For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 191
  • 192
  • 193
  • 194
  • 195
  • 203
JAFO wrote:
A4 Pacific wrote:The rate of ‘first dose’ vaccination has fallen quite dramatically in the UK since mid March. To it’s lowest rate since mass vaccination began.

I noticed that and hoped it was just an Easter blip and that it didn't mean too much was going to waste.

A supply chain issue for April was trailed about a month ago, so a slow down was expected along with a shift in the balance between first and second doses so I'm guessing that's what has occurred.
JAFO, MikeB liked this
PeteSpencer wrote:
eltonioni wrote:It may be sensible for the superannuated in the risk group, but perhaps try f lick ing * the empathy switch every now and again.

* Eh, f l i c k i n g is in the sweary filter? :?

Usually in conjunction with 'bean' :lol:

AKA the "empathy switch" :)
kanga wrote:.. and some effects on EU life expectancy figures:

"The Covid pandemic has affected life expectancy in Europe, according to latest data across the EU released by its statistics agency Eurostat.

It says, on average, life expectancy at birth has been rising by more than two years per decade since the 1960s. But while many countries have seen that rise slow down in recent years, the decline in 2020 in some EU member states from 2019 is quite marked:

Belgium's life expectancy fell from 82.1 years to 80.9
Bulgaria's fell from 75.1 to 73.6 years
Spain, with life expectancy among Europe's highest, fell from 84 to 82.4 years
Italy's was down from 83.6 to 82.4
In Lithuania, Poland and Romania life expectancy from birth was down by 1.4 years
The Netherlands, France and Austria saw a decline of 0.7 years "

Figures of "life expectancy" are tricky to deal with at the best of times since they can mean so many different things. We learned in school how the average age people reached in the olden days was 30 or 40 years and we (wrongly) imagine that 50-year-olds were almost non-existent, but that was taking the infant mortality rate into consideration: anyone who made it to five years would probably be way older that 40.

In this case, the quote in the quote explicitly says "life expectancy at birth". Given the fact that most deaths due to Covid are among the elderly, how can the current pandemic have such an effect on the expected life of children who are born in 2021? If "life expectancy at birth" in a country was 80 years and 1% of newborns would die from the pandemic in their first year, that would bring down the figure to 79.2 years, but that's not what's happening. A massive epidemic of malaria, cholera or the like could have that effect, but not Covid-19. When today's newborn are most vulnerable to this particular disease, the 2020/2021 pandemic will be something their grandchildren read about in history books. (Assuming there still are "books" in the last years of the 21st century.)

So either the figures are meaningless or, more likely, they refer to something else than what the phrase "life expectancy at birth" leads the layman reader to believe. Is it a phrase that's well-defined within a (small) scientific community? If so, it either should be explained in public communication or replaced with something the reader can be expected to understand.

Anyone on this forum who knows the answer?
flybymike, Spooky, JAFO liked this
@akg1486 There's a good explanation here:

From which:
The statistic “Life expectancy at birth” actually refers to the average number of years a newborn is expected to live if mortality patterns at the time of its birth remain constant in the future. In other words, it’s looking at the number of people of different ages dying that year, and provides a snapshot of these overall “mortality characteristics” that year for the population.

In other words, the current mortality pattern across all ages (which COVID-19 is influencing) is part of the calculation of the life expectancy at birth today; the calculation is assuming that a baby born today will be subject to currently prevailing rates of COVID-19 mortality in her/his future (although of course we are all hoping that won't in fact be the case).
It would be somewhat surprising if Covid hadn't had an impact on mortality statistics, but whether that's of any importance is a more complicated question, certainly the UK and others with a high mortality rate will save a few quid on state pensions :twisted:
johnm wrote:It would be somewhat surprising if Covid hadn't had an impact on mortality statistics, but whether that's of any importance is a more complicated question, certainly the UK and others with a high mortality rate will save a few quid on state pensions :twisted:

As in fact has already been reported.
johnm liked this
Is the g'ment/media afraid of numbers? There are only words to convince us that for most people AstraZeneca is safe.

