Retired pro Andrew Talansky under fire for Covid rant (Pogačar + De Gendt join in); Pidcock's Pinarello; CyclingMikey road.cc Podcast; Barriers to disabled cyclists; Trek raises $1.8M for World Bicycle Relief; Wheelbarrow fun + more on the live blog

I'm not honestly sure we do know that. There have been small studies showing a drop off in antibody production, but that is only one element of the immune response. Also because only a small percentage of samples worldwide are analysed to establish the variant/ genetics of the virus in a specific patient this cannot be known for certain.

UK government regularly puts out updates on vaccine effectiveness against variants.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-sars-cov-2-v...

That data shows vaccination status of hospitalised cases. And as I read it, the region with the lowest vaccine uptake (London) had the highest level of hospitalisations, with the excess numbers seeming to consist of unvaccinated people.

If 90% of the population have had a vaccination and less than 90% of the hospitalisation have had a vaccination then the vaccine is better than no vaccine.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

That data shows vaccination status of hospitalised cases. And as I read it, the region with the lowest vaccine uptake (London) had the highest level of hospitalisations, with the excess numbers seeming to consist of unvaccinated people.

If 90% of the population have had a vaccination and less than 90% of the hospitalisation have had a vaccination then the vaccine is better than no vaccine.

The specific "Update on hospitalisation and vaccine effectiveness for Omicron" document in rich_cb's link states this about vaccine efficacy "Combined with the protection against becoming a symptomatic case, this gives a vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation of 88% (78 to 93%) for Omicron after 3 doses of vaccine."

It underpins every previous study that vaccinated individuals are signficantly less likely to require hospitalisation that unvaccinated

Hospitalisation is a different matter altogether.

The vaccines do appear to confer a greater degree of protection against hospitalisation and death than they do against symptomatic Omicron infection.

Without significant protection against symptomatic Omicron though the case for vaccine passports or mandates is, IMHO, fatally flawed.

check12 wrote:

He's half right and half wrong, if you eat well, (vit D, zinc, less chance of diabetes) exercise (so your bmi is good, and heart is strong), and get outdoors, fresh air (less chance of lung problems) you will probably be fine and if everyone did this we'd be in a much better position. But half wrong as it does exist and there are a lot of older people out there with comorbidities that may die from covid, and vaccines have helped a lot (1/20,000-30,000 chance of heart issues after vaccination is it though? From Scandinavian county data) so on balance he's more dangerous to be saying it in the way he's saying it.

He's pretty much all wrong wrt covid. Saying get fresh air and exercise and eat a healthy diet is universal for all situations, and is kind of stating the bleeding obvious.

Any individual catching covid pretty much loads their annual chances of dying (regardless of cause) into the fortnight or so that they are ill (scholars of the laws of probability will not need me to state that after you recover, you still have the same residual risk of death from all causes ongoing),. So if the whole population catches it, that year a little less than twice as many people die as you would normally expect. On a social policy level this is catastrophic - our public services (especially but not exclusively health, social, and post-death) barely function under normal load, due to lack of political interest or willful evisceration for short term profit of the few.

On a human level this is also catastrophic - every death is a tragedy for the family friends and colleagues of the deceased. In addition those (majority) that survive the illness also may suffer long term symptoms - I know several people now suffering long covid to a greater of lesser extent - two of them (who before covid happened to be some of the healthiest people I know) have essentially had their lives torn apart. This has the further knock on to their kids, whose once-active parents are struggling to look after them, and indeed to even earn a living at all. 

The measures that we have "endured", (eg making sure we are not infectious before meeting people, getting jabbed, wearing masks in public to reduce the spread of illness to others) might be considered merely "individual responsibility".

Interestingly those that bang on about responsibility are often the very people who don't give a fuck about others that may be affected by their actions (or lack thereof).

Captain Badger wrote:

.

Interestingly those that bang on about responsibility are often the very people who don't give a fuck about others that may be affected by their actions (or lack thereof).

probably the same times that want cyclists to wear helmets so they can keep driving like cockwombles.

I'll start by saying im fully vaccinated, wear a face covering, and enjoy social distancing, but I'm interested in the hive-minds take on this....

Since the start of registering COVID-19 deaths in 2020 the ONS state there have been around 130,000 excess deaths (over and above the five-year average).  Over this period they've registered around 16,000 deaths which list COVID-19 as the sole cause.

