Coronavirus

[bazil85]

Just now, faraway saint said:

My apologies, misunderstood your reply.

As for going "tonto" I have reason so best we leave it at that. 

Away to check my window for flying pigs lol...

In all seriousness I hope things are okay with your father and the impact on the care home is as mitigated as it possibly can be, horrible situation facing far too many. 

[antrin]

1 hour ago, insaintee said:

Deaths are compared to the 5 year average. Deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland | National Records of Scotland (nrscotland.gov.uk) Clearly there is an increase in deaths. 

I really don't think the jury is out on asymptomatic spread. How do think it spread in the first place 

I don't deny that THIS may be a bad year for flu-like complications that lead to death.  With the best will in the world I took your proffered link to be one that would disabuse me of my worry about where all the flu deaths had gone... 

It hasn't placated me.  I scoured the various ongoing links, there -  looked at the xcel and other displays of info and couldn't find the 'F' word - flu...  

The last couple of years (as you doubtless know) were very flu-light also.  Particularly in the UK and a couple of other countries such as Sweden and Belgium.  Thus...

Some of those who might have died in those years due to flu didn't.  They'd be in the firing line, now. Excess deaths would rise, be bigger than for the last couple of years.  I'm sure you must know this.

But all these naturally occurring flu deaths are being scarily grouped under cv19.  Where is this year's normal fluctuation/rise in flu deaths?  Average flu deaths suggest it should be a biggie.  Flu has vanished.

 

As for how cv19 spread in the first place...  Again, you know this.

Since the start of this year, those who caught it and were asymptomatic would pass it on to others before they knew (and even if they never knew) that they were ill. 

At Ne'erday, I wrote to a friend about me having the weirdest cold/flu ever: a lot of coughing, some chestiness, feeling rough and a bit achy but absolutely no headache and/or running nose.  It was so different that I actually wrote and remarked upon it.  I still don't know if it was cv19 - I got over it in a week or so but it took me a wee while before I started running again.  I knew it was unusual.

If I were now to go for a test, it might well find traces of of covid in the sample and my test would be positive.  (This is a point that the Prof laboured).  The test result would  be  an irrelevantly pointless positive that had been found as I now would not be a spreader.

 

And yet this is precisely the sort of irrelevant finding that is driving the lockdowns.

Edited November 25, 2020 by antrin

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

It should be said not E VERY person who is "older" dies from this.

There was a 73 year old on ITV, way back in March/April who had mild flu like symptoms for 3-4 days but, other than that, was as fit as a fiddle.

The current outbreak in my Dad's care home has currently 47 cases with 1 death, to date.

It certainly is worth thinking about but it's NOT the certain death sentence some would have us believe. 

 

Correct.

The coronavirus is most deadly if you are older and male — new data reveal the risks (nature.com)

 

[faraway saint]

6 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Correct.

The coronavirus is most deadly if you are older and male — new data reveal the risks (nature.com)

 

Grannies of the world are overjoyed. 

Aye, NOT as certain as the current debate is suggesting.

Still, increased risk, increases the end result, however small it maybe.

Edited November 25, 2020 by faraway saint

[insaintee]

1 hour ago, antrin said:

I don't deny that THIS may be a bad year for flu-like complications that lead to death.  With the best will in the world I took your proffered link to be one that would disabuse me of my worry about where all the flu deaths had gone... 

It hasn't placated me.  I scoured the various ongoing links, there -  looked at the xcel and other displays of info and couldn't find the 'F' word - flu...  

The last couple of years (as you doubtless know) were very flu-light also.  Particularly in the UK and a couple of other countries such as Sweden and Belgium.  Thus...

Some of those who might have died in those years due to flu didn't.  They'd be in the firing line, now. Excess deaths would rise, be bigger than for the last couple of years.  I'm sure you must know this.

But all these naturally occurring flu deaths are being scarily grouped under cv19.  Where is this year's normal fluctuation/rise in flu deaths?  Average flu deaths suggest it should be a biggie.  Flu has vanished.

 

As for how cv19 spread in the first place...  Again, you know this.

Since the start of this year, those who caught it and were asymptomatic would pass it on to others before they knew (and even if they never knew) that they were ill. 

At Ne'erday, I wrote to a friend about me having the weirdest cold/flu ever: a lot of coughing, some chestiness, feeling rough and a bit achy but absolutely no headache and/or running nose.  It was so different that I actually wrote and remarked upon it.  I still don't know if it was cv19 - I got over it in a week or so but it took me a wee while before I started running again.  I knew it was unusual.

