COVID19

[Karabiner]

Have you guys seen the figures for France today? 1438 more deaths - hopefully that's not correct.

[Ironside]

Have you guys seen the figures for France today? 1438 more deaths - hopefully that's not correct.

think they have started including care homes in there figures

[kukushkin88]

Have you guys seen the figures for France today? 1438 more deaths - hopefully that's not correct.

Seems to be a combination of the Easter weekend reporting lag and block reporting of non hospital deaths. It did seem earlier that Whitty was preparing people for the possibility that we will be seeing a big spike from the Easter weekend in the U.K. numbers in the coming days, might be the next three days if the post weekend pattern is followed.

[kukushkin88]

1,000/1 Doobs didn't get the joke.

I could happily have a pony at that price, putting it down to a distracted oversight, rather than anything else.

Please send the 25 bags to this guy:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs?fbclid=IwAR1s2FatBJf1HIkvFu-8Ew3EJIwdh9iaRRTjmRg0znSruC63xCS0MSjSrOM

😊

[kukushkin88]

1,000/1 Doobs didn't get the joke.

I could happily have a pony at that price, putting it down to a distracted oversight, rather than anything else.

Please send the 25 bags to this guy:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs?fbclid=IwAR1s2FatBJf1HIkvFu-8Ew3EJIwdh9iaRRTjmRg0znSruC63xCS0MSjSrOM
😊

He’s about to go over £10,000,000 raised for the NHS 👏.

[kukushkin88]

This is starting to grate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-ferguson/uk-coronavirus-deaths-could-reach-7000-to-20000-ferguson-idUSKBN21N0BN

We know that 7,000 can't be a possibility, as we are at 4,000 and rising; I know it went down today, but it is a Sunday do reporting is likely to slow.  Add to that lag in reporting, nursing home deaths, unknown cause deaths, people who have died alone, and unless they get a perfect vaccine, a 2nd wave seems a near certainty.  

20,000 is nowhere near the max either.   We "think" the rules should work, we cannot know they will work.  And the final numbers in scenarios where the rules don't work are subject to much more uncertain outcomes (we don't know the current infected population, how far it spreads, reinfections etc.).

bump.   It wasn't like he had no data, or it was early in the pandemic, it was a week and a half ago.   The prediction was farcical as noted at the time.  You give a range rather than a single figure to cover the uncertainty.

I have no idea why he did this, it just wrecks his credibility.  

I'm confused by some of these dates. That Reuters article was on the 5th April and said the statement was made on Sunday. The 5th of April was a Sunday so either they meant 'today' or they meant the 30th March.

But the article Kush linked to was from the 27th March, and links to a tweet about it by him from the 26th March -and this was all in relation to information given to the a Select Committee on the 25th.

Obviously if he repeated it without taking into account extra data that would be foolish - but it looks like he gave information to the Select Committee when we were only 2 or 3 days into the extra lockdown measures and restrictions - which kind of makes sense for the phrasing used which emphasised about - if everyone rigidly sticks - to these measures.

5th April

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p088qgkl

About 4 minutes in he says 7,000 or so to a little over 20,000.   

It just seemed very odd at the time, as I stated 7,000 just seemed an impossible result and a little over 20,000 was never the max.   Maybe he just isn't very good on a Sunday morning, or just wasn't that close to those doing the modelling?  I did think wtf when I heard it.

Given this is basically the exact same thing he said to the select committee on the 25th it seems quite like he just repeated what he had already come up with before - it does seem pretty odd that he wouldn't have been a bit more cautious given the time that had elapsed even taken into account his (presumed) lack of media training.

For context on the 25th the UK deaths were 578, so 7000 at that point might not have seemed so unlikely.

I don't think 20 something thousand is necessarily unlikely now, it all depends on how much of a plateau we have (not counting any second or third waves though)

Good morning

Ferguson was on the radio this morning, quite reluctant to talk about the numbers. 20 something seems highly optimistic, as I say, it seems certain that we’ll find out from the ONS (on the 28th) that we are already over 20,000 atm, so we’d need a dramatic slowdown and that just hasn’t happened on the hospital admission numbers.

