Page 152 of 280

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 1:21 pm
by dealtn
scotia wrote:But the author's own huge error in his analysis that he seems to be unaware of is that there is not a single fatality rate! It is near zero for 5 year olds, a bit more for 50 year olds and substantially more for 80 year olds.


I'm not sure that's a huge error.

You can have and measure (and compare with others) a single fatality rate. You can also break it down further into smaller sub groups. Some could be trivial, left vs right handers, blond vs brown hair etc. if you really wanted to, but the more relevant non-trivial ones would be age, gender, ethnicity, smoker, diabetic, population density etc. That would enable a better modelling where societies differed, where UK was more ethnically diverse than Ireland say, or Hackney more diverse than Cheltenham, or Japan more aged than Nigeria.

Just because he doesn't drill down into the various subsets of data doesn't mean he isn't aware of them, and the potential additional analysis that might come with it. It is legitimate to compare countries, and regions within countries, using a single population fatality (or infection) rate, unless you are aware of a specific reason why they may be legitimately different.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 2:08 pm
by Bouleversee
zico wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
I think the virulent and deadly virus you describe is more likely to originate in a laboratory than come from nature.

And as Dr Chris Martenson intriguingly points out in response to those who say there is no evidence to say SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, there is no evidence it originated in nature either.


This looks like a logical error, not an intriguing point.
We know that in nature, living organisms do evolve, mutate and develop - so that is surely the default assumption, and not one that needs to be proved with evidence. It's the unusual explanation that requires evidence before it can be have any degree of credibility.

For example, modern humans could either have evolved naturally from earlier humanoids, or aliens from the planet Zog could have interfered with neanderthal DNA to create modern humans. There's no hard evidence either way, but the first explanation is consistent with everything else we see in the natural world, so is generally accepted as being the correct answer.

A more humdrum example is that I believe the letter that dropped through my letterbox yesterday was sent by Saga Insurance through the postal system, but my next-door neighbour may well have decided to create a fake Saga letter using technology in his basement, and hand-deliver it through my letterbox. I simply have no hard evidence either way, but am confident about my belief on this one.


If it was offering a 3 year fixed price car insurance, I had it too a few weeks ago and mine wouldn't have come from your neighbour. I wasted a heck of a long time getting a quote over the phone only to find their price was vastly more than my present insurers had quoted so hastily accepted the latter.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 2:29 pm
by scotia
dealtn wrote:
scotia wrote:But the author's own huge error in his analysis that he seems to be unaware of is that there is not a single fatality rate! It is near zero for 5 year olds, a bit more for 50 year olds and substantially more for 80 year olds.


I'm not sure that's a huge error.

You can have and measure (and compare with others) a single fatality rate. You can also break it down further into smaller sub groups. Some could be trivial, left vs right handers, blond vs brown hair etc. if you really wanted to, but the more relevant non-trivial ones would be age, gender, ethnicity, smoker, diabetic, population density etc. That would enable a better modelling where societies differed, where UK was more ethnically diverse than Ireland say, or Hackney more diverse than Cheltenham, or Japan more aged than Nigeria.

Just because he doesn't drill down into the various subsets of data doesn't mean he isn't aware of them, and the potential additional analysis that might come with it. It is legitimate to compare countries, and regions within countries, using a single population fatality (or infection) rate, unless you are aware of a specific reason why they may be legitimately different.

But if you totally ignore the mortality variation with age, and the changes in behaviour that have resulted, then go on to suggest why the rate has fallen dramatically without taking this into consideration - then I would suggest that such an analysis is fatality flawed.
Instead of his barrow loads of invective about the opinions of others, I would like to see him justify his belief that Covid-19 is not a a deadly killer - in the company of Care Home managers who know otherwise.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 3:01 pm
by zico
Clitheroekid wrote:Interesting to see that Sweden's much criticised policy has now resulted in lower infection rates than its Nordic neigbours - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... -doubters/

And no mandatory masks, either.

Sweden's GDP is now expected to shrink 4.6% this year, compared to a predicted 12.4% in the UK.

