Fatality Chance At Most 0.37%

[Javert]

Post tooo long.  Where can I find the Imperial college study from last month?

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/covid-19-reports/">https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-i ... 9-reports/">https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/covid-19-reports/



The one which triggered the change from supression to lockdown was published on 16th March, but I'm not sure if the entire report is public.



I'm also tempted to ask - if you won't read a long post on a forum, should we expect that you will read a long scientific report?

[Scott777]

Well if I reply with the various studies that have concluded that, I'm sure you'll say that those are just forecasts and we can't be sure.



But look at the Imperial college study from last month - it concluded exactly that.  In fact their estimate was "up to half a million" deaths.



Of course, maybe they are wrong and it was "only" 100,000 deaths, but even that, is it acceptable?



As I said on the earlier discussion, if you or others would like to present data supporting the frequent contention that more people will die from the long term results of the lockdown, than will die from simply allowing Covid-19 to progress without any mitigation, I'd be happy to change my mind.



In fact, I'll admit I was (happily) wrong on some things.  For example I posted that I feared that the death toll would be around 3000 per day, peaking around now 24th April.  Luckily I was wrong as it seems like the earlier measures before the full  legal lockdown had already slowed down the spread significantly.



Don't get me wrong - it's possible that it's correct that this lockdown and the economic consequences of it will result in more than half a million early deaths in the long term, and therefore if you look at it in a cruel rational way, it's better to let a few hundred thousand people die now, than have even more than that spread over the next 10 years.



Also, if you have data showing that there would only be 30,000 deaths or so (what we are currently on target for in the first and hopefully only peak), if we did nothing and just didn't have a lockdown, please present the data?



Failing that, it's the same critique back again - you have no way of knowing for sure that more people will die from having the lockdown it's just an opinion.



Crucially, as I've said before, in my opinion, the number of  people who will die earlier than expected due to teh long term economic impact is not a fixed number, it's a number that will be determined by future actions after the lockdown is over by the UK government and the world's governments.  It perfectly possible scientifically to keep that number pretty low.  The issue is if we simply go back to allowing greed and paying less taxes to be the continual priority, and it will also lead to a future pandemic in a few decades from now - can we factor those deaths in as well if we are going to say that preparing for a pandemic isn't worth the bother?



And just to remind yet again, I am not claiming there WILL be 300,000 deaths, I am claiming that would be the case if people were encouraged to just ignore the virus in the pursuit of herd immunity.



Oh and I forgot, I also stand by my assertion that most of the people who are hospitalised with Covid-19 and survive, would die if they were refused a hospital bed.  I shouldn't even need any data to prove that - it costs hundreds of pounds a day to put someone in hospital.  Why would they take a Covid-19 patient into hospital if they felt that the person would recover at home?  More NHS incompetence putting people in hospital who don't need to be there?



This all completely leaves aside as well - how come the vast majority of country governments, scientists, medical people, and even many of the business people, support the lockdown?  Am I seriously expected to believe that all these people, from different cultures and countries all round the world, are all completely wrong?

Post tooo long.  Where can I find the Imperial college study from last month?

[Javert]

Do you have any data to support that?

Well if I reply with the various studies that have concluded that, I'm sure you'll say that those are just forecasts and we can't be sure.



But look at the Imperial college study from last month - it concluded exactly that.  In fact their estimate was "up to half a million" deaths.



Of course, maybe they are wrong and it was "only" 100,000 deaths, but even that, is it acceptable?



As I said on the earlier discussion, if you or others would like to present data supporting the frequent contention that more people will die from the long term results of the lockdown, than will die from simply allowing Covid-19 to progress without any mitigation, I'd be happy to change my mind.



In fact, I'll admit I was (happily) wrong on some things.  For example I posted that I feared that the death toll would be around 3000 per day, peaking around now 24th April.  Luckily I was wrong as it seems like the earlier measures before the full  legal lockdown had already slowed down the spread significantly.



Don't get me wrong - it's possible that it's correct that this lockdown and the economic consequences of it will result in more than half a million early deaths in the long term, and therefore if you look at it in a cruel rational way, it's better to let a few hundred thousand people die now, than have even more than that spread over the next 10 years.



Also, if you have data showing that there would only be 30,000 deaths or so (what we are currently on target for in the first and hopefully only peak), if we did nothing and just didn't have a lockdown, please present the data?



Failing that, it's the same critique back again - you have no way of knowing for sure that more people will die from having the lockdown it's just an opinion.



