UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread

[sancho panza]

On 18/09/2021 at 22:35, sancho panza said:

Truly staggering stat come in,hattip @dnb24

So basically,covid 19 has similar IFR to flu.....?

Not seen this in the mainstream press.

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/31381/coronavirus-death

Questioner

Steve Baker
(Conservative - Wycombe)

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what his Department's most recent estimate is of the covid-19 infection fatality rate.

---

Answered by

Jo Churchill
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

This question was answered on 27th August 2021

As of 15 July, Public Health England’s modelling group, with the MRC Biostats Unit, estimated that overall infection mortality rate is approximately 0.096%.

Just to add some detail to this post from @dnb24 looking to flesh the comparison of the covid IFR with flu IFR.As abopve UK govt believe IFR to be 0.096% and cite Baker & Wilson IFR for flu of 0.039%.Allowing for some overcounting of deaths in the UK,it looks like the comparison of flu and covid 19 isn't too far out.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3883/rr

How fatal is covid-19 compared with seasonal influenza? The devil is in the detail.

 

Dear Editor

Accurate assessment of the chance of death following exposure to covid-19 is important, since this statistic has been used by governments to direct lockdowns in an effort to mitigate these deaths. In correspondence to the BMJ, professors Baker and Wilson, both proponents of New Zealand’s lockdown, have criticised our assertion that the infection fatality proportion (IFP) of covid-19 is similar to seasonal influenza.[1] They claim that the IFP for influenza is 0.039%, about six times lower than the IFP for covid-19 we cited, a corrected median value of 0.23%.[2]

Clearly, mortality is age-stratified from covid-19. The corrected median estimates of IFP for people aged lower than 70 years is currently 0.05%, [2] which, for the population less vulnerable to deaths, is similar to influenza. However overall estimates for covid-19 are higher, due to the higher fatality rate in elderly people.

Here, we explore in more detail the assessment of the IFP for the two viruses and focus on four issues we believe are important:

1. Modelled COVID-19 death has been overestimated
Early in the course of covid-19, the all-age IFP was high, estimated at 0.66% (credible interval: 0.39 to 1.33%).[3] This led to alarming projections of covid-19 deaths, if the infection was left to spread. These IFPs were obtained by adjusting case-fatality proportions by the proportions of returnees testing positive from repatriation flights from Wuhan. This led to 250,000 deaths overall being predicted for the UK,[4] justifying lockdowns. Yet observed fatalities in the UK now show that these models overestimated deaths by seven times.[5] Similar models in New Zealand predicted 80,000 deaths from the pandemic if severe lockdowns were not enacted.[6] Barnard et al. estimated between 12,600 and 33,600 deaths based on a ‘case-fatality ratio’ of 0.75% and 2% respectively— even with lockdowns.[7] We now know that these projections were too high, and that lockdowns are of questionable value for reducing per capita mortality.[8]

2. Estimates of IFP
For different diseases, the IFP is estimated in varying ways. For covid-19, it is the ratio of the cumulative count of clinically assigned covid-19 deaths to the number of infected people. Frequently, the number of infected people is estimated by the product of the prevalence of antibody positive cases and the population count. The prevalence of seropositive subjects is assumed to equate to a cumulative assessment of viral infections.

Baker and Wilson’s estimate for influenza is derived somewhat differently. The IFP for influenza is derived from a modelled annual influenza mortality rate,[9] divided by the influenza seropositive prevalence.[10] This is unlike that for covid-19. For this disease, deaths have been attributed individually based on mass testing carried out on an unprecedented scale for any respiratory disease. While on the face of it this should increase confidence in case numbers, history suggests this new testing regime, with sharpened focus on covid-19, is likely to overestimate mortality, as we will discuss.

3. Death ascertainment
New pandemics are often associated with biased changes to cause of death coding. For example, in the US in 1968-69, where doctors were aware of an impending influenza A (H3N2) winter, the number of deaths coded as influenza in the summer of 1968 increased sixteen-fold when compared with the summers in the years before and after the pandemic.[11] Yet no significant circulation of influenza was thought to have occurred during that summer. Due to this inaccurate death certificate recording for influenza, the authors statistically estimated these deaths, independent of death records, as has the data referred to by Baker and Wilson.

We see similar evidence for over counting of deaths in countries with high IFPs for covid-19. A notable example was England where it was impossible to recover from covid-19 once an individual had tested positive.[12] Reports from Italy have shown a similar bias in favour of covid-19 death early in that pandemic. After formal review of apparent covid-19 deaths only 12% of the previous figures were directly attributable to the new virus.[13]

Evidence for lower mortality comes from countries that have many covid-19 cases yet few deaths. At the time of writing, Singapore had 57,883 recovered cases and 28 deaths, yielding a case-fatality proportion of 0.05%. We believe, because of Singapore’s adherence to the case definition when assigning covid-19 deaths,[14] its numbers more reliably assess mortality, and illuminate the bias present elsewhere. Further, the denominator is large, likely due to aggressive testing. If serology were estimated, the IFP of this city state would likely be lower still.

4. Infection prevalence
As well as bias in the numerator, the denominator in covid-19 IFP calculations is likely to be lower than true infection counts, because positive antibody responses wane faster than for influenza.[15 16] This leads to underestimation of cumulative infection and consequently an overestimation of the IFP. Supporting evidence comes from levels of positive antibody tests halving after two months in a cohort of exposed health care workers from Nashville.[17] In contrast, high levels of influenza antibodies have been documented up to 28 weeks after vaccination in healthy adults in Maryland.[16] Further, evidence of exposure to covid-19 may be only detectable in specific T-cells (reactive to spike glycoproteins), rather than in antibodies alone.[18]

Other support for a low IFP for covid-19 come from studies which track serial antibody tests within individuals. For example, an eightfold increase in positive antibody prevalence in Tokyo occurred during summer, rising from 5.8% to 46.8%, yet little increase in fatality from the virus occurred.[19]

So, what is a reasonable IFP for covid-19? The overall corrected median IFP from 61 studies in a meta-analysis is 0.23%.[2] This agrees with a population serosurvey in Indiana.[20] These studies consider only seropositivity as an indicator of cumulative exposure to the virus. They have also assumed cause of death figures are accurate. So, once these factors have been considered, we believe that our comparison with seasonal influenza is not misleading. Since models that have incorporated higher IFPs have led to economically crippling lockdowns,[21] we believe scrutiny of these comparisons are vital and a reappraisal of the covid-19 IFP is overdue.

Simon Thornley, Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Auckland

Arthur J. Morris, LabPLUS, Auckland City Hospital

Gerhard Sundborn, Section of Pacific Health, The University of Auckland

Samantha Bailey, Clinical & Pharmaceutical Research Trust, 40 Stewart Street, Christchurch.

[sancho panza]

 

[sancho panza]

Here's the paper that the previous post refers to by Baker & Wilson.The IFR referred to for covid is claimed at 0.68% which is way higher than the 0.23% estimated by John Ioaniddis in Oct 2020 paper published by the WHO.

Ioaniddis makes a further point worth considering in that countires wih lower average ages particualrly under 70 will have much lower IFR's for covid.Countries like India.

