COVID19

[nirvana]

Seen worse, lol.

Go on Rocket!

Always thought you were a positive and supportive person. Go Elton, you gave it everything

[kukushkin88]

Unusually the government have released a response to the Sunday Times article

https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/19/response-to-sunday-times-insight-article/

I think perhaps a mixture of most newspaper articles being pretty vague about their accusations whereas the Sunday Times was making specific points to refute, and that most newspapers aren't worth responding to but the Sunday Times is actually still mildly respectable.

They need to explain why the the civil service issued this statement, without a named author. It’s a political press briefing, you just don’t get civil servants using emotional language like the ‘rebuttals’ do. Part of the explanation should be declaring exactly who wrote it.

The good people at the FT are on the case:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252120640859111425?s=21

Seems to be a lot of Conservative Party MP’s and Conservative Party journalists saying ‘well that’s the end of that’ and a lot of QC’s and barristers saying the rebuttals look like exhibits A & B for the coroner and whoever is making the ‘government mishandled this’ case at the Public Inquiry.

[Doobs]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

[Doobs]

Here is last week's statement on excess deaths. 

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/news-and-insights/news/deaths-attributable-covid-19

Cliffs: over 25,000 in the UK by last week.

[kukushkin88]

Here is last week's statement on excess deaths. 

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/news-and-insights/news/deaths-attributable-covid-19

Cliffs: over 25,000 in the UK by last week.

I’m new (and late) to Twitter, like maybe 3 weeks or so. I follow 3 actuaries and 7 epidemiologists, it’s a fascinating place for sharing info, if you ignore the noise.

[nirvana]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

[kukushkin88]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

[nirvana]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

I think a debate can be had as there will be people where the virus shifted the death by a few days/ weeks and it certainly has relevance when comparing death rates in different countries.

The article shows that this debate is at the margins though (from a UK perspective) as most people whose death is attributed to the virus will have their lives foreshortened to a degree that suggests the co-morbidity factor can be ignored

[kukushkin88]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

I think a debate can be had as there will be people where the virus shifted the death by a few days/ weeks and it certainly has relevance when comparing death rates in different countries.

The article shows that this debate is at the margins though (from a UK perspective) as most people whose death is attributed to the virus will have their lives foreshortened to a degree that suggests the co-morbidity factor can be ignored

Did you see the ‘displaced mortality’ thing I linked? I would have thought the better comparisons would be all cause mortality and then an adjustment/weighting for already known key factors, such as age/morbidity/ethnicity.

[nirvana]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

I think a debate can be had as there will be people where the virus shifted the death by a few days/ weeks and it certainly has relevance when comparing death rates in different countries.

The article shows that this debate is at the margins though (from a UK perspective) as most people whose death is attributed to the virus will have their lives foreshortened to a degree that suggests the co-morbidity factor can be ignored

Did you see the ‘displaced mortality’ thing I linked? I would have thought the better comparisons would be all cause mortality and then an adjustment/weighting for already known key factors, such as age/morbidity/ethnicity.

Yes. Think that would be the right way to look at it. one day we'll know a lot about this

[kukushkin88]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

I think a debate can be had as there will be people where the virus shifted the death by a few days/ weeks and it certainly has relevance when comparing death rates in different countries.

The article shows that this debate is at the margins though (from a UK perspective) as most people whose death is attributed to the virus will have their lives foreshortened to a degree that suggests the co-morbidity factor can be ignored

Did you see the ‘displaced mortality’ thing I linked? I would have thought the better comparisons would be all cause mortality and then an adjustment/weighting for already known key factors, such as age/morbidity/ethnicity.

The died from/with discussion seems to be predominantly a refuge for the people who said this would be nothing to worry about:

Like this:

[url][https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/02/daniel-hannan-alarmism-doom-mongering-panic-and-the-coronavirus-we-are-nowhere-near-a-1919-style-catastrophe.html/url]

Cliffs: I’m not an epidemiologist but.........

