COVID FACTS and 'bubbles'!
https://www.google.com/search?q=cummings+images+bubbles&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiomO2o89PpAhUNpBoKHZS2DA8Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=cummings+images+bubbles&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoGCAAQBRAeUIbgA1iN9gNg2_oDaABwAHgAgAG_AYgB-gWSAQM3LjGYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZw&sclient=img&ei=xEnOXqimIY3IapTtsng&bih=881&biw=1280&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464#imgrc=xdpt_q5XCNUPpM&imgdii=Il7AhlQ6YtXVNM
I was going to write a piece about how we all float around in our own little bubbles - physical and mental - subject to all the factors and threats bubbles are subject to. Then as strange alignments happen, when watching Wednesday's edition of 'UK Column News', (Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbemJNd4gFA&feature=push-sd&attr_tag=3rZ1W0HsQcwzD2NO%3A6I ) discovered this was not merely my own flight of fancy but amazingly had become a trending idea and (almost) Government policy. as a way of dealing with the next 'phase' of the Covid-19 lock-down!
It would appear that theorising the notion that we are all bubbles, has become academically respectable and politically expedient in helping to reduce the strictures regarding isolation.
Our ever helpful and protective masters it seems, before granting total freedom of movement and association to everyone, a right the more naive amongst us formerly believed could only be removed for serious crime, an intermediate stage is envisaged, in which only those in an immediate social 'bubble', will be permitted to meet.
In rules reminiscent of the Third Reich, Communist Russia and apartheid regimes, those regarded to be in the 'bubble' will have, presumably, to be defined and legislated for. Currently it is any more than two unless a family. Will it then 'stretch' to aunts, uncles and cousins twice removed? How will workmates, clubs and friends be designated and categorised.
Even with this largess, getting closer than six feet and meeting socially in a pub or restaurant appears as remote as ever. And how far will the bubble extend? A mile, ten miles, a hundred? Will it be possible to visit the grand-parents in Spain ever again?
Using the bubble to illustrate a theory is not new. It has been applied to inflation, to the universe and a range of other applications. Indeed it has been around for a long time as the "South Sea Bubble" from the 18th Century illustrates. In sociology the bubble represents the intimate group.
"Expectations are not unlike invisible social/cognitive bubbles that search life looking for other people to attach to. The further into someone else’s bubble we go, the more our voices may soften, the more our opinions lose their stridency. The further into someone’s bubble we go, the more fearful we become of saying something different, doing something different, being someone different." https://sociologyisascience.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/the-social-bubble/
This certainly seems to describe the current acquiescent conformity, almost spookily apparent, as if in some germ horror movie, when we visit the supermarket or street.
What seems to be new however, is the Government adopting this idea as a lock-down strategy. Social intercourse it would seem will never be the same again. The concept of Government controlling and setting permanent parameters for individual movement and social interaction, with the aid of 5G monitoring appears truly sinister and dystopian, yet in the context of pandemical fear, people appear un-phased by it, indeed prepared to assist in mobile phone app studies! A likeness to sheep or lemmings is hard to avoid.
We know that movements in vehicles is fully and automatically monitored as are the locations and movement of mobile phone devices. All computer key strokes and verbal communications are copied and logged somewhere, so the technical measures are in place to monitor and control ALL contact. What we see now is the administrative and legal framework to ensure compliance with draconian rules. Fines for non-compliance have already been increased once. No doubt incarceration will follow shortly. It is not difficult to see how has been the case with the laws on terrorism and harassment, these rules may be misapplied to prevent any gathering, social or otherwise.
The UK Column programme referred to above, cited this recent article by Jolanda Jetten and others called 'Together Apart - The Psychology of Covid-19'.
Per Block of the University of Oxford discusses the science behind the social bubble solution for virus containment. He states:
Social 'bubbles' he suggests, can be based on numbers (9 or 10 seem to be preferred); age - but he sees the dangers of isolating the old and ill; health status - presumably only similar categories allowed to meet; of distance - only those with easy reach of each other. These suggestions may have positive disease limiting implications but are incompatible with what we regard as a 'free society'. They are also impractical and on many levels counter productive.
Any genuine preventative strategy could and should concentrate on a few basic and sensible objectives namely: the protection of the particularly vulnerable by virtue of age or disease; the identification and isolation of those suffering symptoms; care and best appropriate treatment of those affected; clear guidance and encouragement of things to promote general health such as diet, vitamin supplements, exercise AND social contact.
