Is this how we get through the pandemic?

[redsturgeon]

On Friday Mrs RS heard her granddaughter aged 5 had tested positive. Today the child's mother (double vaxxed), and child's brother (age 7 months) and sister (age 4) were all positive.

I guess these kids will have a regular exposure to covid now and in a few years time will all be super immune to the worst effects, thus the pandemic dies.

In the meantime Mrs RS heard from her best friend last Weds, a lawyer who has been seeing clients only over zoom since last March. She went into her London office for the first time last week on Monday and by Weds has tested positive. Again double vaxxed but now 5 months ago. It seems the boosters are important for us oldies (she is only early 50s though).

Looks like things playing out at a micro and macro level in similar ways...ie. you can't avoid the inevitable, merely delay it.

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

John

[Lootman]

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

[redsturgeon]

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

I don't doubt it

John

[dealtn]

Deaths Involving and Due to Influenza and Pneumonia, England and Wales, deaths registered in 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... 019and2020

Lowest weekly total 969, highest weekly total 5,215

I think society "ignoring" 1,000 Covid deaths a week isn't inconsistent.

[Julian]

On Friday Mrs RS heard her granddaughter aged 5 had tested positive. Today the child's mother (double vaxxed), and child's brother (age 7 months) and sister (age 4) were all positive.

…

Looks like things playing out at a micro and macro level in similar ways...ie. you can't avoid the inevitable, merely delay it.

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

John

If by inevitable you mean catching COVID-19 then I think you might well be right but you can mitigate the effects. The TV news I have seen today (BBC One) is reporting AstraZeneca giving 45% protection against symptomatic infection 140 days after the second dose, i.e. the combinations of some level of escape by the Delta variant plus the waning of protection against symptomatic infection means that without non-pharmaceutical interventions, i.e. as we return to normal life, the doubly vaccinated aren’t getting massively high protection against symptomatic infection. The data however does seem to be showing that protection against hospitalisation is, even after 140 days, still in the 75+% range (higher for Pfizer) so even in my cohort of healthy 60-64 year olds, not exactly young, my odds of being hospitalised let alone dying due to COVID-19 are extremely low, and if I do catch it presumably my immunity to future infection would be boosted even more. I hear surprise and disappointing expressed by quite a few people at the level of breakthrough infections being seen but I don’t share those sentiments. Yes, we would all love a vaccine that was 100% neutralising at all levels but if the vaccines are allowing the vast majority of people to avoid severe consequences if they catch COVID-19 then I would say they are doing what is required of them.

Boosters throw a level of uncertainty into the future though. The data seems to show that a booster does boost immunity back to the level where protection against even symptomatic infection is in the 95+% range but we have yet to learn how long that will last. If that protection wanes after another 5 months or so will the government really carry on funding 6-monthly boosters or will it take the attitude that if the residual immunity is still protecting against the more severe consequences of infection it will maybe only boost every year so there will be significant numbers of hopefully mostly inconsequential infections during the times of waned immunity?

- Julian

[zico]

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

Which is exactly why referenda aren't good ways to make policy. It's all about question framing. If the question was 'Shall we save 800 lives per week by vaccinating virtually all schoolkids and re-imposing mask-wearing on public transport, shops and workplaces' the answer would of course be yes.
Your referendum proposal conflates 'mild temporary inconveniences' with 'freedom' by pretending the only choice is between no restrictions and full lockdown with people not allowed to leave their homes.

We could have even more freedom if people were allowed to go naked in public, at a cost of exactly zero extra deaths per week, but the public wouldn't support that.

[servodude]

Deaths Involving and Due to Influenza and Pneumonia, England and Wales, deaths registered in 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... 019and2020

Lowest weekly total 969, highest weekly total 5,215

I think society "ignoring" 1,000 Covid deaths a week isn't inconsistent.

Neither do I

Seeing as you've referenced them can you walk us through the data in the page you've linked?

