Reflection on the pandemic: questions about the authorities' response.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745674#Comment_120745674

The studies are still on going to establish full extent, and duration.

It is a real condition. Its impact must be considered in any discussion of the pandemic response and that includes impact on children.

This is a general overview on the reality of what the condition means for some patients.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/14/health/long-covid-children/index.html

After acute infection, post-COVID-19 conditions were proportionally higher in unvaccinated children than in children who had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/long-covid-prevalence-and-severity-in-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-children

"Evidence from the first study of long covid in children suggests that more than half of children aged between 6 and 16 years old who contract the virus have at least one symptom lasting more than 120 days, with 42.6 per cent impaired by these symptoms during daily activities. These interim results are based on periodic assessments of 129 children in Italy who were diagnosed with covid-19 between March and November 2020 at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome (medRxiv, doi.org/fv9t).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927578/

Sconsey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745674#Comment_120745674

For a person that uses broad generalizations to try to make a point, you sure get pi$$y about facts when someone says something you don't like.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745780#Comment_120745780

So there isn't strong evidence and the bits you quote say about half of children (tiny sample of children btw) have at least symtom for a few weeks after infection.

Yet you said covid and long covid destroyed children's lives.

Completely dramatic.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745801#Comment_120745801

Did you read his response? No evidence.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745942#Comment_120745942

Sure, show us the evidence for the children "destroyed" by lockdowns.

Your post is an bad faith misrepresentation of actual studies, which establish that long covid is a real issue facing children. Don't pretend otherwise.

This is all the more transparently so, because of the absolute lack of evidence presented for children being "destroyed" by lockdowns. I used that 'dramatic' phrase because it was one in the one I replied to. Yet strangely you were completely disinterested then in challenging evidence or pointing out how 'dramatic' it was.

The double standards of your position is plainly obvious.

Also, Covid has killed children. This is an indisputable fact. How is that not a life "destroyed"? So I have established the basis for the claim.

Here's another study below, with larger numbers enrolled. Again, rather obvious why you don't look for any of these studies yourself.

The main point being that Long Covid is a real condition. Its impact must be considered in any discussion of the pandemic response and that includes impact on children. I have demonstrated this with studies. If you dispute that, you do not do so based on scientific evidence.

When surveyed at an average of 15 weeks after their test, 14% more young people in the test positive group had three or more symptoms of ill health, including unusual tiredness and headaches, than those in the test negative group, while 7% (one in 14) more had five or more symptoms.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/sep/first-findings-worlds-largest-study-long-covid-children

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745943#Comment_120745943

No evidence? What evidence, what scientific studies have you presented on this thread in support of any of your claims? Well?

I presented actual studies into Long Covid. To categorise that as 'no evidence' is a demonstrably false statement.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120744421#Comment_120744421

Would the length of the first lockdown in Britain have been any different if it had taken place a week earlier than it actually did?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120747360#Comment_120747360

It is plausible to suggest this, but I have not seen anything to establish it one way or another.

There was a study cited in the media that locking down a week earlier could have saved significant number of lives eg 20,000.

In Ireland we introduced strong restrictions such as closing pubs before we fully locked down.

The UK did not, Cheltenham went ahead. This had blowback to us in terms of cases.

Then the UK eventually went into full lockdown, they tried to avoid it, and at one point appeared to be aiming for 'herd immunity' strategy.

odyssey06

UK SAGE Member : “I think it would have been very hard to pull the trigger at that point but I wish we had. I wish we had gone into lockdown earlier. I think that has cost a lot of lives unfortunately.” 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/uk-coronavirus-lockdown-20000-lives-boris-johnson-neil-ferguson

Beasty

Risteard81 threadbanned

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120747360#Comment_120747360

Yes, it would .

It has been discussed since end of 2020 and studied.

This one from Apr22 is pretty damning..

" Introducing measures one week earlier would have reduced by 74% the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in England by 1 June, resulting in approximately 21,000 fewer hospital deaths and 34,000 fewer total deaths; the required time spent in full lockdown could also have been halved, from 69 to 35 days. Acting two weeks earlier would have reduced cases by 93%, resulting in between 26,000 and 43,000 fewer deaths."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263432

Ireland was about 10 days behind the UK infection wise, and we locked down a week earlier.

Stevie2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745780#Comment_120745780

Have the same studies been done for the flu and the other thousands of respiratory illnesses or are these studies just in isolation for covid?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120745976#Comment_120745976

Some other interesting findings:

Final author Dr Shamez Ladhani (Public Health England) said: “In addition to having a control group, one of the major strengths of this study is the follow-up of the children for up to two years which will give us insight into any long-lasting effects of Covid-19 in teenagers.”

The researchers found that there was no difference in mental health and wellbeing scores between children who tested positive compared to those who tested negative, but a high proportion in both groups reported being a bit or very worried, sad or unhappy (41% of people who tested positive versus 39% of those who tested negative).

If Covid did not cause the anxiety in 40% of teenagers, I wonder what did cause it?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120748632#Comment_120748632

There was a study done in Queensland which assessed the affects as comparable to the flu - but the study stressed that was looking at a highly vaccinated population where Omicron was dominant strain. That does not apply to the 2020 and 2021 period under discussion here. Given that other studies have shown vaccination potentially reducing Long Covid, it is reasonable to expect Long Covid cases from this period to be more severe.

