Long Covid -could this be the real legacy of the pandemic

These are the deaths that will happen due to covid beng prioritised over cancer.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext

Why are covid deaths more important than cancer patients. And please don't try the "well you can't catch cancer from someone" You are right but you can die from cancer because you are not being seen due to covid restrictions. Covid is at about 41k deaths (if you believe the stats, remember that is a death within 28 days after a positive test, wonder how many car accidents are in that total) but it will cause many many more than that due to the NHS becoming the Covid Health Servce.

Death is a part of life. No time in the history of mankind have we ever done this over a virus.

Between 2014 and 2015 we had 44000 excess Influenza deaths. Bet no one batted an eye at that. But these 40000 deaths you think we are being killed by the back death. Honestly some of the comments on here and social media you would think that catchng it is an instant death sentence. less than 400 under 65 have died. 4 under 20 but they get the most restrictions.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...rofexcesswinterdeathssince19992000/2015-11-25

We will have unemployment like never seen which will cause untold problems and deaths that will dwarf covid. But thats ok as its only money, health is more important as people keep saying. Unfortuantey the stark truth is without money you wouldn't have much health.

All these restrictions will take a generation of debt to pay off. My daughter will pay this from exams she may not sit due to them being cancelled next year (possibly) and an apprenticeship she wont be able to get on due to restrictions being placed that will massively impact her future.

I also have to ask if the goverment said you didn't need to wear a mask tomorrow would you still wear one? This is aimed at the people who scream when they see someone without one. Why didn't you wear one in 2014/2015 you could have saved so many lives.

Now the vaccine. There are currently 4 coronaviruses in circulation and not 1 of them has a working vaccine that stops you getting it so why do you think we will get one now. It will take averagely 10 years to vaccinate the world, are you happy to be in perpetual lockdown for 10 years. We will be a third world country long before then. There will be nothing to live for.

This 100% - you need to see the whole picture.
 
You are clearly a clever guy Alvez

Thanks Fabio you're a gent. 😉

I don't disagree with you, I've got things wrong on this subject but I've also been right far more than the people who spread the worst of the fear.

I'm just trying to help, maybe Zorro for instance is scared and worried well I'm here to try to help him to overcome those fears and regain his ability to think critically.
 
Thanks Fabio you're a gent. 😉

I don't disagree with you, I've got things wrong on this subject but I've also been right far more than the people who spread the worst of the fear.

I'm just trying to help, maybe Zorro for instance is scared and worried well I'm here to try to help him to overcome those fears and regain his ability to think critically.

That’s admirable, but I think the tools to help people understand it and beat their fear of it are wide and varied. I like to read about the medical developments, for example, and am quite excited and confident about the prospects of the monoclonal antibody treatments, such as the regeneron one used by Trump.
I follow quite a few mathematician/science types who look more closely at the numbers and distribution behind the daily figures, and I get some degree of perspective from that.
The media sensationalism has been pretty appalling throughout, but I do believe it was a narrative that was encouraged by government in order to raise the compliance levels initially.

Problem I have is that some of the key players in the media who seem to get disproportionate exposure for talking the pandemic/virus down are often controversial and divisive and I’m not sure their motivation lies entirely with trying to ease people’s fears.
It’s like divide and conquer politics - the Great Barrington trio seem to be trying to paint it as though all scientists are either on one side of the lockdown debate or the other, when it’s most definitely not that black and white. Why are they trying, and succeeding (in the media at least) to paint that picture?
 
The governments over experts (and those pushing restrictions and lockdowns) estimate 8% of the population have antibodies.

Its not 40,000 deaths for 400,000 cases that we keep hearing, if 8% of the population do have antibodies then it’s 40,000 deaths for nearly 5.5 million cases.
 
Covid: more than 80% positive UK cases in study had no core symptoms

ONS survey said 86.1% of people between April and June had none of the main symptoms of coronavirus

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ive-cases-in-covid-study-had-no-core-symptoms


It's simply untrue to suggest that long covid is suffered by many people following exposure and thus will be 'this pandemics legacy'.