Crucially, as I've said before, in my opinion, the number of  people who will die earlier than expected due to teh long term economic impact is not a fixed number, it's a number that will be determined by future actions after the lockdown is over by the UK government and the world's governments.  It perfectly possible scientifically to keep that number pretty low.  The issue is if we simply go back to allowing greed and paying less taxes to be the continual priority, and it will also lead to a future pandemic in a few decades from now - can we factor those deaths in as well if we are going to say that preparing for a pandemic isn't worth the bother?



And just to remind yet again, I am not claiming there WILL be 300,000 deaths, I am claiming that would be the case if people were encouraged to just ignore the virus in the pursuit of herd immunity.



Oh and I forgot, I also stand by my assertion that most of the people who are hospitalised with Covid-19 and survive, would die if they were refused a hospital bed.  I shouldn't even need any data to prove that - it costs hundreds of pounds a day to put someone in hospital.  Why would they take a Covid-19 patient into hospital if they felt that the person would recover at home?  More NHS incompetence putting people in hospital who don't need to be there?



This all completely leaves aside as well - how come the vast majority of country governments, scientists, medical people, and even many of the business people, support the lockdown?  Am I seriously expected to believe that all these people, from different cultures and countries all round the world, are all completely wrong?

[Scott777]

If literally nothing was done at all about the virus and it was never even mentioned on the news, this is what would have happened, or pretty close to it.

Do you have any data to support that?

[Scott777]

The other problem is the number of people who "recover" from Covid-19 who will have heart, kidney, or liver damage.

The recovery time can take many weeks.

Out of those who didn't already have any damaged organs, how many will be damaged by CV19?

[papasmurf]

Yes, but if you remember, at one point it was being suggested that we just let the virus rip through the whole population as quickly as possible to establish herd immunity.  I contend that even with the NHS, if we had done that there would have been hundreds of thousands of deaths.



My opinion is backed up by various scientific studies including the famous one by Imperial college London that attracted a lot of coverage at the time.

The NHS would have been overwhelmed within days and the the  death rate for just the over 70s is between 7.9% and 14%.

There are nearly 8 million over 70s in Britain, then there are those under 70 with known pre-existing conditions making them vulnerable.

Frankly the "let it rip" with no mitigation would have been mass murder, and the person who suggested it as a policy tried for it.

[Javert]

Quite, there is vast difference between the theoretical number of deaths. (Which if there were a 100% infection rate and no NHS would be in the millions,) and the actuarial death rate of people who end up in hospital with it, depending on age.

Yes, but if you remember, at one point it was being suggested that we just let the virus rip through the whole population as quickly as possible to establish herd immunity.  I contend that even with the NHS, if we had done that there would have been hundreds of thousands of deaths.



My opinion is backed up by various scientific studies including the famous one by Imperial college London that attracted a lot of coverage at the time.

[Javert]

Jesus wept, where are you getting this information from? So we are back to 250,000 dead now? At least it's better than 500,000 I suppose  :roll:  Where is a link or evidence that "135% of ICU beds are occupied"? How is it you are allowed to make statements like "people WILL die" if they don't get hospital treatment, yet other people are talking out if their arse if they don't agree? How do you f**king know they WILL die? Evidence? Where is it please. Here's a different view - no, it's not all critical care, but what has happened to the patients who might normally have been expected to be treated? Where have they gone?



https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-hospitals-have-four-times-more-empty-beds-than-normal/7027392.article">https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-ho ... 92.article">https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-hospitals-have-four-times-more-empty-beds-than-normal/7027392.article



Do you want links to articles that suggest  the Nightingale hospitals are virtually empty? What about the Private health care hospitals? Are they, along with all their equipment and expertise, being used to capacity? Or even at all? How much did it cost to requisition them in the first place? Is there any figure yet on what it's cost to "treat" a patient on a per person basis via those two avenues yet? Will we ever see that information? I very much fecking doubt it.



How do you know the death rate will go up to 8 to 10% if we run out of beds? Where did that come from? Where is the article or opinion piece that even suggests we might run out of beds? What about the thousands of empty beds the above article suggests are empty? What about the thousands of patients with other health issues who might now not be getting treatment or even not going to the doctor now because of Coronavirus? How many of them might die?



That post is nothing but a load of panic mongering shite, Javert. Opinion/commentary without anything to support it other than obsessive and irrational fear.

The post was based on calculations based on 100% of the population being infected and the death rate quoted.  If literally nothing was done at all about the virus and it was never even mentioned on the news, this is what would have happened, or pretty close to it.



The number of 135% was quoted in a news article (I think BBC from memory) about 10 days ago.



Do you have any data to support the idea that we are still below the "normal" ICU capacity?  We are above it and if you can find data saying we are below it I will pay you £100.



Yes the Nightingale hospitals are empty - with hindsight they are not needed.  Probably it was decided to set them up when they were trying to go for the herd immunity approach and now they can't back down.  Also as you keep pointing out, there is still a lot not known about the virus.  If things had got out of control, wouldn't somebody be asking, why didn't the army set up field hospitals in time?



