There follows a guest post from HART member and Lockdown Sceptics veteran Dr Clare Craig responding to the alarming reports today that, as the Express headline put it, “Kent Covid strain could be twice as deadly”.
Yesterday the BMJ published a new article comparing mortality rates in people with old variant Covid and new variant Covid from October through to the end of January. Their headline conclusion was that the risk of dying was 64% higher in people who had caught the new variant (and perhaps up to 104%, hence the headline that it “could be twice as deadly”).
Before worrying that this may be the case it is worth looking closer at their results. There are a number of odd things about this study:
- Each person with old Covid was matched for sex, age, ethnicity, deprivation, location and date of infection. There were over 214,000 pairs found. However, it turned out that there was extensive duplication in the data and many of these “cases” were the same people. After removing duplicates there were only 54,906 pairs left.
- The two groups were not matched for comorbidities, meaning the study did not control for them. This was unfortunate as many comorbidities increase the mortality rate significantly.
- Their main finding was that 227 people in the new variant group died compared with 141 in the old variant group. This equates to a 99.59% survival rate compared to a 99.74% survival rate. While the difference may – according to the authors’ methodology – have been statistically significant, this does not equate to it being of any practical relevance in terms of the threat of this virus to society.
- Only people testing positive in the community were included which may account for the high survival rates as care homes and hospitals were excluded. However, the CFR was as expected from studies that did include hospitals and care homes in the over-70s but much lower than other studies in the under-70s.
- Mortality rates in Covid are markedly age dependent so it is important to interpret these results in the context of the age of the people in the study. To get a picture, suppose 50,000 members of the public had been randomly selected as a control with no Covid at all. According to the data in this study, this group would have seen the same mortality as old Covid in the first 10 weeks of the year (just as the normal mortality risk of being alive) and the same mortality as new variant Covid within the first 17 weeks of the year. After spring, David Spiegelhalter published on the risk of death from Covid pointing out that the infection fatality rate for someone who caught Covid was the same as their risk of dying this year without Covid. The fact that the mortality risk in this study is only 20-33% of a year’s worth of mortality suggests that Covid, in this study, is less deadly. Case fatality rates (CFR) always overestimate mortality compared with infection fatality rates (IFR) as the latter are based on immune responses and include all the mild cases that may not have been diagnosed as a case. The fact that this was based on case fatalities not total infection fatalities, like the David Spiegelhalter data, suggests it is even less deadly again.
- The distribution of the deaths over time was also odd (see graph above). People with old variant Covid died mostly in the first two weeks and deaths after this time were fewer, reaching a plateau after the risk of the infection had passed. In contrast, deaths from the new variant continued linearly throughout the month of follow up. This is a very odd pattern for an infectious disease. The expected pattern would be that a more deadly variant would have a steeper gradient from the outset with both survival plots plateauing as the risk from the acute infection passed. Where the risk of death is the same the first day after infection as a month later it suggests there are other factors at play. Could a group with more comorbidities see a similar effect of the disease initially but a continuation of deaths from subsequent organ failure?
It should be noted that the difference in CFR reported in this study between new variant and other old variant is of a similar magnitude to that observed between regions for overall Covid CFR. Ultimately, a difference of only 0.15% between two groups where there has been no controlling for comorbidities should be ignored.
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.
Now I understand the current war the current Dutch government is waging on farmers, a war which unfortunately seems to be gaining allies across the world.
Our mega-clever leaders wish to prepare us for the dire prospect of losing a great deal of global food production due to climate change by 2100, by eliminating as much of global food production as they can by 2030… A most cunning plan. Cull hundreds of millions to save – well, if the corona response is anything to go by, to save no one.
Some people might say the better plan would be to make plans for areas that are predicted to be subject to extreme weather to better help them deal with droughts, heat, cold, floods, whatever. Sort of like we should have simply treated sick people suffering from a virus-indiced illness rather than trying to prevent it altogether.
