• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[COVID-19] General Discussion

I really, really hate the "if you're not dead, you're fine" false-narrative around this virus

A third of people who recovered after suffering from severe Covid were readmitted to hospital within five months with complications including heart problems, diabetes and chronic liver and kidney conditions.
New research has shown the devastating long term impact of the virus with one in eight people dying within five months of diagnosis.
The University of Leicester and the Office for National Statistics found that out of 47,780 people discharged from hospital in the first wave, 29.4% were back in hospital within 140 days and 12.3% died.
Covid survivors were three and half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital and die compared to other conditions.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/one-...nts-die-within-140-days-13920415/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
 
Last edited:
Just looking at the numbers and we're almost over the Christmas surge (39k Christmas Eve, peak of 68k on Jan 8th, 38k yesterday)
Still a way to go (the November lockdown was caused by around 20k a day) but definitely headed in the right direction

Hopefully the death rate will start to lower pretty dramatically soon, with the numbers of vaccinations being rolled out
 
Talking about the death rate - bear in mind there's a 2-week delay on the numbers being published, and about a 3-6 week delay between infection and death...
file.php
 
That really is damning indictment of the governments post Lockdown 1.0 strategy. Looks like the first one really did do all the workd that was required of it and then we completely ****** it.
 
Talking about the death rate - bear in mind there's a 2-week delay on the numbers being published, and about a 3-6 week delay between infection and death...
file.php
What's your analysis of this? The spike in non-covid deaths at the start of lockdown 1.0 and in the final week seems weird, can this be attributed to non-covid patients getting the treatment that they need due to the stress that covid has the NHS under?
 
Spike in non-covid deaths whilst there was only patchy testing for Covid can only be covid deaths that weren't registered as such.
An example of this would be my aunt who died of a "chest infection" in April, having suffered high fever, persistent cough, anosmia, fatigue and D&V- she wasn't tested for Covid because "Covid isn't in that wing of the home"

Peak in the final week is most likely the reversion to the mean from Christmas and New Year - the 5-year averages also peaks. This year is probably more pronounced due to 01/01 landing on a Friday (meaning a 53 week year, and ONS measures of "week ending" on a Friday)
 
Last edited:
Spike in non-covid deaths whilst there was only patchy testing for Covid can only be covid deaths that weren't registered as such.
An example of this would be my aunt who died of a "chest infection" in April, having suffered high fever, persistent cough, anosmia, fatigue and D&V- she wasn't tested for Covid because "Covid isn't in that wing of the home"

Peak in the final week is most likely the reversion to the mean from Christmas and New Year - the 5-year averages also peaks. This year is probably more pronounced due to 01/01 landing on a Friday (meaning a 53 week year, and ONS measures of "week ending" on a Friday)
There is also the fact that evidence has shown some people die up to 6 months later from covid related complications. However I think that deaths are only reported as covid if the person tested positive in the last 28 days.
 
Yes - that'd be the article I put up a few posts back; but they'd be A] not counted as covid, and B] reasonably evenly spread, rather than showing as peaks.
As far as that's concerned, you just need to add about 20k* deaths to the official death toll (so the 90k barrier we passed today would be around 110k)



*For the figures:
That 6 week period around April where the non-covid deaths were well above the average accounts for about 13,000 people who died of covid, but weren't counted. The research a few posts back shows 5,875 (as of August 31st) who died from the complications of long-covid. And then there's those from the first wave who died after that cut-off date, and the inevitable similar cases from the second wave which will only just be starting to come through (and be classified as non-covid)
 
Last edited:
It's why I think the excess deaths for period March to date compared to previous average is a more accurate measure of the effect of Covid compared to before. Reflects the knock on effects of Covid as well from delays to treatment for other illnesses/diseases as well as the longer term implications of Covid.
 
