Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more

[teuchter]

When it comes to conversations and brutal realities it's struck me different countries tried differing approaches- China's zero covid, Sweden's relaxed policies, Australia's lock it out policy, and our wait then overreact policy but broadly speaking everyone ends up in the same position.

What do you mean by "same position"? Are you claiming all these countries have had a similar number of excess deaths between 2020 and now?

 

[elbows]

Well I found Australia data that allowed me to repeat the exercise I've recently done for England & Wales data. Unlike England & Wales where all sorts of vivid pandemic pictures leap out of even the most basic graphs when I compare all deaths by age over a number of pre-pandemic and pandemic years, I dont appear to be able to build the same sort of stories out of the Australian data at all.

I'll probably keep trying, but for now I'll have to rely on more sophisticated analysis by others. For example:

newsGP - Why are more people dying in Australia? Many questions remain

While it is clear that COVID-19 is increasing the mortality rate, its lingering impact may be far greater than is presently understood.

www1.racgp.org.au

The Actuaries Institute analysis estimates that a little more than half the excess deaths until the end of May were due to COVID-19 – with an estimated 4200 people dying ‘from’ the disease – making it likely to be the third largest cause of death in Australia this year. Leaving aside an estimated 1280 people who died ‘with’ COVID, that leaves 3700 other deaths where the background increase is not clear.

While much remains unknown, there is detail on which diseases seem to have shifted.

According to the institute, deaths from respiratory disease are down this year (around 7%), with cancer mortality sticking close to the expected rate, while deaths from heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes and dementia are all higher.

Other ‘unspecified’ diseases also feature highly, accounting for around 11% of the excess – a trend the institute says has been apparent since April 2021. According to the report ‘history suggests non-ischaemic heart diseases probably make up around 25% of deaths from other unspecified causes’.

But the question remains: why have there been more deaths in these areas this year? For Ms Cutter, previous mortality figure anomalies have been much simpler to unpick.

‘In 2020, there was a lot lower mortality than expected, because we didn’t have flu circulating in the community,’ she told newsGP. ‘I don’t think there’s any kind of mystery about what was happening, then.

‘It’s really [about] trying to get to the bottom of this most recent six months.’

The most likely cause for non-COVID-19 excess deaths, the Actuaries Institute suggests, is ‘post-COVID-19 sequelae or interactions with other causes of death’ that may be having a ‘high’ impact in Australia.

‘Studies have shown that COVID-19 is associated with higher subsequent mortality risk from heart disease and other causes,’ its analysis states.

‘However, we understand that medical science has not yet established a causative link that would allow, say, a heart attack several months after a COVID-19 infection to be attributed back to COVID-19.

‘As such, it seems likely that there would be more of these deaths than identified.’

Delayed deaths from other causes could be having a ‘moderate’ effect on the numbers, the institute suggests, with health system pressures leading to people avoiding help or not getting timely care likely to be having ‘low-to-moderate’ impact.

Delays in routine care, including for diagnostic testing for non-COVID-19 causes and elective surgery, are also categorised the same way.

‘While [delays leading to later mortality] … does not yet appear to be occurring for cancer deaths, it may be a factor in higher deaths from other causes, such as ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and the large “other” category,’ the report states.

 

[elbows]

Also in terms of deaths in 2020 in Australia, see this sort of article from the same site:

newsGP - Australian death rate in 2020 lowest on record: AIHW

All-cause mortality rates declined by 7.7% from 2019, but there was one PHN where 67% of deaths were still considered ‘premature’.

www1.racgp.org.au

According to the AIHW, age-standardised mortality rates for all causes combined reached their lowest recorded level in 2020 of 487.7 deaths per 100,000 people, down from 528.4 in 2019.

The 40.7 fewer deaths per 100,000 people is the biggest drop since 1988 (54.4) while the 8001 fewer deaths in 2020 compared to the previous year is the largest annual decrease since they dropped by 9641 in 1920.

My crude analysis of deaths didnt even manage to capture that drop properly either. Im not enturely sure why. By contrast, the same sort of by age analysis of raw number of deaths in England and Wales did even show up some 'good news' stories such as how we ended up with less deaths in the 1-14 age groups in the years 2020 and 2021 than seen in previous years!

 

[elbows]

Another article on that site mentions Singapores excess deaths analysis:

The research puts the number of excess deaths from the beginning of 2020 to June 2022 as 2490 – taking into account the ageing of the population – with an official COVID-19 death toll of 1403.

Authors suggest the gap between the figures is due to the impact on those with underlying illnesses, saying further research indicated no variation to expected patterns among those not recently infected.

‘The remainder can be explained by patients who passed away from other illnesses within 90 days after being infected with COVID-19,’ the report reads.

‘In other words, COVID-19 aggravated existing illnesses, resulting in further mortalities.

