Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Kenshin]

You keep on repeating this bollocks without providing an iota of evidence.

There are multiple studies across multiple countries, including the initial ones from China, that men are disproportionately negatively impacted by coronavirus, often despite more cases being diagnosed in women.

Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY - Nature

OpenSAFELY, a new health analytics platform that includes data from over 17 million adult NHS patients in England, is used to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death.

www.nature.com

Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19-related deaths. COVID-19-related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio (HR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53–1.65);

See you say I'm talking bollocks yet that piece of research you present says the following, I read on to make sure I was reading the right thing.

.
We used patient data from general practice (GP) records managed by the GP software provider The Phoenix Partnership (TPP), linked
to Office for National Statistics (ONS) death data. The sample of patients represents approximately 40% of the population of England,
spread geographically across the whole country.

So that covers 40% right?

Doesn't that make your 'evidence' flawed? 40% of the population , so that factors in 60% of the population who may have had covid-19 and didn't go to the GP to get that confirmed.

Why are those figures not included? Perhaps because those numbers are not known. So anyone who had covid-19 and didn't get a test, anyone who is asymptomatic so therefore didn't get a test because they didn't know. They aren't included in those figures, because how could they be?

So the research that you present as 'proof' is still flawed in its presentation because there are so many variables that are not included in the study. It doesn't prove anything whatsoever , other than more men went to the GP and got tested according to that study.

Now here's the kicker. You say men in china are more affected by it than women right? Currently 51% of Chinese men smoke. Whereas 2.7% women smoke. So proportionally men are more likely to catch a respiratory virus because they have poorer lung health as a result. So that dismisses what you say about that.

So before you accuse someone of talking bollocks LL, think about the information you are reading rather than just regurgitate it back to me like you haven't got a mind of your own. Because you a clearly a smart individual but offering me research that is flawed in its own right isn't the best way to prove me wrong.

See just because I don't throw stats into my arguments doesn't mean I havent read any , I simply wish to offer my opinion rather than copy and paste what's on the internet.

 

[Billy Dean]

See you say I'm talking bollocks yet that piece of research you present says the following, I read on to make sure I was reading the right thing.



So that covers 40% right?

Doesn't that make your 'evidence' flawed? 40% of the population , so that factors in 60% of the population who may have had covid-19 and didn't go to the GP to get that confirmed.

Why are those figures not included? Perhaps because those numbers are not known. So anyone who had covid-19 and didn't get a test, anyone who is asymptomatic so therefore didn't get a test because they didn't know. They aren't included in those figures, because how could they be?

So the research that you present as 'proof' is still flawed in its presentation because there are so many variables that are not included in the study. It doesn't prove anything whatsoever , other than more men went to the GP and got tested according to that study.

Now here's the kicker. You say men in china are more affected by it than women right? Currently 51% of Chinese men smoke. Whereas 2.7% women smoke. So proportionally men are more likely to catch a respiratory virus because they have poorer lung health as a result. So that dismisses what you say about that.

So before you accuse someone of talking bollocks LL, think about the information you are reading rather than just regurgitate it back to me like you haven't got a mind of your own. Because you a clearly a smart individual but offering me research that is flawed in its own right isn't the best way to prove me wrong.

See just because I don't throw stats into my arguments doesn't mean I havent read any , I simply wish to offer my opinion rather than copy and paste what's on the internet.

I'm not a scientist but 40% of the population of England is quite a big sample for a scientific study isn't it?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm not a scientist but 40% of the population of England is quite a big sample for a scientific study isn't it?

It's more than voted for our torturous suicide glorious trading with the world reclaiming sovereignty fishing for ourselves giant lorry parks in Kent...........

 

[Kenshin]

I'm not a scientist but 40% of the population of England is quite a big sample for a scientific study isn't it?

Given that the virus the study about is proven to be also asymptomatic and therefore the % of the ones who haven't been tested is a massive unknown then that surely factors in?

Otherwise it's information that doesn't take into account 38.4 million people (on average) who may have been ill without knowing it.

That's still a fairly big number of potential females that did not get tested for example.

It's purely circumstantial to pick out only 40% and say that's the information. 38 million people could easily change that result into different results.

Which is the point I have been trying to make. Rather than regurgitate that information out and say this proves X , it really doesn't. It merely suggests it on a scale that although big , doesn't even cover half the population during a pandemic.

