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

Chalkythedog

War Hero
A punishment for what ?

Actually it's a preventative measure to lower the spread of disease and hopefully stop the hospitals from getting swamped. However, I do agree that the terminology is wrong, for example the Wuhan lockdown was more apt in names terms.
Disobedience. Refusal to be cowed by threats and scare-mongering put about by Bozo and his mates. Gove was at it again this morning. Many hospitals are empty. The staff have nothing to do. East European medics are going home, probably never to return.
It's nothing to do with the NHS, and everything to do with the philanderer-in-chief's reputation. Such as it is.
Now, with all the money spent on C-19, what are they going to do about C-20 when it arrives?
 

JCC

War Hero
This chart seems to show a completely different story, with a very noticeable spike in deaths in April.

View attachment 524321
The article is about the US rather than the UK?
 

JCC

War Hero
Yeah there is no debate about the excess deaths. That presentation at JHU was drivel and has been replaced by a mea culpa about the mistakes.

The UK excess death stats are here:

View attachment 524324
I was under the impression that the article was talking about the US - how does the UK fit in?

Could you share the link to the article being withdrawn please?
 
I'm not saying your theory is incorrect, but we've a wealth of contact tracing data now and gov/scientists should have a fair idea what drives the coronavirus.

And often 'intuition' just doesn't work. People intuitively feel safer wearing masks, for example, which may lead them to get lax on social distancing/hygiene measures.

Intuitively I felt that going to the gym everyday was putting myself at risk of the corona; it's full of 'kids', lots of social distancing breaches, people sweating, touching stuff and breathing heavily. But I still went five times a week. I know - we've a deadly pandemic - crazy, right?

But gyms are staying open no matter what tier; I suspect because contact tracing has shown them not to be baaaaaaaad.

I suspect supermarkets are like that.


Doesn't contact tracing just work off [what two phones think is] proximity? It certainly doesn't know if you've been licking door handles (or whatever).

Also - what's the take-up, and demographic of the app users?

And (finally) if I was being cynical, the results announced will be whatever fits the narrative.
 
Doesn't contact tracing just work off [what two phones think is] proximity? It certainly doesn't know if you've been licking door handles (or whatever).

Also - what's the take-up, and demographic of the app users?

And (finally) if I was being cynical, the results announced will be whatever fits the narrative.

As far as I'm aware there is basically no transmission of Sars-cov-2 by fomites / door handle licking. I haven't checked recently though.

Being in proximity to someone who has the infection is just a blunt instrument, but it doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough.

Also effective contact tracing is not just via an app:
 
I was under the impression that the article was talking about the US - how does the UK fit in?

Could you share the link to the article being withdrawn please?

It's on the page you linked: A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

Yes that JHU presentation was about US excess deaths. I posted the UK graph to show they are real in the UK as well.

For the US the all cause mortality is very clearly higher than in past years.

En1370zUYAASS-e.png
 
Disobedience. Refusal to be cowed by threats and scare-mongering put about by Bozo and his mates. Gove was at it again this morning. Many hospitals are empty. The staff have nothing to do. East European medics are going home, probably never to return.
It's nothing to do with the NHS, and everything to do with the philanderer-in-chief's reputation. Such as it is.
Now, with all the money spent on C-19, what are they going to do about C-20 when it arrives?
You'll be telling me the Earth is flat next.
 

JCC

War Hero
It's on the page you linked: A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

Yes that JHU presentation was about US excess deaths. I posted the UK graph to show they are real in the UK as well.

For the US the all cause mortality is very clearly higher than in past years.

View attachment 524349

Thanks I'll have another look at it.

I found the removal statement: A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

Edited

I looked at the statement from the website where they give their reasons for removing the article.

"Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.”
This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count
from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19.
Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.
Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19
disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus."

The objections seem to revolve around the same "from" or "with" debate that we're having over here.

To me the supression of dissent is everything that has gone wrong recently in academic, political & societal terms over the last few decades with the characterisation of different opinions as "evil" rather than merely opposing.

We see that writ large in this thread where people who question the usefulness and relative value of what we call "lockdown" are accused of wanting to let "it rip"; those who question the value of mass PCR testing are accused of not understanding the "science" or of being indifferent to the elderly.

This pandemic or casedemic, call it what you will, has exposed flaws in the Western liberal democracies that were present long before the arrival of C19. With the leftwards drift of the young, why shouldn't they, I can see the Chinese model of government being increasingly attractive; live well, consume, mind your place, and leave the governing to the governors.
 