If I were now to go for a test, it might well find traces of of covid in the sample and my test would be positive.  (This is a point that the Prof laboured).  The test result would  be  an irrelevantly pointless positive that had been found as I now would not be a spreader.

 

And yet this is precisely the sort of irrelevant finding that is driving the lockdowns.

I think you need to do more research. We did have flu deaths this year, when we would normally expect them (January) the Covid death is April May and June, and now in September, October and November are not masking flu deaths, and if this was a flu then the rate of deaths would be such that would be equally concerned. 

The PCR test as opposed to the antibody test, does not pick up fragments of virus and they would not be detectable after 11 months. 

If you have sufficient viral load to give a positive test then symptomatic or not you are likely to be infectious. That's the whole point of test and protect, to isolate infectious cases that otherwise would be spreading the disease. Clearly and from your comments you agree that asymptotic test positive cases are what spreads the disease. Hence the tests and the isolation policy is most certainly not just about scaremongering. 

You can rerun the mortality charts using ten year averages instead of five, you rerun them using the maximum values for the past ten years and you still get massive excess deaths. At the peak, deaths were running at almost twice the expected level. on a UK basis. 

Your good "professor" knows all this but still feels he has to peddle his crock of shit.

[FTOF]

16 minutes ago, insaintee said:

 

The PCR test as opposed to the antibody test, does not pick up fragments of virus and they would not be detectable after 11 months. 

 

The whole point of the RT- PCR technique is that it amplifies fragments of DNA . Coronavirus only has RNA which has to be "converted" into DNA, to allow these fragments to be "matched" with shorter strands of known DNA. So fragments of viral RNA are "picked up".

However, you are correct that this method of testing does not seem detect past infections.

I read up on it after watching the Yeadon video as I wasn't sure that I believed everything that he claimed.

It seems that he may well be incorrect in stating that the test would pick up viral fragments from previous infections, which is surprising given his level of expertise in epidemiology. 

He also stated that the testing method was flawed because it was essentially a test used in forensics. However, it's quite clear that the technique has been adapted and used for years to detect viral diseases, the likes of Ebola and African swine fever, so it should certainly be fit for purpose to detect Covid.

It's all here if you want an interesting read.

How is the COVID-19 Virus Detected using Real Time RT-PCR? | IAEA

 

[insaintee]

55 minutes ago, FTOF said:

The whole point of the RT- PCR technique is that it amplifies fragments of DNA . Coronavirus only has RNA which has to be "converted" into DNA, to allow these fragments to be "matched" with shorter strands of known DNA. So fragments of viral RNA are "picked up".

However, you are correct that this method of testing does not seem detect past infections.

I read up on it after watching the Yeadon video as I wasn't sure that I believed everything that he claimed.

It seems that he may well be incorrect in stating that the test would pick up viral fragments from previous infections, which is surprising given his level of expertise in epidemiology. 

He also stated that the testing method was flawed because it was essentially a test used in forensics. However, it's quite clear that the technique has been adapted and used for years to detect viral diseases, the likes of Ebola and African swine fever, so it should certainly be fit for purpose to detect Covid.

It's all here if you want an interesting read.

How is the COVID-19 Virus Detected using Real Time RT-PCR? | IAEA

 

Thank you I will read that, PCR does indeed act as a DNA amplifier and detector, which is why fragments of the Virus will not be detected. It will only detect RNA segments as you say which  outwith the protection of a cell or within a viral capsule are exposed to the impact of biological agents which break them down quickly, so effectively the entire virus must be present. Fragments of the coating and spikes may persist longer but would not be detected. 

Edited November 25, 2020 by insaintee

[antrin]

Ok, buddies.... I may bow to your more up to date knowledge about new tests being NOW more efficient.

just a point, though (can’t be arsed watching the whole vid again) Prof was asserting that it WAS fragments of spikes - old dead fragments - that were being picked up as positive cases.

i can’t recall which tests he was decrying..

[antrin]

3 hours ago, insaintee said:

I think you need to do more research. We did have flu deaths this year, when we would normally expect them (January) the Covid death is April May and June, and now in September, October and November are not masking flu deaths, and if this was a flu then the rate of deaths would be such that would be equally concerned. 

Since 2000, flu and pneumonia deaths have bounced along just around 30,000 - since vaccination came in.   Before that we had 8 years of over 50,000!

The flu season really gets going in October, I read, but I can find no figures this year, let alone for Oct and Nov.  So where have the flu deaths vanished to?

