In the UK the doctors treating Covid patients will have full access to the person's GP medical records (I assume). Smokers will have their smoking details on these medical records. We are asked about smoking when we have health check ups. It is one of the tick box checks, and used when they do the Q-Risk scores. Of course, not everyone tells the truth.
There is all these studies going on and we just get the occasional press statement like the Oxford one, taken at face value its good news but when unwrapped it may not be what it seems be.Yes, but the studies being quoted are from China and the CDC in America.
I think we need to wait for better data.
We are being asked to do a lot of things and have laregly complied and I udnerstand that those in charge have to make a call one way or the other without perfect data (to say the least) but we are not in China and should question whether the current lockdown is necessary or even effective. Afterwards it will be legitimate to ask how our public health in the UK and the overburdening of the NHS due to the same co morbidities rendered us so fragile. That is not to denigate the NHS but it cannot be treated as a sacred cow either.Yes . I appreciate that. Fortunately or unfortunately I’m in a position of knowing a bit more than a lot of others regarding what is happening in the hospitals at the moment, especially regarding covid.
This isn’t the platform to talk about what is happening and the decisions being made.
Decisions are HAVING to be made in a lot of instances.
We are being asked to do a lot of things and have laregly complied and I udnerstand that those in charge have to make a call one way or the other without perfect data (to say the least) but we are not in China and should question whether the current lockdown is necessary or even effective. Afterwards it will be legitimate to ask how our public health in the UK and the overburdening of the NHS due to the same co morbidities rendered us so fragile. That is not to denigate the NHS but it cannot be treated as a sacred cow either.
That was indeed very interesting. The professor may well be correct but when people are dying the public expect politicians to do something (even if in the long term it doesn't make any difference). There was a furore when the concept of herd immunity was first mentioned, which was part of the reason for the U-turn the professor mentions. It remains to be seen if the population of Sweden still support his policy if the deaths keep rising.This is a very interesting interview:
https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/
This is a very interesting interview:
https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/
A lot of the deaths here in Australia are from cruise ships, I have no official figures though off hand.Apply those ratios to a country.
There has got to be something seriously cross contaminating about the air conditioning on cruise ships.A
A lot of the deaths here in Australia are from cruise ships, I have no official figures though off hand.
There has got to be something seriously cross contaminating about the air conditioning on cruise ships.
It seems to be passed on whilst they are locked up in their cabins.
D.
Basically, it is saying that 'multivariate logistic analysis' ( a technique for working out the relative contribution of each factor when there is more than one factor involved) was used and it shows that the odds ratio for smoking is 14.285 (i.e. the disease was 14.285 times more likely to progress in smokers than non-smokers.Hi All,
Anyone able to unpick the mathematics below? My poor wee brain simply isn't up to grasping it, so if anyone can do a Maths Translation for Dummies, I would be very grateful!
Aseem Malhotra referenced a study in this article https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/article-of-the-week/covid-19-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/
He made the statement that
Public Health England have said now is the best time to quit smoking, citing research from China concluding that smokers were 14 times more likely to get severe disease after contracting COVID-19. (13)
So I followed his reference to here:
https://journals.lww.com/cmj/Abstra...f_factors_associated_with_disease.99363.aspx#
and found this:
Seventy-eight patients with COVID-19-induced pneumonia met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Efficacy evaluation at 2 weeks after hospitalization indicated that 11 patients (14.1%) had deteriorated, and 67 patients (85.9%) had improved/stabilized. The patients in the progression group were significantly older than those in the disease improvement/stabilization group (66 [51, 70] vs. 37 [32, 41] years, U = 4.932, P = 0.001). The progression group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with a history of smoking than the improvement/stabilization group (27.3% vs. 3.0%, χ2 = 9.291, P = 0.018). For all the 78 patients, fever was the most common initial symptom, and the maximum body temperature at admission was significantly higher in the progression group than in the improvement/stabilization group (38.2 [37.8, 38.6] vs. 37.5 [37.0, 38.4]°C, U = 2.057, P = 0.027). Moreover, the proportion of patients with respiratory failure (54.5% vs. 20.9%, χ2 = 5.611, P = 0.028) and respiratory rate (34 [18, 48] vs. 24 [16, 60] breaths/min, U = 4.030, P = 0.004) were significantly higher in the progression group than in the improvement/stabilization group. C-reactive protein was significantly elevated in the progression group compared to the improvement/stabilization group (38.9 [14.3, 64.8] vs. 10.6 [1.9, 33.1] mg/L, U = 1.315, P = 0.024). Albumin was significantly lower in the progression group than in the improvement/stabilization group (36.62 ± 6.60 vs. 41.27 ± 4.55 g/L, U = 2.843, P = 0.006). Patients in the progression group were more likely to receive high-level respiratory support than in the improvement/stabilization group (χ2 = 16.01, P = 0.001). Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that age (odds ratio [OR], 8.546; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.628–44.864; P = 0.011), history of smoking (OR, 14.285; 95% CI: 1.577–25.000; P = 0.018), maximum body temperature at admission (OR, 8.999; 95% CI: 1.036–78.147, P = 0.046), respiratory failure (OR, 8.772, 95% CI: 1.942–40.000; P = 0.016), albumin (OR, 7.353, 95% CI: 1.098–50.000; P = 0.003), and C-reactive protein (OR, 10.530; 95% CI: 1.224−34.701, P = 0.028) were risk factors for disease progression.
So, is Malhotra's statement that that smokers were 14 times more likely to get severe disease after contracting COVID-19
bourne out by the mathematical hieroglyphs quoted above?
I do, of course, appreciate that there is a lot of other stuff going on too - CRP, albumin, degree of temperature, age and all the other co-morbidities we are familiar with discussing regarding COVID-19.
Basically, it is saying that 'multivariate logistic analysis' ( a technique for working out the relative contribution of each factor when there is more than one factor involved) was used and it shows that the odds ratio for smoking is 14.285 (i.e. the disease was 14.285 times more likely to progress in smokers than non-smokers.
The abstract doesn't include the maths involved in the multivariate logistical analysis and, for most of us, it wouldn't help anyway. We just have to hope that those working in the field, who do understand it, will check on our behalf.
You mean like people shopping in supermarkets?I thought it was established that the crew(s) weren't being too careful with the way they moved between cabins to deliver food and other supplies?
If that was true then it would be strange that this testing was going ahead.....So doctors advising the WHO now state that there's no evidence for the presence of antibodies after having had Covid-19.
Maybe explains why the antibody tests are reportedly not working very well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?