Dr John Lee Writing In The Spectator On Coronavirus.

Avatar Image
Deskdiary | 14:12 Mon 30th Mar 2020 | News
98 Answers
Interesting article providing an alternative view.

I found the points he was making pretty compelling.



21 to 40 of 98rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// He's a Consultant Pathologist using arguments based on Statistics which is NOT his speciality. I have grave doubts about the article//

oops missed that - good point
what has he published ? - lots on stats - good - lots on dead bodies and more dead people - bad

the nub if that people arent dying more
they are dying with difft labels - hence " epidemic what epidemic!"
and you know there wouldnt be people croaking everywhere if that were the truth
you know like the 30 coffins in the Italian church
or the thirty deaths and 400 cases on the first cruise of DDEATTHH!

that is the counter factual bit that Ifind hard to er swallow
Cheers Andy !
staggers is a really crap site
it wont let me on
It's fair to say that "rushed science is bad science", although the present circumstances are such that rushed science is also called for. We have to try and learn as much as we can as fast as we can.

But there's a lot of missing data. Concerns I've seen elsewhere are that China massively under-reported the number of deaths, which, if true, is alarming, and, even if false, still shows that there's a lot of data we can't be 100% sure is reliable.

I agree, though, that data supports the death rate overall being no more than 1%. The problem is, that's still a lot if loads of people catch it, and there is good reason to believe that Covid spreads more rapidly than flu does.
It’s an interesting article.
What he doesn’t address is the speed of this.
I think we all realise that there are a lot of unrecorded mild and certainly asymptomatic cases, but the object of the exercise was to keep the death rate manageable over time.
Because no one wanted the situation which has occurred in Italy and Spain where there were more critical cases than people to treat them
Peter Pedant - ( Translated into Pedantish)

Yup, dur lockdown is in der bible Rev an De Aunty Krist fols profit emerges fromdur kayos an Leeds us to der promissed land but it's a LIE I tell ya a big fat LIE an ee as dur lass laff coz eez a LIAR hur hur hur.
Ow kum?
Coz we desprit fer a strongman ter sort out der mess.
An a birra Latun - " Nos Coronis illegit corrundum."
APG My statement is that I have seen two death certificates of people with cancer that did not state cancer as the cause of death. Yes you can believe or disbelieve my statement but i don't have to be a doctor to make it
I m not doubting your experience woofgang, just agreeing with another poster its anecdotal. Do you know what anecdotal means?
wolf: "I haven't read the whole article but stopped at his first factual error...that people with serious illnesses who die have the death recorded soley as the result of the serious illness." - did say anything of the kind he said "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’. " - he later says that deaths of the nature recorded are put down as "bronchopneumonia, pneumonia" - which is bang on, I know my dad died of it.
TTT read on "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."
APG yes I know what anecdotal means....which is why I said that you could belive or disbelive my statement.
I think he could have just said that he thought the govt had rushed it a bit, yer know. Panicked, maybe?
woofgang I believe you, I have no reason not to. Something has got lost in translation. Sorry.
my mum died of lung cancer, just looked at the death certificate, it says: "Carcinoma, lung." - that's it.
// I have a lifelong mistrust of any indisputable facts based on new or rushed science.//
Me 15.55 another thread.

//It's fair to say that "rushed science is bad science"//
Jim lad 18.03.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
stupid man - - that was first said by Naomi ( er to me I think)
Hey Naomi - I am flattering you !

//I agree, though, that data supports the death rate overall being no more than 1%. //

er it doesnt matter if the death rate in the english population is 5%

If I croak during an illness which is associted with high temp and dry cough along with pneumonia
(I wont worry what they put down on the DC)

but I wd cavill ( yes cavill!) at being put down as "Lymphoma , recurrent lymphoma, immune suppression - oh and slight corona"

there is more than one cause and line on a DC
but for at least fifty years it has been known that research on causes of death from DC is pretty damn useless

I am not keen on this "they would have died anyway from something so it cant be coronie" - perhaps that is why they are pathologists -
1, they are only used to talking to the dead
2. their patients dont talk back
3. death is final and it is all paperwork

if you wait long enough we all die from something
( or something else)
Consider this...we have self appointed "experts" telling us what to believe. Experts whose expertise has been in decline for some time but nevertheless still harbour massive self regard.

"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 you are in Hospital, or if you are admitted to Hospital with what is already a terminal condition but contract covid 19 and die there, you will be chalked up as a coronavirus "victim".
A good definition of "expert" might be "someone who doesn't know the least". We should still trust them to make the fewest mistakes possible, even in a period like now, when we're racing to understand the scale and potential reach of the threat Covid-19 poses. There are bound to be missteps along the way. It would be frankly staggering if there were no such missteps.

The problem is when people use these errors to undermine anything and everything that is said or known. Nor does an obvious caveat undermine this. "Rushed science is bad science" may hold true, but the usual response is still to be critical rather than distrustful. In that sense there's no imitation as Togo implies.
My wife's death certificate recorded the cause of death as lung cancer, and if she had not had lung cancer she would not have died. But the actual cause if her death was encephalitis. As the article says, general speaking if you have a serious illness and die, it's the serious illness that is recorded. His argument is that had (for example) my wife tested positive for covid-19, even though she died as a result of cancer, covid-19 would have been on the death certificate. If, on the other hand she'd died of 'flu, then lung cancer would have been on the certificate.
There's much in the article worthy of serious consideration. I maintain, as I have since the beginning, that whilst we must be cautious we do need to retain a sense of perspective in all this.

21 to 40 of 98rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Dr John Lee Writing In The Spectator On Coronavirus.

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.