Most kids recover from long COVID within three to five months... However, some continue to experience symptoms for much longer. Thanh Diem Nguyen (paediatric respirologist) has treated children with symptoms lasting 18 months but this isn't common. 

“So far our tests show that all of our patients have normal lung function, even though they have a decreased capacity for exercise.  We’re not sure why just yet,” says Nguyen. “Most of the kids are getting better with time, but it’s much slower than with the flu or other viruses.  However, even though they’re getting better, they’re still not reaching their condition before COVID.  I believe that it will eventually go away, but it’s hard to tell. It may take several months to years.” 

https://www.todaysparent.com/kids/kids-health/long-covid-in-children/

Stevie2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120748877#Comment_120748877

Very anecdotal that study

"We're not sure"

"I believe"

"Hard to tell"

"Vaccination potentially reducing"

"Reasonable to expect"

Science :)

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120749035#Comment_120749035

It's a medical professional outlining their experience with children suffering from a variety of conditions including Long Covid. It is expert case based evidence. What would a paediatric respirologist know?

That's science too.

Earlier on the thread, the study was cited re: vaccination reducing symptoms. It has been posted multiple times on the thread, including yesterday.

But of course you ignored that. Easier to demand evidence, produce none yourself, so you can snipe away.

walus

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799116

According to this study long COVID is not worse than ‘long any other respiratory’ disease. If anything people did better after covid than those in the control group.

As a matter a fact when my then 2 year old got flu he was sick for solid 6 weeks. He was a shadow of himself for the next 6 months after that. GP simply said: “He will get over it”, and sure he did 6 months later. Nobody gave a toss about him then, it was just the way it was.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120749035#Comment_120749035

Classic covid ‘expert’ phrases. Pseudoscience, nothing more.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120750972#Comment_120750972

Where does the study say that?

As far as I can see nowhere does it state the quote you have used.

You seem to be either misrepresenting the article or the source you found it in has.

Beasty

72sheep threadbanned

Emblematic

We're getting a lot of excess deaths in the wake of our pandemic measures here in Ireland and I was wondering if this was due to reduced cancer screenings and the like.

Just looking at some Eurostat figures and it looks like we curtailed screenings more than other countries in the first year of Covid.

This is just "Malignant neoplasm of colon, rectosigmoid junction, rectum, anus and anal canal"

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/e25194dc-79c3-45dd-a0da-7cd05d8bcf12?lang=en

Data is not available for all countries in the EU but of those we have data for, Ireland leads the way in reducing the number of screenings for this type of cancer in 2020.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781483#Comment_120781483

Where is the evidence that the excess deaths are cancer related?

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781495#Comment_120781495

I don't believe I said all excess deaths were cancer related but there is evidence where data is available that we reduced cancer screenings of a particular type more than most. Some countries managed to maintain their levels of screening throughout and a couple, notably Croatia actually increased theirs.

It would be interesting to see what the figures are for other types of screenings are as well as treatments compared to other countries.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781509#Comment_120781509

Something else to remember is whether the excess deaths are age adjusted, or 'raw'.

Do they take into account demographic changes since previous baseline. Is 2020 included in the excess deaths comparisons with other years.

How are covid deaths accounted for.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781509#Comment_120781509

Last time I checked the majority of the unexplained excess deaths that occurred in the last 12-18 months across Europe are cardiovascular related. Cancer deaths due to delayed screening are yet to come through.

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781545#Comment_120781545

That is very true. It is possible we had bulge in older people working their way up through the system that coincidentally are dying now. I haven't seen evidence for this but it is a possibility.

On the other hand, Ireland had one of the more stringent and sustained set of restrictions during the Covid years. As well as lockdowns restricting movement, hospitals were closed and, as we have seen, screenings for various forms of cancer were curtailed. All these would have had an impact too.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781591#Comment_120781591

And evidence has been cited on this thread showing how covid infection through long covid raises the risk of cardiovascular issues and mortality risk long beyond 28 days.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781595#Comment_120781595

If you look at the UK figures, when the figures are age adjusted the % of excess deaths drops significantly.

Covid deaths reduce it further.

There is a non-covid age adjusted excess deaths that could be accounted for by multiple \ combination of factors, including long covid, hospital capacity issues affecting outcomes, impact of reduced screenings or health attention during covid etc etc

If the population has aged, and health resources not kept pace, then we can expect to see worse outcomes across a range of health issues due to poorer outcomes from slower responses. This is without regard to covid, long covid, or even specifically delays in screenings.

eg someone has a heart attack and the ambulance and A&E response time is poorer.

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781591#Comment_120781591

Yes, what needs to be investigated is the extent to which all types of screenings, general checkups and treatments were curtailed in Ireland relative to other countries.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781595#Comment_120781595

Coincidently the unexplained excess deaths are more pronounced for the < 50 years of age than for the 65+ cohort. This phenomenon has nothing to do with aging population.

It is the younger people that are affected more.