Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[BRX]

A little worse than I remembered, I concede.

You said Sweden had done "a little worse" than its neighbours but "not significantly so". In fact, (per head of population) it's had 5 times the number of deaths that Norway and Sweden have, and it's had more than twice the number of deaths that Denmark has.

So saying that this is a "little worse than you remembered" is a bit of an understatement. With respect, you were presenting entirely inaccurate information.

This seems to be a bit of a theme on this thread. Yesterday I challenged @yorkie 's claim that SAGE had predicted never-ending exponential growth. Again, this was entirely inaccurate and when I demonstrated this, it was dismissed as me fussing over "semantics" and "minutiae".

There's all sorts of inaccurate stuff being presented here as received wisdom.

 

[35B]

Nobody is in a care home because they’re fit and well. They’re either physically or mentally incapable of living independently (or both). Of course this is even more the case in nursing homes and hospices where care is essentially palliative.

Indeed, people aren't in care homes because they're fit and well. That doesn't mean though that they are at death's door (even those in nursing homes), or incapable of leading fulfilling (to them) lives - lumping care homes and hospices together is comparing apples with pears.

A year ago, there was a lot of debate about Great Barrington and it's doctrine of "focused protection". It now seems that even that level of protection is being seen as unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The thought occurred to me today that Omicron could be about to torpedo the death statistics.

Given that the figures are "for any reason within 28 days of a positive test" and that we have had a large increase in positive test results recently, we are baking in a substantial rise in death figures over the next month or so simply from statistical averages on those people.

This means that despite the number of patients on ventilators - and therefore the number seriously ill - continuing to fall, the apparent number of deaths will rise sharply.

That is plainly a nonsense situation and might finally force a distinction between "with" and "of" in the official figures.

 

[Dent]

A year ago, there was a lot of debate about Great Barrington and it's doctrine of "focused protection". It now seems that even that level of protection is being seen as unnecessary and unreasonable.

In the last year most people have been vaccinated, a number of treatments have been approved, and a milder variant has become dominant. If even all that is not still enough to satisfy you that the danger has passed, what exactly is it that you are waiting for? I can't really see what else is coming that will make the risk any lower than it already is.

 

[NorthOxonian]

The thought occurred to me today that Omicron could be about to torpedo the death statistics.

Given that the figures are "for any reason within 28 days of a positive test" and that we have had a large increase in positive test results recently, we are baking in a substantial rise in death figures over the next month or so simply from statistical averages on those people.

This means that despite the number of patients on ventilators - and therefore the number seriously ill - continuing to fall, the apparent number of deaths will rise sharply.

That is plainly a nonsense situation and might finally force a distinction between "with" and "of" in the official figures.

That's a fair point - in the last 28 days around four million cases have been recorded, which is around 1 in 17 people. There are about 1,700 non-Covid deaths every day so about 100 of those will be people who have tested positive recently - which is a very significant figure compared to the 150 deaths per day currently being recorded on average.

(In reality that 100 per day figure will be an overestimated because most people who die from non-Covid causes are aged over 70 and those age groups have had lower infection rates, but the true figure won't be that much lower.)

 

[Spamcan81]

So you are just triggered. Thanks.

Please explain.

 

[yorkie]

.... But it really isn't true that they've not done much worse than their neighbours (the countries you could argue offer the most meaningful reference points).....

Comparing Sweden with Finland is not very meaningful at all; this has been done to death in previous threads, linked to above.

You said Sweden had done "a little worse" than its neighbours but "not significantly so". In fact, (per head of population) it's had 5 times the number of deaths that Norway and Sweden have, and it's had more than twice the number of deaths that Denmark has.

Not this again; Sweden is not really comparable with Norway and Finland. This has been debated before. It's like saying Scotland should be compared to Greenland as they are "neighbours" of sorts. I refer you to the threads linked to above.

So saying that this is a "little worse than you remembered" is a bit of an understatement. With respect, you were presenting entirely inaccurate information.

This seems to be a bit of a theme on this thread. Yesterday I challenged @yorkie 's claim that SAGE had predicted never-ending exponential growth. Again, this was entirely inaccurate and when I demonstrated this, it was dismissed as me fussing over "semantics" and "minutiae".

I stand by that. My point was a valid one; SAGE have been very wide of the mark with their predictions and that is almost universally recognised. Feel free to take a different view, as is your right.

There's all sorts of inaccurate stuff being presented here as received wisdom.

