|
The MoA Week In Review – Open Thread 2020-53
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
[Sorry for postings this little during the last week. I had to take care of some repair issues I had to put off during the lockdown.]
—
Other issues:
Covid-19:
This is only the second described case in which an infection was likely caused by fomites:
More than 99% of all new infections are caused by air transmissions. Washing your hands all the time is mostly unnecessary. We told you to #MaskUp. So do others:
Prozac as prophylaxis or early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections?
> We see the role of Fluoxetine in the early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients of risk groups. <
The Cocid-19 economic decline is fear drive:
Not astonishing when one reads stories like this one.
Dani Oliver @DaniOliver – 20:49 UTC · Jul 3, 2020
Hey, so, I got #Covid19 in March. I’ve been sick for over 3 months w/ severe respiratory, cardiovascular & neurological symptoms. I still have a fever. I’ve been incapacitated for nearly a season of my life. It's not enough to not die. You don’t want to live thru this, either. 1/
… thread
Russiagate:
Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms – 16:07 UTC · Jul 3, 2020
RussiaGate stories follow a predictable pattern:
1. Explosive allegation
2. Media goes nuts
3. Evidence disproves or at best weakly supports allegation which is much less damning than sold
4. Media moves on to next explosive allegation without apology
Point 5. The intended aim was reached:
Wrongly accusing Russia started way before 'Russiagate':
> For five years, the sporting world has been gripped by Russian manipulation of the anti-doping system. Now new evidence suggests the whistleblower who went into a witness protection program during the scandal may not have been entirely truthful. <
Israel:
Right conclusion but the argument made is superficial:
Libya:
Last week Turkey brought two MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems to the al-Watiyah Airbase. Last night they were bombed by either French, UAE, Egyptian or Russian mercenary airplanes. Officially the LNA (Hafter) has taken responsibility for the bombing. Whoever did this had a message to Turkey: Stop trying to break our red lines.
Elections:
Use as open thread …
>No numbers, no context, no purpose in writing about them.
Here is a number: 17 million, the estimated (a guess) world-wide number of myalgic encephalomyelitis patients. (ME is the original name for what is often now called “chronic fatigue syndrome”.) “Never Really Recovered” is a club no one wants to join, and all members want to resign from.
Most ME sufferers die with the illness, frequently by their own hand. Over three-quarters are never even diagnosed due to persistent professional ignorance and dismissive attitudes by the medical industry and their government minders. (I’m looking at you, all the useless physicians I have been forced to deal with over the past 17 years.)
The cardinal symptom is known as “post exertional malaise”, PEM. Physical, cognitive, and/or emotional exertion beyond the patient’s “energy envelope” results in symptom exacerbation which may last hours, days, weeks, or even longer. PEM is usually delayed 24 – 48 hours. Imagine waking up every morning with the world’s worst hangover, for the rest of one’s life. While being told that one is exaggerating symptoms, seeking attention, and is simply “work-shy”.
I am feeling very sad for all the “COVID Long-haulers” who will be told that their ever-changing never-ending symptoms are simply due to “de-conditioning”, “fear of exercise”, “depression”, “PTSD”, and “malingering”. They will be ostracized. They will be abandoned by family, friends, the medical industry, and society at large. They will be denied social benefits and any kind of support. (I fought Social Security Administration for six years before I was awarded benefits.)
In the UK, Covid Long-haulers will be offered, and even coerced into the official “treatment” of “graded exercise therapy” (GET) and “cognitive behavioral therapy” (CBT). They will be told the Cochrane review of exercise therapy “proves” that GET works, even though Cochrane admits the review is garbage and has not been retracted due to political pressure.
People who may be developing ME will not be told to rest, DO NOT EXCEED one’s activity limits. They will not be told that patient surveys conducted over decades consistently show that GET makes patients worse, sometimes to the point of being BED BOUND and needing a feeding tube.