@LinekersLegs

Also that Information was taken from 15th may, only 6-7 weeks Into the pandemic according to the submission date. Which then gives us 8-9 weeks at least of unknown information. It doesn't factor in how many females have since caught the virus therefore changing that information. It factors in how many were tested but not tested positive as far as I can tell with it.

Again so many variables in that information that doesn't prove what you are saying (especially given you use China as an example) but it does prove what I have said to you , that you are just throwing statistics out like they are accurate and not the full story.

 

[Walken]

Given that the virus the study about is proven to be also asymptomatic and therefore the % of the ones who haven't been tested is a massive unknown then that surely factors in?

Otherwise it's information that doesn't take into account 38.4 million people (on average) who may have been ill without knowing it.

That's still a fairly big number of potential females that did not get tested for example.

It's purely circumstantial to pick out only 40% and say that's the information. 38 million people could easily change that result into different results.

Which is the point I have been trying to make. Rather than regurgitate that information out and say this proves X , it really doesn't. It merely suggests it on a scale that although big , doesn't even cover half the population during a pandemic.

@LinekersLegs

Also that Information was taken from 15th may, only 6-7 weeks Into the pandemic according to the submission date. Which then gives us 8-9 weeks at least of unknown information. It doesn't factor in how many females have since caught the virus therefore changing that information. It factors in how many were tested but not tested positive as far as I can tell with it.

Again so many variables in that information that doesn't prove what you are saying (especially given you use China as an example) but it does prove what I have said to you , that you are just throwing statistics out like they are accurate and not the full story.

Just to be clear, you will only believe scientific data that has 100% of the planet involved it the case study?

 

[Prevenger17]

See you say I'm talking bollocks yet that piece of research you present says the following, I read on to make sure I was reading the right thing.



So that covers 40% right?

Doesn't that make your 'evidence' flawed? 40% of the population , so that factors in 60% of the population who may have had covid-19 and didn't go to the GP to get that confirmed.

Why are those figures not included? Perhaps because those numbers are not known. So anyone who had covid-19 and didn't get a test, anyone who is asymptomatic so therefore didn't get a test because they didn't know. They aren't included in those figures, because how could they be?

So the research that you present as 'proof' is still flawed in its presentation because there are so many variables that are not included in the study. It doesn't prove anything whatsoever , other than more men went to the GP and got tested according to that study.

Now here's the kicker. You say men in china are more affected by it than women right? Currently 51% of Chinese men smoke. Whereas 2.7% women smoke. So proportionally men are more likely to catch a respiratory virus because they have poorer lung health as a result. So that dismisses what you say about that.

So before you accuse someone of talking bollocks LL, think about the information you are reading rather than just regurgitate it back to me like you haven't got a mind of your own. Because you a clearly a smart individual but offering me research that is flawed in its own right isn't the best way to prove me wrong.

See just because I don't throw stats into my arguments doesn't mean I havent read any , I simply wish to offer my opinion rather than copy and paste what's on the internet.

I'll save everyone the hassle of reading this if they haven't already:

Kenshin's feelings and thoughts about things

Are stronger evidence than

Actual scientific analyses of empirical evidence gathered from over 20 million people and cases

 

[Billy Dean]

Given that the virus the study about is proven to be also asymptomatic and therefore the % of the ones who haven't been tested is a massive unknown then that surely factors in?

What do asymptomatic cases have to do with a study on severe outcomes? Help me on this one.

 

[LinekersLegs]

See you say I'm talking bollocks yet that piece of research you present says the following, I read on to make sure I was reading the right thing.



So that covers 40% right?

Doesn't that make your 'evidence' flawed? 40% of the population , so that factors in 60% of the population who may have had covid-19 and didn't go to the GP to get that confirmed.

Why are those figures not included? Perhaps because those numbers are not known. So anyone who had covid-19 and didn't get a test, anyone who is asymptomatic so therefore didn't get a test because they didn't know. They aren't included in those figures, because how could they be?

So the research that you present as 'proof' is still flawed in its presentation because there are so many variables that are not included in the study. It doesn't prove anything whatsoever , other than more men went to the GP and got tested according to that study.

Now here's the kicker. You say men in china are more affected by it than women right? Currently 51% of Chinese men smoke. Whereas 2.7% women smoke. So proportionally men are more likely to catch a respiratory virus because they have poorer lung health as a result. So that dismisses what you say about that.

