Anecdotal observation, but in my immediate circles it sounds like omicron is everywhere - and social plans are dropping like flies. Feel incredibly bad for hospitality and small restaurant owners who were banking on Christmas season to make up for the last two years https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1471441249311899652
Sadly this is true. As a result of my daughter testing positive, I've had to drop out of the carol concert I was meant to be singing in tomorrow, and we've cancelled plans to have friends round for drinks and dinner on Saturday, plus plans for going out next week. Omicron is everywhere. It's going to be chaos over the next month with millions of people isolating. I really feel for the hospitality sector, and the government should be offering support. Sunak needs to get his arse off the beach in California and set something up pronto.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years lost education. Get a grip.
For a lot of poorer kids it was at least a year of lost education, sadly.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
That's that correlation/causation argument put to bed, then
What we have is reasonable assumptions and anecdotes that are not supported by the evidence. Policy should be decided on the evidence.
I went for a work team social last Thursday and my entire team has tested positive. Desperate to not pass it on to my wife or else Christmas is cancelled!
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
The suicide stats need to be interpreted very, very carefully as there is context missing We can probably be reasonably confident that there wasn't a surge of suicides last year but we can't be confident there was a dramatic fall.
Suicides in the ONS stats are recorded by Date of Inquest not Date of Death. Inquests can take a long time to happen in normal times. The ONS states that baiscally the figures for a given year are actually the stats for the last 6 months fo the previous year (given time for inquests to happen) plus the first 6 months of the year of record. In Covid times they have been delayed much further. So the "fall" in suicides we see in 2020 is mostly coming from delayed inquests, not necessarily fewer suicides.
Now, there hasn't been a surge of backlogged inquests causing the number of massively spike this year so we can cautiously say that there was indeed an overall fall in suicides during lockdowns in 2020 but without someone doing so serious research on it to construct the "by date of death" data we don't have a clear picture.
I had AZ/AZ/Moderna - the third on Tuesday and I'm still waiting for anything beyond the mildest reactions. Very slight sore arm and a few aches for an hour or so is all I've had so far. Is it safe to leave the house yet? OGH2 assured me I'd be prostrate within 24 hours - maybe the Californian sun is affecting him.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
That's that correlation/causation argument put to bed, then
What we have is reasonable assumptions and anecdotes that are not supported by the evidence. Policy should be decided on the evidence.
Do you mean that governments have replaced evidence based policy making, with policy-based evidence making?
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
You're the idiot.
For primary children especially mingling with other kids and having life experiences is absolutely 100% critical.
In normal circumstances the courts would fine people who took a few days off school because of the paramount importance of education. But you think screwing people around for two years won't have any damage that could potentially afflict them for their entire lives as a result?
Post-vaccinations, all for a virus that even pre-vaccines 99% of people survived? You are the one who needs to get a grip.
All context and sanity has been lost for the sake of "controlling" a virus that 99% of people will live through anyway.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
There's children who suffered a fuck of a lot worse than an interrupted education.
Whitty ends a punchy evidence session by insisting that every chief medical officer back to the 1850s would tell people to scale back socialising in a pandemic.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
That's that correlation/causation argument put to bed, then
What we have is reasonable assumptions and anecdotes that are not supported by the evidence. Policy should be decided on the evidence.
Do you mean that governments have replaced evidence based policy making, with policy-based evidence making?
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Yes, cancer patients may not get timely treatment if the hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid. It's one of the better arguments for restrictions and so forth.
There is some early anecdotal signs from nurses I know in the Hampshire that people are beginning to act in the way they did during Spring/Summer 2020 in avoiding healthcare.
2 examples, in a GP Surgery in Southampton they had 62 no shows/cancellations for face to face appointments yesterday.
My wife who works on the treatment centre in Hospital said it was the quietest day they had had yesterday for months due to no-shows.
People are definitely scared.
Well that's the other part, the Gov't need to stress people should really keep their appointments.
Why? As Omicron explodes people will in increasing numbers be cancelling because they are sick, someone they live with is sick, or because someone they were hugging drunkenly in the pub the other night is sick.
The staff shortages that increasing companies are reporting increasingly often is not because people are scared, its because they are sick or isolating.
The government needs to be making £££ available to support business and people. Labour failed to push for it, only the SNP and LibDems have been campaigning on this. We won't need "lockdown", its a red herring. Because if Omicron is as bad as it looks chunks of the economy will shut themselves down.
Out of interest could France make the same travel ruling as it has against the UK against another EU country.
Legally, they possibly could (I believe there are provisions for EU states to suspend normal rules if there's an urgent and well-founded health risk), but in practice it would be politically very difficult.
It does seem a pretty barmy measure by France, given the prevalence of Omicron in the EU.
I don't honestly think that is what it is about; this is mainly Macron's Christmas Panto.
If they want to keep their people safe they can use the "emergency brake" I think. But Belgium (and Lux) are whingeing in case countries do it.
Belgium having been infection central for the last couple of months.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Aren't you always rather sanguine about the travails of businesses when it's Boris's Brexit that's causing them?