Do we expect an additional 20,00 on top of the 50,00 Covid deaths?  Or is it just like a normal pre-vac mortality figure (but with flu deaths subsumed into the big number?)

Nothing unusual but with added social and economic dislocation?

[antrin]

I got the above flu/pneumonia numbers from bbc fact check, btw.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54735702

 

[insaintee]

1 hour ago, antrin said:

I got the above flu/pneumonia numbers from bbc fact check, btw.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54735702

 

So basically that is what I said. We had a flu peak (as we do every year ) in the early spring. 

The onset of flu season has not yet began for this winter. And usually does not start until after Christmas. 

The excess deaths due to Covid are much higher than those for flu or for what we expect in a bad flu season.

This is actually a very good and clear debunking of several Scamdemic myths. And I think more on this board should read it. 

 

[insaintee]

10 hours ago, antrin said:

Since 2000, flu and pneumonia deaths have bounced along just around 30,000 - since vaccination came in.   Before that we had 8 years of over 50,000!

The flu season really gets going in October, I read, but I can find no figures this year, let alone for Oct and Nov.  So where have the flu deaths vanished to?

Do we expect an additional 20,00 on top of the 50,00 Covid deaths?  Or is it just like a normal pre-vac mortality figure (but with flu deaths subsumed into the big number?)

Nothing unusual but with added social and economic dislocation?

Influenza viruses would not give positive test results for Covid and the late stage symptoms are not the same as those for influenza. so these are not misdiagnosed flu cases. Secondly the scale of the excess deaths is such that they are in no way comparable to influenza deaths either before or after the introduction of vaccination At the peak deaths were running at a rate of double our expected deaths. In the bbc article it says flu season starts any time between Oct and Feb but generally we don't see the peak in deaths related to flu until after Christmas.  (yes I am worried about what the post Christmas situation will look like. A third wave is the last thing we need).

There is a slight reduction in respiratory conditions other than Covid as a cause of death s. At first glance you might thing that suggests some degree of misdiagnosis. But equally measures to protect the population from Covid ( a respiratory virus) may well protect from other respiratory diseases that are also respiratory viruses. Better air quality due to reduced air traffic is also posited as an explanation. As far as I am aware from the limited data I have seen,  the flu death number are below average, but are consistent with previous years and almost exactly in line with a clear trend of reducing deaths from these causes. 

Already in the second wave we are seeing significant number of excess deaths due to covid. I'm not going to forecast how may covid deaths we are going to end up with but a rough rule of thumb figure (0.5% of cases dying) suggest that 10.000 excess deaths is highly possible and that as you say 20,000 excess deaths is also possible. These would be in addition to the normal number of cases dying from flu and pneumonia.  

The number of excess deaths is highly unusual. Basically we expect the number of deaths this year above the expected to be equivalent to the town of Greenock, with maybe Port Glasgow and Gourock thrown in for good measure if things go badly.

 

I recommend this site which has much more accessible and clearer analysis the SPH website but uses the same data. UK Coronavirus Tracker - Deaths (travellingtabby.com)

Edited November 26, 2020 by insaintee

[antrin]

1 hour ago, insaintee said:

So basically that is what I said. We had a flu peak (as we do every year ) in the early spring. 

The onset of flu season has not yet began for this winter. And usually does not start until after Christmas. 

The excess deaths due to Covid are much higher than those for flu or for what we expect in a bad flu season.

This is actually a very good and clear debunking of several Scamdemic myths. And I think more on this board should read it. 

 

I’m glad that you’re comfortable with the Flu/pneumonia death numbers.

 

i was alarmed.  
Over 50,000 pa for 8 years till vaccine was introduced!?
and then only dropping to 25-30,000 pa...

 

or have I misunderstood?

happy to explained to....  

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, antrin said:

Since 2000, flu and pneumonia deaths have bounced along just around 30,000 - since vaccination came in.   Before that we had 8 years of over 50,000!

The flu season really gets going in October, I read, but I can find no figures this year, let alone for Oct and Nov.  So where have the flu deaths vanished to?

Do we expect an additional 20,00 on top of the 50,00 Covid deaths?  Or is it just like a normal pre-vac mortality figure (but with flu deaths subsumed into the big number?)

Nothing unusual but with added social and economic dislocation?

Flu deaths should hopefully be quite a bit lower this year with the restrictions in place. The restrictions don't only slow the transmission of covid19, they will curb the transmission of other viruses like the flu that spreads through human close contact. 

[insaintee]

1 hour ago, antrin said:

I’m glad that you’re comfortable with the Flu/pneumonia death numbers.

 

i was alarmed.  
Over 50,000 pa for 8 years till vaccine was introduced!?
and then only dropping to 25-30,000 pa...

 

or have I misunderstood?

happy to explained to....  

I am comfortable that influenza deaths are not higher than in a normal year.  Every year @250-300k people die in the uk. Influenza makes up a sizable proportion of that every year, this year it looks if anything to be  lower than normal.  

In terms of deaths Covid is producing around 50-80k extra deaths on to that total. 

In terms of other conditions people should be concerned about as they have higher numbers of deaths than normal, Cardio-vascular deaths and deaths from Dementia/Alzheimer's are the two that stand out as being of concern.  Some of both these groups could be undiagnosed Covid deaths, but it does seem that both those groups are areas of concern. 

 

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, antrin said:

I’m glad that you’re comfortable with the Flu/pneumonia death numbers.

 

i was alarmed.  
Over 50,000 pa for 8 years till vaccine was introduced!?
and then only dropping to 25-30,000 pa...

 

or have I misunderstood?

happy to explained to....  

Flu vaccine development is, of course, part guess work as the vaccines are a cocktail chosen against epidemiologists and medics assessment of what strains are likely to arise in a season.

The vaccines themselves are around 70% effective in preventing infection from the strains they apply to and there is an estimate that they reduce the incidence of flu in those vaccinated to around 40% of the people.

The issue with vaccines is that they mostly protect those vaccinated and only indirectly protect those not vaccinated by reducing the prevalence. In Scotland, the NHS now vaccinates the school-age population and that will have an effect, but if people not entitled to a free shot would rather not spend the £12 per year then there will always, unfortunately, be a high incidence of flu.

Flu strains mutate much more quickly than COVID (which does appear to mutate but apparently not at the same rate)

[beyond our ken]

12 hours ago, antrin said:

Since 2000, flu and pneumonia deaths have bounced along just around 30,000 - since vaccination came in.   Before that we had 8 years of over 50,000!

The flu season really gets going in October, I read, but I can find no figures this year, let alone for Oct and Nov.  So where have the flu deaths vanished to?

Do we expect an additional 20,00 on top of the 50,00 Covid deaths?  Or is it just like a normal pre-vac mortality figure (but with flu deaths subsumed into the big number?)

Nothing unusual but with added social and economic dislocation?

The opportunities for flu to transmit have been limited by the same measures that have limited COVID spread (from time to time), especially international travel restrictions since most flu seems to originate in the far east.

Since flu vaccination has increased in the younger population then that will doubtless be having and effect

that doesn't fully explain the drop. though.

[Slarti]

I am comfortable that influenza deaths are not higher than in a normal year.  Every year @250-300k people die in the uk. Influenza makes up a sizable proportion of that every year, this year it looks if anything to be  lower than normal.  
In terms of deaths Covid is producing around 50-80k extra deaths on to that total. 
In terms of other conditions people should be concerned about as they have higher numbers of deaths than normal, Cardio-vascular deaths and deaths from Dementia/Alzheimer's are the two that stand out as being of concern.  Some of both these groups could be undiagnosed Covid deaths, but it does seem that both those groups are areas of concern. 
 

And, equally, some of those attributed to covid could have died of other things. At the moment we don't know for sure the exact numbers and we may never know. Is covid causing deaths? Yes. How many is it causing? Unknown. How many is the shutting down of other NHS services causing? Unknown. Both of those unknowns will, in all probability, be positive numbers but we can only go on "best guesses" at the moment, both for the numbers and the actions to take to mitigate the threat(s).

[insaintee]

28 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

And, equally, some of those attributed to covid could have died of other things. At the moment we don't know for sure the exact numbers and we may never know. Is covid causing deaths? Yes. How many is it causing? Unknown. How many is the shutting down of other NHS services causing? Unknown. Both of those unknowns will, in all probability, be positive numbers but we can only go on "best guesses" at the moment, both for the numbers and the actions to take to mitigate the threat(s).

 

Indeed, however, in general we tend to go with what professional medical opinion puts on the death certificate. I think we can be pretty confident that the ONS and NRS figures are robust, although I guarantee they are being closely inspected to look for evidence of systemic errors, at the start of the outbreak where covid was novel to most practitioners and covid testing was limited, it is possible that there was an under recording of Covid deaths. 