Which brings us to the UK govt's more recent IFR estimate of 0.096%-for a country with a reasonably high proportion of 70 years olds bringing it very much in line with Ioaniddis and given it's more recent publication date,probably a better grip on the infection rate(although having said that,Prof John Lee raises the issue in the video above that the Lockdown sceptics are probably overcounting the infection rate(although you could very reasonably argue in return that the death rate has been massively overstated.)

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

The inferred median infection fatality rate in locations with a COVID-19 mortality rate lower than the global average is low (0.09%). If one could sample equally from all locations globally, the median infection fatality rate might be even substantially lower than the 0.23% observed in my analysis.

For people < 70 years old, the infection fatality rate of COVId-19 across 40 locations with available data ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% (median 0.05%); the corrected values were similar.

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3410/rr-6

The COVID-19 elimination debate – needs to use correct data

 

Dear Editor

Many of the arguments raised by Thornley et al in the BMJ’s recent head-to-head debate (BMJ 2020;370:m3410) against taking an elimination approach to COVID-19 are in our view misleading and incorrect. In particular, their mistaken assertion that the infection fatality risk (IFR) for COVID-19 is “similar to that for seasonal flu”.

Research conducted in New Zealand (NZ) and internationally suggests that the IFR for COVID-19 is typically at least an order of magnitude higher than for seasonal flu. The most detailed study of seasonal influenza mortality in NZ to date estimated average annual mortality of 13.5 (95%CI 13.4, 13.6) per 100,000 population [1]. Furthermore, the proportion of the NZ population infected with influenza in a year has been measured from a seroconversion study at 35% (95%CI: 32%-38%) [2]. Combining these figures suggests an IFR for seasonal influenza of about 0.039% (ie, 13.5/35,000) in NZ. This seasonal influenza IFR is 17 times lower than that estimated for COVID-19 at 0.68% [3] and 0.65% [4], based on international data (there have been too few COVID-19 cases in NZ to produce an IFR estimate).

Furthermore, as Lee points out in the same debate article, there is growing evidence for long-term health impacts from COVID-19 which need to be considered when comparing the elimination strategy with the alternative suppression or mitigation approaches [5].

It is reasonable to debate the COVID-19 elimination strategy as it is likely that the feasibility of achieving this goal will vary by country circumstances. That is, it seems hard for countries with large land borders, federal systems, and dysfunctional governments; but more feasible for island nations such as New Zealand (NZ) [6]. But such debates need to use correct data.

 

[sancho panza]

Using John Hopkins data for the UK

We have 136,000 deaths of covid versus 7,530,000 infections=IFR of 0.18%

Allowing(as the govt are) for a much broader infection rate given PCR testing was not routinely available for much of 2020 when you needed a high temp/loss of taste & smell/continuous cough to obtain a PCR test,then the denominator is likely much higher.

10 million cases would give an IFR of 0.136%

12 million = 0.113%

Where things get interesting is what would happen if the numerator were adjusted for the likely overstatement of covid deaths

Say 100,000 among 12 mn cases IFR=0.83%

As can be seen,even using Baker & Wilsons estimate of the IFR for flu,we are within it's realms.

Say,we had 80,000 covid deaths and 12 mn cases(not outside the realms of possibility) then we have an IFR of 0.66%

https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+infection+rate&oq=uk+covid+infection+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512j0i457i512j0i512l7.5662j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[sancho panza]

For some context let's look at overall mortality rates in a few countries.

New Zealand

As can be seen,New Zealand's death rate has been rising for 13 years and is the highest since 2002.it should be worth noting that it's success against covid hasn't stopped that death rate rising.

 

United Kingdom

The UK's death rate has been moving higher since 2014 and the current covid outbreak hasn't really altered the trenline much.

It's wortht noting how much higher it is than New Zealand's per 100,000,most likely as a result of demographic differences.

 

USA

The US death rate has also been rising since 2008 and again,mortality over the last year hasn't really changed the trend.

 

Nigeria

 

India

 

Rising since 2012

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

Some more context looking at average age data.I've placed in bold some worth taking note of imho.

Stating the obvious but one clear reason for heightened IFR's in Western countries is the fact that average age is often much higher than others.

Looking at populous countries like India,Indonesia,Nigeria and referring back to the words of Ioaniddis above regarding IFR's <>70.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-age.php

Country	Median age in years	Population under 20 years old	Life expectancy in years
Australia	37.2	25.2 %	83.0
Austria	42.7	19.4 %	81.9
Azerbaijan	29.7	29.8 %	73.0
Belarus	39.3	21.6 %	74.7
Belgium	41.6	22.6 %	81.8
Benin	18.4	52.9 %	61.8
Bolivia	22.4	40.4 %	71.6
Bosnia and Herzegovina	39.5	19.9 %	77.4
Bulgaria	43.0	19.1 %	75.1
Burkina Faso	17.1	55.7 %	61.5
Burundi	17.6	55.6 %	61.6
Cambodia	24.4	40.0 %	69.8
Cameroon	18.3	53.1 %	59.3
Canada	40.1	21.2 %	82.1
Central Africa	19.7	56.2 %	53.3
Chad	15.8	58.1 %	54.3
China	37.4	23.6 %	76.9
Comoros	19.1	49.6 %	64.3
Congo	18.8	51.8 %	64.6
Congo (Dem. Republic)	17.4	56.5 %	60.7
Croatia	42.6	19.5 %	78.6
Cuba	40.1	21.8 %	78.8
Czechia	40.3	20.1 %	79.2
Denmark	41.1	22.3 %	81.3
Dominican Republic	25.8	36.6 %	74.2
Ecuador	26.1	36.7 %	77.1
El Salvador	24.1	36.2 %	73.4
Eritrea	18.4	0.0 %	66.4
Estonia	40.9	21.0 %	78.8
Ethiopia	18.2	51.8 %	66.6
Fiji	27.1	37.6 %	67.5
Finland	42.3	21.4 %	81.9
France	40.6	23.7 %	82.7
Gabon	20.7	45.9 %	66.5
Gambia	17.0	54.8 %	62.1
Georgia	37.6	25.5 %	73.9
Germany	45.5	18.8 %	81.0
Ghana	20.6	47.5 %	64.1
Greece	42.8	18.9 %	82.0
Grenada	26.3	30.5 %	72.5
Guatemala	19.4	44.9 %	74.3
Guinea	18.6	55.0 %	61.5
Guinea-Bissau	19.1	52.7 %	58.3
Guyana	22.6	37.7 %	70.0
Haiti	22.2	43.0 %	64.0
Hungary	40.6	19.5 %	76.3
India	26.4	35.8 %	69.7
Indonesia	27.8	34.8 %	71.8
Iran	28.5	31.2 %	76.7
Iraq	19.7	48.4 %	70.6
Israel	30.1	35.6 %	82.9
Italy	44.3	17.9 %	83.3
Ivory Coast	19.0	52.8 %	57.8
Jamaica	27.7	31.9 %	74.5
Japan	45.9	17.1 %	84.5
Jordan	23.4	43.7 %	74.6
Kenya	18.8	50.3 %	66.7
Kuwait	29.2	26.7 %	75.5
Latvia	41.5	20.7 %	75.7
Lesotho	20.7	42.7 %	54.4
Liberia	18.5	51.6 %	64.1
Madagascar	18.4	51.3 %	67.1
Malawi	17.2	54.8 %	64.3
Maldives	25.0	25.2 %	78.7
Mali	16.3	58.3 %	59.3
Malta	40.9	19.1 %	82.6
Mauritania	19.8	50.0 %	64.9
Mauritius	34.6	24.8 %	74.4
Montenegro	37.1	24.4 %	76.9
Mozambique	17.3	55.7 %	60.8
Nepal	22.4	40.8 %	70.9
Netherlands	41.8	21.9 %	82.1
New Zealand	37.0	25.9 %	81.8
Niger	15.0	60.7 %	62.4
Nigeria	17.8	54.2 %	54.7
Norway	39.0	23.4 %	82.9
Pakistan	22.5	45.1 %	67.3
Panama	27.9	35.1 %	78.6
Peru	26.5	33.0 %	76.8
Portugal	42.2	18.4 %	80.9
Rwanda	18.2	50.2 %	69.0
Sao Tome and Principe	19.2	53.3 %	70.4
Senegal	18.1	53.3 %	67.9
Serbia	38.7	21.4 %	75.8
Sierra Leone	19.1	51.6 %	54.7
Slovenia	42.4	19.5 %	81.4
Solomon Islands	19.7	50.4 %	73.1
Somalia	16.3	57.8 %	57.4
South Korea	39.4	17.8 %	83.3
South Sudan	18.6	52.3 %	57.9
Spain	41.4	19.3 %	83.6
Sudan	19.2	51.1 %	65.3
Suriname	28.5	35.6 %	71.7
Sweden	41.0	22.9 %	83.0
Switzerland	42.0	19.9 %	83.8
Syria	22.4	40.2 %	73.0
Tajikistan	21.7	45.7 %	71.1
Tanzania	17.5	54.5 %	65.4
Timor-Leste	16.6	49.0 %	69.5
Togo	18.9	51.7 %	61.0
Trinidad and Tobago	33.3	26.6 %	73.6
Uganda	15.8	57.9 %	63.3
United Kingdom	40.2	23.2 %	81.3
United States	37.4	25.0 %	78.9
Uruguay	34.4	27.6 %	77.9
Uzbekistan	25.3	36.5 %	71.7
Venezuela	27.0	36.1 %	72.2
Yemen	19.1	50.0 %	66.1
Zambia	16.6	56.0 %	63.9
Zimbabwe	19.5	53.0 %	61.4

