So England has almost 10 times as many hospital beds as the US with about one sixth the population? This would mean there is (roughly) 1 bed for every 556 people in England and 1 bed for every 25,460 people in the US. Surely this cannot be right? — Janus

The figure I quoted was for one state in the US. I couldn't find any figures for the US as a whole - Cheshire was trying to claim (without any evidence) that the situation in the UK was not comparable in terms of the risk one took of putting pressure on hospital services compared to other lifestyle choices. I was just trying to show it's not that dissimilar. Why I'm running around gathering the evidence for his claim I don't know, but that's the best I could find at the time. There's probably whole US figures out there, but they didn't stand out on the first search I did, and since it's not even my claim (that the US is radically different to the UK), I'm not much inclined to do the legwork to support/falsify it.

:ok:

Sure. Take the 72.2% figure from the first study (which didn't include obesity) and add to it the OR (as a factor of case admissions) in the Lancet study. I get 91.4% — Isaac

72.2 percent... of what? The first article was about identifying risk factors for ICU admission of COVID19+ with underlying CVD.

Either way, if you're happy with the data from the CDC showing over 90% of hospital admissions have underlying comorbidity, and the data (again CDC) showing over 90% of mortality with underlying comorbidity, then why would you be suspicious of ICU admission rates which match. It'd be odd if the didn't match wouldn't it? A lower ICU rate than admission rate would mean that hospitals were actually increasing the general risk for healthy patients. Possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely. — Isaac

Again. You've lost me. Are you thinking that all COVID19 patients are admitted to ICU? If so, no. Some go to floor rooms. Some to intermediate care rooms

72.2 percent... of what? The first article was about identifying risk factors for ICU admission if COVID19+ with underlying CVD. — frank

Patients treated in the ICU ... were more likely to have underlying comorbidities (26 [72.2%] — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7042881/?report=reader

You've lost me. Are you thinking that all COVID19 patients are admitted to ICU? — frank

No. If the population of hospital admissions are made up of 90% red-heads, then taking an unbiased sample out of the group (to ICU, for example) you'd expect that sample to also be 90% red-heads. Unless there's some factor biasing the selection of that sample against/for red-heads.

Are you suggesting there's a factor which might bias the selection of patient to transfer to ICU that favours those without underlying comorbidity? If anything it'd intuitively be the opposite, no?

Patients treated in the ICU ... were more likely to have underlying comorbidities (26 [72.2%] — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7042881/?report=reader

I would probably look for research aimed at identifying what percentage of patients admitted to ICU have comorbidities. But using that data, how do you determine the percentage of patients who would be free of comorbidities with better preventative care?

Are you suggesting there's a factor which might bias the selection of patient to transfer to ICU that favours those without underlying comorbidity? — Isaac

No. It's the reverse.

using that data, how do you determine the percentage of patients who would be free of comorbidities with better preventative care? — frank

You don't (not using that data) The data linking preventative care with lower rates of comorbidity is huge. I can present a sample, but I'm assuming that's not the point - or are you really questioning whether preventative medicine even works?

Are you suggesting there's a factor which might bias the selection of patient to transfer to ICU that favours those without underlying comorbidity? — Isaac


No. It's the reverse. — frank

Right. So if 90% of a population are red-heads, and you have a selection procedure that biases in favour of red-heads, your selected sample is going to be at more than 90% red-head. Imagine a jar full of mostly red beads and a few yellows, you prefer red and are picking a sample, it's going to be at least as much red as the jar, if not more.

You don't (not using that data) The data linking preventative care with lower rates of comorbidity is huge. I can present a sample, but I'm assuming that's not the point - or are you really questioning whether preventative medicine even works? — Isaac

You don't even know what the comorbidities were. Some of it was diabetes, some hypertension. What about cancer, asthma, MS. etc?

Plus you said that with preventative medicine, 50% of ICU beds in use would be empty, didn't you? How did you get that figure?

You don't even know what the comorbidities were. Some of it was diabetes, some hypertension. What about cancer, asthma, MS. etc? — frank

All of which have high levels of preventable causal factors.

Plus you said that with preventative medicine, 50% of ICU beds in use would be empty, didn't you? How did you get that figure? — frank

It was a rough estimate based on figures I've read. Here's a good example...

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that eliminating three risk factors
– poor diet, inactivity, and smoking – would prevent:
80% of heart disease and stroke;
80% of type 2 diabetes; and,
40% of cancer — Mensah G. Global and Domestic Health Priorities: Spotlight on Chronic Disease. National Business Group on Health

All of which have high levels of preventable causal factors. — Isaac

Hypertension, asthma, and MS don't. That's why I mentioned them. :razz:

was a rough estimate based on figures I've read. Here's a good example... — Isaac

You were guessing, then.

Hypertension — frank

These can all increase your risk of getting high blood pressure:

Drinking too much alcohol
Smoking
Being overweight
Not doing enough exercise
Eating too much salt — https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/risk-factors/high-blood-pressure#Heading3

asthma — frank

Environmental pollution, including traffic fumes and chemicals from power plants, can make asthma symptoms worse and may play a part in causing asthma.

Studies suggest that children living near very busy roads are more likely to develop asthma. — https://www.asthma.org.uk/advice/understanding-asthma/causes/

MS — frank

There's more and more evidence that low levels of vitamin D, especially before you become an adult, could be a factor in why people get MS.

Our skin makes most of our vitamin D when we're out in the summer sun. We also get some from food like oily fish, eggs, spreads and breakfast cereals with added vitamin D in them. You can also get extra vitamin D from supplements (but too much can be harmful).

A blood test can show if your levels of vitamin D are low.

Smoking

Studies show you're more likely to get MS if you smoke. It might be because the chemicals in cigarette smoke affect your immune system. If you have MS in your family, your risk of getting it too could go up if you're exposed to passive smoking (breathing in other people's smoke).

If you have relapsing MS and you stop smoking it can slow down how fast your MS might change to secondary progressive MS.
Obesity

Studies show that getting MS could be linked to being very overweight (obese), especially when you were a child or young adult. This might be because obese people are often low in vitamin D. Obesity can also make your immune system overactive and cause inflammation in your body. There may be other reasons we don't understand yet.

Of course, not all people who are very overweight get MS, and having MS doesn't mean you are or were obese. But if your risk of getting MS is on your mind, perhaps because a close relative has it, then your weight is a risk factor you can change. — https://www.mssociety.org.uk/about-ms/what-is-ms/causes-of-ms

You were guessing, then. — frank

The CDC are guessing? If anything I underestimated. 80% preventable heart disease, obviously almost 100% preventable obesity. Those two alone make up more than half the comorbidities associated with less favourable outcomes from covid-19.

These can all increase your risk of getting high blood pressure:

Drinking too much alcohol
Smoking
Being overweight
Not doing enough exercise
Eating too much salt — https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/risk-factors/high-blood-pressure#Heading3

It's mostly genetic.

Environmental pollution, including traffic fumes and chemicals from power plants, can make asthma symptoms worse and may play a part in causing asthma. — https://www.asthma.org.uk/advice/understanding-asthma/causes/

Asthma is mostly genetic.

There's more and more evidence that low levels of vitamin D, especially before you become an adult, could be a factor in why people get MS. — https://www.mssociety.org.uk/about-ms/what-is-ms/causes-of-ms

We don't know what causes MS, but you'd need to show a proven preventative strategy to stay consistent with your earlier claim

The CDC are guessing? — Isaac

You were guessing that 50 percent of ICU beds would be vacated with preventative medicine.

I'm going to have to drop out now. I know you well enough to see when the conversation is going nowhere.

It's mostly genetic. — frank

Evidence?

Asthma is mostly genetic. — frank

Evidence?

We don't know what causes MS, but you'd need to show a proven preventative strategy to stay consistent with your earlier claim — frank

I've not made any claims about MS, it's a very minor comorbidity.

know you well enough to see when the conversation is going nowhere. — frank

Yes, it's the usual point that seems pretty much universal around here. I make an argument supported by citation, interlocutor claims it's false without any citation at all but rather because they just 'reckon' it is, then implies I'm the one arguing in bad faith.

I have a meeting to get to anyway so glad of the break...A meeting in which people will be discussing matters by presenting and interrogating evidence. Crazy, huh?

I'd need very strong evidence to be suspicious of such things. The anti-vaxxer movement is anti-science and less vaccines means more dead people—why accept a big conspiracy without sufficient evidence?

:ok:

The figure I quoted was for one state in the US. I couldn't find any figures for the US as a whole - Cheshire was trying to claim (without any evidence) that the situation in the UK was not comparable in terms of the risk one took of putting pressure on hospital services compared to other lifestyle choices. — Isaac

I think this probably deserves at least two clarifications. The first being a general complaint that citing the conditions in England as evidence for conditions elsewhere is in principle a dubious approach to a data supported argument. The second is the increased marginal rate of patients is novel to a hyper transmittable virus making the argument that other conditions are equally as responsible for over loading a medical system misleading at best.

I have a meeting to get to anyway so glad of the break...A meeting in which people will be discussing matters by presenting and interrogating evidence. Crazy, huh? — Isaac

Is the evidence particular to a single event? Which is what we are discussing, whether a single person should refuse a vaccine. The area under the curve for a single event is zero by nature of the variable. The inability to predict idiosyncratic outcomes doesn't inform the decision, but does make for plenty of illusionary doubt. Or would you suggest that recommending others avoid a vaccine during a pandemic, because that is the decision made for oneself is morally responsible?

