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

The verdict on covid restrictions is out:

The findings in summary:

• COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,”. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.
• Voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, played a significant role in mitigating the pandemic – but harsher restrictions, like stay-at-home rules and school closures, generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits.
• lockdowns, in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 per cent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden.
• the Imperial College of London’s modelling exercises (March 2020), predicted that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom and over 2 million lives in the United States. In reality lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States.

Not sure what to make of this. The IEA is a bit dogmatic for my liking so skeptical of the view that lockdowns were completely useless.

Jayse what are you talking about PA ?

Posted that 2 months ago !

Not replying now .

The focus of any inquiry will be on the restrictions and the severity of the restrictions.

Most of us accept many of the restrictions were cruel and unnecessary. Locking away older people in nursing homes and keeping special needs children out of school are the first two things that come to mind.

I don't think anyone unless you're completely heartless agree that that those restrictions were correct.

The real problem was the Irish state going into whole-sale shutdown rather than making any sort of effort to keep things ticking over. At least the British understood that people need to get on with their lives.

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/

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.

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

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

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."

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evidence has also been provided here linking the unexplained deaths with vaccines and related heart injuries as well as blood clothing issues and mRNA spike protein circulating in the system long after taking the jab. 

That pattern should play out that way but for the reasons noted earlier, the excess deaths figures need to be age adjusted properly and to take into account the 2020 deaths. Otherwise Sweden's high excess deaths in 2020 (eg with regard to neighbours such as Denmark) are not properly counted.

I don't have to provide evidence with regard to changing age profiles. This is a fundamental concept in understanding excess deaths. If you think otherwise, find an actuary or SME that says so.

If you are the one citing raw excess deaths that are not age adjusted, the onus is very much on you, if you are going to cite them as the basis for concerns.

Simple question - are the Irish figures age adjusted or not?

These the UK ONS figures for 2022. I cite them to demonstrate the effect age adjusting can have on excess death figures:

• In 2022 (using provisional monthly data), deaths were above average in both England and Wales (6.3% and 5.0% above average, respectively), but when accounting for population size and age structure, the age standardised mortality rate (ASMR) for the year was below average for both England and Wales (0.7% and 1.1% below average, respectively).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/monthlymortalityanalysisenglandandwales/december2022

I listed long covid as a factor in a possible rise in excess deaths fullstop. The studies cited on the thread identifies a link to mortality risk post 28 days.

You haven't even established what is the ASMR excess deaths difference between Ireland and Sweden.

"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."

You certainly haven't provided any actual evidence linking excess deaths (extent unknown) with reduced cancer screenings.

You demand a standard of evidence from me, you haven't provided yourself.

There are so many reasons for excess deaths why only focus on one or two ?

Age, socioeconomic , morbidity or underlying health conditions , poor health care or shortage of health care or health care providers, famine , heat waves , alcohol or drug abuse , infections or post infection sepsis or inflammatory conditions , pandemic....to name a few .

@Emblematic You asked for other differences than age related in order to explain differences between Ireland and Sweden

This research is an addendum to research done by the Office of National Statistics in the UK on comparative excess mortality in European countries explains how that data by Eurostat had to be adjusted for age related and population differences well as highlighting the differing methods of registration of deaths and the effects on resulting excess mortality numbers .

You will see that Ireland is not included here amongst all these countries.

Why ? Because Ireland like some other smaller countries , does not have an effective registration process for deaths, ours is not on a timely basis ( 3 months to register a death ) with the result that the deaths are lifted from RIP.ie by the CSO .

This does not make for accurate or complete recording . It is an estimate at best which is corrected by the CSO when full data from death registration comes in.

Also among limitations of comparing countries one which very much applies to Ireland is noted ..

• Comparisons between countries should be approached with caution, because countries with smaller populations (and therefore, a smaller baseline) will see greater fluctuation in the rASMRs and rcASMRs.

( relative age - standardised mortality rates , relative cumulative asmrs)

This is the original research which goes into detail of the comparative differences between countries and measures of excess mortality .

So it is not seen as possible to compare Ireland accurately with other countries in Europe as per ONS .

However we can see from this recent Swedish study that they acknowledge a far higher death rate from Covid during 2020and early 2021 and interruption to healthcare also as a result of pandemic restrictions,than some oposters would have us believe !

There are many reasons why deaths are rising in countries post Covid .

There is definitely an issue of access to healthcare but it would appear that is not just during Covid lockdowns but due to deterioration in health services pre and post pandemic , due to shortages in healthcare staff is a major factor

Reduced screening and restrictions in care may yet be a factor but the effects post Covid infection especially as regards cardiac , obese , copd and diabetic patients , have been significantly flagged in numerous research studies over the course of and since the start of the pandemic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/18/up-to-one-20-new-diabetes-cases-could-linked-covid-study&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6vaug-r_AhVTasAKHbq8CYo4ChAWegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw3B-QhE4f0NYPyAL-HkuSTc

High circulation of respiratory diseases this winter after two winters of practically none due to restrictions and masking have been attributed to excess death rates in Ireland

Finally there is no evidence to suggest that there is any vaccine component to excess deaths

And ..

" figures up to June 2022 looking at deaths from all causes show unvaccinated people were more likely to die than vaccinated people."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bbc.com/news/health-64209221&ved=2ahUKEwjc7dbd9On_AhUZH-wKHRGWDz8QFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oIa3yZdXTjHjo1Mr6ow61