New coronavirus in/from China

[clv101]

I do not think we will ever fully separate the cause and effect of the deaths from / with covid. We know that the lockdowns have modified the normal death figures, fewer influenza and road accident deaths, probably more deaths from suicide, heart disease and cancer, as other services were either shut down or redirected to fight covid. The headline covid deaths require a positive test within 28 days, but there is increasing evidence that the virus can cause permanent damage to multiple organs by triggering cytokine storms and other immune system attacks. These seem likely to hasten death by heart disease, etc., even direct damage to brain tissues in some cases, months and maybe years after infection.

Most people die of multiple factors that end up overloading the body to the point that it gives up. We all die eventually and covid will hasten the death of far more than just the headline figures, maybe decades from now.

That said, the vast majority of the 1820 deaths were directly caused by covid damaging the lungs to the point that the victim suffocated

Yes, and it's also true that had our movement restrictions and our so called lockdowns (where significant numbers of people are still on the train, bus, in school etc) been even later/more lax then there would have been higher infection rates, higher hospitalisation peaks and even more fatalities. As bad as the UK is (one of the worst in the world), the lockdown-sceptics don't realise how it could have been much worse.

[UndercoverElephant]

Heard of the Great Barrington Declaration?

Have you heard of the American Institute for Economic Research ?

Funders of such tomes as:

"What Greta Thunberg Forgets About Climate Change"
"The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously"
"Brazilians Should Keep Slashing Their Rainforest"

And, of course, the Great Barrington Declaration.

It was signed by thirty thousand scientists from arou0nd the world.

8000, many of which were fake.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/89204

The declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian, free-market think tank headquartered in western Massachusetts. The Institute is in a network of organizations funded by Charles Koch -- a right-wing billionaire known for promoting climate change denial and opposing regulations on business

.

I don't know if you actually believe the tripe you post on this forum, or whether you are being employed to do it. Either way, it is tripe.

[PS_RalphW]

Opinion poll shows that acceptance of covid vaccination in the UK public has risen in the last 2 months from 61% to 81%. Unfortunately, even 81% of adults receiving the Oxford vaccine is unlikely to provide herd immunity.

[Catweazle]

The govt daily briefing says that the new variant is more dangerous than the original, with mortality rate up from 1% to 1.3%, and some studies indicate it could be even higher. Apparently the hospital mortality rate is unchanged, so I'm guessing that hospital treatment negates the extra danger, perhaps the increased mortality if for people dying at home. Not at all clear yet.

[adam2]

I have just returned from a rush visit to a neighbour who is reliant on an oxygen machine at home, not working due to a power cut. The backup oxygen cylinder for just such an eventuality is "yet to be delivered"

I have loaned a large inverter and an extension lead to power the oxygen machine from their car, with the engine running.

EDIT TO ADD The neighbour requires oxygen due to a heart problem, not covid. Worth reporting though WRT to lack of oxygen cylinders.

[Catweazle]

Well done Adam.

On a ( slightly ) related note, it's possible to raise your blood oxygen level by breathing in through your nose and out through pursed lips. I think this has the effect of raising the air pressure in your lungs and increasing oxygen uptake.

[UndercoverElephant]

Not at all clear yet.

I have a bad feeling about it. I was just beginning to hope things might get back to relatively normal by April, but now I'm wondering whether we are looking at another 6-9 months of this misery. It's like being in prison, while your life drips away one day at a time, with nothing happening.

[clv101]

It's worth remembering that it is Johnson's failure, his government's failure that has lead to the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of additional cases, which facilitate these mutations. This isn't black swan, act of God stuff, it's directly cased by prior failures.

Also, the lockdown-sceptics approach would lead (have led) to even more cases which along with increased hospitalisation and death - would also give significantly more opportunity for mutation. As bad as the UK response has been, it could have been worse.

[PS_RalphW]

I am not convinced that the new UK varient is more deadly in any biological way. I suspect that the varient expresses more virus particles in the sufferers throat, leading to passing a higher viral load on average to the next victim. This gives the virus a better chance of overwhelming the body's defences before the full immune system response can kick in.

That alone might also explain its higher R value, although there are rumours that it also has a shorter gestation period before becoming infectious or symptomatic, which might make the R value seem higher than it is.

There are confusing signals coming from the data

[Stumuz2]

It's worth remembering that it is Johnson's failure, his government's failure that has lead to the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of additional cases, which facilitate these mutations.

As my woke socialist daughter would say, check your privilege!

When the pandemic came calling the magnitude of doing what should have been done was just unthinkable to most politicians. Completely shutting down a global occidental connected economy, paying the wages of most workers, switching to Friedmans modern monetary theory without any debate or vote, restricting personal liberty to such an extent that was not done even in the darkest days of world war. Would not or could not have been done. It has only been done by accretions.

You know what's coming down the line because of Limits to growth and climate science. You/we have prepared.

But, as usual it is the poor and powerless that suffer the most.Think of the damage that would have been inflicted if Johnson had done what you say. Intergeneration families living in inadequate substandard housing, minimum wage work evaporating overnight, civil unrest, fear, looting, food shortages.

This isn't black swan, act of God stuff, it's directly cased by prior failures.

Let's agree Covid was a grey swan. Sars, H5N1, Ebola, Mers all reared their ugly head and went away.

Also, the lockdown-sceptics approach would lead (have led) to even more cases which along with increased hospitalisation and death - would also give significantly more opportunity for mutation. As bad as the UK response has been, it could have been worse.

Agree. But trying to pin all the blame for everything on one man, when we have collective responsibility, is a bit of a reflection on your subjective prejudice for Johnson.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55786409

The UK has identified 77 cases of the coronavirus variant first detected in South Africa, the health secretary has said.