They seem to suffer from that "OK you want data? here's data" thing without much context

It looks like it says 1598 people died from flu in 2018 and 29516 from flu/pneumonia that year; that sounds believable

And if you sum the columns for 2020 you get ~120000 (involving) and 21000(from/due to)

So.. do their tables relate to the same things?
Do the figures you've quoted (for your weekly things from 2020) include COVID related pneumonia?
cos it looks from the data you've given that these would be very out of line for the totals presented for previous years

That said the second (from/due to )column would be in the same ballpark for the earlier data
- perhaps weekly 931 lowest 187 should be the comparison? I can't really tell from what they've put

Any ideas? What made you take the column you did for your example?

- sd

[servodude]

Deaths Involving and Due to Influenza and Pneumonia, England and Wales, deaths registered in 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... 019and2020

Lowest weekly total 969, highest weekly total 5,215

I think society "ignoring" 1,000 Covid deaths a week isn't inconsistent.

Neither do I

Seeing as you've referenced them can you walk us through the data in the page you've linked?

They seem to suffer from that "OK you want data? here's data" thing without much context

It looks like it says 1598 people died from flu in 2018 and 29516 from flu/pneumonia that year; that sounds believable

And if you sum the columns for 2020 you get ~120000 (involving) and 21000(from/due to)

So.. do their tables relate to the same things?
Do the figures you've quoted (for your weekly things from 2020) include COVID related pneumonia?
cos it looks from the data you've given that these would be very out of line for the totals presented for previous years

That said the second (from/due to )column would be in the same ballpark for the earlier data
- perhaps weekly 931 lowest 187 should be the comparison? I can't really tell from what they've put

Any ideas? What made you take the column you did for your example?

- sd

Hope it's not too bad form to reply to myself
- but I went digging because life's too short to tolerate badly presented data (if you answer questions for the ONS and read this consider yourself slapped )

I obtained a login for the https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ and tried to get the info from the horse's mouth
It's a bit of a convoluted faff but you can go through and select the categories for which you want the counts returned

so trying to get an apples v apples comparison of their most recent 3 years worth gives:
(bold lines are the sum of the subcategories given)



full info on their cause of death definitions here

so from poking about there it looks like:
- death that's attributed to big ol pus filled lungs without any other specified classification were the bulk of the numbers given earlier
- the second column in the earlier link (from/due to) would be the appropriate data set to compare to the onging covid deaths; flu and pneumonia combined giving an average weekly death rate of 500 souls? or about half what we reckon folk are happy to put up with for covid?

It's still not clear what the "involving" flu/pneumonia data involves (can't find that defintion in their data)
- it would not be a million miles off the number you get if you add in the COVID deaths and expanded the respiratory disorders considered (e.g. emphasema, COPD, oedema) but that could just be coincidence

- sd

[Lootman]

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

Which is exactly why referenda aren't good ways to make policy. It's all about question framing. If the question was 'Shall we save 800 lives per week by vaccinating virtually all schoolkids and re-imposing mask-wearing on public transport, shops and workplaces' the answer would of course be yes.

Your referendum proposal conflates 'mild temporary inconveniences' with 'freedom' by pretending the only choice is between no restrictions and full lockdown with people not allowed to leave their homes.

We could have even more freedom if people were allowed to go naked in public, at a cost of exactly zero extra deaths per week, but the public wouldn't support that.

We could tinker with the question wording for sure. But the idea is simple enough. Given a choice of 1,000 deaths a week perpetually and maintaining the current level of restrictions, or a much lower number of deaths than that with mask mandates etc., then the voters would choose the former.

After 20 months of making compromises and tolerating significant inconvenience, people are done. They will take the 2 in 1,000 chance of dying so they can watch the footie down the pub.

But sure, vaccinate the heck out of everyone. I still don't know why we never ask for proof of vaccination unless we go overseas, where it is the norm in many places.

[XFool]

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

Then likely such a referendum would be as phony as the last one.

We already have "our freedoms" we have for some time. It isn't a choice between some phony "freedom" and some equally phony "incarceration". We can/could have "freedom" while also taking adequate and sensible precautions in the meantime.

But like just about everything nowadays there are those who require it to be yet another totem of the culture wars.

IMO, your referendum (non)question is, less a suitable referendum question rather than an expression of personal opinion. i.e. Lootman would accept 1000 deaths a week of other people, for his convenience.