‘In a secondary analysis of persons without recent infection, no additional excess deaths were found.’

newsGP - All excess deaths in Singapore linked to recent COVID infection: Study

A new report from the country’s Ministry of Health attributes the increased death rate to COVID-19’s aggravation of existing illnesses.

www1.racgp.org.au

I havent read the report for myself yet but its at https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librari...ality-during-the-covid-pandemic-18sep2022.pdf

 

[elbows]

Also factor in studies like this one:

Among adults who get COVID-19, one in three fails to return to pre-infection health levels even months later, a new Israeli study suggests.

After recovery, “about 34.6 percent of participants reported not returning to their baseline health condition,” states a peer-reviewed study by researchers from Maccabi Healthcare Services, one of the country’s four health funds, based on surveys by 699 patients conducted between one and six months after recovery. On average, respondents were five months after recovery.

The study, led by Maccabi’s head of research and innovation Dr. Tal Palaton, highlighted the prevalence of symptoms including memory disturbances and muscle pain, and warned of the public health consequences of long COVID. Policymakers “should expect a significant impact of this syndrome on public health,” it said.

Israeli long COVID study: 1 in 3 people fail to regain regular health months later

Spotlighting the 'immense and evolving’ impact of COVID on human health, large study by health fund points to prevalence of symptoms including memory disturbances and muscle pain

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[elbows]

I skimmed the Singapore report. Theres also a figure in there that may help people to understand the benefits of vaccination, while still making it clear that many of the covid deaths will be in people who were vaccinated:

There was an over-representation of persons who were not fully vaccinated, with 28% of COVID-19 deaths occurring in persons who were not fully vaccinated in the first half of 2022, even though only about 5% of the eligible population were not fully vaccinated in mid-March 2022.

 

[elbows]

Since I kept going on about it in recent posts, here is a small preview of my very crude analysis of deaths. England and Wales provisional weekly deaths from all causes, by age group. I've done two graphs for each age group, one comparing the three pandemic years, and one comparing 2022 to the years 2010-2019.

I'll post the full set on another thread at some point but here is the 45-64 age group as a taster. I picked this age group deliberately so people dont get too carried away with thoughts about how its only the extremely old who are being affected at all stages of the pandemic so far, although some of whats seen is obviously even more dramatic in the age groups above this one. Figures are for deaths by week they are officially recorded so there are spikes and troughs due to bank holidays, end of year Christmas season etc.

 

[elbows]

I was reading a Washington Post article about increased risks of strokes, heart attacks etc in the period after covid, and it happened to mention that apparently there is an extreme, scaremongering version of one of the points I've been toying with about China on this thread:

Welcome to nginx!

Even something as neutral as heart disease risk is politicized when it intersects with the pandemic. “You can’t imagine the attacks I got,” said Jabbour, after he appeared on CNN in 2020 discussing his early observations and study results. That polarization has only deepened — with some people refusing to believe that Covid can have lasting effects, and others posting scare stories that the continued harsh lockdowns in China are part of a plan to triumph over the West as widespread long Covid collapses our work force.

The reality is some people have been devastated by Covid, even as most fully recover. It takes time, good studies and a lot of cases to get an understanding of the after-effects of infection, and that information is coming from countries that have seen the most cases. The take-home message is that even if you feel fine, past Covid infection is a cardiovascular risk factor, a little like elevated cholesterol. It’s not a reason to despair, but it’s a very good reason to be vigilant.

Until I read that I wasnt aware that others had taken that sort of idea and ran with it to extremes. I suppose I ought to look for examples of that sort of 'China triumphs over the West' fear being stoked, so that I can make sure I do better than that and dont go too far myself, but I havent been able to face looking yet, and Im not sure where to start really. Any ideas?

 

[Thesaint]

I was reading a Washington Post article about increased risks of strokes, heart attacks etc in the period after covid, and it happened to mention that apparently there is an extreme, scaremongering version of one of the points I've been toying with about China on this thread:

Welcome to nginx!

Until I read that I wasnt aware that others had taken that sort of idea and ran with it to extremes. I suppose I ought to look for examples of that sort of 'China triumphs over the West' fear being stoked, so that I can make sure I do better than that and dont go too far myself, but I havent been able to face looking yet, and Im not sure where to start really. Any ideas?

I'm not convinced China's response is a devious plan to undermine the west though - More likely old fashioned face saving.

Anyway, wasn't there an Israeli study done on known people known to have covid vs escaped it, comparing heart related side effects? Publisbed probably around spring time this year I think but it was looking at 2020 stats so vaccines wouldn't confuse the issue and concluded there was no difference in what heart issues they looked for between recovered and uninfected people. It seemed from that long term heart issues didn't have a covid origin.

 

[elbows]

There have been multiple Israeli studies. But one of them was used to promote anti-vaccine messages and tends to dominate the search results unless I am careful.