Their public sector debt is estimated to rise to 42.9% of GDP this year, compared to 35.2% last year, and compared with over 100% in the UK.

Swedes 2, Turnips 1?


Here's an interesting link to the FT Times coronavirus updates. They measure lockdowns by a "stringency index" (to compare different packages of lockdown measures in different countries) and there's also an animated interactive graph showing the world map on a timeline, which shows when countries locked down hardest, and when they partially lifted it - Spain was particularly slow to respond in March (and also UK of course). Germany stands out as the most cautious nation, given that it hasn't been too badly affected by coronavirus. (You need to press the "Play" icon for the sequence to play through - I think it's a really informative way of seeing the big picture on comparing speed and strengths of various lockdowns)

The relevant point for the Sweden comparisons is that since June 6th, Norway has had a very similar lockdown regime to that of Sweden, so after 3 months of similar lockdown stringency, you'd expect infection rates to be similar in the 2 countries.

https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-lockdowns/

For anyone who still thinks lockdowns don't make any difference...ahem.
Just look at the following chart showing cases per million of population. When you click on the link, you have to wait a few seconds before the relevant graph appears. (The EU line in the chart is comparable to other countries because it's in cases per million of population).


https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?ar ... lues=cases

For Sweden, after the first few days of the outbreak, it's at much higher levels than comparable European countries, worse even than us, and almost as bad as the USA.
What's the one big difference between Sweden and the other European countries? Yes, lockdown.
If anyone thinks Sweden has already hit herd immunity levels, they've only had around 11% of their population infected, so that requires drastic rewriting of the science on herd immunity.
Noteworthy that until last week, Norway's infection rate was still much lower than Sweden, and has overtaken Sweden just in the last couple of days.

This chart also shows that UK had higher levels of infection for longer because we locked down later, and then, because other European countries partially opened up before we did, our infections fell relative to other countries.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 3:01 pm
by dealtn
scotia wrote:
dealtn wrote:
scotia wrote:But the author's own huge error in his analysis that he seems to be unaware of is that there is not a single fatality rate! It is near zero for 5 year olds, a bit more for 50 year olds and substantially more for 80 year olds.


I'm not sure that's a huge error.

You can have and measure (and compare with others) a single fatality rate. You can also break it down further into smaller sub groups. Some could be trivial, left vs right handers, blond vs brown hair etc. if you really wanted to, but the more relevant non-trivial ones would be age, gender, ethnicity, smoker, diabetic, population density etc. That would enable a better modelling where societies differed, where UK was more ethnically diverse than Ireland say, or Hackney more diverse than Cheltenham, or Japan more aged than Nigeria.

Just because he doesn't drill down into the various subsets of data doesn't mean he isn't aware of them, and the potential additional analysis that might come with it. It is legitimate to compare countries, and regions within countries, using a single population fatality (or infection) rate, unless you are aware of a specific reason why they may be legitimately different.

But if you totally ignore the mortality variation with age, and the changes in behaviour that have resulted, then go on to suggest why the rate has fallen dramatically without taking this into consideration - then I would suggest that such an analysis is fatality flawed.
Instead of his barrow loads of invective about the opinions of others, I would like to see him justify his belief that Covid-19 is not a a deadly killer - in the company of Care Home managers who know otherwise.

Well it sounds to me you know more about him, and his views, than me. I have just read that single article linked above.

I'm not sure he is making a claim that the disease isn't a killer. I'm fairly sure, without re-reading it, that he knows people have died, and continue to die, from it.

My own view is that both the behaviours of all age groups have changed over the life of the pandemic. (The young enjoying the freedoms they were denied in "lockdown", knowing it is very unlikely to affect them. The old choosing less freedom than they had when the virus was in the community, but not yet locked down). Both will have had an affect on the spread and consequences of it.

In addition as the proportion of those infected, whether they show symptoms or not, increases as it spreads the population, that too will have an effect as the percentage of those yet to have it shrinks. In some areas this (misnamed) herd immunity might already have been reached, in others barely started.

in addition we are testing (hugely) more people so obviously detecting more "cases", that would never have been detected at other stages of the pandemic. That in itself doesn't mean it is of the same magnitude when similar case levels existed in "wave 1". Also the health system is better educated and placed to understand and treat anyone infected now than March/April/May etc.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 3:15 pm
by JamesMuenchen
scotia wrote:But if you totally ignore the mortality variation with age, and the changes in behaviour that have resulted, then go on to suggest why the rate has fallen dramatically without taking this into consideration - then I would suggest that such an analysis is fatality flawed.

You would have to be able to quantify the change in behaviour to make it anything more than a suggestion.

It's unlikely that all oldies are shielding to the extent that you suggest and you also seem to be taking a much more UK-centric view than the author.

Certainly, in Italy and Germany over the summer I have seen many oldies out socialising perfectly normally. Yet they do not seem to be dying.

Your comments about care-homes are also a stick that I have only seen used to beat the UK government.

So why are so many countries seeing the same trends?


zico wrote:For anyone who still thinks lockdowns don't make any difference...ahem.
Just look at the following chart showing cases per million of population. When you click on the link, you have to wait a few seconds before the relevant graph appears. (The EU line in the chart is comparable to other countries because it's in cases per million of population).
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?ar ... lues=cases

Whereas this one
https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb ... df5b386938
shows excess deaths, and we can compare to the above and see they currently bear no relation to the increase in cases after lockdown.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 3:29 pm
by zico
JamesMuenchen wrote:Whereas this one
https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb ... df5b386938
shows excess deaths, and we can compare to the above and see they currently bear no relation to the increase in cases after lockdown.


The excess deaths charts can't be matched onto the other charts, so I don't see how it's possible to compare them.
Here's a chart on Covid-19 deaths that looks to make a better comparison. After the very early days, Sweden is consistently above the UK in deaths/million.
On this graph, the USA was doing better than Sweden for a time and then it crossed over and started doing a lot worse. USA also went into lockdown and then came out of it much faster than other countries - which seems to pretty much completely explain the difference between USA and everywhere else.

https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?ar ... ues=deaths

Here's the cumulative deaths/million chart, after the big first wave has worked its way through major western democracies.
USA/Sweden/UK at the top, with around 500 deaths/million. EU average 300 deaths/million. Germany 112 deaths/million. The chart speaks for itself.

https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?ar ... ues=deaths

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 6:10 pm
by JamesMuenchen
zico wrote:The excess deaths charts can't be matched onto the other charts, so I don't see how it's possible to compare them.

Cases are increasing, excess deaths aren't. Easy comparison.

And actually, what we see is that the epicentre moves around - always to new areas. Nowhere has really had a second spike of proper infections.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 10:16 pm
by zico
JamesMuenchen wrote:And actually, what we see is that the epicentre moves around - always to new areas. Nowhere has really had a second spike of proper infections.


I don't think the virus is on tour, and packs its bags to go to a new region/country! What's happening is that the virus took everywhere by surprise (including the places that had plenty of warning) so there was a huge amount of initial infections, and now everywhere is aware of it so people are being much more careful pretty much everywhere. It is pretty clear that holiday centres (such as Spain, south of France) have seen increases, unsurprisingly in my view, because holiday resorts attract a mix of people from lots of different countries and regions, with a large proportion letting their hair (and their guard) down to socialise and have fun.

If you look at the cumulative deaths graph I linked to, you can see the first waves have all flat-lined now after their initial surges.
USA is the nearest thing to a second spike, where the graphs show they had got the virus under control, and then they just abandoned lockdown completely in many areas, and did it way too early.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 10:36 pm
by zico
Slight correction - when infected people pack their bags to go on holiday to see new places and meet new people, of course their virus also gets to go to new places to meet new people!

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 11:10 pm
by UncleEbenezer
zico wrote:Slight correction - when infected people pack their bags to go on holiday to see new places and meet new people, of course their virus also gets to go to new places to meet new people!