I'd say this pandemics legacy might well be the end of the Conservative party permanently as a headline act.

/End of thread
 
That’s admirable, but I think the tools to help people understand it and beat their fear of it are wide and varied. I like to read about the medical developments, for example, and am quite excited and confident about the prospects of the monoclonal antibody treatments, such as the regeneron one used by Trump.
I follow quite a few mathematician/science types who look more closely at the numbers and distribution behind the daily figures, and I get some degree of perspective from that.
The media sensationalism has been pretty appalling throughout, but I do believe it was a narrative that was encouraged by government in order to raise the compliance levels initially.

Problem I have is that some of the key players in the media who seem to get disproportionate exposure for talking the pandemic/virus down are often controversial and divisive and I’m not sure their motivation lies entirely with trying to ease people’s fears.
It’s like divide and conquer politics - the Great Barrington trio seem to be trying to paint it as though all scientists are either on one side of the lockdown debate or the other, when it’s most definitely not that black and white. Why are they trying, and succeeding (in the media at least) to paint that picture?
I agree with you re the whole media approach, peoples lives, livelihoods, mental health etc. are being pulled apart.

If you like statistics / detail etc. you may find this interesting - http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/
What does the data show?
reopening dates, mobility changes and other empirically measured behaviors do not lead to higher infections in any statistically consistent way

To deal with the threat of COVID-19 the UK Government has ordered unprecedented shut-downs and quarantines, and many support this in the spirit of "better safe than sorry". However, this overlooks the fact that shutdowns and quarantines also kill. The economic, social and health costs will almost certainly include:
  • Earlier deaths for cancer sufferers due to diagnosis and treatment delays
  • Business failures leading to more business failures
  • Job losses leading to poor health, social problems and suicides
  • Fewer taxpayers available to fund an increasing need for social benefits
  • Reduced funding for the NHS and the rest of the public sector
  • Lost educational opportunities and disruption to exams and graduations
  • Inflation as Government "prints" and "borrows" more, while tax revenues fall
  • Pension values reduced by stock-market crashes
  • Reduced life expectancy for people moving deeper into poverty
 
I agree with you re the whole media approach, peoples lives, livelihoods, mental health etc. are being pulled apart.

If you like statistics / detail etc. you may find this interesting - http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/
What does the data show?
reopening dates, mobility changes and other empirically measured behaviors do not lead to higher infections in any statistically consistent way

To deal with the threat of COVID-19 the UK Government has ordered unprecedented shut-downs and quarantines, and many support this in the spirit of "better safe than sorry". However, this overlooks the fact that shutdowns and quarantines also kill. The economic, social and health costs will almost certainly include:
  • Earlier deaths for cancer sufferers due to diagnosis and treatment delays
  • Business failures leading to more business failures
  • Job losses leading to poor health, social problems and suicides
  • Fewer taxpayers available to fund an increasing need for social benefits
  • Reduced funding for the NHS and the rest of the public sector
  • Lost educational opportunities and disruption to exams and graduations
  • Inflation as Government "prints" and "borrows" more, while tax revenues fall
  • Pension values reduced by stock-market crashes
  • Reduced life expectancy for people moving deeper into poverty


Yeah it’s really complicated. I guess if we didn’t go for a fairly strict lockdown, a lot of that list above could also be applied, if we are honest.
It would mean we more readily allow the virus to spread through society and hospitals potentally become overwhelmed, so more critical services cannot be performed, more people cannot get their life saving treatments and cancer treatments because the hospital is overwhelmed and less hospital staff are available to treat patients and carry out preocedures, because of the numbers being taken up with covid, and off sick, businesses cannot function and collapse due to the number of their staff off sick with the virus, fear growing throughout the population as cases increase and increase leading to less folk using hospitality businesses such as cafes, restaurants, hotels etc and those businesses then collapse because they are open and need to pay staff and they aren’t getting any financial support like the did in the first lockdown, eg furlough scheme, pension values reducing by stock market crashes, large numbers succumbing to death directly or indirectly through covid, etc.

