Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

Most of this story is probably not worth reading, but it does address the question of vitamin D which @Norsemaid has raised earlier.
How risky is it to go shopping now? Your coronavirus questions answered

Long story short, there's no evidence that vitamin D will help prevent or cure COVID-19. There were some poorly done studies which suggested that it did, but they fell apart when looked at more closely.


Low vitamin D levels don't make you susceptable to COVID-19. Rather, older people or people who are otherwise in poor health are more likely to have low vitamin D levels for other reasons. These tend to be the same people who get more serious cases of COVID-19 anyway.


I won't tell people to not take a balanced and reasonable amount of vitamin supplements if their diet and health warrants it, but taking extra vitamin D is not going to be of any help with respect to COVID-19.
There is a bit of research that says that good levels of vitamin D could speed up recovery of patients with COVID- 19. Not a prophylactic or a cure, but helpful.
It will not prevent infection, but if you catch it your survival chances will improve.

BMJ
"Short term, high-dose vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 disease: a randomised, placebo-controlled, study (SHADE study) | Postgraduate Medical Journal
It is plausible that vitamin D supplementation may decrease the likelihood of SARS CoV-2 infection or cause an early viral clearance. It is noticed that vitamin D levels>30 ng/ml are associated with a significant decrease in the SARS-CoV-2 infection severity and mortality."

Therapeutic, high-dose cholecalciferol supplementation led to SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative in additional 41.7% participants (p<0.001) and was useful for viral SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance.
 

JCC

War Hero

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19​



By YANNI GU | November 22, 2020

pasted-image-0


COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September.

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.

She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.

Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.

COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
Graph depicts the total decrease in deaths by various causes, including COVID-19.

The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” Briand replied.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand’s view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.
Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.
The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.
According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master’s candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand’s concluding remarks.
“At the end of the day, it’s still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant,” Dharmasena said.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.


Source*: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

*now removed
 
I actually find it quite amusing that those banging on about the damage to the economy, are in the main the same ones whining about the lockdown and tiered strategy. Whereas, if everyone followed the rules the infection rate would plummet. Funny that isn't it.
 

Chalkythedog

War Hero
We have just had a National Lock down for a month but cases are raising, I don't understand that

Archie
That's because a lockdown is a punishment. Nothing to do with disease. The term comes from the American prison system where it refers to a brutal restriction of freedom. It's not a coincidence the name was chosen by Bozo and his henchmen.
 
That's because a lockdown is a punishment. Nothing to do with disease. The term comes from the American prison system where it refers to a brutal restriction of freedom. It's not a coincidence the name was chosen by Bozo and his henchmen.

Yes, of course, that's it. Only in the UK was the term "lockdown" used because "Bozo" and his henchmen chose it. No other country in the whole, wide magnificent world has used the term.

Best tell NYTimes, LaVanguardia, Die Welt, Mail Aus and La Republica that the word "lockdown" has been chosen by UK politicos and they have exclusive rights to the word.
 

Norsemaid

Clanker
We have just had a National Lock down for a month but cases are raising, I don't understand that

Archie
Have a look on the ONS website for numbers and explanations of covid infections. They break the numbers down for age groups and regions.
There's a lot of information to take in but it may help you with your questions.
 
I just looked at the actual data and there have been 300,000 more deaths from all causes in the USA this year than in the same time last year. So I am highly sceptical of that JHU blog post.
 
Those Tory rebels aren't true conservatives mind, I've just listened to one spout an absolute crock of shite, was almost as if he posts on this very thread.
 
What does Boris get out of this?

He's got his eye on the post-covid investigation; it'll take a few years to do and will be published closer to the next election.

Which is why he's not arsed about the 'invisible deaths' (cancer/suicides/stroke/heart attacks/etc); he's just arsed about covid and ensuring he does all he can to mitigate those - highly visible - deaths.

It's why they're not producing an impact statement; if they did it would be harder to lock us down knowing the consequences of that.
 

Chalkythedog

War Hero
Yes, of course, that's it. Only in the UK was the term "lockdown" used because "Bozo" and his henchmen chose it. No other country in the whole, wide magnificent world has used the term.

Best tell NYTimes, LaVanguardia, Die Welt, Mail Aus and La Republica that the word "lockdown" has been chosen by UK politicos and they have exclusive rights to the word.
It would be naive to suppose countries do not talk to each other. They act in concert which cannot be coincidence. Lockstep in lockdown, you could say.
 

3ToedSloth

War Hero
It would be naive to suppose countries do not talk to each other. They act in concert which cannot be coincidence. Lockstep in lockdown, you could say.
US, UK, China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, Iran all conspiring together? If it's nothing to do with disease, what's their real agenda?
 

Truxx

LE
That's because a lockdown is a punishment. Nothing to do with disease. The term comes from the American prison system where it refers to a brutal restriction of freedom. It's not a coincidence the name was chosen by Bozo and his henchmen.
I think you will find that it was a descriptor coined by the media.

The restrictions advised then subsequently imposed in no way constitute a "lockdown"

Compare the experiences of my cousin and her family who live in Italy. They were confined to their apartment for 3 and a half months. Only one of them was allowed out for 45 minutes a day during which any activity could be done, but only for 45 minutes. Shopping? Exercise? Medical needs? 45 minutes. And that 45 minutes was pre allocated. Only one adult was allowed to take the allocation. Exceptions only with written authority which had to be carried.

Meanwhile in UK when advised to stay at home the great British public chose instead to head in their thousands to the lakes and Wales drink pubs dry and strip supermarkets of bog roll and have got little better since.

So don't come in here with your Boris grr.

There are only 2 reasons we are in the sh1t. The density of people and the density of people.
 

Chalkythedog

War Hero
US, UK, China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, Iran all conspiring together? If it's nothing to do with disease, what's their real agenda?
Dunno. It's a mystery to me. Why destroy an economy to combat a disease that only directly kills elderly people with a condition that they would die of shortly anyway?
Kills lots of people indirectly though.
I guess if you want to know the answer, follow the money.
 
Compare the experiences of my cousin and her family who live in Italy. They were confined to their apartment for 3 and a half months. Only one of them was allowed out for 45 minutes a day during which any activity could be done, but only for 45 minutes. Shopping? Exercise? Medical needs? 45 minutes. And that 45 minutes was pre allocated. Only one adult was allowed to take the allocation. Exceptions only with written authority which had to be carried.

You'd think that after three weeks of a proper hard lockdown like that, that infections would fall to really low levels and three-or-four weeks after that deaths would be really low.

So six-weeks tops.

As a matter of interest, I wonder why this didn't happen?
 

Latest Threads

Top