• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Coronavirus information with context

coronavirus sars bird flu swine flu west nile virus covid19 covid-19

  • Please log in to reply
1488 replies to this topic

#1291 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 July 2022 - 08:56 PM

A careful review of excess deaths reveals it was not as bad as originally reported by uncritical fear-mongering media outlets, although the authors of the paper acknowledge what we all knew through this episode: there is wide variation and rather messy record keeping between countries. I would say the U.S. has been the worst - counting every nearly death from every malady as a COVID death if the patient tested positive for the virus (even counting murders, suicides, auto accidents, etc...)


Edited by Mind, 12 July 2022 - 09:15 PM.

  • Good Point x 4
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Informative x 1

#1292 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 12 July 2022 - 04:52 PM

Informative finding Mind. Thank you!

Something I was looking in EU subset, w/o being able to explain, is the excess mortality 2020-2021 in the young age group (15-44 years) as reported by EuroMOMO (https://www.euromomo...raphs-and-maps/) potentially hinting to few to non-beneficial effect of the vaccination campaign in that group:

 

Attached File  Excess 2020 2021 youths.PNG   64.15KB   0 downloads

 

Note though that Levitt et al. are cautious when using EuroMOMO data due to their exclusion of certain periods which reportedly generates an excess.


  • Informative x 2

#1293 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 13 July 2022 - 10:31 AM

Informative finding Mind. Thank you!

Something I was looking in EU subset, w/o being able to explain, is the excess mortality 2020-2021 in the young age group (15-44 years) as reported by EuroMOMO (https://www.euromomo...raphs-and-maps/) potentially hinting to few to non-beneficial effect of the vaccination campaign in that group:

 

attachicon.gif Excess 2020 2021 youths.PNG

 

Note though that Levitt et al. are cautious when using EuroMOMO data due to their exclusion of certain periods which reportedly generates an excess.

 

An additional point I wish to make is the complexity introduced in the mortality data when you differentiate between type of vaccines.

 

A very smart Danish study re-analyzing manufacturer RCT data (the gold standard - Randomized Clinical Trial) “…identified three RCTs of mRNA vaccine 4-6 and six RCTs of adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines 7-13 with mortality data available (Supplementary Table 1)…”

 

“…Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19. On the other hand, the adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with lower overall mortality and lower non-accident, non-COVID-19 mortality. The pattern of effects was internally consistent in the RCTs of mRNA and adenovirusvector vaccines, respectively.

 

An intrinsic limitation for the estimation of overall mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic is the nature of the cohorts studied. Most of the volunteers participating in the trials were adult individuals in general good health, resulting in low COVID-19 and overall mortality. In a real-life situation in which the COVID-19 vaccines are administered to highly vulnerable populations with high COVID-19-dependent mortality, significant gains in overall mortality are expected, also for mRNA vaccines. However, the intriguing differences in the effects on non-accident, non-COVID- 19 mortality are likely to persist, and should be further investigated in future studies.

 

The contrast suggests that adenovirus-vector vaccines compared with placebo have beneficial non-specific effects, reducing the risk of non-COVID-19 diseases. The most important cause of non-COVID-19 death was cardiovascular disease, against which the data for the current RCTs suggest that the adenovirus-vector vaccines provide significant protection…”

 

So “live” vaccines tend to be associated with a reduction in overall mortality. “Non-live” vaccines such as mRNA seem on the contrary to increase overall mortality which would need to be factored in the risk/benefit balance. I do not know if anyone had repeated the study submitted to the prestigious The Lancet. It should be done.

 

Benn, Christine Stabell and Schaltz-Buchholzer, Frederik and Nielsen, Sebastian and Netea, Mihai G. and Netea, Mihai G. and Aaby, Peter, Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4072489 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072489

 

Martin Kulldorff  (a strong voice, you might know him as one of the originators of the GBD – Great Barrington Declaration) makes also a nice work in analyzing the Danish study here: https://brownstone.o...-wrong-vaccine/

 

For background you might also see:  

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/30007489/

https://www.nature.c...1577-020-0338-x

 


  • Informative x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1

#1294 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 15 July 2022 - 11:00 AM

My dear virtual friends here …

 

What have we learned from these 2.5+ years of pandemics?