Yes, and it's coming from you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

The thought occurred to me today that Omicron could be about to torpedo the death statistics.

Given that the figures are "for any reason within 28 days of a positive test" and that we have had a large increase in positive test results recently, we are baking in a substantial rise in death figures over the next month or so simply from statistical averages on those people.

Agreed.

This means that despite the number of patients on ventilators - and therefore the number seriously ill - continuing to fall, the apparent number of deaths will rise sharply.

That is plainly a nonsense situation and might finally force a distinction between "with" and "of" in the official figures.

Indeed very much so. What really matters is how many people are becoming seriously ill with Covid; the answer with Omicron seems to be a very tiny proportion of people, the vast majority of whom are unvaccinated, very old or have significant comorbidies or a combination of two or more of those factors.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

Indeed, people aren't in care homes because they're fit and well. That doesn't mean though that they are at death's door (even those in nursing homes), or incapable of leading fulfilling (to them) lives - lumping care homes and hospices together is comparing apples with pears.

A year ago, there was a lot of debate about Great Barrington and it's doctrine of "focused protection". It now seems that even that level of protection is being seen as unnecessary and unreasonable.

What on earth are you proposing exactly?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

That is not what I said at all. Please do not put words in my mouth. You could even apologise for having done so here, if you want. Maybe you didn't read my post properly.

I was talking in general terms, but people can judge what you have said for themselves.

 

[43066]

You said Sweden had done "a little worse" than its neighbours but "not significantly so". In fact, (per head of population) it's had 5 times the number of deaths that Norway and Sweden have, and it's had more than twice the number of deaths that Denmark has.

Well with all due respect five times a very small number can still be a small number. All of those countries have done rather better than the EU wide average.

To get a true picture of the position, it would also be necessary to know whether those death statistics have been as misleading as ours. Were the deaths “with” or “of” Covid? Has Covid actually caused or merely hastened a lingering death?

To put it another way - if someone is elderly and bedridden and succumbs to pneumonia, what has really caused their death, in your view? Contrast that with someone in their thirties or forties who is struck down with cancer.

Indeed, people aren't in care homes because they're fit and well. That doesn't mean though that they are at death's door (even those in nursing homes), or incapable of leading fulfilling (to them) lives - lumping care homes and hospices together is comparing apples with pears.

Have you ever had a relative in a care home? I have - my grandmother, who had always said she’d rather die than end up in one of those places, after seeing her own mother go the same way. Witnessing her staring into space, soiling herself, forgetting her own grandchildren, then her own daughter, as dementia gradually enveloped her was heartbreaking. A swift end from Covid would have been a blessing. We are too focused on prolonging life for the sake of it in this country.

A year ago, there was a lot of debate about Great Barrington and it's doctrine of "focused protection". It now seems that even that level of protection is being seen as unnecessary and unreasonable.

What level of “protection” do you think is being objected to? As I said above it’s surprising that more wasn’t done regarding care homes - albeit perhaps that provides an insight into how the NHS (inevitably and rightly) sees fit to prioritise people in terms of quality life years left.

 

[35B]

In the last year most people have been vaccinated, a number of treatments have been approved, and a milder variant has become dominant. If even all that is not still enough to satisfy you that the danger has passed, what exactly is it that you are waiting for? I can't really see what else is coming that will make the risk any lower than it already is.

Did I say that it hadn't?

What on earth are you proposing exactly?

I'm not; I'm observing the comments being made in general terms.

Have you ever had a relative in a care home? I have - my grandmother, who had always said she’d rather die than end up in one of those places, after seeing her own mother go the same way. Witnessing her staring into space, soiling herself, forgetting her own grandchildren, then her own daughter, as dementia gradually enveloped her was heartbreaking. A swift end from Covid would have been a blessing. We are too focused on prolonging life for the sake of it in this country.

Yes, several, including some who did suffer from dementia (one to the point where Alzheimer's shut down not just the conscious mind, but also the reflexes). But I've also known those (including the person who took Alzheimer's to it's end point) who have found life in a care home gave them a life that they enjoyed, however limited it might seem to either of us. I do not write people off just because they need too much care to stay in their own home without live-in care (and, yes, I've had relatives in that position too).

