Hancock's Half Hour

[doctor Bob]

Well, I went and cut my field today. Lockdown is over, it just seemed like everyone is out, no distancing, big groups, beers on the green. Makes me wonder if I should even bother trying to do it at work anymore.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Burn! :lol:

Even the governments own figures show a decline in deaths that is too early for lockdown to have been the cause, peak death rate was around 2 weeks after lockdown, infection to death on average is 3-4 weeks.

Shame our government did not employ you as the leading expert on Corona19 we would not of had a single fatality

We'd have had a lot more if I was in charge.

Not really something to be proud of and a potentially inflammatory and callous statement to make in the knowledge that there are those on here who are worried about themselves or loved ones being in a high risk category.

For the avoidance of doubt I’m not one of them - I recognise how lucky I am. I also think we need to come out of lockdown decisively. I don’t feel a need though to be disrespectful of the very real concerns of others.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Well, I went and cut my field today. Lockdown is over, it just seemed like everyone is out, no distancing, big groups, beers on the green. Makes me wonder if I should even bother trying to do it at work anymore.

Obviously your choice Bob but obviously if you don’t you risk an employers liability claim if one of your guys goes down with C19. I’m not saying that’s right or deserved ... just that it’s a risk!

 

[Trainee neophyte]

No-one is blinder than he who will not see...

Any chance you could enlighten me? I'd love to understand what you are trying tell me. Currently, I'm somewhat baffled.

 

[Rorschach]

Not really something to be proud of and a potentially inflammatory and callous statement to make in the knowledge that there are those on here who are worried about themselves or loved ones being in a high risk category.

For the avoidance of doubt I’m not one of them - I recognise how lucky I am. I also think we need to come out of lockdown decisively. I don’t feel a need though to be disrespectful of the very real concerns of others.

Not proud or otherwise, just realistic.
I have set out my plan here before so I won't go into it again. My plan would likely have resulted in more direct C19 deaths because I would have given people freedom to choose and some of those people would have chosen to take the risk and died as a result. Those who took the advice given would have been fine though, but lonely and isolated.
In the longterm though I think my plan would have been less costly and probably less deadly (from associated deaths) than the plan the government went with.

 

[Student]

I’ve kept out of this debate so far and I have to confess that I haven’t read every single one of the 500 posts so far and I apologise if what follows has been covered before.

My reason for contributing is that I was concerned by Rorschach’s comment yesterday that

“Vast majority of deaths are over 60 and most of them are over 80. I can't remember where I read it but they said that almost everyone that has died was older than average life expectancy.”

What follows is very boring as it involves statistics

It’s true to say that those reaching age 80 have reached average life expectancy but that is the age expectancy at birth and, by age 80, quite a number of those who were born in, say, 1940 have already died. Based on data for 2016-2018, the Office of National Statistics reckons that the life expectancy of an 80 year old is over 8 years, by 90 it’s 4 years – see Ex in the table below.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... encetables

Age x q x E x
80 0.054457 8.39
81 0.060978 7.85
82 0.067751 7.33
83 0.076890 6.82
84 0.086362 6.35
85 0.096080 5.90
86 0.108379 5.48
87 0.120527 5.08
88 0.135267 4.71
89 0.151119 4.37
90 0.164525 4.06

As well as figures for the expectation of life, the table also includes the probability of death at each age – column q x. So, for a group of 1,000 80 year olds, 55 would be expected to die before reaching age 81, 61 of a thousand 81 year olds etc. To calculate excess deaths, the statisticians calculate the expected number of deaths using similar tables and subtract that from the actual number of deaths. There has been much talk about excess deaths although another way of looking at it would be to regard them as premature deaths since we are all due to die at some time. As to whether deaths in future years will be lower, it’s possible, but not certain, since those who survive may well be the healthier ones. However, how long it takes for this to play out is anybody’s guess.

If one wants more information on the topic of excess deaths, it can be found here:

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/fil ... -06-09.pdf

As for the pronouncements by Matt Hancock et al, it might be worth reading the following couple of articles

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/news-and-i ... iable-data

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/ ... ting-data/

This last also gives a link to Matt Hancock’s reply.

However, matters continue to proceed at a fast rate so, what was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.