What has been the real impact of NPI (non-pharmacological interventions)?

What of vaccines?

Where are we heading?

What to do individually the coming months with rising of BA.5 et at?

 

  • For NPI it basically seems politics has driven a failure. The few Kullfdorff et al. of GBD (Great Barrington Declaration), Knut Wittkowski and others have hammered on this since inception, cautiously navigating through censorship. These scientists focused from the start on protection of vulnerable only. Beside initial (recognized and apologized for) failure on the nursing home, the now famous Sweden case seems supporting all this quite well.

Attached File  cases july 2022.png   69.97KB   0 downloads

 

Attached File  deaths july 2022.png   89.85KB   0 downloads

 

Attached File  stringency july 2022.png   52.05KB   0 downloads

 

  • Vaccines seem having saved ~20 million lives WW, maybe mine! So far then it looks like the campaign has been an amazing achievement of research and focused/well-funded industry.

Watson OJ, Barnsley G, Toor J, Hogan AB, Winskill P, Ghani AC. Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Published online June 2022:S1473309922003206.

 

Study is from big shots (Schmidt Science Fellowship, Rhodes Trust, WHO, UK Medical Research Council, Gavi, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel). Hopefully the study will be repeated for 2022 and on, possibly answering also the question in my post.

 

  • However, we have then the apocalyptic predictions of Geert Vanden Bossche

“…Furthermore, it explains how these individuals are now forming an asymptomatic reservoir of ‘more virulent’ SC-2 variants (BA.4 and BA.5), and to some extent other glycosylated viruses causing acute self-limiting (viral) infection (ASLVI) or disease (ASLVD). Highly vaccinated populations are now igniting new viral pandemics (e.g., the ongoing pandemic of ‘more virulent’ SC-2 variants [i.e., BA.4 and BA.5]; a pending pandemic of avian influenza; the ongoing pandemic of monkeypox virus)…”

 

 “…As the forementioned ailments will primarily affect vaccinees and highly vaccinated countries, it is reasonable to assume that the unvaccinated and countries with low C-19 vaccine coverage rates will largely resist the pandemic storms as their capacity to build natural and herd immunity has not been compromised (‘Africa will win’). The primary focus of highly vaccinated countries should now be early C-19 treatment of vaccinees and massive distribution of antivirals that are safe and effective and can be provided in sufficient quantities at affordable cost to these individuals…” (from 13 pages document dated July 13, 2022)

 

https://www.voicefor...s-and-epidemics

 

Beside huge activity on social media (before censorship) and internet Geert never recently published in peer-reviewed journals though.  So, who is criticizing and contradicting his views? Would very much appreciate your views on this. Is there a real debate or people are just hiding heads into the sand?

 

My apologizes if i am confusing even more!


Edited by albedo, 15 July 2022 - 11:31 AM.

  • Well Written x 1
  • like x 1

#1295 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 15 July 2022 - 09:15 PM

Looks like the best brains at NIH & CDC are jumping ship. 

 

https://www.dailymai...ad-science.html

 

Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves because they're embarrassed by 'bad science' - including vaccinating children under 5 to 'make their advice palatable to the White House,' doctors claim

 

  • he NIH and CDC are reportedly facing staffing shortages as low morale drives away employees
  • Decisions like the closure of schools and then requiring face masks once they reopened led to many questioning leadership
  • Lately, the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children four years old of younger has confused some in America's top medical agencies
  • Bari Weiss' 'Common Sense' Substack reports that data from both Pfizer and Moderna's clinical trials for jabs in under-5s show limited effectiveness

-----------------------------------------

 

Hopefully these folks will be vocal about what's going on once they are free to talk.  

 

A fine mess!  


  • like x 2
  • Informative x 1

#1296 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 15 July 2022 - 09:23 PM

"A fine mess!"

I knew you were going to close like that Dorian and I anticipated .... :-D



#1297 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2022 - 05:26 PM

.....
  • However, we have then the apocalyptic predictions of Geert Vanden Bossche
.....

