How do we know a pandemic's over?

[The Atheist]

I think the question is: what is the cause of this overall increase in UK mortality? Listing the increases for each individual cause of death doesn't tell you why they've all gone up.

True, but screaming "covid" is BS.

Some of them may be post-covid deaths, because we know people are more likely to die of other reasons post-infection after both 'flu and covid. (and no doubt other diseases)

The really interesting part would be to know whether the excess deaths are more post-covid, or post-covid-delays caused by people unable to access the health system. during shutdowns. I know that cancer researchers here claim a 40% reduction in cancer diagnoses due to covid, so that's going to kill a few people.

 

[novaphile]

We still see a few masks here.

Not sure there’s been any official announcements, but the local government this month have stopped giving out free RAT tests.

Had to buy some from from the chemist today. $27.95 for 5!

Seems we’re supposed to just get sick from “something” and not know what it is, like with colds and viruses before the pandemic.

Same here, typically older people or people who look like they're really struggling just to move around.

Best guess, they're people dealing with COPD or similar and just can't risk getting covid on top.

I haven't masked up for a while, outside of medical facilities, but I'm still avoiding places where dumb sick people stand around shouting at each other.

 

[icerat]

True, but screaming "covid" is BS.

Some of them may be post-covid deaths, because we know people are more likely to die of other reasons post-infection after both 'flu and covid. (and no doubt other diseases)

The really interesting part would be to know whether the excess deaths are more post-covid, or post-covid-delays caused by people unable to access the health system. during shutdowns. I know that cancer researchers here claim a 40% reduction in cancer diagnoses due to covid, so that's going to kill a few people.

According to analysis by UK actuaries on the Xitter (sorry, haven't got a link handy) the majority of excess deaths is actually in younger groups and unvaccinated and are cardiovascular in nature. All of that suggests Covid. A study last year indicated a global burden of around 315-350000 extra deaths over 5 years from delayed cancer diagnosis in 2020.

Has COVID-19 Affected Cancer Screening Programs? A Systematic Review

 

[The Atheist]

According to analysis by UK actuaries on the Xitter (sorry, haven't got a link handy) the majority of excess deaths is actually in younger groups and unvaccinated and are cardiovascular in nature. All of that suggests Covid.

Only if you're looking for it. To me, it doesn't suggest anything beyond needing more information.

A study last year indicated a global burden of around 315-350000 extra deaths over 5 years from delayed cancer diagnosis in 2020.

I'll be surprised if it's that low, and those deaths will be the exact opposite of covid deaths, because they were caused by measures to stop covid, which is what you want to see being enforced.

 

[dann]

The constellation of this:

Only if you're looking for it. To me, it doesn't suggest anything beyond needing more information.

Versus this:

I'll be surprised if it's that low, and those deaths will be the exact opposite of covid deaths, because they were caused by measures to stop covid, which is what you want to see being enforced.

would be hilarious if this attitude hadn't resulted in millions of COVID-19 deaths.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'll be surprised if it's that low, and those deaths will be the exact opposite of covid deaths, because they were caused by measures to stop covid, which is what you want to see being enforced.

How do you figure that?

The truth is, not stopping Covid is what led to people not getting treatment for other illnesses. The argument that it just had to be suppressed enough to prevent hospitals from being overrun was always bogus. Every covid case that needed medical attention diverted resources from other areas. Cancer diagnosis is one thing that could be delayed for a little while without a large effect, but it would still have some effect. The quicker we eliminated the virus the better.

In early March 2020 my boss needed emergency surgery to remove a camera they had put in him to inspect his intestines. Turns out it got stuck due to a massive cancerous growth that might have killed him in a few weeks had they not found it. The country went into lockdown a few weeks later.

If it hadn't been for the measures New Zealand put in place to stop Covid, we probably would have had thousands of cases by then and the hospital would have had to delay that camera inspection - and my boss would now be dead.

New Zealand spent a few weeks in lockdown and eliminated the virus, allowing doctors and hospitals to operate as normal for a year after - while it decimated medical systems overseas. NZ was one of the few countries whose excess death rate went down during that period, due to the short lockdown and closed borders knocking back other deadly diseases.

Saying that delayed cancer diagnosis was 'caused by measures to stop covid' is disingenuous. Those measures were necessary to prevent even more deaths, and had they been properly applied the effect on cancer diagnoses would have been minimal. If only other countries had responded like we did, most of those diagnosis delays would have been avoided and their excess death rates would have gone down too (or at least not gone up by as much).

 

[The Atheist]

Saying that delayed cancer diagnosis was 'caused by measures to stop covid' is disingenuous.

No, it's factual.

Given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I think the entire situation would have best been handled by a complete hands-off approach and let the disease take its course. Thousands more people would have died - especially all the old farts living in 300 m2 houses on their own, thereby solving the housing crisis - hospitals would have broken down and we would have had 12 weeks of complete hell. Then we would have crawled out of the hole and maybe the world would have learnt a lesson. As it stands, things have gone backwards, not forwards, and the lockdowns are to blame more than the virus.

 

[dann]

How do you figure that?

He just does. He doesn't even consider that "especially all the old farts living in 300 m2 houses on their own" are not the ones who are killed by COVID-19:

Overcrowdedness and multigenerational housing are independent risk factors for suspected COVID-19. In the early phase of the surge in COVID cases, social distancing measures that increase house-bound populations may inadvertently but temporarily increase SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk and COVID-19 disease in these populations.
Association between overcrowded households, multigenerational households, and COVID-19: a cohort study (PubMed, Aug 3, 2021)

It takes time and effort to come up with biassed interpretations of facts. It is much easier to simply make up fact-less fairy tales based on one's bias. Minimizers know that this is the easiest way to spread their message.

 

[The Atheist]

He just does. He doesn't even consider that "especially all the old farts living in 300 m2 houses on their own" are not the ones who are killed by COVID-19:

Do you even read what you've typed? You prove my point for me, so thanks for that.

Overcrowdedness and multigenerational housing are independent risk factors for suspected COVID-19. In the early phase of the surge in COVID cases, social distancing measures that increase house-bound populations may inadvertently but temporarily increase SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk and COVID-19 disease in these populations.

The increase was due to the lockdowns. No lockdowns, no increase. It says this in those terms and you completely missed it.

English really is a problem for you, isn't it?

 

[dann]

It appears to be extremely difficult to understand that when a text says that "overcrowdedness and multigenerational housing are independent risk factors for suspected COVID-19," then it's probably because overcrowdedness and multigenerational housing are independent risk factors for suspected COVID-19.

As always, The Atheist is extremely concerned about my comprehension of Engiish, but it is unfortunate that he doesn't seem to understand the word may. So is the apparent inability to understand that the idea that COViD-19 killing off "especially all the old farts living in 300 m2 houses on their own" won't solve the crisis of affordable housing since people "living in 300 m2 houses on their own" are not the ones primarily killed by the virus, be it during lockdowns or when the virus is allowed to run wild.
How "especially all the old farts living in 300 m2 houses on their own" would be the ones to be killed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus when COVID-19 kills more people in overcrowded and multigenerational housing even during lockdowns is an interesting albeit spurious idea based on no fact whatsoever. The fairly obvious reason why more people in overcrowded housing are likely to get infected is that many of them are more likely to be bus drivers, taxi drivers etc., i.e. unable to work from home and thus more likely to get infected and infect other members of the household.

Per the results of our analysis, household overcrowding is a significant risk factor for COVID-19 mortality. Importantly, the results of our study revealed that in LA County, household overcrowding was an even stronger predictor of increased mortality rates than the total number of COVID-19 cases. Additionally, our findings emphasize that elderly citizens residing in overcrowded households are at a particularly elevated risk of mortality from COVID-19.
Overcrowded housing increases risk for COVID-19 mortality: an ecological study (PubMed Central, April 5, 2022)

And it wasn't just in LA County. The same phenomenon was observed in Stockholm. (I'd like to see the argument that it was due to Sweden's lockdowns and draconian restrictions!)