The Ballad of Barnard Castle 8-)

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 7:24 am
by Mike4
In a BBC report this morning ("Today" programme, R4 at 34 mins), they are saying we now have 60,000 people suffering from "long Covid".

'Long Covis' is described as symptoms of Covid-19 lasting for three months or more. This is 17% of all cases, if the Worldometer site is correct saying there have now been 350,000 cases diagnosed in the UK.

Long covid is another reason not to catch Covid-19. People getting ill with Covid-19 and staying ill for extended periods of time is a feature not widely recognised, even on here.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 10:34 am
by sg31
Mike4 wrote:In a BBC report this morning ("Today" programme, R4 at 34 mins), they are saying we now have 60,000 people suffering from "long Covid".

'Long Covis' is described as symptoms of Covid-19 lasting for three months or more. This is 17% of all cases, if the Worldometer site is correct saying there have now been 350,000 cases diagnosed in the UK.

Long covid is another reason not to catch Covid-19. People getting ill with Covid-19 and staying ill for extended periods of time is a feature not widely recognised, even on here.


I wonder if long covid includes those who have suffered 'permanent' damage to their lungs, heart and other organs following infections. I presume it must.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 11:31 am
by Bouleversee
sg31 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:In a BBC report this morning ("Today" programme, R4 at 34 mins), they are saying we now have 60,000 people suffering from "long Covid".

'Long Covis' is described as symptoms of Covid-19 lasting for three months or more. This is 17% of all cases, if the Worldometer site is correct saying there have now been 350,000 cases diagnosed in the UK.

Long covid is another reason not to catch Covid-19. People getting ill with Covid-19 and staying ill for extended periods of time is a feature not widely recognised, even on here.


I wonder if long covid includes those who have suffered 'permanent' damage to their lungs, heart and other organs following infections. I presume it must.


On World at One yesterday there was an interview with a Professor Ivan Tencheski (sp?)from the Uni. of Stuttgart who was claiming that everyone who had been hospitalised and recovered but at discharge were still suffering from lung abnormalities and breathing difficulties would eventually recover ("there is proof that the lung repairs itself"), after several months, though it was taking longer than with pneumonia and other viruses. He didn't, however, mention scarring of the lungs specifically (though it has been stated previously that some Covid-19 patients have been left with this) or state what the abnormalities were. Nor did he mention cardiac or other problems that some who have been hospitalised are left with. However he did say (prompted by an question from the interviewer, that coughing was only a problem for about l5% of those patients.

Pulmonary Fibrosis patients have been led to believe that there is no cure for the lung scarring they have so I am particularly interested to know whether his research has included Covid patients with such scarring and whether that has been reversed by any treatment they have received in hospital or after discharge. Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis is not aware of any such recovery. If anyone learns of any new facts about this, please send me a PM as well as posting here as I don't always have time to read all posts. I note that Covid patients are receiving rehabilitation and monitoring whereas PF patients diagnosed around the time of Covid have been left to their own devices up till now with all appointments cancelled. I'd like to think there might be some spin-off from Covid which would benefit non-Covid PF patients but wouldn't put money on it. I tried to look up Prof. Tencheski but couldn't find him.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 11:49 am
by servodude
Bouleversee wrote:
sg31 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:In a BBC report this morning ("Today" programme, R4 at 34 mins), they are saying we now have 60,000 people suffering from "long Covid".

'Long Covis' is described as symptoms of Covid-19 lasting for three months or more. This is 17% of all cases, if the Worldometer site is correct saying there have now been 350,000 cases diagnosed in the UK.

Long covid is another reason not to catch Covid-19. People getting ill with Covid-19 and staying ill for extended periods of time is a feature not widely recognised, even on here.


I wonder if long covid includes those who have suffered 'permanent' damage to their lungs, heart and other organs following infections. I presume it must.