Anecdote for you AZ-AZ-Moderna people, my dad had that combo and is still testing negative on the LFTs, my mum has 3x Pfizer got infected. They both had their boosters with a few days of each other as well as their other doses.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
The suicide stats need to be interpreted very, very carefully as there is context missing We can probably be reasonably confident that there wasn't a surge of suicides last year but we can't be confident there was a dramatic fall.
Suicides in the ONS stats are recorded by Date of Inquest not Date of Death. Inquests can take a long time to happen in normal times. The ONS states that baiscally the figures for a given year are actually the stats for the last 6 months fo the previous year (given time for inquests to happen) plus the first 6 months of the year of record. In Covid times they have been delayed much further. So the "fall" in suicides we see in 2020 is mostly coming from delayed inquests, not necessarily fewer suicides.
Now, there hasn't been a surge of backlogged inquests causing the number of massively spike this year so we can cautiously say that there was indeed an overall fall in suicides during lockdowns in 2020 but without someone doing so serious research on it to construct the "by date of death" data we don't have a clear picture.
Deaths caused by suicide in England and Wales are investigated by coroners, resulting in registration delays; while these provisional data for 2020 suicides will be underestimates, late registrations for suicides between April and July 2020 are unlikely to fully explain the decrease, as most suicides for this period will now be registered even when allowing for disruption to coroners’ inquests caused by the pandemic.
Just got back from being boosted. AZ/AZ/Pfizer for me. Hope I don't feel too crappy tomorrow I'm on a job interview panel. First AZ dose knocked me off my feet for a day so I'm kind of resigned to it. Perhaps two or three pints of John Smiths in the local this evening are justified on medicinal grounds.
I got the same combination and felt absolutely no effect from the Pfizer jab yesterday. Like you the first AZ was grim. Second has minimal effect. So you might well be totally fine. My lack of reaction may be because I had Covid a month ago though.
I am AZ/AZ/Pfizer and only had a mild headache after the Pfizer booster. First AZ was the worst for side effects for me too.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Aren't you always rather sanguine about the travails of businesses when it's Boris's Brexit that's causing them?
Remind me when Brexit resulted in school closures etc?
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
The suicide stats need to be interpreted very, very carefully as there is context missing We can probably be reasonably confident that there wasn't a surge of suicides last year but we can't be confident there was a dramatic fall.
Suicides in the ONS stats are recorded by Date of Inquest not Date of Death. Inquests can take a long time to happen in normal times. The ONS states that baiscally the figures for a given year are actually the stats for the last 6 months fo the previous year (given time for inquests to happen) plus the first 6 months of the year of record. In Covid times they have been delayed much further. So the "fall" in suicides we see in 2020 is mostly coming from delayed inquests, not necessarily fewer suicides.
Now, there hasn't been a surge of backlogged inquests causing the number of massively spike this year so we can cautiously say that there was indeed an overall fall in suicides during lockdowns in 2020 but without someone doing so serious research on it to construct the "by date of death" data we don't have a clear picture.
What we can say is that, contrary to the common trope, any reduction in deaths by Covid has to be offset by an increase in other deaths caused by isolation, suicide or lack of medical treatment does not currently have an evidential basis, no matter how intuitive it is (and I fully accept that I am as surprised by that as the average journalist).
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
But that's wrong.
Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.
Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.
Anecdote for you AZ-AZ-Moderna people, my dad had that combo and is still testing negative on the LFTs, my mum has 3x Pfizer got infected. They both had their boosters with a few days of each other as well as their other doses.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Yes, cancer patients may not get timely treatment if the hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid. It's one of the better arguments for restrictions and so forth.
There is some early anecdotal signs from nurses I know in the Hampshire that people are beginning to act in the way they did during Spring/Summer 2020 in avoiding healthcare.
2 examples, in a GP Surgery in Southampton they had 62 no shows/cancellations for face to face appointments yesterday.
My wife who works on the treatment centre in Hospital said it was the quietest day they had had yesterday for months due to no-shows.
People are definitely scared.
Well that's the other part, the Gov't need to stress people should really keep their appointments.
Why? As Omicron explodes people will in increasing numbers be cancelling because they are sick, someone they live with is sick, or because someone they were hugging drunkenly in the pub the other night is sick.
The staff shortages that increasing companies are reporting increasingly often is not because people are scared, its because they are sick or isolating.
The government needs to be making £££ available to support business and people. Labour failed to push for it, only the SNP and LibDems have been campaigning on this. We won't need "lockdown", its a red herring. Because if Omicron is as bad as it looks chunks of the economy will shut themselves down.
Furthermore many who are well will reduce their own personal risk and while this is not lockdown it does appear to be a de facto lockdown
I hope your good lady is feeling better but this illness is very debilitating
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
But that's wrong.
Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.
Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.
Which as usual is you advocating that Other People die so that you can have "liberty".
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
But that's wrong.
Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.
Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.
Which as usual is you advocating that Other People die so that you can have "liberty".
If I get it and die, I get it and die.
We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.
Chris Whitty doubles down: "People want to protect the time that is most important to them. That does mean in practice that it is sensible for people to cut down on work or other interactions with people, incl potentially social ones, that are less important to them." https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1471429084588744706
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
The suicide stats need to be interpreted very, very carefully as there is context missing We can probably be reasonably confident that there wasn't a surge of suicides last year but we can't be confident there was a dramatic fall.
Suicides in the ONS stats are recorded by Date of Inquest not Date of Death. Inquests can take a long time to happen in normal times. The ONS states that baiscally the figures for a given year are actually the stats for the last 6 months fo the previous year (given time for inquests to happen) plus the first 6 months of the year of record. In Covid times they have been delayed much further. So the "fall" in suicides we see in 2020 is mostly coming from delayed inquests, not necessarily fewer suicides.
Now, there hasn't been a surge of backlogged inquests causing the number of massively spike this year so we can cautiously say that there was indeed an overall fall in suicides during lockdowns in 2020 but without someone doing so serious research on it to construct the "by date of death" data we don't have a clear picture.
What we can say is that, contrary to the common trope, any reduction in deaths by Covid has to be offset by an increase in other deaths caused by isolation, suicide or lack of medical treatment does not currently have an evidential basis, no matter how intuitive it is (and I fully accept that I am as surprised by that as the average journalist).
Absolutely. Covid-denailists keep repeating as a matter of faith that suicides were soaring and not only is there absolutely no evidence that was the case it seems (despite the backlog lag) the evidence is strongly to the contrary and that lockdown overall prevented suicides,
Hospitality, Events & Entertainment needs clarity, do we cancel NYE events, stocking up and staffing incurs huge costs. Many venues will need financial support.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Completely agree, it is bizarre how people can't see this causal chain. Lockdowns -> less COVID -> less pressure on NHS -> more capacity to treat other diseases.
Leave and Remain voters have both become more likely than they were in January to say the UK has got a bad deal with the EU.
The study, by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), found that just 12 per cent of people believed Britain and got a good deal in August – a decline from 21 per cent who took the same view in January.
Opinion has hardened among remain voters from 66 per cent who now say a bad deal was procured, compared to 53 per cent in 2021.
But among Leave voters, too, the balance of opinion has tilted away from approval – with Brexiteers no longer more likely to say a good deal has been had.
In January 35 per cent thought Mr Johnson had got a good deal compared to 22 per cent thinking it was a bad one; now 36 per cent say it is bad against 22 per cent who say it is good.
Eminent political scientist John Curtice, who oversaw the study, said the results showed people were going off the deal – but for different reasons.
“The Brexit deal is being criticised from two directions – those opposed to the policy in principle and those who dislike the way it has been implemented in practice," said Sir John, a professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde.
"People on the Remain side of the debate are relatively united in their dislike of an outcome whose principal objective is one that they oppose in the first place. Meanwhile, some on the Leave side feel that the UK is still tied too closely to the EU’s orbit, while others would have preferred a softer Brexit.
"And it’s those with strong views on Brexit – the partisans on both sides – who are proving most difficult for the government to satisfy. As a result, the nation is still divided over the outcome of the Brexit process.”
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
You're the idiot.
For primary children especially mingling with other kids and having life experiences is absolutely 100% critical.
In normal circumstances the courts would fine people who took a few days off school because of the paramount importance of education. But you think screwing people around for two years won't have any damage that could potentially afflict them for their entire lives as a result?
Post-vaccinations, all for a virus that even pre-vaccines 99% of people survived? You are the one who needs to get a grip.
All context and sanity has been lost for the sake of "controlling" a virus that 99% of people will live through anyway.
Yet again, you think that because I've pointed out your stupid misuse of stats, that I'm peddling a different point of view. You do this over and over again, and you never learn
You gave a figure of "134 million years of damage", which you explicitly derived from multiplying P=67M by t=2y. This, you compared with deaths.
Damaged education isn't the same as death. That doesn't make me pro lockdown, or pro death, or anything. It makes me anti stupid. Your "134 million years of damage" is preposterous.
Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.
Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.
Infection control in the NHS wasn't the same as lockdown, don't be silly.
Having said that, your suggestion that hospitals shouldn't try to stop cross-infection is a novel one. I haven't heard that one before.
Anecdote for you AZ-AZ-Moderna people, my dad had that combo and is still testing negative on the LFTs, my mum has 3x Pfizer got infected. They both had their boosters with a few days of each other as well as their other doses.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Completely agree, it is bizarre how people can't see this causal chain. Lockdowns -> less COVID -> less pressure on NHS -> more capacity to treat other diseases.
There is no such thing as less Covid. We're all going to get Covid. Chris Whitty said that.
Social distancing -> Less capacity -> more pressure on NHS -> less capacity to treat other diseases.
Abolish social distancing in the NHS, abolish isolation for those who are infected, and get on with the job of treating other diseases. Stop trying to prevent people from being infected with a virus they've already had three vaccines for and that 99% would survive with zero vaccines.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
But that's wrong.
Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.
Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.
Which as usual is you advocating that Other People die so that you can have "liberty".
If I get it and die, I get it and die.
We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.
But yes, liberty is worth more than death.
You can always console yourself, Philip, with the words of an Army friend: ' Death is just God's way of telling you that you have failed.'
I think he had the battlefield in mind but such wisdom surely applies more generally.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
I do wonder whether Covid will have directly averted some cancer deaths in the sense of getting there first. The link seems to be underlying cause. If you have terminal (or uncertain prognosis) cancer but with some time to live, but die from an acute infection of Covid then Covid will go down as the underlying cause I would have thought. For cancer to be underlying cause there would have to be a more direct link (say you're immuno-compromised and die from an infection that would not normally be serious, but I'm not sure that would be applied for Covid).
Edit: still no evidene of increased cancer deaths, of course. But some of those could take some time to show up if e.g. missed screening/opportunities to diagnose. Cancer can take some time, particularly if there is some treatment, even a bit late (e.g. surgical removal of the primary but it turns out to have spread)
Businesses and live events are facing a wave of cancellations following warnings from PM about a “tidal wave” of infections and calls to deprioritise social contact. Will The Government now support the businesses and workers affected? My question to Treasury today. https://twitter.com/patmcfaddenmp/status/1471442796775186437/video/1
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
That's that correlation/causation argument put to bed, then
What we have is reasonable assumptions and anecdotes that are not supported by the evidence. Policy should be decided on the evidence.
Reasonable assumptions and anecdotes *are* evidence, and if it's reasonable to infer that more cancer deaths are likely it seems kinder to take action immediately than to say "no evidence" meaning, really, "no spreadsheets (because they haven't died yet)."
It was your "seems to have reduced suicides" I was taking issue with. The precautionary approach is to assume that is not true. And anyway surely you make a living from sending people to Barlinnie on the basis of anecdotes (A says B had a gun) and assumptions (I am asking you to infer that B shot C with it)?
Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.
Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.
Infection control in the NHS wasn't the same as lockdown, don't be silly.
Having said that, your suggestion that hospitals shouldn't try to stop cross-infection is a novel one. I haven't heard that one before.
I'd advocate they have the same procedures they'd have had pre-Covid with regards to cold and flu etc
Treat Covid the same as every other coronavirus we're used to is treated.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Yes, cancer patients may not get timely treatment if the hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid. It's one of the better arguments for restrictions and so forth.
There is some early anecdotal signs from nurses I know in the Hampshire that people are beginning to act in the way they did during Spring/Summer 2020 in avoiding healthcare.
2 examples, in a GP Surgery in Southampton they had 62 no shows/cancellations for face to face appointments yesterday.
My wife who works on the treatment centre in Hospital said it was the quietest day they had had yesterday for months due to no-shows.
People are definitely scared.
Well that's the other part, the Gov't need to stress people should really keep their appointments.
Why? As Omicron explodes people will in increasing numbers be cancelling because they are sick, someone they live with is sick, or because someone they were hugging drunkenly in the pub the other night is sick.
The staff shortages that increasing companies are reporting increasingly often is not because people are scared, its because they are sick or isolating.
The government needs to be making £££ available to support business and people. Labour failed to push for it, only the SNP and LibDems have been campaigning on this. We won't need "lockdown", its a red herring. Because if Omicron is as bad as it looks chunks of the economy will shut themselves down.
Jeez, obviously if you have Covid you inform the hospital so they can take a view on whether or not you need whatever you need there and then or as in the vast majority of cases, delay.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
No. I’ve just had enough. I’m sitting in the sunlit garden next to my Antony Gormley statue in this billionaire’s garden in the Balearics, sipping an early cocktail, and then I come on here and it’s WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE Oh property ladder this Oh my pension that Oh my hamster’s got AIDS in his perineum and I am Scottish WHAT CAN I DO WHY WON’T THE GOVERNMENT HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH
Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle
I've just been swimming. Omicron didn't stop me. It's the sort of man I am. Live is for living not cowering away under the duvet.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
You're the idiot.
For primary children especially mingling with other kids and having life experiences is absolutely 100% critical.
In normal circumstances the courts would fine people who took a few days off school because of the paramount importance of education. But you think screwing people around for two years won't have any damage that could potentially afflict them for their entire lives as a result?
Post-vaccinations, all for a virus that even pre-vaccines 99% of people survived? You are the one who needs to get a grip.
All context and sanity has been lost for the sake of "controlling" a virus that 99% of people will live through anyway.
Yet again, you think that because I've pointed out your stupid misuse of stats, that I'm peddling a different point of view. You do this over and over again, and you never learn
You gave a figure of "134 million years of damage", which you explicitly derived from multiplying P=67M by t=2y. This, you compared with deaths.
Damaged education isn't the same as death. That doesn't make me pro lockdown, or pro death, or anything. It makes me anti stupid. Your "134 million years of damage" is preposterous.
Damaged education isn't the same as death, its worse.
