Covid

[alec]

Thankyou Danny.

It wasn't so hard to accept the fact that viruses damage us and shorten our lives, was it?

Would have saved a great deal of bother if you had twigged this four years ago.

On the science, I think you would be very surprised at the extent and scale of viral damage to the human body. A surprising proportion of cancers are viral in origin, and recent research has linked obesity in children with covid infection in pregnant mothers, with obesity then going on to form a major life shortening condition.

I feel you're getting there, albeit quite slowly.

[alec]

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1308605/full

Study reporting mild covid causes a significant decline in peak oxygen consumption for firefighters which lasted average 300 days after infection. " Peak VO2 (ml·kg−1·min−1) declined 7.3% among firefighters an average of 110 days past reporting mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. This decrease has implications for the operational readiness and safety of firefighters."

So the effectiveness of the fire and rescue service is potentially affected by repeated bouts of covid.

[lens]

Dec 1, 2023 10:09:37 GMT Danny said:

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

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.

Danny - I really don't have the time to answer your very long post in detail, but to the above point you just cannot compare NZ to the likes of China, Japan, Vietnam etc etc with a broad "they're in the same region". It's not just ethnic broad similarity, but that NZ is far more in common in terms of lifestyles, diet, etc, etc with such as the UK than SE Asian countries which may be geographically closer. (Though still hundreds if not thousands of miles away!)

In particular, customs such as buying meat in live form, and the whole relationship with live animals in countries such as China. Remember the market in Wuhan which seems to have been ground zero for Covid? Whereas I'd suggest NZ shopping habits are far more aligned with those in such as the UK? It's factors such as those which mean NZ has far more similarity in this respect than to countries which may be geograohically closer. Such as China etc may well have some immunity from previous related infections - such is just not true of NZ. And that's why it's fair to quote NZ as the closest we're ever likely to get as a control in this respect.

And the evidence is that vaccines work. Pretty well actually. Not 100%, true - but still pretty well. More to the point, whilst NZ is interesting because it's a very visible comparison, it only reinforces what clinical trials have shown. And even when they don't stop infection vaccines seem to do a pretty good job of turning Covid from a more harmful infection to something much milder.

[alec]

The latest US data gives a glimpse of what we can expect from the new JN.1 variant. There is good wastewater data which is incorporated into a number of models which have previously proven very accurate at predicting infections and hospitalisations, when combined with other data sources.

The picture is one of JN.1 moving into dominance in the variant mix, setting off a very rapid surge in infections when it does so. This is now starting to feed into very rapid increases in hospitalisations. Overall, US infection rates are believed to have shot up 40% in the latest week and are 1 in 39 currently infected, which rises to 1 in 25 in the NE region. Data from a handful of states where JN.1 was previously running ahead of the average also shows very rapid growth in hospitalisations. Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Colorado are in this group, and they now have covid hospital occupancy levels at around 1/4 - 1/3 of the entire pandemic peak, rising rapidly. As ever, it's very difficult to know how high a variant driven peak will go, but the US data is pointing to a few more weeks of rapid increases, and Christmas stateside is starting to look particularly grim.

In the UK, we are some way behind. JN.1 was at 30% of sequenced cases in the latest weekly data, (against a backdrop of likely falling cases) and modeling and previous variant driven waves clearly show that until a new variant hits 50% there is basically zero growth signal. Then - if the variant has a high growth advantage - we can expect lift off. This is what is happening in the US, Spain is well ahead of us, Belgium also seems to be struggling. So it seems quite clear that a major wave is coming, although unlikely to match the worst peaks in terms of hospitalisations. But the signs are it could be pretty bad.

Very hard to say when it will really hit here. Christmas is three weeks away, but I have a hunch that New Year and the aftermath may be pretty grim.

[Danny]

Dec 5, 2023 0:56:28 GMT lens said:

Dec 1, 2023 10:09:37 GMT Danny said:

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.

Danny - I really don't have the time to answer your very long post in detail, but to the above point you just cannot compare NZ to the likes of China, Japan, Vietnam etc etc with a broad "they're in the same region". It's not just ethnic broad similarity, but that NZ is far more in common in terms of lifestyles, diet, etc, etc with such as the UK than SE Asian countries which may be geographically closer. (Though still hundreds if not thousands of miles away!)

I dont think anyone has claimed chinese or korean lifestyle explains how they got such low death rates. In japan, yes, but again it isnt proven merely suggested to explain how -impossibly to some- they had such incredibly low death rates without doing anything much by way of formal interventions. Nor do i see differing lifestyle in Hastings from the rest of the UK accounted for its immunity to covid in April 2020.  What these nations have in common is being in the same region of the world, not that they all have similar lifestyles different to ours. If anything, their disparate lifestyles but similar outcomes suggest this isnt the reason covid never took off.  Whereas a very obvious possibility if its counties in the same region, is that some regional disease outbreak left them all with immunity partially effective against covid.  What other common features can you identify? (and  obviously, arguing that the region had better medical serices because of the recent SARS outbreak is helping my case at least as much as any other, because it confirms the presence of corona viruses which create cross immunity with covid)

In particular, customs such as buying meat in live form, and the whole relationship with live animals in countries such as China.

Do they do that in NZ?

Remember the market in Wuhan which seems to have been ground zero for Covid?

You mean, in the way brits taking ski holidays is the official explanation how the Uk got covid, whereas it reached Hastings the winter before?  There were two strains of covid identified in Wuhan at the time of the market incident, but authorities only investigated those around the market which were mostly just one strain. They never even checked hospitals for more cases except those near the market.  If the city already had two strains, one not associated with the market, what do you conclude?  That the market was not the original source?

And the evidence is that vaccines work. Pretty well actually.

the death rate from covid is now maybe half the death rate in 2020. Considering that along the way impovements in treatment also claimed to have halved the death rate, thats really not very impressive!  How can you descibe that as worked  'pretty well'?

whilst NZ is interesting because it's a very visible comparison, it only reinforces what clinical trials have shown. And even when they don't stop infection vaccines seem to do a pretty good job of turning Covid from a more harmful infection to something much milder.

If it had been possible to vaccinate the Uk in 2019, then it would have reduced covid related deaths. To what extent it would have reduced deaths over say 5 years is debateable, see my other post arguing many would have died anyway within that time because our steadily rising national death rate has not been taken into account when looking at excess deaths.  However, that isnt the point. My point is that once covid got here it was unstoppable and we had two waves of uncontrolled epidemic which went to herd immunity despite all the controls. And then the vaccine was unable to prevent the steady covid deaths thereafter.   My contention is the reason our outbreaks were unstoppable but those in several countries in this same part of the world all with very different cultures could do so, was because they started with a lot of immunity against covid which made it milder. In effect they really did get vaccinated before it arrived. So in the end, they just got the tail as we are seeing now.

[Danny]

Dec 4, 2023 8:58:46 GMT alec said:

The pandemic death toll continues - www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(23)00221-1/fulltext
Excess deaths >44,000 in 2022, +7.2%, and accelerating into the first half of 2023, with 28,000 excess deaths in the six months to end June, +8.6%. The immoral argument that these appalling figures don't matter because they are 'only' the old and vulnerable is logically untenable, as the highest rates of excess deaths are in the 50 - 64 yo cohort (+15%) and the 25 - 49yos (+11%).

In context, the annual excess deaths is equivalent to a Barrow-in-Furness or a Bexhill-on-Sea every year, with many of these younger, working age adults. The pattern of excess deaths by cause also points towards the known post infection pathology of covid, with greatly exacerbated cardiovascular deaths, plus high respiratory infection excesses.

Do your best to avoid catching covid, and you'll reduce your chances of being one of these terrible statistics.

The 100 year minimum of deaths in the UK came about 2011, which interestingly coincides with the end of the labour administration. The peak of deaths before that came in 1976, from where it fell, then fell twice as fast once labour took over. Then as I say rising from about 550,000 a year to 650,000 in 2020, having cimbed to 600,000 again under con before the arrival  of covid. Its now back about 580,000 for 2022. (note those figures are from two different sources so may not exactly align.  www.statista.com/statistics/281488/number-of-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/  www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathregistrationsummarystatisticsenglandandwales/2022 )

The NHS is currently in a state of collapse. Its very clear the conservative change of funding caused an immediate turnaround from falling to rising death rates (switched from falling 5000 each year to rising 5000 each year approx.) So up to 2020 that would be about 250,000 extra deaths due to conservative cuts. Assuming that funding has not improved in real terms since 2020, taking into account the extra costs of managing covid for which extra funding was provided and ssuming these cancel out, then the sum of extra deaths due to con underfunding must by now exceed the deaths from covid. Which makes con claims during the epidemic that cost is no object in saving lives a very sick joke.

If we take the 2019 figure which was actually 605,000 with less rounding, and then add on the trend growth under con of 5000  a year for 20,21,22, then we would expect the total to have risen to 620,00  in the last full year 22 and 625,000 in 23 nearly over.

The lancet article argues deaths have risen 44,000 compared to the 5 year average before 2020. So I guess thats 2014-2019, average mid 2016,  and then they compare this to 22.  Simply on trend we would expect 22 to have another 5 years worth of growth of deaths, or 25,000.  So the real discrepancy is only 20,000. In 2022 50,000 people are recorded as dying from covid directly.

So...actually there is a shortfall of deaths compared to trend of about 30,000 people.  The upshot of the covid epidemic was 30,000 fewer people dying from other reasons in 2022.

The implication would seem to be that actually the deaths directly atributed to covid need to be offset by deaths from other causes they have prevented. Then the official total of 230,000 covid deaths should be reduced by...somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000?, because those are people who had been destined to die soon anyway?

Now its perfectly valid to analyses what age groups are most affected and which diseases are accounting for most extra deaths, but there isnt evidence covid has caused a rise in deaths attributed to other causes, because actually considereing the number officially attributed to covid, there are fewer other deaths.

[lens]

Dec 5, 2023 9:47:39 GMT Danny said:

Dec 5, 2023 0:56:28 GMT lens said:

In particular, customs such as buying meat in live form, and the whole relationship with live animals in countries such as China.

Do they do that in NZ?

Danny - Given your previous lack of knowledge about basic New Zealand facts - such as thinking it's tourism industry was "tiny" - it's difficult to know whether you're joking sometimes..... But the answer is "nowhere near as much", if you really don't know. And that is significant, if you accept that so many of such infections start by jumping from an animal host to human. And since you have frequently stated that you believe cross immunity from previous outbreaks helped people in SE Asia, surely that is not a surprise to you? But New Zealand is different. If the average citizen wants meat, it's far more likely to come shrink wrapped from the supermarket than be bought live! It's one of the reasons why you trying to maintain NZ's much lower death rate is down to similar reasons to mainland SE Asian countries just doesn't hold up.

I mentioned the point to a far more knowledgeable friend, and am indebted to them for advice to pass on. In short, it was "if he can't accept New Zealand as an example of a community that largely kept Covid out by isolation until vaccination was widespread, then point him towards the Isle of Man!!"

Dec 5, 2023 9:47:39 GMT Danny said:

Dec 5, 2023 0:56:28 GMT lens said:

whilst NZ is interesting because it's a very visible comparison, it only reinforces what clinical trials have shown. And even when they don't stop infection vaccines seem to do a pretty good job of turning Covid from a more harmful infection to something much milder.

If it had been possible to vaccinate the Uk in 2019, then it would have reduced covid related deaths. To what extent it would have reduced deaths over say 5 years is debateable, see my other post arguing many would have died anyway within that time ........

And I'm afraid your other post is flawed. Have you looked into the Isle of Man figures, Danny? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Isle_of_Man

Because they are pretty stark. On the Isle of Man they largely kept the virus out for the first year, with just about 357 cases up until early November. In that time they recorded 24 deaths - nearly 7% of cases ended in death. With a population of nearly 85,000, I hope you'll agree that a case rate of only about 0.4% within the population up to November 2020 does mean they largely kept it out?

Since then? The same link gives a case count now of about 38,000 cases. But in spite of the number of cases going up over a hundred fold, the latest death figure is now 116 - an increase of well under five fold!

Funny that. Almost as if something happened in early 2021 that meant death from catching Covid became far, far less likely? And that in people who had had no prior infection? Could that "something" just possibly be....... vaccination?

And my friends suggestion caused me to look a bit further. If you're still unconvinced about the benefits of keeping Covid out until vaccines came along, you may like to investigate what happened on Guernsey......?

Or will you now try and convince us that the Isle of Man and Guernsey should really be counted geographically as part of South East Asia? Or their populations are predominantly of Chinese heritage?

[Danny]

Dec 6, 2023 23:33:25 GMT lens said:

But New Zealand is different. If the average citizen wants meat, it's far more likely to come shrink wrapped from the supermarket than be bought live! It's one of the reasons why you trying to maintain NZ's much lower death rate is down to similar reasons to mainland SE Asian countries just doesn't hold up.

Not sure the point here. We are starting from the assumption transmission from animal to human was initially difficult. It must have been, else it would have happened before. It is a very unusual event. But then how unlikely is it an infected animal at one market suddenly infected dozens of visitors to that market?

I already mentioned that in retrospect two different strains of covid were isolated from people related to the market event. One shared by those at the market, another which didnt seem to have a link to the market, and anyway was the wrong strain, but they caught the cases in their local search. This other strain did not come from that market but where it might have come from was never followed up at the time by widening the search. It strikes me a lot more likely some human at the market had the strain which got passed along, its a red herring animals had it too. Even if it was an animal which infected lots of people there, it still doesnt explain the alternative strain. If on the other hand it was always dead easy for animals with covid to pass it to their human handlers, well blimey China would be riddled with it and have lots of immunity in general. Which might very well be the case. It just wasnt in the past in the form of strains which could transmit well or be especially virulent in humans so they never became significant outbreaks. This scenario seems quite likely. It still begs the question exactly where a mutation took place making it more transmissable in humans, and this seems most likely to happen actually amongst humans. So a reasonable scenario is before the market one human became infected, and then that strain diverged as it became more transmissable. Might perfectly well have been in the countryside where there are lots of animals farmed or otherwise. Then some worker went to market with aninimals. But meanwhile others from the real initial outbreak would be visiting the city and introducing it elsewhere too. Plus of course we know for certain people in 2019 were leaving wuhan, infected, and spreading it round the world at the same time this market was happening. No, I do not just mean Hastings, Campbell Bannerman was on newsnight yesterday saying he knows people who had covid in europe in 2019.  It got there somehow brought by a travellor from Wuhan.

It seems to be entirely consistent with the known facts that a market worker could just as well have been the source of that outbreak of covid. I mean, from what we know now had an infected person been working there, we would have expected it to cause a cluster of cases.  The only reason for suggesting it was from the animals is because animals were present, animals can have covid, spread to humans is possible despite the picture being painted arguing its actually not very likely, all the animals were long gone before any testing took place, and indeed the whole place was first disinfected! But for China it is a very convenient explanation, rather than, ah, looks like this has been going on for months and we didnt notice.  You do remember all the concern China might try to hide any outbreak? Which it would have done until the story became too big.

I mentioned the point to a far more knowledgeable friend, and am indebted to them for advice to pass on. In short, it was "if he can't accept New Zealand as an example of a community that largely kept Covid out by isolation until vaccination was widespread, then point him towards the Isle of Man!!"

Have you looked into the Isle of Man figures, Danny? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Isle_of_Man

Because they are pretty stark. On the Isle of Man they largely kept the virus out for the first year, with just about 357 cases up until early November. In that time they recorded 24 deaths - nearly 7% of cases ended in death. With a population of nearly 85,000, I hope you'll agree that a case rate of only about 0.4% within the population up to November 2020 does mean they largely kept it out?

No. How do you or does anyone know that was the actual case rate? There was no community testing available. There has never been enough actual testing anywhere to determine real case numbers, so all officials measures of recorded cases are minimums. All that is really telling you is it had entered the island.

Since then? The same link gives a case count now of about 38,000 cases. But in spite of the number of cases going up over a hundred fold, the latest death figure is now 116 - an increase of well under five fold!

Original chinese fataly rate estimates reached 20%. Because they had 100 known cases, all in hospital, and 20 died. If you watch the covid enquiry, its even evident there that the credible worst case kept getting milder. I agree that prof Mclean exactly agreed with your argument and still does that covid has a very high mortality rate. But its flat wrong. Its been proven wrong. There are only 7 million dead people in the whole world and on 7% mortality rate you would have had more than that in Japan alone in the first wave, during which they did practically nothing in terms of interventions because hardly anyone got seriously ill. (and they definitely did have it).  Just that one example invalidates your island example in this respect.

Funny that. Almost as if something happened in early 2021 that meant death from catching Covid became far, far less likely? And that in people who had had no prior infection? Could that "something" just possibly be....... vaccination?

No. There is lots of evidence from 2020 before there was any significant level of vaccination that death on that scale was never going to happen. Its because there were fundamental mistaken assumptions. First, most people just will not die if they catch covid. The younger 2/3 of the population approx are safe, which isnt to say the old are not, merely they start to run a significant risk but it is very much still dependant on their personal risk factors. Second, that the older 1/3 are naturally shielded. Retired people dont meet many others, its long been said to be a tragedy they do not. The big exception is eg where many very sick older people are gathered together in one community, a care home. And there, once covid got in it caused mass death. And that is both the point in time when it became detected and why those numbers first looked so bad. It was only initially detected because of serious cases seeking medical help, and these only became numerous if a lot of  highly susceptible people were gathered together. Note the obvious problem about infection within hospitals exposing susceptible people.

 The proper wiki link seems to be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Isle_of_Man#January_%E2%80%93_March_2020 dont know what that odd one is you provided?   Anyway, it says "On 18 April, Health Minister David Ashford confirmed that there had been two deaths that day in care homes – the first recorded deaths on the island outside of hospital – and that there were 37 confirmed cases at the Abbotswood Care Home.[20] 11 people were being treated in hospital and a total of 2,319 test results had been received, with 296 testing positive, of whom 12 were under 20 years of age and 74 over the age of 65.[21]"

care homes!  Remember how it was discovered in Italy? It got into an old peoples facility and caused deaths, even though the sewer sample evidence suggests it had been around in Milan and Turin for a couple of months before that incident caused it to be detected. In china, when these 100 people ended up in hospital, dont know how old but statistically if they had bad covid, they were old.  The wiki quote says that was the first Mann deaths outside of the hospital. No further information on the circumstances of those who did die in hospital, whether maybe they too had originated in the care home? And how did this care home get infected, some unidentified and non dying younger people must have done it?

The article says 3000 tests were performed on the island up to 30 April, about 10% positive. Population 84,000 so comparable to Hastings but spread over 200 square miles instead of maybe 20. I wonder had they tested the whole population, what percentage then would have been positive? But they didnt, and they would have had to repeat this at least weekly to be sure not to miss any. So thats 300,000 a month, half a million to really tell how many had covid in March and April.  What really took place wasnt so much testing as sampling, and equally legitimate to argue that if 10% of samples were positive, then 10% of the population was infected at the time of testing. Which could be half the population over two months. (with natural shielding of the old, so the infected proportion concentrated amongst the safe young. You see how its possible to create herd immunity amongst the young group propagating the virus with negligible total deaths?)

Looking further, I see a report that the first known case reported himself after returning from holiday, was found to be positive and then simply rested at home, not being particularly ill. If someone else didnt report themself as ill, who would have known?  And why would you worry about a cold, if you hadnt just been on holiday where authorities were warning you about catching it? www.gov.im/news/2020/mar/20/statement-by-the-minister-for-health-and-social-care/

And my friends suggestion caused me to look a bit further. If you're still unconvinced about the benefits of keeping Covid out until vaccines came along, you may like to investigate what happened on Guernsey......?

You dont link Guernsey, but Im happy to argue its just like Mann.

Or will you now try and convince us that the Isle of Man and Guernsey should really be counted geographically as part of South East Asia? Or their populations are predominantly of Chinese heritage?

Nope, they sound much more like Hastings. Had the disease, few serious cases to show for it. Looking at some of the other posts on that Isle of Mann government website, its plain their lockdown was much milder than in the mainland.  The real death toll would have been determined by what happened in care homes or similar. There is no evidence I can see that Mann didnt get fully exposed to covid. A new outbreak began there with similar timing to the kent wave in England, even though it looks like they maintained isolation and quarantine from the mainland throughout. Its a very odd coincidence if no one reintroduced the wuhan strain from the mainland all the  rest of 2020 even though it was still circulating in England, but then once the new strain arrived in England it straight away jumped to Mann too.  They obviously had immunity to the first strain.  Just like Hastings, but even having a moat and quarantine didnt stop the new strain getting into Mann again. (though it does say one man was arrested for unlawfully landing to visit his girlfriend without isolating, so maybe people were ignoring quarantine)

Johnson was just being questioned about eat out to help out in 2020 and relaxing of various restrictions. What happened each time this was done, step by step, was... nothing. Which amounted to a scientific experiment measuring the change in R caused by each step. None were sufficient to make a measurable difference except for short term effects which died away...until schools reopened. Which was indeed what SAGE reckoned was the biggie, but even then if kent strain had not arrived that resurgence was already dying out too. We had beaten the first strain through exposure and resulting immunity. That was Johnson's evidence (ok, he didnt say he believed it was through immunity, he did say we had it under control without the need for national lockdowns again, and in some areas no need for restrictions at all).

So.. Isle of Mann...classic example of herd immunity protecting until new strain arrived, but helped by being an isolated settlement fairly low density, evidence the only deaths came from care home infections. There might be more evidence if you go and talk to locals, as I have in Hastings, of how many really got ill that April. But it isnt in the wiki article.

Isnt there a correlation appearing here of milder restrictions/no lockdown and fewer deaths? Heneghan would say he told you so. (the reason being restrictions mostly stop young people catching it, and thus MUST increase the proportion of older people who get it before it ends. The only time this will not be true is if overall you prevent most cases altogether. But the evidence above is that we failed to do that.)

[Danny]

Interesting quote from Whitty at the covid enquiry, from a document dated 9/8/20.
"People can rationally make an informed choice they would rather take a small increased risk of dying and hug their grandchildren / go clubbing."

The barrister reading this to Johnson inserted a remark that it probably was different people who have grandchildren to those going clubbing. But what he didnt say was the risk of dying would be very very different for those with grandchildren compared to those likely to go clubbing. It suggest that Whitty himself was simply NOT making this distinction that the risk was so very different for different groups.

Johnson talking about rising cases in september/october/November 2020 argued that the measures they had used were effective (in sept/oct local measures), and they had covid under control,...until the arrival of the new kent variant. He said the medical officers confirmed that there were different things happening in different regions of the UK.

But...thats impossible. If what really happened was covid spread throughout the Uk, it was stopped in its tracks by lockdowns so that few new cases took place, then no extra immunity would have been generated. As soon as retrictions were lifted the result should have been exactly the same everywhere. But it wasnt. Therefore the assumption is wrong, and conditions were not the same everywhere. The only thing which could have changed was the local level of immunity, and that only after enough cases had taken place to create a respectable proportion of herd immunity. It isnt possible that some regions remained covid free or stable at low levels, unless significant immunity had been created through infection.

Prof Mclean, chair of sage at least part of the time, reported that she still believed had covid run at the maximum capacity of the NHS for a year, it would not have created significant immunity. BUt thats absolute rubbish. The evidence from september, after attempts to suppress it for most of the time since April, was that despite those restrictions we had STILL achieved significant immunity through infection. Mclean and whitty were simply proceeding from totally wrong assumptions about the risk from the disease. There is so much evidence this is what happened.

barrister got Johnson to say it pretty much in terms: as far as he could see, whatever the demands for national interventions from advisors, there was no point locking down parts of the country where covid was not growing and seemed to be in abeyance. Its plain he at least had spotted what the advisors themselves had not, even though they provided him with the information. The evidence from both whitty and Mclean seems to be they could not rid themselves of the simple model in their heads which they denied was used to predict outcomes, that either it was growing or it was shrinking, and if it was growing then it would explode. Its a classic example of people convinced of something who cannot adjust to the actual facts. (though obviously, by this point with a whole nation locked down on their say so, can you image the fallout if they turned around and said 'oops, mistake!')

I have to say, Lots of examples of Johnson using the phrase 'let it rip'. It sounds just what Johnson would say, in the manner he describes, as a shortcut but explicit summary of one option. Johnson argues the phrase was in common usage, and a couple of the examples brought up by the barrister do look like the authors are not so much saying Johnson used that phrase, but are using it themselves in notes or messages to summarise what Johnson was arguing about with them. Johnson squirming because he feels its bad for his image that this sort of language was being used. However he moved onto surer ground arguing he had to put this case to the experts who didnt seem to fancy it, because there were plenty of voices behind him and in public demanding to know just why it would not be a preferable option.

Again, Johnson saying there was clear evidence interventions under the tiered approach worked to suppress the resumption of covid autumn 2020, but did not work against the new kent/alpha strain. He stated this was because it was 'more transmissable'. But thats indistinguishable from arguing the population by now had immunity to the original strain, but not the new one.

[alec]

Interesting and balanced article here on the potential threats from covid and cancer - fortune.com/2023/11/23/inside-long-covids-war-body-researchers-trying-find-out-virus-potential-cancer-carolyn-barber/

While there are some signals for higher incidence of some rarer cancers post covid, along with claims of more aggressive cancers linked to covid infection, these remain limited and the data is uncertain. What is holding the oncology communities interest is the theoretical potential for an impact, given what we know about cancer development.

What is also fascinating is how much we were learning about viruses, the immune system and cancer before covid hit. As discussed in the article, 60% of people die of inflammatory conditions, which includes cancer, and covid is known to create persistent inflammatory responses. Viruses are also linked to certain cancers, with 15% - 20% of cancers believed to be viral in origin. It's not yet clear whether and to what extent covid is a cancer inducing infection, but given it's known effect on the immune system, it's a reasonable hypothesis, backed by some early evidence.

[Danny]

Dec 6, 2023 23:33:25 GMT lens said:

"if he can't accept New Zealand as an example of a community that largely kept Covid out by isolation until vaccination was widespread, then point him towards the Isle of Man!!"

Thank you for bringing Man and Guernsey to my attention, they are very interesting albeit time consuming. I gave my initial comments about Man above, but I have been reading up on Guernsey too.

The bottom line is that they had about the 0.1% death rate typical in many countries for one wave of covid. And so compared to England, they skipped the first two waves. That begs the question how they did it, but whatever the mechanism, avoiding two waves avoided two waves worth of death. However the UK as with most of Europe completely failed to keep out covid, so then inevitably suffered those two waves. I dont know if you have views how the UK could have avoided them, the only suggestion I have seen has been to have imposed restrictions much earlier, and perhaps much harder. But the british experts believed once this was done there would be no choice but to maintain those restrictions, because there was negligible immunity so as soon as they were relaxed it would spring back. So thats best part of a year in lockdown. The Chinese model.

Both Man and Guernsey have a population less than the urban area of Hastings and Bexhill, which wiki placed about 60th in size in the UK, about 140,000 I think. Considering the islands are both much bigger in area and have a fraction of this population, Guernsey biggest urban centre only about 20,000, its pretty obvious they would have a significantly lower R0. Also considering these are havens for rich old men, with youngsters who do most transmission probably often departing for the mainland, then potentially more at risk, but also a smaller younger group who do the propagating and transmission. It may be these islands illustrate how actually a population of older people would innately be safer and have lower death.

But Guernsey initially placed 1000 people in isolation when the first cases arrived. That sounds huge to me pro rata compared to what the Uk did. Plus they had a moat and far fewer visitors, considering it might only take 1 mistake to introduce it, so if your total visits a year is 100,000 (guess), its x100 safer than for the Uk as a whole at 10,000,000. On Guernsey isolation really seems to have worked.

However, I still have not ruled out simply that the island got infected well before it noticed, the low R inherently meant a low death rate, so it came and went early. How many people from Wuhan visit these places?

Still thinking about it, there are some intersting pointers. One thing very clear is the deaths were again initially concentrated in care homes. Dont know where they originate now, doesnt say.

Despite the massive quarantine process, those presumably young and fit returnee skiers in march 2020, still managed to infect two separate care homes where the recorded deaths took place. How unlikely is that, they infected two care homes but apparently nowhere else? Were they on a mission to kill geriatrics? I dont believe they were, so there must have been a wider outbreak than the testing results suggest. If this happened just once you could call it bad luck, but it didnt. The exact same pattern happened in every country and early covid outbreaks were only detected because of deaths in care homes or similar. If there had been no deaths in such places then i doubt the total kill would have been enough to turn this into a pandemic. We would simply have acted as per bad flu year and ignored it.

[alec]

News from StatCan, the Canadian official statisticians, who have just released a major report into long covid, They find 1 in 9 of the Canadian population has suffered from one or more prolonged symptoms post infection, but what is causing some concern is that their study has replicated 5 other major studies in showing that the odds increase with second infection, with individuals at 1.7 times the risk of LC after the second infection compared to the first. They also find third infections are 3.7 times more likely to generate LC than the initial infection, the second large study to detail a rising risk across three rounds of infection. Interestingly, last week also saw the German Health minister state that 3% of infections lead to long covid, with this figure rising if unvaccinated, and that LC s a serious personal risk and a developing systemic risk to the wider economy.

Governments around the world are starting to confirm the early findings on the long term disease burden of covid which were largely dismissed at the time.

[birdseye]

If nothing else ( I dont expect posters to accept this) this thread illustrates the problem the government must have had in deciding how to respond. Even after the fact of covid, there is still no general agreement on what should have happened.

Maybe Boris should not be crucified?

[alec]

birdseye - "If nothing else ( I dont expect posters to accept this) this thread illustrates the problem the government must have had in deciding how to respond. Even after the fact of covid, there is still no general agreement on what should have happened."

This is why humans invented the precautionary principle. Most interpretations include reference to acting before data and form knowledge is available.

My frustration is that we knew in 2002 from SARS 1 that these types of coronaviruses were airborne, but we piddled around trying to pretend it was primarily droplet etc. There were so many chances to establish good practice, but we fluffed them.

[Danny]

Dec 11, 2023 20:05:49 GMT alec said:

birdseye - "If nothing else ( I dont expect posters to accept this) this thread illustrates the problem the government must have had in deciding how to respond. Even after the fact of covid, there is still no general agreement on what should have happened."

This is why humans invented the precautionary principle. Most interpretations include reference to acting before data and form knowledge is available.

My frustration is that we knew in 2002 from SARS 1 that these types of coronaviruses were airborne, but we piddled around trying to pretend it was primarily droplet etc. There were so many chances to establish good practice, but we fluffed them.

Whitty for one was very concerned NOT to set in motion all these actions against covid until it was proven they were needed. He explained terrible consequences can befall if you do. He cited this as why he did not ask for interventions earlier. And you will be aware, I still think he called it wrong. It looks like the majority on SAGE believed covid was far more deadly than it really is. There was rather limited evidence what the minority thought, which did not get included in summary advice passed to ministers.

Nothing I heard of the enquiry was arguing the minutiae of how covid was spread. It totally wasnt an issue for the decision. I for one assumed it was airborne, who would not have done so? Otherwise why tell us to space apart? Why limit crowding? Its an irelevance whether its technically virus floating free or in droplets. As best I last heard, if it dries out its dead, so I guess that means it isnt literally floating free?

[alec]

Danny - "Nothing I heard of the enquiry was arguing the minutiae of how covid was spread. It totally wasnt an issue for the decision. I for one assumed it was airborne, who would not have done so?"

Seriously? I mean, seriously? Like, the two weeks they spent talking to Sage members, engineers, aerosol spread and ventilation experts, were nothing to do with examining the mode of spread of covid and how that was missed?

Jeez. Your "nothing I heard" posts really do nothing other than demonstrate how little you actually know.

[Danny]

Dec 11, 2023 22:59:49 GMT alec said:

Danny - "Nothing I heard of the enquiry was arguing the minutiae of how covid was spread. It totally wasnt an issue for the decision. I for one assumed it was airborne, who would not have done so?"

Seriously? I mean, seriously? Like, the two weeks they spent talking to Sage members, engineers, aerosol spread and ventilation experts, were nothing to do with examining the mode of spread of covid and how that was missed?

Jeez. Your "nothing I heard" posts really do nothing other than demonstrate how little you actually know.

And then Whitty and Mclean explained how they summarised and narrowed the scientific advice which actually made it to ministers? But as I said, in what way did exactly how covid moves through air make any practical difference to action which was taken? I would remind you, for example, that the advice at the start was that masks dont work. (not that theres any evidence they ever did work in real world conditions, of course. Its not as if they compared two hospitals and found one wearing masks had no spread and another without had loads)

[Danny]

Dec 9, 2023 19:44:47 GMT alec said:

News from StatCan, the Canadian official statisticians, who have just released a major report into long covid, They find 1 in 9 of the Canadian population has suffered from one or more prolonged symptoms post infection, but what is causing some concern is that their study has replicated 5 other major studies in showing that the odds increase with second infection, with individuals at 1.7 times the risk of LC after the second infection compared to the first. They also find third infections are 3.7 times more likely to generate LC than the initial infection, the second large study to detail a rising risk across three rounds of infection. Interestingly, last week also saw the German Health minister state that 3% of infections lead to long covid, with this figure rising if unvaccinated, and that LC s a serious personal risk and a developing systemic risk to the wider economy.

Governments around the world are starting to confirm the early findings on the long term disease burden of covid which were largely dismissed at the time.

Theres a page from the canadian government here: health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/post-covid-condition/spring-2023-report.html

Whether its right or wrong, they estimate 1/3 of people with covid are unaware they have it. That is quite a high number for a government agency to admit to.

I tried to find a decent writeup by the government of exactly the methodolgy used in this testing. In particular, how the sample group was derived, and then how it was tested.

I have yet to find how the sample was derived. In the similar ONS process, they chose people at random and asked them to participate. If they refused, they chose some more. The problem of course is this generates a set of people willing to be tested. Which begs the question whether there is a difference between those who want to find out if they have covid or covid antibodies, and those who do not want to be flagged as positive. For example, a very safe but very scared person might choose to opt in. An abbatoir worker who would get locked down might refuse to take part because they would lose money if off work (an example from where big infections were found). So, first problem sample bias.

Second problem the tests. I finally tracked down a page which confirmed they used off the shelf antibody tests and used the manufacturers' defintions of a positive result. see www.covid19immunitytaskforce.ca/seroprevalence-in-canada/ They used roche, abbot and mesoscale tests for  infections. Havnt looked at the other two, but I have explained the Roche test before. It defines a positive result as scoring 1 on a scale from about 0.0001 to 10000. But then the problem comes, what is the meaning of a score of 0.1, for examples. Roche say the answer is you do not have protective antibodies against covid. They dont actually say much about whether you had it in the past, they seem silent on that. However other researchers have argued that the meaning of 0.1 is also positive for a past infection.

It makes an enormous difference to the percentage positive where you choose the cutoff, especially as blood antibody levels fall steadily with time. The only legitimate reason for not scoring even a result of 0.001 as positive is if there might be errors causing spurious results. Roche do not go into this at all.  They made tests to prove people have antibodies now, not to prove they had them in the past.

In reality this test only says you definitely did have covid for a subset of the real total of people who did.

I'd remind people I had covid in nov 2019, demonstrably because of the symptoms of loss of sense of smell and traceable contact to wuhan. Then in spring 21 I had an antibody test scoring about 0.03, ie an  official Roche negative. Then in spring 2022 I had a positive covid test while i had a bit of a mild cold.  No vaccination, of course. I find all that pretty conclusive that in 22 I was already immune and had the real first much more severe infection in 2019.  Thats an example of why this  testing process based on antibody levels is simply wrong.

If you ignore most people who had the disease, fundamentally because they were on the mild side so didnt create as much antibody, then you have created a sample hugely biased towards people who had it badly, and very probably therefore towards also having long covid badly.

Dont forget, government in the Uk actually banned antibody tests for the general public in 2020, so at the time they might have told us something useful about people who had recently had covid.

[alec]

Danny - "I would remind you, for example, that the advice at the start was that masks dont work. (not that theres any evidence they ever did work in real world conditions, of course. Its not as if they compared two hospitals and found one wearing masks had no spread and another without had loads)"

There you go again. A complete inability to understand what actually happened, and a willful determination to refuse to learn.

What you said was completely and totally wrong. It's complete rubbish, to be honest. It was known from the SARS outbreak in 2002 - 2004 that SARS type viruses are airborne, more than droplet spread. It was known that this matters hugely, because with droplets, standing back 1.5m and handwashing provides effective control, whereas airborne means indoor infections can be spread potentially tens of metres and filtering masks are effective. All this was already established before 2020.

And yes, we _really_did have lots of studies from real world setting about the efficacy of good quality masks. This is one example, from Addenbrooks hospital, where upgrading staff to high quality FFP3 masks cut staff infections by, err...100%. www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/upgrading-ppe-for-staff-working-on-covid-19-wards-cut-hospital-acquired-infections-dramatically

It would be better if you went off and spent some time fact checking before posting, instead of trotting out complete drivel.

[Danny]

Dec 12, 2023 8:11:36 GMT alec said:

What you said was completely and totally wrong. It's complete rubbish, to be honest. It was known from the SARS outbreak in 2002 - 2004 that SARS type viruses are airborne, more than droplet spread. It was known that this matters hugely, because with droplets, standing back 1.5m and handwashing provides effective control, whereas airborne means indoor infections can be spread potentially tens of metres and filtering masks are effective. All this was already established before 2020.

Everyone seems to agree that standing 1m away is pretty good protection form catching covid. Whether its purely airborne or has to stay wet while its airborn, whats the real difference?

This is one example, from Addenbrooks hospital, where upgrading staff to high quality FFP3 masks cut staff infections by, err...100%. www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/upgrading-ppe-for-staff-working-on-covid-19-wards-cut-hospital-acquired-infections-dramatically.

Then I wonder why at the start of all this we saw workers in spacesuits? If this applies to hospital staff, they will by now all have had covid probably many times, so you re saying that amongst people already immune to covid, masks stop spread? Gee!

The article actually says 'up to 100%'....so that would include 0%?

[alec]

Danny - "Everyone seems to agree that standing 1m away is pretty good protection form catching covid. Whether its purely airborne or has to stay wet while its airborn, whats the real difference?"

I'm assuming this isn't a serious question, but just another attempt to look completely thick?

[Danny]

Dec 12, 2023 11:42:28 GMT alec said:

Danny - "Everyone seems to agree that standing 1m away is pretty good protection form catching covid. Whether its purely airborne or has to stay wet while its airborn, whats the real difference?"

I'm assuming this isn't a serious question, but just another attempt to look completely thick?

Its a real question. I'd be grateful if you could explain. If at 0.5m people catch covid but at 1m spacing they dont, what difference does the details of the transmission process make? Its a black box trial, doesnt matter what the internal details are, either intervention X has a measurable effect, or it doesnt.

I had a look at the source paper for the article you linked. www.authorea.com/users/421653/articles/527590-ffp3-respirators-protect-healthcare-workers-against-infection-with-sars-cov-2

I do see a potential problem with their results. They compared wards which had covid patients and non covid patients, and then looked to see hat happened when the covid wards started to use different masks. What was recorded was that staff infections in the covid wards fell, whereas they continued to rise in the non covid wards, which they argued reflected the growing community infection.

The problem is that this study was over several weeks. If you look at the actual recorded data for cases it peaks at week 6 in the covid ward, and week 11 in the non covid ward (the last week of the study). The non covid ward infection rate is actually pretty flat until week 9, which is the first week of new masks used in the covid wards. They reckoned the risk for staff in non covid wards of catching covid from patients was negligble (anyway, compared to the community risk).

My experience of hospitals is they tend to use the same staff on the same wards whenever they can. I imagine that would be even more so when dividing between covid and non covid wards. The problem then is that the at risk population is becoming exhausted as each member of that team catches it, and fewer remain to catch it. Assuming the risk from patients remained the same, then we would still expect to see a rising and then falling distribution, as indeed we do. And on the given data it looks to have begun falling before the new masks started to be used.

They fail to allow for exhaustion of the population of infectable workers, and buildup of infection, recovery and immunity BEFORE they started using masks. What they should have done is used the new masks in HALF the covid wards (and indeed half the non covid wards for purposes of creating a control). Then we would have seen whether the covid ward infections really were falling naturally anyway. The staff in covid wards began to be be exposed to the new emerging community wave faster than the non covid wards, exactly because the hospital concentrated all the covid patients together and exposed those staff to them. So we would expect the outbreak amongst covid ward staff to begin earlier, and end earlier.

This study has the same class error as a whole slew of the studies you post. They fail to account properly for pre exisitng or evolving imunity caused by infections. The entire process has been bedevelled by the assumptions espoused by Prof. Mclean at the covid enquiry, that if we had cases as fast as the NHS could cope with even for an entire year it still would not have created a significant amount of immunity. This was total rubbish, but she said she still believes it to be the case.

The study might be salvageable by extending it over a longer timeframe and show the new masks maintained this perceived benefit as new waves emerged. Or by better analysyis of the staff involved. as it stands, you could argue the new masks actually did nothing.

The whole matter is complicated as they acnowledge because at this time we were transitioning from one covid strain to another. Its not obvious though what difference this would have made, someone who had only just been infected by the wuhan strain would be expected to have strong antibodies even against the kent strain.

[alec]

A couple of updates on nasal vaccines progress. Some promising results posted here - www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06809-8 showing good effects in mice, hamsters and primates from a single dose inhaled powder vaccine. Yet to see if this translates into effective vaccine technology for humans, but encouraging.

In another study, which is also being promoted as encouraging - see here www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00551-5/fulltext another team report on a nasal vaccine in humans. The results are claimed to be encouraging, but I beg to differ. They found protection against infection from 55% - 87%, only measuring this across 4 weeks. I'd say that's very discouraging. It would mean breakthrough infections from the start, at high rates, so would not really advance things at all. Intriguingly, the lower rate of 55% protection was in the cohort previously infected or vaccinated, whereas the 87% effect was in those with neither prior vaccine or infection. This could indicate the effect of immune imprinting, where prior exposure (vax or natural) hampers the immune systems ability to mount a defence against the next infection, but the cohort numbers were not huge, so it's hard to draw definitive conclusions.

Meanwhile, in a leading German business publication, a major article expressing concern about covid impacts and how businesses need to be leading on this. It's rather striking, from a UK perspective, but less surprising for those of us keeping and eye on how the international business community is starting to move on this. It discusses sick leave, cognitive impairment, and lost business performance. One very striking quote - "There is growing evidence that Long COVID's effects could have a more lasting impact on the economy than the lockdowns did."

UK is well behind on this, and the economy will suffer for it.

[Danny]

Dec 14, 2023 18:39:59 GMT alec said:

It discusses sick leave, cognitive impairment, and lost business performance. One very striking quote - "There is growing evidence that Long COVID's effects could have a more lasting impact on the economy than the lockdowns did."

It would seem that the powers that be have given up on holding the line that lockdown could be justified in terms of lives saved. And now are thrashing around for an alternative justification for what was done.

[leftieliberal]

Horrifying cases of IT failings leading to patient deaths: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67503126
The Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) says IT failures are among the most serious issues facing hospitals in England.

"We have seen evidence of patient deaths as a result of IT systems not working," said interim head, Dr Rosie Benneyworth.

I can remember when my late wife was in hospital in an enhanced care ward (one step down from intensive care) and there was a surprising amount of the monitoring equipment that was faulty. Often it was connector problems. Because my background is in scientific instrument design, it concerned me that the doctors and nurses didn't take this more seriously, but seemed to accept it as normal. 

[alec]

Danny - "It would seem that the powers that be have given up on holding the line that lockdown could be justified in terms of lives saved."

Apart from the ones (er...all of them) that continually show the evidence that they were.

This 'it seems to me' stuff is all very well, but when the real world is saying something completely different, you do end up looking a bit silly.

[Danny]

Dec 15, 2023 19:19:44 GMT alec said:

Danny - "It would seem that the powers that be have given up on holding the line that lockdown could be justified in terms of lives saved."

Apart from the ones (er...all of them) that continually show the evidence that they were.

This 'it seems to me' stuff is all very well, but when the real world is saying something completely different, you do end up looking a bit silly.

Tell that to Albert Einstein...


Politics is very often about the loudest voice winning. The real real world doesnt care who shouts loudest.

[alec]

Another positive sign on nasal vaccies - www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06951-3

This is the full version of a previous preprint, and has positive results from trials in monkeys. The issue of longevity of protection remains to be answered, and may well be the flaw in any vaccine approach, but this is more encouraging.

[moby]

Dec 16, 2023 17:56:48 GMT alec said:

Another positive sign on nasal vaccies - www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06951-3

This is the full version of a previous preprint, and has positive results from trials in monkeys. The issue of longevity of protection remains to be answered, and may well be the flaw in any vaccine approach, but this is more encouraging.

I had Covid for the first time a few months back, given your interest I'd be grateful for any advice going forward. I have no symptoms of long covid but am aware of increased risks re. other health conditions? I have good health generally.

[alec]

moby - sorry to hear you were infected but good that your appear to have come through unscathed. The research suggests that if you haven't developed obvious symptoms by the 3 month post infection ark, then you're likely to be in the clear regarding what is officially termed long covid. The other issue is the noted elevated prevalence of a range of other medical conditions in the 12 - 24 months post infection that are not normally being associated with the infection (eg increased prevalence being picked up at population level but where causal links to an infection are not made in individual cases).

The majority of people don't suffer any untoward additional issues, especially after a single infection. Risk appear to rise with each subsequent infection, so I guess the first advice would be to try to avoid catching it again. You probably weren't infected with JN.1, which is increasingly dominant now (and even if you were, the period of immune protection isn't very long) so avoiding the current wave would be advisable. There is some evidence (much of it the subject of fierce scientific disagreement) that covid causes some level of immune system damage or dysfunction. I personally think the evidence of some level of immune system impact is pretty clear, but the extent, duration etc is not, as yet. There is evidence that for a few weeks/months post covid you are more vulnerable to other infections (more prone to catch them, more severe if you do) so avoiding flu etc is advisable.

Other than that, I think staying generally healthy is all you can do. Son cardiologists recommend regular bi-monthly scans post covid, but that's not an option in the UK as normal heart scans don't pick up the inflammatory damage. They also recommend a graded return to high intensity exercise, over a period of months to a year, even for those without obvious symptoms.

The only other thing I can suggest is that if you do develop any symptoms, and require a GP visit, make sure to inform the medics that you have had covid. They'll probably laugh at you, but I believe it's important to start registering these things on health records, as we will, at some future point, start to join the dots.

I'm sorry this isn't of any more practical use, but basically stay healthy and do your best to keep away from another dose.