[Doobs]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

It certainly helps makes sense of the ONS data, with the 2500 excess deaths to the 5 year average, that had no explanation.

Faisal was on the case:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1250418370664529922?s=21

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

It certainly helps makes sense of the ONS data, with the 2500 excess deaths to the 5 year average, that had no explanation.

Faisal was on the case:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1250418370664529922?s=21

While it might be fair to give them a pass for the mistake. I wouldn’t necessarily feel the same about Hancock trumpeting the number that couldn’t be close to being right (as soon as you compared it to every other nation) as some sort of success. I guess we’ll have a detailed explanation at the briefing with an assurance that accurate numbers will be provided at the earliest opportunity.

[Jon MW]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

It certainly helps makes sense of the ONS data, with the 2500 excess deaths to the 5 year average, that had no explanation.

Faisal was on the case:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1250418370664529922?s=21

The story was about the Quality Care Commission not being given data on COVID19 deaths.

But the ONS don't get their data from the QCC.

They get it from death certificates.

And doctors and coroners have been given guidance from early on that if they think COVID19 was the cause, or could be the cause, or could be a contributory factor then they should put it on the death certificate (tests were then run on those people and it can be confirmed or not after).

Also, if doctors were getting it wrong - the deaths would have been put down as some kind of respiratory disease/pneumonia, and there was no corresponding leap in deaths caused by those either.

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

It certainly helps makes sense of the ONS data, with the 2500 excess deaths to the 5 year average, that had no explanation.

Faisal was on the case:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1250418370664529922?s=21

The story was about the Quality Care Commission not being given data on COVID19 deaths.

But the ONS don't get their data from the QCC.

They get it from death certificates.

And doctors and coroners have been given guidance from early on that if they think COVID19 was the cause, or could be the cause, or could be a contributory factor then they should put it on the death certificate (tests were then run on those people and it can be confirmed or not after).

Also, if doctors were getting it wrong - the deaths would have been put down as some kind of respiratory disease/pneumonia, and there was no corresponding leap in deaths caused by those either.

OK, thanks for the clarification. What do you think the explanation is for deaths outside hospitals being much lower (as a percentage) in England and Wales than Scotland, France, Italy and Spain? It can’t just be lag on the ONS reporting, especially when the ‘all mortality’ number, which Whitty says is the best indicator, is huge, there are still 2,500 excess deaths in a week, with no explanation . The end of this article is interesting:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-trust-the-covid-19-death-toll

The start is stuff we’ve already already been over many times.

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

It certainly helps makes sense of the ONS data, with the 2500 excess deaths to the 5 year average, that had no explanation.

Faisal was on the case:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1250418370664529922?s=21

The story was about the Quality Care Commission not being given data on COVID19 deaths.

But the ONS don't get their data from the QCC.

They get it from death certificates.

And doctors and coroners have been given guidance from early on that if they think COVID19 was the cause, or could be the cause, or could be a contributory factor then they should put it on the death certificate (tests were then run on those people and it can be confirmed or not after).

Also, if doctors were getting it wrong - the deaths would have been put down as some kind of respiratory disease/pneumonia, and there was no corresponding leap in deaths caused by those either.

OK, thanks for the clarification. What do you think the explanation is for deaths outside hospitals being much lower (as a percentage) in England and Wales than Scotland, France, Italy and Spain? It can’t just be lag on the ONS reporting, especially when the ‘all mortality’ number, which Whitty says is the best indicator, is huge, there are still 2,500 excess deaths in a week, with no explanation . The end of this article is interesting:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-trust-the-covid-19-death-toll

The start is stuff we’ve already already been over many times.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending3april2020
(Just linking it again, for convenience)

[kukushkin88]

This is a bit better than an enamel badge or a medal:

https://twitter.com/ephilippepm/status/1250407364018286593?s=21

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

It certainly helps makes sense of the ONS data, with the 2500 excess deaths to the 5 year average, that had no explanation.

Faisal was on the case:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1250418370664529922?s=21

The story was about the Quality Care Commission not being given data on COVID19 deaths.

But the ONS don't get their data from the QCC.

They get it from death certificates.

