Are the Government massaging the death rate.

My point is that care home care and management is a global issue, and the number of deaths in these homes is absolutely tragic. In most countries care homes have been locked down for many weeks. This means that any virus in the home must have been introduced by those with a responsibility of care.

In the area I live, one care home has already had 30 deaths. Another more local to me, has 88 residents and staff infected - only three deaths so far, but I fear that will not last. Almost all the local homes (14 of them) have a least one resident or staff member infected. Across multiple countries there are similar accounts.

The irony is that locally care homes are required to have qualified nurses on staff, and those nurses may have been doing double duty in local hospitals due to the pressure on the health service. In doing so they became unwitting vectors for the disease. As well, staff were permitted to work at multiple homes, so have spread the disease from one home to another.

While everyone involved had the best of intentions the combination of understandable ignorance about this virus and a failure of regulations designed to improve care has conspired to create an environment in which there will inevitably be multiple deaths.
OK. I just thought it was an emotive metaphor. Having looked after old folk in their last years and occasionally volunteering at a home, I have admiration for the lives these folk have led.

How infection is getting into homes is a question we need to understand to protect the 50% to 60% who haven't got it. Dischargees from hospitals to care homes have not been tested and that has been one source. But presumably carers must be as well.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tal-ill-patient-gps-vaccine-phe-a9244201.html

And I think they're only reporting the relative change in those reports. I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure.
The intensive care figures are miniscule compared with the death rates we're seeing now. If they all died at that rate it would be less than 3% of the covid-19 hospital deaths. Having looked at this once before, it is difficult to find actual flu death rates as it doesn't seem to be put down as a contributory factor very often.
 
The UK's CMO has publicly stated (and did again today) that doctors will register the death as being from Covid-19 if they believe it may have been the cause, regardless of whether the person had a test. Since pneumonia is one of the major causes of death among the elderly, and since the main symptom of Covid-19 is pneumonia I'd have thought it likely doctors in London or other areas with a high incidence of Covid-19 would be tempted to specify a death from pneumonia as suspected Covid-19. They might also add Covid-19 to the death certificate if someone died of heart failure or other causes but had symptoms of Covid-19 even though not tested. They could well be right, but we'll never know. No doubt by years end we'll see that flu deaths have fallen this year, despite this being a bad flu year prior to Covid-19.

Except that all of the evidence suggests the exact opposite. There were 6,000 more deaths in week ending 3rd April than is the average. Of those, just under 3,500 had Covid-19 mentioned on their death certificates, meaning that there were more than 2,500 unexplained excess deaths in that one week alone.

The only possible explanations could be that Covid-related deaths are being under-reported or that there has been a sudden spike in other causes of death. C4 News had a whisteblower GP tonight who told them that they knew of colleagues who, when they suspected Covid-19 as a cause of death, were writing pneumonia on death certificates instead, because of the additional scrutiny and evidence that coroners were requesting if they put Covid-19.

On the point about flu, I haven't got the most recent figures to hand, but as of two weeks ago there had been a total of 1,798 hospital admissions due to influenza so far this flu season, of which 103 patients had died. So far, we know there have been well in excess of 20,000 hospital admissions due to Covid-19 (they don't publish figures on who has recovered, so we only know the number hospitalised on any given day). Of all of those hospitalised, 13,729 have died (and we know that they all tested positive for Covid-19).

This is more deadly than seasonal flu by several orders of magnitude.
 
there has been a sudden spike in other causes of death
Today the CMO encouraged people to go to hospital if they're sick from causes other than Covid-19. There must be a statistically significant number of people who are dying of heart attacks and strokes (the two conditions he mentioned) because they don't get to hospital soon enough. Not saying that's the entire story on the discrepancy but evidently it's a matter of concern for the NHS. Heart attacks cause 170,000 deaths a year in the UK. And a significant number are in people under the age of 75 (around 40,000).

On Covid-19 versus the flu, the death numbers are high for Covid-19 in part because of the speed of transmission. For Covid-19 the R0 value is between 2 and 3 (Chinese scientists believe it's more like 4), whereas the flu is around 1.3.

To get an idea about what that means, consider that without any other factor and ignoring herd immunity an R0 of 3 would infect the entire population of the UK in 9 weeks or so. At that point with an R0 of 1.3 only 50,000 people would be infected. So even with a relatively low mortality rate that would produce an awful lot of deaths from Covid-19. (Without other factors slowing the spread around 161,000 in a few months with the lowest rate I've read about of 0.37%).

So is the mortality rate Iceland's current rate of 0.4% or closer to the UK's apparent rate of 13%? Out of interest Iceland's mortality rate is similar to that found in Gangelt Germany by University of Bonn researchers (0.37%). That team found 15% of the towns inhabitants had already been infected with Covid-19. The vast majority showed no symptoms. Germany are now running a much larger investigation due to report in May. Porton Down are supposedly running an antibody study but when the CMO was asked today about the research he appeared to obfuscate.
 
