Kaj je zdaj res- Italija smrtnost
Znani novinar Goran Milić je postavil nekaj relevantnih vprašanj na Facebook profilu, upam, da vam hrvaščina ne dela težav:
– Muče me ovi podaci o smrtnosti Italijana od koronavirusa.
Danas je umrlo rekordnih 919.
Prije nego sto je nastala corona, npr. u cijeloj 2018 god. u Italiji je umrlo cca 647.000 osoba. U prosjeku, 1770 na dan.
Sada samo od corone umire 919 dnevno.
Znači li to da sada, u prosjeku, u Italiji umire 2. 689 svakoga dana?
Ili se smrti od srca, vena, raka, aidsa, gripe, upale pluća itd, dobrim dijelom, u ovoj konfuziji i dezinformiranosti, pripisuju coronavirusu?
Jer, čudno je da italijanskoj statističkoj službi do sada nije postalo relevantno da uporedi ukupnu smrtnost npr. u martu 2018. sa martom 2020.
Ampak res, kaj pravite? Prej je dnevno umiralo v Italiji 1770 ljudi NA DAN. Ali jih danes torej umira 1770 + 990 na dan ali pa jih dejansko umira isto število kot prej, samo da vse infarkte, rakava obolenja v končnih stadijih, pljučnice, bronhitise, prometne nesreče… enostavno pripišejo koroni, če je že bil mrtvec okužen z njo…
Ja, po moje je tudi tako. V bistvu jih umira isto kot prej, pač okoli 1700, samo da se vsi tisti, ki so imeli covid, ker so jih pač testirali če ne prej, ko so prišli v bolnico, štejejo pod covid. Res ne vem, zakaj ne objavijo dejansko št. vseh mrtvih na dan, pa potem analizirajo, ali jih je več kot ponavadi, isto ali manj.
Kaj vam ni jasno, da so žrtve covida prištete k normalnim. Naenkrat je mnogo preveč smrti, pogrebna podjetja ne sledijo, krst primanjkuje, krematoriji ne zmorejo. Vojaški kamioni odvažajo trupla iz krajev v severni Italiji.
Malo razmišljajte že no! In dajte se že soočit s tem, da je realnost kruta, da ljudje res množično umirajo.
Z vašim zanikanjem ne bo mrtvih nič manj. Celo še več.
Ker k zanikanju sodi tudi nepravilno obnašanje in nesposobnost zaščite vas in vaših najbližjih.
Eden je naredil primerjavo. Odkar so začeli v Italiji umirat zarad covida, je na dan okoli 300 smrti več na dan.
Pa kaj mo to veze. Problem je, ker jih tolk pobira na dan z ukrepi in sicer večino v Lombardiji. Kaj bi blo šele brez ukrepov in bi se to razširilo po več mestih.
Ja, izračunali so, da je trenutno okoli 20 procentov več smrti na dan kot sicer, ampak relevantna bo letna raven, koliko več bo smrti na letni ravni.
V Italiji bi marca morali imeti tudi vsaj 100 smrti na dan zaradi navadne gripe.
Kaj ima to vezo? Človek je odprl temo in postavil vprašanje. Sem mislila, da je to forum, kjer čvekamo?
Smrtnost se je povečala. V območjih, kjer so zarišča razsajanja SARS-CoV-2 so nekje primerjalne številke tudi 80{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} višje v primerjavi z dolgoročnim povprečjem. Ali je to povečanje posleda COVID2 resda ne vemo. Obstaja pa utemeljen sum, da kjer pride do izbruha, se smrtnost poveča, da torej izbruh COVID2 vpliva na zvišanje smrtnosti.
P.S.: ti podatki so ze lep čas dostipni, tudi na internetu. Da jih ni, je zgolj posledica lenobe in ne neobstoja.
Bla, bla, bla.
Namesto da kopirate in vsiljujete teorije raznih zagovornikov zarot ki temeljijo izključno na domišljiji in ponavljanju trolovskih tvitov, raje uporabite možgane (tisti, ki jih imate) in preverite stanje sami.
Vaš link
Glede na število umrlih je letošnje število od januarja do 1. aprila za 2{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} manjše od povprečja.