The above probably sounds like the mad ravings of a tin-foil-hat-wearer. How can it possibly be official policy to openly discriminate and disparage an entire patient population? Here is the short answer: Follow the Money.
Here is a slightly longer answer: It is *very* expensive for private disability (aka income protection) insurers to pay out benefits to sick employees *for decades*. Their solution was to treat ME (classified as a neurological illness by WHO 50 years ago) as a “mental illness” subject to draconian benefits limits. Fortunately for insurers, Regius Professor Sir Simon Wessely and associates came to the rescue and delivered the fraudulent and discredited PACE trial which “proves” that GET and magic CBT can fix anything, even ME, and now, COVID Longhaulers.
Dear Longhaulers, when the psychobabblers tell you “no pain no gain”, run, walk, or crawl away as fast as you can. Exercise may be great for cardiac troubles, but for ME patients, telling us to do exercise is like telling a diabetic to slowly increase their sugar intake every day, until they eliminate their “fear of sugar”.
Posted by: Trailer Trash | Jul 5 2020 17:29 utc | 18
Official stats dead per 1 million inhabitants on 3rd July (is this ratio relevant or not?)
1. Belgique 855,4
2. Royaume-Uni 666
3. Espagne 607,5
4. Italie 576,8
5. Suède 532,3
6. France 446,3
7. Etats-Unis 396,4
8. Irlande 358,7
9. Pays-Bas 355,9
10. Chili 330,6
11. Pérou 325,5
12. Brésil 306,8
13. Equateur 279,1
14. Mexique 240,6
15. Canada 235,6
16. Suisse 230,7
17. Luxembourg 181
18. Panama 172,4
19. Moldavie 163,6
20. Arménie 161,6
21. Macédoine du Nord 160,3
22. Portugal 156,1
23. Iran 139,5
24. Bolivie 121,4
25. Allemagne 108,8
26. Danemark 104,5
27. Roumanie 88,9
28. Koweït 88,2
29. Colombie 80,6
30. Autriche 79,7
31. République dominicaine 74
32. Russie 69,3
33. Honduras 65,6
34. Turquie 63,2
35. Irak 61,6
36. Bahreïn 61,2
37. Hongrie 60,3
38. Finlande 59,6
39. Bosnie-Herzégovine 57,5
40. Djibouti 57,4
41. Arabie Saoudite 55,1
42. Slovénie 53,7
43. Guatemala 53,3
44. Afrique du Sud 52,4
45. Estonie 52,2
46. Norvège 47,2
47. Qatar 44,2
48. Biélorussie 44,1
49. Serbie 43,8
50. Oman 42
I am afraid some ppl here will only discuss the 666 of the UK…
Posted by: Mina | Jul 5 2020 21:22 utc | 48
Posted by: Bob Creamer | Jul 5 2020 15:08 utc | 5
It is quite right to talk about covid surviving victims being as much or more than an issue than covid-deaths.
but pretty soon you have to start talking numbers (or it becomes purely medical porn)
What proportion of people (at various ages etc) die?
What multiple of deaths are seriously injured victims?
From my optimistic pov (and the linked article), symptotic victims have lost perhaps 1 year of life expectancy, and if every one gets it, it means the lose of perhaps 2 months of life expectancy. I would welcome a fact based explanation of why I might be wrong.
**
OK, I’ll bite. Although the data source looks solid, the statistical analysis is deeply, deeply flawed, and it doesn’t pass a sniff test of comparing the purported risk with what is observed in the real world. This could suffice as an example of how to lie with statistics, although it’s unclear if it’s accidental or intentional. Here in the US, such “mistakes” are almost intentional especially under the current political leadership, but I don’t know about the UK.