Any single study may have flaws or limitations, so any consensus view that emerges is going to be based on multiple studies.

Here are some examples of studies being discussed that found heart issues:

Heart-disease risk soars after COVID — even with a mild case (probably relates to this study: Covid-19: Even mild infections can cause long term heart problems, large study finds )

How does Covid-19 affect your heart?

We explain how coronavirus progresses in the body, including how it can affect your heart and circulatory system.

www.bhf.org.uk

Heart Problems after COVID-19

Chest pain, shortness of breath and palpitations can persist after COVID-19. Are they heart related? A cardiologist provides perspective.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

This one might be good since it acknowledges concerns for the future but also gaps in existing knowledge, studies that arent showing such a high frequency of cases, some of the possible limitations of the studies that found a large problem, etc:

Heart disease after COVID: what the data say

Some studies suggest that the risk of cardiovascular problems, such as a heart attack or stroke, remains high even many months after a SARS-CoV-2 infection clears up. Researchers are starting to pin down the frequency of these issues and what is causing the damage.

www.nature.com

It’s going to require more time and sadly it’s not surprising that really clear answers often dont emerge easily. Probably best to assume that there is a real issue here, but we dont know its true scale or the extent that it will end up impacting obviously on groups who are younger and generally considered to be more healthy. This means it might not end up being a big enough issue that normal people will notice it via anecdotes relating to younger people they know, and will instead be one of those factors that blends into the general impression that overall human population health is affected by the ongoing presence of this virus, having an impact on overall life expectancy statistics and the sort of excess death figures we were talking about recently on this thread.

And certainly this heart stuff along with other issues such as strokes and the longer term impact of long covid stuff should be viewed in a similar balanced way - eg it doesnt completely destroy the workforce in the manner we might imagine would be presented in dramatic movie fiction. But it could still impact on the workforce details in a way that has a notable effect over a longer period of time. There has after all been some impact already, and as we know from other aspects of the pandemic, a small percentage of a large number can still be notable in its impact.

So at this stage I would use this impression to throw away the silly comic book version of Chinas ‘cunning plan’, not to support it. And I still haven’t gone looking for what sort of extreme stuff some people have been spouting along those lines. But perhaps a far more nuanced version of that angle may have a little merit to it, I would suggest it’s still a bit early to say. Which also means it’s too early to judge whether the picture the Australian doctor painted is reasonable or over the top In certain respects. Likewise my own attitude at this stage of the pandemic, which I’ve always acknowledged is bound to be guided by certain versions of erring on the side of caution.

 

[elbows]

And if stuff like heart issues can seem contentious, thats nothing compared to t-cell stuff and the pronouncements of Leonardi.

What If COVID Reinfections Wear Down Our Immunity? | The Tyee

Dr. Anthony Leonardi is a lightning rod for debate. If he’s right, this pandemic poses a greater threat than widely assumed.

thetyee.ca

It isnt so easy to advise people appropriately on how to view such things. I dont think its wise to completely ignore such angles, but its also not a good idea to become a 'true believer' and buy wholeheartedly into the very worst predictions. And to err on the side of caution in such matters means taking a very different approach to the pandemic than the one thats already been taken. Ultimately it may not even be a question of whether these phenomenon are true, more like what the scale of the implications ends up being. If I try to take a moderate view and hedge my bets, this sort of stuff still ends up feeding into the idea that the public health picture has been changed by this virus, with all sorts of implications, but its difficult to guess the appropriate weight of those implications. And so its also hard to judge whether Chinas approach, even if guided by things like saving face and political considerations, will end up being seen to have come with some bonus results that count for something when the dust settles.

The Leonardi stuff gives me a headache because I dont like quacks or too much certainty to be expressed. But Im also of the mistakes the orthodox consensus experts have made earlier in this pandemic. And that loud orthodox failure was, back in the era when I talked about it most, very biased in favour of believing things that were most convenient for society and the economy to believe - eg the role of asymptomatic infections and airborne transmission, both of which should have been seen as plausible even to a layperson, were denied at a crucial moment, because they had implications for how far we needed to go to protect ourselves, how much we would have to stop normal life and normal economic activity. So it does not seem sensible to assume that this sort of bias has gone away given that the stakes are high, with the prize of enabling the 'return to normal' agenda to have dominated in the current phase? That above article spends a long time looking at the more dramatic, soap-opera side of this particular controversy, and overall I'd say its rather biased towards telling a story that Leonardi was right all along. The real action is to be found in all the proper research on this topic, and although that article does start to dwell on other peoples research later in the article, I can only use this as a starting point, not as a fair review of what all those studies said.

 

[elbows]

I havent had much time this year or indeed last year to look at how the pandemic is reported on in different countries. I need to do more of that so I had a look at this short tv piece from Australia. Despite the headline the short video covers a few other topics too. Note that I believe that what they call RAT is what we call lateral flow tests.

