Forum menu
Kelvin, I noticed, but it’s most of the year. Got any other explanations?
Yes it's not a valid number to compare - download the data for 2020 from the ONS
Add up the 2020 columns for England and Wales, compare to the 5 year average and maxima then come back and find a recipe for humble pie.
Thanks Jam-bo, but the other stats are also from the same source. I can't explain the difference.
Got any other explanations?
you only want to 'understand the statistics' if they fit your narrative. classic conspiracy theorist bullshit.
how about next time you get paid, you only get 95% of what you were expecting, its most of a paypacket eh.
Not sure what Fat Mountain is trying to prove, but wasn't 2018 a particularly bad flu year?
That being so, the fact that 2020 with all it restrictions is higher indicates this is a nasty pandemic indeed.
Apologies if I've missed the point.
Have you read the article?
Yes.
fatmountain offered (I think) the figure of 541,589 for 2018.
Following the links in the article to the data, provided updated figures for 2020.
Number is >600, 000 for "Weekly provisional figures on deaths registered in England and Wales1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11" - figure is >600,000 regardless if you use 52 weeks or 53 weeks.
Thanks Jam-bo, but the other stats are also from the same source. I can’t explain the difference.
i can, quite easily.
the numbers you quoted on p606 and again on this page compared deaths in 2018 to deaths in 2020 up to 11 dec.
so you werent comparing like with like and when this was pointed out, countered with, 'its close enough'
well, funnily enough it isnt, another 50,000 people died in that three weeks...
thepurist,
I have no problems with being humbled by reality. It tends to happen a lot. It's better to be wrong about stuff rather than carry on in a delusion. I'm happy to admit that. Still, I argue my questions/points remain valid whether it's a "excess" 100,000 deaths or not.
I can’t explain the difference.
Why not? One was a provisional figure with data available in early December, one is a provisional figure based on data available at the end of December. The final figure will be revised up higher still, once all deaths at the end of December are reported and included.
All you need to know... is that this pandemic is real, and with all the measures in place, has killed thousands upon thousands of people... yes extra deaths... without those measures we'd be looking at it killing about 1 in every 200 people. Thank god we avoided that... but why have we done as poorly as we have?
"another 50,000 people died in that three weeks…"
Did they really? All of covid-19?
Did they really? All of covid-19?
No, not all of covid-19.
Still, I argue my questions/points remain valid whether it’s a “excess” 100,000 deaths or not.
It is. Why do you think it is not? If you want to avoid "emotive" arguments, and just understand the stats... where does this idea that these aren't excess deaths come from?
Still, I argue my questions/points remain valid whether it’s a “excess” 100,000 deaths or not.
OK, so back to my emotive rhetoric. How many excess deaths would it take before you would stop mewling about lockdowns? Bear in mind that the current 100,000 would be multiplied significantly in the absence of lockdowns.
Give us a figure of what is acceptable in population terms.
All you need to know, is that this pandemic is real, and with all the measures in place, has killed thousands upon thousands of people… without those measures we’d be looking at a it killing 1 in 200 people.
I didn't say it wasn't real and I'm questioning the long-term practicality of those measures. I'm questing how much you can stop life becasue of death. But we're going in circles now so I'll check out. I wish everyone the best of luck with handling this nightmare.
Perhaps fatmountain could quantify exactly what he would be like to be doing so we can assess how many life years for other people’s mums/dads/grandparents etc are expendable to help him ‘live his life’. I feel we need a yardstick for his individual tragedy which makes all these other tragedies worthwhile.
That doesn't help. Were you clamouring for lockdowns two years ago when we had 50,000 excess deaths? It's not black and white.
you only want to ‘understand the statistics’ if they fit your narrative. classic conspiracy theorist bullshit.
That doesn't help either. It is better to explain than dismiss.
Fatmountain: At the end of the day we have 100,000 excess deaths and a government that has nothing to gain from lockdowns. The statistics beyond that are often confusing, inconsistent, contradictory and unhelpful, but the big picture is clear.
^^^
more conspiracy classics, get proven to be wrong. change the subject.