Last edited:
The UK's CMO has publicly stated (and did again today) that doctors will register the death as being from Covid-19 if they believe it may have been the cause, regardless of whether the person had a test.
Yes, which means a medical professional has to certify that they presume the deceased person had CoVid-19. Which again, is a whole lot different from certifying all deaths as CoVid-19 simply because the virus "is present in the area," as you stated earlier.

Incidentally, This is the same policy for attributing deaths to CoVid-19 used in many different places, probably partly due to the lack of the availability of testing. New York uses the same criteria, for instance.

As the article below points out, in New York:
officials said they were now including people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have died of it.

New York Coronavirus deaths
 
Four further deaths announced by South Tees NHS Trust, taking total to 126.

Four further deaths announced by North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, taking total to 44.

South Tees NHS Trust are 3rd highest (same as yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region (out of 25 NHS Trusts) and the joint 32nd highest (from joint 31st yesterday) in the country (out of 164 NHS Trusts in England).

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust are 17th (from 18th yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region and the joint 103rd (from joint 106th yesterday) in the country.
 
Eight further deaths announced by South Tees NHS Trust, taking total to 134.

Two further deaths announced by North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, taking total to 46.

South Tees NHS Trust are 3rd highest (same as yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region (out of 25 NHS Trusts) and the joint 32nd highest (same as yesterday) in the country (out of 164 NHS Trusts in England). [South Tees is tied with Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, interestingly enough].

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust are 17th (same as yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region and the joint 105th (from joint 103rd yesterday) in the country.
 
No further deaths announced by South Tees NHS Trust, total remaining at 134.

Three further deaths announced by North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, taking total to 49.

South Tees NHS Trust are 3rd highest (same as yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region (out of 25 NHS Trusts) and the 35th highest (from joint 32nd yesterday) in the country (out of 164 NHS Trusts in England).

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust are 17th (same as yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region and the joint 104th (from joint 105th yesterday) in the country.
 
1122 infections in Teesside and 157 in NY in South Tees hospital district.

4.4 % increase in Teesside. About the same as the national average. The data doesn't stipulate how many of these are community and how many NHS tests.
 
Last edited:
No further deaths announced by South Tees NHS Trust, total remaining at 134.

Two further deaths announced by North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, taking total to 51.

South Tees NHS Trust are 4th highest (from 3rd yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region (out of 25 NHS Trusts) and the joint 36th highest (from 35th yesterday) in the country (out of 164 NHS Trusts in England).

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust are joint 16th (from 17th yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region and the joint 104th (same as yesterday) in the country.
 
Billy, which trusts have the highest and lowest numbers of infections and deaths?

University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust is the highest in the country with 600 deaths, which is probably to be expected as it is the biggest Trust in the country. It is significantly ahead of the second placed Trust (Royal Free London) which has reported 387.

There are 15 NHS Trusts which have each reported only one death. I'm presuming they're all relatively small Trusts, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious geographical pattern to them, as they are spread across the country.
 
No further deaths announced by South Tees NHS Trust, total remaining at 134.

Two further deaths announced by North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, taking total to 51.

South Tees NHS Trust are 4th highest (from 3rd yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region (out of 25 NHS Trusts) and the joint 36th highest (from 35th yesterday) in the country (out of 164 NHS Trusts in England).

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust are joint 16th (from 17th yesterday) in terms of number of deaths in the North East & Yorkshire region and the joint 104th (same as yesterday) in the country.
For hospital deaths, approximately 14.4% of those who have presented themselves to hospitals for testing have died compared with 13.3% country wide. (That doesn't include NHS testing numbers which aren't available locally that will change those figures up a little or care home and home deaths.)
 
For hospital deaths, approximately 14.4% of those who have presented themselves to hospitals for testing have died compared with 13.3% country wide. (That doesn't include NHS testing numbers which aren't available locally that will change those figures up a little or care home and home deaths.)

Yes, although I've noticed they've changed the definitions of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 in the testing dataset. Pillar 1 is now "swab testing in PHE labs and NHS hospitals for those with a medical need and the most critical workers and their families" whilst Pillar 2 is "swab testing for key workers and their households", so the 14.4% figure might be a little bit higher in reality.
 
Does anybody see the point in these daily briefings anymore?

I'd change it to weekly. The same repetitive questions are been asked by the same journalists and avoided by different members of government every evening.

A short bulletin accessible by media regarding figures and updates etc posted every day would be more than sufficient.
 
Yes, although I've noticed they've changed the definitions of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 in the testing dataset. Pillar 1 is now "swab testing in PHE labs and NHS hospitals for those with a medical need and the most critical workers and their families" whilst Pillar 2 is "swab testing for key workers and their households", so the 14.4% figure might be a little bit higher in reality.
I hadn't noticed that change. Makes sense from a testing point of view.
 
Back
Top