It is far more interesting getting to the reasons why for example the smoking bit I also discussed way back when the original data came out

So before you accuse someone of talking bollocks LL, think about the information you are reading rather than just regurgitate it back to me like you haven't got a mind of your own. Because you a clearly a smart individual but offering me research that is flawed in its own right isn't the best way to prove me wrong.

See just because I don't throw stats into my arguments doesn't mean I havent read any , I simply wish to offer my opinion rather than copy and paste what's on the internet.

No, I don’t believe having ”only” 40% (a huge sample size in medical terms) makes it flawed as we have been talking about risk factors for death. So unless you believe that there are a very large number of women who are dying in the UK with coronavirus without being diagnosed I am bemused by how you think the data would change with 100% sample size - perhaps you can walk me through your logic?

Table 1 in the article breakes down the raw numbers ie those diagnosed as being infected and those who died. Consistent with most data I have seen there were slightly more women diagnosed 8647989 (50.1%) compared to 8630403 men yet significantly more men died 6162 vs 4764 women.

Given that this is a disease that we also know has a bigger impact the older you are, and there are a lot more over 80s women around than old men, don’t those raw numbers raise a huge flag to you?

There are complex reasons why men might be more vulnerable, still not fully understood and I’ve discussed several of them in this thread including the smoking bit way back in April. It is probably a mixture of biological and behavioral factors rather than one simple explanation, thought this cdc article was helpful.

Men and COVID-19: A Biopsychosocial Approach to Understanding Sex Differences in Mortality and Recommendations for Practice and Policy Interventions

Preventing Chronic Disease (PCD) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal established by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. PCD provides an open exchange of information and knowledge among researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and others who strive to...

www.cdc.gov

It is the “doesn’t affect males males more” that I am calling bollocks on as it very clearly does, not why it might affect males more which I feel is a far more interesting and useful discussion to have.

 

[Kenshin]

Just to be clear, you will only believe scientific data that has 100% of the planet involved it the case study?

Well if you haven't tested all cases in the world then you are making assumptions based on only a select amount of data, which makes it inaccurate?

Doesn't it?

Can't say oh this proves X Y Z if you have only got a select amount of information.

I'll save everyone the hassle of reading this if they haven't already:

Kenshin's feelings and thoughts about things

Are stronger evidence than

Actual scientific analyses of empirical evidence gathered from over 20 million people and cases

But it's select data. Data that is both out of date and not inclusive to everyone.

So you can't just make assumptions based on anything other than all the information , otherwise you are guessing.

What do asymptomatic cases have to do with a study on severe outcomes? Help me on this one.

Because far more people catch the virus then die from it.

If we are only saying severe cases prove men are more likely to die from the virus then it proves nothing other than guesswork.

Given that

A) statistically women live longer than men
B) the vast majority of deaths is in the over 75 bracket.

Which combined together gives you a different outlook onto the effects of the virus at that age group onwards.

But I guess that factor doesn't matter either does it?

If you only base it on serious cases then that's dismissing every single person who doesn't die with the virus , which would be a different pool altogether?

 

[Walken]

I'll save everyone the hassle of reading this if they haven't already:

Kenshin's feelings and thoughts about things

Are stronger evidence than

Actual scientific analyses of empirical evidence gathered from over 20 million people and cases

A piffling 20 million??? Fake news clearly and goes against kenlumbos gut instinct, and he always goes with his gut

 

[roydo]

It is the “doesn’t affect males males more” that I am calling bollocks on as it very clearly does, not why it might affect males more which I feel is a far more interesting and useful discussion to have.

My own, slightly scientific, but more based on my observations, opinion, is that females are, aerobically, more robust than men. Pound for pound.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This is like @Old Blue 2 suggesting opinion polls are worthless because they didn't ask every single Brexit voter!

 

[roydo]

This is like @Old Blue 2 suggesting opinion polls are worthless because they didn't ask every single Brexit voter!

Oh blimey, you have done it now. Gonna have a lecture about everyone knowing what equivalency meant now ffs.

 

[Toast]

Wearing a mask all day is really getting on my tits now.
I know needs must etc.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Wearing a mask all day is really getting on my tits now.
I know needs must etc.

You might be wearing it wrong