The Telegraph reported on Monday that more than half of patients counted in the COVID hospitalisation numbers did not test positive until they were admitted. (Everyone must take a COVID test before entering a hospital in England.) Only 44% tested positive prior to being admitted.
The data seen by The Telegraph correspond to 22nd July. On that date, 827 “COVID-19 patients” were admitted to hospital, according to the Government’s coronavirus dashboard. However, the true number of people hospitalised because of COVID-19 may be far lower.
Crucially, the hospitalisations numbers do not exclude people who were admitted for non-COVID reasons (say, a broken leg) but simply happened to test positive upon admission.
Given that tests are now widely available, it seems likely that someone who had symptoms resembling those of COVID-19 would take one before going to hospital. Consequently, many of those who only test positive upon arrival may be suffering from other ailments. The true number of “COVID-19 patients” admitted to hospital last Thursday could be as low as 363 (i.e., 44% of 827).
The Telegraph story highlights an important point, which lockdown sceptics have made over and over again during the pandemic. Testing positive on a PCR or lateral flow test is not the same thing as having the disease COVID-19. (It would be more accurate to describe a positive test result as ‘an instance of SARS-Cov-2’.)
One important implication is that the number of hospitalisations and deaths – indicators that supposedly capture the impact of the pandemic on public health – can increase simply due to higher transmission.
According to the ONS’s Coronavirus Infection Survey, the percentage of people in England infected with the virus went from 0.22% in the week ending 19th June to 1.36% in the week ending 17th July – an increase of 1.1 percentage points.
In July of 2019, there were 1.3 million inpatients admissions, or 42,000 per day. If the percentage of inpatients testing positive rose by 1.1 percentage points due to a general increase in transmission, that would yield an additional 462 “COVID-19 patients” by the end of the month.
Now this calculation isn’t an exact representation of what’s going on at the moment. We know that infections are concentrated among people in their 20s and 30s, who are unlikely to be hospitalised for any reason. But it illustrates the point that even the hospitalisation numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.
As I’ve noted many times, the only truly reliable indicator of the pandemic’s impact is excess mortality. And going by that measure, the pandemic has been over since March.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Mr Carl should know by now the tests used are totally non-diagnostic. It would NOT be more accurate to describe a positive test result as “an instance of SARS-Cov-2”
Sadly incorrect. That’s exactly what the PCR test does. It detects the presence of the ‘target’ virus, in minute quantities. Now, whether the markers used are the right ones is a different discussion.
Covid-19 is the disease. SARS-Cov-2 is alledgely the causative virus.
The inventor of PCR was adamant that it could not be used as a diagnostic tool.
And isn’t it true that the fragments of virus found by the PCR test might be left over from a previous infection?
Never heard of false positives, then?
If there were oh so many false positives, then incidence rates would not have dropped to zero (!) this summer in certain places (while they kept testing as usual).
It detects RNA fragments, not viruses. Useless after 20 cycles according to inventor, Kary Mullis. Even Fauci admitted after 35 cycles, “Dead nucelotides period.”
The test is typically being run at 40-45 cycles. Everywhere.
You are technically correct – the best kind of correct.
It’s so frustrating to see even Sceptic article authors being so sloppy in their language. Language constrains thought, as Orwell well knew.
Exactly. An RNA sequence is NOT a virus, even if believed to be indicative of one.
The test does not measure a virus, and at the higher Ct’s being commonly used, is less and less likely to do so.
Indeed. I scan any articles claiming to analyse and critique the test statistics and what we might infer from them, but if they don’t allude to the PCR cycle threshold issue I’m afraid I can’t give such articles any credibility.
Viruses are so small. Are we sure that they wouldnt just be everywhere?
I think of those islands hundreds of miles from the next dry land, wiped out by a tidal wave or a volcanic explosion. And within a couple of decades, those islands recover and are teeming with life. How does that happen?
If bigger life can travel those sorts of distances, then viruses can too.
And just because we are immune, cant the virus sneak into our systems and start reproducing again for a little while before it is caught? I am sure that it can, our immune systems cannot be everywhere all of the time.
So bearing that in mind, if you test enough, you will keep on finding the virus forever. Our bodies might live quite happily with the virus, and it wont make us ill until our immune systems collapse when something will make us ill and cause us to die. In such a world, all this testing will do is cause us to worry unnecessarily and cause politicians to try and fight something that they cannot possibly defeat. Indeed, our immune systems will have adapted to the virus and there isnt even a battle to be fought anymore.
In such an environment, we need to just get on with life. All of the unnecessary medication, face masks, life restrictions, are as pointless as ordering the tide to recede.
All that is true, but so far the PCR tests have been the best (only) method of detecting a potentially deadly transmissible disease. So whether they are unreliable or not is moot because when it comes to mass outbreaks of deadly transmissible diseases even an unreliable test is better than not knowing anything at all.
