• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

COVID the real numbers? Not all doom and gloom.

bulkbiker said:
Yes I know it's from the daily mail but still worth a read.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...t-taking-regular-bath-writes-TIM-HARFORD.html

The part about post Fukushima deaths is very interesting "rescued to death".
Click to expand...
Am I reading it right? They're putting the percentage of deaths against the population. Not against infected population. Quite a few people didn't "survive" corona in that equation, they never had it to begin with. So isn't that a bit skewed then? (Though I am horrible with numbers and get kind of lost in articles like this... Do correct me if I'm wrong!).
 
bulkbiker said:
More tests lead to more "positive results" but fewer and fewer hospitalisations and /or deaths.. odd that.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is odd?

The more tests that are run, the more asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases are caught - which hopefully puts those people into quarantine, so that they don't go around spreading the virus further.
Evidence of this is where virus hotspots are found amongst healthy workers, then the rest of the farm/factory/processing plant/school is tested and the virus is found in many young, healthy, asymptomatic workers.

The longer the pandemic continues, the better the treatments become, the more information and research is done, and the quicker people are receiving interventions which then reduce the need for hospitalisations.
Plenty of evidence of this in the medications that are found to be effective, and are hitting the news on a regular basis.

Also, the longer the pandemic continues, the better (some) societies are getting at letting the young and less vulnerable got out and get themselves infected, and pass it around, building up 'community/herd immunity, while simultaneously, the more vulnerable are (hopefully) staying safer and more protected - assuming that the younger ones don't take the virus home and infect their vulnerable nearest and dearest.
Evidence of this is the huge numbers of deaths amongst the vulnerable in the early days, when the virus was imported into care homes by asymptomatic visitors and staff.

Absolutely nothing 'odd' about any of those things.
 
JoKalsbeek said:
Am I reading it right? They're putting the percentage of deaths against the population. Not against infected population. Quite a few people didn't "survive" corona in that equation, they never had it to begin with. So isn't that a bit skewed then? (Though I am horrible with numbers and get kind of lost in articles like this... Do correct me if I'm wrong!).
Click to expand...

It's the best way to look at population level risk I guess.
The kind of risk calculation most of us don't even think about when we get in the car or on our bikes because its such a rare event that we know the likelihood of it happening to us is tiny.
 
Brunneria said:
Why do you think it is odd?
Click to expand...

Because if we have more and more "infected" and the "pandemic" is so dreadful we should be seeing more and more people being hospitalised and dying. It really is that simple.

Remember that all these positive test results are from people who have been out and about in their community before getting tested, allegedly spreading COVID like some latter day black death (or at least that is what some would have us believe).
That is not what is happening.

The accuracy of the test of course might be the other issue.
 
bulkbiker said:
Because if we have more and more "infected" and the "pandemic" is so dreadful we should be seeing more and more people being hospitalised and dying. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

I disagree, and see no reason why you come to that conclusion.
Unless you are saying that if a new treatment or way to handle a disease (that has killed hundreds of thousands of people) evolves (through research or new best practice), then that disease should magically be re-classified as a non-dangerous disease, backdated to its discovery?
 
The figures dont take into account those with long tail covid, or permanent lung, heart, liver etc damage. Its not all about death or life.

Think of all those who survived polio, for example, but were damaged and then got the late effects of polio in later life. Or those who appeared to be unaffected by having polio and then got the late effects later one.

Its not as clear cut as live or die. I hope, soon, these figures will start to be collected.
 
The way I see it is that they are finding more cases due to the increase in testing, but the number of people who are critically ill has decreased dramatically, and most now have only mild or no symptoms. Whether that is because the majority of the weak, infirm etc have already been infected and or the virus has mutated to a less virulent strain which seems to be the nature of these things.
 
bulkbiker said:
Yes I know it's from the daily mail but still worth a read.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...t-taking-regular-bath-writes-TIM-HARFORD.html

The part about post Fukushima deaths is very interesting "rescued to death".
Click to expand...
Thanks. My dad has risked giving my 94 year old grandma a hug (risked not only in the Covid sense but the possibility he won't be able to visit again because he's broken their rules).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b006qshd
This is Tim Harford the author. Seemingly the only person in the BBC who is calming holding the various agencies to task on the numbers around the virus on More or Less i.e. a real journalist.
 