[sancho panza]

Here comes the 2021 winter care home crisis.Also worth noting it looks like visitors will need double jabbing too.

I heard an anecdotal about a carer a good friend knows.She's quit as a carer despite being double jabbed because other carers who haven't had the jab will get sacked/have quit and she told my friend that they were understaffed before the 'no jab,no job' rule and that the prospect of trying to cover the new leavers was more stress than it was worth.

She's gone to work at Amazon apparently.....

Here's our Glorious Leader(who clearly hasn't been reading the CDC & others on the subject of vaccination not making any difference to transmission)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/23/no-exemptions-no-jab-no-job-rule-care-home-staff-says-boris/

[janch]

I think the long-term aim is to force families to care for their own old folk.   The care home model is dead.  It costs too much for the state/local authority.

I'm sure this will also apply to childcare.  Women are going to be forced back into the home.  Families will be better off if they either live together for several generations in one dwelling or at least close to each other.  Then there would be help for caring for children and old people. 

The previous model where young adults leave home to go to university or to work in big cities is likely being put into reverse.  I already know in my own extended family where young adults if they went to university are now back with their parents.

[sancho panza]

1 hour ago, A tremendous # on the lung said:

Not sure if the below means with or without the vaccine?

 

 

As someone who has been reading relatively widely on covid since the early days,Ioannidis' piece below from 17th March 2020 really stands out in my memory as the first time a senior Medic called out the hsyteria.The cat has now leaped from the bag.We have Steve Baker quoting the 0.096% @dnb24 recently highlighted from the Dept of Health.

I suspect the issue is now damage control given that covid is now accepted in polite society as having the same fatality rate as flu.

Let's remember as well that Ioannidis made his call in the middle of the Beth Rigby's of this world asking Boris 'when will you lock down?' etc etc

Simply incredible bit of work by him given the UK govt are now accepting an IFR of 0.096%.From March 2020.

'Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%.'

I take my hat off to him

On 30/03/2020 at 20:42, sancho panza said:

3) John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine,Epidemiology & Population Health at Stanford University,queries the lack of decent data.

17 March 2020

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%.

Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).

If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. This sounds like a huge number, but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “influenza-like illness.” If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. 

In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work. School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease.

One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health.'

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by sancho panza

[janch]

Another article about Sweden's experience:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/without-lockdowns-sweden-had-fewer-excess-deaths-most-europe

After looking at the stats, the last paragraph is interesting:

None of this "proves" of course that Sweden adopted the ideal response to the spread of disease. But at the very least, the Sweden experience betrays the solemn predictions of so many health "experts" who predicted total disaster for Sweden. Moreover, even if Sweden did have worse outcomes than most of Europe, that would not justify the widespread destruction of human rights necessary to force people into lockdowns, unemployment, and social isolation. The utilitarian approach is a road to untrammeled state power. But even the utilitarian approach doesn't work for the lockdown advocates who fail even by their own metrics. 

[sancho panza]

I'm not sure how to describe the following approach to informed consent.

This could be disastrous for the NHS in the middle of winter.

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/06/government-wants-to-make-covid-vaccination-mandatory-for-all-frontline-nhs-staff/

Reports suggest that Sajid Javid, who recently expressed hesitancy about “taking away people’s freedom” with vaccine passports, is keen to force all frontline NHS staff to get vaccinated against Covid. A decision on whether NHS staff, like care home workers, should be told to “get jabbed or get another job” is expected to be made later this month. i news has the story.

A formal consultation on making Covid and flu vaccination a condition of employment in the NHS is due to end on October 22nd, and the Health Secretary is ready to act swiftly to implement the change, i has been told.

Following a change in the law enacted this summer, staff in care homes have until November 11th to get double jabbed for Covid, after which point they will be legally barred from work without vaccination.

The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) has separate but similar plans to require all NHS frontline staff to be fully vaccinated – unless they have a medical exemption.

Javid is privately furious with the risk that unjabbed NHS staff pose to vulnerable patients when working in both hospital and in community settings. [Privatley? He seems to be fairly open about this.] …

He is understood to want to be “even more hardline” with health service staff than with care home staff, not least as they are directly employed by the state rather than by private providers.

While no one in Government wants to publicly pre-empt the consultation, it is understood that Boris Johnson is fully behind Javid’s belief that unjabbed health staff pose a risk to the most vulnerable

Javid also wants to offer extra reassurance to vulnerable patients that they can enter hospital and be sure that all those around them are double jabbed.

There is also a concern in government that unjabbed care home staff, who are barred from working with patients from next month, have been moving into the NHS.

The vast majority of NHS staff have been double jabbed. Latest weekly figures for England show 1,326,000 have had a first jab (92%), 1,277,000 (89%) have had a second jab. But 8% have not had any jab at all.

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by sancho panza

[Harley]

37 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

Javid is privately furious with the risk that unjabbed NHS staff pose to vulnerable patients when working in both hospital and in community settings. [Privatley? He seems to be fairly open about this.] …

Why?  What scientific justification?  Surely at best it'll just reduce employee sick rates?