On topic. My first political bet, and for weeks I’ve been convinced, especially late last week the libdems would definitely have won. The election has probably come a week too late for the shock result,. Sure it would have happened last week, but the media narrative has changed completely this week. Even the mirror put out a rally round the flag front page last night, on eve of vote on wether Prime Minister should continue.
This weeks rally round the flag give Omicron both barrels narrative reminds voters what they liked about Boris in the first place, this is now front of their minds as they vote.
Rally round flag and change in media narrative week on week does impact votes cast, we have need to take these phenomena seriously in our discussions here.
Anecdote for you AZ-AZ-Moderna people, my dad had that combo and is still testing negative on the LFTs, my mum has 3x Pfizer got infected. They both had their boosters with a few days of each other as well as their other doses.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
Anecdote for you AZ-AZ-Moderna people, my dad had that combo and is still testing negative on the LFTs, my mum has 3x Pfizer got infected. They both had their boosters with a few days of each other as well as their other doses.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
You're the idiot.
For primary children especially mingling with other kids and having life experiences is absolutely 100% critical.
In normal circumstances the courts would fine people who took a few days off school because of the paramount importance of education. But you think screwing people around for two years won't have any damage that could potentially afflict them for their entire lives as a result?
Post-vaccinations, all for a virus that even pre-vaccines 99% of people survived? You are the one who needs to get a grip.
All context and sanity has been lost for the sake of "controlling" a virus that 99% of people will live through anyway.
Yet again, you think that because I've pointed out your stupid misuse of stats, that I'm peddling a different point of view. You do this over and over again, and you never learn
You gave a figure of "134 million years of damage", which you explicitly derived from multiplying P=67M by t=2y. This, you compared with deaths.
Damaged education isn't the same as death. That doesn't make me pro lockdown, or pro death, or anything. It makes me anti stupid. Your "134 million years of damage" is preposterous.
Damaged education isn't the same as death, its worse.
A fate worse than a fate worse than death. That's pretty bad.
Insight into inpatients "with" COVID and "because of" COVID:
Thanks to a locked mutual for putting me onto this - the NHS primary diagnosis data was released this morning, for inpatients (not admissions) up to the 14th. On the left [top] we have the total inpatients, and on the right [bottom] we have just those being treated primarily for COVID-19. /1
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Completely agree, it is bizarre how people can't see this causal chain. Lockdowns -> less COVID -> less pressure on NHS -> more capacity to treat other diseases.
Last Spring & Summer many hospitals were ghost towns, clearly people who needed treatment decided not to get it.
Its happening again now, another anecdote, a colleague in the office needs an X-Ray on his hips, his Dr told him to phone the hospital to book one in. He has just called and he is booked this afternoon. He could pick any time as they had no one else to do.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
How long does it take to die from cancer, and will that show up in overall stats that run through only until the end of 2020?
We do know, however, that there are more people presenting with Stage 3 and 4 cancer, which will have the effect discussed.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.
No, I think they had little option but to take the high road. Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.
Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.
On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.
I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Completely agree, it is bizarre how people can't see this causal chain. Lockdowns -> less COVID -> less pressure on NHS -> more capacity to treat other diseases.
Last Spring & Summer many hospitals were ghost towns, clearly people who needed treatment decided not to get it.
Its happening again now, another anecdote, a colleague in the office needs an X-Ray on his hips, his Dr told him to phone the hospital to book one in. He has just called and he is booked this afternoon. He could pick any time as they had no one else to do.
A decade ago I got a walk in x-ray: went to GP in the early morning about my knee; at hospital 30 mins later. Had to wait all of 10 minutes to get the x-ray, no booking necessary.
No. I’ve just had enough. I’m sitting in the sunlit garden next to my Antony Gormley statue in this billionaire’s garden in the Balearics, sipping an early cocktail, and then I come on here and it’s WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE Oh property ladder this Oh my pension that Oh my hamster’s got AIDS in his perineum and I am Scottish WHAT CAN I DO WHY WON’T THE GOVERNMENT HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH
Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle
I've just been swimming. Omicron didn't stop me. It's the sort of man I am. Live is for living not cowering away under the duvet.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 36m Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.
===
As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.
Yes. But also note that he says each 6 months will be better than the last and polyvalent vaccines that cover almost every conceivable variant are in view (though perhaps 18 months off) so we aren't facing the same cycle forever. I suspect each lockdown will be less stringent than its predecessor.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.
No, I think they had little option but to take the high road. Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.
Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.
Yes, poor sporting decisions need to be left on the track, field or racetrack. The one exception is cheating found after the event - where the winner should be stripped; unless it's horse racing. Never understood why Camelot wasn't retrospectively awarded the triple crown tbh.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
Of course we are Philip but surely you can see it is not optimal if we all get it at the same time?
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
I do wonder whether Covid will have directly averted some cancer deaths in the sense of getting there first. The link seems to be underlying cause. If you have terminal (or uncertain prognosis) cancer but with some time to live, but die from an acute infection of Covid then Covid will go down as the underlying cause I would have thought. For cancer to be underlying cause there would have to be a more direct link (say you're immuno-compromised and die from an infection that would not normally be serious, but I'm not sure that would be applied for Covid).
Edit: still no evidene of increased cancer deaths, of course. But some of those could take some time to show up if e.g. missed screening/opportunities to diagnose. Cancer can take some time, particularly if there is some treatment, even a bit late (e.g. surgical removal of the primary but it turns out to have spread)
Just a moment's search found that in April 2019 200,000 people were referred to a consultant with a suspected cancer. In April 2020 that was less than 80,000. So there are 120,000 people in one month who should have been seen by a specialist to check if they had cancer but were not. The idea this is not adversely affecting outcomes is ludicrous.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
You seem to have totally gone, Philip. Not a man to have alongside in the trenches. No longer picturing you as Christian Bale. What I'm seeing now is a chicken minus its head.
One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.
Every event is now a superspreader event, especially in London, unless one is very lucky.
And yet the remaining few pray-the-pox-away advocates insist there should not only be no advice for people to Be Careful but all these events should happen regardless.
Of course they should!
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
So people who are ill with Covid should go out and party. Or people who's immediate family or colleagues are ill.
Riiiiight.
If they want to, if they'd party with a cold or cough, why not?
We're all getting it anyway.
Of course we are Philip but surely you can see it is not optimal if we all get it at the same time?
We're not all going to get it at the same time, millions got it earlier in the year already and we've all been vaccinated.
It may not be optimal but disrupting livelihoods or education or other isn't optimal either.
I'd genuinely remove all restrictions including isolation and put all faith in the vaccines to do their job, while the rest of us get on with ours.
Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?
How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?
Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?
We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.
Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.
But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?
You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.
Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.
No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.
Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.
Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.
Idiot child. The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.
You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.
Idiot child. Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
You're the idiot.
For primary children especially mingling with other kids and having life experiences is absolutely 100% critical.
In normal circumstances the courts would fine people who took a few days off school because of the paramount importance of education. But you think screwing people around for two years won't have any damage that could potentially afflict them for their entire lives as a result?
Post-vaccinations, all for a virus that even pre-vaccines 99% of people survived? You are the one who needs to get a grip.
All context and sanity has been lost for the sake of "controlling" a virus that 99% of people will live through anyway.
Yet again, you think that because I've pointed out your stupid misuse of stats, that I'm peddling a different point of view. You do this over and over again, and you never learn
You gave a figure of "134 million years of damage", which you explicitly derived from multiplying P=67M by t=2y. This, you compared with deaths.
Damaged education isn't the same as death. That doesn't make me pro lockdown, or pro death, or anything. It makes me anti stupid. Your "134 million years of damage" is preposterous.
Damaged education isn't the same as death, its worse.
A fate worse than a fate worse than death. That's pretty bad.
Very droll. We know for absolute certain though of one school age child who got death, and it seems unlikely he was an isolated instance.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
I do wonder whether Covid will have directly averted some cancer deaths in the sense of getting there first. The link seems to be underlying cause. If you have terminal (or uncertain prognosis) cancer but with some time to live, but die from an acute infection of Covid then Covid will go down as the underlying cause I would have thought. For cancer to be underlying cause there would have to be a more direct link (say you're immuno-compromised and die from an infection that would not normally be serious, but I'm not sure that would be applied for Covid).
Edit: still no evidene of increased cancer deaths, of course. But some of those could take some time to show up if e.g. missed screening/opportunities to diagnose. Cancer can take some time, particularly if there is some treatment, even a bit late (e.g. surgical removal of the primary but it turns out to have spread)
Just a moment's search found that in April 2019 200,000 people were referred to a consultant with a suspected cancer. In April 2020 that was less than 80,000. So there are 120,000 people in one month who should have been seen by a specialist to check if they had cancer but were not. The idea this is not adversely affecting outcomes is ludicrous.
The idea that our CMO could say that during this pandemic and especially Spring/Summer 2020 that the NHS worked in a normal way for treating cancer is beyond belief.
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
I do wonder whether Covid will have directly averted some cancer deaths in the sense of getting there first. The link seems to be underlying cause. If you have terminal (or uncertain prognosis) cancer but with some time to live, but die from an acute infection of Covid then Covid will go down as the underlying cause I would have thought. For cancer to be underlying cause there would have to be a more direct link (say you're immuno-compromised and die from an infection that would not normally be serious, but I'm not sure that would be applied for Covid).
Edit: still no evidene of increased cancer deaths, of course. But some of those could take some time to show up if e.g. missed screening/opportunities to diagnose. Cancer can take some time, particularly if there is some treatment, even a bit late (e.g. surgical removal of the primary but it turns out to have spread)
Just a moment's search found that in April 2019 200,000 people were referred to a consultant with a suspected cancer. In April 2020 that was less than 80,000. So there are 120,000 people in one month who should have been seen by a specialist to check if they had cancer but were not. The idea this is not adversely affecting outcomes is ludicrous.