[Doobs]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

There was an argument for a while over whether these people would have died anyway, but I think that should have past by now.  I have seen a few charts where deaths were pootling along at fairly consistent rates followed by a big lurch upwards in the stats over the last week or two.  It isn't because they all died in the last week or two, just that the data that was produced more slowly is now coming through.  I was doubtful for a while whether COVID deaths were getting overstated because other ailments were getting lumped in, or understated as some deaths were getting missed.  It is now absolutely clear that the official UK figures were undersated.  I think the UK are going to be a lot better than most countries in analysing deaths, simply because we have been doing it longer than most.  The UK was where the actuarial profession really started*, where a lot of mortalitty and actuarial science started and is still where a lot of overseas actuarial professionals get their qualifications.  Also we just have way more numbers here than in a lot of countries.  For example there are only a few hundred actuaries in India and China combined; a request for volunteers to help with COVID19 modelling from the actuarial profession here got 400 volunteers in a couple of days.  Add in those who are working independently and lots o9f good work by non actuaries (like at Imperial), means that UK data is going to be well analysed in time and there is a lot of good stuff about right now.  

The issue we have with country comparisons is that a lot of the contires with good data are also the ones with the biggest lockdowns, so we see similar charts everywhere.  There is going to be a strong correlation between bad data and bad lockdowns.

On the number of cases and testing we are still lagging a lot of other counties, so UK data isn't as useful here.  There is a lot of good work done elsewhere too; this is US facing, but good https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2020/2020-covid-19-research-brief-04-16.pdf.  We can also learn a lot from other countries experience of easing restrictions, and many other countries seem to be in more of a rush than us.  The likes of Germany are useful here becuase they have had reasonably good testing throughout.  So when the UK open schools etc, we should have better models of the likely effects. I think most developed countries will have much the same issues as us, so that there will be a reporting lag and understated deaths in nearly all places.  Despite that you can still reach a reasonable conclusion from bad data.  It doesn't really matter in a comparison whether you are capturing half deaths or all deaths, as the trend is likely to be the most important thing on judging when to ease lockdowns.  ie if your data is consistently understating mortality numbers by 50% you can still reach the right conclusion.

I can't see how we go back to how we were without a vaccine, or eradication of the virus, or some kind of proof that most of us have already been exposed.

 * You can probably go back centuries for some of the maths involved, and the birth of mutual societies, but the UK started producing actuarial tables etc first.  

[kukushkin88]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

I think a debate can be had as there will be people where the virus shifted the death by a few days/ weeks and it certainly has relevance when comparing death rates in different countries.

The article shows that this debate is at the margins though (from a UK perspective) as most people whose death is attributed to the virus will have their lives foreshortened to a degree that suggests the co-morbidity factor can be ignored

Did you see the ‘displaced mortality’ thing I linked? I would have thought the better comparisons would be all cause mortality and then an adjustment/weighting for already known key factors, such as age/morbidity/ethnicity.

Yes. Think that would be the right way to look at it. one day we'll know a lot about this

but in the meantime, people are still right to ask why:

We have a policy on tests based on the fact that we don’t have enough tests or people to administer them, even just for key workers or prisoners, both sets of people where the R0 is almost certainly greater than 1
We have a policy on surveillance testing based on not having enough tests or people to administer them
We have a policy on contact tracing, based on the fact that we don’t have enough people to carry it out (test, trace, isolate). 300 people in the country apparently trained for this.
We have a policy on international arrivals based on the fact that we don’t have testing or resource available to ensure infected people self isolate
We have policy on PPE based on not having adequate PPE. PHE downgrading their advice on ‘safe’ PPE based only on availability of previously ‘safe’ PPE, two changes since March 6 driven only by lack of stuff. Seems to be over 100 healthcare workers have died now.
We have a policy on face masks, for non medical but at risk people, driven only by the fact that we don’t have any face masks.

It’s lack of resources not ‘science’, which is leading our response.

[kukushkin88]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

[Doobs]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.