[sancho panza]

24 minutes ago, Harley said:

Why?  What scientific justification?  Surely at best it'll just reduce employee sick rates?

Noone I know in the ambulance service has been off sick with the symptoms of covid in 6 months or more.The really symptomatic phases were earlier variants iin my expereince.I think they're reaching for justifications to be honest,mainly because they've done it to care home staff,they have to do it to the NHS staff to be fair.From what I've read there's no real evidence of heightened transmission by the unjabbed as viral loads(particularly with later variants) are equally distributed amongst vaxxed and unvaxxed.

The way to reduce sick rates is to stop using PCR testing to identify cases as it has a false positive rate and to mandate that only the symptomatic stay off work as per normal practice.

Sickness rates are generally a function of the fact that staff are getting seeing more complex presentations than normal,higher call volumes than normal and less staff to deal with them.

I admire their consistency as a govt.They've handled this epidemic(fatality rate similar to flu) in the most cack handed manner throughout and have done so unfailingly.I thought David might be an improvement on Matt 'I'm going to throw a steel ring around care homes' Hancock,but I was wrong.

[Harley]

4 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

.I thought David might be an improvement on Matt 'I'm going to throw a steel ring around care homes' Hancock,but I was wrong.

Yep a rare moment of consistency from the Conners!  I was thinking in terms of the only alleged benefit of the jab left - a less serious infection.  But I would feel safer around the unjabbed as they're less likely to be wandering around infected. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Harley

[sancho panza]

6 minutes ago, Harley said:

Yep a rare moment of consistency from the Conners!  I was thinking in terms of the only alleged benefit of the jab left - a less serious infection.  But I would feel safer around the unjabbed as they're less likely to be wandering around infected. 

A very good point.

[sancho panza]

New York declares State of Emergency due to healthcare staff shortages. 27/9/21

Long post but it shows where the shrotages are.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-4-declaring-statewide-disaster-emergency-due-healthcare-staffing-shortages-state-new-york

No. 4

E X E C U T I V E  O R D E R

Declaring a Statewide Disaster Emergency Due to Healthcare Staffing Shortages in the State of New York

            WHEREAS, the current staffing shortages in hospital and other healthcare facilities are expected to impact availability of care, threatening public health and safety;

WHEREAS, severe understaffing in hospitals and other healthcare facilities is expected to effect the ability to provide critical care and to adequately serve vulnerable populations;

WHEREAS, there is an immediate and critical need to supplement staffing to assure healthcare facilities can provide care;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Kathy Hochul, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the Laws of the State of New York, do hereby find, pursuant to Section 28 of Article 2-B of the Executive Law, that a disaster is imminent in New York State, for which the affected local governments are unable to respond adequately, and I do hereby declare a Statewide disaster emergency for the entire State of New York. This Executive Order shall be in effect for thirty days from the date of this Executive Order; and

FURTHER, pursuant to Section 29 of Article 2-B of the Executive Law, I direct the implementation of the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and authorize necessary State agencies to take appropriate action to assist local governments and individuals in the protection of public health, welfare, and safety.

IN ADDITION, by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 29-a of Article 2-B of the Executive Law to temporarily suspend or modify any statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation, or parts thereof, of any agency during a State disaster emergency, if compliance with such statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation would prevent, hinder, or delay action necessary to cope with the disaster emergency, I hereby temporarily suspend or modify, for the period from the date of this Executive Order through October 27, 2021 the following:

• Sections 6512 through 6516, and 6524 of the Education Law and Part 60 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow physicians licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United States to practice medicine in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure, and to allow physicians licensed and in current good standing in any province or territory of Canada, or any other country as approved by the Department of Health to practice medicine in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure;
• Section 6502 of the Education Law and Section 59.8 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow physicians licensed and in current good standing in New York State but not registered in New York State to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of registration; 
• Sections 6512 through 6516, and 6905, 6906 and 6910 of the Education Law and Part 64 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nurse practitioners licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United States to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure, and to allow registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nurse practitioners or a substantially similar title licensed and in current good standing in any province or territory of Canada, or any other country as approved by the Department of Health, to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure;
• Sections 6512 through 6516, and 6541 of the Education Law and Part 60.8 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow physician assistants licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United States to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure, and to allow physician assistants or a substantially similar title licensed and in current good standing in any province or territory of Canada, or any other country as approved by the Department of Health to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure; 
• Sections 3502 and 3505 of the Public Health Law and Part 89 of Title 10 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to permit radiologic technologists licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United State to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure;
• Sections 8502, 8504, 8504-a, 8505, and 8507 of the Education Law and Subpart 79-4 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow respiratory therapists licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United States to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure;
• Sections 6512 through 6516 and 8510 of the Education Law and 8 NYCRR Subpart 79-4 to the extent necessary to allow respiratory therapy technicians licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United States to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure;
• Section 6502 of the Education Law and 8 NYCRR 59.8, to the extent necessary to allow physician’s assistants, registered professional nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nurse practitioners licensed and in current good standing in New York State but not registered in New York State to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of registration, and to allow specialist assistants, respiratory therapists, respiratory therapist technicians, pharmacists, clinical nurse specialists, dentists, dental hygienists, registered dental assistants, midwives, perfusionists, clinical laboratory technologists, cytotechnologists, certified clinical laboratory technicians, certified histological technicians, licensed clinical social workers, licensed master social workers, podiatrists, physical therapists, physical therapist assistants, mental health counselors, marriage and family therapists, creative arts therapists, psychoanalysts and psychologists who have an unencumbered license and are currently in good standing in New York State but not registered in New York State to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of registration;
• Sections 6951, 6952, 6953 and 6955 of the Education Law, to the extent necessary to allow midwives licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United States, or in any province or territory of Canada, or any other country as approved by the Department of Health to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure;
• Section 3507 of the Public Health Law and Part 89 of Title 10 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to permit radiologic technologists licensed and in current good standing in New York State but not registered in New York State to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of registration;
• Sections 6512 through 6516, 6548 and 6911 of the Education Law and sections 60.11 and 64.8 Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow clinical nurse specialists, specialist assistants, and substantially similar titles certified and in current good standing in any state in the United States, or any province or territory of Canada, or any other country as approved by the Department of Health to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of certification;
• Sections 6512 through 6516, and 7704 of the Education Law and Part 74 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow licensed master social workers, licensed clinical social workers, and substantially similar titles licensed and in current good standing in any state in the United States, or in any province or territory of Canada, or any other country as approved by the Department of Health to practice in New York State without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure;
• Section 6908 of the Education Law and associated regulations, to the extent necessary to permit graduates of State Education Department registered, licensure qualifying nurse practitioner education programs to be employed to practice nursing in a hospital or nursing home for 180 days immediately following successful completion of a New York State Registered licensure qualifying education program, provided that the graduate files with the State Education Department an application for certification as a nurse practitioner;
• Section 8609 of the Education Law and associated regulations, to the extent necessary to permit graduates of State Education Department registered, licensure qualifying clinical laboratory technology and clinical laboratory technician education programs to be employed to practice for 180 days immediately following successful completion of  a New York State Registered licensure qualifying education program, in a clinical laboratory with a valid New York State permit, provided that the graduate files an application for a New York State clinical laboratory practitioner license and limited permit;
• Subdivision 5 of Section 6907 of the Education Law and associated regulation, to the extent necessary to permit graduates of registered professional nurse and licensed practical nurse licensure qualifying education programs registered by the State Education Department to be employed to practice nursing under the supervision of a registered professional nurse and with the endorsement of the employing hospital or nursing home for 180 days immediately following graduation;
• Section 6524 of the Education Law, section 60.7 of title 8 of  NYRR and section paragraph (1) of subdivision (g) 405.4 of title 10 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to allow any physician who will graduate in 2021 or 2022 from an academic medical program accredited by a medical education accrediting agency for medical education by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association, and has been accepted by an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited residency program within or outside of New York State to practice at any institution under the supervision of a licensed physician;
• Sections 6512 through 6516, and 6524 of the Education Law and Part 60 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow individuals, who graduated from registered or accredited medical programs located in New York State in 2021, to practice medicine in New York State, without the need to obtain a license and without civil or criminal penalty related to lack of licensure, provided that the practice of medicine by such graduates shall in all cases be supervised by a physician licensed and registered to practice medicine in the State of New York;
• Section 212 of the Retirement and Social Security Law, for the purpose of disregarding any income earned during the period of the emergency from the earnings limitation calculated under such section;
• Section 2805-k of the Public Health Law and sections 405.4, 405.5, 405.9, 405.14, 405.19, and 405.22 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow staff with the necessary professional competency and who are privileged and credentialed to work in a facility in compliance with such section of the Public Health Law and such sections of the NYCRR, or who are privileged and credentialed to work in a facility in another state in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of that other state, to practice in a facility in New York State;
• Article 30 of the Public Health Law to the extent necessary to allow EMTs and Advanced EMTs to provide emergent and non-emergent services within their scope of practice beyond settings currently authorized, such as hospitals;
• Subdivision d and u of section 800.3 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to permit emergency medical service personnel to provide community paramedicine, use alternative destinations, telemedicine to facilitate treatment of patients in place, and such other services as may be approved by the Commissioner of Health;
• Subdivision (7) of Public Health Law section 3001, and subdivision (p) of section 800.3 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow certified emergency medical technician-paramedics, providing community paramedicine services with prior approval of the Department of Health, to administer vaccinations against influenza and COVID-19 pursuant to a non-patient specific order and under the medical direction of a licensed physician, provided, however, that emergency medical technician-paramedics must first meet conditions set by the Commissioner of Health;
• Section 6951 of the Education Law, and section 79-5.5 of Title 8 of NYCRR, insofar as such provisions limit the practice of midwifery to management of normal pregnancies, child birth and postpartum care as well as primary preventive reproductive health care of essentially healthy women, and newborn evaluation, resuscitation and referral for infants, and insofar as it limits the practice of midwifery to midwives who practice in accordance with collaborative relationships with licensed physicians or hospitals, so that for the purposes of this disaster emergency, midwives may administer vaccinations against influenza and COVID-19 to any patient pursuant to a non-patient specific order at sites overseen or approved by the New York State Department of Health or local health departments, and operated under the medical supervision of licensed physicians, licensed physician assistants, or certified nurse practitioners, provided, however, that a midwife without a certificate issued by the State Education Department for administering immunizing agents, must meet conditions set by the Commissioner of Health;
• Article 139 of the Education Law, Section 576-b of the Public Health Law and Section 58-1.7 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to permit registered nurses to order the collection of throat or nasopharyngeal swab specimens from individuals suspected of being infected by COVID-19, for purposes of testing;
• Subdivision 1 of section 6902, Subdivision 4, 5 and 7 of section 6909 of the Education Law, subdivision 6 and 7 of section 6527 of the Education Law, and section 63.9 and 64.7 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to permit physicians and certified nurse practitioners to issue a non-patient specific regimen to nurses or any such other persons authorized by law or by this executive order to (1) collect throat or nasopharyngeal swab specimens from individuals suspected of suffering from a COVID-19 infection, for purposes of testing, or to perform such other tasks as may be necessary to provide care for individuals diagnosed or suspected of suffering from a COVID-19 infection; (2) collect blood specimens for the diagnosis of acute or past COVID-19 disease; (3) administer vaccinations against influenza or COVID-19 pursuant to the most recent recommendations by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) and/or an applicable United States Food and Drug Administration approval or Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), subject to any other conditions set forth in this Order, including but not limited to conditions related to training and supervision, where applicable; and (4) where applicable and to the extent necessary, to perform tasks, under the supervision of a nurse, otherwise limited to the scope of practice of a licensed or registered nurse to provide care for individuals ;