That's basically the entire excess deaths of this pandemic since it began. In one month's cancer data.
"Controlling the pandemic" has done more damage than letting it rip.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 36m Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.
===
As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.
Yes. But also note that he says each 6 months will be better than the last and polyvalent vaccines that cover almost every conceivable variant are in view (though perhaps 18 months off) so we aren't facing the same cycle forever. I suspect each lockdown will be less stringent than its predecessor.
So, for clarity, is he saying the forthcoming 6 months will be better than the last 6 months? That is a significant contrast to the mood music here.
Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.
No, I think they had little option but to take the high road. Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.
Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.
In 30 or 40 years’ time, I’ll be able to tell my young grandkids that I was there, on that fateful evening in Abu Dhabi…
Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1
Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?
I think that he is losing patience.
So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?
Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?
There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.
That's that correlation/causation argument put to bed, then
What we have is reasonable assumptions and anecdotes that are not supported by the evidence. Policy should be decided on the evidence.
Reasonable assumptions and anecdotes *are* evidence, and if it's reasonable to infer that more cancer deaths are likely it seems kinder to take action immediately than to say "no evidence" meaning, really, "no spreadsheets (because they haven't died yet)."
It was your "seems to have reduced suicides" I was taking issue with. The precautionary approach is to assume that is not true. And anyway surely you make a living from sending people to Barlinnie on the basis of anecdotes (A says B had a gun) and assumptions (I am asking you to infer that B shot C with it)?
My prosecution work is pretty much public service earning roughly 1/5th of what I do normally. It's about the same as legal aid.
But in Scotland at least, despite some of our judge's best efforts, we need what is called corroboration. So, in your example it is not enough that A says B had a gun. We need a second source of evidence, such as fingerprints on the gun that was used or possibly even gunpowder residue, to show that it was used to shoot C.
I don't think that the precautionary principle works in the way you indicate either. It is perfectly proper to make reasonable assumptions until the evidence is available. Once it is, however, stating those assumptions as fact when they are not borne out by the evidence is wrong.
Comments
Omicron is everywhere. It's going to be chaos over the next month with millions of people isolating. I really feel for the hospitality sector, and the government should be offering support. Sunak needs to get his arse off the beach in California and set something up pronto.
Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.
"If you want to go to an event or a party, then the sensible thing to do, if that’s a priority is to get a test.
"We're not saying that we want to cancel stuff, we’re not locking stuff down"
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1471444441194020869
Suicides in the ONS stats are recorded by Date of Inquest not Date of Death. Inquests can take a long time to happen in normal times. The ONS states that baiscally the figures for a given year are actually the stats for the last 6 months fo the previous year (given time for inquests to happen) plus the first 6 months of the year of record. In Covid times they have been delayed much further. So the "fall" in suicides we see in 2020 is mostly coming from delayed inquests, not necessarily fewer suicides.
Now, there hasn't been a surge of backlogged inquests causing the number of massively spike this year so we can cautiously say that there was indeed an overall fall in suicides during lockdowns in 2020 but without someone doing so serious research on it to construct the "by date of death" data we don't have a clear picture.
For primary children especially mingling with other kids and having life experiences is absolutely 100% critical.
In normal circumstances the courts would fine people who took a few days off school because of the paramount importance of education. But you think screwing people around for two years won't have any damage that could potentially afflict them for their entire lives as a result?
Post-vaccinations, all for a virus that even pre-vaccines 99% of people survived? You are the one who needs to get a grip.
All context and sanity has been lost for the sake of "controlling" a virus that 99% of people will live through anyway.
"I don't actually think that any ministers feeling are treading on their toes on this one. This is my job."
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1471445340356321282
The staff shortages that increasing companies are reporting increasingly often is not because people are scared, its because they are sick or isolating.
The government needs to be making £££ available to support business and people. Labour failed to push for it, only the SNP and LibDems have been campaigning on this. We won't need "lockdown", its a red herring. Because if Omicron is as bad as it looks chunks of the economy will shut themselves down.
Share of Omicron:
Positivity Rate:
Cases sequenced:
"It is Government policy that we don't have Covid!"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsfromsuicidethatoccurredinenglandandwales/aprilandjuly2020
Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.
Brexit was a non-event compared to this madness.
Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.
Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.
I hope your good lady is feeling better but this illness is very debilitating
Boris Johnson insists that he and Chris Whitty are 'saying the same thing'
'What Chris Whitty and I are saying is that we don't want to make your choices for you.
'We are saying people should be cautious and they should think about their activities in the run up to Christmas'
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1471447092484845568
Don't pray the pox away. Accept it, embrace it. Its here, its endemic, get your vaccine and take your chances.
We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.
But yes, liberty is worth more than death.
Adam Brooks
@EssexPR
Hi
@BorisJohnson
@RishiSunak
@sajidjavid
Hospitality, Events & Entertainment needs clarity, do we cancel NYE events, stocking up and staffing incurs huge costs.
Many venues will need financial support.
Someone at least acknowledge the concerns.
Lockdowns -> less COVID -> less pressure on NHS -> more capacity to treat other diseases.