I've also had the privilege of being looked after by a hospice as they cared for my mother in her final days. It was a strangely joyful place, but one that bore no relationship to any nursing or care home I've ever visited. There are many and complex issues about the final part of peoples' lives; reducing them to the level of them being in a particular place means their life is not worth living is simply not credible

What level of “protection” do you think is being objected to? As I said above it’s surprising that more wasn’t done regarding care homes - albeit perhaps that provides an insight into how the NHS (inevitably and rightly) sees fit to prioritise people in terms of quality life years left.

Two years ago, basic competence and epidemiology would have been nice! Now, what I see from a number of posts and posters is a view that people in care homes aren't worth looking after, and are just dispensable. My comment about GBD is no more than an observation of how arguments have changed.

But as people ask, I think the home my relative is in gets the balance pretty well. They get visitors to pre-book, limit the number of people visiting the home at any time, and get visitors to do lateral flow tests before travelling to try to identify those who are likely to be infectious before they enter the home. That seems a reasonable and proportionate set of trade-offs for a group who are particularly vulnerable.

 

[BRX]

Well with all due respect five times a very small number can still be a small number. All of those countries have done rather better than the EU wide average.

To get a true picture of the position, it would also be necessary to know whether those death statistics have been as misleading as ours. Were the deaths “with” or “of” Covid? Has Covid actually caused or merely hastened a lingering death?

To put it another way - if someone is elderly and bedridden and succumbs to pneumonia, what has really caused their death, in your view? Contrast that with someone in their thirties or forties who is struck down with cancer.

I'm not a medic so don't feel qualified to judge. But differences in definitions used for certain measures are just one of the many factors that make comparing one country with another difficult to do. I am sure that in the coming years, people will attempt to carry out such comparisons that try and correct for all of these multiple confounding factors. But to come to conclusions about, for example, the effectiveness of public health measures based on comparing raw numbers is pretty unreliable. Perhaps we can agree on that, in which case comparisons between Sweden and its neighbours might be misleading, but so might comparisons between Sweden and the UK, or other countries in the EU, or the EU average.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Please explain.

You have been triggered by the media into a reaction to Covid that you seem to feel strongly about yet for the previous duration of your life you weren't bothered about any other conditions. do you not feel that maybe you are have fallen into a position where your judgement has been triggered by outside sources for whatever reason.

 

[BRX]

Yes, and it's coming from you.

Ok. Give me a specific example of inaccurate information being presented by me.

Not an opinion that you don't like - something that I've presented as information, which is objectively incorrect.

 

[35B]

To get a true picture of the position, it would also be necessary to know whether those death statistics have been as misleading as ours. Were the deaths “with” or “of” Covid? Has Covid actually caused or merely hastened a lingering death?

To put it another way - if someone is elderly and bedridden and succumbs to pneumonia, what has really caused their death, in your view? Contrast that with someone in their thirties or forties who is struck down with cancer.

If that person was otherwise well, and had no other condition likely to have led to their death, then pneumonia would have killed them and be the cause of death. Just as they would have died of Covid if the disease that took them was Covid. It doesn't change just because the deceased was old and frail.

As for "with" or "of", that myth refuses to die - I notice that UK government figures show 173,509 deaths where Covid has been recorded on the death certificate (to 24 December), as opposed to 150,230 within 28 days of first diagnosis (to 10th Jan).

 

[BRX]

You have been triggered by the media into a reaction to Covid that you seem to feel strongly about yet for the previous duration of your life you weren't bothered about any other conditions. do you not feel that maybe you are have fallen into a position where your judgement has been triggered by outside sources for whatever reason.

I can't speak for anyone else but I can think of plenty of pre-Covid examples where things I've done have been influenced by considerations about infectious diseases.

I can remember a family trip to see my grandmother in her 90s that was cancelled because one of us possibly had the flu and it was decided that we shouldn't take the risk of passing it on. Various times I've decided not to see people when I've had a bad cold, even.

Consideration of appropriate immunisations prior to foreign travel.

But most of the infectious diseases we had to think about pre Covid were ones that were already moderated by vaccination.

Covid-19 is the first highly infectious disease that most of us in the UK have had to deal with, that carried a moderate risk of serious illness and was not (until very recently) moderated by vaccination. Hence the unprecedented response to it. No great mystery there, surely?

 

[Spamcan81]

You have been triggered by the media into a reaction to Covid that you seem to feel strongly about yet for the previous duration of your life you weren't bothered about any other conditions. do you not feel that maybe you are have fallen into a position where your judgement has been triggered by outside sources for whatever reason.

You have no idea as to what other conditions have or have not bothered me for the previous duration of my life.

