To mask or not to mask

[Serial_Apologist]

I feel the same way as Cockney Sparrow. I've now taken to donning two face masks when shopping: the ET's ears look.

[Andrew]

But 'predominantly' and 'marginal' suggest that mask-wearing is still indicated?

"The report shows that 489 of 742 people (65.9%) who died of the delta variant within 28 days of a positive covid test between 1 February 2021 and 2 August 2021, had received at least one dose of the vaccine. 54.1% (402 of 742) had received both doses. This seems like an alarming set of statistics, but with an imperfect vaccine and high vaccination coverage, it is exactly what we would expect."

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/25...nes-dont-work/

These individuals had a positive Covid-19 test within 28 days of their death. It does NOT mean that the Covid-19 virus killed them. There are a number of factors in play here:

1/ Everyone admitted to hospital, either for planned surgery or as an A & E admission is tested for Covid-19 as a routine part of the admission process. Some of those admitted via A & E will be suffering from Covid-19 and may die as a direct result of having caught the virus (although 99% DO recover from this)

2/ One would do well to note that many individuals admitted for any number of reasons might have Covid-19, but their admission to hospital is not because of Covid-19. In the event they die the cause of death would NOT be Covid-19 per se 9although it wouldn't help) but their deaths would be recorded as one of those of a who died within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test.

3/ Many people are admitted to hospital with conditions unconnected with Covid-19, but test positive. They are treated for the unrelated condition, recover and are discharged, only to die within 28 days of a matter completely unrelated matter (car crash, suicide, alcohol poisoning etc. etc.) Again these would be recorded as a Covid-19 death within 28 days of a positive test.

It is because these statistical factors appear flawed that many have come to doubt the basic tenet of the message throughout, which is to be careful and sensible.

[oddoneout]

These individuals had a positive Covid-19 test within 28 days of their death. It does NOT mean that the Covid-19 virus killed them. There are a number of factors in play here:

1/ Everyone admitted to hospital, either for planned surgery or as an A & E admission is tested for Covid-19 as a routine part of the admission process. Some of those admitted via A & E will be suffering from Covid-19 and may die as a direct result of having caught the virus (although 99% DO recover from this)

2/ One would do well to note that many individuals admitted for any number of reasons might have Covid-19, but their admission to hospital is not because of Covid-19. In the event they die the cause of death would NOT be Covid-19 per se 9although it wouldn't help) but their deaths would be recorded as one of those of a who died within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test.

3/ Many people are admitted to hospital with conditions unconnected with Covid-19, but test positive. They are treated for the unrelated condition, recover and are discharged, only to die within 28 days of a matter completely unrelated matter (car crash, suicide, alcohol poisoning etc. etc.) Again these would be recorded as a Covid-19 death within 28 days of a positive test.

It is because these statistical factors appear flawed that many have come to doubt the basic tenet of the message throughout, which is to be careful and sensible.

So why does it say "died of" which suggests cause, rather than "died with" which indicates something else might have been/was responsible and covid was present, not responsible but might have been contributory?

[french frank]

These individuals had a positive Covid-19 test within 28 days of their death. It does NOT mean that the Covid-19 virus killed them. There are a number of factors in play here: .

The particular individuals are described (in the BMJ) as having died OF the delta variant, not having died 'with Covid'.

I see odders has queried that too.

[Andrew]

So why does it say "died of" which suggests cause, rather than "died with" which indicates something else might have been/was responsible and covid was present, not responsible but might have been contributory?

I think you may have hit on part of the problem:

Yes, these individuals had Covid-19, and they died, BUT the Covid-19 did not kill them. It is because of the figures suggest these deaths ARE from Covid-19, when it's not the cause of death, that people doubt the figures and, by inference, doubt other statistics produced by the Government, which is a pity, as the message becomes diluted, which is NOT a good thing.

[french frank]

I think you may have hit on part of the problem:

Yes, these individuals had Covid-19, and they died, BUT the Covid-19 did not kill them. It is because of the figures suggest these deaths ARE from Covid-19, when it's not the cause of death, that people doubt the figures and, by inference, doubt other statistics produced by the Government, which is a pity, as the message becomes diluted, which is NOT a good thing.

You seem to be arguing that no one dies of Covid? They all really die of something else even if they did have Covid.

"COVID-19 can also cause serious and sometimes fatal complicationse, including:

pneumonia
arrhythmia, which is an irregular heartbeat
damage to organs
multiple organ failure
sepsis
shock
respiratory distress syndrome
heart failure"

You can't argue that it isn't the Covid that actually kills them, they only die of the complications.