It’s just a really bad situation either way. It’s about managing it as best we can until vaccines/treatments are available I guess, and nobody seems to be able to come up with a workable plan that reduces all those factors in that list. Bumpy ride whichever side of the fence you sit on.
 
The argument that lockdown = covid health service only is clearly wrong. In fact I would argue that lockdown decreases the need for critical health care for covid patients, potentially freeing up resources for other conditions and procedures.

Yes I understand that locking down brings a host of other issues with it.

The truth is, there isn't a good decision to be made right now, we missed that boat when we "stayed open for business, internationally". What we have now is just the least worse decisions available. What strategy creates the least suffering. I really don't know the answer to this as there are quite a few variables and they are projected variables at that.

My reading on the subject suggest that lockdowns probably save more lives than they cost. The comparison that is used is 40,000 deaths versus how many people died needlessly of other causes. The problem with that equation is it isn't the equation that you need to work out. You need to work out how many covid deaths we would now have with no lock down in late march, versus the number of deaths by other causes that came about due to lock down.

I.E. How many lives did lock down save versus how many lives lock down caused. If you cannot see that, and some people are directly comparing covid deaths, with a lockdown, 40,000, with the number of lock down related deaths, so clearly don't see this, then you should be no where near this debate, your understanding is deeply flawed.
 
Give it a rest mate. People have died, people die, it's a fact of life. The way some go on on here it's you catch covid and die in 2 weeks or live with life limiting symptoms for the rest of your days.

And people wonder why people's mental health is ****ed.

What an awful post, you're in no position to be wondering about peoples mental health with views like this.

For millions of clinically extremely vulnerable people and their loved ones, the fear is very very real.
 
The argument that lockdown = covid health service only is clearly wrong. In fact I would argue that lockdown decreases the need for critical health care for covid patients, potentially freeing up resources for other conditions and procedures.

Yes I understand that locking down brings a host of other issues with it.

The truth is, there isn't a good decision to be made right now, we missed that boat when we "stayed open for business, internationally". What we have now is just the least worse decisions available. What strategy creates the least suffering. I really don't know the answer to this as there are quite a few variables and they are projected variables at that.

My reading on the subject suggest that lockdowns probably save more lives than they cost. The comparison that is used is 40,000 deaths versus how many people died needlessly of other causes. The problem with that equation is it isn't the equation that you need to work out. You need to work out how many covid deaths we would now have with no lock down in late march, versus the number of deaths by other causes that came about due to lock down.

I.E. How many lives did lock down save versus how many lives lock down caused. If you cannot see that, and some people are directly comparing covid deaths, with a lockdown, 40,000, with the number of lock down related deaths, so clearly don't see this, then you should be no where near this debate, your understanding is deeply flawed.
Not necessarily (see my earlier link)
What does the data show?
"reopening dates, mobility changes and other empirically measured behaviors do not lead to higher infections in any statistically consistent way"
In other words, there is no evidence in the copious amounts of data now available that there is any connection between the lockdown and the progress of the virus.
 
We have a friend who had COVID in March, 31 year old, in great shape. Her lungs aren’t affected but she still can’t smell or taste properly 6/7 months later.
 
Not necessarily (see my earlier link)
What does the data show?
"reopening dates, mobility changes and other empirically measured behaviors do not lead to higher infections in any statistically consistent way"
In other words, there is no evidence in the copious amounts of data now available that there is any connection between the lockdown and the progress of the virus.
The key to your comment and the article you linked is "In any statistical consistent way". What that actually means is there is no linear, or indeed, non-linear equation that tracks infection rates that we can determine. That doesn't mean that lock down did not bring infection rates down, and so deaths. It means the system of infection is so complex we cannot model it very well.

To combat the argument you seem to be making, and I think that argument is lock down did not effect infection rates, would be, look at any graph of hospitalizations, or ventilations or deaths and they will track lock down measures very closely. The alternative argument would be, we locked down just as we were about to peak anyway and lock down was not the reason for infection rates dropping off. You would have to apply that logic to every country that used lock down to control the virus infection rates.