I’m questioning the long-term practicality of those measures.
Sounds fairy 'nuff.
I’m questing how much you can stop life becasue of death.
Sounds a tinsy bit Harold Shipman...
Bear in mind that the current 100,000 would be multiplied significantly in the absence of lockdowns.
What if we'd just locked down the elderly?
There's a great Indy Sage video posted way back in this thread explaining why the "just lock down the elderly" would still result in a very high death rate, in the elderly and the wider community.
We are looping... and you keep prompting the loop chrispo. Why?
Bit late for 'what ifs', might have worked OK, but we'd have a load of 70-year-olds going 'only 500 have died, give us our FREEDUUMMM'.
Got a link to that? I must warn you I'm fully prepared to view it and then ignore it if it doesn't fit in my worldview. 🙂
I can't find the Indy Sage video, which is a shame as it explained the issues very well, in a way that I could easily follow.
Here's a much drier report from Sage covering it though: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spi-m-o-summary-of-sage-advice-on-segmentation-15-october-2020
Thanks - that all makes perfect sense.
Thanks Jam-bo, but the other stats are also from the same source. I can’t explain the difference.
If you don't like those stats or they don't fit within your narrative then im sure you'll find what you need on Facebook.
Jesus Christ I can't believe were still discussing this sort of shite
If you don’t like those stats or they don’t fit within your narrative then im sure you’ll find what you need on Facebook.
Jesus Christ I can’t believe were still discussing this sort of shite
The longer we have to live with restrictions, the more folk will question the value of them. There's a legitimate discussion to be had. It must, though, be based on hard facts.
Jesus Christ I can’t believe were still discussing this sort of shite
A kinder response would be to post a little cut-and-paste list of useful links to simple and credible information that would help allay people's fears, rather than exclude and ridicule them.
I still stick my head above the parapet from time to time and it still gets blown off every time, but some of the helpful responses have been, well, helpful.
The longer we have to live with restrictions, the more folk will question the value of them.
This is so true.
Outside of the prism of this STW a lot of people are asking how long the restrictions can go on for and when they'll release.
Few have definitive answers, but people are getting restless whether they should be or not.
It's in English and worth a read.
The longer we have to live with restrictions, the more folk will question the value of them. There’s a legitimate discussion to be had. It must, though, be based on hard facts.
This
Covid will never go away (it took 200 to eradicate Small Pox), so at some point we’re going to have to say x amount of deaths a year is acceptable, and just get on with things.
Just like Brexit, the public will get fed up with talking about it and just want to move on with life.
just get on with things
Er... no.. we're going to have to use vaccinations and improved treatments to seriously improve the outcomes for those that are currently most at risk of long term damage or death.
There will be continued measures for some time to reduce prevalence... but the current restrictions are only short term. We might have to use them again for a brief period next winter, but not longer term.
Sadly it looks like we may be able to mitigate the majority of the effects of severe disease for now. But longer term this is going to have a hangover.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a small increase in excess deaths for a number of years to come.
This is due to covid not necessarily as a result of direct covid infection, but it will have an effect.
Er… no.. we’re going to have to use vaccinations and improved treatments to seriously improve the outcomes for those that are currently most at risk of long term damage or death.
I said:
at some point we’re going to have to say x amount of deaths a year is acceptable, and just get on with things
I didnt say that that is today.
How long do you want to wait?
Please give me an indicative timescale (months/years)?
I'll answer the other question:
How many old peoples deaths are acceptable to you?
20,000 per year in the UK
These are the typical number of annual deaths related to Flu, and we dont go into Lockdown every winter because of these.
20,000 per year in the UK
These are the typical number of annual deaths related to Flu, and we dont go into Lockdown every winter because of these.
In the future I wonder if flu deaths will drop, as some people who would otherwise have died due to flu end up dying due to Covid.
The same will be true of other causes of death. 165,000 per year due to cancer. That includes all of those who might have succumbed to something else previously but were saved due to advancements in other areas. We might see that number drop if deaths are marked down to Covid and the Excess Deaths figure will decrease as the average we measure it against will start to include Covid years.