 

But OTOS read Edward Nirenberg's rebuttal: https://www.deplatfo...claims?rq=geert
 


  • Informative x 2

#1298 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 09 August 2022 - 05:43 PM

But OTOS read Edward Nirenberg's rebuttal: https://www.deplatfo...claims?rq=geert
 

 

I always look at the real world. What do I see? The most vaccinated countries continue to have the most cases of COVID. Nirenberg's rebuttal comes from data earlier than March of this year. Several leading health bureaucrats have recently stated publicly that the mRNA COVID injections do NOT prevent transmission, contradicting Nirenberg's assertion that they do. Most of the studies Nirenberg references mostly describe how markers of the virus or infection are less among the injected, not whether or not the virus was actually transmitted from those people.


  • Good Point x 2
  • dislike x 1

#1299 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 11 August 2022 - 03:24 PM

I always look at the real world. What do I see? The most vaccinated countries continue to have the most cases of COVID. Nirenberg's rebuttal comes from data earlier than March of this year. Several leading health bureaucrats have recently stated publicly that the mRNA COVID injections do NOT prevent transmission, contradicting Nirenberg's assertion that they do. Most of the studies Nirenberg references mostly describe how markers of the virus or infection are less among the injected, not whether or not the virus was actually transmitted from those people.

 

I would wait for more studies on this ... a feeling I have (only that sorry) is that there are too many confounding factors to even try to draw an associative conclusion, not to mention causation. One is maybe NPI (non pharmaceutical interventions) and relative times of implementation. Take the famous Sweden case, high vaccination rate but a situation in many respects, despite apparently initial failure in homes, looking damn good in comparison with many other Countries despite low stringency index with the NPIs. Was the GBD the way to go? And then you have the comparison with the other Nordics. And then you have NZ, another special famous case for the zero-covid, now apparently in a messy situation. Is that what is waiting for us later in the year to our latitudes? Frankly ... it goes a bit over my head ... which does not stop me to try and protect myself.


  • like x 1

#1300 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 August 2022 - 06:00 PM

I would wait for more studies on this ... a feeling I have (only that sorry) is that there are too many confounding factors to even try to draw an associative conclusion, not to mention causation. One is maybe NPI (non pharmaceutical interventions) and relative times of implementation. Take the famous Sweden case, high vaccination rate but a situation in many respects, despite apparently initial failure in homes, looking damn good in comparison with many other Countries despite low stringency index with the NPIs. Was the GBD the way to go? And then you have the comparison with the other Nordics. And then you have NZ, another special famous case for the zero-covid, now apparently in a messy situation. Is that what is waiting for us later in the year to our latitudes? Frankly ... it goes a bit over my head ... which does not stop me to try and protect myself.

 

Also, countries with the lowest vaccine uptake and the lowest NPI compliance (Africa) were much less affected by COVID. The difference is STARK!

 

I have theorized many times that the incredible amount of fear that many industrialized countries forced upon their citizens (a horrible strategy that continues to this day), caused significantly worse outcomes. Fear, loneliness, isolation, and depression wreck the immune system. This is solid science. It is no wonder why "western" countries and those that followed the advice of incompetent bureaucrats at the head of the WHO, NIH, CDC, FDA, etc...fared so much worse than Africa.


  • Good Point x 3
  • Well Written x 1
  • dislike x 1

#1301 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 12 August 2022 - 02:20 PM

Also, countries with the lowest vaccine uptake and the lowest NPI compliance (Africa) were much less affected by COVID. The difference is STARK!

 

I have theorized many times that the incredible amount of fear that many industrialized countries forced upon their citizens (a horrible strategy that continues to this day), caused significantly worse outcomes. Fear, loneliness, isolation, and depression wreck the immune system. This is solid science. It is no wonder why "western" countries and those that followed the advice of incompetent bureaucrats at the head of the WHO, NIH, CDC, FDA, etc...fared so much worse than Africa.

 

On the terrible social impact etc, I stand with you (unless judgement on WHO et al…).

 

OTOS, resp. African epidemiology and vaccines impact (with all limitations, risk of funding bias etc etc etc ...)