Last edited:

Winnet

War Hero
Bozo moved right along to Easter in his little speech the other day without a pause, if you're optimistic you can think 2021.

Witless or Unbalanced were telling us why harsher tiers are needed to drive the virus down now so you fools can have Xmas. Then forgot the 2-3 week lag when it came to explaining how effective LD2 had been, obviously now we've flipped back to the deaths rate it isn't anymore; he must have rested his pen over the positive test results and missed it??
And naturally if you hug an oldster you will be responsible for their death.

IDS is suggesting SAGE is in charge:
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith: SAGE to blame for forcing England into Tier 3 - YouTube

And for some reason the WHO seem to think proof of something is required and not just relying on being told its right.
WHO needs 'more than press release' on Oxford jab, says vaccines chief (msn.com)

They really need to follow this wise advice.
How To Be More Obedient - YouTube

Some have argued for months saying the WHO is totally inept and not to be trusted? Just not with this particular subject.
 
Last edited:
A pretty good BMJ blog article on how the DANMASK study is being misinterpreted. This just focuses on the statistical analysis and not on the other issues with the trial:

Covid-19: controversial trial may actually show that masks protect the wearer​

November 24, 2020

The current question “to mask or not to mask?” has again unmasked our limitations in interpreting medical research and in handling the associated uncertainty, argues James Brophy

While there is no doubt regarding the physical, mental, and economic carnage due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there is considerable debate regarding the evidence of masks to reduce its spread. Paradoxically, the publication last week of the first randomized trial evaluating masks during the current covid-19 pandemic and a meta-analysis of older trials seems to have heightened rather than reduced the uncertainty regarding their effectiveness. [1,2] Herein I briefly explore this paradox.
The DANMASK-19 trial was performed in Denmark between April and May 2020, a period when public health measures were in effect, but community mask wearing was uncommon and not officially recommended. [1] All participants were encouraged to follow social distancing measures. Those in the intervention arm were additionally encouraged to wear a mask when in public and were provided with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use. Crucially, the outcome measure was rates of infection among those encouraged to wear masks and not in the community as a whole, so the study could not evaluate the most likely benefit of masks, that of preventing spread to other people. The study was designed to find a 50% reduction in infection rates among mask wearers. Among the 4862 participants who completed the trial, infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 of 2392 (1.8%) in the intervention arm and 53 of 2470 (2.1%) in the control group. The between-group difference was −0.3% point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4%; P= 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). This led to the published conclusion: “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.” The conclusion initially appears obtuse (what is the unambiguous answer to the question—do masks work or not?) but in reality, is very astute and avoids the common error of banally interpreting a statistically non-significant result as a “negative” trial.
Incorrect interpretation of “negative” trials abounds, even among thoughtful academics, regardless of their personal beliefs about the studied intervention. It arises largely from a misunderstanding of the null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) paradigm used in most medical research. The limitations of this paradigm have long been appreciated by statisticians, but making inroads into the medical community has been challenging despite multiple recent warnings about the dangers. [3-5] The DANMASK-19 trial provides two immediate examples of study misinterpretation. First, while the editorial accompanying the trial concludes that masks may work, it does so while also implying that the trial itself was negative, stating “… despite the reported results of this study, (masks) probably protect the wearer.” [6] And second, an opinion article in the lay press by two esteemed university professors was entitled “Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for face mask wearers.” [7]. Despite honourable intentions, in my view, both interpretations are incorrect.
The results of DANMASK-19 do not argue against the benefit of masks to those wearing them but actually support their protective effect. If we step outside the statistical straitjacket of NHST, with its inappropriate focus on the null hypothesis and the dichotomania surrounding P = 0.05, it can be shown that these data best support an 18% reduction in infections among mask wearers and find as much evidence for a 33% reduction as for no effect. [8]
Bayesian analysis of the DANMASK-19 trial alone shows an 81% probability of fewer infections among those encouraged to wear a mask and a 35% probability that mask wearers will avoid more than five infections/1000 individuals. Similar results are achieved with a Bayesian analysis that combines the DANMASK-19 results with prior knowledge about masks, expressed as the relative risk observed in the Cochrane review of older randomised trials of masks (RR 0.91 95%CI [0.66, 1.26]). [2]
Before arguing about whether this effect is large enough to support a public policy recommending masks, we should consider several additional elements. First, while accepting the dangers of wild extrapolations, in a country of 300 million people even three fewer infections per 1000 mask wearers could lead to almost one million fewer infections. Second, remember that the DANMASK-19 trial did not consider long term infection rates, but measured outcomes after only one month of the intervention and in a population with a very modest infection rate. Imagine an open cohort, where infected participants would be replaced by new uninfected participants, and where the DANMASK-19 one month rate difference is continually observed over the entire nine months of the current pandemic. Under this scenario, we might expect to observe 36 (95%CI 12 -57) fewer infections per 1000 mask wearers over the duration of the pandemic. Of course, if the baseline infection rate is higher, it is likely that the number of infections prevented would increase proportionally. Finally, the economic costs and adverse effects of masks are trivial, especially compared with drug treatments and even the soon to be marketed vaccines. [9] This is important as while the current evidence is imperfect it appears “good enough” to make policy decisions today, given the absence of any severe downside to the intervention. While the benefit of masks is “not beyond all reasonable doubt” and while future evidence could be incorporated with our current evidence to refine our state of knowledge, further research has not only a direct cost, but also an opportunity cost for other research that won’t be done. In decision theory terms, the expected value of perfect information for mask effectiveness may be sufficiently low that further research into this intervention is perhaps not worth the extra value returned.
Given the estimated 60 million SARS-CoV-2 infections worldwide, the DANMASK-19 trial’s finding of an 18% reduction in the infection rate among mask wearers is of enormous potential public health importance. The theoretical benefits of masks are even larger, given that DANMASK-19 was a pragmatic trial in a low incidence population and that a substantial number of participants did not fully comply with the intervention. Moreover, as has been said, this trial examined only one half of any potential benefit of masks—does it protect the wearer?—and did not consider any possible benefit in reduced transmission of infection to others.
Are we surprised that the results of this study have been mis-interpreted in both the scientific and lay press as not providing any meaningful benefit, despite a valiant attempt by the DANMASK-19 authors to avoid these misunderstandings? [1] Unfortunately not, as the interpretation and reporting of medical research have long been described as a “scandal.” [10] The current question “to mask or not to mask?” has again unmasked our limitations in interpreting medical research and in handling the associated uncertainty.
James M Brophy, Professor of Medicine & Epidemiology (McGill University) McGill University Health Center.
 
