The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

This is good news. It does not discount the peak in deaths related to Covid 19.

We should be cautiously opening up society and monitoring cases and deaths closely.

I think you go to extremes with your argument, we should monitor deaths when excess deaths are in there thousands, and equally be mindful of them when they have returned to the norm for that period of time/ below average.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
You must remember that this data is only useful when it is above the average it becomes meaningless when it's substantially below the average.
I think you’ve accidentally used the word ‘substantially’ in the wrong part of your post.

For each of the two peak weeks in April, recorded deaths were around 22,000 compared with the 5-year average of around 10,000. That’s an increase above the average of 12,000 per week, or 120%.

For each of the several weeks either side of the peak, recorded deaths were also several thousand above the 5-year average. This is how we’ve arrived at a situation of more than 60,000 excess deaths so far this year.

For the week ending 17th July, which you have highlighted, recorded deaths were 270, or 3%, below the 5-year average.

I think most people would describe the former situation as substantially different to the average rather than the latter.
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
I think you’ve accidentally used the word ‘substantially’ in the wrong part of your post.

For each of the two peak weeks in April, recorded deaths were around 22,000 compared with the 5-year average of around 10,000. That’s an increase above the average of 12,000 per week, or 120%.

For each of the several weeks either side of the peak, recorded deaths were also several thousand above the 5-year average. This is how we’ve arrived at a situation of more than 60,000 excess deaths so far this year.

For the week ending 17th July, which you have highlighted, recorded deaths were 270, or 3%, below the 5-year average.

I think most people would describe the former situation as substantially different to the average rather than the latter.
Ok thanks for cherry picking my statement I shall edit it to average.

Randy raises a good point that you will not answer I mean it's a straight shooter for me.. yes.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
Would you expect to see deaths below average during a world ending pandemic? Yes or no question.
Yes. It's a well known phenomenon known as mortality displacement.

Basically, as the majority of those who have died are older people and/or those with underlying health conditions, it is recognised that some of those may have died in the short-term anyway. As time progresses, the fact that people have already passed away has an impact on the number of people who pass away later on.

To put this in context, however, at the halfway point of the year the UK had experienced 65,000 excess deaths. In the past four weeks we have had just over 1,000 fewer deaths than the 5-year average, so we're still massively above expected levels.

PS - I don't recall anyone suggesting that the pandemic was going to be "world ending".
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
Today's headline analysis:

• 581 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 685
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 2.9% to 696 per day, following 2.3% increase yesterday (and 11th increase in the past 12 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 9.7% higher than one week ago (from 7.8% higher yesterday) and 16.6% higher than two weeks ago (from 8.6% higher yesterday and 10.5% higher 7 days ago)
• 119 new deaths in all settings reported in 24-hour period, up from 7 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths in all settings increases by 2.0% to 65 per day, following 0.9% decrease yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths in all settings is 0.7% higher than one week ago (from 7.1% lower yesterday) and 21.0% lower than two weeks ago (from 24.7% lower yesterday and 31.6% lower 7 days ago)
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
Yes. It's a well known phenomenon known as mortality displacement.

Basically, as the majority of those who have died are older people and/or those with underlying health conditions, it is recognised that some of those may have died in the short-term anyway. As time progresses, the fact that people have already passed away has an impact on the number of people who pass away later on.

To put this in context, however, at the halfway point of the year the UK had experienced 65,000 excess deaths. In the past four weeks we have had just over 1,000 fewer deaths than the 5-year average, so we're still massively above expected levels.

PS - I don't recall anyone suggesting that the pandemic was going to be "world ending".
Turn on the news or read a paper.
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
Yes. It's a well known phenomenon known as mortality displacement.

Basically, as the majority of those who have died are older people and/or those with underlying health conditions, it is recognised that some of those may have died in the short-term anyway. As time progresses, the fact that people have already passed away has an impact on the number of people who pass away later on.

To put this in context, however, at the halfway point of the year the UK had experienced 65,000 excess deaths. In the past four weeks we have had just over 1,000 fewer deaths than the 5-year average, so we're still massively above expected levels.

PS - I don't recall anyone suggesting that the pandemic was going to be "world ending".
I'd suggest it's after not during

Edit- a cursory search shows just that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_displacement
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
You must remember that this data is only useful when it is above the average it becomes meaningless when it's below the average.
Actually it doesn’t, there is less people to kill cos 60000 excess deaths happened. Naturally it should be under if people have been killed off a few months early. The data suggest that it’s only killed a few of them as it’s tracking only slightly under

Given that you give credence to q1 being under cos q4 was higher, why doesn’t this collate to tracking further under the 5 year average Based on how much we were over
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
Actually it doesn’t, there is less people to kill cos 60000 excess deaths happened. Naturally it should be under if people have been killed off a few months early. The data suggest that it’s only killed a few of them as it’s tracking only slightly under

Given that you give credence to q1 being under cos q4 was higher, why doesn’t this collate to tracking further under the 5 year average Based on how much we were over
Given mortality has been tracking upwards for 7 odd years... It would explain some of it, plus covid, plus bad management of other ailments as a result of policy. In my opinion.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
I'd suggest it's after not during

Edit- a cursory search shows just that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_displacement
Which pandemic are you basing your evidence on for this one. Just cos we haven’t got excess deaths right now doesn’t mean their isn’t a pandemic. Just the same as when the eye of the storm is over your house doesn’t mean the hurricane is over

Just the same as cases increases isn’t seeing higher hospital dependency doesn't mean we haven’t had an element of herd immunity.

Based on current evidence the top one is most likely, but you can’t discount the 2nd one, but it’s harder to prove
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
Which pandemic are you basing your evidence on for this one. Just cos we haven’t got excess deaths right now doesn’t mean their isn’t a pandemic. Just the same as when the eye of the storm is over your house doesn’t mean the hurricane is over

Just the same as cases increases isn’t seeing higher hospital dependency doesn't mean we haven’t had an element of herd immunity.

Based on current evidence the top one is most likely, but you can’t discount the 2nd one, but it’s harder to prove
I don't understand what your saying..
 
Top