Is in conceivable that of the other 114,000 excess deaths a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment for the other ailments which then go on to result in death which would otherwise have been avoided?

it is entirely conceivable that the cure (lockdowns & isolation) is resulting in more deaths than it is saving.

Nice talks of hive minds. Surprised sheeple wasn't used. Of course nice that you have been vaccinated as there is at least one person on here who has been denigrated people talking about their vaccines since the start of them and, will either confirm that they are not or will not  tell us he is vaccinated. Of course we can all guess the status due to the lack of care they have stated for pensioners and other people deemed "unfit".

Anyway, You do realise that due to lack of funding and cuts for the last 10 years of austerity, the NHS just about keeps up with normal national illnesses and still almost breaks during the winter Flu or when a novovirus breaks out. Now add an entirely new disease which is very contagious, kills vulnerable people, fills up wards, fills up ICU's, and for 12 months, didn't have a very effective treatment.  It meant that staff had to be brought in from other areas, couldn't travel other wards and  places needed and ambulances couldn't just go out straight away as needed disinfecting more then normal. Also add on PTSD for the nhs staff, (I urge people to listen to the Benjamin Zephaniah / Adam Buxton podcast when he discusses his sister and brother in laws experiences, or read any NHS staffs experiences during the worst of it).
It has been so long that people forget the lockdowns were actually implemented to control infections so the NHS wouldn't have been so overwhelmed that it fully collapsed. (Protect the NHS was the first slogans used). Yes the government instigated nightingales, however there wouldn't have been any staff to use them. However such a large effect on the NHS was unfortunately always going to have knock-ons on day-to-day runnings. 

However your stats do seem to be out. You are claiming only 16k from COVID when official figures from the so far is 153k from COVID. Also the stats listed below seems to show that excess deaths with no covid listed them as lower then average if I'm reading them right. (Probably because the vulnerable have already died earlier with covid). 

https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/what-has-happened-to-n...

The ONS have the number at 175,000, using the not as easily tallied mention an a death certificate.

Smiffi wrote:

Since the start of registering COVID-19 deaths in 2020 the ONS state there have been around 130,000 excess deaths (over and above the five-year average).  Over this period they've registered around 16,000 deaths which list COVID-19 as the sole cause.

Is in conceivable that of the other 114,000 excess deaths a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment for the other ailments which then go on to result in death which would otherwise have been avoided?

I would have to say that I disagree with your interpretation that only where COVID-19 is the sole cause of death means that the other 114,000 deaths were not caused by covid.

If a covid infection caused an underlying condition, which is under control in normal cirumstances, to play a part in their death does that mean that their death was caused by Covid or by the underlying condition?  If the condition was under control but the Covid infection caused a flare up and that took the life of the individual common sense has to dictate that Covid was the cause of death not the previously under control condition.

It is shades of grey in determining cause of death, but covid deaths are only recorded as such where Covid is the primary cause of death

TriTaxMan wrote:

If a covid infection caused an underlying condition, which is under control in normal cirumstances, to play a part in their death does that mean that their death was caused by Covid or by the underlying condition?  If the condition was under control but the Covid infection caused a flare up and that took the life of the individual common sense has to dictate that Covid was the cause of death not the previously under control condition.

It is shades of grey in determining cause of death, but covid deaths are only recorded as such where Covid is the primary cause of death

There's also the complication that testing for Covid wasn't available in the early days which would also have affected the figures.

I'm not disputing that COVID was a contributory cause in more than 16,000 deaths, just that it was the only cause in 16,000, nor am I suggesting that funding isn't an issue, neither did I mention the number of ONS deaths recorded as having COVID on the death certificate. 

The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  There's a net loss overall.  It's also interesting to note that 2021's COVID only deaths are on a par with 2020's despite the roll-out of the vaccination programme.

Vaccines, face coverings, hygiene all have their (positive) place, but lockdown and iosolation I'm not so sure about.

Smiffi wrote:

The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  

Not really sure you can say that unless you can produce figures saying how many more people would (or would not) have died of Covid due to the increased spread that would have occurred without lockdowns - figures which would inevitably be speculative.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Smiffi wrote:

The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  

Not really sure you can say that unless you can produce figures saying how many more people would (or would not) have died of Covid due to the increased spread that would have occurred without lockdowns - figures which would inevitably be speculative.

Was thinking very much the same.