The objections seem to revolve around the same "from" or "with" debate that we're having over here.

No, the data in the original article is literally incorrect. As I showed with the graphs I posted, the death rate is very clearly increased over previous years.

The article is also by an economist which is basically a sham subject anyway :)
 

CamNostos

Old-Salt

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

*now removed
Pretty hilarious justification for removing the article.
 

JCC

War Hero
No, the data in the original article is literally incorrect. As I showed with the graphs I posted, the death rate is very clearly increased over previous years.

The article is also by an economist which is basically a sham subject anyway :)
I'm unconvinced that your definition matches what the lassie in the article is talking about but life's too short to quibble.

I do endorse your second point to which I'd add psychology and sociology; the movement to pass them off as Sciences should be resisted to the death.

 

3ToedSloth

War Hero
Disobedience. Refusal to be cowed by threats and scare-mongering put about by Bozo and his mates. Gove was at it again this morning. Many hospitals are empty. The staff have nothing to do. East European medics are going home, probably never to return.
It's nothing to do with the NHS, and everything to do with the philanderer-in-chief's reputation. Such as it is.
Now, with all the money spent on C-19, what are they going to do about C-20 when it arrives?
Did you come up with this theory yourself?
 

WightMivvi

Old-Salt
I just had an evil thought:

What if the government was to link UK tier reductions to vaccine take-up levels?

Vaccination wouldn’t be mandatory, but you’re not getting back to normal until you’ve had it...
 
I'm unconvinced that your definition matches what the lassie in the article is talking about but life's too short to quibble.

I do endorse your second point to which I'd add psychology and sociology; the movement to pass them off as Sciences should be resisted to the death.


Eh. This is what she said in that article. It's just not correct.
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.
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.
 
Why do you think that might be?
Er . . . wild stab in the dark here, but something to do with mask-wearing, social-distancing, working from home where possible, lockdowns, etc? Colour me surprised . . .

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Er . . . wild stab in the dark here, but something to do with mask-wearing, social-distancing, working from home where possible, lockdowns, etc? Colour me surprised . . .

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
If that was the case then COVID wouldn't be an issue either.
 

Latest Threads

Top