I haven't read the Mail article, but in the car this morning, I hard the generator of these stats, Tim Hartford, saying he had actually made an error in the bath stat.

The COVID stats are on a given day, the bath is over the course of a year. He was very keen to point out that that one was actually, plain apples and pears.
 
DCUKMod said:
I haven't read the Mail article, but in the car this morning, I hard the generator of these stats, Tim Hartford, saying he had actually made an error in the bath stat.

The COVID stats are on a given day, the bath is over the course of a year. He was very keen to point out that that one was actually, plain apples and pears.
Click to expand...
Would you mind expanding on this? What, and where, are the correct stats?
 
bulkbiker said:
Because if we have more and more "infected" and the "pandemic" is so dreadful we should be seeing more and more people being hospitalised and dying. It really is that simple.

Remember that all these positive test results are from people who have been out and about in their community before getting tested, allegedly spreading COVID like some latter day black death (or at least that is what some would have us believe).
That is not what is happening.

The accuracy of the test of course might be the other issue.
Click to expand...
I agree that the accuracy of the test could be an issue.
You also need to remember that back in March when I caught it they were only testing people who had a known contact who had travelled to a known hotspot. There were many like me who knew they had COVID but were encouraged to stay at home unless their lips were turning blue! I and many others were never tested. So the increase in infections now may not be a true increase at all.
 
Brunneria said:
I disagree, and see no reason why you come to that conclusion.
Unless you are saying that if a new treatment or way to handle a disease (that has killed hundreds of thousands of people) evolves (through research or new best practice), then that disease should magically be re-classified as a non-dangerous disease, backdated to its discovery?
Click to expand...
Our own government has classified it as follows:
Status of COVID-19
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.
The CDC in the US has also pointed out that 95% of the deaths with Covid involved had co morbidities which does bring into question how we have handled the statistics. It is certainly a nasty virus but we are hyper focussed on it compared to other years where excess deaths have occurred to the same or a greater extent from nasty flus with ineffective vaccinations.
 
bulkbiker said:
It's the best way to look at population level risk I guess.
The kind of risk calculation most of us don't even think about when we get in the car or on our bikes because its such a rare event that we know the likelihood of it happening to us is tiny.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes... That makes sense. Thank you. :)
 
NicoleC1971 said:
Our own government has classified it as follows:
Status of COVID-19
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.
The CDC in the US has also pointed out that 95% of the deaths with Covid involved had co morbidities which does bring into question how we have handled the statistics. It is certainly a nasty virus but we are hyper focussed on it compared to other years where excess deaths have occurred to the same or a greater extent from nasty flus with ineffective vaccinations.
Click to expand...

Reclassifying a disease as we learn more about it makes perfect sense.
Claiming that it is 'odd' that fewer people are dying as treatment and management protocols improve, does not make sense.
 
lucylocket61 said:
Would you mind expanding on this? What, and where, are the correct stats?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but if you listened, on iPlayer, to the Jeremy Vine Show (Vanessa Feltz is sitting in this week), Tim Harford was guesting there. It would have been around the 12:20 mark, although I didn't specifically look at the clock at the time. The timing is calculated from other things I was doing at the time - errands and so on.

Sorry not to be more specific, but I had no idea it'd be useful information later.
 
Brunneria said:
Reclassifying a disease as we learn more about it makes perfect sense.
Claiming that it is 'odd' that fewer people are dying as treatment and management protocols improve, does not make sense.
Click to expand...
I don' think it is odd either but I think the reason lies in the natural decline of the virus which shows similar sharp peaks and then steady declines in most of the European countries regardless of their policies. Fortunately there are also better treatments.
What is odd is that mainstream media is again focusing on case numbers with the implication that these will lead to hospitalisations and deaths whereas they don't seem to be.
 
Back
Top