Actually, I'm far from sure, if a proper and sensibly informed referendum were held, that the UK public wouldn't make an intelligent decision.

[dealtn]

Deaths Involving and Due to Influenza and Pneumonia, England and Wales, deaths registered in 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... 019and2020

Lowest weekly total 969, highest weekly total 5,215

I think society "ignoring" 1,000 Covid deaths a week isn't inconsistent.

What made you take the column you did for your example?

- sd

As it was the closest to how "Covid deaths" are also reported. Either having a positive test within 28 days - a recognition Covid was recently present - or the other common method of having Covid mentioned on the death certificate.

So the "involving" column is those where it is accepted pneumonia or influenza was present, or mentioned on the death certificate (as explained on the link I provided without requiring any log in, walk throughs, or deep dives in the data).

Maybe if the media had a daily data report on how many reported influenza/pneumonia deaths were recorded, how many vaccinations or boosters were given for these 2 large killer illnesses, or a widespread testing regime were in place too so more accurate numbers were publicly available for those testing positive for them, and dying with them, and an R number indicating the re-infection potential etc. then we would all as a nation be better educated about the similarities and differences. But we don't, and never have or will.

The same could be true of multiple other causes of death, be they illnesses or not. Or indeed many other types of problems that cause short and long term disruption to people, and society, be that physical or economic, such as mental health, injury in the workplace, cancer. The reality is, outside of specialist areas this doesn't happen. The general public doesn't see the (daily) news on these other things, but does for Covid, and that asymmetry presents a nuanced concern about Covid that isn't present with alternative drivers of deaths and disruption. Even so, there appears to be a growing element of Covid News Fatigue, such that even a 1,000 Covid deaths daily is beginning by many to be seen as "normal" and something we are living with. (The suggestion of the OP). This "normality" isn't inconsistent with other causes of death. For many people, unless it happens to them, or a close family member or friend, these multiple daily deaths, of whatever cause, are effectively becoming "invisible" and not a personal concern.

[Lootman]

Seems like 1000 deaths a week is the price we have to pay for now.

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

Then likely such a referendum would be as phony as the last one.

We already have "our freedoms" we have for some time. It isn't a choice between some phony "freedom" and some equally phony "incarceration". We can/could have "freedom" while also taking adequate and sensible precautions in the meantime.

But like just about everything nowadays there are those who require it to be yet another totem of the culture wars.

Actually, I'm far from sure, if a proper and sensibly informed referendum were held, that the UK public wouldn't make an intelligent decision.

Translation: "phony" = I don't agree with it.

"Sensible" = I do agree with it.

"Proper and sensibly informed" = phrased to skew the result to the outcome I personally prefer.

"Intelligent decision" = a decision I agree with.

[servodude]

Deaths Involving and Due to Influenza and Pneumonia, England and Wales, deaths registered in 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... 019and2020

Lowest weekly total 969, highest weekly total 5,215

I think society "ignoring" 1,000 Covid deaths a week isn't inconsistent.

What made you take the column you did for your example?

- sd

As it was the closest to how "Covid deaths" are also reported. Either having a positive test within 28 days - a recognition Covid was recently present - or the other common method of having Covid mentioned on the death certificate.

So the "involving" column is those where it is accepted pneumonia or influenza was present, or mentioned on the death certificate (as explained on the link I provided without requiring any log in, walk throughs, or deep dives in the data).

Maybe if the media had a daily data report on how many reported influenza/pneumonia deaths were recorded, how many vaccinations or boosters were given for these 2 large killer illnesses, or a widespread testing regime were in place too so more accurate numbers were publicly available for those testing positive for them, and dying with them, and an R number indicating the re-infection potential etc. then we would all as a nation be better educated about the similarities and differences. But we don't, and never have or will.

The same could be true of multiple other causes of death, be they illnesses or not. Or indeed many other types of problems that cause short and long term disruption to people, and society, be that physical or economic, such as mental health, injury in the workplace, cancer. The reality is, outside of specialist areas this doesn't happen. The general public doesn't see the (daily) news on these other things, but does for Covid, and that asymmetry presents a nuanced concern about Covid that isn't present with alternative drivers of deaths and disruption. Even so, there appears to be a growing element of Covid News Fatigue, such that even a 1,000 Covid deaths daily is beginning by many to be seen as "normal" and something we are living with. (The suggestion of the OP). This "normality" isn't inconsistent with other causes of death. For many people, unless it happens to them, or a close family member or friend, these multiple daily deaths, of whatever cause, are effectively becoming "invisible" and not a personal concern.