 

"...Finally, the quality of the information from the model is dependent on the quality of the primary data. Not all countries were reporting COVID-19 statistics at the same frequency and quality. The statistical approach to have a country-specific contact rate helped to minimise this bias, although we recognise it cannot be entirely eradicated. In summary, the findings of our model suggest that the WHO African region is estimated to have had a similar number of COVID-19 infections to the rest of the world, but with fewer deaths. Current methods of determining impact—specifically case surveillance and seroprevalence studies—are not able to provide comprehensive information on the situation. Models can complement the information available, provided they are based on locally available information from countries. Moving forward, there is a need to strengthen the focus on identification and targeting of interventions for those populations most at risk. Enhanced surveillance— particularly for comorbidities, community surveillance for the emergence of new variants of concern, and for changes in seroprevalence and in-hospital surveillance to monitor suspected cases of COVID-19—should form the basis of the response in the region..."

 

https://www.thelance...0233-9/fulltext

 

"...Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1–20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. In COVAX Advance Market Commitment countries, we estimated that 41% of excess mortality (7·4 million [95% Crl 6·8–7·7] of 17·9 million deaths) was averted. In low-income countries, we estimated that an additional 45% (95% CrI 42–49) of deaths could have been averted had the 20% vaccination coverage target set by COVAX been met by each country, and that an additional 111% (105–118) of deaths could have been averted had the 40% target set by WHO been met by each country by the end of 2021..."

 

https://www.thelance...0233-9/fulltext

 

 

 


  • like x 1

#1302 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 17 August 2022 - 12:11 PM

"In the summer of 2021, European governments removed most NPIs after experiencing prolonged second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries failed to achieve immunization rates high enough to avoid resurgence of the virus. Public health strategies for autumn and winter 2021 have ranged from countries aiming at low incidence by re-introducing NPIs to accepting high incidence levels. However, such high incidence strategies almost certainly lead to the very consequences that they seek to avoid: restrictions that harm people and economies. At high incidence, the important pandemic containment measure ‘test-trace-isolate-support’ becomes inefficient. At that point, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its numerous harmful consequences can likely only be controlled through restrictions. We argue that all European countries need to pursue a low incidence strategy in a coordinated manner. Such an endeavour can only be successful if it is built on open communication and trust."

 

Czypionka T, Iftekhar EN, Prainsack B, et al. The benefits, costs and feasibility of a low incidence COVID-19 strategy. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe. 2022;13.

https://www.thelance...0280-5/fulltext


  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#1303 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 August 2022 - 07:00 PM

Some data i would like to see is the number of COVID patients who were given Remdesivir in the hospital. As many other posters have noted, it has been known to have toxic side effects and even cause multiple organ failures.

 

I suspect many of the "COVID" deaths in Europe and the US were due to Remdesivir poisoning. A recent paper offers suggestions to why Remdesivir failed so miserably as a COVID therapeutic.

 

Several nurses are speaking out about the "brutal" COVID treatment protocols (including Remdesivir) they witnessed in hospitals in the U.S. Solitary confinement of the patients was probably not a good idea and probably led to more deaths than necessary.


  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

#1304 johnhemming

  • Member
  • 306 posts
  • 62
  • Location:Birmingham, UK

Posted 20 August 2022 - 07:49 PM

I have had Covid twice.  Once in April 2020 it was a real nuisance and I was so tired I laid in bed for a couple of days and once in early 2022 when I had a positive PCR test, but just a coronavirus cold. I don't think human governments (apart from Sweden) have handled it at all well and Sweden made some mistakes in dealing with care homes, but I have had two vaccinations and  a booster (mainly because of hassle from governments).


  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1305 zen

  • Guest
  • 138 posts
  • 35
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 October 2022 - 06:53 PM

One of the key problems with so called mRNA vaccines is that the lipid nano-particles that carry the mRNA payload disperse from the injection site and can travel to pretty much any organ or tissue in the body. (BTW. try to find a human bio-distribution study for these shots.)
The results is that the mRNA payload can enter pretty much any random cell within the body even the cells that are crucial for the human health like heart or nervous system cells etc.

The way the mRNA payload is able to get inside a cell is because of the cationic (positively charged) lipid nano particle which (if close enough) is attracted towards the negatively charged cell membrane.