Research finds long COVID has rapidly ageing effect on body

Dr Norman Swan has warned people need to avoid getting another COVID-19 infection after new research found long COVID can have an ageing effect on the body.

www.abc.net.au

 

[2hats]

Rapid Antigen Test, also known as a Lateral Flow Test.

They are doubtless referring to a growing range of findings increasingly pointing to significant vascular associated disease burden for any SARS-CoV-2 infection, even after asymptomatic episodes.

Accelerated biological aging in COVID-19 patients - Nature Communications

Age is a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. Here the authors perform DNA methylation analyses in whole blood from COVID-19 patients using established epigenetic clocks and telomere length estimators, and describing correlations between epigenetic aging and the risk of...

www.nature.com

Long-term neurological sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection - Nature Medicine

We show that patients who survive the first 30 days of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection have an increased risk of various post-acute neurological disorders after 1 year compared with uninfected contemporaries. The burden of these sequelae (aspects of ‘long COVID’) has serious implications for patients...

www.nature.com

Large UK Biobank study finds COVID-19 infection is linked to subsequent poor cardiovascular health

Researchers from Queen Mary University of London find that people requiring hospital admission due to COVID-19 have a high risk of subsequent cardiovascular problems.

www.qmul.ac.uk

DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321492.

COVID and the Heart: It Spares No One | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

New evidence suggests anyone infected with COVID is at higher risk for heart issues—a risk that persists even in relatively healthy people long after the illness has passed.

publichealth.jhu.edu

DOI:10.1038/s41591-022-01689-3.

Long COVID: long-term health outcomes and implications for policy and research - Nature Reviews Nephrology

Long COVID, which refers to post-acute and chronic sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, can affect nearly every organ system and all demographic groups. The high and growing toll of long COVID calls for an urgent need to understand how to prevent and treat it. Governments and health systems must...

www.nature.com

 

[2hats]

On a global approach to end the COVID-19 public health threat:

Cross-cutting themes for action to end COVID-19 as a public health threat

SARS-CoV-2 still moves among us - despite some governments moving on - requiring continued efforts and resources to save lives. Reservoirs exist from which variants of concern may yet emerge; possible endemicity does not necessarily mean lower disease severity. Broad-based funding to develop long-lasting immunogenic vaccines must proceed concurrent with other prevention measures. The long-term impact of infection must be assessed, as long COVID has emerged as a chronic condition.

Vaccines are an effective tool against COVID-19 but will not alone end COVID-19 as a public health threat. Vaccination as a sole pandemic response strategy has limitations due to immune escape, waning immunity, inequitable access, vaccine hesitancy and the absence of immunization strategies. A multifaceted public health vaccines-plus approach is needed, including testing, surveillance, treatment, community engagement and implementation of social prevention measures (such as facemasks, distancing and quarantine), structural interventions (such as ventilation and air filtration) and financial incentives (for example, support measures).

Multisectoral collaboration that centres on communities and fosters trust is needed. Ending COVID-19 as a public health threat requires whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches engaging trusted community leaders and organizations, scientific experts, businesses, and other disciplines and sectors. This expanded pool of collaborators can best address diverse needs regarding modes of access, communication, innovation and trust among different populations.

Responsive health systems are crucial for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and require coordinated government support. The persistent demand on health systems requires protecting the physical and mental wellbeing of healthcare workers; reducing economic barriers for equipment and treatment, including addressing supply-chain factors; strengthening primary care; and adopting a comprehensive, intersectoral, multilevel approach to preparedness and response activities.

Adverse forces challenge efforts to end the COVID-19 public health threat. Counteract sovereign state actors who are openly antagonistic toward science and public health and other entities with vested interests that disseminate false information. Public health authorities should build trust in evidence-based communications and partner with those monitoring and holding accountable disseminators of false information.

None of us is safe until everyone is safe. Pandemic inequities must end. This includes taking into account pre-existing social determinants of health, addressing access to affordable vaccines, tests, other supplies and treatment, and paying special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups (such as older and immunocompromized individuals, children and healthcare workers).

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat - Nature

A diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries provides health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

www.nature.com

 

[elbows]

Yes I stuck that study in the nerdy detail thread a little earlier today.

I wont be surprised if history ultimately judges that it was a rather large error indeed to 'let our guards down' to this extent before the availability of a vaccine that could do far more to prevent infection and transmission (and other treatments and preventatives).

 

[elbows]

Plus as usual this is not really a picture that required a huge amount of hindsight, some of the signs and logic to it have been there since early on. But the number of people prepared to complain loudly about the chosen establishment approach has diminished a lot compared to the reaction people had to the pandemic in the first few waves. And that change was visible here nearly a year ago now, and just look at how few people engage with this covid forum these days. 'lockdown fatigue and a desire for normalcy' is an understandable thing, but its still not very impressive.