(New testing methods are already being introduced, however.)
PCR tests detect RNA fragments. Diseases are diagnosed by examining symptoms.
If it’s unreliable what’s the bloody point? You can’t trust it if it’s unreliable and knowing nothing is better than ‘knowing’ the wrong thing and then taking the wrong action.
20s and 30s are quite likely to be hospitalised for boozing,sports and traffic accidents
especially men
basically (and we have known this for 18 months) the hospital admissions, hospitalised, in mechannical ventilation and deaths data is all badly compromised. it errs on the side of higher numbers. its part of the terrorisation. it would be easy enough to have new numbers that was ‘number treated for respiratory virus and tested +ve for sarscov2’. they don’t do it because it would paint a different picture
excess mortality is another measure but careful it doesn’t coincide with heatwaves, deaths of care home patients of depression etc
I agree. I’ve been saying for months that even in a pure “casedemic” the apparent infections would eventually feed through into admissions and deaths, given the definitions used for both.
Excess deaths was, in previous epidemics, a pretty reliable indicator of the effects of a bug. Now, of course, we have to factor in the significant percentage of deaths due to lockdown.
The metric of excess deaths as a reliable indicator of a pandemic, again is flawed as it fails to take into account excess deaths caused by withdrawn healthcare and fear of accessing healthcare.
There will be a pandemic of OCD and a pandemic of mortality from all causes with the latter not picked up due to the time frame involved. All cause mortality can only go one way with the short sightedness of pissing resources up the wall, hospital staff burnout, lack of strategy.
We’ve never lived in such a safe environment as right now, public health goals of reducing mortality can really not get much better. A minor blip in age adjustment mortality, due to this semi novel virus, should not be such a shock to people that it’s turned out to be. In my opinion, the pandemic is yet.to begin – rationing of resources, declining GDP and input to healthcare along side a growing obese nation and aging population. When are we going to have an honest conversation about death and when will we realise healthcare is not free, nor is life supposed to be ‘safe’.
Carl Heneghan, again says this how it is.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/07/23/the-harm-done-by-lockdown-will-last-for-decades/?fbclid=IwAR3R0WcT3OAkDv8SvBLyhKoRJg7QgITECUFw_D0dGzDrQQuF3DQyNF9CMoU
I would only disagree with ‘hospital staff burnout”. If hospital staff are’ burnt out’ I suspect it is more to do with mental issues because they know that what is being reported is mostly untrue but are being silenced from above under threat of losing their job.
Such a pity that you did not visit those “hospitals” in India during the outbreak.
Did you?
“The metric of excess deaths as a reliable indicator of a pandemic, again is flawed as it fails to take into account excess deaths caused by withdrawn healthcare “
There is no way round the hard fact that deaths directly from SARS > Covid cannot be measured now. Ever. The data is irretrievably screwed.
With some digging it may be possible to get an approximation, but I doubt there is an appetite for that, and if the authorities were involved who would trust the results?
Apparently in the US at least, vaxxed patients are NOT routinely PCR tested. Sure its the same everywhere.
This is what is skewing the data towards young and unvaxxed in terms of pseudo-cases.
There was a zerohedge article which stated that in the US (and Canada too I think), that where they did do a test on a vaxxed patient, they would run the PCR test with far fewer cycles so as not to find as many cases.
Right now all data is suspect. They make us run round in circles looking for patterns but you wont find anything sensible in data that is as badly manipulated as this.
Just gets more evil every day doesn’t it?
“And going by that measure, the pandemic has been over since March. “
Well, it’s questionable by that measure whether there ever was a pandemic. We saw a couple of spikes in mortality, last year and this. The first was either covid or withdrawal of care or both, the second looked like it was vacciness. Overall, all-cause mortality in 2020 and 2021 was/is not at exceptional levels.
But a good article, restating the obvious that we all know, and have known since the beginning, but for anyone new to the site or new to these arguments, highly useful.
Beyond that, the takeaway for all of us is to consider this:
“Crucially, the hospitalisations numbers do not exclude people who were admitted for non-COVID reasons (say, a broken leg) but simply happened to test positive upon admission.”
This has from the beginning been a bleeding obvious thing to want to know if you’re dealing with a pandemic. But the government do not know it. They’ve had nearly 20 months to organise themselves to collect this data, but they have not. Why not? The inescapable conclusion is that they do not want to know, because they are not overly concerned about covid or public health, but only about appearances, or some sinister agenda, or both. They cannot possibly simply not have thought of it, or been unable to put something in place. Doesn’t this make them evil?
Agree 100% Julian…..but when we try to tell pretty much anyone that there hasn’t been a pandemic, it is US that are regarded as crazy, rather than the 90+% that have fallen for the most, illogical, obvious fearmongering propaganda ever.