The people who obeyed the rules, who wore/wear masks and made sacrifices did it with the best of intentions. Lockdowns have been used worldwide, this is not a tactic used in the UK alone. We can debate the merits of the lockdowns to contain Covid-19 until the cows come home but we will not find any concrete answers or come to meaningful conclusions. Too many ifs, buts and maybes.

The self-proclaimed wise guys decrying the MSM as a whole and using phrases like "hive mind", "groupthink" and so on - those people are getting their information (I'm not sure I would call them facts) from often less than reputable sources. The arrogance of thinking one has some kind of superior perspective by not being 'a sheep' seems to me to be in fact a sign of weakness, an indication that they have succumbed to a different form of misinformation, possibly even brainswashing. We have seen how the spread of disinformation via social media has had a profound and often detrimental effect on people's grasp of facts.

Like virtually everyone, I would prefer that the media was an unbiased source of news and facts but it sadly doesn't work that way. People who have grown up trusting it don't want to admit that 'the press' and their online counterparts are owned by rich oligarchs and businesses with agendas while the BBC is as vulnerable as any organisation to bias and external pressure. 8 minute video by Peter Jukes of Byline Times trying to shed some light on this:

https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1481327855954976770

Smiffi wrote:

I'm not disputing that COVID was a contributory cause in more than 16,000 deaths, just that it was the only cause in 16,000, nor am I suggesting that funding isn't an issue, neither did I mention the number of ONS deaths recorded as having COVID on the death certificate. 

The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  There's a net loss overall.  It's also interesting to note that 2021's COVID only deaths are on a par with 2020's despite the roll-out of the vaccination programme.

Vaccines, face coverings, hygiene all have their (positive) place, but lockdown and iosolation I'm not so sure about.

To determine whether lockdowns and isolation resulted in more deaths, you need to do more than just assume that non-covid death causes are caused by lockdowns. A better approach would be to compare the excess death rates of countries with and without lockdowns.

If you want to dive into the figures, there's a useful repository from the Economist here: https://github.com/TheEconomist/covid-19-excess-deaths-tracker

Personally, I wouldn't put much faith into countries' official figures as most of them will be distorted by politicians and they'll differ across countries according to differing classifications (and level of testing).

The analysis is likely to be difficult as different regions have experienced different levels of infection. Also, lockdowns have been used as a result of high virus transmissions, so there is going to be a natural correlation between having a lockdown and high death rates (obviously a country with low infection rates is less likely to require a lockdown).

It might be of some use to compare the excess death rates of neighbouring countries that took different approaches e.g. Sweden. However you'll need to take into consideration different population densities.

To be honest, unless you have many years experience of dealing with statistics, you are likely to mislead yourself and others by over-simplifying a complex topic.

The other factor to consider is the excess deaths that are yet to occur because of past lockdowns.

Late diagnoses will have led to many manageable conditions becoming incurable and therefore fatal.

That death may not necessarily occur immediately though, it may even be decades later.

Rich_cb wrote:

The other factor to consider is the excess deaths that are yet to occur because of past lockdowns. Late diagnoses will have led to many manageable conditions becoming incurable and therefore fatal. That death may not necessarily occur immediately though, it may even be decades later.

Are you also going to factor in the excess deaths that would have occurred if the Delta variant had been allowed to run uncontrolled through an unvaccinated population?

Of course.

Given quite how wrong the Omicron modelling was though I think you'd be advised to take the Delta predictions at the time with a hefty pinch of salt.

Smiffi wrote:

Since the start of registering COVID-19 deaths in 2020 the ONS state there have been around 130,000 excess deaths (over and above the five-year average).  Over this period they've registered around 16,000 deaths which list COVID-19 as the sole cause.

Is in conceivable that of the other 114,000 excess deaths a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment...

No.

Focusing on COVID-19 as a sole recorded cause of death demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. 

For a more detailed response and discussion, please learn how death certificates are written, think about why you are wrong, and then please come back.

It is entirely conceivable that "a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment".

Before posting snarky replies please read the comment you're replying to carefully.

Rich_cb wrote:

It is entirely conceivable that "a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment". Before posting snarky replies please read the comment you're replying to carefully.

It's also entirely conceivable that new furniture sales have contributed to a higher death rate as the level of VOCs within the home would be massively elevated. It's just supposition though without some more detailed analysis.