• Sections 6521 and 6902 of the Education Law, subdivisions 4, 5, and 7 of section 6909 of the Education Law, subdivisions 6 and 7 of section 6527 of the Education Law, and sections 63.9 and 64.7 of Title 8 of the NYCRR insofar as they limit the execution of medical regimens prescribed by a licensed physicians or other licensed and legally authorized health care providers to registered nurses licensed pursuant to Article 139 of the Education Law, to the extent necessary to permit non-nursing staff, as permitted by law and upon completion of training deemed adequate by the Commissioner of Health, to: (1) collect throat, nasal, or nasopharyngeal swab specimens, as applicable and appropriate,  from individuals suspected of being infected by COVID-19 or influenza, for purposes of testing; (2) collect blood specimens for the diagnosis of acute or past COVID-19 disease; (3) administer vaccinations against influenza or COVID-19 pursuant to the most recent recommendations by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) and/or an applicable United States Food and Drug Administration approval or Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), subject to any other conditions set forth in this Order, including but not limited to conditions related to training and supervision, where applicable; and (4) where applicable and to the extent necessary, to perform tasks, under the supervision of a nurse, otherwise limited to the scope of practice of a licensed or registered nurse to provide care for individuals;
• Subdivision (b) of section 405.3 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow general hospitals to use qualified volunteers or personnel affiliated with different general hospitals, subject to the terms and conditions established by the Commissioner of Health;
• Section 400.9 and paragraph 7 of subdivision h of section 405.9 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to permit general hospitals and nursing homes licensed pursuant to Article 28 of the Public Health Law that are treating patients during the disaster emergency to discharge, transfer, or receive such patients, as authorized by the Commissioner of Health if necessary due to staffing shortages, provided such facilities take all reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of such patients and residents, including safe transfer and discharge practices, and to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. section 1395dd) and any associated regulations;
• Section 64.7 of Title 8 of the NYCRR to expand nurse-initiated protocols to include electrocardiogram (EKG) for signs and symptoms of acute coronary syndrome, blood glucose for altered mental state, Labs and intravenous lines for potential sepsis and pre-procedure pregnancy testing to expedite evaluation and diagnosis;
• Section 415.15 of Title 10 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to allow physician visits for nursing home residents to be performed via telemedicine;
• Sections 405.13 and 755.4 of Title 10 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to permit an advanced practice registered nurse with a doctorate or master's degree specializing in the administration of anesthesia administering anesthesia in a general hospital or free-standing ambulatory surgery center without the supervision of a qualified physician in these health care settings;
• Sections 800.3, 800.8, 800.9, 800.10, 800.12, 800.17, 800.18, 800.23, 800.24, and 800.26 of Title 10 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to extend all existing emergency medical services provider certifications for one year; to permit the Commissioner of Health to modify the examination or recertification requirements for emergency medical services provider certifications; to suspend or modify, at the discretion of the Commissioner of Health, any requirements for the recertification of previously certified emergency medical services providers;  and, at the discretion of the Commissioner of Health, develop a process determined by the Department of Health, to permit any emergency medical services provider certified or licensed by another State to provide emergency medical services within New York state;  at the discretion of the Commissioner of Health, to suspend or modify equipment or vehicle requirements in order to ensure sustainability of EMS operations; 
• Subdivision (15) of section 3001, and sections 800.3, 800.15 and 800.16 of Title 10 of the NYCRR with approval of the Department of Health, to the extent necessary to define “medical control” to also include emergency and non-emergency direction to emergency medical services personnel by a regional or state medical control center and to permit emergency medical services personnel to operate under the advice and direction of a nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or paramedic, provided that such medical professional is providing care under the supervision of a physician and pursuant to a plan approved by the Department of Health;
• Section 3001, 3005-a, 3008, and 3010 of the Public Health Law to the extent necessary to modify the definition of “emergency medical services” to include emergency, non-emergency and low acuity medical assistance only for the purpose of eliminating restrictions on an approved ambulance services or providers operating outside of the primary territory listed on such ambulance service’s operating certificate with prior approval by the Department of Health; to permit the Commissioner of Health to issue provisional emergency medical services provider certifications to qualified individuals with modified certification periods as approved; and to allow emergency medical services to transport patients to locations other than healthcare facilities with prior approval by Department of Health;
• Sections 6502, 6524, 6905, 6906 and 6910 of the education law and Part 59.8 of Title 8 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to authorize retired physicians, registered professional nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nurse practitioners licensed to practice and in current good standing in New York State, but not currently registered in New York State, to re-register through use of an expedited automatic registration form developed by the state and to waive any registration fee for the triennial registration period for such registrants;
• Paragraph 1 of section 6542 of the Education Law, Paragraph 1 of section 6549 of the Education Law, and Subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 94.2 of Title 10 of the NYCRR to the extent necessary to permit a physician assistant, and to permit a specialist assistant, to provide medical services appropriate to their education, training and experience without oversight from a supervising physician without civil or criminal penalty related to a lack of oversight by a supervising physician;
• Subdivision (3) of section 6902 of Education Law, and any associated regulations, including, but not limited to, Section 64.5 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to permit a nurse practitioner to provide medical services appropriate to their education, training and experience, without a written practice agreement, or collaborative relationship with a physician, without civil or criminal penalty related to a lack of written practice agreement, or collaborative relationship, with a physician;
• Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of 10 N.Y.C.R.R. section 405.4, to the extent necessary to allow graduates of foreign medical schools having at least one year of graduate medical education to provide patient care in hospitals, is modified so as to allow such graduates without licenses to provide patient care in hospitals if they have completed at least one year of graduate medical education;
• Subdivision 4 of section 6909 of the Education Law, subdivision 6 of section 6527 of the Education Law, and section 64.7 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to permit physicians and certified nurse practitioners to issue a non-patient specific regimen to nurses or any such other persons authorized by law or by this executive order to collect throat or nasopharyngeal swab specimens from individuals suspected of suffering from a COVID-19 infection, for purposes of testing, or to perform such other tasks as may be necessary to provide care for individuals diagnosed or suspected of suffering from a COVID-19 infection;
• Sections 8602 and 8603 of the Education Law, and section 58-1.5 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to permit individuals who meet the federal requirements for high complexity testing to perform testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in specimens collected from individuals suspected of suffering from a COVID-19 infection;
• Article 165 of the Education Law and section 58-1.3 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, to the extent necessary to allow clinical laboratory practitioners to perform testing in a clinical laboratory under remote supervision, provided a supervisor is on-site at least eight hours per week;
• Subdivision 32 of Section 6530 of the Education Law, Paragraph (3) of Subdivision (a) of Section 29.2 of Title 8 of the NYCRR, and Sections 58-1.11, 405.10, and 415.22 of Title 10 of the NYCRR, only to the extent necessary for health care providers to be relieved of recordkeeping requirements, including but not limited to assigning diagnostic codes or creating or maintaining other records for billing purposes, without civil or criminal penalty imposed by the Department of Health or State Education Department;
• Section 112 of the State Finance Law, to the extent consistent with Article V, Section 1 of the State Constitution, and to the extent necessary to add additional work, sites, and time to State contracts or to award emergency contracts, including but not limited to emergency contracts or leases for relocation and support of State operations under section 3 of the Public Buildings Law; or emergency contracts under Section 9 of the Public Buildings Law; or emergency contracts for professional services under Section 136- a of the State Finance Law; or emergency contracts for commodities, services, and technology under Section 163 of the State Finance Law; or emergency contracts for purchases of commodities, services, and technology through any federal GSA schedules, federal 1122 programs, or other state, regional, local, multi-jurisdictional, or cooperative contract vehicles;
• Section 163 of the State Finance Law and Article 4-C of the Economic Development Law, to the extent necessary to expedite contracting for necessary services, commodities, and technology;
• Section 4903 of the Insurance Law and Section 4903 of the Public Health Law only to the extent necessary to increase availability of healthcare staff, upon certification by the hospital to the health plan, by suspending requirements for preauthorization review for scheduled surgeries in hospital facilities, hospital admissions, hospital outpatient services, home health care services following a hospital admission, and inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation services following a hospital admission; and to suspend concurrent review for inpatient and outpatient hospital services; and to suspend retrospective review for inpatient and outpatient hospital services at in-network hospitals; during the pendency of this Executive Order only; and
• Subsection c of section 4904 of the Insurance Law, paragraph 1 of subsection b of section 4914 of the Insurance Law, subdivision 3 of section 4904 of the Public Health Law, and paragraph a of subdivision 2 of section 4914 of the Public Health Law, to toll statutory timeframes required for hospital submission of an internal appeal and external appeal only to the extent necessary to increase availability of healthcare staff during the pendency of this Executive Order only.