The “everyone is at risk of death” narrative has never worn even the most miniscule credebilty, the fact people have been so easily frightened astounds me.
Evil government scum. And non-opposition).
“England data include people admitted to hospital who tested positive for COVID-19 in the 14 days prior to admission, and those who tested positive in hospital after admission. Inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 after admission are reported as being admitted on the day prior to their diagnosis. Admissions to all NHS acute hospitals and mental health and learning disability trusts, as well as independent service providers commissioned by the NHS are included”
It’s not that they haven’t thought about collecting the genuinely-meaningful statistic, nor that this would be too much bother for them. No, they have deliberately designed a metric to exaggerate the “pandemic”. When would anyone, who’s seriously ill with a respiratory infection, ever be rushed off to a “mental health and learning disability trust”?
Source: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
Does the 44% testing positive after admission mean that 56% acquired detectable virus (to avoid the debate on diagnosis) after admission? If true, the nosocomial rate in hospitals is truly appalling.
Since this started myself and Mrs FB have not worn masks, not socially distanced, not avoided our loved ones, not stayed indoors when told to, not taken the “vaccines”, not bought into any of the fear propaganda, calling it out to anyone who will listen, and not been tested.
The one thing has has been uppermost in our minds as a sensible precaution, is to do everything we can to avoid attending hospital settings; not in a neurotic way, simply a recognition that if we are to catch covid, (not the end of the world btw), it is likely to be there.
Unvaccinated are the “variant factories”? I think not….watch out for the big white buildings filled with “heroes”, that’s where you’ll catch something nasty, (not just Covid).
We’re in the middle of a Pausedemic.
“the only truly reliable indicator of the pandemic’s impact is excess mortality”
No. That’s a modelling variable, and (even given that it can calibrate variations over time) is a case of ‘you pays your money and you takes your pick’ (of a short baseline).
The reliable (if indirect) indicator – the transparent facts, given that we can never ascribe numbers deaths to SARs – is the relative level of all-cause mortality over a baseline of a significant historical time sample. That at least goes to the heart of the matter in real time : the indirect impact of any virus on mortality, which is the basis of the shit-show.
And we have this. For Rapid Antigen.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls/innova-medical-group-recalls-unauthorized-sars-cov-2-antigen-rapid-qualitative-test-risk-false-test
And RT PCr
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
So, even those testing positive are noisy statistics. It could be argued that the reason we didn’t have flu is because we didn’t test but also that the test we were using for Covid couldn’t differentiate between the two. So all Covid.
But … the BBC is fact checking say deaths are higher. More scaremongering from that august propaganda body.
Just a question.
So out of the 44% of patients admitted to hospital ‘with’ covid, how many of those were actually admitted ‘because of’ covid? That is the true statistic that we are after.
I am guessing that is going to be about zero.
You don’t have to get a PCR test before coming to hospital. This may be a policy but you are allowed to say no! Its one of those stupid things people keep repeating like it’s illegal to hug someone or you can only exercise outside for one hour a day.
They are so sure their gaslighting is working, they now don’t care how obvious they are. It is sad to see so many gullibly following the pied piper
‘Everyone must take a COVID test before entering a hospital in England’. This is an ambiguous assertion. It is true if you are talking about in-patients, but certainly not true for people attending out-patient appointments
Noah – “The true number of “COVID-19 patients” admitted to hospital last Thursday could be as low as 363 (i.e., 44% of 827).” Even that is too high. The DT pointed out that the 44% were those who had tested positive in the 14 days prior to admission. That doesn’t mean they were admitted with Covid symptoms (they could still have had a broken leg). Indeed, the DT pointed out that it is still unknown how many were actually admitted with respiratory symptoms. We do know it is less than 363.
The BBC has produced more distorted data once again on their current news page. The most glaring example is where they show the weekly death rate graph with a scale on the left-hand side from 1 to 25000 with the Covid-19 rates at the top and the total deaths marked as grey shading filled in underneath. This is extremely distorted and dishonest. The Covid-19 death rates are a small proportion of total deaths and should be along the bottom of this graphical representation of it, but this is another example of lies from the BBC. The total number of deaths in the UK for the week ending 16th July 2021 was 9,697. The number of Covid-19 deaths that week, overstated by the government’s biased basis of those who died within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test, was 297 just over 3% of the total. If we had accurate figures for those who died with the virus as the primary source, I’m sure the percentage would be less than that.
There are other examples of data presented in a distorted way on their news page and as we the licence payers are being deliberately misinformed in this way it’s time we were told what the BBC’s motive is and why they cannot return to be the honest and reasonably trustful national broadcaster we once had. Their obviously biased reporting has lost the BBC its once valued national and international reputation for truth.