From the industrial revolution to the heavy promotion of the 'learning to live with covid' agenda, Great Blighton strikes again.

 

[elbows]

Gotta 'love' the choice of headline on this one:

Scientists made mini brains and infected them with coronavirus. What they saw could explain Long COVID

An “excessive number” of synapses were eliminated during the course of the disease, “more than you would expect to see in a normal brain,” the authors wrote.

fortune.com

 

[Thesaint]

Plus as usual this is not really a picture that required a huge amount of hindsight, some of the signs and logic to it have been there since early on. But the number of people prepared to complain loudly about the chosen establishment approach has diminished a lot compared to the reaction people had to the pandemic in the first few waves. And that change was visible here nearly a year ago now, and just look at how few people engage with this covid forum these days. 'lockdown fatigue and a desire for normalcy' is an understandable thing, but its still not very impressive.

From the industrial revolution to the heavy promotion of the 'learning to live with covid' agenda, Great Blighton strikes again.

Ah the benefit of hindsight.
Yes the world's has moved on from covid in part because it simply isn't scary or dramatic anymore and other things are more pressing from the media, government's or people's perspective.

I think though the issue will return to the fore one day a bit more but not because of some quirkily named subvariant but in the form of inquiries both official and unofficial in the aftermath which excess deaths might eventually get studied. This process won't be fast if Hillsborough is anything to go by.

Many of those who were critical the govs response may find these with hind-sight inquiries uncomfortable though so shouting about it doesn't look so wise now. The recession were are likely to go through is a post-lockdown recession and the impacts of that will be felt hard.

 

[two sheds]

You didn't answer my question (asked twice now): Did you initially support herd immunity and if so do you feel vindicated now?

 

[elbows]

Well the public inquiry is going to explore the modelling and the downsides of lockdown. However they wont really be able to 'prove' that there was an overreaction, al the fundamentals still point to large numbers of additional lives being saved if we had locked down a week or two earlier, and a vast quantity of death if we hadnt locked down at all. There are plenty of shitheads who dont want to believe that, and will indulge in pathetic revisionist history now. But no matter what spin they put on things, governments would still be forced to do the same sort of stuff if they face the same situation in future, such are the fundamentals of exponential growth of a disease that has high rates of hospital admission and death. Staggering numbers of older people were incredibly vulnerable to the virus in the pre-vaccine era and thanks to the efforts of people who recognised the risks and did the right thing, huge numbers of those people were kept away from the virus until we were well into the vaccine era.

As for recessions, there are many factors including a bunch that are nothing to do with the pandemic and our response to it, and some that are related to the pandemic. Only people with a particular agenda will choose to blame a single cause for the recession, only those with an axe to grind about lockdowns will seek to make the recession all about lockdown. Besides, even if this country had decided to ignore the virus and carry on without strong measures, we would not have escaped economic woe. Death isnt good for economic growth. And without a formal lockdown huge numbers of people would still have taken matters into their own hands and ceased normal economic activity during the first waves. And other countries would still have acted strongly, affecting supply chains etc. Plus as each year passes we will find out more about what long covid has done to the labour market. And if action here had been weak all the way along, we'd have seen plenty more of the phenomenon of people getting pissed off with the extent to which their employers placed them in harms way, inspiring them to seek alternative employment or become economically inactive.

 

[Thesaint]

Well the public inquiry is going to explore the modelling and the downsides of lockdown. However they wont really be able to 'prove' that there was an overreaction, al the fundamentals still point to large numbers of additional lives being saved if we had locked down a week or two earlier, and a vast quantity of death if we hadnt locked down at all. There are plenty of shitheads who dont want to believe that, and will indulge in pathetic revisionist history now. But no matter what spin they put on things, governments would still be forced to do the same sort of stuff if they face the same situation in future, such are the fundamentals of exponential growth of a disease that has high rates of hospital admission and death. Staggering numbers of older people were incredibly vulnerable to the virus in the pre-vaccine era and thanks to the efforts of people who recognised the risks and did the right thing, huge numbers of those people were kept away from the virus until we were well into the vaccine era.

As for recessions, there are many factors including a bunch that are nothing to do with the pandemic and our response to it, and some that are related to the pandemic. Only people with a particular agenda will choose to blame a single cause for the recession, only those with an axe to grind about lockdowns will seek to make the recession all about lockdown. Besides, even if this country had decided to ignore the virus and carry on without strong measures, we would not have escaped economic woe. Death isnt good for economic growth. And without a formal lockdown huge numbers of people would still have taken matters into their own hands and ceased normal economic activity during the first waves. And other countries would still have acted strongly, affecting supply chains etc. Plus as each year passes we will find out more about what long covid has done to the labour market. And if action here had been weak all the way along, we'd have seen plenty more of the phenomenon of people getting pissed off with the extent to which their employers placed them in harms way, inspiring them to seek alternative employment or become economically inactive.