Finally, when it comes to predicting the future, there is always a danger in being too confident about this. I read recently of a professor warning of being too confident of predictions by telling the story of a turkey that hatched in the USA on New Year’s Day. Every day thereafter he was fed and, as the months passed, he came to the conclusion that his future was bright; then came the fourth Wednesday in November. Also, when it comes to predictions, at the end of the 19th century, it was predicted that, with the growth of population and of transport in London, within a limited number of years there wouldn’t be enough resources to carry away all the horse manure and the streets of London would be awash with the stuff; then came the internal combustion engine.

 

[doctor Bob]

Well, I went and cut my field today. Lockdown is over, it just seemed like everyone is out, no distancing, big groups, beers on the green. Makes me wonder if I should even bother trying to do it at work anymore.

Obviously your choice Bob but obviously if you don’t you risk an employers liability claim if one of your guys goes down with C19. I’m not saying that’s right or deserved ... just that it’s a risk!

Yeh I know, only venting. I follow the rules trust me.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

This seems timely:

At the time of writing (10/06/2020) COVID 19 is said to have affected 0.4% of the UK populations and 0.06% have reportedly died as a result. Cancer alone kills 0.24% of the population every year in the UK. Even if you accept that all claimed deaths from COVID 19 were as a result of the syndrome, cancer kills at least four times as many people.

In 2018 541,589 people died in England and Wales. This represents 0.92% of the population which means approximately 0.15% of the population die every two months. The top 5 leading causes of death account for more than 40% of those deaths.

ONS data

On average these five causes kill 0.37% of the population every year, equating to approximately 0.06% every two months. Roughly the same figure as reported COVID 19 deaths. Yet for these people, during the Lockdown regime, treatment and essential screening has effectively been withheld.

During the same period hospital bed occupancy has been at an all time low. Additional capacity was added in the form of the various Nightingale hospitals, though these have not been required to treat COVID 19 patents.

During the Lockdown regime, cancer screening and treatment was put on hold. Cancer Research UK estimate that 290,000 people have missed cancer follow ups, indicating that around 20,000 current cancer sufferers, who would otherwise have been detected, remain without a diagnosis in the UK. They state that 2.1 million people have missed screening appointment, potentially at the cost of another 3,800 lives. The impact upon cancer survival rates alone has been devastating.

The full article is here: https://in-this-together.com/lockdown-r ... -lokin-20/

I've been rather enjoying his work - not much output, but well-reasoned and well researched - at least, in my opinion.

 

[Droogs]

I do have to point out something that has been mentioned a few times on here about cancer patients and treatment. It is only in England within the UK that cancer treatments have been put totally on hold. In Scotland the diagnosis and treatment using both chemo and radiology have continued. I know this as i have just completed 12 weeks of chemo (4 days ago )and am currently on my 5 week pause before my 15 rounds of radiotherapy start. but i have been to hospital this week for my face mould to be made. In Scotland cancer treatment hospitals have been segregated from those areas treating covid patients.
Just one of the many areas of healthcare and social care information and facts that have been totally distorted by the English based MSM

 

[Jake]

However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind?

Yes it's run by Toby Young who is basically a notorious alt-right troll.

 

[Jake]

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

Yes you've relied on these people before. Very non-transparent and they do love to rely on the mainstream Russian propaganda channels like RT and Sputnik. So I'd give them a swerve if that doesn't dent your income too much.

 

[Jake]

To date they are excess yes. What will that number be in a year from now though. A lot of those people that have died have died early, if they didn't die of C19 they would have died of something else in the next year or so, 80 year olds don't live in care homes for a decade usually :wink:

The fact you are winking about people (of whatever age) dying is, well.

The actuarial stats are that the average person dying is losing 10 years of life. Just because someone is 80 doesn't mean they are going to die this year or next year because they've outlived the mean.

But, it's all a nod and a joke and wink to you right?

 

[Jake]

I'm passive aggressive because I really dislike the way people are treated in these arguements. The majority belittle the minority in a very mean and superior manner and then get rattled when the reverse is carried out (on purpose)

The majority on this and Brexit were definitely on your side Bob.

 

[Jake]

Lets just wait until we see the mortality figures for 2019/20 as a whole compared to the 5 year average and a bad flu year figure as well. I guarantee (totally my opinion) that we will not see 60,000+ extra deaths on the average and my suspicion is the figure will be slightly higher than a (very) bad flu year.

The very worst flu years (decades apart) are less than 30k in total so your theory is a non starter. Usually it is either in the hundreds (sometimes in the tens) and a bad year is high single digit thousands.

 

[Jake]

I do have to point out something that has been mentioned a few times on here about cancer patients and treatment. It is only in England within the UK that cancer treatments have been put totally on hold.

I don't think there is total hold (but there is a massive backlog). My sister's hospital has had 3 ICUs running, one for confirmed COVID, one for unknown from A&E, one for cancer patients and the like, who have had to isolate themselves themselves completely for weeks to ensure the ward is COVID clean.

Which is not to say there is not a problem.

 

[Droogs]

not denying there is a problem just that there is a misconception about the true state of cancer coverage/treatment amongst the populace and it is mainly due to misreporting by the mainstream media based in England as usual

 

[Trainee neophyte]

However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind?

Yes it's run by Toby Young who is basically a notorious alt-right troll.

"Everyone lies".
Does being a "notorious alt-right troll" negate all the information contained therein? Sort of my point - there are no longer any facts , just selected evidence to bolster already chosen positions. Everyone is so ready to discount whatever doesn't fit with the preconceived notions. Science has become a major casualty in all this, which may actually be a good thing, as there are people who apparently want to use science to rebuild the world with you and me as much poorer versions of our former selves. (I am assuming that you are not a well-connected billionaire, but you know what they say about "assume".)
https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/09/now- ... eat-reset/

 

[Jake]

Does being a "notorious alt-right troll" negate all the information contained therein?

No of course it does not, but what it does do is impose an alt-right troll community filter on what you see . Better to seek closer to source opinions, without the censorship.

#Sort of my point - there are no longer any facts , just selected evidence to bolster already chosen positions.

Very post modernist of you, anything is true if you say it. Do you actually believe that though? Is a table a table or just a construct of what a table is if you call something a table in a language in which a table is what a chair looks like? If you choose to think like that, you select irrationality.

Everyone is so ready to discount whatever doesn't fit with the preconceived notions.

That's true for many, especially from the YouTube (using that as an analogy for a system of thought) generation. Thankfully, still not wholly the case.

Science has become a major casualty in all this

Science is fine, you just don't understand how it works, very messily.

which may actually be a good thing

No, it would be a very bad thing, although science is not a be and end all and does not provide answers to lots of questions (including if we are still on the subject, re COVID, for instance in the rational debate to be had about the balance between pathology and the economy (in short and long terms, which may not be the same thing).

as there are people who apparently want to use science to rebuild the world with you and me as much poorer versions of our former selves. (I am assuming that you are not a well-connected billionaire, but you know what they say about "assume".)
https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/09/now- ... eat-reset/

I have not read that and I'm not sure I CBA but your argument is that science is bad because bad people want to do bad things with science. I am sure that bad people also want to do bad things with all sorts of other things which are not inherently bad because bad people can do bad things with them. Get-away cars are the first example that comes to my head.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Even the best science cannot unambiguously judge the relative importance of morals and money. Even where sound data is available the individual tendancy is to select that which confirms a personal bias.

A political judgement is underpinned by objective analysis to balance moral, economic, financial and feasibility issues. Inevitably the rules made will not please everyone - personal judgement is based upon individual beliefs and circumstances.

To put the following into some sort of context, I am retired and vulnerable:

1. I do not subscribe to the view that all life is worth preserving at any cost. But if you are a tolerably healthy 70 year old you may expect to have another 10,15 or 20 years of good quality life. This should not be denied.
2. I understand why younger people feel frustrated - expected to make significant personal sacrifices (financial and freedoms) for no immediate benefit. Worse, they will pay most to repair the financial hole left.

Society works if all are treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Removing lockdown without regard for older people is as unreasonable as maintaining lockdown at the expense of the young.

The retired have the largest discretionary income af any age group - 65-74 year olds closely followed by over 75s (ONS figures for March 2019). They also have saved the most money on items prevented during lockdown.

To balance the pain there may be a very good argument for a tax surcharge on pensioners (for 3-5 years?) to recognise the benefit to them and the sacrifice made by younger people to at least partially rebalance the impacts of CV-19.

Probably a radical and unattractive thought for many on this forum - but worth thinking about!

 

[Jake]

I think those are sensible thoughts. Boomers are going to have give some stuff up, as are Gen X , and to some degree Millennials.

I think it will (or should, if austerians can be kept out of decision making) be done more subtly by long term debt finance, with some QE evaporation over time. The benefits of fiat currency are enormous, especially in a situation like this where all countries are pretty much in the same boat (assuming, optimistically, we stop being in the top 5 failing nations at dealing with COVID).