And doctors and coroners have been given guidance from early on that if they think COVID19 was the cause, or could be the cause, or could be a contributory factor then they should put it on the death certificate (tests were then run on those people and it can be confirmed or not after).

Also, if doctors were getting it wrong - the deaths would have been put down as some kind of respiratory disease/pneumonia, and there was no corresponding leap in deaths caused by those either.

OK, thanks for the clarification. What do you think the explanation is for deaths outside hospitals being much lower (as a percentage) in England and Wales than Scotland, France, Italy and Spain? It can’t just be lag on the ONS reporting, especially when the ‘all mortality’ number, which Whitty says is the best indicator, is huge, there are still 2,500 excess deaths in a week, with no explanation . The end of this article is interesting:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-trust-the-covid-19-death-toll

The start is stuff we’ve already already been over many times.

Any ideas on the 2,500 extra deaths? Other than those attributable to people not seeking medical help because of Covid, you’d surely expect them to go down while we’re mostly locked down safely at home.

Something like this, is the only thing that really makes sense:
(It’s a bit tenuous at this stage but there aren’t many other explanations, are there?)

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1250731649152811008?s=21
(another quite divisive figure)

[Doobs]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

The Government has been understating nursing home deaths simply because they weren't asking about them until just over a week ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/15/uk-care-home-inspectors-did-not-ask-about-covid-19-deaths-until-april

I don't think it is worth the sensationalism, as it can take time to catch up with the new reality, and care home data isn't going to be as quick or accurate as hospital data..   I just think it is a good example of how you can get misleading results if your data is incomplete.

It certainly helps makes sense of the ONS data, with the 2500 excess deaths to the 5 year average, that had no explanation.

Faisal was on the case:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1250418370664529922?s=21

The story was about the Quality Care Commission not being given data on COVID19 deaths.

But the ONS don't get their data from the QCC.

They get it from death certificates.

And doctors and coroners have been given guidance from early on that if they think COVID19 was the cause, or could be the cause, or could be a contributory factor then they should put it on the death certificate (tests were then run on those people and it can be confirmed or not after).

Also, if doctors were getting it wrong - the deaths would have been put down as some kind of respiratory disease/pneumonia, and there was no corresponding leap in deaths caused by those either.

OK, thanks for the clarification. What do you think the explanation is for deaths outside hospitals being much lower (as a percentage) in England and Wales than Scotland, France, Italy and Spain? It can’t just be lag on the ONS reporting, especially when the ‘all mortality’ number, which Whitty says is the best indicator, is huge, there are still 2,500 excess deaths in a week, with no explanation . The end of this article is interesting:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-trust-the-covid-19-death-toll

The start is stuff we’ve already already been over many times.

Any ideas on the 2,500 extra deaths? Other than those attributable to people not seeking medical help because of Covid, you’d surely expect them to go down while we’re mostly locked down safely at home.

Something like this, is the only thing that really makes sense:
(It’s a bit tenuous at this stage but there aren’t many other explanations, are there?)

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1250731649152811008?s=21
(another quite divisive figure)

The first paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense.   Accidental deaths aren't a big contributor of deaths overall (though they are at young ages), and they don't all happen away frok home.  There is evidence of increased suicides which probably means the overall effect is around neutral, and likely just hidden by nornal variation and more serious stuff (bad weather, bad flu etc.)

The second paragraph is just wrong.  Reporting delays and just general reporting problems make sense too, and seem far more likely to me.  My Dad had dementia and had all sorts of issues by the time he died.  They had to put something on the certificate so they put dementia and one other, but really it was a multitude of things and lots of parts of his body had been failing at the time.   Basically he just died and they weren't really sure why.  His was a death in a hospital where he was getting regular checks by doctors, not at home on his own. 

There are bound to be grey areas and different reporting in different places. You can't expect exact reporting of something that isn't exact.   I think we have 12,000 or so deaths (not checked today)  in the daily numbers.  We know delays and bad reporting means it is likely to be 20,000 or so already.   We don't need to know there have been 21,462 exactly right now, ballpark is fine.  They have a lot of info (hospital admissions, daily reported deaths, ONS etc), so should be able to see or project when the turn is, and modelling will improve over time.