It's why I think the excess deaths for period March to date compared to previous average is a more accurate measure of the effect of Covid compared to before. Reflects the knock on effects of Covid as well from delays to treatment for other illnesses/diseases as well as the longer term implications of Covid.
We have t-shirts
 
Spike in non-covid deaths whilst there was only patchy testing for Covid can only be covid deaths that weren't registered as such.
An example of this would be my aunt who died of a "chest infection" in April, having suffered high fever, persistent cough, anosmia, fatigue and D&V- she wasn't tested for Covid because "Covid isn't in that wing of the home"

Peak in the final week is most likely the reversion to the mean from Christmas and New Year - the 5-year averages also peaks. This year is probably more pronounced due to 01/01 landing on a Friday (meaning a 53 week year, and ONS measures of "week ending" on a Friday)
Thanks. The spike in the last week recorded makes perfect sense. Re: the original spike, I think I may have accidentally read one or two Julia Hateful-Spewer et al tweets! Given that the graph is showing deaths with covid on the death certificate as opposed to deaths within x days of a positive test, I thought that any sort of respiratory death at the time would have featured.
 
Were now 2 1/2 months past the election and Trump hasn't mentioned Covid-19 once since then. Tomorrow will be an AWESOME day when he has to leave the White House.
 
Not great news coming from Israel and their finding that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine with just one dose is less than first thought if the second dose is delayed.
 
Not great news coming from Israel and their finding that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine with just one dose is less than first thought if the second dose is delayed.
Considering our approach that is really bad news. Depends on how less effective though.
 
It doesn't say a single dose is 33% less effective than a double dose.

It is comparing likelihood of infection after 14 days, with a single dose or no vaccine at all.

One Israeli study says 33% less likely to contract another says 60% less likely. Pfizer say 52% less likely after 12 days.

---------

All eyes are on Israel. The speed of its vaccination programme will provide insights into how well the jabs work in the real world. Will they eradicate severe disease? Can they curb transmission?

The most eye-catching statement has come from Nachman Ash, Israel's coronavirus tsar, who said that a single dose of the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine appeared to be "less effective than we had thought".

This sounds ominous for Britain's strategy of delaying booster injections to stretch supplies and give as many people as possible a first shot but it is not clear that Israel's experience warrants a change of policy.
https://www.mytimesplus.co.uk/events/covid-what-we-have-learnt-with-tom-whipple-and-andrew-gregory
A trial in the US by Pfizer suggested that a single dose was about 52 per cent effective in preventing people from developing Covid-19, defined as a positive test plus symptoms after 12 days.

One of the pieces of disconcerting Israeli data has come from the Clalit Research Institute, a healthcare provider. It created two groups of similar patients over the age of 60, each of about 200,000 people. One had been vaccinated, the other had not.

Coronavirus cases in the two groups were about the same 12 days after injection. On day 14 the graphs diverged, with "a 33 per cent decline [in infections] among the vaccinated elderly, without a similar trend among the unvaccinated," Ran Balicer, the director of the institute, said.
The 33 per cent figure caused alarm: at first glance it looks as if the Pfizer trial had suggested a higher level of protection. But how many of the Clalit trial's vaccinated cohort who tested positive had symptoms? Were these mild and asymptomatic cases

Adding to the confusion, Maccabi, another Israeli healthcare provider, said that the first dose of the vaccine reduced the risk of catching coronavirus by 60 per cent after 14 days — above the Pfizer trial threshold. The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, which advises on UK policy, has estimated short-term protection from one dose at about 90 per cent.

If you have a policy that involves giving one dose and delaying a booster, it would be good to be confident that it gave a good level of protection before a second shot.

The Israeli reports are a concern but they "are insufficient to provide any evidence that UK policy in regard to delaying the second dose is in any way incorrect", Stephen Evans, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said.

Positive cases picked up by PCR tests are less important for the UK than hospital admissions and death, he said. "The UK will soon have its own data showing efficacy . . . any policy changes should await [that]," Professor Evans said.
 
Cheers so shock headlines and numbers to a relatively be non-story.

Explains why twitter and Facebook aren't going but this morning.
 
Is there a breakdown of how many people in the UK have received Pfizer vs Oxford?
I might be imagining things but I think I remember reading something that Oxford's one dose is better than the Pfizer's one dose
 
Top