IOM Covid removing restrictions

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Correct and you assume they will have to fall in line with standard definitions for reporting purposes even if, say, someone was away for heart treatment and died of a heart attack after testing positive for covid. That’s not an attempt at speculation - that’s just trying to put that 28 day definition into some sort of loose context. 

Out of interest, I assume the same would be said of COVID ‘deaths’ at egtc Abbotswood? Even if someone was already end of life?

[thesultanofsheight]

1 minute ago, NoTailT said:

Out of interest, I assume the same would be said of COVID ‘deaths’ at egtc Abbotswood? Even if someone was already end of life?

I dont know when the 28 days came in. It wasn’t the definition at the start I don't think. 

Edited November 7, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[Banker]

8 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I dont know when the 28 days came in. It wasn’t the definition at the start I don't think. 

At the start it was if you died at any time after previously testing positive they classed it as COVID death even 3 months after recovery, however it was changed to 28 days which still means if you died of cancer with COVID present it’s still a COVID death 

[thesultanofsheight]

7 minutes ago, Banker said:

At the start it was if you died at any time after previously testing positive they classed it as COVID death even 3 months after recovery, however it was changed to 28 days which still means if you died of cancer with COVID present it’s still a COVID death 

Thanks for clarifying I couldn’t remember. Good to see facts being debated. I see James Corrin is already using this report to responsibly (not) foretell a second wave hitting here. Irresponsible clown. But it will get the pitchfork mob out posting shite on his site soon enough. 

[Roger Mexico]

14 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Maybe when collecting mass data.

Small population with small numbers, they either died from it (per tweet) or with it.

The true test is what the doctors treating the patient would put on the death certificate.  The line between 'with' and 'from' is not as clear-cut as some might like though.  Someone might have a serious underlying, potentially fatal, condition, but Covid-19 might be what tips them over, even though they would have survived if their underlying health was better.

The way this has been announced shows for the umpteenth time just how inept these people are at dealing with the situation (the official press release says no more than Facebook).  They're more concerned with mentioning Quayle than telling people what is actually happening.  No doubt they'll make some unconvincing excuse about confidentiality.

[TheTeapot]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

The way this has been announced shows for the umpteenth time just how inept these people are at dealing with the situation (the official press release says no more than Facebook).  They're more concerned with mentioning Quayle than telling people what is actually happening.  No doubt they'll make some unconvincing excuse about confidentiality.

At least they havent dragged The Goz out this time

[Roger Mexico]

23 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Out of interest, I assume the same would be said of COVID ‘deaths’ at egtc Abbotswood? Even if someone was already end of life?

They would have all have underlying conditions (but so do half the population) or they wouldn't have been in a care home.  But many could have lived for years if they hadn't been infected.  I pointed out early on here that there hadn't been much of a corresponding fall in care home deaths since the Spring, which you would expect if these were people who only had a few weeks or months to live.  The latest graph is here:

Most of these clearly weren't people at the very end of life.

[thesultanofsheight]

6 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

They would have all have underlying conditions (but so do half the population) or they wouldn't have been in a care home.  But many could have lived for years if they hadn't been infected.  I pointed out early on here that there hadn't been much of a corresponding fall in care home deaths since the Spring, which you would expect if these were people who only had a few weeks or months to live.  The latest graph is here:

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

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

Edited November 7, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[NoTailT]

Well that’s that. The islands leading journo has spoken...

[Roger Mexico]

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).

[thesultanofsheight]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

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

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

[Out of the blue]

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.

[thesultanofsheight]

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 November 7, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[BenFairfax]

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.

 

[Max Power]

With the recent influx of returning infected people who were either in isolation or hospital, one of them was always going to be a possible fatality.