Once the mRNA is inside the cell an existing cellular nano-machinery can read it and build a protein as per the mRNA "recipe".
The machinery exists because building proteins is what is needed for the cell to function and every living human being is constantly producing billions upon billions of the protein all the time.
However, the mRNA that is provided by the shot is chemically different than the one that is naturally produced inside the cells. One such crucial difference is the substitution of uridine with pseudo-uridine. While the naturally produced mRNA molecule disintegrates within minutes to hours the pseudouridine in the, let call it synthetic, mRNA makes it super stable and able to last for very long time (weeks maybe months). So, the cells could be producing the spike protein for an unspecified length of time.

Now, going back to what happens after the cell gets "infected" with the synthetic mRNA. Once that happens the spike protein, or fragments of spike protein, will be expressed on the cell's membrane.
Cells that are expressing this "foreign" protein will be attacked and destroyed by the immune system. If the destroyed cells were of critical importance to the body function the persons health will suffer.

We can think about even more interesting scenario. Imagine that some of the lipid nano particle are able to transfect the immune cells themselves and, let say, t-cells will now start producing the spike protein and these t-cells will themselves be attacked - things could become very weird in some unpredictable ways.

The other bad scenario is the lipid-nano particle transfecting cells that are part of the small capillaries in the body so they become blocked and are no longer able to let the red blood cells through. Could the end result of this issue look like this?
https://www.cureus.c...t-reported-case


Interestingly, despite the lack of long-term safety results and very suspect safety profile, more mRNA products are in the pipeline and some of them like for example flu vaccine is on the hyper-accelerated approval path - the trials started only in 2021 and are expected to be approved in 2023. This is an insane speed unheard of for the preventive vaccines that are targeted to be mass-deployed.

Here are the flu mRNA vaccine related links:
https://www.precisio...fluenza-vaccine
https://www.pfizer.c...fluenza-vaccine


I think that Dr. Malone's recent article is quite insightful in explaining the situation:
https://rwmalonemd.s...vid-19-vaccines


HTH




 


Edited by zen, 02 October 2022 - 07:46 PM.

  • Informative x 3
  • Well Written x 1

#1306 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 25 October 2022 - 11:18 PM

The latest pre-vaccination IFR estimates are even lower than previously acknowledged.

 

At my age and health status, I am almost an order of magnitude more likely to die in a car accident tomorrow than of COVID.

 

If the patients who were killed by ventilators or Remdesivir are removed from the data, the IFR would be much lower, similar to a bad flu season.

 

Sadly, due to the incredibly awful U.S. media, most people think that 10% of people end up dying of COVID and 50% end up in the hospital (according to multiple polls).


  • Cheerful x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#1307 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 January 2023 - 05:27 PM

After reviewing the data, I would now have to estimate I am almost 2 orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car accident than die of COVID.

 

Revisiting the beginning of this thread, it does now look that COVID was way overblown, like the other diseases that created media hysterias in recent years.

 

The virus was circulating way before the Wuhan event in late December of 2019. It increasingly looks like the only reason we had a panic is because public "health" authorities panicked and the U.S. national media ran wild with inaccurate data and clickbait headlines about how everyone was going to die.

 

With COVID, many governments are STILL trying to frighten their citizens as if COVID is SUPER deadly. US national media is playing along as well here in the beginning of 2023 trying to constantly gin up hysteria, saying there is a "tripledemic" and the only way to go forward is to "wear masks forever".


  • Ill informed x 2
  • Good Point x 2

#1308 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 05 January 2023 - 06:45 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but this recent data out of England seems to indicate the the risk of hospitalization from COVID is around 1% or less for people over 75.

 

Contrast this with irresponsible media reports from early in the COVID panic claiming the overall CFR was 3.4%. Due to awful fear-mongering from the likes of CNN, ABC, Reuters, etc... most Americans still think the mortality rate is 10% and that 50% of people end up hospitalized when they get COVID.

 

 


  • Good Point x 2

#1309 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,357 posts
  • -438
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 January 2023 - 11:54 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but this recent data out of England seems to indicate the the risk of hospitalization from COVID is around 1% or less for people over 75.