G I V E N  under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State in the City of Albany this twenty-seventh day of September in the year two thousand twenty-one.

BY THE GOVERNOR         

Secretary to the Governor

Edited October 6, 2021 by sancho panza

[Yadda yadda yadda]

2 hours ago, sancho panza said:

to permit a physician assistant, and to permit a specialist assistant, to provide medical services appropriate to their education, training and experience without oversight from a supervising physician without civil or criminal penalty related to a lack of oversight by a supervising physician;

Shocking stuff. Proof that they're losing an operationally significant number of staff. I've quoted one clause above as it raises a question. Who is going to take a chance on their education, training and experience being judged appropriate in a court of law? In the most expensively litigious country in the world. In my judgement it is much easier and appealing for a New York registered healthcare professional to move to Florida or Texas, where there are no vaccine mandates, than the reverse.

[sancho panza]

10 hours ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

Shocking stuff. Proof that they're losing an operationally significant number of staff. I've quoted one clause above as it raises a question. Who is going to take a chance on their education, training and experience being judged appropriate in a court of law? In the most expensively litigious country in the world. In my judgement it is much easier and appealing for a New York registered healthcare professional to move to Florida or Texas, where there are no vaccine mandates, than the reverse.

It is.I think it's potentially a huge legal minefield.

I think you've nailed it with the bit in bold.If I were an out of state worker,I'd rather go somewhere without these complications/stress.Let's be realistic,it doesn't take much of an increase in absenteeism and/or rise in patients to see A&E's go from manageable to swamped.

To get an idea of New York's problems I've googled some.It's not hard to see that the cure could well be far worse than the problem if they're resorting to using unsupervised members of staff(who would be normally supervised),healthcare workers who may not have owrked in a few years and/or National Guard.

It does look like 10% is about right.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/26/us/ny-medical-staff-shortages/index.html

New York's health department issued an order last month requiring all health care workers be vaccinated against Covid-19 by September 27. It broadened the scope of an earlier mandate that only applied to state health care workers.

As that deadline looms, some health care workers have yet to be inoculated against Covid-19. As of Wednesday, 84% of all hospital employees in the state are fully vaccinated, and 81% of staff at all adult care facilities and 77% of all staff at nursing home facilities in the state were fully vaccinated, according to the governor's office.

 

The majority of employees at Mount Sinai and NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals in New York City have complied with the state's vaccine mandate, according to spokespeople from both health institutions.

Mount Sinai expects less than 1% of its staff to be cut due to failure to fulfill the vaccine mandate, a spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, NewYork-Presbyterian set its own vaccination deadline last week, the hospital said in a statement. More than 99% of the hospital's 48,000 staff members are fully vaccinated, said spokesperson Suzanne Halpin, adding fewer than 250 employees chose not to comply with the mandate.

 

But that's not the case at Erie County Medical Center (ECMC) in Buffalo, New York, which expects 10% of its staff -- about 400 workers -- not to be vaccinated by Monday, spokesperson Peter Cutler said in a statement. About 85% of all staff are already vaccinated, he said.

ECMC suspended elective inpatient surgeries and will temporarily stop accepting ICU transfers from other health care facilities ahead of Monday's vaccine mandate deadline, the medical center said in a statement. ECMC has also curtailed hours at outpatient clinics as well as reduced units at one of its long-term care facilities.

Those working in New York City's 11 public hospitals who don't meet Monday's vaccine deadline will be put on unpaid leave, but could return if they get their vaccine soon, NYC Health + Hospitals spokesperson Stephanie M. Guzmán said. At least 88% of its workforce is in compliance.

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-may-tap-national-guard-replace-unvaccinated-healthcare-workers-2021-09-26/

Hochul said the state was also looking at using National Guard officers with medical training to keep hospitals and other medical facilities adequately staffed. Some 16% of the state's 450,000 hospital staff, or roughly 72,000 workers, have not been fully vaccinated, the governor's office said.

[Yadda yadda yadda]

@sancho panza

I feel a letter to my MP coming on. They're Labour so destruction of the NHS ought to be more important than vaccination levels.

[sancho panza]

2 hours ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

@sancho panza

I feel a letter to my MP coming on. They're Labour so destruction of the NHS ought to be more important than vaccination levels.

The thing is that their policy,whilst it may be well intentioned has a few fundamental problems that could lead to some serious issues.

It could well be(and I suspect it is the case) that the bulk of the people refusing the shot are the ones who've seen the patients with adverse reactions.You could well look at 111,000 refuseniks out of 1,326,000 and think well if we get rid of them all,we'll be able to bumble along.

Problem is that if that 8% form 30% of your A&E staff then you have a huge,huge problem.A&E is already stressful. and they struggle getting cover for absentees at times.

If any of the refuseniks are experienced Dr's then we're going to be in a world of pain.

Given that transmission of the virus is generally not affected by vaccination,then it does beg the question of whether this policy will kill more people than it saves.

I also think there are singificant issues with discrimination given that vaccination mandates invariably hit ethnic minorities harderas their uptake rates are lower.

[sancho panza]

via clare craig

[sancho panza]

https://www.hartgroup.org/halt-covid-vaccinations-in-children/

Halt COVID-19 vaccinations in children

Giving children novel mRNA vaccination for COVID-19 is a medical intervention that remains unjustified. HART is dismayed that the rollout to 12-15 year olds has begun. In early August, we reported on an entirely unconvincing performance by the JCVI chair regarding the committee’s U-turn about vaccination of 16 and 17-year-old children, despite having concluded on 19 July that “the JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks”.

The U-turn was announced without any data or justification, despite this being promised. To date, nothing has been heard from the JCVI. We are still waiting. Since then, of course, in what has been described as a ‘big mistake’, the rollout has been extended to younger children. This is despite the JCVI making it clear that there is no unequivocal medical reason to proceed — it is therefore ethically indefensible to continue with this medical intervention.

There is no long-term safety data for these new vaccines. Mercifully, children seem relatively unaffected by COVID-19 compared to older generations, but many are experiencing worrying side-effects of vaccination, including some which are life-altering or life-threatening. HART has previously looked at myocarditis — just one particular adverse effect — in more detail. There are many more: are teenage girls being made aware that their menstrual cycles could be seriously disrupted following vaccination? Can we be sure that these disruptions are temporary and are of no long-term consequence? 

In medical terms, the benefits of any intervention must exceed the risk of harm. If COVID-19 vaccination only provides a few months of protection that turns out to be less durable than natural immunity, the risk of intervention must be spectacularly safe to justify repeating it up to twice a year. This is discussed in more detail in the BMJ, concluding with a repeat of a previous call to “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine”. It is especially worrying to see that all cause mortality in 15-19s has risen in the last three months since this age group first started receiving vaccinations. This data urgently needs much fuller analysis as to cause of death which only the ONS can do.

What will vaccination of these children achieve? It would be helpful to have this explained. What started out as “an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable” with “no vaccination of people under 18”, somehow got lost in the ethical quagmire of deploying children as human shields to protect their elders. It then took heavyweights such as Professor Sir Andrew Pollard of the Oxford Vaccine Group to point out (without addressing the ethical issues) that — as the vaccines do not stop transmission — this was futile, thus totally undermining what he called “one of the strongest arguments” for vaccinating children. 

In the end, the convoluted reasons trotted out by the Chief Medical Officers for proceeding with vaccinations for younger children were based on the idea that they prevent school disruption by reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools. This is a falsehood — one need only look at highly vaccinated countries to show that transmission has not been significantly lowered in vaccinated populations. In addition, the underlying modelling used to justify this line of argument was extremely weak, hugely imprecise and ultimately unconvincing. And to top it all, the first days of the vaccine rollout have resulted in huge disruption to schooling, thus totally undermining the CMOs’ main justification for pushing ahead with this vaccination programme. Education Committee Chair MP Robert Halfon even had to intervene when one school in Middlesex attempted to offer a post-vaccination working from home day. 

Last week, in a debate on the matter, Miriam Cates MP stated in parliament that the “decision is a marked departure from the principle of vaccinating people for their own medical benefit, because those wider issues—educational disruption and concerns around mental health—are the consequences of policy decisions and are not scientific inevitabilities”. 