Recessions are cyclical but the cost of furlough, business loans, and subsidies and the cost of track and trace will have caused a recession on their own. As you say there are other external factors like energy price spikes, which combine to make it worse.

I can't remember exactly what the (first) inquiry will look at but there is a lot of issues to consider and some only maybe become apparent afterwards. Consider the rumoured £37bn spend on track and trace...was it worth that colossal amount given it's results, and that money would have been better spent now on limiting excess deaths? These questions need objectively examining for inevitable next time but I know inquiries are fast but it's still going to be too soon for some I feel.

There will be some revisionist behaviour with people backtracking over things they said or claimed as it things become more apparent. Some will quietly slope away, others dig in even harder and a few accept it. Piers Morgan despite his reputation has at least acknowledged he said and tweeted things he was rash to have done to his credit. Didn't think I would ever write that

Impact on the labour market is like recessions where you can't always point at one thing. A lot of people attitude to working and commuting has changed since 2020 and can't all be blamed on employers H&S approach to covid.

 

[elbows]

The things you mention cause government debty, they dont cause recessions on their own. It was inevitable that the economy would shrink during the lockdowns, but a large chunk of the entire point of propping things up during those times via furlough etc was to make sure that much of that damage was temporary and that things bounced back afterwards. Which was broadly what happened.

Test & trace was botched in many ways, and what it could have achieved even if working as well as possible was overstated. For example some people suggested you could use it instead of lockdowns, but I kept saying that one of the purposes of having a large testing system is actually to provide data that better informs authorities about when the right time to lockdown is. But when thats coupled with authorities that seek to delay lockdowns for as long as possible, only paying lip-service to the test & trace data until the hospital data demonstrates that the lockdown can be delayed no longer, then that advantage is squandered.

Its not appropriate to talk about the billions as if the money involved was simply burnt. A chunk of them was skimmed off as disgusting profiteering for the benefit of a few, but large amounts of money from such programmes still went on normal peoples wages to run the systems, and that money gets recycled into the economy as normal.

As for spending money on reducing excess deaths, thats a complex picture too. Certainly I would not have cut back health spending at the earliest opportunity like our government has often done. Spending a lot on those things for years to come would help, as would actually fixing the ambulance service, A&E and the broken social care system which is causing much of the bed blocking that then clogs up those other parts of the system. But the other problem with the excess death conversation involves going round in circles with this discussion like we have in the past, because the excess deaths arent just down to NHS backlogs and system pressures and whatever some people want to attribute to the impact of lockdowns past, some portion of them are caused by ongoing covid infections, and infections people have suffered in the past. And unpicking that isnt trivial, with people having different sorts of deaths they'd rather focus on to serve their particular stance. In any case, whatever the true impact of ongoing infections, long covid and other related longer term health implications are, finding a way to minimise the ongoing health impact of covid is certainly a part of the picture. And we'll achieve nothing on those front by focussing on the crap arguments of those with an axe to grind about how they believe we overreacted towards covid in the past. So dont talk to me about reducing excess deaths unless you've got something useful to suggest in regards how we live with covid now and in the future.

 

[Thesaint]

dont talk to me about reducing excess deaths unless you've got something useful to suggest in regards how we live with covid now and in the future.

The governments finances will ultimately effect for how future healthcare is paid for.

You are one of the few that take a the time to look at all these things despite everyone losing interest, and while we might disagree on things and our viewpoints, everyone agreeing on things in a group think is even worse - but want to shut another poster down asap.

The next stage of covid will involve a lot of brutal reflection of what worked and what didn't and that is going to be tough so best wishes with the next stage.

 

[elbows]

There are no strong indicators of a brutal period of reflection. The economic circumstances this country faces are not being primarily labelled as a pandemic issue, because a lot of the framing has involved Ukraine & energy prices, and the doomed Truss budget. There is room to include the pandemic and indeed Brexit in the true mix, but the extent to which this will actually happen is far from clear. The only people who are currently confident that the pandemic will get its 'fair share' of the blame for inflation etc are people who have a lockdown axe to grind.

The public inquiry will drag things along at slow pace, and its not clear exactly how much attention it will receive, which partly depends on what evidence the press considers to be dramatic and worthy of headlines. They inquiry team have already made it clear that both 'sides' will be focussed on during the module that will look at early decision making, including the modelling and the political decisions by Johnson etc. Probably both sides will find stuff comes up that they can use to support their existing beliefs on that stuff.