This last suggestion has been notable by its absence, indeed the restrictions have mitigated against them, reducing access to fresh air, sunshine and exercise. Given the significant effect of general health, particularly as regards diet and vitamins, where for example is government in recommending or supplying vitamin - especially 'D' - suppliments. Detailed plans and preparations for pandemic have been in place for the last decade. So why the appearance of chaos and confusion, and an absence of obvious preventative measures?
A NEW (April 30th 2020) STUDY SHOWS Vitamin D reduces the risk of severe symptoms by 15.6%. Cases among patients with severe Vit D deficiency was 17.3% while the equivalent figure for patients with normal Vit D levels wass 14.6% (a reduction of 15.6%) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v4
Most of the additional obligations and restrictions are at best ineffective and at worst dangerous, as demonstrated by the increase in NON-Covid-19 deaths, that no one in Government or media seem to care about. The hypocrisy is evident.
What we have witnessed is a reversal of normal approach to an infectious agent. The Government's approach seems to have been to have designed an exceptional set of restrictive measures and then sought, largely by unsupported and irrational argument, to justify them and prevent them being scrapped. What sort of policy rests on "Be Alert"? It is quite insane.
The factual epidemiological information makes it crystal clear that the disease does NOT pose a risk equally either for the chance of infection or seriousness of the consequences, yet the official approach by Government has virtually ignored this with blanket, uniform restrictions affecting all, with devastating economic and health consequences.
Inexcusably, the very people most at risk, such as those in nursing and care homes, were the least protected, whilst those least at risk such as children at school, had their education unnecessarily disrupted and made subject to greater risk of neglect and abuse of children. One report suggests reports to agencies have more than doubled. The following report is just one example: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-online-child-abuse-will-increase-during-lockdown-after-45-arrests-in-a-month-police-warn-11983391
So the chief complaint to be levelled at the Government is that it was slow to react and its reaction was un-targeted, 'blanket' and 'blunderbuss'. It failed from the beginning to examine and apply the factual epidemiological and medical information from other countries. It shows all the signs of an absence of considered leadership; of panic rather than rational response.
Perhaps this partly results from politicians and administrators not being scientists, more interested in the headlines in papers and attitude polls than the reality of a disease. However we cannot get away from the fact that they were advised by scientists, doctors and statisticians, that grossly over-estimated the seriousness of the reach and consequences of Covid-19, for example Neil Fergusans Imperial College prediction of 500 000 deaths.
The fatuous obsession with 'R' (or Reproduction) Number (See: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/05/15/coronavirus-covid-19-real-time-tracking-of-the-virus/ ) was used to the exclusion of all other considerations. It is not transmission but consequences that are the important factor. If the bug infects via transmission from one to another, as it surely will, as that is the nature of viruses, as long as the consequences are bearable and not severe, it is not something to be fearful of.
For example if it is clear that children are virtually exempt from symptoms even when exposed to SARS Cov-2, why is it necessary to prevent them going to school? Why if the evidence shows that people under fifty are similarly hardly affected other than with flu-like symptoms of varying intensity, are teachers so in terror that they refuse to go back to work?
In this context the consequence of the 'R Number' is the beneficial one of indicating the spread of immunity - the so-called 'herd immunity', although the the suggested equivalence with cattle, is I think unfortunate.
Again, if as the science suggests, infectivity exists, with all its limitations, only when the carrier exhibits symptoms - dry cough, higher temperature than normal, aches and pains, malaise - and if they are immediately isolated and financially compensated, the effect on the 'R Number' is limited and the infection contained. To isolate everyone in the country when only specified limited groups are vulnerable, is clearly nonsensical and further does nothing to enhance the protection of those groups. Much better, if, as I have said from the beginning, the precautions and resources had been directed towards the known vulnerable.
So who are the vulnerable and what does the epidemiological evidence tell us about how the mysterious virus interacts with humans and the disease characteristics it produces. The difference in risk chances is dramatic. It is gradually becoming obvious that for those infected the risk of death is around 0.5% - not greatly different from seasonal flu.
However this of course is an average. If as we shall see when there is disproportionate fatality in certain cohorts, the actual risk of dying from the disease for the rest of the population is infinitesimally small, and certainly far less than many other causes from disease and accident, which appear to be taken in society's stride, without massive psychological panic and strange behaviours. For some reason this is not something government and media want to disseminate. Instead they only pedal inchoate and irrational fear.