Cases are linked to travellers arriving in the UK, rather than community transmission, Matt Hancock added.

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr cases were under "very close" observation and enhanced contact tracing was under way.

"Enhanced contact tracing"? We truly live in Orwellian times. If contact tracing can be enhanced, then in its non-enhanced state it is almost useless.

[dustiswhatweare]

What comes next with this virus? Continued acquaintance of course:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... e-with-it/

[Little John]

Some more facts.

Remember those?

I have collated dates from official sources into a spreadsheet of deaths by all causes for all age groups from 1950 to 2020. All of the raw of the raw data comes from from ONS and National Archives with the exception of of population size from 2000 to 2020 (more on that later).

The first table lists death by all causes form 1950 to 2020 and allows for auto-filter rankings by deaths as a percentage of the population size. The other tables groups the data into shorter and shorter time-frames for similar comparisons/rankings.

Thus, far, 2020 is not particularly exceptional even on the basis of a cursory eyeballing of the data.

The **ONLY** singular time-frame where 2020 is at the top of the death rankings is for the period 2010 to 2020. But, even within that time-frame, while being at the top of the last 10 years of deaths, there is only 0.14% difference between the highest year of 2020 and the lowest year of 2011. Which, compared to the typical annual death rate fluctuations, is barely more than statistical noise.

However, it gets more interesting. The population exploded from around 97 onward. And, from that date, the % of deaths per year fell weirdly suddenly. I have a suspicion this was due to mass immigration of young people. But, further analysis of the data by age groups will establish that one way or another.

-------------------------------------------------

The link to the spreadsheet is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dpvr8tqfj94wr ... 0.ods?dl=0

------------------------------------------------

All official data sources on which the spreadsheet is based can be found here:

data sources:

ONS data for deaths 2000 to present

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... thsdataset

National Archive data for deaths and population size 1950 to 2000

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov ... A77-215593

uk population size from 2000 to 2020 (various sources)

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/population

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... population

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/G ... population

deaths 2010 to 2020

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales

----------------------------------------------------

Nowhere have I seen this data all in one place. That is the reason I have gone to the bother of collating it and reassembling it in one place. It shows, **CATEGORICALLY**, that the government are lying about the numbers in terms of their share of the population and also how they compare to previous years when population size is taken into account. On virtually all comparative time-frames between 1950 and today, 2020 comes out ranked in the **BOTTOM HALF** of annual deaths by all causes. To repeat, the **ONLY** period where this is not true is between 2010 and 2020, where 2020 comes out as number one. **BUT**, the difference between 2020 and the lowest year (in that single, 10 year time-frame) (2011) is 0.14%. That is to say, in 2011, 0.76% of the population died. In 2020, it was 0.9%

The typical death rate, as a percentage of the population, over the last 50 odd years other than for the singular period of 2000 to 2020 is about 1.5%

The typical fluctuation in death rates as a percentage of the population, from year to year is in the region of .25%. So, the difference between 2011 and 2020 is little more than statistical noise at 0.14%

**ALL of the above is based on the official data**

-------------------------------

Finally, to return to the sudden and weird reduction in annual death rate from 2000 onward:

There is no ONS or UK National Archive data for population size from 2001 onwards. So, from 2001, I have had to source the necessary population size data from multiple alternative sources (see the "sources" links above). If you look at the spreadsheet and have noticed a significant jump in population size between 2000 and 2001, you are not alone. I have noticed it myself. But, it is what it is. The population size, up to 2000 is sourced from UK government sources. For reasons unexplained, however, they stopped publishing population size data from 2001 onwards. While the jump in population size between 2000 and 2001 is highly significant, I have cross referenced several alternative sources from 2001 and they all agree on the population size data from that year onwards.

So, either (a) all of those alternative sources are all simultaneously wrong, (b) the UK government data up to 2000 is wrong or (c) the UK population really did jump by about 6.8 million people between 2000 and 2001.

My guess is the truth is buried somewhere in the following:

From 1997, we had the Blair “New Labour” years. During that time, Labour had a covert policy of mass immigration. Thus, the population did indeed rise highly significantly from around 1997 onwards. But, Labour also stopped keeping accurate records from that point onwards in order to hide their mass immigration policies. So, somewhere, between 1997 and 2001, the population did indeed rise from around 51.5 million in 1997 to 58.9 million in 2001. This comes out as an average annual rise over this four year period of around 1.85 million per year. No wonder they stopped counting the numbers.

So, my guess is the sudden “jump” in the numbers around 2001 is simply reflective of the fact that in the previous 3 years, proper data collection on population size was simply not happening. It’s also worth pointing out that the alternative sources I have been forced to use from 2001 onwards also point to significant mass immigration leading to significant rises in the population continuing to the present day. All of which will, I strongly suspect, following further analysis of the data by age demographics, explain the significantly lower than typical death rates as a percentage of the population from 2000 to 2019 and, even in 2020, are still significantly lower than for any previous period.

[Catweazle]

What point is there in using any other statistics than "excess deaths" and permanent / long term disability ?

There are so many factors to consider in the historical "all deaths" statistics, everything from infant mortality, to tobacco use, improved hospital treatments, central heating, car seatbelts, motorcycle crash helmets, speed limits, health and safety at work improvements, asbestos bans, vaccinations, improved nutrition, air quality, etc., etc..

These factors and many more are all considered when the expected death rates are calculated, not because statisticians are bored, but because simplistic historic numbers are useless due to advances made in many areas.

Take a look at just one area, the first one I thought of:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/G ... ality-rate

[Little John]

So, you have been presented with the actual statistical evidence, in fine grain detail, laid bare at your feet with full links to all official UK raw data sources on which that evidence is based.

And your response is to engage in goalpost-moving hand-waving.

Are you really that f***ing lost?