It also makes a mockery of everything we know about communicable disease.

So to recap, I don't agree.
 
The key to your comment and the article you linked is "In any statistical consistent way". What that actually means is there is no linear, or indeed, non-linear equation that tracks infection rates that we can determine. That doesn't mean that lock down did not bring infection rates down, and so deaths. It means the system of infection is so complex we cannot model it very well.

To combat the argument you seem to be making, and I think that argument is lock down did not effect infection rates, would be, look at any graph of hospitalizations, or ventilations or deaths and they will track lock down measures very closely. The alternative argument would be, we locked down just as we were about to peak anyway and lock down was not the reason for infection rates dropping off. You would have to apply that logic to every country that used lock down to control the virus infection rates.

It also makes a mockery of everything we know about communicable disease.

So to recap, I don't agree.
I don't think you've really looked through this link - http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/ - all the data is there (lots of it), maybe in support of what you're saying you could support that with something.
 
You need to look up what anecdotal means good sir.

Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

There you go. If you were to rely upon my assertion then you would be basing your reliance on anecdotal evidence. My evidence is primary, based upon fact, 100% true and entirely reliable ergo not anecdotal.

In Teesside vernacular, jog on son.
 
Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

There you go. If you were to rely upon my assertion then you would be basing your reliance on anecdotal evidence. My evidence is primary, based upon fact, 100% true and entirely reliable ergo not anecdotal.

In Teesside vernacular, jog on son.

Ok you need to take the definition you gave and apply it to your own statement.

You're primary account is personal and maybe factual but is not based on research nor contributes or is attributed to research thus is anecdotal.

Also 'jog on' actually originates from down south not Boro but will take your advice regardless and respond to you no more. 👍🏻
 
Alvez_48 is quite right about this - Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. (this is the definition)

Anecdotal evidence, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. (this is why)
 
Maybe you do, anecdotal. 👍🏻

Alvez, I've no axe to grind mate. I'm 36, ex professional footballer and have always had a good level of fitness.

Had Covid in March (and was confident that I had it). but didn't get confirmed until June when I got a private antibodies test.

In the meantime I've felt OK generally and am putting down my fatigue to working from home 4/5 days a week.

In the past three weeks though, the breathlessness has been overwhelming, my blood oxygen saturation levels are lower too. Got a doctors appointment next week to follow up and see what we can find out.

Has been scary as my kids are only 5 and 2.

I'm not for a second calling for any lock downs or to put the economy at risk. I happen to agree that we need to find a way to live with things but please don't be dismissive of the impacts this may have on others
 
Alvez, I've no axe to grind mate. I'm 36, ex professional footballer and have always had a good level of fitness.



Had Covid in March (and was confident that I had it). but didn't get confirmed until June when I got a private antibodies test.



In the meantime I've felt OK generally and am putting down my fatigue to working from home 4/5 days a week.



In the past three weeks though, the breathlessness has been overwhelming, my blood oxygen saturation levels are lower too. Got a doctors appointment next week to follow up and see what we can find out.



Has been scary as my kids are only 5 and 2.



I'm not for a second calling for any lock downs or to put the economy at risk. I happen to agree that we need to find a way to live with things but please don't be dismissive of the impacts this may have on others



I'm not dismissive just saying what it is. I hope you feel better but what you're saying is also anecdotal.



My partner had two positive tests and felt bad for a week and has been fine since, I only had a bad tummy response for a day or 2.



I know people like yourself and Johnny have had long term impact and it's horrible but it doesn't change the reality that from what we know so far it looks like 80% have no symptoms so to suggest (remember the thread title) that long-covid will be the legacy of this pandemic is patently false and is spreading doom whichever way you cut it.

The very real doom is the daily gradual losses of civil liberty and economic hardship, that are being cheered on by a vocal group on here that don't see or care (or give lip service) about those impacts and only care about covid.
 
Back
Top