Rare Eddie99 Posted May 17, 2021 #6226 Share Posted May 17, 2021 23 minutes ago, AndyMichelle said: This is fun!!! So glad I came back😊 I am only kidding, I know it is a serious subject with relevant contrasting opinions... As you were... Andy Hey Andy! There are some pics of my pup in the “How are things with You” thread. We had a dry day, not like your poor Bella yesterday Who will look after Bella when Beth cruises with you? You’re right; it is a serious topic. So difficult to discuss in this medium though - much better and less confrontational over a nice pint/glass of wine 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrierjohn Posted May 17, 2021 #6227 Share Posted May 17, 2021 Just now, lincslady said: Apologies for probably starting this prolonged discussion regarding 'with' and ''of' covid. It could go on for ever - yes, it is important, but there will never be universal agreement on how the statistics are measured. And I dont believe we have considered the impact on future excess deaths that covid will have on cancer, heart etc because of the shutdown of the NHS. As an older poster I know I would have been distraught if I had survived covid because of this policy, while a close relative had not been able to be assessed for their illness, and subsequently died. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Windsurfboy Posted May 17, 2021 #6228 Share Posted May 17, 2021 22 minutes ago, terrierjohn said: And I dont believe we have considered the impact on future excess deaths that covid will have on cancer, heart etc because of the shutdown of the NHS. As an older poster I know I would have been distraught if I had survived covid because of this policy, while a close relative had not been able to be assessed for their illness, and subsequently died. The only logical thing to do is to measure cumulative excess deaths from the start of the pandemic for say 5 years to come. Thats when we should take another considered look back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Hill Posted May 17, 2021 #6229 Share Posted May 17, 2021 (edited) The Office for National Statistics (ONS) codes cause of death for deaths registered in England and Wales using the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). This system is used by all the members of WHO some form or other. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf Edited May 17, 2021 by Snow Hill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MX-Drew Posted May 18, 2021 #6230 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Another thing to consider is the number of deaths from flu would be down due to a higher number of people having the flu jab and a bi product of lockdown (fewer people exposed to the flu virus). So that will skew the comparison against a 5 year average. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Windsurfboy Posted May 18, 2021 #6231 Share Posted May 18, 2021 2 hours ago, MX-Drew said: Another thing to consider is the number of deaths from flu would be down due to a higher number of people having the flu jab and a bi product of lockdown (fewer people exposed to the flu virus). So that will skew the comparison against a 5 year average. Excess deaths doesn't measure deaths from covid, but the total impact of the pandemic on deaths over the given period. It measures the sum of , -deaths from covid, -the lives saved from less flu , less car accidents etc, -the lives lost from the pandemic preventing treatment of other diseases. The total impact of pandemic and actions taken However It is about the only reliable measure for international comparisons, as it is not impacted by the level of testing which death after a positive test is, or by the differences in recording deaths on death certificates Also as others have said , it will be needed to measure the long-term impact of lack of other treatment during the pandemic. Last year excess deaths were above tested positive deaths due to lack of testing outside hospital, now they are below , perhaps in longer-term they may go above again as impact of missed treatment comes to bear. Measuring deaths is only important if it helps us learn especially by looking at other countries who did things differently. This will be hard because there is so much other context to take into account. Demographics, general health, geography , connectivity , urbanisation etc. You cannot compare Belgium in the heart of Europe to New Zealand , even though they have similiar population and income. If the measurement of deaths is only used to score points, it will be a disservice and disrespectful to those who died. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MX-Drew Posted May 18, 2021 #6232 Share Posted May 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Windsurfboy said: less car accidents etc, Fewer car accidents etc. (sorry a pet hate). Seriously though, I was not disputing your point merely pointing out that there are swings and roundabouts that makes comparisons very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zap99 Posted May 18, 2021 #6233 Share Posted May 18, 2021 28 minutes ago, MX-Drew said: Fewer car accidents etc. (sorry a pet hate). Seriously though, I was not disputing your point merely pointing out that there are swings and roundabouts that makes comparisons very difficult. Don't know about swings but roundabouts are more safer as there are less cars.🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d9704011 Posted May 18, 2021 #6234 Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, zap99 said: Don't know about swings but roundabouts are more safer as there are less cars.🤣 Also, you can go quicker faster. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MX-Drew Posted May 18, 2021 #6235 Share Posted May 18, 2021 9 minutes ago, zap99 said: Don't know about swings but roundabouts are more safer as there are less cars.🤣 Arrrrrgggggghhhhh 🤣 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrierjohn Posted May 18, 2021 #6236 Share Posted May 18, 2021 7 hours ago, Windsurfboy said: Excess deaths doesn't measure deaths from covid, but the total impact of the pandemic on deaths over the given period. It measures the sum of , -deaths from covid, -the lives saved from less flu , less car accidents etc, -the lives lost from the pandemic preventing treatment of other diseases. The total impact of pandemic and actions taken However It is about the only reliable measure for international comparisons, as it is not impacted by the level of testing which death after a positive test is, or by the differences in recording deaths on death certificates Also as others have said , it will be needed to measure the long-term impact of lack of other treatment during the pandemic. Last year excess deaths were above tested positive deaths due to lack of testing outside hospital, now they are below , perhaps in longer-term they may go above again as impact of missed treatment comes to bear. Measuring deaths is only important if it helps us learn especially by looking at other countries who did things differently. This will be hard because there is so much other context to take into account. Demographics, general health, geography , connectivity , urbanisation etc. You cannot compare Belgium in the heart of Europe to New Zealand , even though they have similiar population and income. If the measurement of deaths is only used to score points, it will be a disservice and disrespectful to those who died. I wonder if the ONS, or anyone else for that matter will ever be able to measure whether locking down later really did result in a higher death toll for the UK or would the same numbers have died anyway, only a bit later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Windsurfboy Posted May 18, 2021 #6237 Share Posted May 18, 2021 30 minutes ago, terrierjohn said: I wonder if the ONS, or anyone else for that matter will ever be able to measure whether locking down later really did result in a higher death toll for the UK or would the same numbers have died anyway, only a bit later? That's a difficult one, the best answer will come from an in-depth comparison of different countries with different policies, as I said taking into account , the differences in demographics, underlying health before covid, geography, essential trade and much more. It is something that is best done carefully by scientists and statisticians. You certainly won't get an answer from the normal point scoring, lawyer dominated, pubic enquiry, whiich is what it looks like we may get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lincslady Posted May 21, 2021 #6238 Share Posted May 21, 2021 For those with long memories, we are having our second jab at home on Sunday, almost 12 weeks after the first. Once again it took some reminders to get it arranged, but hopefully it will happen and in a couple more weeks we will feel safer. 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel57 Posted May 21, 2021 #6239 Share Posted May 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, lincslady said: For those with long memories, we are having our second jab at home on Sunday, almost 12 weeks after the first. Once again it took some reminders to get it arranged, but hopefully it will happen and in a couple more weeks we will feel safer. Great news...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI66774 Posted May 21, 2021 #6240 Share Posted May 21, 2021 On 5/17/2021 at 1:20 PM, terrierjohn said: And I dont believe we have considered the impact on future excess deaths that covid will have on cancer, heart etc because of the shutdown of the NHS. As an older poster I know I would have been distraught if I had survived covid because of this policy, while a close relative had not been able to be assessed for their illness, and subsequently died. We already have such stories in the US. People who delayed routine mammograms, etc. now being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalos Posted May 28, 2021 #6241 Share Posted May 28, 2021 News coming in that the single shot vaccine is to be used in the UK .... https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-johnson-johnson-single-dose-vaccine-approved-for-use-in-the-uk-12319122 