Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Nimrod103]

Lets start with the "bleedin' obvious". There have been approximately 53,000 excess deaths in England during the Covid-19 outbreak this Spring, and for three weeks the death rate was approximately twice the 5 year average. Covid-19 infections follow a classical chain reaction pattern. If the reproduction rate is greater than 1, then the number of infections increases. Shortly before the lockdown, infections were doubling every few days. So one thousand infections becomes one million infections in a month - simple arithmetic. The lockdown quickly reduced the reproduction rate, and we now have an infection rate which hopefully can be controlled by tracing and isolating contacts. The most recent study has shown that approximately 6% of the English population have antibodies to Covid-19, and scientific studies have shown that this is a reasonable estimate of the number that have already been infected, and so are hopefully unlikely to be re-infected. Even if you guess that this is a low estimate, and double it, then it still leaves a substantial majority of the population who could become infected.

This sounds like science, and there are plenty of medics who have signed up to this view in print, that we are nowhere near herd immunity.

But it really is not supported by the evidence of how this infection is progressing. Many countries are experiencing a second peak of measured infections, but hospitalizations and deaths have not risen. This has been explained away as being due to the young and fit being infected, and being detected by greatly ramped up testing programmes. But the surviving elderly have not been locked away. In the UK, they are out and about, shopping and socialising. If population immunity levels were still only of the order of 6%, deaths should by now rising rapidly. They are not. From that I conclude much of what is being said is bogus science.

[Wuffle]

It ought not go without notice that 'infected' simply doesn't matter for nearly everybody.
And 'deaths due to Covid' is happening to a lot of people who were in that ballpark anyway.
These are not irrelevant facts when discussing proportionality of response.
A positive integer should not give carte blanche.

W.

[scotia]

The lockdown quickly reduced the reproduction rate, and we now have an infection rate which hopefully can be controlled by tracing and isolating contacts.

This is where you start being wrong. I don't think there is any room for argument about this. It is a simple question of causality and timing.

I think you should have said say "I personally believe that this is where you start being wrong". And hopefully you would continue "And I intend publishing my (minority view) in a reputable scientific journal". But you have already said that you would not do so. Why not?
I have already gone over many of your points in previous contributions pointing out difficulties in your analysis, but let me simply return to the most significant one. The measured antibody rate in a sample of 100,000 English tests (Ward et al) shows an average of 6% - but this varies from 2.8% in the South West to 13% in London. If there was some form of herd immunity which quenched the infection - why did it result in such widely varying antibody rates? And whether or not these rates have decreased by a factor of 2 (as I generously allowed), is totally irrelevant.
I'm afraid a Journal referee will want a clear explanation of that point.

[johnhemming]

The lockdown quickly reduced the reproduction rate, and we now have an infection rate which hopefully can be controlled by tracing and isolating contacts.

This is where you start being wrong. I don't think there is any room for argument about this. It is a simple question of causality and timing.

I think you should have said say "I personally believe that this is where you start being wrong". And hopefully you would continue "And I intend publishing my (minority view) in a reputable scientific journal". But you have already said that you would not do so. Why not?
I have already gone over many of your points in previous contributions pointing out difficulties in your analysis, but let me simply return to the most

Other people have published the details of this in a much more substantial way than I have already. There really is no sense me publishing what is in essence a repeat of what others have done in more detail.

I am quite clear on this. You are wrong. I don't think there is an uncertainty now.

[redsturgeon]

If we are close to or at herd immunity then why do we keep getting flare ups in clusters from super spreaders?

The problem with the UK lockdown was that it started 1-2 weeks too late and thus had to go on for too long.

I'd agree though that with the limited hospitalisations it is time to start returning to normal, while keeping a close eye on numbers of infections/hospitalisations.

John

[scotia]

But the surviving elderly have not been locked away. In the UK, they are out and about, shopping and socialising.

That's not my experience . Have you had a look at the footfall in M&S or Waitrose? And none of us golden oldies have any choice whether or not we want to attend a theatre or a concert hall.

[johnhemming]

If we are close to or at herd immunity then why do we keep getting flare ups in clusters from super spreaders?

The testing that is going on is not that reliable. Herd immunity does not get rid of the disease instead it means that the disease cannot spread rapidly. The disease will be around for decades in the same way that H1N1 is around today (Spanish Flu/Swine Flu).

[servodude]

This is where you start being wrong. I don't think there is any room for argument about this. It is a simple question of causality and timing.

I think you should have said say "I personally believe that this is where you start being wrong". And hopefully you would continue "And I intend publishing my (minority view) in a reputable scientific journal". But you have already said that you would not do so. Why not?
I have already gone over many of your points in previous contributions pointing out difficulties in your analysis, but let me simply return to the most

Other people have published the details of this in a much more substantial way than I have already. There really is no sense me publishing what is in essence a repeat of what others have done in more detail.