 

Contrast this with irresponsible media reports from early in the COVID panic claiming the overall CFR was 3.4%. Due to awful fear-mongering from the likes of CNN, ABC, Reuters, etc... most Americans still think the mortality rate is 10% and that 50% of people end up hospitalized when they get COVID.

 

D'oh, this forum is like the kindergarten. Or like a care home looking after those with dementia. 

 

 

Before the vaccines, an in the time of delta, the case-fatality ratio for people over 80 was originally about 15%, or about 1 in 7. That is, once you developed a case of COVID, you had a 1 in 7 chance of dying with delta, if you were over 80. See this data from the early pandemic. 

 

 

 

The vaccines reduced that risk of death by about 20 fold, if you were freshly vaccinated (though of course the protection dwindles after some months).

 

So if you multiply 1 in 7 by 20, you get 1 in 140. Thus now with people vaccinated, the over 80s have a 1 in 140 risk of death.

 

Omicron was also a weaker virus, and reduced fatality by about 3 times compared to delta. So multiplying 140 by 3, we get a 1 in 420 risk of dying if you are in your 80s and have a case of COVID, in this era of omicron and vaccination availability. 

 

So the vaccines and the arrival of omicron greatly reduced the chances of death, compared to those chances at the beginning of the pandemic.

 

 

 

This calculation is corroborated by omicron data out of Australia, showing that if you are vaxed and boosted, for the 70 and over age group, your risk of death from COVID is 18 deaths per 10,000 COVID cases, which works out to a 1 in 556 risk of death, very similar to the 1 in 420 figure calculated above.


Edited by Hip, 05 January 2023 - 11:57 PM.

  • Unfriendly x 3
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1310 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 06 January 2023 - 06:49 PM

D'oh, this forum is like the kindergarten. Or like a care home looking after those with dementia. 

 

 

Before the vaccines, an in the time of delta, the case-fatality ratio for people over 80 was originally about 15%, or about 1 in 7. That is, once you developed a case of COVID, you had a 1 in 7 chance of dying with delta, if you were over 80. See this data from the early pandemic. 

 

 

 

The vaccines reduced that risk of death by about 20 fold, if you were freshly vaccinated (though of course the protection dwindles after some months).

 

So if you multiply 1 in 7 by 20, you get 1 in 140. Thus now with people vaccinated, the over 80s have a 1 in 140 risk of death.

 

Omicron was also a weaker virus, and reduced fatality by about 3 times compared to delta. So multiplying 140 by 3, we get a 1 in 420 risk of dying if you are in your 80s and have a case of COVID, in this era of omicron and vaccination availability. 

 

So the vaccines and the arrival of omicron greatly reduced the chances of death, compared to those chances at the beginning of the pandemic.

 

 

 

This calculation is corroborated by omicron data out of Australia, showing that if you are vaxed and boosted, for the 70 and over age group, your risk of death from COVID is 18 deaths per 10,000 COVID cases, which works out to a 1 in 556 risk of death, very similar to the 1 in 420 figure calculated above.

 

So your are saying the the MRC Biostatistics Unit are "kindergarteners" and have "dementia"?

 

Their data lines up well with other careful reviews of the IFR related to COVID, using more than preliminary and sparse data from "early" in the pandemic.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1311 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,357 posts
  • -438
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 January 2023 - 03:30 AM

So your are saying the the MRC Biostatistics Unit are "kindergarteners" and have "dementia"?

 

No I am saying that talking about the death rate in the pandemic now, after most people have been vaccinated, does not capture what was happening at the beginning of the pandemic, when there were no vaccines. That should be obvious.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Good Point x 2
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1312 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 January 2023 - 09:25 PM

No I am saying that talking about the death rate in the pandemic now, after most people have been vaccinated, does not capture what was happening at the beginning of the pandemic, when there were no vaccines. That should be obvious.

 

Why didn't you say that in the first place - instead of throwing out epithets.

 

The MRC has looked at the entire time period. They have data from early and later.


  • Good Point x 3
  • like x 1

#1313 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,357 posts
  • -438
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 January 2023 - 04:38 AM

Why didn't you say that in the first place - instead of throwing out epithets.