Whether during lockdowns or when the virus is running wild, "especially all the old farts living in 300 m2 houses on their own" just aren't the most likely people to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 and die of CoVID-19. People living in overcrowded households are, especially the old ones, of course.
As always, reality just doesn't agree with those piss-poor claims about lockdowns and restrictions as the main cause of the deaths and misery caused by the pandemic. Kiwis in particular ought to know about this.

The principle of this kind of biassed argumentation is obvious: One blames whatever one doesn't like for any bad outcome and gives the actual cause a free pass: "I blame the lockdowns, not the virus." Why is nobody surprised?!

It's the MO of C19 minimizing:

The vast majority of cases are relatively mild, asymptomatic, or with mild symptoms.
Most of the population has minimal risk, in the range of dying while you’re driving from home to work and back.
The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
That weakness is the near inability of the virus to kill younger people.
The “vast majority” of people “don’t even realize that they have been infected, they are asymptomatic, they have no symptoms, or they have very mild symptoms that they would not even bother to do anything about.
“The Central Problem Right Now I Think Is The Fear That People Still Feel About COVID.” (Science-Based Medicine, Mar 17, 2024)

 

[The Atheist]

As always, reality just doesn't agree with those piss-poor claims about lockdowns and restrictions as the main cause of the deaths and misery caused by the pandemic.

I can see you fairly foaming at the mouth as you type, it's not just your lack of english comprehension in play here.

Protip: next time you post a blatant lie, quoting a post stating the exact opposite of what you claim is plain stupid.

I did not make that claim, and stated that a lot more people would have died without the lockdowns in the post you linked to. You are being out and out dishonest.

Yet again.

 

[novaphile]

Hmm...

I just watched the two episodes of 'The Good Doctor' which dealt with the State of Emergency due to the Covid crisis.

I found myself to be very grateful that my government imposed 'draconian lock downs' and that my employer directed everyone (who could) to work from home.

I've heard first hand tales of exhaustion from medical professionals, which make me suspect that the depiction on the TV show was mild compared to reality.

 

[Chanakya]

The Atheist, I'm not sure why you're so comfortable advocating for the wiping out of vast swathes of old people, people with "toe tags", whatever. I'm far far away from that kind of age; and I think you're nudging that age yourself; but still, even despite the fact that you don't, to be fair, spare yourself, but still, don't you think that kind of callousness is somewhat psychopathic?

If you're saying let some thousands and millions of old men die, **** them; then you might just as well say, let the economy go to the dogs, **** that as well, and let one or two generations suffer before people finally sort it all out again hopefully? How can the death of large numbers of people ever be acceptable, be they 70 or 75 or 80 or 85 or whatever?

(Not going into whether you're correct, or dann and icerat are, about the technicalities of this. I'm following the discussion with interest, sometimes agreeing with you, sometimes with them; and not in a position to contribute myself, really. But this, what I said just now, seems to be a recurrent underlying theme of what you're saying. Both about what what should have been done in times past, given hindsight; and also about what should be done now. And that idea I find completely unacceptable, repellent even. If you're okay with vast swathes dying, unnecessarily [that is, when those deaths might be preventable, to some extent at least], then that cannot be the basis of any kind of reasonable discussion really, can it? The very basis of that idea is ...pardon me, pyschopathic-ish.)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

No, it's factual...

As it stands, things have gone backwards, not forwards, and the lockdowns are to blame more than the virus.

I see no evidence that this is true. New Zealand's excess death rate went way down during the pandemic. Most of the country only locked down for a few weeks, and the majority of cancer cases are not diagnosed within a few weeks of occurring.

Taking my boss as an example, it should have been diagnosed months before they finally found it. All the signs were there but for some reason there seemed to be no urgency - until the camera got stuck.