Now as to those most at risk of succumbing to Covid-19 related symptoms that are diverse and more complicated than first postulated. At first this was suggested to predispose to Chronic Pulmonary Obstruction ('COPD') and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ('ARDS') but further observation has revealed different processes at a cellular level relating primarily to interference with O2/CO2 transference on the surface of alvioli and with the mechanisms of blood clotting.
These findings have important implications for treatment and interventions. For example intubation (i.e. mechanical ventilation) may be less useful than the application of blood thinners and oxygen combined. A misconception over the cause of COPD may have led to the wrong treatment and avoidable death in many cases. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp5RMutCNoI ;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/life-saving-ventilators-dangerous-coronavirus-21887251 ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6h8TIxeg1g&fbclid=IwAR1a_hPIouKIxHliwq3RTdXxM0x4C-CpFdeGS1-ztCX-uJuAO1_mLVBNFoI ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoJ4VDaGSfY&fbclid=IwAR2xz2Lq5XjuwTbw9eQ-YRkHZzztRMh0J5Qlqjbk1ejHJGNoOdQLySNkorc ;
How the disease process works is explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp5RMutCNoI This is an incredibly sophisticated and intricate bio/chemical process that medical science has elucidated but of which we are hardly aware unless it goes seriously wrong.
The fact is that everyone is not at equal risk of contracting the Covid-19 disease or of suffering severe consequences, although of course the parameters are different. This means that average figures give a distorted impression. To be more precise the risk must be calculated for each age and circumstantial cohort. This will reveal that the chance of infection serious consequences will be much higher for some, but conversely much less for others. Unlike the Government's 'blunderbuss' approach, it should have been tailored from the beginning, which would have avoided a GENERAL lock-down.
People at high risk (clinically extremely vulnerable)
People at high risk from coronavirus include people who:
- have had an organ transplant
- are having chemotherapy or antibody treatment for cancer, including immunotherapy
- are having an intense course of radiotherapy (radical radiotherapy) for lung cancer
- are having targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system (such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors)
- have blood or bone marrow cancer (such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma)
- have had a bone marrow or stem cell transplant in the past 6 months, or are still taking immunosuppressant medicine
- have been told by a doctor they you have a severe lung condition (such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma or severe COPD)
- have a condition that means they have a very high risk of getting infections (such as SCID or sickle cell)
- are taking medicine that makes them much more likely to get infections (such as high doses of steroids or immunosuppressant medicine)
- have a serious heart condition and are pregnant
People at moderate risk (clinically vulnerable)
People at moderate risk from coronavirus include people who:
- are 70 or older
- are pregnant
- have a lung condition that's not severe (such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis)
- have heart disease (such as heart failure)
- have diabetes
- have chronic kidney disease
- have liver disease (such as hepatitis)
- have a condition affecting the brain or nerves (such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy)
- have a condition that means they have a high risk of getting infections
- are taking medicine that can affect the immune system (such as low doses of steroids)
- are very obese (a BMI of 40 or above)
This saves me writing the article that I intended to write! What a cop-out.
Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)
“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)
Overview
- According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.
- Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
- Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 97% of all persons develop mild symptoms at most.
- Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
- The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
- In many countries, up to two thirds of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from extreme stress, fear and loneliness.
- Up to 50% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
- Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
- Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. The claimed increase in Kawasaki disease in children also turned out to be false.
- The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons.
- Regional increases in mortality can occur if there is a collapse in the care of the elderly and sick as a result of infection or panic, or if there are additional risk factors such as severe air pollution. Special regulations for dealing with the deceased sometimes led to additional bottlenecks in funeral or cremation services.
- In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. In addition, up to 15% of doctors and health workers were put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.
- The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
- Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
- The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
- Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. tiny particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles or smartphones). The main modes of transmission are direct contact and droplets produced when coughing or sneezing.
- There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
- Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Numerous operations and therapies were cancelled, including some organ transplants and cancer screenings.
- Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
- The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react positive to other coronaviruses.
- Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups. The risks for children are virtually zero and closing schools was never medically warranted.
- Several medical experts described vaccines against coronaviruses as unnecessary or even dangerous. Indeed, the vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions.
- The number of people suffering from unemployment, psychological problems and domestic violence as a result of the measures has skyrocketed worldwide. Several experts believe that the measures may claim more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN millions of people around the world may fall into absolute poverty and famine.
- NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the massive and permanent expansion of global surveillance. The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
- More than 500 scientists have warned against an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is already carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is already being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach.
- A 2019 WHO study on public health measures against pandemic influenza found that from a medical perspective, “contact tracing” is “not recommended in any circumstances”.
See also:
There are some very strange features to this disease. As I have said previously, it does react with humans uniformly or consistently. It seems some are much more vulnerable than others. Conversely of course, those not in the high risk groups are much less at risk. Stating bald statistics of infections and deaths is misleading as it hides these significant variations. Nor does it make sense to formulate public policy as if everyone was equally at risk of serious health consequences or death.
A leading member of SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies), Prof. Graham Medley, stated recently that the 'mathematical models underpinning the Government's strategy are largely informed by educated guesswork, intuition and experience." He suggested that about 10% of the UK population had been exposed to the virus so far but this has been contradicted by other studies. In this one by an Oxford group, it is estimated that up to 60% may have been infected by the beginning of March, 2020. If so this would throw a completely different light on things. First that the epidemic wave must must have started much earlier than previously suggested; and second if such a large proportion were infected, this obviously means that the fatality rate is much lower than that initially claimed.
As we have already noted all statistics depend on the reliability of the input data. "Rubbish in; rubbish out" as the saying goes. As often stated, dying with Covid is not the same as dying from Covid. All the evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of recorded deaths were in those patients with existing, underlying life-threatening conditions. This does not make the loss any easier to bear but it does affect the risk to others not so debilitated. Nor is it fair to place the whole blame upon the SARS Cov-2 organism. Any flu-like virus, or indeed any bug, might have had the same complicating consequence. This alone is not cause of general panic in the general population.
Leaving aside the unreliability of the test, there is general ignorance surrounding what to do with the information even if returning positive. It certainly suggests immunity for that person but doctors are not sure whether this is true or if so for how long it lasts of if immune whether this means the subject is is infectious to others or not. Should a person positive to anti bodies be regarded as more or less dangerous than someone with none? Should they regard themselves more or less vulnerable to the disease? No one really knows.
What we can say with some certainty is that transmission will require an infected person passing the virus to an uninfected person and that it is likely that only a person with symptoms is likely to be infectious. Add to this there must be a mode of transmission which is it is theorised is by droplet from the nose or mouth. Far more than just breathing is required: it needs a cough or sneeze to propel the infected material to the other person who must then breath it into the lungs. This is not so easy as it might appear as the body is set up to prevent it entering.
The whole basis for the process is largely guesswork and certainly the precautions currently in place by individuals and businesses are both pointless and unnecessary as the fear of infection. The advice should have been clear and simple: if you have flu-like symptoms self isolate for at least seven days after they have disappeared; do not cough or spit or sneeze near someone else and stay clear of someone who does. If you have to come into contact with someone suffering from symptoms, employ good hygiene and face mask if desired. FULL STOP!
Approximately 418,000 people live in care homes (Laing and Buisson survey 2016). This is 4% of the total population aged 65 years and over, rising to 15% of those aged 85 or more. See: https://www.mha.org.uk/news/policy-influencing/facts-stats/ So the significant figure is that 40% of deaths arise in only 4% of those over 65. A rough calculation means that even for the over sixty-fives the risk of dying in the care home group must be many times greater than those not, and in relation to the general population even more so.
Men it would appear are much harder hit than women roughly 3:2; black men from the Caribbean three times as likely to die from the disease https://www.newscientist.com/article/2240898-why-are-men-more-likely-to-get-worse-symptoms-and-die-from-covid-19/; diabetic sufferers account for a quarter of all hospital deaths; relatively tiny proportion of deaths of under sixty fives not suffering from obesity or other serious medical conditions. All of which should provide reassurance to the healthy under 65's although worrying for those in the higher risk groups. For those seriously ill, the choice of treatment becomes more significant, for which a better understanding of the disease at the molecular level becomes apparent.
So to sum up I believe all of this points to an ill-conceived and irrational response by the UK government which in many respects has been positively damaging economically, socially, psychologically and medically. There is good evidence that by introducing blanket restrictions and not focusing on those in real risk, it has actually increased the death rate far above that where Coronavirus was involved. Yet again its emphasis on isolation and treatment at the expense of promoting good heath measures such as vitamins, diet, exercise, fresh air, actually exacerbated the situation, promoting generalised irrational panic rather than a sensible, level headed approach.
