CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)

[anonymous-user]

voyds9 said:

I haven't yet seen an analysis on the average age of death from Covid with the associated loss of life costs. I believe NICE values a treatment/life at £20,000-£50,000 per year. So is ruining the economy a monetarily viable argument.

I haven't been able to find an average age of death from Covid so I can't work it out.

Before anyone says I'm cold, heartless and wouldn't think the same if it was my mum/wife/child I would say

a) I don't give a damn
b) This is how NICE decides if you are getting that new NHS treatment.

If you want a summary that leans 'your' way, there was a report someone posted here, I think it was by a guy called Miles at Imperial, which contained a rebuttal of a couple of papers that attempted to figure out average curtailed life. It has some economic analysis too.

I think it was called 'living with covid'. It is more of a review, but contains links to the referenced papers.

Basically the original studies came up with average curtailed years of 10 and 12 respectively from memory. Miles argues you should halve this figure, in some cases, and gives some reasonings.

So from this, you could say it's at least 5 years. Somewhere to start anyhow.

Edit, here is the link.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/d.miles/document...

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 16th July 01:58

[pneumothorax]

I thought welshbeef had sorted this topic?

To echo a contributor a few pages back, I have found this thread very helpful as I am constantly asked what i think about this matter by Patients and their families, and it has helped me hopefully to have a measured view on the situation. So thank you.

One thing that bothers me though and I have yet to see it addressed, who are these super spreaders and what particular personal traits makes you likely to become one?

[johnboy1975]

pneumothorax said:

I thought welshbeef had sorted this topic?

To echo a contributor a few pages back, I have found this thread very helpful as I am constantly asked what i think about this matter by Patients and their families, and it has helped me hopefully to have a measured view on the situation. So thank you.

One thing that bothers me though and I have yet to see it addressed, who are these super spreaders and what particular personal traits makes you likely to become one?

Presumably it's people who meet lots of other (different) people each day? Tube users, doctors, supermarket workers etc

Traits would include poor hand hygiene and not socially distancing. (But if you are asymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission is a big issue, it wouldn't need those qualifiers)

[johnboy1975]

sambucket said:

voyds9 said:

I haven't yet seen an analysis on the average age of death from Covid with the associated loss of life costs. I believe NICE values a treatment/life at £20,000-£50,000 per year. So is ruining the economy a monetarily viable argument.

I haven't been able to find an average age of death from Covid so I can't work it out.

Before anyone says I'm cold, heartless and wouldn't think the same if it was my mum/wife/child I would say

a) I don't give a damn
b) This is how NICE decides if you are getting that new NHS treatment.

If you want a summary that leans 'your' way, there was a report someone posted here, I think it was by a guy called Miles at Imperial, which contained a rebuttal of a couple of papers that attempted to figure out average curtailed life.

I think it was called 'living with covid'. It was just a self published thing, but contains links to the referenced papers.

Basically the original studies came up with average curtailed years of 10 and 12 respectively from memory. Miles said you should halve this at least, to be safe, but doesn't really give any detail on why.

So it's safe to say it's at least 5 years. Somewhere to start anyhow.

Have you got a link to one that leans "your" way? Appreciate that's a big ask, as there quite simply isn't one.....on any scale, by any measure, our response has been disproportionate. Maybe it had to be......maybe it didn't (as per the title if this thread).

But if we are valuing human years at 20k a year or whatever the figure is, there is no argument. The cure is worse than the disease.

[ant1973]

The nightmarish world of suppression in Ireland:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527187/I...

14 new cases and pub reopening postponed....

[anonymous-user]

johnboy1975 said:

Have you got a link to one that leans "your" way? Appreciate that's a big ask, as there quite simply isn't one.....on any scale, by any measure, our response has been disproportionate. Maybe it had to be......maybe it didn't (as per the title if this thread).

But if we are valuing human years at 20k a year or whatever the figure is, there is no argument. The cure is worse than the disease.

not aware of academic studies honestly, but there have been a few reports by the likes of goldman sachs. I'll try and dig them out.

If you are letting me pick very biased numbers, then you can do 11 years * 35k * 250k deaths avoided = 100bn. But then you are assuming the cost would be zero if we 'let rip' The healthcare and economic costs of 'living with the virus' would be sizable, too.

Also imo (and chris whitty's) you should include indirect deaths when considering the impact on a country, as these are a direct result of a country's healthcare system not being robust enough to deal with the threat, actual or perceived, without imploding. We've seen in past pandemics, that countries that don't lockdown at all, eg africa, still see massive spikes in things like maleria from reduced healthcare availability in addition to that caused by compromised immune systems etc.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 16th July 01:20

[pneumothorax]

Yep, the people that meet lots of people is a given, but what other properties do they have? Ability to tolerate big viral load and asymptomatic and still out and about, perhaps we need to be looking at this.

[isaldiri]

pneumothorax said:

Yep, the people that meet lots of people is a given, but what other properties do they have? Ability to tolerate big viral load and asymptomatic and still out and about, perhaps we need to be looking at this.

