COVID-19

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Locked
User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: COVID-19

Post by jimbob » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:02 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:49 pm
jimbob wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:44 pm

I have plotted the raw numbers and given you the source of my data.

Others have given Euromomo data.
But you're segueing back and forth between age-adjusted data, population-only or unadjusted data. If we look at age-adjusted data, we returned to 2009 norms with a spike above the 5 year trend that looks simillar to 1951 flu.

At best, you're making a weak argument about acute risk without addressing acute vs chronic comparisons or historic norms.

Eta I ask these questions because you don't seem to realise that's what you're doing.

It really doesn't matter because it was so bad that a simple look at the raw data shows it. Can you name another month with two weeks over 20,000 deaths in England and Wales? or indeed, any other single week.

Let alone in April.

Simplistic analyses show it.

Proper analyses show it.

As I am not an expert, I don't want to play around with complicated analyses where I might misunderstand the situation.

You are not an expert, and with all due respect, you seem less familiar with the data. So why do you think you can easily make corrections that take the Office of National Statistics months to perform?
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: COVID-19

Post by jimbob » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:07 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:02 pm
The other segue you keep making is going back to a comparison that only goes as far back as 2015, when I'm looking at age-adjusted data since 1990 or earlier.

Showing me a spike that's terrible compared to 2015-2019 when we know that 2010-2019 were lower than 2020, but 2020's mortality only represented a return to the mortality level of 2009 isn't really the comparison I'm trying to understand.

eta: the graph above drops age and population adjustment.
<sigh>

There is a reason why excess deaths tend to use five year averages.

You have actually touched on it in your posts.

but if you look at the raw numbers you do indeed see that the raw numbers do roughly correct for themselves as the growing population (pushing the numbers up) is countered by increasing life expectancy (pushing numbers down)

Image

And also once you get away from winter, where there is more variation, the numbers tend to be more stable.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by sheldrake » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:09 pm

jimbob wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:02 pm

It really doesn't matter because it was so bad that a simple look at the raw data shows it.

a) Population and age adjustment have a large effect

b) eyeballing these spikes doesn't let you compare chronic and acute risk (remember the insurance fallacy I raised earlier?)
Can you name another month with two weeks over 20,000 deaths in England and Wales? or indeed, any other single week.
This doesn't demonstrate anything vs point b) above, but I also cannot make the comparison because I don't have weekly data going back that far.
As I am not an expert, I don't want to play around with complicated analyses where I might misunderstand the situation.
I think comparing like with like would be a good start.
You are not an expert, and with all due respect, you seem less familiar with the data. So why do you think you can easily make corrections that take the Office of National Statistics months to perform?
I'm not making corrections, I'm presenting the ONS' age-adjusted data to show that mortality had only returned to 2009 levels. Chronic vs Acute risk is not something you can reason about with these types of graph (they always make acute risks look more serious than chronic risks because the spikes are visually dramatic, but that's not a good way to compare actual danger from different sources).

But you can look at the lifetime risks of various things and compare those. Somebody earlier was concerned that I was making a large assumption when I suggested the IFR was a good proxy for the lifetime risk of Covid to the unvaccinated, and they might have a fair point, but I'd like to dig further there.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: COVID-19

Post by bob sterman » Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:07 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:09 pm
But you can look at the lifetime risks of various things and compare those.
You might find this sort of comparison reassuring - but personally I'd rather not have the equivalent of the lifetime risk of something else nasty, compressed into a couple of weeks one spring.

The lifetime risk of dying from cancer might be something like 35% - but that doesn't make MERS any more attractive with a CFR of about 35%.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by sheldrake » Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:14 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:07 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:09 pm
But you can look at the lifetime risks of various things and compare those.
You might find this sort of comparison reassuring - but personally I'd rather not have the equivalent of the lifetime risk of something else nasty, compressed into a couple of weeks one spring.

The lifetime risk of dying from cancer might be something like 35% - but that doesn't make MERS any more attractive with a CFR of about 35%.
If (for the sake of argument) the risk from MERS dropped to practically zero after you survived it once, and the lifetime risk was therefor at most 35% (probably go down significantly once a vaccine available), would you agree that it's not really more dangerous than Cancer, it just feels like it is because the risk is expressed over a shorter window of time?

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: COVID-19

Post by bob sterman » Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:36 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:14 pm
bob sterman wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:07 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:09 pm
But you can look at the lifetime risks of various things and compare those.
You might find this sort of comparison reassuring - but personally I'd rather not have the equivalent of the lifetime risk of something else nasty, compressed into a couple of weeks one spring.

The lifetime risk of dying from cancer might be something like 35% - but that doesn't make MERS any more attractive with a CFR of about 35%.
If (for the sake of argument) the risk from MERS dropped to practically zero after you survived it once, and the lifetime risk was therefor at most 35% (probably go down significantly once a vaccine available), would you agree that it's not really more dangerous than Cancer, it just feels like it is because the risk is expressed over a shorter window of time?
And this quite nicely illustrates why we shouldn't use similarity between an IFR/CFR and lifetime risk of other nasty stuff to decide on whether public health interventions are worthwhile. The fact that 35% of the population are going to die of cancer eventually is pretty much irrelevant when deciding whether drastic action is required to stop MERS killing millions of people in the next 12 months.

Following your logic we wouldn't lock down for Ebola because the CFR isn't much different to the lifetime risk of dying from something else (100%).

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by sheldrake » Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:52 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:36 pm

And this quite nicely illustrates why we shouldn't use similarity between an IFR/CFR and lifetime risk of other nasty stuff to decide on whether public health interventions are worthwhile. The fact that 35% of the population are going to die of cancer eventually is pretty much irrelevant when deciding whether drastic action is required to stop MERS killing millions of people in the next 12 months.
I wouldn't say it shows that at all. The comparison we're doing in this thread is for something with an IFR in the 0.25-0.75% range. If you could spend 10 billion dollars to half the cancer deaths, or the same amount to halve the Covid deaths, which would you pick ?
Following your logic we wouldn't lock down for Ebola because the CFR isn't much different to the lifetime risk of dying from something else (100%).
No that's not where the logic leads. If we found Ebola in London I'd be 100% supportive of lockdown precisely because it's so dangerous. I'm concerned about open-ended restrictions of civil liberties to something comparable in risk to driving.

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by Millennie Al » Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:12 am

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:52 pm
I'm concerned about open-ended restrictions of civil liberties to something comparable in risk to driving.
What open-ended restrictions?

And let's look at the risk of driving. Well, actually the risk of dying in a road traffic accident in GB (so you might be a pedestrian, rather than driving). In 2020 it was 1472 deaths (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... sults-2020) but lets round that up to 2000. Life expectancy is up to 90 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... pectancies for girls born in 2018), so in a lifetime 180,000 people will die. The population is about 60 million, so that's one in 333, which is a fair bit lower than the risk from Covid, which is about 1%, unless immunity wears off, in which case it could be a lot higher.

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by Grumble » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:31 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑
I'm concerned about open-ended restrictions of civil liberties to something comparable in risk to driving.
Are the restrictions comparable to e.g. having to pass a driving test, wearing a seatbelt, buying insurance, and being responsible for the road worthiness of your vehicle? Or are they somewhat less restrictive?
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: COVID-19

Post by bob sterman » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:52 pm
... something comparable in risk to driving.
Sorry but this is just daft.

If I were to condense the lifetime risk of death from normal driving into a few days of particularly dangerous driving one spring - then I would take extra precautions at that time - e.g crash helmet, safety harness etc.

You don't hear rally car drivers saying - "hey we don't need all these safety precautions because the chances of me dying in this race are roughly similar to the lifetime risk of dying on the road doing regular driving (to the shops etc)."

Your focus on driving analogies suggests you've been reading a lot of John Ioannidis since he "jumped the shark" (sponsored by JetBlue)
Last edited by bob sterman on Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

PeteB
Clardic Fug
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:02 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by PeteB » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:52 pm
[I wouldn't say it shows that at all. The comparison we're doing in this thread is for something with an IFR in the 0.25-0.75% range.
Not in the UK viewtopic.php?f=19&t=747&p=99552#p99552

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by sheldrake » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:52 am

PeteB wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:52 pm
[I wouldn't say it shows that at all. The comparison we're doing in this thread is for something with an IFR in the 0.25-0.75% range.
Not in the UK viewtopic.php?f=19&t=747&p=99552#p99552
That's a single paper estimate, I'm quoting a range based on multiple papers. Here's one of many examples giving a different value https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/estimatin ... n-england/

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: COVID-19

Post by bob sterman » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:54 am

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:52 am
PeteB wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:52 pm
[I wouldn't say it shows that at all. The comparison we're doing in this thread is for something with an IFR in the 0.25-0.75% range.
Not in the UK viewtopic.php?f=19&t=747&p=99552#p99552
That's a single paper estimate, I'm quoting a range based on multiple papers. Here's one of many examples giving a different value https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/estimatin ... n-england/
Heneghan - say no more :lol:

Is he going to submit that for publication?

COVID has already killed more than 0.30% of the population of many cities - e.g. New York City. That's with lockdowns etc. So the IFR must be greater than 0.30%.
Last edited by bob sterman on Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by sheldrake » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:56 am

bob sterman wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am


Sorry but this is just daft.

If I were to condense the lifetime risk of death from normal driving into a few days of particularly dangerous driving one spring - then I would take extra precautions at that time - e.g crash helmet, safety harness etc.

You don't hear rally car drivers saying - "hey we don't need all these safety precautions because the chances of me dying in this race are roughly similar to the lifetime risk of dying on the road doing regular driving."

Your focus on driving analogies suggests you've been reading a lot of John Ioannidis since he "jumped the shark" (sponsored by JetBlue)
No, I've read a single paper from Ioannidis when he gave an early, super low estimate of IFR. I have not included his estimate in the range as it's obviously a low outlier.
You don't hear rally car drivers saying - "hey we don't need all these safety precautions because the chances of me dying in this race are roughly similar to the lifetime risk of dying on the road doing regular driving."
Rally drivers don't have the same risk from driving as an average member of the population, but the rest of your post suggests you're still seeing risks as greater if they're acute rather than chronic. I think this is a kind of psychological illusion that most of us suffer from (it's why so many of us buy types of insurance we don't need).

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: COVID-19

Post by bob sterman » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:59 am

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:56 am
Rally drivers don't have the same risk from driving as an average member of the population, but the rest of your post suggests you're still seeing risks as greater if they're acute rather than chronic. I think this is a kind of psychological illusion that most of us suffer from (it's why so many of us buy types of insurance we don't need).
And it's the same "illusion" that leads rally car drivers to wear a crash helmet and safety harness during a race - but not when they drive to Tescos with the kids every Sunday.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by sheldrake » Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:01 am

bob sterman wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:59 am

And it's the same "illusion" that leads rally car drivers to wear a crash helmet and safety harness during a race - but not when they drive to Tescos with the kids every Sunday.
No, that's not the case at all. When a driver enters a rally their risk actually (and significantly) changes. You're not making the right kind of comparisons here.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: COVID-19

Post by bob sterman » Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:05 am

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:01 am
bob sterman wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:59 am

And it's the same "illusion" that leads rally car drivers to wear a crash helmet and safety harness during a race - but not when they drive to Tescos with the kids every Sunday.
No, that's not the case at all. When a driver enters a rally their risk actually (and significantly) changes. You're not making the right kind of comparisons here.
And when SARS-CoV-2 is circulating widely in the community then an individual's risk of death actually (and significantly) changes. I'm not making the comparisons that you like and that confirm your views. That's different from not making the "right kind" of comparisons.

PeteB
Clardic Fug
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:02 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by PeteB » Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:11 am

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:52 am
PeteB wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:52 pm
[I wouldn't say it shows that at all. The comparison we're doing in this thread is for something with an IFR in the 0.25-0.75% range.
Not in the UK viewtopic.php?f=19&t=747&p=99552#p99552
That's a single paper estimate, I'm quoting a range based on multiple papers. Here's one of many examples giving a different value https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/estimatin ... n-england/
No - there are 3 papers I quoted

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by sheldrake » Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:36 am

bob sterman wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:05 am

And when SARS-CoV-2 is circulating widely in the community then an individual's risk of death actually (and significantly) changes. I'm not making the comparisons that you like and that confirm your views. That's different from not making the "right kind" of comparisons.
You're still missing the point. I'm comparing the risk from SARS-CoV-2 to other risks we live with.