Complaints about groupthink are understandable but are often just a distraction by people with shit views who wont actually answer specific questions about those views that others ask of them. And the complaint is usually really a complaint that people dont accept their stance, that your stance doesnt get to be the chosen one of the group, and that others want to pick at your details. My own stance has definite limits in terms of how much others on this forum choose to go along with it, there are many nuances, some of which are inevitably lost during periods where I come out with all guns blazing. And I certainly dont deny that people pay less attention these days, since the imminent risk picture changed due to the changed immunity picture. So be it. People that always disliked lockdowns etc are bound to think that the common consensus might start to shift, that there is more room for revisionist history now that people are suffering the longer term burdens of various things. But I think they are mistaken about the extent to which all these details have enabled the majority to have a change of heart about how we responded to the pandemic, not least because of the number of people who lost loved ones or otherwise have consistently understood the extent to which blame should be directed at the virus and our inadequate response to it. There have always been people who sought to downplay the number of deaths, but the extent to which others will adopt their view with the benefit of hindsight is likely far more limited than they seem to think.

 

[elbows]

Meanwhile I see that in China things reached the stage where the backlash against ongoing heavy restrictions has more opportunities to make itself felt. And the regime has started to tweak the rules, offering a glimpse at how they might gradually change their approach whilst still attempting to 'save face'. Issues of how the covid threat is judged there, and of control of information, and poor information quality, has gotten all mixed in with uneasiness about any change in approach, leading to understandable but somewhat absurd rumours that are causing issues.

So some situations have been documented where rumours start spreading about their authorities letting a large group of people get infected 'as an experiment' and people onbviously dont react well to being confronted with such fears and try to run away from that perceived plight. This has been mentioned in articles such as these recent BBC ones:

China Covid: Beijing eases some curbs despite rising cases

Mandatory quarantine is slightly reduced as public resentment bubbles away over the strict rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

China Covid: Panic and fear drove iPhone factory breakout

Workers at the plant in Zhengzhou, China, thought they were going to be part of a huge Covid experiment.

www.bbc.co.uk

eg:

Take a 21-year-old Foxconn worker who had been hearing the rumours for a while. The more the stories and speculation continued, the more extreme they were becoming.

It didn't help that her immediate bosses at Foxconn were saying that there were no Covid infections in the factory while the company was telling the media that there were no "symptomatic" infections. And yet there were plenty of known examples of staff who had tested positive.

Hundreds of thousands of staff had been ordered not to leave this huge industrial complex. After workers were confined to only the worker dormitories and other parts of the factory, the rumour mill stepped up another gear.

This young factory worker heard that the army was going to come in and take control so as to enforce a type of giant "living with Covid" experiment which involved allowing everyone in that part of Zhengzhou city to get sick.

According to these rumours, the plan was to see how many of them would die. Then, if the carnage wasn't too bad, this would provide a guide as to whether the rest of China could open up or not.

Sentiments were spreading on their chat groups like: "Foxconn is going to take my life."

I suppose in some ways this is another angle on the extremes which I've mentioned on this thread in recent weeks. A giddy mix of stuff that doesnt include enough appreciation of the most sensible ways to judge covid risk, a risk picture that varies per person based on things like their age, health conditions and vaccination status.

Our own countries extremes in the other direction can still be glimpsed at times via the nature of the reporting. For example the article doesnt dwell on the detail of how to really build a true risk picture. Consider this part of the 2nd article:

A key problem has been widespread ignorance about the nature of the illness. In much of China, people are as terrified of catching the virus as if it were cancer.

The Chinese government has done little to alter these misunderstandings and, in fact, has often made them worse.

The narrative from those in charge here has been that elsewhere, Covid has been cutting a swathe through the population, but Chinese people should consider themselves lucky because they have the Communist Party to protect them with the zero-Covid approach.

It is true that this strategy has stopped the country's hospitals from being swamped and it is true that Covid has resulted in a tragic loss of lives.

However, it is also true that - for the vast majority of infected people who have been vaccinated - catching the virus means a few days sick at home and nothing more.

This last point is something that many in China are completely unaware of.

Of course it is fair to point out the misleading picture the authorities there have encouraged. And vaccines as a way of reducing risk and changing the equations are mentioned. But instead of going further into detail about how age and health conditions further influence risk, instead of acknowledging the unknowns about long covid and other longer term health consequences, continued excess deaths etc in our own country, the article relies on the phrase 'vast majority' to do the heavy lifting. Heavy lifting by relying on the concept of the vast majority in order to remove all the nuances of the subject, to remove true sense of scale, to remove any proper discussion of what the most appropriate balance might be, to firmly bake in our own extreme opposite of Chinas extreme.

 

[elbows]

There are no strong indicators of a brutal period of reflection. The economic circumstances this country faces are not being primarily labelled as a pandemic issue, because a lot of the framing has involved Ukraine & energy prices, and the doomed Truss budget. There is room to include the pandemic and indeed Brexit in the true mix, but the extent to which this will actually happen is far from clear. The only people who are currently confident that the pandemic will get its 'fair share' of the blame for inflation etc are people who have a lockdown axe to grind.

