4,810 posts
|
Post by Mark on Aug 12, 2020 21:30:51 GMT
Death rates revised down by 5000 for England. Now only includes cases where there has been a positive test within the past 28 days.
|
|
5,073 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 12, 2020 23:36:04 GMT
Your move, Pasek and Paul! Just hope the person administrating the vaccine is nothing like Count Fosco in A Woman in White. |
|
|
|
Post by frappuccino on Aug 13, 2020 10:58:19 GMT
Your move, Pasek and Paul! I am surprised they would risk trying it out on the rich and famous. But then again, it may be years before anything affects his health |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 11:31:03 GMT
Death rates revised down by 5000 for England. Now only includes cases where there has been a positive test within the past 28 days. Not sure that some have picked up how much worse this is for the government. Because of this manipulation the excess deaths figure has just risen by 5000 with these deaths being nearly all from a time when there was zero community testing. People don’t just start dying in greater numbers out of nowhere and any knock on effect goes nowhere near explaining it (it may be seen in months to come but not then). If they were a business they’d be up for corporate manslaughter charges by now. Our inability to test people and gauge positives has been shocking. I know it brings us into line with other countries but it further exposes this failure. The seroprevalence figures out today are interesting, 6% or so nationwide. 13% in London. 32% asymptomatic at the lowest end of predictions making an IFR of 0.9% not including excess deaths and care homes where that lack of testing happened. With those an IFR of 1.58% but caveats with that. www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/institute-of-global-health-innovation/Ward-et-al-120820-REACT-2.pdfEDIT: going through the figures and it shows just how well shielding has worked. Half the prevalence when you hit 65 and over and 10-20% lower for those with one or more underlying conditions. One weird one which keeps cropping up, current smokers markedly less likely to be positive. May give a clue as to the nature of the virus but more study needed on that. |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 13, 2020 14:57:01 GMT
Death rates revised down by 5000 for England. Now only includes cases where there has been a positive test within the past 28 days. Not sure that some have picked up how much worse this is for the government. Because of this manipulation the excess deaths figure has just risen by 5000 with these deaths being nearly all from a time when there was zero community testing. People don’t just start dying in greater numbers out of nowhere and any knock on effect goes nowhere near explaining it (it may be seen in months to come but not then). If they were a business they’d be up for corporate manslaughter charges by now. Our inability to test people and gauge positives has been shocking. I know it brings us into line with other countries but it further exposes this failure. The seroprevalence figures out today are interesting, 6% or so nationwide. 13% in London. 32% asymptomatic at the lowest end of predictions making an IFR of 0.9% not including excess deaths and care homes where that lack of testing happened. With those an IFR of 1.58% but caveats with that. www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/institute-of-global-health-innovation/Ward-et-al-120820-REACT-2.pdfEDIT: going through the figures and it shows just how well shielding has worked. Half the prevalence when you hit 65 and over and 10-20% lower for those with one or more underlying conditions. One weird one which keeps cropping up, current smokers markedly less likely to be positive. May give a clue as to the nature of the virus but more study needed on that. How have excess deaths risen by 5000? Excess deaths is just the number of deaths over the 5 year average of deaths in the same period. They would always have been counted in this. I believe that we are now in the 7th week of reporting deaths below the 5 year average, so currently 7 weeks of negative excess deaths. |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Aug 13, 2020 15:37:27 GMT
Your move, Pasek and Paul! I am surprised they would risk trying it out on the rich and famous. But then again, it may be years before anything affects his health A rich and famous older person is more likely to have the means to volunteer for this than an older person who's not, as well as deal with any weird side effects. (And if they're getting a wide range of ages for this trial, even better.) |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 13, 2020 15:42:49 GMT
The reclassification moves the focus on those who have died that could have been saved if they were not discouraged from visiting Doctors and Hospitals.
We have an excess number of deaths in the first 7 months of this year which would require an equally significant reduction in the next 4 months as peak COVID and currently we are around 1% below the weekly 5 year average.
No matter what, whether COVID or not this Government has presided over the largest number of peacetime civilian deaths in modern history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 18:21:47 GMT
How have excess deaths risen by 5000? Excess deaths is just the number of deaths over the 5 year average of deaths in the same period. They would always have been counted in this. I believe that we are now in the 7th week of reporting deaths below the 5 year average, so currently 7 weeks of negative excess deaths. Shifted if you are looking at overall numbers, added if you are looking at ‘unexplained’ ones. It’s a pretty transparent ploy. |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 13, 2020 18:51:59 GMT
Shifted where?
Excess deaths is deaths over and above the average. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow and die or if I die from covid or if I die of a heart attack my death counts in daily figures.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 13, 2020 19:16:23 GMT
Using set theory
we have 3 populations:
- those who died from COVID (A)
- those who died of something else (B)
- those who had COVID and subsequently died of something else (C)
The total population is say 65,000 excess deaths.