Here’s why the data is misleading. The columns that are listed as “Covid rates per 100,000, covid rates per 100(%), and 1/covid rate expressed as a part /xx, such as 1/55, are in fact all Covid DEATHS RATES, not Covid rates, over a limited period of time of 9 weeks. Several statistical slights of hand are at play here. First the authors confound covid rates with covid death rates,leading the reader to think their risk of dying from Covid is 1.82% if they are over 90 yo. Second they imply that the time dependent cumulative risk of 33 days is an absolute risk – it isn’t, and finally they suggest that individual risk approach population risk when it is known that there are significant comorbities that significantly alter individual risk profiles.
Let’s take an example to help explain what’s going on. Looking at the data chart from the Office of National Statistics replicated in the Medium article you linked to, we see that 9682 people over 90 y/o died during a 9 week period from an age related population of 528959 people and that the Covid Ratesof 90 y/o represents 1.83% of that population. Seems like your risk of dying is only 1.8% doesn’t if you are over 90. Wrong 1.83% of the over 90 population died during a 9 week period. If that rate stays the same, 10.60% of the population will have died after 12 months. Leave quite a bit different impression doesn’t it? What’s missing that would help put the risk to this population in context? Number of covid cases! If there were 10,000 confirmed cases the case fatality rate would be 96.8%, if there were 100,000 the CFR would be 9.68%. Doesn’t seem so reasonable now does it? Why is that readily available statistic glaringly not included in the chart? It leads the reader to a fuller understanding of risk, that’s why.
Let’s say the Covid infection rate were included, and let’s initially say there were 10000 confirmed cases and 100,000 estimated infections in that age group over a 9 week period that led to the 9682 fatalities. That would represent a 96.8% case fatality rate, quite a bit different than the 1.83% rate the audience is left with. Similarly if you compare the 9682 fatalities to the estimated infection rate it would be 9.68% infection fatality rate still significantly higher. We know that the CFR for people in 90+ age group in March/April was exceedingly high, but I didn’t attempt to research it.
They then go on to compare the 9682 fatalities to 18,523 all-cause typical mortality and conclude that 52% of a typical 63 day period or 33 days of risk. It’s presented as an absolute number, and reasonable compared to all cause mortality. Yet that 33 day reduction continues to grow as this disease rips through the population. What’s the population life reduction going to be over a two or three year period as each successively 9 week period pass and more fatalities are incured? It’s a hell of a lot more than 33 day. After 1 year at a constant rate the average life expectancy reduction for the 90+ population will be 191 days. After two years it will be 382 days.
To understand individual risk requires that you understand your risk of contracting the disease, and if you do, your chances of dying. What would help put that in context? Number of Covid cases!
The good folks at the Office of National Statistics certainly know that population group risks don’t represent individual risks, as individuals especially as they get older have know commodities that prevent you from saying individual risk could be approximated by population risk due to a normal distribution. And they certainly have the number of corona virus cases and maybe even a crude estimation of infection rates, that would frame their analysis in an entirely different light. Considering the likely intentional mislabeling of the “Covid Rates” instead of “Covid Death Rates”, the obvious exclusion of the number of covid cases, and the subtle conflation of population based risk with individual risks, suggest this article was intended to mislead, probably to calm a population (and individuals :)) that are rightly mad as hell that the UK has the worse track record in Europe, and globally second only to the US, in dealing with Covid.
In the US, the risk of catching the disease is increasing, while the risk of dying if you do, are decreasing. In Arizona where I live, we’ve seen a 12 fold increase in cases, while nationwide in the US fatalities have been cut by 5 fold, implying an increasing risk for my personal risk profile.
If you are interested, there are good online calculators that calculate individual risks. Some have been covered in the excellent MedCram series of YouTube videos (somewhere in one of the videos in the ’90s – they are all numbered consecutively. I highly recommend this series to all people as it covers the disease and new leanings as well as treatments and preventative approaches. Although general death rates have been going down they remain exceeding high for people with high BMI, inflammatory associated disease such as diabetes and CVD, or kidney disease.
Posted by: James C | Jul 6 2020 3:16 utc | 84
|