Yes, preparing for any changes to climate that might occur would be 100 times cheaper than NET ZERO and removing fossil fuels. But I think we have to remember that “Climate Change” isn’t really about the climate. Climate Change is simply the excuse for the Eco Socialism. It is the excuse for “Sustainable Development” (A world run by technocrats, controlling the worlds wealth and resources and the global economy). PS There are not really any “predictions” about future climate. There are “projections” from climate models full of assumptions and speculations that don’t even include many of the climate parameters, because they are either poorly understood or not known at all.
Every scientist who remains silent in the face of these ludicrous, laughable, nonsense predictions of doom and gloom is complicit in causing poverty, immiseration and mental distress. There is no excuse that bears any scrutiny. They are self-serving cowards, more concerned with their own precious careers than their responsibility to be decent, honest human beings.
I expect deceit and lies from politicians and journalists, for the truth is not in them, but those that claim to be scientists who still go along with this fantastical, groundless soothsaying deserve a special place in hell.
But there has always been this symbiotic relationship between government and scientists. Today more than ever before though science has been corrupted for political purposes. Scientists are like any other group of people with families to feed and mortgages to pay. If government want to pay them good money to look for purple horses then it is very hard for them to quickly report back that there are NONE . ———They might decide to hedge their integrity with phrases like “The likelyhood of there being purple horses is not inconsistent with our studies”. That way the government get to say they are following the science and the scientists get to say they haven’t told porkies.
“pay them good money” is more accurately described as “waste hard earned taxpayers money”
Yes “hard earned taxpayers money”. But it was good money till the government decided to splash it about like confetti in support of anything remotely they think will help them pretend to save the planet.
If you want the names of the guilty, look no further than the celebrity scientists on TV.
If there was a climate emergency, don’t you think that all these ULEZ, CAZ and LEZs would not be based on paying a fee but on stopping all vehicles that do not meet emissions levels from entering? I, in my trusty old 16 years old diesel can drive happily into any urban centre, spouting my noxious fumes, IF I pay a fee. Likewise, don’t you think that housing estate developers would be forced to include solar panels, wind turbines, triple glazing, EV charging units etc on all their new builds? They aren’t. With rising sea levels predicted, wouldn’t people like Obama, Gore, Gates et al not be buying sea front homes? They are. Also, with air traffic one of the big emitters, wouldn’t all the same lot be leading by example and doing their G7 meetings via zoom? They aren’t. And these are just a few of the examples of the utter hypocrisy that lies at the heart of this fake emergency. Let’s look at what the emergency entails:
No more gas boilers
Less meat
Less farms
More EVs (with their dirty lithium batteries prone to catching fire)
More restrictions in driving
Phasing out of petrol and diesel cars
Phasing out or ban on woodburners
etc etc
And for Absolute Zero (which sounds like a vodka and maybe you need a stiff one to read the following):
No more flying
No more ships
No meat
No gas/fuel
No driving
etc etc
All this for what? Emissions of a gas that is at 400 parts per million, a gas that is plant food. This is not only a massive hoax, it is criminal. The mobsters who pass themselves off as bankers, politicians, judiciary, media…all of them fan the flames of this criminality. Most people would call you and me conspiracy theorists or some label or other. It’s just their way of shutting down debate because they know that in a debate they would lose. If ever the snoozing masses wake up to this and realise they’re prisoners on day release and not free and about to be locked up in zones while the globalists slowly kill us off, this would end.
Agreed – but it’s fewer farms not less.
I know, Epi, I wrote it in haste though.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986
Frim 29th Jan 2020
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers.
