Coronavirus 5 - Last Blood
Moderator: bbmods
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45002
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 23 times
- Contact:
Trends in cases show that the 7-day peak occurred on 14 January 2022, when over 762,000 cases had been reported in the preceding 7 days, Australia-wide. The subsequent low point was 160,000 cases reported in the week ending 25 February 2022 and reported cases have been increasingly steadily since that time. Only NSW and Victoria have reported today but, even so, over 370,000 cases have been reported in the last 7 days, Australia-wide (the final result for the last 7 days will probably be between 390,000 and 400,000 cases, looking at the recent reports for SA, Qld, WA and Tas).
Unsurprisingly, a reduction in deaths tracked (with the usual sort of lag) the reduction in case numbers, so that weekly deaths Australia-wide were as "few" as 140 in the week ending 16 March 2022 (ie, about 3 weeks after new reported cases reached that "low").
By 10 March, the weekly total of reported cases had tracked back up to about 203,000. Allowing for a 3-week lag for comparison purposes, reported deaths in the week to 31 March 2022 were 170.
In the last 7 days - and excluding the late-reporting on 1 April of 331 deaths in NSW that had occurred over the course of the pandemic to the end of March - deaths are probably still tracking at around 170 per week Australia-wide (against, for comparison purposes, reported cases of about 225,000, about 3 weeks prior).
Although vaccination rates are only increasing slowly, the proportion of reported cases resulting in deaths looks to be continuing to decline and will likely do so, provided people keep up regular boosters and there is no significant spread of a more dangerous mutation. Even so, it is likely that Australia will be reporting over 300 deaths per week in 2 or 3 weeks from now, based on the gradual increase in reported case numbers (my estimate is 340 but let's call it 300 for comparison). That would likely mean an average of over (and probably well over) 40 deaths per day by late April.
Unsurprisingly, a reduction in deaths tracked (with the usual sort of lag) the reduction in case numbers, so that weekly deaths Australia-wide were as "few" as 140 in the week ending 16 March 2022 (ie, about 3 weeks after new reported cases reached that "low").
By 10 March, the weekly total of reported cases had tracked back up to about 203,000. Allowing for a 3-week lag for comparison purposes, reported deaths in the week to 31 March 2022 were 170.
In the last 7 days - and excluding the late-reporting on 1 April of 331 deaths in NSW that had occurred over the course of the pandemic to the end of March - deaths are probably still tracking at around 170 per week Australia-wide (against, for comparison purposes, reported cases of about 225,000, about 3 weeks prior).
Although vaccination rates are only increasing slowly, the proportion of reported cases resulting in deaths looks to be continuing to decline and will likely do so, provided people keep up regular boosters and there is no significant spread of a more dangerous mutation. Even so, it is likely that Australia will be reporting over 300 deaths per week in 2 or 3 weeks from now, based on the gradual increase in reported case numbers (my estimate is 340 but let's call it 300 for comparison). That would likely mean an average of over (and probably well over) 40 deaths per day by late April.
I suppose I should add that because the case numbers are based on a simple addition of RAT tests and PCR tests, without taking account of the number of people who get both, and also because we can assume that not everyone who has COVID is getting tested (or, if they do, reporting positive and being counted as a case), the "case numbers" need to be treated as just a reasonable general approximation. So, I don't see much merit in looking at how they fluctuate day by day - but I do see significant merit in looking at how they track over weeks and months.
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45002
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 23 times
- Contact:
-
eddiesmith
- Posts: 12396
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: Lexus Centre
- Has liked: 11 times
- Been liked: 24 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
The key takeout is that the Covid virus will continue to mutate and be with us for a long time.
Vaccinations are the answer but even then people will continue to die. The majority of the deaths are from people who would have likely died soon anyway but they're still deaths.
The vast majority of people will just get on with living.
Vaccinations are the answer but even then people will continue to die. The majority of the deaths are from people who would have likely died soon anyway but they're still deaths.
The vast majority of people will just get on with living.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
I've tried to explain this, previously - but you seem unwilling to take account of the contingent nature of life expectancies. In 2017, the life expectancy of a male aged 0 was about 80 years. At the same date, the expectation of a male aged 85 years was that they would live about a further 6 and a half years (or, if you prefer, to an age about 12.5 years beyond the life expectancy of new-born male child). It is simply not correct to say that people who died of COVID "would have likely died soon anyway" - even a man aged 100 had a life expectancy (having already outlived the life expectancy of a newborn male by 20 years) of about another 2.5 years.
Let's be quite clear about this - people with underlying major, multiple chronic health conditions routinely have life-threatening surgeries when they are in their 70s and 80s - because the medical profession, properly advised, takes the view that, in most cases, but for the specific condition being dealt with, those people will likely live another 15 or 20 years.
It is true that a very small fraction of people who die of COVID "would have likely died soon anyway" - people with raging, terminal cancers who have days or weeks to live, for example - or people who (unbeknown to them) were about to have their number come up for an acute myocardial infarction. For the rest of the people who are dying of COVID, the statement is just incorrect.
Let's be quite clear about this - people with underlying major, multiple chronic health conditions routinely have life-threatening surgeries when they are in their 70s and 80s - because the medical profession, properly advised, takes the view that, in most cases, but for the specific condition being dealt with, those people will likely live another 15 or 20 years.
It is true that a very small fraction of people who die of COVID "would have likely died soon anyway" - people with raging, terminal cancers who have days or weeks to live, for example - or people who (unbeknown to them) were about to have their number come up for an acute myocardial infarction. For the rest of the people who are dying of COVID, the statement is just incorrect.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
Just because you say so, doesn't make it incorrect.
People in their 70's and 80's may well have a life expectancy of another 15 years, but the average life expectancy of people in aged care is 2.5 years.
The best measure is the excess mortality rate but even then you need to dig into that data.
This is the most recent ABS data. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/measuri ... 9-pandemic
Interestingly that, from what I can see, in the UK they're still getting around 200 daily Covid deaths but their current excess mortality rate is negative.
People in their 70's and 80's may well have a life expectancy of another 15 years, but the average life expectancy of people in aged care is 2.5 years.
The best measure is the excess mortality rate but even then you need to dig into that data.
This is the most recent ABS data. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/measuri ... 9-pandemic
Interestingly that, from what I can see, in the UK they're still getting around 200 daily Covid deaths but their current excess mortality rate is negative.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45002
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 23 times
- Contact:
No One yet will know what the Normal Will be now with Covid has Appearingstui magpie wrote:Just because you say so, doesn't make it incorrect.
People in their 70's and 80's may well have a life expectancy of another 15 years, but the average life expectancy of people in aged care is 2.5 years.
The best measure is the excess mortality rate but even then you need to dig into that data.
This is the most recent ABS data. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/measuri ... 9-pandemic
Interestingly that, from what I can see, in the UK they're still getting around 200 daily Covid deaths but their current excess mortality rate is negative.
I am Da Man
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45002
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 23 times
- Contact:
Dave, it's a strategy based upon a thinly-disguised eugenics argument, ultimately. Didn't much like it coming from the Nazis, don't much like it now.
It's easily illustrated by reference to earlier comments in this thread. We have a bunch of people (we call them "the vulnerable" to dehumanise them) who are most at risk from COVID. That, it is implied, is their problem and theirs alone.
Jumping from the illogical (and wholly inaccurate) trope that they "will probably die soon anyway" - one apparently leaps readily to the conclusion that they need not be treated with dignity or respect, or afforded society's protection.
Indeed, properly understood, the driving force of that view is that the lives of "the vulnerable" don't matter "because they will probably die soon anyway" - we need not even count their "deaths" because they weren't really properly alive like the rest of us and their deaths might be "deaths" but they're not real deaths. Just "weed them out" with COVID and the rest of us can get on with life. The protection of the vulnerable is not worth anyone else's time and energy. Anyway, if only the fittest survive, it will be cheaper for everyone else in the long run.
It should be called out for what it is. Here's a hint about the interpretation of COVID political rhetoric - the closer our words get to something Bolsonaro would say in Brazil, the more likely it is that we are becoming actual Nazis - without noticing, of course: COVID has left a number of otherwise ostensibly sensible people in the water as the lobsters around them have been gently brought to the boil.
It's easily illustrated by reference to earlier comments in this thread. We have a bunch of people (we call them "the vulnerable" to dehumanise them) who are most at risk from COVID. That, it is implied, is their problem and theirs alone.
Jumping from the illogical (and wholly inaccurate) trope that they "will probably die soon anyway" - one apparently leaps readily to the conclusion that they need not be treated with dignity or respect, or afforded society's protection.
Indeed, properly understood, the driving force of that view is that the lives of "the vulnerable" don't matter "because they will probably die soon anyway" - we need not even count their "deaths" because they weren't really properly alive like the rest of us and their deaths might be "deaths" but they're not real deaths. Just "weed them out" with COVID and the rest of us can get on with life. The protection of the vulnerable is not worth anyone else's time and energy. Anyway, if only the fittest survive, it will be cheaper for everyone else in the long run.
It should be called out for what it is. Here's a hint about the interpretation of COVID political rhetoric - the closer our words get to something Bolsonaro would say in Brazil, the more likely it is that we are becoming actual Nazis - without noticing, of course: COVID has left a number of otherwise ostensibly sensible people in the water as the lobsters around them have been gently brought to the boil.
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45002
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 23 times
- Contact:
Pies4shaw wrote:Dave, it's a strategy based upon a thinly-disguised eugenics argument, ultimately. Didn't much like it coming from the Nazis, don't much like it now.
It's easily illustrated by reference to earlier comments in this thread. We have a bunch of people (we call them "the vulnerable" to dehumanise them) who are most at risk from COVID. That, it is implied, is their problem and theirs alone.
Jumping from the illogical (and wholly inaccurate) trope that they "will probably die soon anyway" - one apparently leaps readily to the conclusion that they need not be treated with dignity or respect, or afforded society's protection.
Indeed, properly understood, the driving force of that view is that the lives of "the vulnerable" don't matter "because they will probably die soon anyway" - we need not even count their "deaths" because they weren't really properly alive like the rest of us and their deaths might be "deaths" but they're not real deaths. Just "weed them out" with COVID and the rest of us can get on with life. The protection of the vulnerable is not worth anyone else's time and energy. Anyway, if only the fittest survive, it will be cheaper for everyone else in the long run.
It should be called out for what it is. Here's a hint about the interpretation of COVID political rhetoric - the closer our words get to something Bolsonaro would say in Brazil, the more likely it is that we are becoming actual Nazis - without noticing, of course: COVID has left a number of otherwise ostensibly sensible people in the water as the lobsters around them have been gently brought to the boil.
So you think Governments are out to Kill off the Weak so the Strong Survive?
I am Da Man