Can we come out to play ?

[RJJ]

I think that the only really strong evidence is the overall death rate, which is about twice the norm for this time of year. And as things like road casualties are probably down, the death rate may be higher.

Afraid this is wrong. First, it's up by around 10-20pc. Heart disease, lung disease, strokes and cancer are still bigger killers than cv19. Second, there are excess non-CV19, which indicates the direct impact of lockdown on other NHS treatments.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Afraid this is wrong. First, it's up by around 10-20pc. Heart disease, lung disease, strokes and cancer are still bigger killers than cv19. Second, there are excess non-CV19, which indicates the direct impact of lockdown on other NHS treatments.

Not according to this: Understanding excess mortality | The Health Foundation

I've seen similar graphs on the BBC website as well. Both sources indicate that the overall death rate is approximately double the norm - up from around 12,000 to 24,000.

The majority of the excess is Covid-19 related

 

[RJJ]

Not according to this: Understanding excess mortality | The Health Foundation

I've seen similar graphs on the BBC website as well. Both sources indicate that the overall death rate is approximately double the norm - up from around 12,000 to 24,000.

The majority of the excess is Covid-19 related

Sorry, I was referring to YTD, we are at cross purposes.

Reading at FullFact, the point made is we won't really know until some months down the line. I reckon (crystal ball) the annual figure will be a small but noticeable blip.

 

[FlyingGoose]

Not according to this: Understanding excess mortality | The Health Foundation

I've seen similar graphs on the BBC website as well. Both sources indicate that the overall death rate is approximately double the norm - up from around 12,000 to 24,000.

The majority of the excess is Covid-19 related

Yes there is little questioning that more deaths are being reported, but there are still numbers in the total deaths that are unexplained, which could be related to those that did not seek medical attention because of covid,
Also the excess deaths over the 5 year rolling average have one spike of bad Flu season 2017 -2018 were over 26000 people died of that Flu outbreak, life has ways of using cycles and this is another bad Flu cycle , yes more dangerous , because the human immune system has never encountered it before,
So in the next rolling 5 year average we will see this spike and then the average will play out if we control the Flu outbreaks in the future.
Just taking the excess deaths as face value , of 12000 people to a population of 65 million and we can see that the fear and panic at the beginning of 500000 deaths has been discredited .
We were also at the beginning on this forum and the news and the WHO of a death rate of 2 to 3 % , which these figures were completely inaccurate and had no basis been announced, there was no way to get a death rate against unknown infections within a population, this again put fear into people.
As numbers stand the death rate for the World is 2,65,000 in a population of 7.8 billion giving a death rate as 0,003% hardly the Armageddon of the World .

 

[JumbleDuck]

I think that the only really strong evidence is the overall death rate, which is about twice the norm for this time of year. And as things like road casualties are probably down, the death rate may be higher.

True, but even the overall death rate is misleading at this stage, as it inevitably includes many people who would have died soon anyway. We'll really need to see how things work out over a year at least to assess the true impact.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Don't let's divide. Let's make common cause where possible.

Absolutely. That's why I am suggesting general rules for general application, rather than targeting different activities separately.

 

[Iliade]

Not according to this: Understanding excess mortality | The Health Foundation

I've seen similar graphs on the BBC website as well. Both sources indicate that the overall death rate is approximately double the norm - up from around 12,000 to 24,000.

The majority of the excess is Covid-19 related

An acquaintance passed away yesterday from cancer. But he died from cancer now because his treatment was stopped as a result of CV-19 overloading the hospital. (Not UK) Without CV-19 the inevitable may have been delayed by years.

 

[jordanbasset]

Not according to this: Understanding excess mortality | The Health Foundation

I've seen similar graphs on the BBC website as well. Both sources indicate that the overall death rate is approximately double the norm - up from around 12,000 to 24,000.

The majority of the excess is Covid-19 related

Agree, the figures are more stark when you consider that we have had a very mild spring and a low incidence of normal flu, both factors which in a normal year would mean we should have significantly lower excess deaths than an average year

 

[Beneteau381]

There, I’ve corrected that for you. ?

Yawn yawn!

 

[Stemar]

let's please seek for restrictions to be applied based on science.

I'm with you on that, but I suspect that those with the knowhow are a bit busy with more important things than a bunch of grumpy yotties whinging about not being able to go to their boats, and I include myself in that bunch, btw.

 

[pcatterall]

virus spread 'ONLY by prolonged social contact' ?? surely that cannot be correct? I can understand that prolonged social contact is more likely to spread infection but think that even fleeting near proximity with an infected person COULD result in passing the virus.

 

[JumbleDuck]

virus spread 'ONLY by prolonged social contact' ?? surely that cannot be correct? I can understand that prolonged social contact is more likely to spread infection but think that even fleeting near proximity with an infected person COULD result in passing the virus.

I believe that spread by touch (supermarket trolley handles, marina keypads, that sort of thing) is at the moment only a hypothetical possibility and hasn't actually been shown to happen.

 

[Ian_Rob]

I believe that spread by touch (supermarket trolley handles, marina keypads, that sort of thing) is at the moment only a hypothetical possibility and hasn't actually been shown to happen.