Incase anyone is wondering the composition of the wall they intend to bang their head against.
Take warning all ye that enter here

I don't believe the data supporting your claims is publicly available. I don't believe it's privately available. I have my doubts about it being transcendently available too... — Isaac

then implies I'm the one arguing in bad faith. — Isaac

I agree that preventative medicine, a diet of whole grains and veggies for everyone, replacing cars with bikes, gun control, etc. would reduce the load on the healthcare system. Also if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt while hopping, although I don't have a citation for that so it's up in the air (frog, wings, up in the air, ha)

I think you do engage in a little bad faith argumentation becuse you just like arguing. Others on the forum do it. It's subtle Putinesque agression that rubs me the wrong way because of Trumpism. I realize I may be misunderstanding, tho.

I think you do engage in a little bad faith argumentation becuse you just like arguing. Others on the forum do it. It's subtle Putinesque agression that rubs me the wrong way because of Trumpism. I realize I may be misunderstanding, tho. — frank

It's like, if Socrates hates you and has a database of unrelated facts.

Socrates had a rough life because his wife bossed him around all the time, so I guess we should have empathy?

↪Cheshire Socrates had a rough life because his wife bossed him around all the time, so I guess we should have empathy? — frank

Yeah, I recall the auto-oppositional dynamic. It would be easier if he was just a loon. But, being able to produce complex arguments for bad ideas is dangerous. Too many people looking for confirmation bias for their fears and this seems like the El Dorado of misplaced intellectual weight.

citing the conditions in England as evidence for conditions elsewhere is in principle a dubious approach to a data supported argument. — Cheshire

More dubious than rejecting it without citing any evidence from anywhere?

the increased marginal rate of patients is novel to a hyper transmittable virus making the argument that other conditions are equally as responsible for over loading a medical system misleading at best. — Cheshire

How? This argument seems to be lacking any structure. How does the fact that it's transmissible alter the proportion by which it is responsible for occupying healthcare resources?

The area under the curve for a single event is zero by nature of the variable. — Cheshire

?

The inability to predict idiosyncratic outcomes doesn't inform the decision, but does make for plenty of illusionary doubt. — Cheshire

??

would you suggest that recommending others avoid a vaccine during a pandemic, because that is the decision made for oneself is morally responsible? — Cheshire

No. I don't think that would be morally responsible. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

I agree that preventative medicine, a diet of whole grains and veggies for everyone, replacing cars with bikes, gun control, etc. would reduce the load on the healthcare system. Also if a frog had wings... — frank

What has the likelihood to do with the moral argument? It's unlikely the we'll ever get football hooligans to be less violent, but it doesn't affect the immortality of their actions. The argument here is that poor investment in preventative healthcare is responsible for more hospitalisations than covid vaccine hesitancy. That remains true regardless of the likelihood of either changing.

More dubious than rejecting it without citing any evidence from anywhere? — Isaac

Nope, that's what in principle means. So, I guess, yes?

How? This argument seems to be lacking any structure. How does the fact that it's transmissible alter the proportion by which it is responsible for occupying healthcare resources? — Isaac

You know exactly what I'm saying.

No. I don't think that would be morally responsible. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion. — Isaac

Read back slowly the title of the thread.

the El Dorado of misplaced intellectual weight. — Cheshire

El Dorado? Hmm.

The argument here is that poor investment in preventative healthcare is responsible for more hospitalisations than covid vaccine hesitancy. That remains true regardless of the likelihood of either changing. — Isaac

I think this might be an El Dorado of misplaced intellectual weight.

I think you do engage in a little bad faith argumentation becuse you just like arguing. — frank

being able to produce complex arguments for bad ideas is dangerous. Too many people looking for confirmation bias for their fears and this seems like the El Dorado of misplaced intellectual weight. — Cheshire

It's interesting how you both have to create this alternative narrative for what's going on here. I've presented perfectly coherent arguments backed up whenever necessary by cited evidence, I've even referred to a few other experts in the field who share my views.

This all seems quite normal to me. In fact it's my job, a normal occurrence in my day-to-day life. I also listen a lot to other people doing the same and we clash occasionally.

But only here do I experience this odd narrative, that denies I could simply be a normal, educated professional with an adequately supported opinion. Somehow that option is ruled out. If either could explain why I'd be fascinated to hear the thought process behind it.

Insurance adjuster?

Insurance adjuster? — Cheshire

Just had one thanks.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

Guessing at the professional most suited to produce your argumentation.

fact it's my job, a normal occurrence in my day-to-day life. — Isaac

That's so weird to me. Your job orbits around abstraction, mine around concretion, usually shattered in some way.

Guessing at the professional most suited to produce your argumentation. — Cheshire

I'm a consultant in psychology, I advise (among other clients) long-term risk analysts. They usually have a team of academics from all sorts of fields so there's considerable debate. None of it goes like this!

That's so weird to me. Your job orbits around abstraction, mine around concretion, usually shattered in some way. — frank

Yes. It's true we're at different poles of sociey's mortal injury, you trying to stem the bleeding, me trying to decide how the blood loss is going to affect people's decisions over the next five years. Do you think either has primacy on strategic decision-making?