Lets say your risk of death from Cancer is 35% and your risk of death from Covid is 0.25-0.75% (you can call it 1% if you really insist, it won't matter for this question). If you could cut your risk of cancer death in half, or your risk of Covid death in half, but not both, which would you take ?

User avatar
Troubled Joe
Sindis Poop
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am

Re: COVID-19

Post by Troubled Joe » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:24 am

That’s a bit apples and oranges isn’t it ? Firstly there isn’t one cancer any more than there is only one heart disease or only one “feeling a bit under the weather today’.

Cancer can also be caused or the possibility of having being exacerbated it by a huge variety of factors - including age. COVID 19 relates to one class of virus.
Tarantella

PeteB
Clardic Fug
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:02 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by PeteB » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:40 am

Some good analysis on the pandemic from the institute and faculty of actuaries including excess deaths etc
https://www.covid-arg.com/bulletins

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: COVID-19

Post by shpalman » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:42 am

There's a 100% lifetime chance of dying, but there are still things which can be done to not die "unnecessarily" soon.

ETA: driving is a good example, because you need a licence to do it and you need to be able to produce that when asked (or within a few days, if that law is still the same). And your number plate is being tracked to make sure the car is insured. And you might be stopped if you're not wearing a seatbelt or doing something dangerous like holding your phone to your face. These are things which mitigate the risks to some extent.
Last edited by shpalman on Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: COVID-19

Post by jimbob » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:44 am

I'm just about to report this post as soon as I have posted it, to ask for a split for the recent discussion about excess deaths and whether the NHS is under unusual pressure as these have been covered months ago for most of us so it makes sense to me to pit* them there.

*was a typo but seems apt, although I'd still recommend the Pandemic arena.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: COVID-19

Post by shpalman » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:52 am

jimbob wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:44 am
I'm just about to report this post as soon as I have posted it, to ask for a split for the recent discussion about excess deaths and whether the NHS is under unusual pressure as these have been covered months ago for most of us so it makes sense to me to pit* them there.

*was a typo but seems apt, although I'd still recommend the Pandemic arena.
But the NHS wasn't under the same pressure months ago.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

bagpuss
After Pie
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: COVID-19

Post by bagpuss » Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:01 am

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:36 am
bob sterman wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:05 am

And when SARS-CoV-2 is circulating widely in the community then an individual's risk of death actually (and significantly) changes. I'm not making the comparisons that you like and that confirm your views. That's different from not making the "right kind" of comparisons.
You're still missing the point. I'm comparing the risk from SARS-CoV-2 to other risks we live with.

Lets say your risk of death from Cancer is 35% and your risk of death from Covid is 0.25-0.75% (you can call it 1% if you really insist, it won't matter for this question). If you could cut your risk of cancer death in half, or your risk of Covid death in half, but not both, which would you take ?
I've been trying to work out whether you're comparing apples with apples here but can't actually find any statistics for the percentage of people diagnosed with cancer who then go on to die of it. Could you share your source for the 35% please? But if that number is correct, then you're still not making the right comparison.

What you should be comparing is a person's chance of dying of cancer vs Covid either over a lifetime or over a specific time period. As we can't possibly have any lifetime risk of death from Covid stats at this point, the best we can do is to look at deaths from each cause during 2020. That still doesn't give a true picture for 2 reasons - firstly we hardly had any cases of Covid in the first couple of months of the year and secondly these are the figures that happened after significant mitigating measures were taken to reduce Covid deaths - we don't know how much higher the number would have been without that, but it would definitely have been a lot.

Numbers obviously vary a lot by age but at a total population level, for 2020, 0.25% of people died of cancer while 0.116% of people died with Covid 19 identified and a further 0.006% died with Covid not identified (presumably died of Covid like disease but without having had a test)

So, with all the mitigation measures in place, with less than a full year of Covid infections, close to half the number of people died of Covid in 2020 as died of cancer. If lockdowns and other measures had not happened, we don't know what the Covid number would have looked like, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wouldn't have been higher.

So your 35% vs 0.25-0.75% comparison is clearly meaningless. Of course, if there was something that was that many times more likely to kill us in any given year (or lifetime) than Covid, then I'm pretty sure we would all be paying a lot more attention to it. But there isn't.

Locked