TallGuyJohninBKK

How Do COVID-19’s Annual Deaths and Mortality Rate Compare to the Flu’s? Updated on October 13, 2022 "COVID-19 is more deadly than the flu. ... Going strictly by the numbers, COVID-19 is still claiming around 400 lives per day in the U.S., which is roughly 3 times as many as the flu. A recent report used death certificate data and found COVID-19 to be four times as deadly as the flu in England and Wales. The data are also pretty clear on who’s most affected. About 75% of people who have died due to COVID-19 were 65 years old and older." https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/covid-19/flu-vs-coronavirus-mortality-and-death-rates-by-year

Again, the Cochrane article isn't any original research... its authors are merely synthesizing the findings of dozens of prior studies measuring all kinds of different things, including a lot of studies done before COVID ever surfaced. The Conversation article cited above explains why the Cochrane conclusions, even as limited and caveated as they were by those authors, are not very meaningful or reliable on the subject of face mask wear. As the Cochrane authors explained, a lot of the studies they included in their reporting pre-dated COVID entirely: "We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic ... We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19." https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

I'm pretty sure I've never advocated face mask wear when sometime is sitting alone in a car or on a motorbike. But there are plenty of others here who think people should never wear face masks.... Those are the ones that I, and mainstream public health advice, disagree with.

1. Portraying the Cochrane article as some kind of proof that face mask wearing doesn't help prevent COVID, when the authors themselves (as quoted above) explain in their Conclusions section that their findings have serious limitations with low confidence level and may not be correct. "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect." And further: "Key messages We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed." 2. As for the future, I guess that's going to depend on the future.... the future path of the virus, the future of vaccines, the future of available treatment medications, etc etc. I'm not a fortune teller.

You're continuing to overstate and misrepresent just what the Cochrane article authors concluded. Pay attention to their actual conclusions:

The US CDC and the WHO both recommend face mask wear for various populations in various settings. Hope you're paying attention! "Masks can help protect you and others from COVID-19.... Layered prevention strategies — like staying up to date on vaccines and wearing masks — can help prevent severe illness and reduce the potential for strain on the healthcare system. Wear a mask with the best fit, protection, and comfort for you." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html So does the World Health Organization: Masks continue to be a key tool against COVID-19 "WHO continues to recommend the use of masks by the public in specific situations, and this update recommends their use irrespective of the local epidemiological situation, given the current spread of the COVID-19 globally. Masks are recommended following a recent exposure to COVID-19, when someone has or suspects they have COVID-19, when someone is at high-risk of severe COVID-19, and for anyone in a crowded, enclosed, or poorly ventilated space. Previously, WHO recommendations were based on the epidemiological situation." https://www.who.int/news/item/13-01-2023-who-updates-covid-19-guidelines-on-masks--treatments-and-patient-care

The authors of The Conversation article are all scientists explaining the science of why the claims that anti-maskers have made based on the Cochrane article are overstated and without credible foundation.

Of course, you could also actually read the entire Cochrane article, including the except that @ThailandRyan posted some posts above, and get it straight from the authors themselves: Authors' conclusions "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect." https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Yes, I pay attention to credible COVID-related info sources such as John Hopkins and The Conversation. As for the latter, for your info: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/

See the explanation above. The Cochrane article is a hodge-podge of different studies measuring different things with different standards. The authors of the Cochrane article themselves acknowledged the limitations of their findings. As The Conversation report explained above: "A systematic review is only as good as the rigour it employs in combining similar studies of similar interventions, with similar measurement of outcomes. When very different studies of different interventions are combined, the results are not informative." https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992

Further: Yes, masks reduce the risk of spreading COVID, despite a review saying they don’t Published: February 6, 2023 2.04pm EST ... "There is strong and consistent evidence for the effectiveness of masks and (even more so) respirators in protecting against respiratory infections. Masks are an important protection against serious infections. Current COVID vaccines protect against death and hospitalisation, but do not prevent infection well due to waning vaccine immunity and substantial immune escape from new variants. A systematic review is only as good as the rigour it employs in combining similar studies of similar interventions, with similar measurement of outcomes. When very different studies of different interventions are combined, the results are not informative." https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992

The only COVID cases counted and reported by the Thai government since last fall are those that result in hospitalizations. Anything less than that for COVID isn't being publicly reported here. The Chula professor in the OP was estimating the likely number of real COVID infections here, predicting 2,800 to 3,900 per day, based on the fewer COVID hospitalization numbers the government does report.

And the Cochrane report you cite -- which is merely a recap of various prior studies, including ones that predated COVID, and not itself any original research -- isn't all it's cracked up to be by anti-maskers... Per a commentary on it by Johns Hopkins: "the review emphasized that the findings could be due in part to multiple factors such as poor study design, low adherence to mask rules, quality of masks used, and incorrect mask usage. Notably, several individual studies have shown an association between community mask use and a reduction in COVID-19 cases. ... Results of the review have split infectious disease experts, leading some to critique its methodologies and emphasize the importance of public messaging on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to prevent disease transmission." Source link

I gave you a like for your above comments... even though the forum's new anonymous system for emoticons doesn't allow you to know I did! ????

In general, any fresh, properly warn face mask is going to be better than wearing none, in terms of reducing virus risk both to the wearer and others... But obviously, N95 masks are the best available to the general public. I import mine from the U.S.

It's also worth noting here that, unfortunately, COVID vaccines for now are not a one or twice and done thing.... Because of the nature of the virus, being both respiratory and constantly mutating, for vaccinations to remain the most effective, people right now are advised to continue getting boosters every 4-6 months or so.... And if you look at the U.S. as an example, the rate of people who have received the newer bivalent vaccines thus far is only about 15% of the overall population (which is paltry!), even though those vaccines have been free and available there for months. That's "moving on" in the wrong way. "About 52.5 million people, or 15.8% of the U.S. population, have received an updated booster dose." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

No one is trying to keep the world, or Thailand, "under lock and key." There are no longer any such enforced lockdown measures here, as you well know. And hardly any restrictions on inbound travel. But, getting vaccinated, wearing a face mask when appropriate, and trying to keep in general good health all improve people's odds against bad COVID outcomes. Usually, the people who post on here saying "move on" are those who want to disregard all the things that would otherwise protect people from getting sick.

The U.S. is still reporting about 450 new COVID deaths per day, along with more than 3,600 new COVID hospitalizations per day... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html The WHO reported more than 90,000 COVID deaths worldwide in the past month. "Globally, nearly 10.5 million new cases and over 90 000 deaths were reported in the last 28 days (9 January to 5 February 2023), a decrease of 89% and 8%, respectively, compared to the previous 28 days. As of 5 February 2023, over 754 million confirmed cases and over 6.8 million deaths have been reported globally." https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---8-february-2023 I guess dying of COVID is one way of "moving on"...

There is no more "mask mandate" in Thailand. But people who want to reduce their risk of catching COVID and potential illness from it do tend to follow the suggestions for the general public from the WHO and CDC, among others, to wear good quality face masks in indoor areas when close around other people.

****Deleted Post Edited out*** You have no credible source for what you're claiming re excess deaths, and posted nothing to support your claim. Specifically, there's no credible evidence that COVID vaccines contribute to any meaningful number of excess deaths around the world. COVID, on the other hand, clearly does. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The CDC did just that kind of legitimate comparison recently using real world health outcomes among vaccinated vs unvaccinated folks. And I posted the result above: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7206a3.htm

Yes significantly. The way you present the numbers above is misleading... To do a meaningful comparison, you have to compare the SHARE of unvaccinated people who are dying vs.the SHARE of vaccinated people who are dying -- not their overall shares in the general population. As the report you linked to above explains: 'There are many more vaccinated people than there are unvaccinated people, and vaccinated and boosted people are, on average, older and more likely to have underlying health conditions that put them at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes. That’s why, when CDC adjusts for some of these factors (age and population size), we still see that unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of death and other severe outcomes than people the same age who have stayed up-to-date on boosters. Older people are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 than younger people, but vaccines and boosters still lower that risk substantially." As the Kaiser Foundation article above correctly also notes... if 100% of the U.S. population were vaccinated, then 100% of the COVID deaths would be among the vaccinated. But that's missing the point and meaningful comparison.

The latest real-world tracking info from the U.S. CDC comparing health outcomes for non-vaccinated people vs. vaccinated people (and especially those with the latest bivalent vaccines) say otherwise. (When the CDC in the graphic below refers to the "updated" COVID vaccine, they're referring to the new "bivalent" versions, which thus far aren't available in Thailand, but are available in the U.S. and elsewhere.) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7206a3.htm What is added by this report? "Bivalent booster recipients in 24 U.S. jurisdictions had slightly higher protection against infection and significantly higher protection against death than was observed for monovalent booster recipients or unvaccinated persons, especially among older adults. What are the implications for public health practice? Bivalent COVID-19 booster doses protected against infection and death during BA.4/BA.5 circulation. All eligible persons should get 1 bivalent booster dose ≥2 months after their COVID-19 primary series or last monovalent booster dose."

Here's the trend of the Government's weekly COVID hospitalizations and deaths reports for the past month, starting with the oldest from mid-January. Again, they're only reporting COVID hospitalizations, not non-hospitalized cases. There was a dip in hospitalizations two weeks ago, but the latest hospitalization numbers are actually below those of the last half of January. And reported COVID deaths have declined in each of the past four weekly reports. The numbers in the large red blocks below are weekly COVID hospitalizations. The numbers in the large grey blocks below are government reported weekly COVID deaths. The smaller red and gray section numbers at the bottom of each graphic are the cumulative COVID hospitalization and death counts for Thailand since the start of the calendar year 2023. PS - I don't believe there is any consistently reported EN version of these graphics from the Ministry of Public Health. So the TH versions are the only ones we have to go with. Weekly COVID hospitalizations and COVID deaths reported by Thailand: Jan. 15-21 Jan 22-28 Jan 29 to Feb. 4 Feb. 5 - 11 https://www.facebook.com/informationcovid19/photos

AFAIK, the Chula prof is "estimating" the likely number of daily regular COVID "cases" based on the weekly COVID hospitalization numbers (that the government calls "cases") reported by the government. Since last Oct., the government's weekly reports only count COVID cases when someone has actually been hospitalized with COVID. Regular non-hospitialized COVID cases are not counted or publicly reported here anymore... But needless to say, the count of people hospitalized with COVID is surely a small share of the actual numbers of people with COVID infections. The prof seems to be using an estimated daily number of about 2800 to 3900 regular cases, which would translate into almost 20,000 to 27,000 regular cases/infections per week. The EN translation of what he actually posted in Thai regarding Thailand is as follows: "For Thailand, the numbers from the weekly report 5-11 February 2023 have 392 hospital admissions and 12 deaths. ...It is estimated that the number of new infections is approximately 2,800-3,889 per day." https://www.facebook.com/thiraw/posts/pfbid0TqLxLEfjjRAFmkhiLjgHex7LwfeiHQgdWhYv9AsesoXahiYswqyxRQ34MocvKt4gl