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

That's much better.

And yes, the terms "sheeple" and "hive mind" do tend to be used almost exclusively to provoke emotional responses rather than an open and honest discussion.

I suppose it's much like not realising that some people might not like being referred to as tin foil hatted loon?

ktache wrote:

I suppose it's much like not realising that some people might not like being referred to as tin foil hatted loon?

I suppose someone may not realise the implications of the terms, but certainly "sheeple" is always derogatory.

There's nothing wrong with tin (ALUMINIUM) foil hats and nuts, though.

TBF, he didn;'t say sheeple initially, I mentioned surprised he didn't being as he was asking the hive-mind which he did say and I was taking as meaning similar. 

Hmmm, I'm probably wrong in my assumption that you might be a governor of a school in South East London, but some of your comments do make me wonder. 

I couldn't find the average age of death by covid in the reports you linked, however a quick Google search showed an outdated FOI one (middle of the last big deaths peak of Jan 2021) which shows that male deaths mean average was 78.6 years and Median was 81. As this is about the time the time the Life expectancy figues were calculated for, I will use these. 

But again, your intepretation does have something to desire. 75k deaths will always sway something taken over several years even though they do those calculations over the period to try to level off excesses, not to the extent that it happened.

Also Staticians notes.

Quote:

“These estimates rely on the assumption that current levels of mortality, which are unusually high, will continue for the rest of someone’s life. Once the coronavirus pandemic has ended and its consequences for future mortality are known, it is possible that life expectancy will return to an improving trend in the future.”

Smiffi wrote:

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. 

If you are as interested in science as you claim, then I'd imagine that you'd provide a source to the FOI response.

What makes me suspicious is that there are a lot of people who have a financial interest in not having lockdowns, and the fact that you are not linking to your sources makes me question both your methodology and your results.

I am also puzzled as to why you'd need a FOI request for excess deaths as that data is freely available.

Personally, it seems reasonable to think that lockdowns should provide some benefit for easily transmissable viruses, but I don't have any prior belief as to how effective they are although I much prefer the reduced traffic of a lockdown. I'm perfectly happy with peer-reviewed research into lockdowns and unintended consequences, so I'm not sure if you're using "cults" as some kind of dog whistle.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

Ah so many hypotheticals, so little evidence!

So someone *may* have got cancer. 

That *may* have been curable

That *may* have been fatal otherwise

That *may* not have been recognised by the doctors treating them 

Said patient *may* have got covid

That *may* have caused their death

And this chain for events accounts for a *significant* cause of the excess deaths on the basis that only 16,000 deaths had covid recorded on the death cert?

With no other supporting evidence?

As I said before, this just represents a misunderstanding of the death certification process.

I am sure that some people will have died as a result of missed/delayed treatment during the pandemic. 
 

This analysis https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/what-has-happened-to-n... puts the apparent (false) reduction in lung cancer deaths at 7% for instance. 

We can debate about the concept of "significant" and whether 7% is significant or not, but remember the original post contrasted 160,000 excess deaths to 16,00 with only covid listed on the death certificate, which implies Smiffi was thinking closer to 90% rather than 10% in his original post. 
 

Which again was due to a misunderstanding of how the death certification process works. 

They're not hypotheticals.

It's a fact that 1000s of cancer deaths are missing from the statistics.

Those deaths must therefore have been recorded under a different category.

Unless you have another hypothetical explanation?

I think you've misunderstood Smiffis's post. The answer to his original question is simply Yes.

Rich_cb wrote:

t's a fact that 1000s of cancer deaths are missing from the statistics. Those deaths must therefore have been recorded under a different category. Unless you have another hypothetical explanation?

I have a hypothetical explanation, and it is entirely hypothetical, but is it not possible that people suffering from cancer were less likely to die during the pandemic as a result of better air quality and the fact that people with cancer would have been entirely isolated and so not exposed to the risk of various other diseases that frequently kill cancer patients, e.g., pneumonia, which is the primary cause of mortality in 60% of lung cancer patients? I don't know any data from this country but it's a fact that during the first three months of lockdown in China pneumonia-related deaths fell by 47%. So perhaps those deaths aren't recorded elsewhere, they simply didn't happen.

TBH, there are lots of twists and turns with ongoing diagnostics and it will be a good 5-10 years before all the decisions can definitely be confirmed as correct one way or the other with mortatlities reviewed.

During lockdown for example, lots of beahaviours were changed including, as you mentioned, lack of polutions in the air and people not being exposed to items at their works. People also changed diets due to lack of normal foods and might have even eaten healthier. But you also have people who missed the daily exercise they might have gotten, or who ate more. More people bought bikes or repaired old ones, but more cyclists also died on the roads in the first lockdown due to combinations of bad driving and new cyclists not realising there is bad driving. 

I actually expected Heart Attacks and Strokes to be higher, due to people working from home not getting the instant help they might have got if they suffered them in the office. I haven't seen any stories on that yet, but that could have been tempered by people being less stressed and having less raised BP's etc by not having to travel  to work for an hour a day in traffic. 

I do think it is too soon for oncologists, or others to state we will be expecting loads of deaths from particular diseases based on the way people lived before the lockdowns / pandemics when the way they lived during the pandemic has changed. And also when alot of people who would have been more likely to have cancer diagnosed might have actually unfortunately already succumbed to Covid. 

That is a hypothetical explanation.

If it were true we would expect to see an increase in cancer deaths once lockdowns etc eased. We'd also expect to see the same number of cancer diagnoses.

IIRC the number of cancer diagnoses fell sharply during COVID indicating that the condition was being missed.

I think the lack of social contact and subsequent reduction in communicable diseases definitely did reduce non COVID deaths though. I think influenza deaths were down dramatically.

Rich_cb wrote:

That is a hypothetical explanation. If it were true we would expect to see an increase in cancer deaths once lockdowns etc eased. We'd also expect to see the same number of cancer diagnoses. IIRC the number of cancer diagnoses fell sharply during COVID indicating that the condition was being missed. I think the lack of social contact and subsequent reduction in communicable diseases definitely did reduce non COVID deaths though. I think influenza deaths were down dramatically.

As I recall, Australia had a markedly reduced flu season (2020 I think) which was attributed to Covid restrictions.

Rich_cb wrote:

That is a hypothetical explanation. If it were true we would expect to see an increase in cancer deaths once lockdowns etc eased. We'd also expect to see the same number of cancer diagnoses. IIRC the number of cancer diagnoses fell sharply during COVID indicating that the condition was being missed. I think the lack of social contact and subsequent reduction in communicable diseases definitely did reduce non COVID deaths though. I think influenza deaths were down dramatically.

Would it be possible (again this is pure hypothesis on my part) that fewer people were identifying signs of cancer in themselves - and so presenting for diagnosis - because of the reduction in infection resulting from circulating less in public? Anecdotally I know three people (all now happily fully recovered, I'm glad to say) who were given cancer diagnoses after presenting with other infections in the relevant organs, perhaps if they hadn't contracted those infections they wouldn't have been diagnosed so quickly? Obviously that is not a desirable outcome from an oncology point of view but it may have contributed to the drop in diagnoses?

I guess it's no surprise that 'flu deaths dropped so dramatically because all the most vulnerable were isolating and mandatory masking cut transmission?

And the adoption of social distancing, better hygiene and hopefully less determination to have to go to work when having a respiratory disease, be it flu or even a cold.  The ability to work from home, if allowed and possible will also aid this.

That's entirely plausible also. We don't know the exact reasons for the fall in cancer diagnoses but a lot of cancers are diagnosed anecdotally like you describe so a fall in that type of diagnosis would very likely be a contributing factor.

I think the lack of social mixing and to a lesser extent the masks were definitely the reasons for the drop off in 'flu.

Interestingly the last two 'flu seasons before widespread vaccination saw about 50k deaths per year. The actual annual mortality for 2020 + 2021 is not that unusual compared to just a few decades ago (early 2000s)either.

Influenza is a nasty disease yet we are all rather blasé about it, wonder how long before COVID is thought of in a similar way?

Rich_cb wrote:

That's entirely plausible also. We don't know the exact reasons for the fall in cancer diagnoses but a lot of cancers are diagnosed anecdotally like you describe so a fall in that type of diagnosis would very likely be a contributing factor. I think the lack of social mixing and to a lesser extent the masks were definitely the reasons for the drop off in 'flu. Interestingly the last two 'flu seasons before widespread vaccination saw about 50k deaths per year. The actual annual mortality for 2020 + 2021 is not that unusual compared to just a few decades ago (early 2000s)either. Influenza is a nasty disease yet we are all rather blasé about it, wonder how long before COVID is thought of in a similar way?

but isn't being obede a comorbidity?  (28% of UK adults)

what about overweight (further 32% of UK adults)

at what point does age become a comorbidity?

diabetes? 7% although likely some overlap with overweight/obese figures

I'm kind of hoping that we start thinking about flu a little bit more like COVID, infection control wise, perhaps lateral flow tests, better hygiene,  a little more isolation and better take up of vaccines.

Protecting the NHS and not accepting quite as large death toll.

I hope presenteeism will take a bit of a knock and people will be more willing to WFH or even, heaven forbid, take time off when unwell.

Whilst that is a hope, whilst too many places don't have a proper sick pay infrastructure (to dissuade absentisim and encourage presenteeism) that will not be the case. My wife uses up some of her prescious few holiday dates to ensure she gets paid when sick for example. 

Rich_cb wrote:

I hope presenteeism will take a bit of a knock and people will be more willing to WFH or even, heaven forbid, take time off when unwell.

That's easier - and often more affordable - for salaried office workers than those on zero hours at places like Amazon, in frontline NHS services, or working at factories, warehouses etc where any interruption to production lines is costly and hugely disruptive... We already know that empty supermarket shelves are not OK. Social care is pretty bad - sick pay at my other half's previous employer: 5 days at full pay on £8.90-£9.30/hr then SSP. That won't pay the bills.

Still, you'd like to think that the management would learn that it is still better than being forced to close when more than a third of your workforce tests positive (BBC: 2 Sisters Llangefni, July 2020). However, IME senior management are often the least willing to learn and change behaviour, presumably because they're "in charge" and with that comes the mindset that they know better than everyone else.

Correction: I originally put £9.80 per hour, which was wrong.

Rendel Harris wrote:

 

I guess it's no surprise that 'flu deaths dropped so dramatically because all the most vulnerable were isolating and mandatory masking cut transmission?

flu infections dropped dramatically as social distancing measures will have that effect on a transmissible virus.

Rich_cb wrote:

They're not hypotheticals. It's a fact that 1000s of cancer deaths are missing from the statistics. Those deaths must therefore have been recorded under a different category. Unless you have another hypothetical explanation? I think you've misunderstood Smiffis's post. The answer to his original question is simply Yes.

I've given you a paper showing a 7% effect on lung cancer deaths. 
 

If you have evidence to show that effect on cancer deaths is significantly more than that then please show it. 

Your evidence supports my statement.

Over the course of the pandemic there have been thousands of 'missing' cancer deaths.

That's before we mention the thousands of deaths missing from other causes too.

All there in your own link.

Rich_cb wrote:

Your evidence supports my statement. Over the course of the pandemic there have been thousands of 'missing' cancer deaths. That's before we mention the thousands of deaths missing from other causes too. All there in your own link.

We are debating whether there are enough missing cancer deaths to represent a significant amount of the 110,000 plus reported cases of excess mortality where covid was not the sole cause on the death certificate.

You have still provided no evidence that supports this assertion.

I do think that in years to come there will be an increase in cancer mortality due to delayed diagnosis and treatment, but there is a reason cancer survival rates are usually reported as 5 years, 10 years etc and Indo not think we are far enough along yet to see that effect in substantial numbers.

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.

I did, which is why picking the 16,000 cases where covid is listed as the sole cause of death, whilst ignoring the other >150,000 deaths attributed to covid demonstrates as fundamental lack of understanding of the problem. 
 

Before posting snarky replies please try to think for a second?

He didn't ignore the others.

Re read his comment. Slowly.

Rich_cb wrote:

He didn't ignore the others. Re read his comment. Slowly.

Why does he specifically comment that 16000 only mention covid then?

I suspect you are also unaware of how doctors will in death certificates .

The fact is that a death cert mentions only COVID-19 as a cause of death means that it has been wrongly completed. 

Try reading it one more time.

As I've personally written 100s of death certificates I think I have a reasonable grasp of how they work.

I have also written many death certificates with one cause of death.

The wording on death certificates makes it quite clear that this is acceptable practice.

Rich_cb wrote:

Try reading it one more time. As I've personally written 100s of death certificates I think I have a reasonable grasp of how they work. I have also written many death certificates with one cause of death. The wording on death certificates makes it quite clear that this is acceptable practice.

How many times did you write a single cause of death as an infection?  How many times just 1a strep pneumoniae or 1a Hep B with no further qualification?

If I caught one of my trainees doing that they would be corrected. I'd want to see  eg 1a pneumonia 1b strep pneumoniae as a minimum. 
 

I accept that post pandemic it is now acceptable to write 1a covid alone but this is a specific directive acknowledging the challenges doctors faced. 
 

And the majority of hospital death certificates would have more detail eg 1a interstitial pneumonia 1b COVID-19 

Which is why the focus on the 16000 cases of single covid death certification is fruitless as it fails to acknowledge the majority for certificates where doctors were more accurate. 

Even if you wrote 1a interstitial pneumonia, 1b COVID-19 (which I agree is the correct way to do it) that's still COVID as the single cause of death.

My interpretation was that no comorbidities meant nothing in section 2.