NWR new zero tolerance covid thread

Indeed Bryan! I also am human! But the evidence is overwhelming in this case so it is easier for me and I don't need to be very selective.
Countries who adopted ideological, laissez faire and or denial policies have had many more deaths (Bolsonaro, Trump, Johnson,...) so far
In the covid case, my thesis is adopting precautionary measures such as been vaccinated, washing hands, wearing masks and keeping distance are good things for the community. I obviously don't respect these all the time especially with close friends and family. As Po emphasises, it is a question of balance between disturbance and benefit
 
people dying now are invariably people with multiple other health issues.
Deaths only matter if they happen to perfect specimens?

I don't know how one would get the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of people aged over 40 with no health difficulties at all is surprisingly small. A yes/no poll of forumites would be interesting.
 
Given that our at-risk groups are now so well vaccinated I suppose there is some logic in letting Covid circulate amongst less at-risk groups, with infection acting as vaccination-by-proxy, and only pushing hard on prevention when hospitalisation rates rise significantly. I'm not saying this is definitively the right thing to do but it's not necessarily entirely stupid.
I don't think that's necessarily stupid either. My wariness would be if we consciously or unconsciously dehumanise classes of people to make it easier to dispense with them. One might suddenly find one had been classified as expendable.
 
Even looked at in productivity terms sixty-somethings are an important group, holders of knowledge and expertise, and a big chunk of the national volunteering and unpaid carers labour force. Lose one of those and everyone in their orbit suddenly has to do more, and do everything worse as a result.
 
it's certainly true that a non-trivial proportion of "Covid deaths" aren't really Covid deaths at all; if I test positive today and get knocked over by a bus tomorrow, or die of a stroke, that really wouldn't be a Covid death

Approx risk death in any 28 day period: 1 in 1000 at 60 years old, 1 in 100 at 80. Of course it will be larger for people who are older yet. I'd say those risks translate to pretty trivial proportions of people expected to die of other causes in the 28 days after a positive test.

(But that is not to say that Covid accounts for a large proportion of deaths. That is a different issue)
dyingage1.jpg

 
Given that our at-risk groups are now so well vaccinated I suppose there is some logic in letting Covid circulate amongst less at-risk groups, with infection acting as vaccination-by-proxy, and only pushing hard on prevention when hospitalisation rates rise significantly. I'm not saying this is definitively the right thing to do but it's not necessarily entirely stupid.
Really? Even though there's evidence that covid, unlike, say, the common cold, may long-term effects that are not fully understood?
 
Approx risk death in any 28 day period: 1 in 1000 at 60 years old, 1 in 100 at 80. Of course it will be larger for people who are older yet. I'd say those risks translate to pretty trivial proportions of people expected to die of other causes in the 28 days after a positive test.

(But that is not to say that Covid accounts for a large proportion of deaths. That is a different issue)
View attachment 21892

Thanks for the Bandolier source too, Steve.
 
I don't think that's necessarily stupid either. My wariness would be if we consciously or unconsciously dehumanise classes of people to make it easier to dispense with them. One might suddenly find one had been classified as expendable.
What it does remind you is that if you don’t look after your health, you are indeed more vulnerable to something as virulent as Covid. Of course a proportion of those with comorbidities have no choice in the matter (e.g. those with congenitally compromised immune systems, neurological illnesses, or many of the people suffering from cancer) but a significant proportion of people have rendered themselves markedly more vulnerable through life choices. Refusing the vaccine is yet another poor health decision. Either way, in a compassionate society everyone should be treated as well as possible by the healthcare system.
 
In order to draw any conclusions then Steve, we'd need to know what proportion of males and females at any given age actually die in the 28 days after a positive test? That'd be useful information (it may be available, I don't know?)

Even if we did know that, those numbers you have quoted will be population-level statistics. It's not necessarily OK to just assume, for example, that the population group "males aged 67 who have just tested positive for Covid" is entirely representative of the population group "males aged 67".
But I see no support in the data for your contention that "it's certainly true that a non-trivial proportion of 'Covid deaths' aren't really Covid deaths at all". You might be able to demonstrate it for some groups with more detailed analysis, but it's far from obvious to me.

Actually, whether "the proportion of natural deaths being wrongly attributed to Covid" is trivial or not is perhaps the wrong question. For example, I'd say 10% is non-trivial, but when it comes to ethical and policy decisions, the statistic is still IMO useful.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that the Republic of Ireland are going into lockdown again. They have achieved a 90% fully vaccinated rate for over 12s (pretty much the highest in Europe) yet their death rates are as high as the former worst peak and hospitalisation rates are rapidly approaching that point. Details here. Anyone have any insight into why this might be the case when all other nations with similar vaccination rates are seeing lower deaths and less hospitalisations?
 