Last week we had
A: 45,000
B: 20,000
C: 0
This week we have
A: 40,000
B: 20,000
C: 5,000
Even though we still have the same number of deaths we have ‘shifted’ some to a new set ‘something else post COVID infection’
We now have the classic centre of a Venn Diagram which we didn’t have last week.
Not sure if there those who died post COVID Test +28 Days would have died anyway or an excess or death bought about by COVID but now these are considered separately and COVID is not recorded as the primary cause of death.
I believe further analysis is being done to determine exactly which of the 2 initial sets a death fits in to going forward.
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Aug 13, 2020 19:26:46 GMT
The numbers of dead is the same. What this will eventually prove, and it is still being understated, that more people will have died from being protected from coronavirus than from the disease itself. Lunacy.
|
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 13, 2020 19:34:39 GMT
Using set theory we have 3 populations: - those who died from COVID (A) - those who died of something else (B) - those who had COVID and subsequently died of something else (C) The total population is say 65,000 excess deaths. Last week we had A: 45,000 B: 20,000 C: 0 This week we have A: 40,000 B: 20,000 C: 5,000 Even though we still have the same number of deaths we have ‘shifted’ them to a new set ‘something else post COVID infection’ We now have the classic centre of a Venn Diagram which we didn’t have last week. Not sure if there those who died post COVID Test +28 Days would have died anyway or an excess or death bought about by COVID but now these are considered separately and COVID is not recorded as the primary cause of death. I believe further analysis is being done to determine exactly which of the 2 initial sets a death fits in to going forward. Yup correct but the number of excess deaths stays the same and the death will still be recorded on the same day it was before, it just won’t be recorded as a COVID death. Albeit I understand they are going to report three different totals, 1) death if you ever had a positive Covid test, 2) death with positive Covid test in the last 28 days and 3) death and positive Covid test in last 60 days. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 19:44:15 GMT
Shifted where? Excess deaths is deaths over and above the average. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow and die or if I die from covid or if I die of a heart attack my death counts in daily figures. For the latter, as that's easier, cardiovascular effects are a major concern with covid and heart attacks are a manifestation of that, so it's very plausibly covid related if they have a diagnosis. I have these sorts of long term issues but I'm not going to keel over any time soon. If I do, it is pretty certain that covid did it and it's why I'm seen as a high risk. This bus analogy seems to crop up regularly from certain quarters. Would love to know it's provenance, can you link to it please? The odds are much less, obviously, for being knocked over and killed by one but I'm wondering where PHE have coded traffic accidents in that way. Evidence needed, as they say... EDIT: On the difference between 28 days, 60 days and so on, you can see the difference as this site has already adapted to the new methodologies. covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com/ |
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Aug 13, 2020 20:32:51 GMT
The numbers of dead is the same. What this will eventually prove, and it is still being understated, that more people will have died from being protected from coronavirus than from the disease itself. Lunacy. How is that the case? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 20:34:48 GMT
The numbers of dead is the same. What this will eventually prove, and it is still being understated, that more people will have died from being protected from coronavirus than from the disease itself. Lunacy. Only lunacy if you ignore that an order of magnitude more people would have died from Covid-19 if people hadn't been protected. Current data suggests that if we hadn't put everything into fighting the coronavirus we'd have had around 420,000 deaths in the first wave (UK population of 66.6m × 70% infection rate × 0.9% infection fatality rate). |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 13, 2020 20:52:16 GMT
Shifted where? Excess deaths is deaths over and above the average. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow and die or if I die from covid or if I die of a heart attack my death counts in daily figures. For the latter, as that's easier, cardiovascular effects are a major concern with covid and heart attacks are a manifestation of that, so it's very plausibly covid related if they have a diagnosis. I have these sorts of long term issues but I'm not going to keel over any time soon. If I do, it is pretty certain that covid did it and it's why I'm seen as a high risk. This bus analogy seems to crop up regularly from certain quarters. Would love to know it's provenance, can you link to it please? The odds are much less, obviously, for being knocked over and killed by one but I'm wondering where PHE have coded traffic accidents in that way. Evidence needed, as they say... EDIT: On the difference between 28 days, 60 days and so on, you can see the difference as this site has already adapted to the new methodologies. covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com/But there isn’t now a new 5000 excess deaths. They were always there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 21:37:15 GMT
For the latter, as that's easier, cardiovascular effects are a major concern with covid and heart attacks are a manifestation of that, so it's very plausibly covid related if they have a diagnosis. I have these sorts of long term issues but I'm not going to keel over any time soon. If I do, it is pretty certain that covid did it and it's why I'm seen as a high risk. This bus analogy seems to crop up regularly from certain quarters. Would love to know it's provenance, can you link to it please? The odds are much less, obviously, for being knocked over and killed by one but I'm wondering where PHE have coded traffic accidents in that way. Evidence needed, as they say... EDIT: On the difference between 28 days, 60 days and so on, you can see the difference as this site has already adapted to the new methodologies. covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com/But there isn’t now a new 5000 excess deaths. They were always there. I already explained that, the shift to 28 days creates another 5000 excess supposedly non covid deaths. I’m guessing you thought I was referring to overall rather than unexplained, maybe I wasn’t clear enough on that. Would like to see these cases where people were coded as covid rather than traffic accidents. Haven’t been able to find anything official myself from the UK, just one in Florida. |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 13, 2020 23:06:05 GMT
Ah yeah I see, as you say I thought you meant total.
