Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

The average stay in a UK care home is 462 days. So in average many will die after just over a year anyway. So 28 days (to survive post covid) is a sizable chunk of their remaining life expectancy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51014346_Length_of_Stay_in_Care_Homes

Actually it doesn't say that at all.  it says the average stay was 801 days - the median was 462 days.  The big difference will be because there will have been a lot of people who were in a care home for just their last few days or months, those people would be less likely to be in a residential home such as Abbotswood - they'd probably be using hospice.

I'm not quite sure what the relevance of 28 days is, but it's 3% of 801 days - not really 'sizeable'.

(In any case that paper is 9 years old and not really concerned with medical matter, but with the costs of care homes).

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

Is it so hard for a media press person to put out a contextually accurate press release, instead of creating a news information void that will invariably be filled by rumoour and conjecture.

It’s the weekend. There will be a lot more divulged around 11:00 on Monday 😁 I agree though. You need to deliver this sort of thing with full context and with full info straight away. It’s like they actively want to start rumours and encourage panic spreading and false information spread doing this sort of half-assed delivery. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually it doesn't say that at all.  it says the average stay was 801 days - the median was 462 days.  The big difference will be because there will have been a lot of people who were in a care home for just their last few days or months, those people would be less likely to be in a residential home such as Abbotswood - they'd probably be using hospice.

I'm not quite sure what the relevance of 28 days is, but it's 3% of 801 days - not really 'sizeable'.

(In any case that paper is 9 years old and not really concerned with medical matter, but with the costs of care homes).

First year in those 600 BUPA homes you had roughly 50/50 chance of surviving first year, but after first year it went up to ~70% chance survival for subsequent years. Good if have entire data set since devil will be in details. As mentioned the data had a fat tail (i.e. few people in homes for years and years). Patients who say have complications after surgery would usually end up in care of ICU, and end of life have hospice, so not sure if nursing homes admit people who are expected to die in next x days. I do not know anything about this data set since I failed to get full article, I mean just got sick of forms required to get an account.

 

28 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Your attempts to justify the general covid hysteria are getting funnier by the day. 

Thanks for original link and just be good to get closer to reality. There is equivalent analysis of COVID survival against various comorbidities, with age always being a significant risk factor. Here is a recent one. But as you said issue is years of quality life lost, when consider expected number of years lost from a COVID infection the risks are closer across differing ages. For example the cancer data I quoted other day as recall gave ~10% mortality risk for 45 yo patient versus over 40% for 75 year old (naturally very crude on case-by-case basis, but when considering over large sets and for policy decision fine). 45 yo got life expectancy of 32 years, so COVID infection of average would have a cost is 3 years on life expectancy (10% of 30), the 75 yo got 11.7 years, so COVID infection of average would have a cost of 4.7 years. The utility function (usefulness) of remaining years will also differ between these group and from person to person.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BenFairfax said:

Number of years lost from a COVID infection the risks are closer across differing ages. For example the cancer data I quoted other day as recall gave ~10% mortality risk for 45 yo patient versus over 40% for 75 year old (naturally very crude on case-by-case basis, but when considering over large sets and for policy decision fine). 45 yo got life expectancy of 32 years, so COVID infection of average would have a cost is 3 years on life expectancy (10% of 30), the 75 yo got 11.7 years, so COVID infection of average would have a cost of 4.7 years. The utility function (usefulness) of remaining years will also differ between these group and from person to person.

And in contrast when you’re 30 and put on the dole because of covid lockdowns you might have a lovely 30 years to look forward to on benefits and no income. As opposed to six to twelve months before you die anyway in a care home. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Why would a lockdown put someone on the dole for 30 years? That's a very strange thing to say.

It isn’t really. Unemployment is rising in the UK and many will have serious problems getting back to work. In the 80s the unemployment situation often became generational. There are still legacy issues 30 years or more later from the pit closures and other stuff. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you definitely have a darker view than me. 

Have to say though that I'm actually pretty concerned about our government now. Maybe I'm being a bit silly, but I can really see them losing their shit when there is some community transmission, a situation I now see as sadly inevitable. 

I feel like fucking nutting Ashford over that preposterous letter, what the fuck is he doing playing stupid games? I keep banging on about trust and truth, there just isn't any. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The true test is what the doctors treating the patient would put on the death certificate.  

In the same way as they'll put anything but cancer on a death certificate i.e. "died from pneumonia" etc!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Well you definitely have a darker view than me. 

Have to say though that I'm actually pretty concerned about our government now. Maybe I'm being a bit silly, but I can really see them losing their shit when there is some community transmission, a situation I now see as sadly inevitable. 

No you are 100% correct. It’s going to get a bit mental now in the run up to Xmas which is why announcements like this need to be managed properly. People can disagree here and go round full circle over many months - but I think most are starting to pick the real issues up right now which has been a real issue with openness and transparency right from the start in favour of passing draconian emergency laws which you can hide behind for everything. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Escape Artist said:

The problem is that you arguments rely on assumptions and estimations, and thus, should those assumptions and estimations not be accurate, you may reach the wrong conclusion.

The mortality rates of historical COVID infections are events which happened, but going forward medics ability to treat patients will only improve. Percentage of high risks group becoming infected I do not know, I gave that example to illustrate risk to Nobles collapsing. But there again I do not know what value those who want more open borders (or even those for more restrictions) would put on protection health service. 

8 hours ago, Escape Artist said:

estimations not be accurate, you may reach the wrong conclusion

I do not have a crystal ball, with my back of envelop model I was expecting a community outbreak on island by now. When I considered such questions I see them as probabilistic, I am not trying to be deterministic and say X will happen by Y date. As I recall, when allowed potentially unlimited number of local residents to travel to and forth from Liverpool I was thinking then had 3% chance a day of an individual returning being infected, based on assumption was 250 people traveling and person traveling had same chance of becoming infected as average infection rate in North West on a per day basis. Now cases are more than 10x higher in North West, so talking over 30% now, if make same assumption. [If continued with 7 day test would know whether this was reasonable, but I am sticking to it, with anything not convincing] The fact people in airport/planes, sea terminal/boat, other household members etc not become infected leading to a community outbreak is a surprise. Getting better understanding the exact nature of how transmission can happen would greatly help, I am pretty ignorant of such matters but seems COVID it not as easily transmitted as the plague, but from situation in North West it must be lot more easily transmittable than AIDS. Where in range lies I do not know. 

9 hours ago, Escape Artist said:

The above mentioned “real-life” examples provide a more reliable indication of what would happen if we were to change our policy than models and estimations.

If adopt say policy of Jersey, Guernsey, San Marino etc then reasonable expect similar outcomes (in broad sense at least, we never will be identical since different customs etc) Would suggest you need to weigh number of likely cases against prevalence of infection from areas from which travelers are arriving. As I said before Jersey's going to get shock when wave gets to London. I say shock but maybe they as a community are happy to continue on their present trajectory.... But whatever others are doing we are IoM community and we follow policies which balance views and interests of our local community within our traditions. CM been clear in that a tradition here is to preserve life over economy.

9 hours ago, Escape Artist said:

Our policy, eradication by any mean, is not sustainable for much longer without causing a lot of damage to the island. It was initially adopted because the virus was thought to be much more dangerous than it actually is. It was adopted because politics got in the way of rational thinking.

With idea of damage to economy I just do not buy it. If like examples, please provide a state who in handling pandemic in a more sustainable way (sensible example please not Faro Islands, or Tongo). If mean situation where say young children cannot see grandparents from UK, it is difficult, they likely do not even recognize them now. Just think 2-3 years old kit now, when all this over, in UK they will need to be told that wearing masks and staying 2M away from people in not normal and real normal is not doing either of these things.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

And in contrast when you’re 30 and put on the dole because of covid lockdowns you might have a lovely 30 years to look forward to on benefits and no income. As opposed to six to twelve months before you die anyway in a care home. 

Yes, that different utility. Personally, I put little value on my years over 80, but if I get to 80 I may think differently. I feel terrible for outlook for young in UK, because of crisis would support increased taxes on UK assets with that money used to help young with additional UK training and job support programs over inevitable economic downturn. I assume you mean UK, in IoM bar quaranteen on return from travel we free to do whatever we want and still have very little unemployment. Think education system here got lot to answer for, but that another matter.

At start when we got herd immunity presentation, we were told up to 20% at any one time would be off work sick with COVID. Never know what would have happened if continued with this no intervention policy. But I cannot imagine economy continuing anything close to normal. With 1918 pandemic UK had no social distancing measures, quaranteen on travelers, or limits on movement. In 1918 looked at data for reference and got:

growth-20s-30s-500x350.png

[naturally curious to compare with outcome in 2020 pandemic in UK, so far have UK Feb-Aug 2020 GDP growth -9.2% and now shut down parts of economy again. Last IoM data have is here, and as far as I can tell all parts of economy can function with present restrictions bar Tourist Accomodation but that only accounts for 0.4% of GDP.  As side note, for me curious to compare effect 1918 pandemic on GDP with 1929 stock market crash and its subsequent  depression!]

Not robust in any way to say this happened before so will happen again. But want to point out Austalia in 1918 did have quaranteen on people entering and had stronger economy over same period, find this article with various details, and post two most relevant charts.

graph-0620-2-07.svg

graph-0620-2-01.svg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...