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Eddie99 Posted May 28, 2021 #6242 Share Posted May 28, 2021 Great news, isn’t it? We don’t actually have any ‘in stock’ as it were, yet, but it bodes well for the future if I can cut the jabbers workload in half ... and also eliminate the danger of people having one shot but neglecting to go back for the second one to get maximum protection. Unfortunately I think I read that the J&J jab is a bit like AZ, so prob not ideal for younger people I wonder if we’re going to be in for annual boosters? It sounds quite likely 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MX-Drew Posted May 28, 2021 #6243 Share Posted May 28, 2021 37 minutes ago, kalos said: News coming in that the single shot vaccine is to be used in the UK .... https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-johnson-johnson-single-dose-vaccine-approved-for-use-in-the-uk-12319122 Although it is "only" 67% effective, but that is better than nothing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckett Posted May 28, 2021 #6244 Share Posted May 28, 2021 23 minutes ago, Eddie99 said: Great news, isn’t it? We don’t actually have any ‘in stock’ as it were, yet, but it bodes well for the future if I can cut the jabbers workload in half ... and also eliminate the danger of people having one shot but neglecting to go back for the second one to get maximum protection. Unfortunately I think I read that the J&J jab is a bit like AZ, so prob not ideal for younger people I wonder if we’re going to be in for annual boosters? It sounds quite likely Very likely Eddie. We're awaiting confirmation. It will be for the over 65s first, we're told. A lot of people aren't bothering with the second vaccine at the moment - idiots! Have a great weekend. Jane.x 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalos Posted May 28, 2021 #6245 Share Posted May 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Beckett said: Very likely Eddie. We're awaiting confirmation. It will be for the over 65s first, we're told. A lot of people aren't bothering with the second vaccine at the moment - idiots! Have a great weekend. Jane.x I think it would be good for some parts of the world where people live remote or are poor and are forced to buy the vaccine . Under those circumstances ,then as Drew says 67% is better than nothing . To be fair I have had flu jabs that were not that effective 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zap99 Posted May 28, 2021 #6246 Share Posted May 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Beckett said: Very likely Eddie. We're awaiting confirmation. It will be for the over 65s first, we're told. A lot of people aren't bothering with the second vaccine at the moment - idiots! Have a great weekend. Jane.x I wonder if all these folk decline a second dose they may offer us enthusiasts a third one?🤔 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zap99 Posted May 28, 2021 #6247 Share Posted May 28, 2021 1 hour ago, kalos said: I think it would be good for some parts of the world where people live remote or are poor and are forced to buy the vaccine . Under those circumstances ,then as Drew says 67% is better than nothing . To be fair I have had flu jabs that were not that effective Some of these home grown remedies work fine. Years ago I was told if you put garlic in your socks you will never get bitten by vampires. I started in 1968. Guess what?🤣 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalos Posted May 28, 2021 #6248 Share Posted May 28, 2021 11 minutes ago, zap99 said: Some of these home grown remedies work fine. Years ago I was told if you put garlic in your socks you will never get bitten by vampires. I started in 1968. Guess what?🤣 You need to change your socks ?? 2 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josy1953 Posted May 28, 2021 #6249 Share Posted May 28, 2021 6 hours ago, Eddie99 said: Great news, isn’t it? We don’t actually have any ‘in stock’ as it were, yet, but it bodes well for the future if I can cut the jabbers workload in half ... and also eliminate the danger of people having one shot but neglecting to go back for the second one to get maximum protection. Unfortunately I think I read that the J&J jab is a bit like AZ, so prob not ideal for younger people I wonder if we’re going to be in for annual boosters? It sounds quite likely I think that a one shot jab maybe better. We were discussing the risks involved in not getting the second jab this afternoon at the vaccine clinic this afternoon. The doctors were both saying that the government is not emphasising enough how important it is to get the second jab and they think that there should be a major campaign to make people aware of the difference that the second makes to the immunity levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josy1953 Posted May 28, 2021 #6250 Share Posted May 28, 2021 5 hours ago, zap99 said: I wonder if all these folk decline a second dose they may offer us enthusiasts a third one?🤔 Possibly a booster jab in the autumn ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts