Just a follow up on your question last week Malcolm. I held off posting anything yesterday but Tuesday and Wednesday are midweek days, yesterday 71 deaths in the UK, today 71 death in the UK, right at the bottom end of my estimate. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ This next graph is the one that I am more interested in, patients in hospital, this was close to 900 last week, people on ventilators was less than 100 at one point last week. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ edit: The rate of change is not smooth, I would not be surprised for a few low numbers before Saturday but again the hospitalisation graph is the one I am interested in and the one that I will comment on the most.
Another day 59 deaths, that likely means that of the 297 on ventilators yesterday 59 of them died today, and we have yesterday's numbers 297-59 which equals 238 still on ventilators and now we have 332 on ventilators, that means 94 new people ended up on ventilators just today. One sixth of them die, possibly more, yesterday it was about a third a bit less, that's a variable ratio but it is likely still better than March, April and May.
No, the age ratios have not really changed, it still really only gets dangerous from about 55 and up and at nearly 62 my risk is starting to grow.
Well I would not wish it on anyone, even him. But given the level of his lies I wonder if this is real. edit: yeah it looks real given the news reports.
i'm 72--and it doesnt bother me at all--i refuse to be frightened by things beyond my control. But i do think these stats and numbers need to pin point the ages of the dead.
This has been the point that I have tried to make. Records show that it isn’t so much ones age but more the metabolic health of the individual that counts when it comes to dealing with Covid 19 as a patient.
So that means that age screws up your metabolic health, because after age 50 - 55 your risk increases dramatically. USA CDC data. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...s-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html
But they increase more rapidly with those whose metabolic health is weak. So it also means for younger people if their metabolic health is poor they are also at higher risk. This has been shown to be true in the data captured across the globe. If you are 65 yo and in good metabolic health then the risks are lower. We don’t have to be in poor metabolic health from 50 to 55 onwards. But we can be if we allow it to happen. It’s all about metabolic health and not age per se. Some people in the higher age ranges will be metabolically healthy and they will more likely to be okay. But others in the higher age ranges will be metabolically weak, with compromised immune systems and underlaying co morbidities and it’s those people regardless of age that will be more likely to suffer adversely in hospital. It’s one of those Oss. It isn’t as simple as age alone. In fact it isn’t the age at all. But it’s easy to see how it can come across like that. This isn’t new news. It’s been well known for a number of months that it isn’t age per se: http://www.llamapodcast.com/aseem-malhotra2/ Notice he refers to data sourced from across the globe. It’s out there, but we might find it convenient to ignore.
The Oirish Fella discusses the very topic. There’s a lot of other sources about. They cite age but with important caveats attached on comorbidities. It’s the comorbidities (that I first noted back here over 6 months ago) that are the route cause of terminal Covid 19 and not ones age. No doubt back in the day we said lung cancer was age related. Until we learned otherwise.
Rapid Antigen Test Rolled out in Madrid: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-54394128 https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/mass-tests-in-virus-hit-neighborhood-in-madrid.html 95% accuracy. Results in 15 minutes.
93% accuracy according to the BBC article. 95% was considered the borderline early on as 1 in 20 tests produced a false negative. I agree it's good that it gives a result that quick and it's certainly better than nothing. Companies like Roche and Abbott have PCR throat swab tests that have nearly 100% specificity.
John again we are not disagreeing, I accept many of your points, but how about some graphs of Covid deaths vs specific co-morbidities, yeah that graph will probably grow in similar fashion to the overall death rate by age I accept that. But not everyone over 55 has type 2 diabetes and not everyone over age 55 is going to get diabetes no matter what diet they follow, some people just won't get it, my sister is 70 and as obese as me or more so, she has had ostensibly the same diet as her husband for the last 50 years, he has been diabetic for way more than a decade and she isn't. Yeah there are also other metabolic problems and other immune system problems.
This is a good article to put things into perspective: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-876f42ae-5e44-41c0-ba2d-d6fd537aadfe
The graphs are in one of the Lancet report Google Lancet comorbidities Wuhan and a whole heap of papers come up. Too numerous to mention. These papers are consigned to history now. Everyone knows that it’s the comorbidities and not the age that is significant. This is NOT just about T2 diabetes. You have left out several other comorbidities. Obesity and hypertension amongst others. If an individual has one or more comorbidities from several then it increases the chances of death from Covid 19 if infected. Can’t spell it out anymore than that. I think I wasted my time introducing this material. I can’t see any point in repeating it. “People at any age with the following conditions.....” It’s an easy Google.