TODA:
Smrtnost 1-21 marec (verificirane občine)
2015 2016 2107 2018 2019 2020
34339 30411 35018 33520 33575 40244
Povečanje smrtnosti 1-21marec glede na 2019 (verificirane občine; uradni podatek): 25{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}
povprečna smrtnost marec (2015-2019): 1865/dan
povprečna smrtnost zadnji teden marec (2015-2019): 1818/dan
za zagovornike primerjav z gripo 2017:
vrh gripe 2017 (1, 2 teden januarja): povprečna smrtnost 2580/dan
povprečna smrtnost zadnje 4 dni marca 2020: predvidoma 3255/dan
Zakaj zavajaš?
Za Bergamo v procentih glede na lansko leto (600,0 npr. pomeni 6x več) so podatki v skoraj vseh njegovih predelih (kot npr. Šiška v Lj itd.) 2-15x višji glede na lani. Vzeto iz tabele Table of deaths in the period 1-21 March of the years 2019 and 2020 by municipality, gender and age (verified municipalities only), zadnji stoplec ({04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}): https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/240401
600,0
725,0
360,0
500,0
350,0
937,5
–
350,0
125,0
1300,0
125,0
294,1
900,0
125,0
83,3
950,0
1000,0
–
300,0
220,0
80,0
–
566,7
700,0
300,0
100,0
800,0
466,7
200,0
–
533,3
466,7
600,0
150,0
275,0
637,5
800,0
400,0
240,0
246,7
300,0
–
900,0
800,0
1200,0
550,0
2200,0
500,0
800,0
–
42,9
600,0
–
650,0
100,0
1000,0
200,0
200,0
242,9
350,0
160,0
1800,0
1366,7
350,0
366,7
400,0
300,0
1700,0
530,0
1600,0
1400,0
533,3
622,2
250,0
1500,0
333,3
200,0
700,0
300,0
533,3
414,3
–
–
250,0
200,0
1350,0
305,9
200,0
12,5
466,7
666,7
1500,0
600,0
433,3
900,0
100,0
Poleg tega navajajo še tole:
Monthly mortality data are generally disseminated with a four-month gap, due to the collection of data from Municipalities that have not yet taken over from the National Resident Population Register (ANPR). Data on the number of deaths in 2020 should therefore be available from May 2020, for the January data and so on.
In the face of the ongoing health emergency, Istat is working to accelerate the production of mortality data relating to the Municipalities that have already taken over from ANPR and, in parallel – shared with the Ministry of the Interior -, is urging the Municipalities who have not taken over from ANPR (who are in understandable organizational difficulty at the moment) to provide the data relating to the deaths of the first three months of 2020 as soon as possible.
Ja, saj tega se zavedam, da je problem, ker je toliko smrti na enem mestu, v Lombardiji. In ne sfolgajo v bolnicah. Ampak vprašanje je, ali bi tudi v normalni situaciji neko smrt statistično zavedli kot posledico virusa ali kot posledico druge bolezni.
Npr. moja mama je lani umrla- agresivni rak, hitro rastoči- bi pa bila še nekaj časa živa, če je ne bi umoril navaden prehlad. Ampak grem stavit, da so jo statistično zavedli kot smrt zaradi raka, ne pa zaradi prehlada.
Problem pri teh številkah je, da ene države, ki beležijo bistveno manj smrti glede na št. okuženih, še naprej beležijo svoje mrtve kot umrle za primarno boleznijo (rak, srčne bolezni itd.), pa čeprav so bili okuženi, druge države pa vse skupaj mečejo v en lonec. Tako da znajo naslovi kot “v Italiji rekordno število mrtvih- 900 zaradi corone” biti zelo zavajajoči.
In kaj je dejansko prav? Kako bi bilo pravilno beležiti te smrti?
Ja, saj tega se zavedam, da je problem, ker je toliko smrti na enem mestu, v Lombardiji. In ne sfolgajo v bolnicah. Ampak vprašanje je, ali bi tudi v normalni situaciji neko smrt statistično zavedli kot posledico virusa ali kot posledico druge bolezni.
Npr. moja mama je lani umrla- agresivni rak, hitro rastoči- bi pa bila še nekaj časa živa, če je ne bi umoril navaden prehlad. Ampak grem stavit, da so jo statistično zavedli kot smrt zaradi raka, ne pa zaradi prehlada.
