Are the Government massaging the death rate.

[bear66]

In 2015 as you suggest excess deaths suggest 28000 died from influenza.

It wasn't even that number. It was 16145 and from the report:

This surveillance is undertaken on all-cause mortality and so the cause of the significant increase cannot be determined through this analysis. However it was noted that the rise coincided with an increased proportion of influenza detections in the European influenza surveillance schemes, with a main predominance of influenza A(H3N2) viruses seen throughout Europe. However it was also noted that cold snaps and other respiratory infections may also have contributed to the observation of increased excess mortality.

It was a particularly cold winter, with periods down to -10degC and a lot of snow.

 

[bear66]

Icelandic research suggests 50% of all those tested were asymptomatic.

Wrong. You tried to mislead us with wrongly interpreted S Korea asymptomatic test results the other day as well.

In Iceland, 50% who tested positive for Corona virus had no symptoms. Perhaps they would develop symptoms. Perhaps they'd recovered from symptoms. Overall, more than 99% were negative.

 

[HolgateCorner]

So, I thought this hospital admissions dataset must be the cumulative total of daily admissions, but then noticed it reducing in certain regions towards the end of the period. Therefore (and this is a guess because they don't actually tell you), I think it's a record of all patients who are hospitalised with Covid-19 on any given day.

Anyway, I think the data is probably illustrating how the virus is spreading around the country. For example, on 17th March (Day 1), London accounted for 60% of all hospitalisations whilst the North East & Yorkshire was just 6%. Fast forward to 3rd April and London accounts for 30% of hospitalisations, whilst North East & Yorkshire has increased to 14% (of much bigger numbers obviously).

In a similar vein, the numbers for London have increased by less than the national average on 16 of the 18 days in the dataset. Conversely, the numbers for the North East & Yorkshire have increased by more than the national average on 17 out of 18 days.

This would appear to no longer be an issue mainly in London and becoming less and less so every day.

I’m struggling to understand why there should be any lag in the virus impact anywhere in the UK when all regions have taken exactly the same lockdown measures unless it is something to do with the students and people working away returning home for the lockdown.

 

[Alvez_48]

Alvez, I understand your sentiments but I would have to disagree with your interpretation of the statistics.

We are only testing people who have illness severe enough to require hospitalisation. Of those who then test positive, we are only reporting the number who subsequently die within the hospital setting.

There may be an incredibly small number who had other critical illness in addition to their Covid-19 diagnosis, but it will be so small as to be of no statistical significance. That number would also be dwarfed by the Covid-19 deaths occurring in the community that are not included in the daily figures.

These are people who are indeed dying OF Coronavirus. This is also why you can’t compare this with the numbers who are estimated to die annually from seasonal flu-related complications, because those numbers are purely estimates based on the number of excess deaths during the flu season.

Anyone who thinks this is anything other than the greatest public health emergency we have faced in our lifetimes is still in denial.

I'm sorry but you're simply wrong.

I posted a BBC article about this the other day outlining this and the Italian health minister said a couple of weeks ago that after post mortem only 12% of people who have died, died without at least 1 co-morbidity most died with 2 or 3.

It's why when you read beyond the headlines the articles state that patients die with coronavirus. It's because it's a notifiable disease.

 

[Billy Horner]

I'm sorry but you're simply wrong.

I posted a BBC article about this the other day outlining this and the Italian health minister said a couple of weeks ago that after post mortem only 12% of people who have died, died without at least 1 co-morbidity most died with 2 or 3.

It's why when you read beyond the headlines the articles state that patients die with coronavirus. It's because it's a notifiable disease.

That’s not what I said though. Of course the vast majority of people dying have co-morbidities, we know that from the statistics and from the number of stories on the news of specific individuals dying who had “underlying health conditions’. However, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they would have died from those, had they not contracted Covid-19.

What we also know is that all of the people who are included in the official death statistics have presented in hospital with severe Covid-19 symptoms (because otherwise they wouldn’t have been tested) and have gone on to die whilst in the hospital. I said that there may be a very small number who had other ‘critical illness’ (i.e. immediately life threatening not merely a co-morbidity) but that number will be very, very small.

Of course, there will still be people with underlying health conditions who have heart attacks, strokes, etc. and unfortunately pass away. However, those people will not have been tested for Covid-19 and so will not be included in the statistics, whether they happened to have contracted it or not.