Can you provide your sources for this statement please.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Can you provide your sources for this statement please.

I just wrote it. If you mean, can I find a source saying that it's only a possibility, no, more-or-less by definition.

The WHO scientific briefing on transmission says "Therefore, transmission of the COVID-19 virus can occur by direct contact with infected people and indirect contact with surfaces in the immediate environment or with objects used on the infected person (e.g., stethoscope or thermometer)." but it's not at all clear whether that applies to supermarket shopping trolleys and so on. There certainly doesn't seem to be any suggestion that it spreads directly through skin contact, though picking your nose after shaking hands with an infected person who has just sneezed onto their hand is not a good idea at all.

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and a degree of caution is sensible, but so is a degree of realism.

 

[RJJ]

virus spread 'ONLY by prolonged social contact' ?? surely that cannot be correct? I can understand that prolonged social contact is more likely to spread infection but think that even fleeting near proximity with an infected person COULD result in passing the virus.

The risk is near-zero.

It all depends what we think the goal is here. If you think we are trying to eliminate the disease, then we have a very low risk tolerance for ANY transmission. In fact we would need at least six weeks of SUPERHARD lockdown. No key workers, no NHS, nothing. If you get sick, you die at home.

If more realistically you think we are trying to flatten the curve, which is the only argument put forward by advocates back in March and, by the way, I support, so that we operate within healthcare resources, then we can be more tolerant of small risks.

Passing someone infected fleetingly, even within 2m, is near-zero risk. All the journals write of prolonged close social contact.

 

[pcatterall]

I just wrote it. If you mean, can I find a source saying that it's only a possibility, no, more-or-less by definition.

The WHO scientific briefing on transmission says "Therefore, transmission of the COVID-19 virus can occur by direct contact with infected people and indirect contact with surfaces in the immediate environment or with objects used on the infected person (e.g., stethoscope or thermometer)." but it's not at all clear whether that applies to supermarket shopping trolleys and so on. There certainly doesn't seem to be any suggestion that it spreads directly through skin contact, though picking your nose after shaking hands with an infected person who has just sneezed onto their hand is not a good idea at all.

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and a degree of caution is sensible, but so is a degree of realism.

I did read a report quoting research that the covid 19 virus was especially good at 'attaching itself' to human skin

 

[Graham376]

Passing someone infected fleetingly, even within 2m, is near-zero risk.

Unless they happen to be sneezing or coughing at the time.

 

[FlyingGoose]

I did read a report quoting research that the covid 19 virus was especially good at 'attaching itself' to human skin

Your Skin for a bit of quiz knowledge , is the biggest organ in your body, and has many ways to avoid virus infiltration, it is impossible for a Corona virus to enter via the skin , unless there is an open wound, the virus is spread via the Mucous membranes of the mouth , eyes , nose,
you either breath in droplets of vapour from an infected person , hence why 2 metres is recommended
Or you have contact with the virus on a surface and then the virus enters via you putting you fingers in your mouth, rubbing your eye's, picking you nose
Even at this level it is not known how much virus you will pick up,
one would suspect but not proven that most people got infected by being close proximity to those with the virus already and taking in their droplets, hence London seeing the biggest spike but also the biggest fall as social distancing went into action, the tube , the theatre the bars etc, closing

 

[Richard10002]

Yes there is little questioning that more deaths are being reported, but there are still numbers in the total deaths that are unexplained, which could be related to those that did not seek medical attention because of covid,
Also the excess deaths over the 5 year rolling average have one spike of bad Flu season 2017 -2018 were over 26000 people died of that Flu outbreak, life has ways of using cycles and this is another bad Flu cycle , yes more dangerous , because the human immune system has never encountered it before,
So in the next rolling 5 year average we will see this spike and then the average will play out if we control the Flu outbreaks in the future.
Just taking the excess deaths as face value , of 12000 people to a population of 65 million and we can see that the fear and panic at the beginning of 500000 deaths has been discredited .
We were also at the beginning on this forum and the news and the WHO of a death rate of 2 to 3 % , which these figures were completely inaccurate and had no basis been announced, there was no way to get a death rate against unknown infections within a population, this again put fear into people.
As numbers stand the death rate for the World is 2,65,000 in a population of 7.8 billion giving a death rate as 0,003% hardly the Armageddon of the World .

The big numbers quoted were predictions based on no action.

Given that everywhere has locked down, or some other measure, it is not a surprise that the numbers are much lower, and this does not prove that the initial predictions were wrong.

We will actually never know what the numbers would have been had no steps been taken. We don't get to run this again to see what would have happened, and we didn't get to have a "control group". The initial predictions may have been wrong, in either direction, by a variety of differing magnitudes, but nobody can ever know what might have been.

 

[Richard10002]

Agree, the figures are more stark when you consider that we have had a very mild spring and a low incidence of normal flu, both factors which in a normal year would mean we should have significantly lower excess deaths than an average year

Where have you seen the figures for normal flu? I've been wondering how they have been comparing to the 17,000 a year average.