I'm also willing to bet you that the decision to set up those hospitals was taken by government ministers and not by the NHS.



The lockdown has worked much better than expected.  I agree with you there.  What I am arguing against is those who appear to suggest that it would have been fine if we had done nothing.



However, the data coming in right now appears to imply (not sure) that the infection rate already went below one when the pre-lockdown advice was issued - i.e. when they said "don't go to the pub, don't go to restaurants", but they didn't actually force them to close.



That means they can probably partially release the lockdown.



I still stand by my calculations - if the virus had just been allowed to run rampant with Boris Johnson telling us that it's our solemn duty to "keep calm and carry on", there would have been hundreds of thousands of deaths.  I haven't even included in my calculation the people who would have died from other causes whilst hospitals are full.



It may well be that with hindsight, the nightingale hospitals weren't needed.



The reason we have so many hospital beds empty is very simple - all the other procedures and operations except for emergencies stand cancelled.  I also agree with you that this situation can't be allowed to continue much longer as thousands of people with cancer for example will die.



I think what you're missing is that my figures are based on what might well have happened IF we had done absolutely nothing, or even worse encouraged people to deliberately catch the virus in order to get herd immunity, which is what was being proposed at one time.



I am not saying this is going to happen now as we have taken measures to stop it.  



I ask again, what is your solution?  Refuse to use the NHS as it's so bad?  Re-open everything and re-instate the herd immunity approach.



I have no doubt that the lockdown will start to be slowly released in portions during the next 4-6 weeks.  However I would be very surprised if we are simply allowed to go back to normal any time in the next year.



So from your reponse, what are you actually saying.  Are you saying that if we had simply done nothing at all, everything would have turned out the same and the deaths would have been the same as they will be with all these measures in place?  If not what are you suggesting because you are saying a lot of things are wrong, but you haven't offered any alternatives?

[papasmurf]

Of course I am. Every morning I wake up and check to see that I am not dead and if I am I will blame Boris Johnson for not building hospitals out of solid gold.

The unpreparedness problem goes back a lot further than Boris Johnson.

The other problem is the number of people who "recover" from Covid-19 who will have heart, kidney, or liver damage.

The recovery time can take many weeks.

It is NOT just the "sniffles," the number of damaged with far outnumber the number of dead.

[Borchester]

You are still in denial and scared.

Of course I am. Every morning I wake up and check to see that I am not dead and if I am I will blame Boris Johnson for not building hospitals out of solid gold.

[papasmurf]

Out of 65 millions? Hardly worth getting out of bed for, although if you have Covid 19 you probably won't be able to anyway.  



The important thing is not to run around after a lot of oldies who are going to die anyway, but to get UK industry back on its feet. A small point, but if the rest of the world is in lockdown this might well be our chance to steal a march on Johnny Foreigner.

You are still in denial and scared. If it carries on at 6-8000 deaths a week above the normal death rate, that is going to be a lot of deaths.

Mind you that would mean (in theory,) far more deaths than births.

[Borchester]

I don't call 6-8000 a week carking it "ineffectual."

Out of 65 millions? Hardly worth getting out of bed for, although if you have Covid 19 you probably won't be able to anyway.  



The important thing is not to run around after a lot of oldies who are going to die anyway, but to get UK industry back on its feet. A small point, but if the rest of the world is in lockdown this might well be our chance to steal a march on Johnny Foreigner.

[papasmurf]

The problem seems to be not this rather ineffectual bug but the alarming outbreak of timidity among certain parts of the UK population which seems to enjoy being scared.

I don't call 6-8000 a week carking it "ineffectual."

[Borchester]

Let's put it another way - would you get on a cruise ship (capacity 3000 for example) if you were told that 10 people on the ship would not survive to get home, and 300 people on the ship will require hospital treatment followed by months of convalescence at home?  I wouldn't.

Funny you should say that.



When I was at sea two lads went over the wall and we reckon that on any trip longer than six months someone would die or be killed in some manner or another. Extrapolating that to the population at large would mean a mortality rate of around 800,000, but I don't recall anyone suggesting closing down the Merchant Navy.



The problem seems to be not this rather ineffectual bug but the alarming outbreak of timidity among certain parts of the UK population which seems to enjoy being scared.

[papasmurf]

That post is nothing but a load of panic mongering shite, Javert. Opinion/commentary without anything to support it other than obsessive and irrational fear.

Quite, there is vast difference between the theoretical number of deaths. (Which if there were a 100% infection rate and no NHS would be in the millions,) and the actuarial death rate of people who end up in hospital with it, depending on age.