HART agrees, and therefore recommends halting the programme in children until more information is available. It is unclear what advantages will accrue from it. Many medical professionals are speaking out — the Safer to Wait campaign has provided coherent arguments in favour of waiting until it is absolutely clear that the benefits outweigh the risks. 

Caution is the better part of valour. The warning signs are there. Tell your MP and invite them to protect our children not only from unnecessary potential harm, but harm perpetrated by institutions and individuals that proclaim to be prioritising their safety and their health.  

[sancho panza]

Underlings for skimmers

 

https://www.hartgroup.org/recent-deaths-in-young-people-in-england-and-wales/

Increase in male mortality in 15-19 year olds should be investigated

---

Direct Mortality evidence

The mortality data for England and Wales from ONS from 1 May 2021 until 17 September 2021 shows a significant excess, particularly in the 15-19 year age group. Depending on the baseline chosen, the excess for 15-19 year olds is between 16% and 47% above expected levels (see table 1 and 2). COVID-19 deaths were too small in number to account for the excess. A disproportionate number of these excess deaths were in males. A certain amount of variation by random chance would be expected but an increase of this proportion is large enough not to be dismissed without further investigation.

Table 1 and Table 2: Mortality from 1^st May 2021 to 17^th September by age group. Table 1 uses a 2020 baseline and table 2 uses a mean from 2015-2019.

A clear deviation can be seen, beginning in May, for male deaths aged 15 to 19. Female mortality, on the other hand, shows a summer reduction more similar to 2020.

A similar magnitude of excess is seen in the 20-29 year old age groups, although background rates are higher. Comparing just deaths in males aged 15-19 year olds, there were between 52 and 87 excess deaths (depending on baseline). This clear predominance of male deaths could be in keeping with known risks of myocarditis which has a bias to men and boys. In 2015-2019 males accounted for 65% of deaths in the 15-19 year age group, rising to 70% in 20-29 year olds. If the entire excess had been due just to random variation we would have expected 65% of the excess to have been male. However, there were too many male deaths to reach that conclusion. There were 21 male deaths in excess of what would be expected with a normal male female ratio (2020 baseline) or 25 male deaths in excess (2015-2019 baseline).

Male excess deaths were calculated by subtracting male deaths from the baseline figures for male deaths. For 15-19 year olds there were 52 excess male deaths from 1 May 2021 to 17 September 2021 compared to 2015-2019 baseline, however there were only 44 excess deaths in total. This implies that there were fewer female deaths than expected in this period if using the 2015-2019 baseline.

In contrast, for the Mortality data for England and Wales from ONS from 1 January 2021 until 30 April 2021, there were only a small number of deaths above expected levels, almost all of which could be accounted for as COVID-19 deaths.

Table 3 and Table 4: Mortality from 1^st January 2021 to 30^th April 2021 by age group. Table 3 uses a 2020 baseline and table 4 uses a mean from 2015-2019.

Myocarditis

Although concerns have been raised about a variety of adverse reactions to vaccination, the most serious and common thus far is the risk of myocarditis. Myocarditis is a serious condition associated acutely with fatal arrhythmias, and chronically, because myocytes are irreplaceable, with heart failure and significant associated mortality. As the aetiology of Covid-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis is new it may be unwise to extrapolate the prognosis from what is known about myocarditis due to other aetiologies. However, in the literature the overall mortality rate for myocarditis after one year is 20% and after five years 44% to 56%. 

The incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination increased with decreasing age and was higher in males.

Indirect evidence of mortality signals

There has been a clear rise in ambulance cardiac and respiratory arrest calls in England and ambulance calls for people becoming unconscious starting from May 2021 (see figures 1a and 1b). There were two periods of heatwaves which may have also impacted on the rise for a short period, but in general the rise remains otherwise unexplained. The timing and extent of the heatwaves are evident in the data on ambulance calls due to the direct impact of heat (see figure 1c).

Figures 1a, 1b and 1c showing ambulance calls in England for cardiac and respiratory arrests (1a), unconscious patients (1b) and those impacted by heat or cold (1c)

Correlation with vaccination rollout

It is worth noting that the vaccine rollout began for vulnerable young people in winter so there isn’t a clear start date to look for an impact. However the clear majority of vaccinations were given in the 16 to 24 year olds from 1st May 2021 until recently. 

Figure 4 Daily first doses given by age in England

Figure 5 Daily second doses given by age in England

Ref for data to plot numbers of doses given per day by age (Fig 61 of spreadsheet):

The data from PHE used to compile the above graphs is a comprehensive national system, the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS). However, although a proportion of data is collected promptly, there is a lag of a few weeks before the whole data set is complete. This lag means that the downward sloping from the beginning of September may well be artefactual. Nevertheless, it is clear that the majority of vaccinations in this age group were given since May.

PHE collects information on the vaccination status of patients who are registered with an NHS GP as part of NIMS. ONS have this data and have linked it to their death data in order to publish their document “Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 2 July 2021”. 

The information linking vaccination status to the deaths data is therefore available.

In their report, the ONS did not release the raw data but instead gave mortality rates adjusted for age. In this way a death of a young person contributes more to the age-adjusted mortality rate than a death of an older person, because the background numbers of deaths in the former age group are so much smaller than in the latter. The data shared with their paper shows a dramatic rise in non-COVID-19 mortality rate in those vaccinated more than 21 days earlier with a first dose, beginning in April 2021 and escalating rapidly in May 2021. Although some 18 and 19 year olds may have received a second dose in August, the majority (78% according to week 38 reported data) of the vaccinated 12-17 year population have received only a first dose. Therefore they would be largely in the category of “vaccinated more than 21 days earlier with a first dose”. The age adjusted mortality rate for this group reached levels 60% higher than the peak mortality rate for unvaccinated people during the winter.

Figure 7 Age adjusted non-COVID mortality rates by vaccination status as published by ONS on 13^th September 

Ref for figure 7 (table 5 of their spreadsheet): 

Summary

Mortality has risen in younger age groups since 1^st May 2021. The increase in the 15-19 year old age group is particularly noticeable, especially as deaths in this age group are uncommon. The excess deaths have a marked male predominance. An increase in ambulance call outs for patients who have had a cardiac arrest or are unconscious showed a coincidental noticeable rise from May 2021. The period also coincides with the rollout of vaccination. Finally, ONS have reported on a striking rise in age adjusted mortality rates in those with only one dose that accelerated in May 2021 to levels far exceeding those in the unvaccinated.

Although there may be a number of explanations for these findings, further investigation of the cause of these deaths is warranted. The ONS death data and NIMS vaccination data have previously been linked. Without that link ONS could not have published on deaths after vaccination. Therefore, confirming the proportion of the 15-19 year olds that had been vaccinated should be possible. 

Edited October 12, 2021 by sancho panza

[Hancock]

@sancho panza

Good article at tearing the NHS apart is written below.

How inevitable this all is, i do hope it at its worst prior to the next election. (without wishing ill will on anyone that was against lockdowns including all kids)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/10/26/nhs-extra-billions/

Edited October 26, 2021 by Hancock

[sancho panza]

7 minutes ago, Hancock said:

@sancho panza

Good article at tearing the NHS apart is written below.

How inevitable this all is, i do hope it at its worst prior to the next election. (without wishing ill will on anyone that was against lockdowns including all kids)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/10/26/nhs-extra-billions/

Great article

Loved this