 

The MRC has looked at the entire time period. They have data from early and later.

 

Above you posted about "recent data out of England", which you say shows the rate of hospitalisation from COVID is around 1% for people over 75.

 

But this latest data refers to the present time, when most elderly people are now vaccinated, and when we have the milder omicron in circulation.

 

 

Then you compared this current hospitalisation rate figure to the much higher past hospitalisation rate figures the media were quoting early in the pandemic, and you claim the media were fear-mongering.

 

Your analysis makes no scientific sense.

 

At the beginning of the pandemic, before the vaccines were deployed, and with the more virulent delta strain, hospitalisation rates for the elderly were very high.  

 

 

 


Edited by Hip, 12 January 2023 - 04:38 AM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#1314 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 12 January 2023 - 07:04 AM

Pre-Omicron COVID is OVER!  Y'all can go round-&-round about ancient history all you want, but what we really need is a good plan for the way FORWARD.  

 

It is now 2023...  Let's focus on what is important TODAY! 

 

Please look only at current real world data, and stop trying to extrapolate historical fuzzy math into some kind of modeling for the future.  

 

Current data is out there...  Please use it!  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 12 January 2023 - 07:18 AM.

  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#1315 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 12 January 2023 - 09:37 AM

...

 

Current data is out there...  Please use it!  

 

Agree. Maybe the Eric Topol blog is worth following to that scope:

https://erictopol.su...tm_medium=email


  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1316 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 12 January 2023 - 07:26 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but this recent data out of England seems to indicate the the risk of hospitalization from COVID is around 1% or less for people over 75.

 

Contrast this with irresponsible media reports from early in the COVID panic claiming the overall CFR was 3.4%. Due to awful fear-mongering from the likes of CNN, ABC, Reuters, etc... most Americans still think the mortality rate is 10% and that 50% of people end up hospitalized when they get COVID.

 

"Correct me if I am wrong" (I actually put that in there with the hopes someone would actually look at the report)

 

The data does show an average admission rate of 1% or less, but it was higher early in the pandemic.


Pre-Omicron COVID is OVER!  Y'all can go round-&-round about ancient history all you want, but what we really need is a good plan for the way FORWARD.  

 

It is now 2023...  Let's focus on what is important TODAY! 

 

Please look only at current real world data, and stop trying to extrapolate historical fuzzy math into some kind of modeling for the future.  

 

Current data is out there...  Please use it!  

 

This is the "context" thread, so various data highlighting facets of the media-created COVID panic from different time periods is relevant here.


  • Agree x 1

#1317 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 January 2023 - 08:19 PM

It's really a shame that there isn't more discussion about covid as it exits today in the public media.

 

When covid first hit the scene, the media talked about CFRs, IFRs, hospitalization rates, etc. But you hear virtually no discussion of that for basically the last year. 

 

All of those metrics have improved considerably since Q1 2020. But all I hear is that I should update by booster if I haven't had one since November.

 

Every single pandemic in the course of human history has appeared, killed a lot of people, faded, and then disappeared from the public consciousness.  That should be happening with covid-19 and it is to an extent. But the media and the government authorities seem reluctant to let covid go. Scary news puts eyeballs on screens so I understand the media's attachment to keeping the pandemic alive. And a government is allowed to do things in an emergency that it isn't allowed in a normal time. But at some point someone needs to put the public's needs ahead of these self centered interests and declare this over. I still know people that are living in significant fear and are mostly shut-ins. That is profoundly unhealthy for them in so many ways.

 

 


  • Well Written x 3
  • Agree x 2

#1318 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,357 posts
  • -438
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 January 2023 - 01:58 AM

The data does show an average admission rate of 1% or less, but it was higher early in the pandemic.

 

Yes, so the policies implemented by governments around the world were appropriate to the time.

 

At the beginning of the pandemic, once you had a case of COVID, the death rate in the 60s age group was 3.6%, in the 70s age group 8%, and in the 80s age group 14.8%. Ref: here.

 

So governments had to act on the basis of that death rate data at that time. Now we have the vaccines, the death rate is much lower.