I am quite clear on this. You are wrong. I don't think there is an uncertainty now.

John,
Did you ever redo your calculation working back from peak deaths with a value for time to death from infection that wasn't too large?
We know the median wasn't the right value to use, as it would give too long a period, and you seem confident enough in how you're presenting your case to not be relying on that for your statements about the lack of impact of lockdown; I might have missed them and I'd be interested to see the working. (There's too much of this stuff to keep track of sometimes)
Thanks
-sd

[scotia]

Other people have published the details of this in a much more substantial way than I have already. There really is no sense me publishing what is in essence a repeat of what others have done in more detail.

Could you provide me with references in reputable scientific journals?

I am quite clear on this. You are wrong. I don't think there is an uncertainty now.

That's some statement - and way out of line with the most recent large scale investigation in England (Ward et al) . I quote
"Our findings are also broadly in line with large prevalence surveys in other countries which have
shown a relatively low overall prevalence, despite apparently large outbreaks, and far below what
would be necessary to confer some level of herd immunity."
So is this work flawed? Are there any refutations of this study? And, if we believe your opinions should we stop wasting time on trying to develop a vaccine - because its all over?

[johnhemming]

Did you ever redo your calculation working back from peak deaths with a value for time to death from infection that wasn't too large? We know the median wasn't the right value to use, as it would give too long a period, and you seem confident enough in how you're presenting your case to not be relying on that for your statements about the lack of impact of lockdown; I might have missed them and I'd be interested to see the working. (There's too much of this stuff to keep track of sometimes)

There are really two sources of information that supersede the relatively simple calculation I did. Plus others that confirm it.

One is the comparison of the Swedish and English charts of deaths. The key difference between the charts is that England went for lockdown and Sweden didn't.


The other is this paper which looks at the detailed figures from hospitals.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

Discussion
This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown
by several days. Indeed the failure to undertake the sampling that could have gathered data to directly
measure infections early in the epidemic means that it will never be possible to be certain about timings,
given the substantial biases in clinical data other than deaths and fatal disease duration. What the results
show is that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable data strongly suggest
that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before full lockdown, and that community
infections, unlike deaths, were probably at a low level well before lockdown was eased. Furthermore,
such a scenario would be consistent with the infection profile in Sweden, which began its decline in fatal
infections shortly after the UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown.
These facts may have implications for the policies to be adopted in subsequent infection waves,
particularly given the peculiar ethical issues associated with lockdown. For example, a plausible estimate
of the life loss burden from an unmitigated COVID-19 epidemic in the UK is about 2 weeks per person5
.
A plausible lower bound on the UK life loss from the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath is 7 weeks
per person6
. The economic shock from lockdown is substantially larger than 2008: Bank of England
projections suggest the largest shock for 100 or 300 years. Viewed another way, stringent suppression
measures might save 2 million UK life years, but the same UK population was on course to suffer around
200 million lost life years associated with economic deprivation and inequality before the COVID-19
crisis7
: carefully balanced policy is required to ensure that the suppression measures do not exacerbate
this by much more than one percent and lead to a net loss of life. Similarly the implied willingness to
pay to save a life year from COVID-19 appears to be an order of magnitude higher than the usual UK
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold used for other diseases8
. Delayed health
interventions for serious conditions, although difficult to mitigate, represent a further life loss burden.

You also have the RCGP data
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-does ... community/

And the hospital admissions data
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthc ... me=England

[johnhemming]

So is this work flawed? Are there any refutations of this study? And, if we believe your opinions should we stop wasting time on trying to develop a vaccine - because its all over?

I gave you this list earlier. I have previously posted links to evidence this. If there is any of these things that you refute then I will do that again.

Scientific studies have shown:
a) That people who have antibodies often have antibodies fading. That makes it clear that one would expect the levels of antibodies to fade. Tests in London initially showed an antibody rate of 17% and then later 10% which is consistent with this.
b) That many people defeat the disease by using T Lymphocytes and do not generate antibodies.
c) That potentially around half of the population have T cell immunity from prior coronavirus infections.
d) That a heteregenous population has a lower herd immunity threshold.

[Nimrod103]

But the surviving elderly have not been locked away. In the UK, they are out and about, shopping and socialising.

That's not my experience . Have you had a look at the footfall in M&S or Waitrose? And none of us golden oldies have any choice whether or not we want to attend a theatre or a concert hall.

If you follow the recent work of Carl Heneghan (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -says.html or https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cor ... table-why-)

He is from the University of Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, and explains things a lot better than I can.

[scotia]

I think you should have said say "I personally believe that this is where you start being wrong". And hopefully you would continue "And I intend publishing my (minority view) in a reputable scientific journal". But you have already said that you would not do so. Why not?
I have already gone over many of your points in previous contributions pointing out difficulties in your analysis, but let me simply return to the most

Other people have published the details of this in a much more substantial way than I have already. There really is no sense me publishing what is in essence a repeat of what others have done in more detail.