I have now briefly tested whether this theory is holding up, by having a look on twitter to see who has this afternoon been loudly blaming lockdown for todays budget.

No surprise to see it was all the usual suspects who have been consistently horrific during this pandemic:

Toby Young, Richard Tice, Dan Wootton, Darren Grimes, to name some of the most obvious ones who have been at it again today.

edit - and just to be clear, the budget statement itself mentions a whole bunch of ways in which the pandemic contributed to inflation, and also labour shortages. But unlike the shitheads, it doesnt wrap all that into the idea that it was the fault of a lockdown that could have been avoided. The dodgy logic of those who make that bogus claim has not won the majority over in the past, and I have no reason to anticipate it will do so in future. And so there is no great reckoning to come except in the imagination of those who continue to spout drivel about lockdowns.

All the same it does remind me that my choice of language in that previous post was imperfect. I said "The only people who are currently confident that the pandemic will get its 'fair share' of the blame for inflation etc are people who have a lockdown axe to grind.". I shouldnt have said 'the pandemic' because many people understand the role the virus played in our current situation. But there wont be some fantasy 'hell to pay' reckoning about this because people understand what we could and could not have avoided doing in order to fight the virus, so they arent going to lose their shit and conclude that entirely avoidable lockdowns made a big economic mess that we could otherwise have dodged. So in sentences like the one I quoted I should have stuck more to phrases like 'the imagined unnecessary lockdowns' than 'the pandemic'.

By the way, the UK government are also going to look at the big hole the pandemic has made in the labourt market. Quoting from todays budget statement:

I am proud to live in a country with one of the most comprehensive safety nets anywhere in the world…
…but also concerned that we have seen a sharp increase in economically inactive working age adults of 630,000 since the start of the pandemic.

Employment levels have yet to return to pre-pandemic levels which is bad for businesses who cannot fill vacancies and bad for people missing out on the opportunity to do well for themselves and their families.

So the PM has asked the Work and Pensions Secretary to thoroughly review issues holding back workforce participation due to conclude early in the new year.

Hopefully if this sort of angle comes up again it will be on a more appropriate thread than this global one.

 

[elbows]

Another BBC article about China, with Scott making a reasonable point in this tweet.

Its a shame I cant trust official deaths stats to the point of being able to make direct comparisons without needing to include a caveat, but even so:

Strict lockdowns mean China's death toll has stayed low ever since the start of the pandemic - the official figure is now just over 5,200.

This reported figure equates to three Covid deaths in every million in China, compared with 3,000 per million in the US and 2,400 per million in the UK.

The BBC article also includes a China vaccination by older age group chart which adds to the sense of what the risks still are there, along with mentioning concerns about how good their vaccines are.

 

[passenger]

..

 

[elbows]

There is certainly a better balance of reality in the BBCs China covid reporting now that they seem to more often include the death figures like the ones I mentioned in the previous post, and also bits like this from the most recent reporting. I've got no problem with them reporting on the pain, problems and dangers of Chinas current approach so long as reports dont lose sight of these other factors by which they've backed themselves into a corner. And I'll have no problem with their approach being seen as a disaster if various things continue to deteriorate over time, especially if they end up with the worst of both worlds by losing more grip over the virus while still maintaining a damaging grip over peoples daily lives. Its been clear for a very long time that they failed to set themselves up for the most optimal and optimally timed exit strategy, and that carries great risks of its own.

Scientists here can also see that China's vaccination rates are way too low, especially amongst vulnerable groups. What is more, not enough resources have been diverted into expanding medical facilities to cope with a massive influx of patients following any opening-up.

China Covid: Record number of cases as virus surges nationwide

Residents in thousands of Beijing tower blocks are ordered to remain indoors as workplaces shut down.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[elbows]

I wonder what will happen with China, I find it very difficult to predict as the outcome of unrest against notoriously repressive regimes is always very tricky to call. And its now been a very long time since people first questioned, with good reason, Chinas exit strategy/lack of exit strategy. I know I have used the situation in China and the reporting of it over time to make all sorts of other points along the way, but that doesnt mean I disagree with the very obvious downsides to the Chinese approach, or fail to see the various terrible downsides and risks it poses.

It is also pleasing to hope that this fuckup could ultimately end up giving people more freedom there, although its very difficult to solidify such hopes at this stage. Plus as well as the unknowns in regards the power of the masses on the streets etc, there are also unknowns about whether the way this is going will change the internal party dynamics, eg whether there is anyone within the system who may seek to turn this into an opportunity to gain power at the expense of those who have been consolidating power for years.

Even if dissent were to be kept in check, from a disease prevention perspective the current approach is in even more peril because as the virus has evolved it has gained advantages that make keeping infection numbers down has become harder. So they arguably require even more compliance in order to hope to make the existing approach work, and are more likely to get the opposite of that these days. What a fucking mess.