Quite possibly, but as this is currently much more infectious and more deadly than flu, we can't realistically expect the annual overall total to be smaller than this. Additional measures could well be the norm in future - it could be that at least winter mask usage and enhanced hygiene around shops, public transport and care homes are here to stay. Annual vaccination in the run-up to winter is a given - as we already do for flu.
I'm not prepared to go on like this indefinitely, at some point you have to move on from lockdowns and accept there is a rational debate on the balance of our way of life versus excess deaths.
Quantifying an acceptable number of deaths is sadly impossible as you will never get a country of 65 million people to agree, so the real question is who makes that decision for us and when.
For example 450,000 British people died as a result of our involvement in WW2, which was a direct result of attempting to protect our freedom and way of life. Not many people would say those deaths were in vain. I'm not saying I agree with this, but is there not an argument that at some point if vaccinations dont get a grip on Covid, that getting on with life and the resultant excess deaths are simply as a result of protecting our freedoms and way of life?
I dont know what my stance on this is to be honest, but to dismiss it as a debate is plain wrong. Massively undeniably wrong.
I agree that it's going to be an important debate, but it's not one to have at the moment, when people are itching to get "free" and there's all this misinformation about "lockdowns not working" and about how it's all just about "control" etc, all of which would be empowered and encouraged by the debate. Also, we're really at the start of what should be one of the biggest influences on that decision, there are still major unknowns about the long term effect of the vaccine that will start to become knowns and that'll be critical to know what the right steps are.
Ultimately we live with the flu; we'll almost certainly have to do the same for covid, once it gets into the same league as the flu, I think it's fair to say we just don't have the tools to eradicate it. Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- "living with it" doesn't mean "just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead", it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality. But even just "living with it" is a very dangerous term right now.
165,000 per year due to cancer.
not all at the same time though, Covid deaths are short term all at the same time. Cancer takes years and that threat isn’t going to go away
I think there is a spectrum between what is acceptable because you have no option, and what is acceptable because it's expensive financially, inconvenient personally, and a bit depressing. Currently we're somewhere between the two.
If we were genuinely in a position where vaccination was not an option, and significantly improved treatments were not approaching, then yes, hard decisions would have to be made.
But presently we are only just over the threshold of a mass vaccination programme, which offers at least the prospect of protecting most of our most vulnerable citizens. The alternative to lockdown right now is avoidable death on an even greater scale, and people who disingenously proffer 'facts' suggesting the impact of Covid isn't that great because they want their 'freedom' are unhelpful, to put it mildly, because there really isn't any alternative over the next couple of months.
Personally, I'm hopeful that by next winter, we will not be needing to have a debate about lockdowns because vaccines alongside some behavioural changes will be enough to limit deaths to something approaching a 'bad' winter.
How many old peoples deaths are acceptable to you?
20,000 per year in the UK
These are the typical number of annual deaths related to Flu, and we dont go into Lockdown every winter because of these.
So back to pre-COVID levels? Still controls on mixing until then?
Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- “living with it” doesn’t mean “just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead”, it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality.
Agreed, its finding that balance that will be key. I'm certainty not in favour of reaching a certain point and giving up and removing all restrictions. But I really do think they should be gradually removed once we have scientifically established the impact of vaccination.
I don't think we're getting back to pre-Covid levels of winter mortality for a good few years.
I'm not sure about controls on mixing, but I'm hopeful that the idea that you don't go to work, or go and see elderly relatives, with a fever and a cough will gain some traction, along with wearing masks on public transport and shops during the winter peak. I think care homes may have to be locked down a bit at some points as well.
The NHS will also need to be funded properly to cope with winter activity...which will be the ultimate challenge given the number of staff who I predict will be out of the door this coming year.
I'd be willing to bet that flu deaths are substantially reduced this year, due to lockdown. Which makes the excess deaths number even worse.