Problem pri teh številkah je, da ene države, ki beležijo bistveno manj smrti glede na št. okuženih, še naprej beležijo svoje mrtve kot umrle za primarno boleznijo (rak, srčne bolezni itd.), pa čeprav so bili okuženi, druge države pa vse skupaj mečejo v en lonec. Tako da znajo naslovi kot “v Italiji rekordno število mrtvih- 900 zaradi corone” biti zelo zavajajoči.
In kaj je dejansko prav? Kako bi bilo pravilno beležiti te smrti?
[/quote]
Če bi umirali samo tisti, pri katerih bi smrt zaradi drugih bolezni nastopila v roku meseca ali dveh, treh, bi tvoje trditve pile vodo. Pa ne umirajo samo tisti, ampak tudi taki, pri katerih bi življenjska doba lahko trajala bistveno dlje, če jim ne bi odpovedala pljuča.
Bistvo je v pljučnici, ki ni primerljiva z navadno pljučnico in pri kateri ljudem odpovesta oba krila. Takšna pljučnica je hitro smrtna. In tega pri gripi in ostalih “navadnih” boleznih ni oziroma je zelo zelo redko.
Ja, saj tega se zavedam, da je problem, ker je toliko smrti na enem mestu, v Lombardiji. In ne sfolgajo v bolnicah. Ampak vprašanje je, ali bi tudi v normalni situaciji neko smrt statistično zavedli kot posledico virusa ali kot posledico druge bolezni.
Npr. moja mama je lani umrla- agresivni rak, hitro rastoči- bi pa bila še nekaj časa živa, če je ne bi umoril navaden prehlad. Ampak grem stavit, da so jo statistično zavedli kot smrt zaradi raka, ne pa zaradi prehlada.
Problem pri teh številkah je, da ene države, ki beležijo bistveno manj smrti glede na št. okuženih, še naprej beležijo svoje mrtve kot umrle za primarno boleznijo (rak, srčne bolezni itd.), pa čeprav so bili okuženi, druge države pa vse skupaj mečejo v en lonec. Tako da znajo naslovi kot “v Italiji rekordno število mrtvih- 900 zaradi corone” biti zelo zavajajoči.
In kaj je dejansko prav? Kako bi bilo pravilno beležiti te smrti?
[/quote]
Najprej iskreno sožalje. V primeru tvoje mame zagotovo ne bi navedli, da je umrla od prehlada. Ker smrti zaradi prehladov se ne spremlja. Se pa spremlja smrti zaradi gripe. Tam imaš prav enako rubriko “pridružene bolezni” oziroma “smrti, povezane z gripo”. Evo za Ameriko lani recimo: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm#table1 – influenza-associated disease outcomes Za vsak virus je tako, malo poglej za prejšnja leta na WHO in podobnih centrih za spremljanje virusov, jih je precej.
Najprej iskreno sožalje. V primeru tvoje mame zagotovo ne bi navedli, da je umrla od prehlada. Ker smrti zaradi prehladov se ne spremlja. Se pa spremlja smrti zaradi gripe. Tam imaš prav enako rubriko “pridružene bolezni” oziroma “smrti, povezane z gripo”. Evo za Ameriko lani recimo: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm#table1 – influenza-associated disease outcomes Za vsak virus je tako, malo poglej za prejšnja leta na WHO in podobnih centrih za spremljanje virusov, jih je precej.
[/quote]
Hvala za sožalje. Je bila huda izkušnja. Drugače pa ja, to je za Ameriko, zanimivi podatki. Ampak ne vem, če v Sloveniji tudi tako beležimo zadeve. Kar sem našla glede tega so podatki za 2016, poglej 8. stran, kjer je daleč največ smrti zaradi raka (neoplazma) in zaradi bolezni obtočil (kapi itd.). Smrti zaradi infekcij je sicer tudi nekaj, ampak zanemarljivo število glede na ostale (47 moških in 84 žensk, pa so tu zraven še smrti zaradi parazitov). Tisto leto je bilo nekaj manj kot 20.000 smrti vseh skupaj, več kot 6000 zaradi raka, več kot 7000 zaradi obtočil. Tako da močno dvomim, da dajo rakastega bolnika, ki ga na koncu ubije gripa, pod umrle zaradi infekcije. Lahko pa nekaj takih umestijo tudi pod bolezni dihal- pljučnica npr., takih pa je bilo 1200 . Kar visoke številke, se vam ne zdi?