 

[VauxhallandI]

You have no idea as to what other conditions have or have not bothered me for the previous duration of my life.

Yes and that is exactly what I asked in the first place for Pete's sake!!!!!!!

 

[BRX]

As for "with" or "of", that myth refuses to die - I notice that UK government figures show 173,509 deaths where Covid has been recorded on the death certificate (to 24 December), as opposed to 150,230 within 28 days of first diagnosis (to 10th Jan).

Yup. And the figures with Covid recorded on the death certificate as a contributory cause of death should not be artificially inflated by high background levels of infection leading to a large number of people dying only coincidentally with contracting covid.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I can't speak for anyone else but I can think of plenty of pre-Covid examples where things I've done have been influenced by considerations about infectious diseases.

I can remember a family trip to see my grandmother in her 90s that was cancelled because one of us possibly had the flu and it was decided that we shouldn't take the risk of passing it on. Various times I've decided not to see people when I've had a bad cold, even.

Consideration of appropriate immunisations prior to foreign travel.

But most of the infectious diseases we had to think about pre Covid were ones that were already moderated by vaccination.

Covid-19 is the first highly infectious disease that most of us in the UK have had to deal with, that carried a moderate risk of serious illness and was not (until very recently) moderated by vaccination. Hence the unprecedented response to it. No great mystery there, surely?

So were you all over a forum or some public facing place telling all of the dangers of the flu? That was the question and it wasn't asked of you but now you are here it may as well be.

 

[Dent]

Two years ago, basic competence and epidemiology would have been nice! Now, what I see from a number of posts and posters is a view that people in care homes aren't worth looking after, and are just dispensable.

No one has said that, it is a strawman which you have made up.

But as people ask, I think the home my relative is in gets the balance pretty well. They get visitors to pre-book, limit the number of people visiting the home at any time, and get visitors to do lateral flow tests before travelling to try to identify those who are likely to be infectious before they enter the home. That seems a reasonable and proportionate set of trade-offs for a group who are particularly vulnerable.

That still doesn't answer the question of what they should wait for, beyond everything which has already been done, before no longer considering these onerous requirements to be necessary. I really can't see what else there will ever be, so can someone who still considers this to be necessary please explain exactly what they are waiting for.

 

[35B]

No one has said that, it is a strawman which you have made up.

No, it is what has been extremely evident from your's and other's postings.

That still doesn't answer the question of what they should wait for, beyond everything which has already been done, before no longer considering these onerous requirements to be necessary. I really can't see what else there will ever be, so can someone who still considers this to be necessary please explain exactly what they are waiting for.

I'm not sure I do regard those requirements as especially onerous. As for when they can or should be relaxed, I'm not sure, though my instinct would be that they should be related to the general prevalence of the disease and the risk of an outbreak to those in the home.

 

[ainsworth74]

Have you ever had a relative in a care home? I have - my grandmother, who had always said she’d rather die than end up in one of those places, after seeing her own mother go the same way. Witnessing her staring into space, soiling herself, forgetting her own grandchildren, then her own daughter, as dementia gradually enveloped her was heartbreaking. A swift end from Covid would have been a blessing. We are too focused on prolonging life for the sake of it in this country.

Yes my grandfather lived and died in a care home and I've also had my father die in a hospice and the differences between the two types of institution are stark. The fact that a hospice provides palliative care only (as wonderful as the care that the hospice provided to both him and my family was it was still only palliative) means they are a very different sort of environment to the care home where my grandfather spent his final year or two where he was, perhaps not as happy as he had been at home (made it to his mid-90s living alone in his own home though!), but was still happy and enjoyed a decent quality of life until the final month or so.

Which isn't to say there aren't problems. There were plenty of residents who I saw in that care home who were clearly completely checked out and whose quality of life was basically nil. We definitely have a massive problem as a society (at large, not just UK but in anywhere where there are large numbers of people living into their 80s and 90s) of prolonging life beyond what might be dignified and sensible. There should be some discussion of how we deal with the realty that medical science has advanced to the point where we can keep people alive far longer but in a far worse physical and/or mental condition than they might actually like. But I do think it's somewhat offensive the way we seem to have written off everyone in a care home as if they're just marking time until death. It's almost alarming in my view.

For every example of someone who the "swift end of Covid" might have been a "blessing" there will be others who lost perfectly good years of their life that they might have enjoyed. Perhaps we might not be quite so callous to simply chuck them out because "oh well that stats tell us they'd have been dead soon anyway!".

