruses do lots of damage to humans that other mammals suffer far less from. Arthritis, dementia, diabetes, MS, general ageing - all of these are immune system modulated.

I think it would just be so great if you could make an effort to learn a little about some of the things you post about, and then we might be able to have some intelligent conversations about them?

[Danny]

Dec 3, 2023 17:21:23 GMT alec said:

Danny - "Yet oddly we survive dozens of infections by viruses each year without obvious harm."

It's that word 'obvious' again. Just because you don't see it or understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's the root of your problems here - you don't understand what your seeing, so you assume there's nothing to see.

As it happens, viruses do lots of damage to humans that other mammals suffer far less from. Arthritis, dementia, diabetes, MS, general ageing - all of these are immune system modulated.

I think it would just be so great if you could make an effort to learn a little about some of the things you post about, and then we might be able to have some intelligent conversations about them?

Humans dont die because of viruses. Humans die because they have a ticking clock which slowly runs down and stops. If you want us to live longer, thats the problem you have to address, not viruses.

And it is possible. Some animals undergo far more cell divisions before they fall apart than we do. The inference is probably that we are at an evolutionary sweet spot where we support a couple of generations of descendants, after which we dont make much difference to their survival. It isnt viruses killing us, its our own evolutionary imperative to optmise number of descendants. The bottom line is people die so their descendants can live. Viewed in that light, what we did over covid was especially stupid.

[lens]

Dec 3, 2023 16:44:56 GMT Danny said:

Dec 2, 2023 18:01:01 GMT alec said:

there are hundreds of viruses that cause humans severe damage because our immune systems are not well suited to combating viruses.

Yet oddly we survive dozens of infections by viruses each year without obvious harm.

And how many times are year are we actually infected but brush it off straight away? Every time we go into a busy workplace?

Oh come on, Danny! If by "we" you mean the human race, then whilst dozens of infections may indeed be shrugged off by most, a huge number of deaths occur each year by people who aren't lucky enough to "shrug it off".

And this is all "so far". Arguably we've been lucky (at least so far) with covid. Bad enough yes, but compared to episodes in the past it's been nowhere near as bad as may have been feared. In relatively recent history it's dwarfed by Spanish flu, and further back put completely in the shade by the Black Death. Let alone others.

But this is so far. Who is to say that something many, many times more deadly than covid isn't waiting around the corner?

Something that to humans is equivalent to what mxymotosis did to rabbits, with a death rate of over 99%?

Unlikely, yes. Impossible - I'm afraid not. Not 100%. I'm sure in the 1950's there was a Daddy rabbit (called Danny, and who lived in a burrow in Hastings), who said to his little bunny,  "don't worry, there are feedback mechanisms which prevent a virus getting too deadly, because its just plain bad strategy."

[alec]

@dannyiexile - "Humans dont die because of viruses. Humans die because they have a ticking clock which slowly runs down and stops."

It's always wise to stop talking when you're just displaying ignorance. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the ageing process or viruses.

Ageing is about the inflammatory process, which is about the immune system. The more you age your immune system, and viral infections are one way of doing that, the earlier you'll get the inflammatory issues as your immune systems weaken. Viruses weaken the immune system.

[Danny]

Dec 4, 2023 7:17:48 GMT alec said:

@dannyiexile - "Humans dont die because of viruses. Humans die because they have a ticking clock which slowly runs down and stops."

It's always wise to stop talking when you're just displaying ignorance. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the ageing process or viruses.

Ageing is about the inflammatory process, which is about the immune system. The more you age your immune system, and viral infections are one way of doing that, the earlier you'll get the inflammatory issues as your immune systems weaken. Viruses weaken the immune system.

No, its about accumulating genetic damage in every cell of your body (possibly excepting reproductive cells which get special measures). Your body breaks down because of accumulating systemic failure of every cell, which in extreme cases appears as cancer when the cells concerned go into uncontrolled division. yes, viruses do contribute to the cumulative damage, but so does eating the wrong food and dietary shortages, actual poisons, transcription mistakes on cell division, physical damage such as radiation, bacteria, fungi, whatever else we get exposed to. And primarily, when we run out of new cells, because there is a limit on how often cells can divide.