Najprej iskreno sožalje. V primeru tvoje mame zagotovo ne bi navedli, da je umrla od prehlada. Ker smrti zaradi prehladov se ne spremlja. Se pa spremlja smrti zaradi gripe. Tam imaš prav enako rubriko “pridružene bolezni” oziroma “smrti, povezane z gripo”. Evo za Ameriko lani recimo: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm#table1 – influenza-associated disease outcomes Za vsak virus je tako, malo poglej za prejšnja leta na WHO in podobnih centrih za spremljanje virusov, jih je precej.
[/quote]
Da. Spremlja se smrti glede prehlada, vsako leto jih umre 8 procentov.
Na tem forumu itak pišete samo o smrti.
Aha… se pravi, 80{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} jih je bilo takih, ki bi jih v normalnih okoliščinah (če bi recimo razsajala zgolj gripa) spadali pod rubrike: srčno-žilne bolezni, rak itd.? Ali pa bi jih dali pod rubriko infekcije? Samo to je zdaj vprašanje. Kako so zadeve vodili prejšnja leta.
Aha… se pravi, 80{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} jih je bilo takih, ki bi jih v normalnih okoliščinah (če bi recimo razsajala zgolj gripa) spadali pod rubrike: srčno-žilne bolezni, rak itd.? Ali pa bi jih dali pod rubriko infekcije? Samo to je zdaj vprašanje. Kako so zadeve vodili prejšnja leta.
[/quote]
Saj že ves čas govorijo, da je sporno tako štetje mrtvih – v Italiji vsakega, ki je ob smrti pozitiven na corona virus prištejejo k statistiki umrlih za corono.
Hvala za sožalje. Je bila huda izkušnja. Drugače pa ja, to je za Ameriko, zanimivi podatki. Ampak ne vem, če v Sloveniji tudi tako beležimo zadeve. Kar sem našla glede tega so podatki za 2016, poglej 8. stran, kjer je daleč največ smrti zaradi raka (neoplazma) in zaradi bolezni obtočil (kapi itd.). Smrti zaradi infekcij je sicer tudi nekaj, ampak zanemarljivo število glede na ostale (47 moških in 84 žensk, pa so tu zraven še smrti zaradi parazitov). Tisto leto je bilo nekaj manj kot 20.000 smrti vseh skupaj, več kot 6000 zaradi raka, več kot 7000 zaradi obtočil. Tako da močno dvomim, da dajo rakastega bolnika, ki ga na koncu ubije gripa, pod umrle zaradi infekcije. Lahko pa nekaj takih umestijo tudi pod bolezni dihal- pljučnica npr., takih pa je bilo 1200 . Kar visoke številke, se vam ne zdi?
Za gripo je sicer spremljanje tukaj:
https://www.nijz.si/sl/tedensko-spremljanje-gripe-in-drugih-akutnih-okuzb-dihal-v-sezoni-20192020
WHO: https://www.who.int/influenza/en/ – en kup informacij, zbranih z vsega sveta.
Ampak pri teh spremljanjih je treba vedeti, da so to le ocene, ki jih dobijo z ekstrapoliranjem vzorca na širšo populacijo. Poleg tega ne dobivajo podatkov od vseh zdravnikov.
Druga stvar, v zvezi z gripo ali korono. Čisto laično, ampak iz izkušenj z zdr sistemom, se mi zdi, da bi z zapisom vzroka smrti znalo biti takole: če človek leži v bolnici z rakom, ker je že v taki fazi, pa faše gripo in umre, ga bodo zavedli pod rak. Če ima raka, ampak je čisto ok in je doma, pa pride v bolnico zaradi gripe ter umre, ga bodo zavedli pod gripo. Ni nujno, da je res tako, bilo bi pa smiselno. Ker ti starostniki iz naših domov, so zagotovo kaj imeli, ampak so živeli v domu in bi še, niso bili v bolnici zaradi teh bolezni. Tako da po mojem bi se moralo to vse šteti pod korono. Ne vem pa, ali to drži in ali drži tud drugje.
Saj že ves čas govorijo, da je sporno tako štetje mrtvih – v Italiji vsakega, ki je ob smrti pozitiven na corona virus prištejejo k statistiki umrlih za corono.
[/quote]
Tukaj je zelo zanimiv članek patologa, ki piše točno o tem. Kako drugače izgleda corona, ko ga obravnavaš v kontekstu drugih bolezni. Če je pred tem kdo imel raka in je zbolel za gripo in umrl, je bil vzrok smrti še vedno rak. Če pa tak pacient danes dobi corono, pa je vzrok smrti – corona. In število smrti izgleda ogromno, ampak če odšteješ tiste, ki so imeli že pred tem hude, neozdravljive bolezni – jih torej obravnavaš tako kot če corone ne bi bilo – in upoštevaš, da je dejansko število obolelih bistveno večje od odkritih, pa se zelo približamo smrtnosti navadne gripe – vse to piše v članku.
Initial reported figures from China and Italy suggested a death rate of 5 per cent to 15 per cent, similar to Spanish flu. Given that cases were increasing exponentially, this raised the prospect of death rates that no healthcare system in the world would be able to cope with. The need to avoid this scenario is the justification for measures being implemented: the Spanish flu is believed to have infected about one in four of the world’s population between 1918 and 1920, or roughly 500 million people with 50 million deaths. We developed pandemic emergency plans, ready to snap into action in case this happened again.
At the time of writing, the UK’s 422 deaths and 8,077 known cases give an apparent death rate of 5 per cent. This is often cited as a cause for concern, contrasted with the mortality rate of seasonal flu, which is estimated at about 0.1 per cent. But we ought to look very carefully at the data. Are these figures really comparable?
Most of the UK testing has been in hospitals, where there is a high concentration of patients susceptible to the effects of any infection. As anyone who has worked with sick people will know, any testing regime that is based only in hospitals will over-estimate the virulence of an infection. Also, we’re only dealing with those Covid-19 cases that have made people sick enough or worried enough to get tested. There will be many more unaware that they have the virus, with either no symptoms, or mild ones.
That’s why, when Britain had 590 diagnosed cases, Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, suggested that the real figure was probably between 5,000 and 10,000 cases, ten to 20 times higher. If he’s right, the headline death rate due to this virus is likely to be ten to 20 times lower, say 0.25 per cent to 0.5 per cent. That puts the Covid-19 mortality rate in the range associated with infections like flu.
But there’s another, potentially even more serious problem: the way that deaths are recorded. If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare ‘notifiable disease’. So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal infections. If the patient has, say, cancer, motor neurone disease or another serious disease, this will be recorded as the cause of death, even if the final illness was a respiratory infection. This means UK certifications normally under-record deaths due to respiratory infections.
Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list — as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) — has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.
In the current climate, anyone with a positive test for Covid-19 will certainly be known to clinical staff looking after them: if any of these patients dies, staff will have to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate — contrary to usual practice for most infections of this kind. There is a big difference between Covid-19 causing death, and Covid-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making Covid-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded.
If we take drastic measures to reduce the incidence of Covid-19, it follows that the deaths will also go down. We risk being convinced that we have averted something that was never really going to be as severe as we feared. This unusual way of reporting Covid-19 deaths explains the clear finding that most of its victims have underlying conditions — and would normally be susceptible to other seasonal viruses, which are virtually never recorded as a specific cause of death.
Let us also consider the Covid-19 graphs, showing an exponential rise in cases — and deaths. They can look alarming. But if we tracked flu or other seasonal viruses in the same way, we would also see an exponential increase. We would also see some countries behind others, and striking fatality rates. The United States Centers for Disease Control, for example, publishes weekly estimates of flu cases. The latest figures show that since September, flu has infected 38 million Americans, hospitalised 390,000 and killed 23,000. This does not cause public alarm because flu is familiar.
The data on Covid-19 differs wildly from country to country. Look at the figures for Italy and Germany. At the time of writing, Italy has 69,176 recorded cases and 6,820 deaths, a rate of 9.9 per cent. Germany has 32,986 cases and 157 deaths, a rate of 0.5 per cent. Do we think that the strain of virus is so different in these nearby countries as to virtually represent different diseases? Or that the populations are so different in their susceptibility to the virus that the death rate can vary more than twentyfold? If not, we ought to suspect systematic error, that the Covid-19 data we are seeing from different countries is not directly comparable.
Look at other rates: Spain 7.1 per cent, US 1.3 per cent, Switzerland 1.3 per cent, France 4.3 per cent, South Korea 1.3 per cent, Iran 7.8 per cent. We may very well be comparing apples with oranges. Recording cases where there was a positive test for the virus is a very different thing to recording the virus as the main cause of death.