[oddoneout]

I think you may have hit on part of the problem:

Yes, these individuals had Covid-19, and they died, BUT the Covid-19 did not kill them. It is because of the figures suggest these deaths ARE from Covid-19, when it's not the cause of death, that people doubt the figures and, by inference, doubt other statistics produced by the Government, which is a pity, as the message becomes diluted, which is NOT a good thing.

I do remember reading about this difficulty with the terminology and its implications some time ago but I suppose I had assumed that some sort of resolution/clarification had been reached. As it's a professional medical source presumably a caveat isn't considered necessary as "everyone will be aware". Just unfortunate that others who aren't aware might also read it and draw the wrong conclusion or be puzzled - as have FF and I. As you say, not a good thing.

[teamsaint]

There are some interesting numbers in this report from Wales.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58680204

No least of these is that the vaccination status of so many people in the survey is unknown !
As ever, extra context is needed. The overwhelming majority of cases are in under 60s , and many at the bottom of the age range are of course not vaccinated.

[Andrew]

You seem to be arguing that no one dies of Covid? They all really die of something else even if they did have Covid.

"COVID-19 can also cause serious and sometimes fatal complicationse, including:

pneumonia
arrhythmia, which is an irregular heartbeat
damage to organs
multiple organ failure
sepsis
shock
respiratory distress syndrome
heart failure"

You can't argue that it isn't the Covid that actually kills them, they only die of the complications.

The most extreme example of this (and I DON'T wish to make light of any death) was a woman who was admitted to a local hospital with Covid-19, was successfully treated, recovered and was discharged. Some two weeks later she was struck by a bus at a road junction & tragically died of her injuries. Her death WAS recorded as a "Covid-19 death within 28 days of a test" and her family were incensed that her death should be so recorded. Put bluntly, the 'bus killed her, not the Covid-19! I'm sure there are numerous other incidents similar to this, and all I'm saying that the "numbers game" should be honest, not squeued!

[french frank]

The most extreme example of this (and I DON'T wish to make light of any death) was a woman who was admitted to a local hospital with Covid-19, was successfully treated, recovered and was discharged. Some two weeks later she was struck by a bus at a road junction & tragically died of her injuries. Her death WAS recorded as a "Covid-19 death within 28 days of a test" and her family were incensed that her death should be so recorded. Put bluntly, the 'bus filled her, not the Covid-19! I'm sure there are numerous other incidents similar to this, and all I'm saying that the "numbers game" should be honest, not squeued!

I think that is perhaps an unusual case, unlikely that there are many similar. Nor should it therefore be concluded that the figures are in general 'skewed'. For every death wrongly recorded, there may be another that went unrecorded. If RAJAR records that Radio 3 had 2043 listeners one quarter when really there were 2046, that wouldn't invalidate their figures nor should it create the suspicion that somehow they're being fiddled or are misleading. One accepts a certain level of tolerance to such figures.

[teamsaint]

I think that is perhaps an unusual case, unlikely that there are many similar. Nor should it therefore be concluded that the figures are in general 'skewed'. For every death wrongly recorded, there may be another that went unrecorded. If RAJAR records that Radio 3 had 2043 listeners one quarter when really there were 2046, that wouldn't invalidate their figures nor should it create the suspicion that somehow they're being fiddled or are misleading. One accepts a certain level of tolerance to such figures.

The stats around covid ( including deaths) need interpreting with a great deal of caution. A very large number of those showing as covid hospital admissions , possibly over 50% in some areas) are people admitted for non covid reasons.

[french frank]

The stats around covid ( including deaths) need interpreting with a great deal of caution. A very large number of those showing as covid hospital admissions , possibly over 50% in some areas) are people admitted for non covid reasons.

That would be a surprisingly high proportion. Do you have a link for that?

[teamsaint]

That would be a surprisingly high proportion. Do you have a link for that?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/26/exclusive-half-covid-hospitalisations-tested-positive-admission/

I think other figures have tended to be around 40% of admissions.

[french frank]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ive-admission/

I think other figures have tended to be around 40% of admissions.

I'm over my free quota Tit for tat, perhaps their figures should be taken with a pinch of salt too! I don't usually trust/share the Telegraph's stance. On anything, really. Does the Guardian have the story (not that I would automatically swallow it, but at least I would be able to read it)?.

ADD: I can read this bit: "The majority of cases were not detected until patients underwent standard Covid tests, carried out on everyone admitted to hospital for any …" (and there it ends). Mmm, that somewhat clouds the issue: it doesn't sound as if it's saying that those who were discovered to have Covid didn't still need hospitalization, even if they were initially admitted apparently for something else?

[Frances_iom]

I'm over my free quota ...

how is this measured ? if just a cookie setting then delete all torygraph originated cookies and you are back as one of the great unwatched.