I think it's fair enough to dismiss idle speculation (especially if it appears to have an agenda) that's based on gaps in knowledge.

I don't think it was fair at all.

Especially as Stomec implied that an understanding of death certificates in some way rendered the question moot.

It does not.

During the pandemic we've seen a reduction in deaths from many conditions including cancer.

Lockdowns are not going to have changed the incidence of cancer but they will have reduced/delayed the diagnosis.

Somebody dying of a cancer that would have been curable if diagnosed/treated earlier may get COVID and have this recorded on their death certificate but their death would have been contributed to by the cancer which, if undiagnosed, would be entirely absent from the death certificate.

Smiffi has raised a valid point and Stomec has dismissed it without good reason.

Smiffi raised some speculation - whether or not it is valid could be determined with some detailed analysis, but I think it is fair to dismiss it as armchair theorising.

It's also possible that lockdown has prevented some cancers due to reduced air pollution and it's also possible that lockdown has increased cancer due to people drinking more alcohol.

It's all just idle speculation which would be fair enough if it didn't appear as though it had some anti-lockdown agenda behind it. I liken it to opponents complaining that bike lanes cause congestion.

It's not idle speculation as it follows the course of the discussion.

Based on the links posted so far it's an entirely reasonable question.

It's also entirely reasonable to question whether government policy in imposing lockdowns was correct. I suspect the true answer won't be known for decades but the picture is certainly not as clear as many think.

Rich_cb wrote:

...the picture is certainly not as clear as many think.

That's kind of my point.

And yes, it's reasonable to examine the efficacy of lockdowns, but not to draw conclusions based on a pair of figures.

That's fair but asking a reasonable question supported by the data previously posted in the thread is not drawing conclusions, it's just adding to the discussion.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I wasn't trying to be speculative just to promote an argument (which appears to have happened), and I certainly did not have any hidden agenda!  I was genuinely interested to hear peoples interpretation of the ONS data released last Thursday (from a FOI request from last year) on excess deaths, COVID contributory deaths, and COVID only deaths, both in number and average age. I definitely did not expect any rude replies, but in hindsight perhaps I should have.

Out of interest I've done some more digging, and there's a wealth of data attached to that particular FOI response which suggests that the media reports are somewhat focussed on a single aspect and perhaps are not reporting on the bigger issue.

As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  We'll probably never know whether our, and other countries, courses of action were statistically meaningful, but that should not stop people questioning them.  That's how science works.  Cults are different, and it seems that just as the anti-vaxxers are gaining a cult following there is a opposite cult forming which is not willing to accept that sometimes we need to review data and then adjust our course. 

Quote:

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I wasn't trying to be speculative just to promote an argument (which appears to have happened), and I certainly did not have any hidden agenda!  I was genuinely interested to hear peoples interpretation of the ONS data released last Thursday (from a FOI request from last year) on excess deaths, COVID contributory deaths, and COVID only deaths, both in number and average age. I definitely did not expect any rude replies, but in hindsight perhaps I should have.

Maybe not start using the term "Hive Mind" for the forum then. People might not be as rude if that isn't the first thing in your post. 

As for the FOI, as you made no mention of it in your first post, no link to it or anything else inthat post or subsequentially, and then state you were asking for our opinions of it when there is no such thing. That is quite disingenious. Maybe it was linked in another post, however as there are 128 others on here, it might have been skimmed over. 

Still I'm sure now stating we are all members of a cult of anti-anti-vaxxers will definitely win people to your side now. 

I hadn't realised that HiveMind and Sheeples terms were treated with such disdain. I shall however learn from my mistakes and have put references below.

Another intriguing stat in the reports is that whilst the average age of those with covid recorded on their death certificate (not just "only" covid) was 82.5,  the average life expectancy of a male in the UK actually fell slightly (by 7 weeks) to 79.0 over the last two years, this is the first decrease since life-expectancy began to be reported (40 years ago).  This means that deaths attributed to causes other than covid have increased in those younger than 79.

A cause of this increased prevalence in deaths of younger people could be due to less diagnosis and treatment of otherwise treatable illness. It cannot be directly related to covid infection as those deaths averaged higher at 82.5.  I suppose that once the full statistics are produced and analysed we will see what the specific cause(s) were.

References

Excess Deaths https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/...

UK Deaths https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

FOI 2021/3240 Deaths from COVID only https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinform...

Average Life Expectancy https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarri...