It's not a question, it was reply, hence the quote.
Controversial Covid post
- Thread starter FabioPorkpie
- Start date
It's not a question, it was reply, hence the quote.
Ah okay.
I would continue to follow ONS figures on excess mortality to assess whether this can now be considered a true pandemic.
Very unfortunate, of course, but what could we do with them in any scenario? They would be a lot better off than if we had no vaccine or if we just let everyone get the virus. If it's all a big con, then they would have nothing to fear?
Yeah, I mentioned I think it's more like 60k further up (-5k to +55k), I was basically low balling my own argument with 45k, as is it offers less for others to fight back with. Anything extra taking us up to the excess mortality figure is likely caused by covid anyway, or caused by hospitals being busy and treatments being missed. Take covid away and those go away.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Sorry can’t reply fully but this suggests some T cell immunity is likely-
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
This is such a terrible graph!
Where did you find this? Completely misleading.
So as you'll be able to see from the graph since the first initial 'wave' and outbreak of COVID there have been minimal excess deaths, this includes since a surge in infections. No doubt COVID had an awful affect from March to late April but since excess deaths are very very low.
And here is data on excess deaths literally released this morning from PHE:
Excess all-cause (EuroMOMO) mortality in subpopulations, UK In week 42 2020 in England, no statistically significant excess mortality by week of death above the upper 2 z-score threshold was seen overall or by age group. Excess mortality was observed sub-nationally (all ages) in the North East, North West and East Midlands regions after correcting GRO disaggregate data for reporting delay with the standardised EuroMOMO algorithm (Figure 3). This data is provisional due to the time delay in registration; numbers may vary from week to week.
Alvez_48
Well-known member
IFR is definitely not 1.1% @Statto1 your fag packet maths goes against a peer reviewed published study that has been linked and reviewed in video in this thread.
Also if anti bodies disappear as claimed (ignoring b memory cells / t cells) then 6% now doesn't mean that's the actual number of cases infected in total during this time... The 7-8% that had it in march have of course disappeared off the figures.
As for your tracking and cashless society comment... You really think it will be for the good of most people to have their entire lives controlled by electronic automation that will be able to stop their lives whenever there is a 'glitch' or they're hacked or .. god forbid someone in power decides they don't like the things you're saying.
It is a future of total transparency for normal people with 0 transparency for the most powerful people in society. Cool.
Also if anti bodies disappear as claimed (ignoring b memory cells / t cells) then 6% now doesn't mean that's the actual number of cases infected in total during this time... The 7-8% that had it in march have of course disappeared off the figures.
As for your tracking and cashless society comment... You really think it will be for the good of most people to have their entire lives controlled by electronic automation that will be able to stop their lives whenever there is a 'glitch' or they're hacked or .. god forbid someone in power decides they don't like the things you're saying.
It is a future of total transparency for normal people with 0 transparency for the most powerful people in society. Cool.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Yeah, guess we are back to square 1 and approaching 100% of us completely vulnerable again. Uh-oh....
Yep crazy thinking.
1finny
Well-known member
This is the killer (for want of a better phrase) data.
There are views on what will happen next but that is just ‘noise’
I’ve been popping this data on here reasonable frequently largely to be told ‘beware the lag’.
Last week I was told to wait 2 weeks so I didn’t post today.
Infections have been high for months now (pre testing capacity we have to assume people were infected)
It might indeed come and we will soon see.
Yep, unfortunately this has now turned into a similar us v them Brexit situation, you're either for lockdown or you're basically willing to kill everyone - the current narrative.
I think we'll see a sustained number of small excess deaths, a cold winter and lack of continued medical services could be a big problem.
I think we'll see a sustained number of small excess deaths, a cold winter and lack of continued medical services could be a big problem.
I made it, extremely quickly with the raw ONS data, is got 5 yr average, 2017,2018 and 2019 on there. I used to show it like the one above but people kept calming that excess deaths had evened itself back out, as in we didn't still have 55k excess deaths.
Nobody is claiming excess deaths were high after the outbreak, my graph isn't claiming that. But it does show we've started to creep up again, just as we go into winter, as expected.
The graph I showed is the same thing, except excess is cumulative.
lol - the actual paper has it as 1.16% in the UK, that the paper shows as a source.
It's an awful graph.
If you struggled the fully interpret data you would read your graph and think that we were well above excess deaths per month, this is simply not true. I think you're probably better off using the graphs that the ONS produce rather than creating your own.
As you correctly note it is not unusual for excess deaths to begin to occur as we reach winter, I think a large number of these current excess deaths will be occurring at home - the hidden cost of 'lockdown'
Alvez_48
Well-known member
Right but the paper was a meta analysis i.e. you look at many studies and then get to an overall figure based on those figures.
The UK study was an outlier so whilst it contributes to the analysis it's figure isn't the 'correct' figure. Unless maybe we are genetically inferior.
I didn't claim they disappear, they likely wane in the older population, as with anything, but probably not as much with the younger folk, not goign to be many <40 catching it twice I expect.
7-8% had it in march? We had 4m cases in march? What are you smoking?
By April the 15th we had about 10k deaths, which takes care of your march cases (Giving the march cases at least 15 days to die). Extrapolating that to 40k by July, then that's like 16m cases in July. That's about 25% of the population, the survey picked up 6%.
I said tracked, I didn't say anything about being controlled, I don't see a QR code running someone's brain, jesus.
Last edited:
Right but the paper was a meta analysis i.e. you look at many studies and then get to an overall figure based on those figures.
The UK study was an outlier so whilst it contributes to the analysis it's figure isn't the 'correct' figure. Unless maybe we are genetically inferior.
My point was a meta-analysis is completely bonkers, as it is relying on countries with terrible statistics. Also, a meta-analysis only works with comparable data. Comparing zero effected Iceland to the UK is bonkers. They had 11 deaths, 11! How much care and resources do you think those 11 got, compared to ours, and then how much would ours get if we took no measures and let it sweep across the country? This is literally Day 1 basics.
I use the UK figures as:
We (most of us) live in the UK
We have some of the most reliable and plentiful data/ stats
We have had an outbreak (no point looking at those that haven't really had one, especially if you're pressing for reduced measures)
We have a good NHS
We have an NHS that wasn't quite overwhelmed
What a lot of you seem to be pushing for is something that will be way more free, so care will get worse, if care gets worse, death rate goes up
If the hospitals are busy with Covid then have a guess at what happens to the IFR or CFR of Cancer, Dementia, Heart Trouble etc
Last edited:
Alvez_48
Well-known member
Neither did I... Strawman
Jostler
Well-known member
This data covers a number of studies from the start of the pandemic, so you would have to say, that as a figure it is artificially inflated from outdated data when we didn't have treatments available. If we only started looking at studies from the post dexamethasone discovery period, this number would drop significantly and would be more relevant to what the ongoing risk of mortality would be to us at present (until we find more treatments/vaccine/god forbid virus mutates for the worse)