On World at One yesterday there was an interview with a Professor Ivan Tencheski (sp?)from the Uni. of Stuttgart who was claiming that everyone who had been hospitalised and recovered but at discharge were still suffering from lung abnormalities and breathing difficulties would eventually recover ("there is proof that the lung repairs itself"), after several months, though it was taking longer than with pneumonia and other viruses. He didn't, however, mention scarring of the lungs specifically (though it has been stated previously that some Covid-19 patients have been left with this) or state what the abnormalities were. Nor did he mention cardiac or other problems that some who have been hospitalised are left with. However he did say (prompted by an question from the interviewer, that coughing was only a problem for about l5% of those patients.

Pulmonary Fibrosis patients have been led to believe that there is no cure for the lung scarring they have so I am particularly interested to know whether his research has included Covid patients with such scarring and whether that has been reversed by any treatment they have received in hospital or after discharge. Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis is not aware of any such recovery. If anyone learns of any new facts about this, please send me a PM as well as posting here as I don't always have time to read all posts. I note that Covid patients are receiving rehabilitation and monitoring whereas PF patients diagnosed around the time of Covid have been left to their own devices up till now with all appointments cancelled. I'd like to think there might be some spin-off from Covid which would benefit non-Covid PF patients but wouldn't put money on it. I tried to look up Prof. Tencheski but couldn't find him.


As far as I am aware there is no way to reverse pulmonary fibrosis.
If it's bad you can treat it mechanically in a way similar to COPD; essentially spending time daily on a NIV to help get the oxygen in for the rest of your organs.

-sd

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 12:12 pm
by Bouleversee
Servodude: So far as I am aware, there isn't either but if the Prof. is saying that Covid. patients' lung abnormalities eventually disappear, it could mean that he is talking through his whatsit and giving false hope to PF patients whether or not they have had Covid or it could mean that something new has been discovered and I am trying to find out which that is. There are incidentally 2 drug treatments which slow the scarring progression, which can be rapid, but they are not offered till a very late stage because they are very expensive and don't work for long.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 12:35 pm
by Bouleversee
Correction to my post 338933:

No idea why I said Prof. Tancheski (?sp.) came from Stuttgart Uni. It was Innsbruck.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 12:47 pm
by PinkDalek
Bouleversee wrote:Correction to my post 338933:

No idea why I said Prof. Tancheski (?sp.) came from Stuttgart Uni. It was Innsbruck.


This should be a link to what appears to be an old CV:

https://www.i-med.ac.at/studium/studierende/phd/mcb/documents/doc-funds/Ivan-Tancevski_CV.pdf

Dr. Ivan Tancevski.

Many recent articles naming him and others now online, such as this one (Source: European Lung Foundation 07.09.2020):

https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/covid-19-patients-suffer-long-term-damage.html

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 1:08 pm
by Bouleversee
Fantastic, PD. Many thanks. That is obviously the report which gave rise to the interview and although it doesn't deal with the scarring question it does confirm my view that the NHS is negligent and incompetent as regards the diagnosis and care of PF patients but that's OT here so I'll let off my steam elsewhere.

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 1:37 pm
by servodude
Bouleversee wrote:Servodude: So far as I am aware, there isn't either but if the Prof. is saying that Covid. patients' lung abnormalities eventually disappear, it could mean that he is talking through his whatsit and giving false hope to PF patients whether or not they have had Covid or it could mean that something new has been discovered and I am trying to find out which that is. There are incidentally 2 drug treatments which slow the scarring progression, which can be rapid, but they are not offered till a very late stage because they are very expensive and don't work for long.


The GGO anomalies (ground glass opacities) as have been observed even in some asymptomatic COVID patients should fade with time. That's where your chest X-Ray looks like frosted glass, but it's not scarring per-se.
As for fibrosis of the lungs though, it seems to be a sad physiological feature of humans that we can't recover from any damage effectively (it appears the lungs scar in an way similar to keloids on the skin).
As far as I'm aware I do not yet think they have a good understanding of the mechanism by which COVID is scarring the lungs; but that they do know various blood treatments, like thinners, seem to help.
We won't really know the long term residual effects possible from COVID for a while, and it would be quite easy to underestimate them just now faced with its more acute presentation.

-sd