Obviously any delays in people getting cancer diagnoses is going to cause more deaths, but why are you singling out lockdowns? Without lockdowns the hospitals would be overrun and it would be far worse. The number of health workers getting the virus would delay diagnoses even more, as would people in general getting it. Then there are other events which have a similar effect, eg. Cyclone Gabrielle. Some people in Hawke's Bay were without power and/or had limited mobility for 3 weeks, and some were homeless for even longer. Under those conditions getting a cancer checkup is the last thing on your mind.

But that isn't even the half of it. Employees in New Zealand are entitled to 4 weeks time off every year. Many of them use that time to go on trips around the country or overseas. During that time they are unlikely to get a checkup for cancer. Imagine how many people are dying because of that? Ban all extended holidays now!

Then there are all the people who have run out of sick leave - probably due to getting Covid. They aren't likely to take time off without pay to get a cancer checkup either. And so it goes. The more I think about it the more situations come to mind.

So what I would like to know is, why isn't anyone bleating about all the other reasons cancer diagnoses might be delayed? I have a pretty good idea why - because lockdowns are an infringement on their 'freedoms', so they are grabbing at any excuse to demonize it.

Your assertion that 'lockdowns are to blame more than the virus' is ludicrous. Without the virus we wouldn't have needed lockdowns. With the virus they were critical to avoiding mass deaths and general chaos. The negative excess death rate alone is proof that they were a net positive. If you want something to blame - look at the government who ran down the health system over many years so people already weren't getting enough diagnoses and treatment. Now the current government is looking for more things to defund to pay for their tax cut (aka vote bribe). Somehow I don't think fixing the health system is going to be top priority.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I've heard first hand tales of exhaustion from medical professionals, which make me suspect that the depiction on the TV show was mild compared to reality.

A good point. What health issues did that cause? I'm betting a huge increase in mental and physical ailments. Some of them probably died of cancer because they didn't have the time, energy or resources to look after their own bodies.

But hey, they should have expected that when they signed up, right? Old people, doctors and nurses... anyone but me and my precious freedom to go around infecting others with a potentially lethal virus!

 

[dann]

Hmm...

I just watched the two episodes of 'The Good Doctor' which dealt with the State of Emergency due to the Covid crisis.

I found myself to be very grateful that my government imposed 'draconian lock downs' and that my employer directed everyone (who could) to work from home.

I've heard first hand tales of exhaustion from medical professionals, which make me suspect that the depiction on the TV show was mild compared to reality.

In Denmark, I heard those first-hand tales as recently as this winter, and we were nowhere near the numbers of the winter and spring of 2021-22.

I can recommend a new British mini series (three episodes) specifically about hospitals at the beginning af the pandemic: Breathtaking (Wiki)
Breathtaking review – a shockingly vivid picture of life as a doctor during Covid (Guardian, Feb 19, 2024)

It has recently been mentioned that old people in the UK were sent home to die, given opiates instead of oxygen, much like what we heard out of Sweden in 2020.

 

[dann]

A good point. What health issues did that cause? I'm betting a huge increase in mental and physical ailments. Some of them probably died of cancer because they didn't have the time, energy or resources to look after their own bodies.

But hey, they should have expected that when they signed up, right? Old people, doctors and nurses... anyone but me and my precious freedom to go around infecting others with a potentially lethal virus!

The huge increase in mental ailments isn't limited to health-care professionals. COVID-19 causes it much more directly:

Long-term risk of psychiatric disorder and psychotropic prescription after SARS-CoV-2 infection among UK general population (Nature, Mar 21, 2024)
COVID-19 Leaves Its Mark on the Brain. Significant Drop in IQ Scores Are Noted (Scientific American, Mar 13, 2024)
Research suggests COVID-19 affects brain age and IQ score (CBS News, Feb 29, 2024)
COVID’s toll on the brain: new clues emerge] (Nature, Feb 29, 2024)

And it's not a new discovery:
Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA (...) Survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae, and a psychiatric diagnosis might be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. (PubMed Central, Nov 9, 2020)
But at the beginning of the pandemic, little was know about how exactly the virus affects the brain.