NHS services have not been "shut down," but have been reduced in no urgent areas and screening by Primary care has also been reduced, mostly be a reduction in the numbers of people presenting at ED and GP practices.

As I said the two areas of most concern out with Covid-19 are cardio vascular disease and Dementia where deaths are significantly above the expected.  But the numbers of excess deaths for these conditions  are much much lower than the Covid-19 death toll. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by insaintee

[bazil85]

30 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

And, equally, some of those attributed to covid could have died of other things. At the moment we don't know for sure the exact numbers and we may never know. Is covid causing deaths? Yes. How many is it causing? Unknown. How many is the shutting down of other NHS services causing? Unknown. Both of those unknowns will, in all probability, be positive numbers but we can only go on "best guesses" at the moment, both for the numbers and the actions to take to mitigate the threat(s).

 

Is that a statement of fact 

[waldorf34]

50%of deaths due to covid in care homes  but over and above that there are the front line staff that worked in care homes ,then we have front line staff in hospitals and elsewhere , they may take this to easily 60%of all deaths.

Then we have to add in hospital  accrued infection ,say another 5%, meaning the "the general public" make up 35%of deaths for this virus so say 1250 people  over 9 months.

In the overall excess  deaths in Scotland its tragic but not something to close down the country.

We need a detailed analysis  of the deaths.

[alanb]

Are autopsies one of the non urgent services cut by NHS ? 
 

[insaintee]

5 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

50%of deaths due to covid in care homes  but over and above that there are the front line staff that worked in care homes ,then we have front line staff in hospitals and elsewhere , they may take this to easily 60%of all deaths.

Then we have to add in hospital  accrued infection ,say another 5%, meaning the "the general public" make up 35%of deaths for this virus so say 1250 people  over 9 months.

In the overall excess  deaths in Scotland its tragic but not something to close down the country.

We need a detailed analysis  of the deaths.

Scotland Coronavirus Tracker - Deaths (travellingtabby.com)

Deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland | National Records of Scotland (nrscotland.gov.uk)

COVID-19 Daily Dashboard - PHS COVID-19 | Tableau Public

[Slarti]

Scotland Coronavirus Tracker - Deaths (travellingtabby.com)
Deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland | National Records of Scotland (nrscotland.gov.uk)
COVID-19 Daily Dashboard - PHS COVID-19 | Tableau Public

Quotes below from the main pages of your first two links. (The third link wouldn't let me copy on my phone, for some reason.)

They both show that the number of deaths "attributed" to covid could, in all likelihood, be lower than reported.

For example, diabetes was mentioned on my brothers death certificate when he actually died of a massive heart attack. Was diabetes a contributing factor? Mibbes aye, mibbes naw, there's really no way to tell. And that's the same with covid when it is mentioned on a death certificate unless it is as the "actual" cause of death as the heart attack was in my brother's case.

Is covid actually a contributing factor in these deaths? For some, more than likely, for others, not so likely.

---
3.9%

This is the percentage of people who have died after testing positive for the virus. (The confirmed deaths / the number of cases)

The real fatality rate will likely be much lower, as not everyone who catches the virus gets tested.

---
Key Findings

As at the 22nd of November, there have been a total of 5,380 deaths registered in Scotland where the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was mentioned on the death certificate.

[faraway saint]

11 minutes ago, Slarti said:

Quotes below from the main pages of your first two links. (The third link wouldn't let me copy on my phone, for some reason.)

They both show that the number of deaths "attributed" to covid could, in all likelihood, be lower than reported.

For example, diabetes was mentioned on my brothers death certificate when he actually died of a massive heart attack. Was diabetes a contributing factor? Mibbes aye, mibbes naw, there's really no way to tell. And that's the same with covid when it is mentioned on a death certificate unless it is as the "actual" cause of death as the heart attack was in my brother's case.

Is covid actually a contributing factor in these deaths? For some, more than likely, for others, not so likely.

---
3.9%

This is the percentage of people who have died after testing positive for the virus. (The confirmed deaths / the number of cases)

The real fatality rate will likely be much lower, as not everyone who catches the virus gets tested.

---
Key Findings

As at the 22nd of November, there have been a total of 5,380 deaths registered in Scotland where the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was mentioned on the death certificate.

There was considerable debate on this early in this mess.

I recall a study in Italy reckoned it was only around 12% of recorded deaths were down to covid.  

This "mentioned on the death certificate" is a real red herring, and unnecessarily adds to the over reaction by governments and public alike.