The study, by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), found that just 12 per cent of people believed Britain and got a good deal in August – a decline from 21 per cent who took the same view in January.
Opinion has hardened among remain voters from 66 per cent who now say a bad deal was procured, compared to 53 per cent in 2021.
But among Leave voters, too, the balance of opinion has tilted away from approval – with Brexiteers no longer more likely to say a good deal has been had.
In January 35 per cent thought Mr Johnson had got a good deal compared to 22 per cent thinking it was a bad one; now 36 per cent say it is bad against 22 per cent who say it is good.
Eminent political scientist John Curtice, who oversaw the study, said the results showed people were going off the deal – but for different reasons.
“The Brexit deal is being criticised from two directions – those opposed to the policy in principle and those who dislike the way it has been implemented in practice," said Sir John, a professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde.
"People on the Remain side of the debate are relatively united in their dislike of an outcome whose principal objective is one that they oppose in the first place. Meanwhile, some on the Leave side feel that the UK is still tied too closely to the EU’s orbit, while others would have preferred a softer Brexit.
"And it’s those with strong views on Brexit – the partisans on both sides – who are proving most difficult for the government to satisfy. As a result, the nation is still divided over the outcome of the Brexit process.”
From The Independent via https://apple.news/AJbe7SpwzSJy4E2wVIuZT_g
Virtually no-one’s happy
You gave a figure of "134 million years of damage", which you explicitly derived from multiplying P=67M by t=2y.
This, you compared with deaths.
Damaged education isn't the same as death. That doesn't make me pro lockdown, or pro death, or anything.
It makes me anti stupid. Your "134 million years of damage" is preposterous.
Having said that, your suggestion that hospitals shouldn't try to stop cross-infection is a novel one. I haven't heard that one before.
Social distancing -> Less capacity -> more pressure on NHS -> less capacity to treat other diseases.
Abolish social distancing in the NHS, abolish isolation for those who are infected, and get on with the job of treating other diseases. Stop trying to prevent people from being infected with a virus they've already had three vaccines for and that 99% would survive with zero vaccines.
I think he had the battlefield in mind but such wisdom surely applies more generally.
Edit: still no evidene of increased cancer deaths, of course. But some of those could take some time to show up if e.g. missed screening/opportunities to diagnose. Cancer can take some time, particularly if there is some treatment, even a bit late (e.g. surgical removal of the primary but it turns out to have spread)
It was your "seems to have reduced suicides" I was taking issue with. The precautionary approach is to assume that is not true. And anyway surely you make a living from sending people to Barlinnie on the basis of anecdotes (A says B had a gun) and assumptions (I am asking you to infer that B shot C with it)?
Treat Covid the same as every other coronavirus we're used to is treated.
Riiiiight.
This weeks rally round the flag give Omicron both barrels narrative reminds voters what they liked about Boris in the first place, this is now front of their minds as they vote.
Rally round flag and change in media narrative week on week does impact votes cast, we have need to take these phenomena seriously in our discussions here.
And then they act like they're the responsible ones.
We're all getting it anyway.
Thanks to a locked mutual for putting me onto this - the NHS primary diagnosis data was released this morning, for inpatients (not admissions) up to the 14th. On the left [top] we have the total inpatients, and on the right [bottom] we have just those being treated primarily for COVID-19. /1
https://twitter.com/RufusSG
Its happening again now, another anecdote, a colleague in the office needs an X-Ray on his hips, his Dr told him to phone the hospital to book one in. He has just called and he is booked this afternoon. He could pick any time as they had no one else to do.
We do know, however, that there are more people presenting with Stage 3 and 4 cancer, which will have the effect discussed.
@PippaCrerar
·
36m
Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.
===
As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.
I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.
Negative real interest rate of at least 4.78% still.
So what's the point in locking down in January, once we've all had it? And if we haven't all had it, then clearly its not doubling as claimed.
And the media all over the Queen cancelling her pre Christmas family lunch just adds to the narrative
I am afraid you are pushing against a tsunami of public opinion who are now very worried indeed
1) run my business
2) see friends
3) have a pint
You see the difference? Restrictions aren't necessary.
" More ice waiter please".
It may not be optimal but disrupting livelihoods or education or other isn't optimal either.
I'd genuinely remove all restrictions including isolation and put all faith in the vaccines to do their job, while the rest of us get on with ours.
"Controlling the pandemic" has done more damage than letting it rip.
They'll still lockdown even though we are past the peak of cases.
I've got stuff to do - hope to catch you all for the by-election night thread.
But in Scotland at least, despite some of our judge's best efforts, we need what is called corroboration. So, in your example it is not enough that A says B had a gun. We need a second source of evidence, such as fingerprints on the gun that was used or possibly even gunpowder residue, to show that it was used to shoot C.
I don't think that the precautionary principle works in the way you indicate either. It is perfectly proper to make reasonable assumptions until the evidence is available. Once it is, however, stating those assumptions as fact when they are not borne out by the evidence is wrong.