For some reason, the direct impact of the virus itself on people's brains is rarely considered when things like deteriorating PISA results (World Economy Forum, Dec 21, 2023) are reported in the media - even in Sweden, which is absurd.
But in ISF's COVID-19 threads, we are already familiar with the trend to blame everything on lockdowns instead of on the virus: "Mental health problems are through the roof, and again, I blame the lockdowns, not the virus."
The virus just has to be mild and affect mainly "all the old farts living in 300 m2 houses on their own," whereas the rest of the population is supposed to be mainly inconvenienced by the attempts to stop the disease from spreading.

 

[dann]

Teachers are the most vulnerable occupation to getting Long Covid, which can still affect people four years after catching the virus, a new study shows.
University of Otago associate professor Amanda Kvalsvig led the research, which looked at an evidence summary around Long Covid.
She told Morning Report Covid-19 needed to be taken seriously.
"A number of scientists here and internationally are now quite convinced that the prevalence [of Long Covid] is likely to increase, and that's a reason to take preventive action.
"There's been a lot of optimism that it will just go away, and we're now seeing very firm evidence that that is not going to happen."
Global studies estimate between four and 14 percent of people infected with Covid-19 get ongoing, long-term symptoms ranging from mild to severe.
Long Covid: Teachers, healthcare workers most vulnerable occupations, report finds (RNZ.co.uk, mar 26, 2024)

As Swedish NZ resident WicMar writes:

How odd that Sweden’s epidemiologist Tegnell said the opposite - that teachers aren’t at all more vulnerable than other occupations.
”Report finds that teachers in New Zealand were most vulnerable to getting Covid-19, followed by healthcare workers.”
WicMar (X, Mar 26, 2024)

For those of you who didn't follow the thread about Sweden's failed pandemic strategy:

Tegnelled
To trust someones opinion but later realize that it was completely incorrect and had deadly consequences
I listened to the health authority who advised me about Covid-19 but now I am affected as is my household so I feel I have been Tegnelled
Tegnelled (UrbanDictionary)

 

[The Atheist]

If you're saying let some thousands and millions of old men die, **** them; then you might just as well say, let the economy go to the dogs, **** that as well, and let one or two generations suffer before people finally sort it all out again hopefully? How can the death of large numbers of people ever be acceptable, be they 70 or 75 or 80 or 85 or whatever?

I'm trying to look at the long-term, and it seems to me the damage done by the lockdowns will far outweigh the number of people who would otherwise have been killed. And yes, I'm probably one of those.

Without lockdowns, the death total would be maybe 50 million.

In saving those people, what we've done is remove any chance of a concerted effort to stop the next pandemic, which could be the really deadly one that might cause a billion deaths. People have lost faith in politicians' ability to manage pandemics, be it due to blatant corruption in UK, Fauci flip-flops in USA, or insanely long lockdowns for no purpose in NZ in late 2021, long after the vast majority of people had been vaccinated.

Science seems to regard it as a given that there will be another pandemic, and if it's one with a death rate 5, 10, or even 20 times higher than Covid, we're in deep ****.

If you want something to blame - look at the government who ran down the health system over many years so people already weren't getting enough diagnoses and treatment. Now the current government is looking for more things to defund to pay for their tax cut (aka vote bribe). Somehow I don't think fixing the health system is going to be top priority.

Labour didn't exactly cover themselves in glory. 6 years and they managed zero improvement. It's a bit rich to point the finger at National at this stage.

 

[jt512]

I'm going to Hamburg in a couple days and will likely wear an FFP3 mask on the S-Bahn, where it always seems like one person in three has a cough. I don't want to get what they've got even if it is just a cold.

Back from Hamburg. I'm happy to report that I actually did wear an FFP3 mask when on crowded buses and trains. I was literally the only person wearing a mask. But, unlike the one-in-three (maybe only one in four) coughing Germans, I didn't get sick.