And to the various posters still quoting annual flu-related deaths as a comparison, please stop. We’ve been over this multiple times now.

The annual flu-related death figures are based on a purely statistical exercise examining ‘excess deaths’. The Office for National Statistics compares the total number of people who died during the flu season with the total number of people who died elsewhere in the year, calculates the number of excess deaths and attributes those to being flu-related. There is no actual evidence that any of those people died because of flu, or even that they had flu, it’s just an assumption.

To compare like with like you need to look at hospital admissions and hospital deaths of confirmed cases. In 2019/20 there have been a total of 1,798 admissions to hospital for influenza, of which 103 patients died. For Covid-19 there have already been in excess of 13,000 hospital admissions and 4,313 deaths.

This is not the same as seasonal flu!

 

[Alvez_48]

Mate you're just wrong.

'
Of course, there will still be people with underlying health conditions who have heart attacks, strokes, etc. and unfortunately pass away. However, those people will not have been tested for Covid-19 and so will not be included in the statistics, whether they happened to have contracted it or not.
'
Again this is a horrible disease for some of the most vulnerable people and we need to protect them but honestly you are plainlywrong.. if someone who's been tested for coronavirus positive and dies of a heart attack they do go into the died WITH coronavirus statistics as it's notifiable disease, infact there's been various confirmation of this.

As for co morbidities as I've said the Italians themselves as well as the BBC article again show you're completely wrong. Look. Them. Up.

I've not mentioned flu anywhere.

 

[Laughing]

Mate you're just wrong.

'
Of course, there will still be people with underlying health conditions who have heart attacks, strokes, etc. and unfortunately pass away. However, those people will not have been tested for Covid-19 and so will not be included in the statistics, whether they happened to have contracted it or not.
'
Again this is a horrible disease for some of the most vulnerable people and we need to protect them but honestly you are plainlywrong.. if someone who's been tested for coronavirus positive and dies of a heart attack they do go into the died WITH coronavirus statistics as it's notifiable disease, infact there's been various confirmation of this.

As for co morbidities as I've said the Italians themselves as well as the BBC article again show you're completely wrong. Look. Them. Up.

I've not mentioned flu anywhere.

Alvez, and I don't know, what percentage of covid attributed deaths already had a terminal condition where they were likely to die in the coming couple of months? That puts an end to the argument one way or another.

 

[Billy Horner]

Mate you're just wrong.

'
Of course, there will still be people with underlying health conditions who have heart attacks, strokes, etc. and unfortunately pass away. However, those people will not have been tested for Covid-19 and so will not be included in the statistics, whether they happened to have contracted it or not.
'
Again this is a horrible disease for some of the most vulnerable people and we need to protect them but honestly you are plainlywrong.. if someone who's been tested for coronavirus positive and dies of a heart attack they do go into the died WITH coronavirus statistics as it's notifiable disease, infact there's been various confirmation of this.

As for co morbidities as I've said the Italians themselves as well as the BBC article again show you're completely wrong. Look. Them. Up.

I've not mentioned flu anywhere.

I would suggest that you start reading what people have posted before replying to them. I’ve fully acknowledged that the vast majority of people will have had co-morbidities, but that doesn’t mean that they would have died from them in the past two weeks had they not contracted Covid-19.

And the only reason why people are tested in the first place is that they are presenting at hospital with severe symptoms of Covid-19. So, again, my reference to people having heart attacks and strokes not being included is correct, as unless they also had severe Covid-19 symptoms they won’t have been tested and we wouldn’t know if they were positive or not.

If, however, someone is admitted into intensive care with severe Covid-19 and they go on to suffer cardiac arrest, I would say it was reasonable to include their deaths in the numbers. Wouldn’t you?

Finally, I didn’t accuse you of mentioning flu. That is why I directed those comments at the ‘various posters’ who have.

 

[Alvez_48]

I would suggest that you start reading what people have posted before replying to them. I’ve fully acknowledged that the vast majority of people will have had co-morbidities, but that doesn’t mean that they would have died from them in the past two weeks had they not contracted Covid-19.

And the only reason why people are tested in the first place is that they are presenting at hospital with severe symptoms of Covid-19. So, again, my reference to people having heart attacks and strokes not being included is correct, as unless they also had severe Covid-19 symptoms they won’t have been tested and we wouldn’t know if they were positive or not.

If, however, someone is admitted into intensive care with severe Covid-19 and they go on to suffer cardiac arrest, I would say it was reasonable to include their deaths in the numbers. Wouldn’t you?

Finally, I didn’t accuse you of mentioning flu. That is why I directed those comments at the ‘various posters’ who have.

Another article another viewpoint and your just wrong.

'But crucially, he isn't asking Swedes to trust him. Hospital data is published all the time, so Sweden's "experiment" is being conducted in the open. Every time a patient is admitted, the data is updated on a Covid live website in striking detail. Average age: 60. Those with diabetes: 26 per cent. With cardiovascular or lung disease: 24 per cent. With at least one other underlying health condition: 77 per cent. Sweden is also updating its statistics to say if someone died from Covid, or of something else – but with Covid. This might reduce the "death" figure by two thirds'

 

[Alvez_48]

I hate to really drive this point home but you've made me frustrated Billy. I'm trying to deliver a message of hope to people to people in these hard times, so here's more info on why you're wrong:-

'
Up until now, the ONS reported those Covid19 numbers collated by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The DHSC records only those who died in hospital and have tested positive for the coronavirus as Covid19 deaths.
BUT, from now on, the ONS will also include Covid19 deaths “in the community” in their statistics. That “includes those not tested for Covid19” and where “suspected Covid19″ [our emphasis] is presumed to be a “contributory factor”.

The official NHS guidance for doctors filling out death certificates is just as vague [our emphasis]:

if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.​

'

 

[bear66]

392 infections in Teesside and 61 in NY in South Tees hospital district.

21.7% increase in Teesside infections, higher than yesterday and higher than national average.

 

[Billy Horner]

I hate to really drive this point home but you've made me frustrated Billy. I'm trying to deliver a message of hope to people to people in these hard times, so here's more info on why you're wrong:-

'
Up until now, the ONS reported those Covid19 numbers collated by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The DHSC records only those who died in hospital and have tested positive for the coronavirus as Covid19 deaths.
BUT, from now on, the ONS will also include Covid19 deaths “in the community” in their statistics. That “includes those not tested for Covid19” and where “suspected Covid19″ [our emphasis] is presumed to be a “contributory factor”.

The official NHS guidance for doctors filling out death certificates is just as vague [our emphasis]:

if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.​

'

I was trying to file this in the 'agree to disagree' category, but I'm afraid I do have to address the misinformation in your last post. You are conflating (deliberately or otherwise) the daily statistics issued by the Department of Health and Social Care, which are the numbers which are quoted in the media (and on here) every day, with the Office for National Statistics figures which are published two weeks in arrears.

The DHSC figures are, as we have now discussed repeatedly, a measure of the people who have experienced Covid-19 symptoms which are severe enough to require hospital admission (generally into intensive care), who have tested positive for the disease and then subsequently died in hospital. Whether they had underlying health conditions or not, all of the available evidence points to the fact that these people died as a direct result of Covid-19.

The ONS figures are based on registrations of deaths where the death certificate has included Covid-19 as either a cause or contributing factor. These will include all of those who have died in the hospital setting, but also include deaths within a community setting (such as at home or in a care home).

Obviously, there will be an element of clinical judgement involved in determining the cause of death, as there is for any such death within the community. If anything, however, there would likely be an under-reporting of Covid-19 deaths through this route, as the doctor would need to have good reason to suspect that as a cause of death.

In any event, even if you disagree with that method of reporting, as I've highlighted above these are not the figures which are reported on a daily basis. The daily statistics which are published are a robust basis upon which to assess the current impact of the disease, as they capture those hospitalised with the illness who then subsequently die in hospital whilst receiving treatment for it.

I undertand that you want to paint a positive message and bring hope to people. However, there is the world of difference between being optimistic that things might improve and misrepresenting what the evidence is telling us about what is actually happening.

 

[ABHBORO]

I was trying to file this in the 'agree to disagree' category, but I'm afraid I do have to address the misinformation in your last post. You are conflating (deliberately or otherwise) the daily statistics issued by the Department of Health and Social Care, which are the numbers which are quoted in the media (and on here) every day, with the Office for National Statistics figures which are published two weeks in arrears.