Early evidence from Iceland, a country with a very strong organisation for wide testing within the population, suggests that as many as 50 per cent of infections are almost completely asymptomatic. Most of the rest are relatively minor. In fact, Iceland’s figures, 648 cases and two attributed deaths, give a death rate of 0.3 per cent. As population testing becomes more widespread elsewhere in the world, we will find a greater and greater proportion of cases where infections have already occurred and caused only mild effects. In fact, as time goes on, this will become generally truer too, because most infections tend to decrease in virulence as an epidemic progresses.
One pretty clear indicator is death. If a new infection is causing many extra people to die (as opposed to an infection present in people who would have died anyway) then it will cause an increase in the overall death rate. But we have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world.
Covid-19 can clearly cause serious respiratory tract compromise in some patients, especially those with chest issues, and in smokers. The elderly are probably more at risk, as they are for infections of any kind. The average age of those dying in Italy is 78.5 years, with almost nine in ten fatalities among the over-70s. The life expectancy in Italy — that is, the number of years you can expect to live to from birth, all things being equal — is 82.5 years. But all things are not equal when a new seasonal virus goes around.
It certainly seems reasonable, now, that a degree of social distancing should be maintained for a while, especially for the elderly and the immune-suppressed. But when drastic measures are introduced, they should be based on clear evidence. In the case of Covid-19, the evidence is not clear. The UK’s lockdown has been informed by modelling of what might happen. More needs to be known about these models. Do they correct for age, pre-existing conditions, changing virulence, the effects of death certification and other factors? Tweak any of these assumptions and the outcome (and predicted death toll) can change radically.
Much of the response to Covid-19 seems explained by the fact that we are watching this virus in a way that no virus has been watched before. The scenes from the Italian hospitals have been shocking, and make for grim television. But television is not science.
Clearly, the various lockdowns will slow the spread of Covid-19 so there will be fewer cases. When we relax the measures, there will be more cases again. But this need not be a reason to keep the lockdown: the spread of cases is only something to fear if we are dealing with an unusually lethal virus. That’s why the way we record data will be hugely important. Unless we tighten criteria for recording death due only to the virus (as opposed to it being present in those who died from other conditions), the official figures may show a lot more deaths apparently caused by the virus than is actually the case. What then? How do we measure the health consequences of taking people’s lives, jobs, leisure and purpose away from them to protect them from an anticipated threat? Which causes least harm?
The moral debate is not lives vs money. It is lives vs lives. It will take months, perhaps years, if ever, before we can assess the wider implications of what we are doing. The damage to children’s education, the excess suicides, the increase in mental health problems, the taking away of resources from other health problems that we were dealing with effectively. Those who need medical help now but won’t seek it, or might not be offered it. And what about the effects on food production and global commerce, that will have unquantifiable consequences for people of all ages, perhaps especially in developing economies?
Governments everywhere say they are responding to the science. The policies in the UK are not the government’s fault. They are trying to act responsibly based on the scientific advice given. But governments must remember that rushed science is almost always bad science. We have decided on policies of extraordinary magnitude without concrete evidence of excess harm already occurring, and without proper scrutiny of the science used to justify them.
In the next few days and weeks, we must continue to look critically and dispassionately at the Covid-19 evidence as it comes in. Above all else, we must keep an open mind — and look for what is, not for what we fear might be.
John Lee is a recently retired professor of pathology and a former NHS consultant pathologist.
si ti. Si bila morda na ulicah leta 2013, da si videla na svoje oči?
Daj, uporabi možgane , kolikor jih imaš in razlikuj med fake news in med resničnostjo.
Matr, kolk se imate eni za super truper pametne, pa ste butasti ko točak.
[/quote]
Uuuuu kako se ovce razjezite, ko vam nekdo vzame hrano…to vas torej razburi, za hrano vse….
V krajih, ki so bili žarišče okužbe in se jim je godilo najslabše, poročajo o porasti smrti tudi za 1000{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} do 1200{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}, torej za 10x do 12x več umrlih od povprečja zadnjih 5 let.
V Španiji so krste z umrlimi zlagali na ledena hokejska igrišča, ker niso uspeli pokopati toliko mrtvih naenkrat. V ZDA so v NY pripeljali šleperje hladilnike v katere zlagajo trupla…