Also, it appears that the IFR is still around the 1% it was estimated to be back before lockdown 1. That means that without measures we would be looking at something like 680,000 deaths - almost all of which would have happened by now given the exponential spread we saw in March. Just take a minute to imagine what that would have been like for the NHS, mortuaries, and of course the families, and see if you still think lockdown was an excessive response.
So back to pre-COVID levels?
My suggestion was that 20.000 annual deaths for a similar type of disease is currently "acceptable", so 20,000 annual Covid deaths would be at a similar level of acceptability.
Its complicated as deaths are usually a mixture of different issues, but I was just stating a number to get the debate moving.
Still controls on mixing until then?
In some form or another.
Theres a balancing act between allowing people to mix and live there lives and controlling the disease spreading.
That could be Lockdown until prevalence drops below x% of the population, and then a sliding scale of what restrictions/mixing are allowed until we get to a level where deaths are seen as "acceptable"
Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- “living with it” doesn’t mean “just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead”, it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality.
What does that actually look like in proctice - having some specific limited number of beds for covid patients and then leaving the rest to die at home? Given that this thing spreads like wildfire even in the absence of pubs, cinemas, shops etc., doesn't that lock us in to a ever-growing mountain of dead bodies?
Well that escalated quickly 😉
I've spent nine months analysing the weekly mortality figures for the UK and elsewhere. My work was presented at SAGE. I am sorry to say, that despite the significant restrictions put in place to control the spread of SARS-CoV2, the UK recorded about eight weeks more death than typical for the past ten years, and five weeks more than the largest number seen over the same period. That kind of outlier (WITH controls) is, to say the least unusual.
Now the first rule in epidemic land; EVERYTHING is more complex that the headline would lead you to believe. Yes, average age of death is over 80 - they'd have died anyway. Except they would not - actuarial analysis has definitively shown this. In fact, these deaths are in people not treated. The healthcare service is doing a very good job of treating a continuous tsunami surge of hypoxic patients. And their mortality is actually relatively low. Pray it stays that way. Half of patients in UK hospitals are being treated for COVID19. Oxygen supply pressures have had to be lowered to maintain demand in some hospitals. Think about that. This is unprecedented.
As for MORBIDITY, this is the big factor. Will there be a surge in cardiovascular disease in previously healthy young who have not cleared the virus effectively? As one of those (well youngish), this area is the one most likely to yield surprises in long-term studies. The vaccine is most definitely a protection against this bottom of the iceberg (deaths being the tip).
And the good news. I agree with @thecaptain REACT analysis looks wrong (again), the ONS is showing, together with ZOE, daily cases and now admissions, that the lockdown controls work. Deaths will follow presently. They are expensive measures and have many other consequences. But the evidence that they are effective in controlling spread is now unequivocal. Skepticism needs to move on to other matters of debate like economics and education, because efficacy in not one - "No second wave"?
With regards to cancer and CV deaths, these are LINEAR, predictable. Infectious diseases are not linear, they run on a surge and can easily overwhelm resource. That's transmission for you.
When this is over, I'll be out marching for my rights is not returned. I think this is very, very unlikely
[tl:dr] Things are always more complex than they appear. Deaths are not the only story, but the one they tell is unequivocal. And does not make good reading.
Lockdown is actually working very well and the effect on deaths will soon be very clear. Keep with it!
Agreed based on the numbers so far.
Again, it's just a feeling - but the Lanchester equations Army intelligence were using during the Vietnam war told them they were winning as well. They weren't and didn't. Lockdown is the best of a very poor bunch of tools in the context of keeping deaths down until the vaccines become effective. No one has responded to my worries about the vaccines though.
We do as a nation need to have a debate about how we improve the health and fitness of the population, it's an inescapable fact that if you are overweight and suffering from some of the illnesses that come with that then you are far more likely to succumb to this virus, one of the reasons why the idea that those who are vulnerable should self isolate and the rest of the country get on with their lives is a none starter is that there so many that this applies to. A lot of people are taking drugs to treat illnesses that could also be treated with changes in lifestyle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://news.sky.com/nhs-in-numbers
The Sky news page is certainly an eye opener, some of the figures in the common conditions section are staggering