Winton Centre

You're getting mixed up between figures and then attacking people who understand them better. Please give the benefit of the doubt!

There are two figures being widely reported for deaths:

1. Total excess mortality of all causes

2. "COVID deaths"

The claim was about (2) and so that's what my points were about.

Excess death is up, yes. There's a disease, it does cause people to die, especially if they're already vulnerable.

Arguments about the all cause mortality spikes are different and not related to the arguments for over-counting of "COVID deaths", which isn't a conspiracy theory but rather actual stated government policy [1]. The figure for "COVID deaths" includes cases where it's merely assumed that the death was caused by COVID. No test or even evidence need be cited. If doctors are completely reliable this wouldn't be a problem, but they get a 20% payment incentive when patients are claimed to be COVID patients [2].

If you're curious about the arguments surrounding all-cause mortality, the problem is that stay-at-home orders have been taken very literally by many sick people. Hospital admissions went down, not up, during this time, because people who should have been going to the emergency room for treatment got scared and stayed away. In the UK, the government just dropped the "stay at home" slogan it's been relentlessly promoting for weeks because - amongst other things - cardiac admissions halved, and doctors are now sounding the alarm about the huge oncoming…

> When a mainstream media outlet takes a position, most people are able to distinguish between that outlet's position and a large social movement in favor of a particular political position

I hesitate to reference politics here, but read Nate Silver's writings on what he's termed "the Indigo Blob"[0][1]...

> The same cannot be said for these platforms, which by design attempt to make you feel like you're interacting with a large number of real people who hold real opinions

When I think back to how things went down during the pandemic, I'm convinced that the "real opinions" that most people held were based on blindly following position of whatever media they were consuming (and that media likely blindly following whatever government messaging).

Actual scientists posting actual statistics?[2] No-one wanted to see the data on who was - and wasn't - at significant risk from Covid.

At one point back then, one of my closest friends bluntly told me in a group chat that I was "a sociopath", despite him knowing that out of the two of us, I'm the one with the science PhD + published papers, and (at least science-wise) he's the layman.

Hey ho, he and I eventually made up...

[0] https://www.natesilver.net/p/twitter-elon-and-the-indigo-blob [1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-the-indigo-blob-runs-a-bluff [2] https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49

That is a recommendation on public health initiatives, not individual consumption.

"When it comes to policy recommendations, it is notable that the authors recommend public health measures to reduce total consumption at a population level, such as “excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising”. There is no mention of information campaigns or targeting heavy drinkers, which may be less effective ways of reducing average consumption."

The risks they found are actually very small.

"Let’s consider one drink a day (10g, 1.25 UK units) compared to none, for which the authors estimated an extra 4 (918–914) in 100,000 people would experience a (serious) alcohol-related condition.
That means, to experience one extra problem, 25,000 people need to drink 10g alcohol a day for a year, that’s 3,650g a year each.
To put this in perspective, a standard 70cl bottle of gin contains 224 g of alcohol, so 3,650g a year is equivalent to around 16 bottles of gin per person. That’s a total of 400,000 bottles of gin among 25,000 people, being associated with one extra health problem. Which indicates a rather low level of harm in these occasional drinkers."

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2ae8cb006a4a

Nowhere in the article did it say that the directory of the NIH call the anecdotal reports "credible". The NIH is conducting a survey, which is the only responsible response given the magnitude of the pandemic. But that is not the same as an endorsement of credibility at all. If testing a hypothesis meant endorsing a hypothesis, then science could never happen.

As for "doctors in France and Hong Kong", there's 10 million physicians worldwide. Pick any theory, and you'll find no shortage of doctors somewhere who endorses it. Despite what public perception, being a physician does not make one a scientist. The reality is that the vast majority of doctors do not understand basic statistics[1].

So yes, I would indeed claim that opinion of statisticians, engineers, physical scientists, economists and other fields with expertise in statistics can in many cases be as relevant, it not more than relevant than physicians. Particularly, in cases like this, when the conclusions are being made off a small signal in a large-scale dataset.

[1] https://medium.com/wintoncentre/why-doctors-are-bad-at-stats-and-how-that-could-affect-your-health-e870d551bcfe

My favourite quote on the matter:

But claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving.

Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2ae8cb006a4a

I understand why they want to dispel the persistent myth that alcohol can be good for you, but do they have to do it by employing their own vacuous statements? Tell people what the extra risk of drinking a daily glass of wine is, then they can make their own mind up on whether to take that risk or not.

Such empty discourse absent of falsifiable statements is more damaging to our society than a glass of wine ever could be.

David Spiegelhalter of BUGS fame:

"So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem. Which still indicates a very low level of harm in drinkers drinking just more than the UK guidelines."

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2ae8cb006a4a

The WHO is fear mongering.

Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live.

Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.