Coronavirus (2021) thread

[roubaixtuesday]

It doesn't affect his credibility at all. He broke lockdown rules, but by doing so doesn't render his modelling any less accurate. The two factors are not connected in the same way a government advisor responsible for telling people how we should all behave not doing so himself.

Only one of these actions has a direct impact on the suitability to carry out the role which that person was initially doing.

I think criticism of Ferguson is more generated by the fact that many of his studies are inconvenient for people who want to open up society.

As pointed out above, his group have a good track record over the pandemic (although, ironically, there's a strong case that they were too *optimistic* at the start which contributed to our very late lock down and catastrophic first wave). It's also true that other research groups come to broadly similar conclusions.

What matters is taking this scientific work seriously into account in policy, across the full range of findings, and not choosing those that suit your own policy preferences. That's what we got wrong in the second wave.

 

[Manc in London]

If there is a safe vaccine I agree 100%. If there is one that is mostly safe then it shouldn’t be given to people at practically no risk of covid.

Agree if the other ones are safe, just give that to the younger people. I won’t be letting my 5 year old daughter have it if there are any risks when she is at no risk of the virus.

Do you think people should take medications for aches and pains such as sciatica, a trapped nerve or a broken bone? I am guessing that you don't take pain relief medicine due to the risks involved. Thankfully, some others will not potentially have their health seriously harmed when you don't.

 

[SWP's back]

If there is a safe vaccine I agree 100%. If there is one that is mostly safe then it shouldn’t be given to people at practically no risk of covid.

Agree if the other ones are safe, just give that to the younger people. I won’t be letting my 5 year old daughter have it if there are any risks when she is at no risk of the virus.

But at 5 years of age she isn’t “at no risk” of the virus. The case fatality rate in that age bracket means she has a 0.0016% chance of dying if infected (compared with 8% for someone over 80).

That’s very low (just over 1 in 100,000 children her age would be expected to die if infected), but it’s not zero and so far, is higher than the chances of dying as a result of a vaccine, which equates to effectively zero. Put it this way, would you send your kid to a Wembley final if you were told one ticket holder would be picked out at random and shot from this in attendance?

Covid-19: death rate is 0.66% and increases with age, study estimates

The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under.1 The estimates, calculated by researchers in the UK, used aggregate data on cases and deaths in mainland China. Unlike other...

www.bmj.com

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

It doesn't affect his credibility at all. He broke lockdown rules, but by doing so doesn't render his modelling any less accurate. The two factors are not connected in the same way a government advisor responsible for telling people how we should all behave not doing so himself.

Only one of these actions has a direct impact on the suitability to carry out the role which that person was initially doing.

he was part of the sage committee advising the government. IMO, he was actually worse than that arrogant idiot Cummings as he is suposed to know more about the risks than most of us.

I think you will find most people in positions of authority lose credibility when they ignore their own advice.

 

[True_Blue69]

Do you not consider the vaccines to be sufficiently safe?

For me yes, for anyone under 30 it’s looking like it might be no. Not many under 30 will have had it in the scheme of things and it sounds like there is sufficient evidence to stop giving the AZ one to them. Why would I give a 5 year old a vaccine that may have a risk to protect against a virus that is no risk?

 

[True_Blue69]

But at 5 years of age she isn’t “at no risk” of the virus. The case fatality rate in that age bracket means she has a 0.0016% chance of dying if infected (compared with 8% for someone over 80).

That’s very low (just over 1 in 100,000 children her age would be expected to die if infected), but it’s not zero and so far, is higher than the chances of dying as a result of a vaccine, which equates to zero.

Covid-19: death rate is 0.66% and increases with age, study estimates

The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under.1 The estimates, calculated by researchers in the UK, used aggregate data on cases and deaths in mainland China. Unlike other...

www.bmj.com

1 in 100,000 fit and healthy 5 year olds die from covid? What a load of shite.

 

[SWP's back]

1 in 100,000 fit and healthy 5 year olds die from covid? What a load of shite.

Yeah, it’s just the British medical journal and your own peer reviewed data is much better, idiot.

 

[feelymcfeel]

1 in 100,000 fit and healthy 5 year olds die from covid? What a load of shite.

Yep. With those percentages its more accurate to double that number.

 

[SWP's back]

For me yes, for anyone under 30 it’s looking like it might be no. Not many under 30 will have had it in the scheme of things and it sounds like there is sufficient evidence to stop giving the AZ one to them. Why would I give a 5 year old a vaccine that may have a risk to protect against a virus that is no risk?

