They’re back! The intensive care national audit & research centre (@ICNARC to its friends) has resumed weekly reporting in response to rapidly rising ICU admissions.
A short thread follows in which I’ll draw out key content and add some comments. 1/n
Déjà vu? Newer followers might be unaware that I used this data six months ago to challenge the myth that COVID-19 is only a risk to those who were already “at death’s door”. That thread went a bit viral, with all manner of interesting consequences! 2/n
One positive outcome was an improved relationship between actuaries and the intensive care community. A tangible example is the commitment to @ICS_updates from @COVID19actuary that we would continue to highlight the impact the COVID-19 on intensive care units. 3/14
The latest report covers admissions to Thur 24 Sept.
ICNARC have done precisely what I hoped they might do, and are reporting admissions from 1 Sept separately from the first wave. This will give us an opportunity to see how much treatment and outcomes have improved. 4/14
So far, numbers are small, with 291 patients included in the new cohort. Of these, 104 have outcomes reported and 187 are still receiving critical care.
The majority of recent admissions are in the North of England and the Midlands. Contrast to first wave shown below. 5/14
These charts show the daily and cumulative admissions numbers since 1 Sept. The rapid rise is clear, noting that admissions logged against the last couple of days in particular remain incomplete. 6/14
Table 1 shows us the patient characteristics, and how these compare with the first wave (previous reports used a cohort of viral pneumonia patients from previous years as the comparator).
As before, seven out of ten ICU admissions are males, and they are age 60 on average. 7/14
Compared to the first wave, Asians are even more over-represented, making up a remarkable three out of ten ICU admissions in September. This is only partly explained by the geographical location of admissions. 8/14
There has always been a socioeconomic gradient to ICU admissions, but that is even more stark here than was seen in the first wave. Four out of ten admissions in September are from the most deprived fifth of the country. 9/14
As before, the vast majority of intensive care admissions were able to live without assistance in daily activities, prior to admission, and only a small minority (one in eight) were living with very severe comorbidities. 10/14
The full distribution of age and sex is per below. This looks pretty familiar to those who were following these reports earlier in the year, with nearly two thirds of ICU admissions being males aged 50-79. 11/14
I won’t comment on the ethnicity or BMI charts tonight, as I think these are accidentally showing the data from the first wave. I’ll update the thread tomorrow if the chart is updated. It’s clear from above though that Asians are over represented. 12/14
Some positive news in the outcomes table! Of those no longer receiving critical care, four out of five have been discharged, and only one out of five has died. That is much better survival than the first wave, when two out of five died in ICU. It’s early days though. 13/14
I hope you found this useful. Of course it’s a shame that we’re back where we are, but the clarity and transparency of these reports is helpful, so it’s good to have them back now we need them.
Please take a moment to read this short, hopeful letter from an ICU consultant. /end
The report has been updated overnight so charts now show admissions from 1 Sep - so a few further comments.
I said the age/sex chart looked familiar. Maybe too familiar as that WAS the older data. Main difference now is more admissions are people under 50. 15/18
The ethnicity chart brings out very clearly the extent to which the over-representation of ethnic minorities goes beyond what can be explained by local demographics. Whites are significantly underrepresented. Asian, Black and Other ethnicities significantly over. 16/18
This chart brings out the socioeconomic gradient very clearly. The most deprived groups are four times as likely to have needed ICU admission for COVID-19 than the two least deprived groups. 17/18
And finally... this chart of BMI shows us that there are fewer COVID-19 ICU admissions that we’d expect among people of “healthy weight” (18-25) or who are overweight but not obese (25-30).
Obese people are more likely to need ICU admission, especially those with BMI>40. 18/18
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've reproduced and updated this beautiful chart from @OurWorldInData showing life expectancy in England and Wales at different ages, since 1841.
The data largely speaks for itself but I'll make a few brief observations. 🧵
Most of the life expectancy gain is due to large reductions in infant and child mortality rates.
Progress reducing mortality has been made at all ages, but it's the youngest ages where most progress has been made. There's no longer a big difference between LE at birth vs age 10.
The data source in the chart upthread is the total population of England and Wales, which includes military deaths. So the first downward spike results from deaths during WW1 as well as the Spanish Flu. WW2 deaths are also very visible during the 1940s.
I've drawn some heat from anti-vaxx accounts recently. Some just spit obvious lies and hatred, and are quickly blocked. Perhaps more dangerous though are the ones who share bogus data and analysis, that some might not immediately be able to see though. Let's talk about "Ben".
My re-examination of the BMJ Public Health data showed that countries with higher vaccination rates had lower excess deaths, and vice versa. This doesn't prove cause and effect but it's an obvious issue that the authors failed to address.
"Ben" responded to my post with a link to a chart from his own self-published "study" which he claims shows no such relationship in counties of Montana.
So what might be the differences between the countries shown in my analysis and the counties shown in his?
I’m late to this but I wanted to set out some thoughts on the awful @BMJPublicHealth excess deaths article.
Commentary has focussed on media coverage, linking deaths to vaccines, but I want to discuss the article itself, which should not have been published in its current form.
That is not to let @Telegraph @NewYorkPost and others who misreported this off the hook entirely. Reckless reporting has done considerable harm, going well beyond what was claimed in the paper.
More lives will be lost as misinformation fuels vaccine hesitancy.
But as I said below, when @bmj_company distanced itself from media misreporting, this was always going to happen. It's all very well to say the 'study' doesn't establish a link between excess deaths and vaccines, but it's full of inappropriate insinuation.
The first question to ask about excess deaths (or excess anything!) is 'excess over what?'
The new method gives the excess over mortality expected at the start of the year. So expectations for 2024 reflect the fact that we've seen higher mortality rates since the pandemic. 3/17
Our new commentary published in @LancetRH_Europe discusses the ongoing excess deaths in the UK, and for the first time provides granular analysis by age, place and cause.
Excess deaths arise directly and indirectly from the Covid pandemic. This includes:
- increased pressure on NHS urgent care services, resulting in poorer patient outcomes
- direct effects of Covid-19 infection
- disruption to chronic disease prevention, detection and management.
Newly published data from @OHID shows that, from June 2022 to June 2023, excess deaths were highest for ages 50-64, at 15% above normal.
In comparison, excess deaths were 11% higher than expected for under 25s and 25-49s, and were 9% higher for over 65s.