It's not entirely obvious I think. As far as what I can see from studies etc, it is more a function of the situation that people are in that triggers superspreading situations rather than any intrinsic medical type property of the index superspreading case. Per Dr Z, some research suggests people can be possibly quite infectious just before or around symptom onset. Presumably even if there are symptomatic it mostly starts out pretty mild which most people try to shrug off as they normally do. So any of those people ending up in situations where you have large numbers of people in enclosed spaces (choir singing, meat packing plants, nightclubs, mass gym exercises) then creates a superspreading situation.

[isaldiri]

ruggedscotty said:

monkfish1 said:

ruggedscotty said:

Id rather wear a mask than a ventilator....

What a dumb statement

By your logic, and assuming you are under 65 without and serious health conditions, i assume you are no longer driving? After all, statistically your are more likely to die in an RTA than from Covid.

i look forward to your confirmation of this.

UK road casualties
Key facts:

In 2018, there were 1,784 people killed on the roads in Britain;

Well...


suggests monkfish has a point. Even extending his point above from under 65 to under 80 and without pre existing health conditions, quite a lot less of those people (868 to be exact) have died compared to people in road accidents even allowing for England vs whole of UK.

So I trust he's right that you have stopped driving as well given how worried you are by covid?

[pneumothorax]

isaldiri said:

Top strawmanning again. I actually am partially on your side on this, if symptoms are so light they are easily mistaken as nothing then it might as well be asymptomatic transmission. And some asymptomatic transmission clearly is possible. I have more of an issue with the way the studies are assuming it is on the scale of 50+% as it's inferring a large number of infections purely on cases being asymptomatic.

But in any case, even if I accept that in a superspreading situation that can be the case for asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic transmission in high numbers, my point returns to this which no one who is pro mask seems to want to address.

When the outbreak was at it's very worst, people still had to go to the supermarket and in central london go to work in very crowded tube trains due to the shortage of trains per tfl service cuts. If non symptomatic aerosol transmission (the current justification for masks) was so easy how were we able to drop cases down so sharply? TTI also states you need to be within 2m for 15 mins to trigger isolation. In shops most of the time you simply wouldn't be in proximity to anyone for that long anyway so why masks and why now? Especially given it is actually not required in situations where cases actually have been appearing.

It's the blatant logic fail of the measure being demanded by the govt that is triggering a large pushback by some people. Let's face it - if the mask measure was implemented at lockdown, people would have been far more accepting of it as there was an obvious need to try to reduce cases. Given we have done reasonably well reducing cases and maintaining that level despite shops reopening, the justification for needing masks now is quite vastly weaker - the 'anything to help' argument simply isn't the same any longer.

Agree with this. non/asymptomatic transmission is not likely to significant given what has happened where I live and work and what I have seen. It it was a significant thing London would have filled the Nightingale.

[sim72]

isaldiri said:

sim72 said:

The biggest problem with shops is if some f*ckwit coughs or sneezes in your face, which a mask (them wearing one, not you) would obviously mitigate. But that's the case with any indoor social context where you're within range of other people, whether that be an office, bar, restaurant, gym, school/college, church ...

Well you shouldn't be close enough to said fkwit to be able to cough in your face in a shop as you're abiding by social distancing and standing a reasonable distance away aren't you....?

Droplets from a cough can travel 6m. I'd like to see how that level of social distancing would look in a shop (or anywhere, for that matter!)

[isaldiri]

sim72 said:

isaldiri said:

sim72 said:

The biggest problem with shops is if some f*ckwit coughs or sneezes in your face, which a mask (them wearing one, not you) would obviously mitigate. But that's the case with any indoor social context where you're within range of other people, whether that be an office, bar, restaurant, gym, school/college, church ...

Well you shouldn't be close enough to said fkwit to be able to cough in your face in a shop as you're abiding by social distancing and standing a reasonable distance away aren't you....?

Droplets from a cough can travel 6m. I'd like to see how that level of social distancing would look in a shop (or anywhere, for that matter!)

Then said fkwit hasn't actually coughed 'in your face' as you stated but rather he coughed 6m away and possibly some droplets might get to your face. There's quite a big difference between the 2.....

[sim72]

isaldiri said:

Then said fkwit hasn't actually coughed 'in your face' as you stated but rather he coughed 6m away and possibly some droplets might get to your face. There's quite a big difference between the 2.....

Ah, c'mon, you know what I meant. I wasn't actually making that point anyway, I was pointing out that it's relevant to anywhere - especially indoors - that you come into contact with other people, yet apparently public transport (at the moment), and shops (but not at the moment, they're not hazardous for another 9 days) are deemed dangerous enough to demand mask wearing.

[johnboy1975]

sambucket said:

johnboy1975 said:

Have you got a link to one that leans "your" way? Appreciate that's a big ask, as there quite simply isn't one.....on any scale, by any measure, our response has been disproportionate. Maybe it had to be......maybe it didn't (as per the title if this thread).

But if we are valuing human years at 20k a year or whatever the figure is, there is no argument. The cure is worse than the disease.

not aware of academic studies honestly, but there have been a few reports by the likes of goldman sachs. I'll try and dig them out.

