Covid 12/23/20 | COVID 19 Information Page

Covid19mathblog.com

Numbers are just being thrown around – nothing like fear to create action…. https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/flawed-data-model-from-imperial-college-blame-for-latest-uk-lockdown/

“The source behind the claim that a new COVID-19 strain in the UK is 70% more transmissible, Dr. Erik Volz of Imperial College, admits that the model that produced that statistic is flawed and that it is “too early to tell” if the strain is more easily spread.”

“According to the BBC, Johnson’s assertion that the new variant “may be up to 70% more transmissible,” was based on the information discussed the day prior by the UK government’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, or NERVTAG. Yet, as the BBC notes, this figure apparently comes from a single source, a 10 minute presentation delivered by Dr. Erik Volz of Imperial College given last Friday, the same day as the NERVTAG meeting.”

“Volz states that it’s “too early to tell” what N501Y’s transmissibility even is, stating that the 70% figure estimated by the model is based on “the current state of our knowledge,” which again is based on 1 month of data and its trends, trends that Volz also noted “don’t always pan out.” Volz then adds that the sparse datasets used to develop the transmissibility model for the new strain had some issues, stating that “the sample frequency is very noisy and overdispersed.” Later on in the presentation, Volz states that the data, provided by COG-UK, was both “non-random and very noisy sampling,” bringing into question not only the limited amount of data in terms of time, but also the quality of that data. After noting the glaring flaws in both models he is comparing, and that it is “too early to tell” much of anything about N501Y, Volz states that N501Y is “growing faster than A222V ever grew.””

“Volz’s presentation follows his release, alongside Imperial College professor and NERVTAG member Wendy Barclay, of the preliminary genomic characterization of the new strain. Volz’s presentation last Friday and this preliminary characterization, first published on December 19, were the main sources of data considered at the NERVTAG meeting. Notably, the study, written for the UK government and Wellcome Trust-funded COG-UK, has yet to be peer-reviewed and makes no mention of increased transmissibility or the 70% figure.”

“Volz’s colleague, Neil Ferguson, also played a key role in promoting the need for more restrictive lockdowns due to this new genetic variant. Ferguson was caught in May breaking the rules of previous lockdowns he had heavily promoted and arguably orchestrated in order to visit his lover. He has also previously attracted heavy criticism for a history of producing flawed models, particularly his wildly inaccurate predictions regarding the anticipated COVID-19 death toll that were largely used to justify earlier lockdowns in the UK. Despite his relatively recent fall from grace, Ferguson remains part of NERVTAG and was also part of last Friday’s meeting to discuss the new strain. That meeting was said to “have played a pivotal role in changing the Prime Minister’s mind – and led to Saturday’s announcement that Christmas was effectively canceled for millions.””

“The narrative surrounding the new strain and the affiliated lockdowns provides a clear example of how easily “expert opinion” can be manipulated to support a particular policy in the absence of any legitimate justification. The actual consensus of the NERVTAG meeting as well as the experts quoted by mainstream media outlets that dissent from those of the “vocal minority”, represented by Neil Ferguson and Wendy Barclay, have been largely ignored in UK mainstream media reports and the UK government itself, presumably because citing such inconvenient facts would delegitimize the resulting policy. Instead, those who dissent from the clearly questionable narrative are being quickly labeled “conspiracy theorists” by the UK government, a move that will likely result in an expansion of the UK’s already declared war against independent reporting and social media posts that dare to question and/or challenge the government’s favored narrative.”

The great question to ask about Covid-19 – how is it compared to the regular flu….Clearly more deaths but how much and where? So far one of the best studies come from France – https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30527-0/fulltext

“89 530 patients with COVID-19 and 45 819 patients with influenza were hospitalised in France during the respective study periods. The median age of patients was 68 years (IQR 52–82) for COVID-19 and 71 years (34–84) for influenza. Patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight, and more frequently had diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia than patients with influenza, whereas those with influenza more frequently had heart failure, chronic respiratory disease, cirrhosis, and deficiency anaemia. Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16·9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5·8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8–3·0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2·82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1·4%] vs 8942 [19·5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2·3%] of 613 vs 65 [0·9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11–17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1·1% of 458 vs one [0·1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.”

Once again points to getting healthy but that message seems to be lost as we rather have vaccines or treatments vs. getting healthy – we had over 9 months to do this….A picture tells the story of the difference of influenza and covid…for those under 50 the influenza is the same or even WORSE than covid (unless under 5 not shown below)….Then after that well don’t get covid – mortality rate 3X+ 80+yr old. At the same time we need to be honest when assessing influenza in past and whether it is equivalently blamed for death as Covid-19 is now. Having Covid – is it the actual cause of death as perhaps influenza was noted in the past? Nonetheless burdening the <50 age group more than what one would do for a bad flu season seems unreasonable if most/all issue is above 50 particularly if one was healthy which is most peoples control.