 

[Dent]

No, it is what has been extremely evident from your's and other's postings.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can definitely say that I have never said, or intended to convey, any such thing, so if you are trying to misrepresent me as saying that then you are indeed making a strawman.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

As for "with" or "of", that myth refuses to die - I notice that UK government figures show 173,509 deaths where Covid has been recorded on the death certificate (to 24 December), as opposed to 150,230 within 28 days of first diagnosis (to 10th Jan).

This doesn't really change the "with" versus "of" debate much; all it means it that roughly 23,000 people were over the 28 day mark. It's also not a myth, it's a distinction that does exist and until it is properly clarified how many are in which group, we cannot hope to properly judge the impact of the disease.

Just because something is recorded on the death certificate does not mean it is the primary cause of death, only that it was present at or shortly before the time of death.

 

[seagull]

Covid-19 is the first highly infectious disease that most of us in the UK have had to deal with, that carried a moderate risk of serious illness and was not (until very recently) moderated by vaccination. Hence the unprecedented response to it. No great mystery there, surely?

But now it IS moderated by vaccination, like flu, and pneumonia, and TB. So why are we continuing with the "unprecedented response" is basically what many here and in the outside world want to know.

 

[Lampshade]

No, it is what has been extremely evident from your's and other's postings.

Give it a rest, no one's been saying, or even implying such a thing.

 

[MikeWM]

This doesn't really change the "with" versus "of" debate much; all it means it that roughly 23,000 people were over the 28 day mark. It's also not a myth, it's a distinction that does exist and until it is properly clarified how many are in which group, we cannot hope to properly judge the impact of the disease.

Just because something is recorded on the death certificate does not mean it is the primary cause of death, only that it was present at or shortly before the time of death.

Indeed - a few years ago one of my elderly relatives died from sepsis, and therefore contributed to the alarming '50,000 people a year die from sepsis' figures you see on the side of many ambulances. [1]

However, in actual fact she died due to a massive stroke which, combined with her advanced dementia, was totally unrecoverable from. At that point she was inevitably and imminently going to die from something or other, and in this case it was sepsis caused by various complications following the stroke.

If the '50,000 people a year die from sepsis' figure was being bandied around to restrict society, and these sorts of 'incidental' cases weren't separated out from that number to give a more accurate indication of the threat to people who weren't on the brink of death anyway, then that would be highly misleading.


[1] not that I'm saying increasing awareness of sepsis is a bad thing, it very much isn't, but I take the '50,000' figure with a big pinch of salt.

 

[Eyersey468]

No, it is what has been extremely evident from your's and other's postings.

I have never said or implied this either

 

[35B]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can definitely say that I have never said, or intended to convey, any such thing, so if you are trying to misrepresent me as saying that then you are indeed making a strawman.

I have never said or implied this either

I called things as I read them. I'm also glad to accept your assurances

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

This doesn't really change the "with" versus "of" debate much; all it means it that roughly 23,000 people were over the 28 day mark. It's also not a myth, it's a distinction that does exist and until it is properly clarified how many are in which group, we cannot hope to properly judge the impact of the disease.

Just because something is recorded on the death certificate does not mean it is the primary cause of death, only that it was present at or shortly before the time of death.

On the contrary, the record of the death certificate is precisely about what - in the judgement of the doctor certifying the death - the direct and contributory causes of death were.

 

[bramling]

I called things as I read them. I'm also glad to accept your assurances

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==


On the contrary, the record of the death certificate is precisely about what - in the judgement of the doctor certifying the death - the direct and contributory causes of death were.

The death cert doesn't always just record one cause though. It is quite likely many will list Covid and something else.

 

[BRX]

But now it IS moderated by vaccination, like flu, and pneumonia, and TB. So why are we continuing with the "unprecedented response" is basically what many here and in the outside world want to know.

Because although its severity appears to be greatly moderated, (and we had little certainty about this with regard to Omicron until pretty recently) there are still sufficiently large numbers of ill people to cause a problem for the health service. Once this phase passes, and it looks like it is going to pass pretty soon, then most people seem agreed that things can go back to something fairly "normal". And in any case we are no longer under any especially restrictive measures, even though wearing a face mask on the bus for a couple more weeks seems to amount to a big deal to some people. For the record, I would not have any objection to the work-from-home guidance being dropped now.