Because the virus isn’t “no fucking risk to 5 year olds”. And because there isn’t evidence of anything untoward with regards AZ.

You’re choosing to cherry pick your own ‘evidence’, and ignoring actual science.

 

[SWP's back]

Deaths from covid by age brackets in the US:


That’s a lot of families (140) setting one less stocking out next Christmas for children that were “at no risk” from the virus.

 

[03 March 2002]

Because the virus isn’t “no fucking risk to 5 year olds”. And because there isn’t evidence of anything untoward with regards AZ.

You’re choosing to cherry pick your own ‘evidence’, and ignoring actual science.

No doubt part of the 'it's just the flu' brigade, highly qualified individuals making rational statements and decisions.

 

[SWP's back]

No doubt part of the 'it's just the flu' brigade, highly qualified individuals making rational statements and decisions.

It’s a new thread so I can’t check, but I’m pretty sure he was one of the posters that was linking YouTube videos about the “plandemic” 12 months ago.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

For me yes, for anyone under 30 it’s looking like it might be no. Not many under 30 will have had it in the scheme of things and it sounds like there is sufficient evidence to stop giving the AZ one to them. Why would I give a 5 year old a vaccine that may have a risk to protect against a virus that is no risk?

Do you know the figures of people who have died from Covid under the age of 30? I just had a look a look and i cant find the data. You could be right but unless the figures prove this its just a guess isnt it?

 

[Deleted member 77198]

1 in 100,000 fit and healthy 5 year olds die from covid? What a load of shite.

Sound about right. There are about 775,000 5 year olds in the UK. So you’re talking about 7-8 deaths.

 

[Healdplace]

Northern Ireland data:

3 deaths - was 5 last week

57 cases - was 151 last week

That's all we have so far.

If the rest updates I will edit this post.

 

[Marvin]

I don't know what the IFR for the individual age groups are but note that they are rates, i.e., deaths per infection.

 

[SWP's back]

No doubt part of the 'it's just the flu' brigade, highly qualified individuals making rational statements and decisions.

In fact I just checked, joined 2008 but all his posts are about covid. Literally relentless since February last year. Here are a handful (can’t quote them as normal as they’re on closed threads):

“Medical experts think most people went even know they've had it, it can be that mild. Can't believe the scaremongering going on over this, check out how many people died of flu in the US alone on 2018, didn't hear of any flights cancelled or food shortages. 13k died in the UK in 2008 and not a peep. The biggest threat with this are the idiots panicking over something that happens every winter.”
———
“One positive from all this is that despite Karen confirming she has it, she has maintained a solid presence on the site. With a bad dose of flu you wouldn't even want to look at a phone / computer let alone interact with it. Get well soon Karen.”
———
“Come on, 80 people (reported) out of 70 million have it! Let's not go to ground just yet.”
———
“What are you on about? An average of 5 people die on UK roads a day hardly going make any difference at all.”

He’s been entirely wrong and/or underplayed the severity of covid for 14 months. He isn’t going to stop now, nor is he likely to post on any other thread either, which is a bit weird.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Here's an article on risks for children based on the first wave.



And here's another source for how risk changes with age.

Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Objective Determine age-specific infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups. Methods Studies of COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles, preprints, and...

www.medrxiv.org

Both are consistent with @SWP's back BMJ reference.

Equally, neither give any information on whether the fatalities were associated with other health issues in those affected ie may not applicable to generally healthy children.

FWIW, once clinical trials are complete, I think there's an overwhelming case for inoculation of children of all ages who have conditions that make them vulnerable to be vaccinated.

I think there's an extremely strong case for all secondary school age children, where death rates are higher and reports of serious "long covid" conditions seem to be higher too.

For primary age children, general vaccination is ethically much more difficult, given the small benefit to the children themselves. *If* the virus can't be controlled in the wider population without it, it probably makes sense, but if it can be, it probably doesn't.

But these are just ramblings. I think it's a difficult one.

 

[Healdplace]

England hospital deaths week to week:

372 / 67 NW / 19% (down 22% wk to wk)

279 / 59 NW . 20% (down 25% wk to wk)

164 / 35 NW / 21% (down 41% wk to wk)

101 / 26 NW / 26% (down 37% wk to wk)

98 / 19 NW / 19% (down 3% wk to wk)

40 / 8 NW / 20% (down 61% wk to wk)

12 / 1 NW / 9% (down 70% wk to wk) TODAY

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I don't know what the IFR for the individual age groups are but note that they are rates, i.e., deaths per infection.

From the second reference I just posted. Note log scale.