If you are letting me pick very biased numbers, then you can do 11 years * 35k * 250k deaths avoided = 100bn. But then you are assuming the cost would be zero if we 'let rip' The healthcare and economic costs of 'living with the virus' would be sizable, too.

Also imo (and chris whitty's) you should include indirect deaths when considering the impact on a country, as these are a direct result of a country's healthcare system not being robust enough to deal with the threat, actual or perceived, without imploding. We've seen in past pandemics, that countries that don't lockdown at all, eg africa, still see massive spikes in things like maleria from reduced healthcare availability in addition to that caused by compromised immune systems etc.

Edited by sambucket on Thursday 16th July 01:20

Whats going to happen to those 250,000 lives saved over the next 12 months, until a vaccine is rolled out? A % are going to die naturally, a % will die of covid despite our best efforts and a % will die of flu this winter.......

The cost of "letting rip" would be near zero financially- the cost would be the 250k lives (I'm not advocating this, it was never really an option. Nightclubs, travel, football, theatre, events were always going to be casualties) << So I've just argued against myself, there's a big cost right there

And if you are factoring in the indirect deaths, which side are you putting them on? On the lockdown side, presumably. Although (being fairminded) if I was suffering from cancer and the govt "let it rip" I'd probably die of covid due to my cancer treatment not bring cancelled, and catching covid at the hospital, and dying due to no immune system)

No easy arguments either way

I don't envy the government on this. Much easier to stand aside, and pick the bones when it's done

[RSTurboPaul]

ruggedscotty said:

monkfish1 said:

ruggedscotty said:

Id rather wear a mask than a ventilator....

What a dumb statement

By your logic, and assuming you are under 65 without and serious health conditions, i assume you are no longer driving? After all, statistically your are more likely to die in an RTA than from Covid.

i look forward to your confirmation of this.

UK road casualties
Key facts:

In 2018, there were 1,784 people killed on the roads in Britain;
In 2018, 25,511 people were seriously injured on the roads in Britain;
In 2018, there was a total of 160,597 casualties of all severities in road traffic crashes;
In 2018, the highest number of fatalities were car users, both drivers and passengers, who accounted for 44% of road deaths;
In 2018, of the 1,784 road deaths, the majority (58%) occurred on rural roads.

so far covid-19 deaths have passed 45,000.


I didnt get the 2019 and 2020 figues so allowing for adjustments and such it is still a considerable increase....

What is the breakdown of road deaths by age?

[RSTurboPaul]

Tootles the Taxi said:

Brave Fart said:

Just so I'm clear, Tootles, are you saying we'll have to wear masks in public for ever? If so, how do you propose to reopen sports stadia, or hold music concerts, or encourage people to find romance, or worship collectively, or sing in a choir? Are you saying those things can never happen again?

Possibly - but I hope we'll develop effective treatments that will mean those who currently might end up intubated in hospital will not get that poorly. You''ve only a 25% chance of leaving hospital alive if you go in with Covid19 at present.

Failing that, I can't see an alternative.

Link?

[sim72]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Where did I say I was worried about it?

I would have thought my sarcastic comment about how shops "become hazardous in 9 days time" would have made my attitude to it quite clear.

You've wasted a rant there.

[JagLover]

isaldiri said:

Or more simply they are much better at preventing the conditions for spreading the virus to large numbers of people. South Korea had a large spike when the conditions were right for example earlier in Daegu.

Sars1 simply didn't infect enough people to make the population have any degree of covid immunity. And East Asia hasn't had a viral/pneumonia causing outbreak causing sufficiently large numbers of people to die and be noticed for there to be an unknown sars like virus to have surfaced in living memory. The idea that east Asia has been less affected due to some kind of immunity is a nice idea but implausible (look at where it started in Wuhan for example).

Well it wasn't my theory but that of a professor in Japan and he arrived at from observing immune responses among Japanese people.

BBC said:

Tokyo University professor Tatsuhiko Kodama - who studies how Japanese patients react to the virus - believes Japan may have had Covid before. Not Covid-19, but something similar that could have left behind "historical immunity".

This is how he explains it: When a virus enters the human body, the immune system produces antibodies that attack the invading pathogen.

There are two types of antibody - IGM and IGG. How they respond can show whether someone has been exposed to the virus before, or something similar.

"In a primary (novel) viral infection the IGM response usually comes first," he tells me. "Then the IGG response appears later. But in secondary cases (previous exposure) the lymphocyte already has memory, and so only the IGG response increases rapidly."

So, what happened with his patients?

"When we looked at the tests we were astonished... in all patients the IGG response came quickly, and the IGM response was later and weak. It looked like they had been previously exposed to a very similar virus."

He thinks it is possible a Sars-like virus has circulated in the region before, which may account for the low death rate, not just in Japan, but in much of China, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South East Asia.

[Byker28i]

Spotted this today

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.

Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15...

[anonymous-user]

johnboy1975 said:

sambucket said:

Shops are a risk because of frequent, short contact with new people. The 15 minutes thing is outdated.

Edited by sambucket on Wednesday 15th July 23:06

Source?

Has the source been posted as I cannot seem to see any links on here?