Interesting that the Republic of Ireland are going into lockdown again. They have achieved a 90% fully vaccinated rate for over 12s (pretty much the highest in Europe) yet their death rates are as high as the former worst peak and hospitalisation rates are rapidly approaching that point. Details here. Anyone have any insight into why this might be the case when all other nations with similar vaccination rates are seeing lower deaths and less hospitalisations?

Interesting. Speaking from experience, being double vaccinated does not prevent getting pretty ill (even if 41 relatively fit and not overweight), even if it does not mean hospitalisation.

Also anecdotally Covid is rife atm amongst business friends and schools. Hopefully we can avoid a lockdown here, especially if people get boosters when offered.
 
Interesting that the Republic of Ireland are going into lockdown again. They have achieved a 90% fully vaccinated rate for over 12s (pretty much the highest in Europe) yet their death rates are as high as the former worst peak and hospitalisation rates are rapidly approaching that point. Details here. Anyone have any insight into why this might be the case when all other nations with similar vaccination rates are seeing lower deaths and less hospitalisations?

Actually Singapore’s weekly death # is slightly higher than Ireland even though we have 30% less daily cases, we are around 85% vaccinated with 20% already had booster jab.
 
Anyone have any insight into why this might be the case when all other nations with similar vaccination rates are seeing lower deaths and less hospitalisations?
I have no specific insights, but international comparisons are always difficult as different definitions are used, different criteria for hospitalisation, and different methods of gathering data.

Not to mention blatant manipulation of data for political purposes. Wrong forum for that ;)
 
Only guess I can make re the irish situation is the issue with waning immunity from the vaccines having been given a while ago. Have they started a booster program? Presumably, somebody somewhere is tracking the impact of boosters on the rates of infection, hospitalisation and death?
 
Only guess I can make re the irish situation is the issue with waning immunity from the vaccines having been given a while ago. Have they started a booster program? Presumably, somebody somewhere is tracking the impact of boosters on the rates of infection, hospitalisation and death?
These study figures were released on gov.uk this week.

“These findings show that 2 weeks after receiving a booster dose, protection against symptomatic infection in adults aged 50 years and over was 93.1% in those with AstraZeneca as their primary course and 94.0% for Pfizer-BioNTech.”
 
These study figures were released on gov.uk this week.

“These findings show that 2 weeks after receiving a booster dose, protection against symptomatic infection in adults aged 50 years and over was 93.1% in those with AstraZeneca as their primary course and 94.0% for Pfizer-BioNTech.”
how does that compare with people who have not received the booster dose, do we know?
 
how does that compare with people who have not received the booster dose, do we know?
Leon
Each time I read the figures seem different. There were
figures this week of high 40% for both common vaccines as Tom says with AZ being worse. In September there were studies of around 70% with AZ holding the upper hand. Both studies after six months. I think both were for catching the virus rather than hospital or death.
What’s certain is that a booster or third jab will increase protection.
 

I am sure many have already seen this.
Still, if confirmed, it's a major break through: 89% effectiveness in reducing severe illness is very good for antiviral drugs. Tamiflu is less effective than this for flu.
I wouldn't say we are closer to "defeat" this disease, but indeed it's a big step towards more normal life, even that means we have to live with it.
Any idea how much the Pfizer pill costs, and are there alternative drugs that might have a similar impact?

 
Only guess I can make re the irish situation is the issue with waning immunity from the vaccines having been given a while ago. Have they started a booster program? Presumably, somebody somewhere is tracking the impact of boosters on the rates of infection, hospitalisation and death?
It's also worth noting that total Irish deaths per capita reported as being due to Covid are just over half of those of the UK. Again - not sure how to interpret this, but can imagine that the nature of the remaining population could have an impact
 
Any idea how much the Pfizer pill costs, and are there alternative drugs that might have a similar impact?

I think the answer to the question "does Ivermectin cure covid" is pretty well known by now...

I thought this thread was excellent - definitely worth your coffee break this morning.


Some choice excerpts:

Unfortunately, it’s all false. Some epidemiologists and reporters were able to obtain the raw data (it was password-protected, but the password was “1234”), and it was pretty bizarre. Some patients appeared to have died before the trial started; others were arranged in groups of four such that it seemed like the authors had just copy-pasted the same four patients again and again

These results make ivermectin look amazingly super-good, probably better than any other drug for any other disease, except maybe stuff like vitamins for treatment of vitamin deficiency.

Anyway, it’s too confusing to interpret, shows implausible results, and is by a known fraudster, so I feel okay about ignoring this one.

A crazy person decided to put his patients on every weird medication he could think of, and 585 subjects ended up on a combination of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and nitazoxanide, with dutasteride and spironolactone "optionally offered" and vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, apixaban, rivaraxoban, enoxaparin, and glucocorticoids "added according to clinical judgment". There was no control group

Science writing *can* be fun!
 
Top