I’m not doubting that some of those deaths that are now outside 28 days were actually Covid deaths, just in the same way that I can imagine there were some deaths that may have been put down as Covid even though they would have died the same time anyway from something else, they just happened to also have a positive Covid test.
Thing is we will never know. The only way we’ll be able to measure is from overall excess deaths in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 23:18:24 GMT
Ah yeah I see, as you say I thought you meant total. I’m not doubting that some of those deaths that are now outside 28 days were actually Covid deaths, just in the same way that I can imagine there were some deaths that may have been put down as Covid even though they would have died the same time anyway from something else, they just happened to also have a positive Covid test. Thing is we will never know. The only way we’ll be able to measure is from overall excess deaths in my opinion. I agree, it’s the internationally accepted comparison measure in any case, as it’s less easy to manipulate, |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Aug 14, 2020 7:24:17 GMT
Fine for not wearing a face covering now up to £100 but has increased to £3,200 for repeat offenders:
|
|
395 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Aug 14, 2020 7:29:27 GMT
Ah yeah I see, as you say I thought you meant total. I’m not doubting that some of those deaths that are now outside 28 days were actually Covid deaths, just in the same way that I can imagine there were some deaths that may have been put down as Covid even though they would have died the same time anyway from something else, they just happened to also have a positive Covid test. Thing is we will never know. The only way we’ll be able to measure is from overall excess deaths in my opinion. The last bit isn't quite true. We know how many people have C-19 listed as cause of death on death certificate (again not wholly accurate as some will have it listed when it wasn't the cause and some who died of it are probably listed as pneumonia etc). I imagine someone will at some point spend time looking at the survival analysis for people tested positive for C-19 to see what the tail of the distribution looks like for those who died much later of C-19. All in an appropriately anonymised fashion of course to satisfy GDPR... |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 14, 2020 7:41:10 GMT
Ah yeah I see, as you say I thought you meant total. I’m not doubting that some of those deaths that are now outside 28 days were actually Covid deaths, just in the same way that I can imagine there were some deaths that may have been put down as Covid even though they would have died the same time anyway from something else, they just happened to also have a positive Covid test. Thing is we will never know. The only way we’ll be able to measure is from overall excess deaths in my opinion. The last bit isn't quite true. We know how many people have C-19 listed as cause of death on death certificate (again not wholly accurate as some will have it listed when it wasn't the cause and some who died of it are probably listed as pneumonia etc). I imagine someone will at some point spend time looking at the survival analysis for people tested positive for C-19 to see what the tail of the distribution looks like for those who died much later of C-19. All in an appropriately anonymised fashion of course to satisfy GDPR... As you say not wholly accurate. Which therefore leads us to having to look at excess deaths. Unless every country used exactly the same way of recording deaths from Covid then excess is surely the only accurate way to compare? |
|
395 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Aug 14, 2020 9:43:04 GMT
The last bit isn't quite true. We know how many people have C-19 listed as cause of death on death certificate (again not wholly accurate as some will have it listed when it wasn't the cause and some who died of it are probably listed as pneumonia etc). I imagine someone will at some point spend time looking at the survival analysis for people tested positive for C-19 to see what the tail of the distribution looks like for those who died much later of C-19. All in an appropriately anonymised fashion of course to satisfy GDPR... As you say not wholly accurate. Which therefore leads us to having to look at excess deaths. Unless every country used exactly the same way of recording deaths from Covid then excess is surely the only accurate way to compare? Not really - a good statistician would be able to account for the different data biases. And excess deaths themselves will need some control or else you will not be comparing like with like (comparability of health care systems for one). There is no simple way to compare things that is wholly reliable - excess deaths worked as a decent measure during the peak of the pandemic in Europe for example, but I wouldn't use it as a comparison with say India. Or if case numbers are low like they are now in Europe. The other reason to look at more than excess mortality is that includes all extra deaths, which during lockdown might include people not going to hospital when they have a heart attack (for example). Ideally you would want to know the magnitude of such effects as well or else the arguments about whether lockdown caused lots of extra deaths because of lockdown doesn't get resolved either. |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 14, 2020 11:34:48 GMT
Agreed it was the most accurate way of measuring at the time but the longer period you use the more deaths caused because of lockdown I.e people not visiting hospitals for treatment, diagnosis, mental health etc becomes part of the equation.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 14, 2020 11:45:42 GMT
If we do not get a second wave, the hypothesis, excess deaths above the 5yr average from July are attributable to the deferrement of treatment and would need to be nullified.
|
|