I am quite clear on this. You are wrong. I don't think there is an uncertainty now.

John,
Did you ever redo your calculation working back from peak deaths with a value for time to death from infection that wasn't too large?
We know the median wasn't the right value to use, as it would give too long a period, and you seem confident enough in how you're presenting your case to not be relying on that for your statements about the lack of impact of lockdown; I might have missed them and I'd be interested to see the working. (There's too much of this stuff to keep track of sometimes)
Thanks
-sd

And I'll add John - did you ever use real data - i.e. Excess deaths which are significantly larger than Covid-19-recorded deaths. If I remember correctly I think you only ever used Covid-19 recorded deaths in hospitals. Not an impressive data set when it is estimated that around 40% of the UK registered Covid-19 related deaths were in Care Homes.

https://ltccovid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Mortality-associated-with-COVID-among-people-who-use-long-term-care-26-June.pdf

[scotia]

But the surviving elderly have not been locked away. In the UK, they are out and about, shopping and socialising.

That's not my experience . Have you had a look at the footfall in M&S or Waitrose? And none of us golden oldies have any choice whether or not we want to attend a theatre or a concert hall.

If you follow the recent work of Carl Heneghan (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -says.html or https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cor ... table-why-)

He is from the University of Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, and explains things a lot better than I can.

I'm afraid I give little credence to newspaper articles - scientific work requires open scrutiny by experts in the field - i.e. published in a reputable journal - or at least in pre-published form, awaiting scrutiny. I well remember of the idiocy of cold fusion - issued as a press release.
However I freely agree that the deaths per Covid-19 infection is falling - probably due to the improvements in treatments, and in the most affected sections of the populations (oldies and the infirm) taking significantly more care in social interactions.

[bungeejumper]

But the surviving elderly have not been locked away. In the UK, they are out and about, shopping and socialising.

That's not my experience . Have you had a look at the footfall in M&S or Waitrose? And none of us golden oldies have any choice whether or not we want to attend a theatre or a concert hall.

Nothing more than anecdotal, but practically none of my circle of friends are going into shops at the moment unless there's a really urgent need. Food deliveries are still almost exclusively online, and accounts of trips to the supermart are laden with horror stories about non-distancing and non-masking. Even the garden centres are empty, and if that doesn't tell a story I really don't know what does. Anyone around here who possibly can is still WFH.

Also anecdotally, I needed to spend four hours in central Bath yesterday while my car was being serviced, and I took the opportunity to wander round. There were perhaps a quarter of the normal number of people on the streets, of whom probably 60% were under 40, and the stores were deathly quiet. M&S and Boots were like the Marie Celeste, and Waitrose was hardly better. The cafes were empty, and probably half of them were closed. Even the buskers were staying away!

On the plus side, people were being generally careful about social distancing, and probably half were wearing masks in the street (and nearly all were doing so in the shops). But then, Bath isn't your average city centre. Traffic levels are reminiscent of when I first arrived in town 40 years ago - you find that you get to your cross-town destinations embarrassingly early.

[scotia]

John - I'll try again - are there any refutations of this major study (Ward et al). If, as you have suggested, their conclusions (a section of which which I quoted) are known to be incorrect, I would have expected an avalanche of scientifically based refutations.
And to the second point - are a large number of worldwide organisations pulling out all the stops, at great expense, to produce a vaccine that is not required (according to your analysis).

[scotia]

And I should have included a reference to the most recent study of Covid-19 in Care Homes
https://ltccovid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/COVID-19-mortality-in-long-term-care-final-Sat-29-v1.pdf

[johnhemming]

And I'll add John - did you ever use real data - i.e. Excess deaths which are significantly larger than Covid-19-recorded deaths. If I remember correctly I think you only ever used Covid-19 recorded deaths in hospitals. Not an impressive data set when it is estimated that around 40% of the UK registered Covid-19 related deaths were in Care Homes.

The data is "real data". I use this particular data because it is consistently measured. It is important, for example, to look at the date that someone dies rather than the date upon which the death is reported.

It is the same as the ONS data on covid infections. They have a subset which is randomly selected. Only that data has the chance of giving anything close to a reliable result. There are, however, issues anyway with PCR tests.

[Wuffle]

'And to the second point - are a large number of worldwide organisations pulling out all the stops, at great expense, to produce a vaccine that is not required (according to your analysis)'

Most of what we do in the western world doesn't need doing.
Hence we can have 25% of it just stop.
But....

W.

[johnhemming]

John - I'll try again - are there any refutations of this major study (Ward et al)

Please give a link to it.

It is worth trying to get a vaccine as the process is a valuable process even if we end up with global herd immunity before the vaccine is ready. There will be new people being born who are not immune and there are potentially good arguments for vulnerable people to be vaccinated anyway.