So, you're saying that the 120k deaths for flu and pneumonia last year is the correct one for comparison?
In contrast to the figures presented by the folk whose figures they are?
What's your motive?

Note: I'm not really interested in hand waving or politics other than those that might drive folk to fibs and misrepresentation

-sd

[redsturgeon]

Even so, there appears to be a growing element of Covid News Fatigue, such that even a 1,000 Covid deaths daily is beginning by many to be seen as "normal" and something we are living with. (The suggestion of the OP).

Just checking that you mean 1000 death weekly not daily.

John

[dealtn]

Even so, there appears to be a growing element of Covid News Fatigue, such that even a 1,000 Covid deaths daily is beginning by many to be seen as "normal" and something we are living with. (The suggestion of the OP).

Just checking that you mean 1000 death weekly not daily.

John

Apologies, I am wrong there of course. Weekly is correct.

[XFool]

Translation: "phony" = I don't agree with it.

"Sensible" = I do agree with it.

"Proper and sensibly informed" = phrased to skew the result to the outcome I personally prefer.

"Intelligent decision" = a decision I agree with.

See update. (You will like it less!)

[servodude]

...See update. (You will like it less!)

Tease!

[XFool]

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

Then likely such a referendum would be as phony as the last one.

"Proper and sensibly informed" = phrased to skew the result to the outcome I personally prefer.

Well, obviously you know all about that.

[dealtn]

So, you're saying that the 120k deaths for flu and pneumonia last year is the correct one for comparison?
In contrast to the figures presented by the folk whose figures they are?
What's your motive?

Note: I'm not really interested in hand waving or politics other than those that might drive folk to fibs and misrepresentation

-sd

The "folks whose figures they are" quote both. They are literally both there (with an explanation of what they mean on the link).

I have no motive here (do you?).

Use whatever figures you want, the higher or the lower. So long as there is consistency across time, and between them, that is what is important surely. For me the "dying with covid", or "having Covid on the death certificate" explanation is closer to the "involving" number. But use the lower if that is "better". There are 500ish people dying weekly "from" influenza/pneumonia, fairly consistently for many years. Covid is currently at 1,000 weekly, but has been much lower too since vaccinations have emerged.

Both causes of these deaths are tragic at the individual and personal level, but from a societal perspective the "preventable" influenza/pneumonia ones have been accepted as "normal", and will likely continue to be so. Covid deaths, be they at double the influenza/pneumonia ones, or half (depending on which column you take) are now also beginning to be seen by society as similarly "preventable" but "normal". If society is consistent in how it views deaths regardless of the specific cause, this might be considered the direction of travel on how Covid is going to be seen, relative to other large killers.

[Lootman]

Note: I'm not really interested in hand waving or politics other than those that might drive folk to fibs and misrepresentation

But therein lies the great divide. Some commentators see this as purely a matter of science, which allows for truth and falsehood, facts and myths. Others see it as ultimately a political issue, which allows for all kinds and shades of viewpoint.

You are the second Lemon this morning who has tried to turn subjective opinion into objective fact just with a turn of phrase e.g. "fibs", "stupid", "phony" etc.

Nobody here has a monopoly on the truth, but a good start is recognising how much subjectivity creeps into language. People are entitled to believe that 1,000 deaths a week is acceptable, and to demand policies that reflect that. Science does not come into it.

Both causes of these deaths are tragic at the individual and personal level, but from a societal perspective the "preventable" influenza/pneumonia ones have been accepted as "normal", and will likely continue to be so. Covid deaths, be they at double the influenza/pneumonia ones, or half (depending on which column you take) are now also beginning to be seen by society as similarly "preventable" but "normal". If society is consistent in how it views deaths regardless of the specific cause, this might be considered the direction of travel on how Covid is going to be seen, relative to other large killers.

Indeed, well expressed.