Proponents of climate change and climate policies in government, media and the useful idiot class that glue themselves to things think that climate change is a purely black and white issue. They think it is an issue where you either agree it is happening or you don’t agree (in other words you are a climate denier). To these people there is no in-between the black and white. So when a person asks any kind of question or points out any kind of discrepancy or inaccuracy in some claim about the climate then that must mean they are a “denier”. ———– But isn’t the issue of climate change not supposed to be about science? ——-In science isn’t it the case that scepticism is the highest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin? ——–YES. —— So, when science cannot be challenged, because it has simply been declared as ultimate truth and when that science cannot be falsified and there is no way to disprove those scientific claims, then actually we are not really dealing in science anymore. We are dealing in Politics and dogma. We are dealing in “Official Science” that exists for one reason only. ——-To provide the excuse for public policy.——- This “Official Science” that cannot be challenged and which cannot be falsified is the science that supports the Politics of “Sustainable Development”. Without that science, the whole Sustainable Development agenda collapses. So, this is why there can be no discussion, no questions, no expressions of doubt, no indication that maybe there are uncertainties that could use further investigation. But we do not live in a scientific dictatorship. Truth cannot simply be declared by government funded data adjusters, where if they torture the data for long enough it will confess to anything. If they do try to torture data for political purposes then along should come all the Investigative Journalists to expose their shenanigans, but the horror is confounded when we discover that vast swathes of the media supposed to be doing the investigating have simply morphed into climate activists (BBC, SKY NEWS, CNN, Independent, Guardian, New York Times etc etc.. ———We are reminded on TV News nearly every day of the “Climate Emergency”. But where is this emergency? Are storms floods and droughts getting more intense and more frequent? ———Eh NO. They aren’t ——-If someone asks me if there are such things as pillar boxes I can say yes there are, because I have seen them. I have posted letters in them so I know they exist. I have NOT seen a “Climate Emergency” despite the fact that I am continually reminded there is one. It turns out that the emergency exists in only one place —Climate Models. How have we got to a place where 40% of young people don’t want to have children because they fear for the future of the planet? The answer is that propaganda is a very powerful tool which is why governments love using it. They know it works.
Governments are shameless we know. But taking on Goebbels views on the ‘Big Lie’ is the worst of all their crimes.
Please watch Geoengineeringwatch.com. Those chem trails we see EVERY SINGLE day in the UK and around the world, but choose to ignore, are manipulating the weather. And not in a good way.
If you read it, the Washington Post article seems to be more of a discussion of climate change and turbulence than some kind of alarm.
For example, having explained why rising temperatures can increase turbulence, it writes:
But that doesn’t necessarily mean flight turbulence is becoming more common …. Airlines have taken measures to minimize or avoid bumpy air, including through improved forecasting of atmospheric turbulence.
In fact the article makes no predictions at all, much less doom-laden predictions. Yes it refers to Paul Williams but not to the paper that Chris links to. Chris links to a paper first published in 2017 about modelling turbulence. However, the WP article only refers to a 2019 paper providing data on what has been happening on the North Atlantic route (presumably this is the paper it is referring to).
Also amused to see this from Chris:
Apart from small upticks in warmth due to powerful and natural El Nino events, the recent warming is barely measurable within any reasonable margin of error.
Whenever Chris talks about the pause I assume he is referring to Spencer and Christie’s UAH record. There are of course many other global temperature records but even the UAH record looks very much like a rise (and Spencer and Christie don’t deny it). However, allowing for El Nino years is, I think, new. Can we equally allow for the La Nina which has suppressed global temperatures for the last three years?
Yes, but just because something warms does not mean humans warmed it.— Over the last hundred or so years official temperature records seem to indicate warming and cooling periods. There was cooling from 1940-76, slight warming from 76-98 and statistically not much since then despite more CO2 going into the atmosphere. Even the IPCC admit they cannot tell the difference between natural variability of the climate and changes allegedly caused by humans. They also recently admitted that their worst case scenarios are very unlikely to occur, which kind of eliminates the need for “climate crisis” kind of talk. ————— The temperature record of earth though has been fiddled about with more than a hookers knickers. So as Judith Curry has said “Sure, all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in earth’s climate are not equal”. ——-A little bit of warming is not a “crisis”
Climate change crisis is the biggest Cash Cow in the history of the world. Tens of thousands of scientists and academics rely on this for funding. There is 1 thing driving and maintaining this and it is western governments cash! Until that stops this will continue.
Is public trust in science really being undermined? If so, this article may explain why, but does not show that it is so. Its headline is misleading.
I *suspect* that the current state of science is such that no-one really knows how the climate might change, or what factors might change it. But that is just me, not the public.
Science is not about consensus or trust. What we are witnessing is an utter failure of the education system to prepare people to live in a technically advanced society. I suspect this is deliberate. An educated population ask too many questions.
The humanity-caused climate change industry is very lucrative for some.
They will try their best to keep the money flowing to them.