The DHSC figures are, as we have now discussed repeatedly, a measure of the people who have experienced Covid-19 symptoms which are severe enough to require hospital admission (generally into intensive care), who have tested positive for the disease and then subsequently died in hospital. Whether they had underlying health conditions or not, all of the available evidence points to the fact that these people died as a direct result of Covid-19.

The ONS figures are based on registrations of deaths where the death certificate has included Covid-19 as either a cause or contributing factor. These will include all of those who have died in the hospital setting, but also include deaths within a community setting (such as at home or in a care home).

Obviously, there will be an element of clinical judgement involved in determining the cause of death, as there is for any such death within the community. If anything, however, there would likely be an under-reporting of Covid-19 deaths through this route, as the doctor would need to have good reason to suspect that as a cause of death.

In any event, even if you disagree with that method of reporting, as I've highlighted above these are not the figures which are reported on a daily basis. The daily statistics which are published are a robust basis upon which to assess the current impact of the disease, as they capture those hospitalised with the illness who then subsequently die in hospital whilst receiving treatment for it.

I undertand that you want to paint a positive message and bring hope to people. However, there is the world of difference between being optimistic that things might improve and misrepresenting what the evidence is telling us about what is actually happening.

this is one of the coronavirus deaths from 22nd March
https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news...od-to-be-britains-youngest-coronavirus-death/

 

[Billy Horner]

this is one of the coronavirus deaths from 22nd March
https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news...od-to-be-britains-youngest-coronavirus-death/

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I’ve already stated in an earlier post that there will be a very small number of individuals with other critical illness who test positive for Covid-19 and subsequently die in hospital.

That does not, in any way, undermine the robustness of the published statistics, as the very small number that applies to will not be statistically significant. That number will also be dwarfed by the number of people dying outside of a hospital setting who are not included in the published daily statistics.

 

[ABHBORO]

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I’ve already stated in an earlier post that there will be a very small number of individuals with other critical illness who test positive for Covid-19 and subsequently die in hospital.

That does not, in any way, undermine the robustness of the published statistics, as the very small number that applies to will not be statistically significant. That number will also be dwarfed by the number of people dying outside of a hospital setting who are not included in the published daily statistics.

The DHSC figures are, as we have now discussed repeatedly, a measure of the people who have experienced Covid-19 symptoms which are severe enough to require hospital admission (generally into intensive care), who have tested positive for the disease and then subsequently died in hospital. Whether they had underlying health conditions or not, all of the available evidence points to the fact that these people died as a direct result of Covid-19.

he was in hospital and died of something else.

 

[Billy Horner]

What we also know is that all of the people who are included in the official death statistics have presented in hospital with severe Covid-19 symptoms (because otherwise they wouldn’t have been tested) and have gone on to die whilst in the hospital. I said that there may be a very small number who had other ‘critical illness’ (i.e. immediately life threatening not merely a co-morbidity) but that number will be very, very small.

he was in hospital and died of something else.

So that's one person that we know about out of 4,934. And I have no doubt there will also be a small number of others, but that doesn't mean that the published daily number of new deaths are not a robust measure of those dying from Covid-19.

Also interesting that in the article you linked that the Chief Medical Officer at the hospital was at pains to point out that the young man had tested positive for Covid-19 but that this was not linked to his reason for dying. You don't read that very often about these cases, which makes it noteworthy and lends weight to the notion that it is a rareity rather than the norm.

 

[Redwurzel]

I would say deaths are under reported because home deaths will likely not be put down to Covid 19
. We need to know how many deaths of all courses are being reported and take the normal figure off that to get close to Covid 19 deaths.

 

[HolgateCorner]

I would say deaths are under reported because home deaths will likely not be put down to Covid 19
. We need to know how many deaths of all courses are being reported and take the normal figure off that to get close to Covid 19 deaths.

Yes I think that would be a very good indicator, are those overall figures available anywhere or are they hard to find out? Is there much variation in the ’normal’ figures year on year?

 

[bear66]

I would say deaths are under reported because home deaths will likely not be put down to Covid 19
. We need to know how many deaths of all courses are being reported and take the normal figure off that to get close to Covid 19 deaths.

There'll be a figure for non-hospital deaths every Tuesday (but 2-3 weeks behind).

 

[bear66]

Yes I think that would be a very good indicator, are those overall figures available anywhere or are they hard to find out? Is there much variation in the ’normal’ figures year on year?

The first figure given by the ONS was 40 more than the official 170 at the time (20 March). We're a long way from that position now.