 

 

At the beginning, nobody was quite sure of what to expect. Governments had to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. In the UK, in the worse case scenario, they were planning to use Hyde Park (a 350 acre green space in the centre of London) as a massive open air mortuary, if hundreds of thousands of bodies had to be dealt with all at once.

 

The UK government also opened up some makeshift hospitals in large venues in case there was an enormous wave of COVID cases. These were called Nightingale Hospitals, after Florence Nightingale.

 

Whilst some of the general public do nothing but bitch and moan about government actions, it was the government's role to try to consider all eventualities, and try to account for them in advance with strategic planing. Which they did, albeit with mistakes sometimes.

 

Now just because the Nightingale Hospitals thankfully never needed to be used, because the death level was less than the worst case scenario, that does not mean that the Nightingale Hospitals were not a good idea. The government has to prepare for the various possible outcomes.

 

Had there been a much larger wave of deaths, and the government had not prepared these Nightingale Hospitals in advance, there would have been criticism. 

 

Some of the know-it-all general public are only smart by hindsight. But it was the government and their scientific advisors who had to try to be smart in advance, at the actual time, whilst only having limited data and knowledge, because many of the parameters of the pandemic were unknown at the beginning.

 

 

 

Once the vaccines came along, they reduced these death rates by about 20 times, so for example the 3.6% death rate goes down to 0.18%, once you divide the number by 20. That made the pandemic easier to cope with, so restrictions could be relaxed.

 

But even today, in the omicron era, there is still a high death rate if you are unvaccinated. This death rate data from Australia shows that for unvaccinated males of 70+ age, there were 362 deaths in each 10,000 COVID cases. That works out to a 3.62% death rate for unvaccinated over 70s.

 

Remember though that these figures are the case-fatality ratios (CFR). The infection-fatality ratios  (IFR) are lower. 


Edited by Hip, 13 January 2023 - 02:02 AM.

  • Disagree x 2
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#1319 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 13 January 2023 - 04:34 PM

Besides noting the CFR vs. IFR, one also has to take into account that "cases" were wildly overcounted in the U.S. (including people who died in accidents and who only caught COVID incidentally) and that the CDC is is not the most reliable source of data, considering they have lied to the public on multiple occasions (self-admittedly), have been hiding records, and only releasing important data when forced by a court of law.

 

Recall also that standard protocol in the U.S in many states (like Minnesota and New York) was to put infected people in nursing homes - which caused more death than otherwise would have occurred.

 

In addition, the use of Remdesivir (many toxic side effects) and ventilators (instead of standard pneumonia protocols), likely led to many more deaths than otherwise would have occurred.

 

There voluminous robust data that the virus was circulating around the world at least several months before the media-created panic in early 2020. No one noticed, because the IFR has always been very low. It is my contention that the panic created by governments and the media is what caused a jump in CFR in 2020.


  • Agree x 2

#1320 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,357 posts
  • -438
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 January 2023 - 06:52 PM

"cases" were wildly overcounted in the U.S. 

 
That is completely false. The excess death data in multiple countries shows that COVID cases were underreported, because the excess deaths were substantially higher than the reported COVID case numbers.

 

Many people were dying of heart attacks or strokes causes by COVID infection, and may have died at home without their death being recorded as due to COVID. See: COVID-19 Surges Linked to Spike in Heart Attacks

 

It is not unusual for an acute viral infection to cause heart attacks; common viruses like enterovirus and cytomegalovirus are linked to millions of heart attack deaths.

 

 

And before you reply with the usual silliness about depression from lockdowns killing millions and being responsible for the excess deaths, note that there were no excess deaths in New Zealand, even though they imposed lockdowns. This is because the virus never hit NZ until recently.

 

No doubt that lockdowns are not nice, and not good for mental health. But not being able to see your friends in person for a few months (whilst still being able to speak to them on the telephone, etc) has never caused much in the way of fatalities. 

 

 


Edited by Hip, 13 January 2023 - 06:53 PM.

  • Agree x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2
  • Disagree x 1
  • Ill informed x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus, sars, bird flu, swine flu, west nile virus, covid19, covid-19

9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users