What are the numbers? Very broad brush:

Say 100,000 excess deaths so far in the UK, population 60m. So Covid has caused 1,666 deaths per million.

Brain haemorrhages 17 deaths from say 20 million doses is 0.85 deaths per million, so Covid is nearly 2,000 times more dangerous than the risk of brain haemorrhage.

And who is to say that Pfizer or Moderna won't produce something equivalent when used in such high numbers.

Numbers may need adjustment for younger age groups but to me look overwhelmingly positive.

edit - Even assuming a causal relationship is identified.
JAFO, johnm liked this
Thanks for looking that up, @nallen. This sounds very much like the predictions made in the late 19th century about the depth to which the streets of London and New York would be covered in manure a couple of decades later: a prediction based on a continuation of current trends and situations. As we all know, that one didn't come through: a little invention called the automobile had a bit of an effect there, both positive and negative.

Of all the things likely to have a massive impact on life expectancy of children born today, Covid-19 is not on any sort of top list. Antibiotics becoming useless (negative impact), air quality improving (positive impact) and better treatment options for cancer and cardiovascular diseases (positive impact) are just three examples that can be given an estimated impact even though we don't know how much of an effect they will have. Not to mention a different pandemic: there's been four or five big ones in the last 100 years or so, no doubt there will be more in the future. The life span of a human being is such a long time.

I'd have issues on this even if they would have said "Western Europe", but to go down to country level? It doesn't make any sense. The difference in how, say, Spain and Austria handled this pandemic has nothing to do with how a similar event is managed in the year 2090.

The problem is that "a drop of 0.8 years" sounds frightfully exact and "scientific" when in reality it's not.
JAFO, nallen, flybymike liked this
I read somewhere, but can't now recall where, that the risk of blood clots from the AZ vaccine is a fraction of that from taking oral contraceptive pills. I doubt many women give that much a second thought when taking it.

As mentioned before, there is more at play in all of this than just factual reporting of stats though and those seeking sensationalist headlines aren't helping.

JAFO liked this
JAFO wrote:.. the article is scaremongering balderdash and can be reasonably ignored.

er, not quite 'balderdash', if (and I have no reason to doubt it) the underlying figures from Eurostat are correct. However, a bit more explanation and interpretation by a specialist correspondent (not just a reporter, however accurate), like those wise Forumites who have commented (to whom I am, of course, grateful), might have been helpful and prudent to avoid the charge of 'scaremongering'. So, for me, it was worthy of note rather than to be ignored, but deserving amplification :?
8 April European developments from BBC:

"EU countries are to continue following their own rules on which age groups should receive the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, after the EU’s medicines agency EMA recommended it should be given to all ages. The agency said very rare blood clots should be listed as a possible side effect. Belgium will now limit the vaccine to people over 55, while Spain and Italy will give the drug only to over 60s. France limits the drug to over 55s and Germany to over 60s.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to change the law to harmonise Covid lockdown measures across the country and not only state by state, according to Bild newspaper. She’s been frustrated by some states’ refusal to tighten rules while infections remain high. In the past 24 hours there have been 20,407 new infections and 306 deaths.

Three students at Kirschgarten High School in the Swiss city of Basel have landed their entire class in quarantine by faking positive tests to avoid school, Blick newspaper reports. They falsified text messages from the Swiss contact tracing app, which meant 25 classmates and some teachers had to self-isolate.

A German mayor who got vaccinated before his turn has been suspended from his job in the eastern city of Halle. Bernd Wiegand refused to resign, insisting the dose had been left over and would have just gone to waste.

Prague hospital head Petr Arenberger has been appointed as the fourth Czech health minister since the start of the pandemic. He replaces Jan Blatny who has been repeatedly criticised by President Milos Zeman for refusing to back Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine.

Norway’s prime minister, Erna Solberg, says Covid restrictions will be relaxed in four stages that are each three weeks apart. Norway has managed to limit infections to about 100,000 cases and the government will decide when it can start loosening measures imposed on 25 March. "
  • 1
  • 191
  • 192
  • 193
  • 194
  • 195
  • 203