RugbyRebels

Read today about government changing it's advice re face masks but when you see someone wearing one light a ciggies and stand in a queue puffing away it sort of makes you despair

Numbers behind the numbers..weekly deaths surge 6k more than usually expected at this time. (Nick Spike ?..)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52278825

Galfon wrote:Numbers behind the numbers..weekly deaths surge 6k more than usually expected at this time. (Nick Spike ?..)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52278825

It's unacceptable for the government not to publish these extra numbers. Even if they're delayed compared with the hospital numbers they need to be reported as soon as they're known. Hard to see any reason not to do this other than political advantage.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Galfon wrote:Numbers behind the numbers..weekly deaths surge 6k more than usually expected at this time. (Nick Spike ?..)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52278825

It's unacceptable for the government not to publish these extra numbers. Even if they're delayed compared with the hospital numbers they need to be reported as soon as they're known. Hard to see any reason not to do this other than political advantage.

Or because they genuinely don't know how accurate this reporting is. You can't allocate an additional x number of deaths based on an assumption. That there are additional deaths outside of hospital has been mentioned at every media conference so far, the exact numbers won't be released until they know for definite what that number is.

incidentally, we aren't the only country in this predicament, its almost certain that every country's number of deaths from cover will have to be increased in due course, even before you start to add the knock on effects (i.e. suicides from business failure). I don't think any government with any credibility would guess at additional numbers as the media would jump all over them.

I'm a little bit (only a little, mind) interested in death rate figures. Does anyone know if there's a graph about death rate vs expected death rate?

As if the UK death rate is around 10-11k a week normally, and this has killed 10k in 6 weeks on top of that 60-65k, that's a lot. But if some of those deaths have been misplaced, and it's broadly similar...that's a different matter.

The second thing...

I have a friend convinced this is a conspiracy. That the WHO are paid by big pharma to ensure we're all scared and will get vaccinated because they're going to poison us with their vaccines.

And the question then is...what the hell do they get from poisoning us?

And the question then is...why is David Icke more believable than the WHO?

And the question then is...the guys behind worldometer have done a spiffingly amazing job. Someone was super quick on optimising that site for keywords, and they're raking it in right now.

But on the other hand, a lot of people are taking what they say as gospel, when it seems to simply be a site aimed at making ad money.

Stom wrote:I'm a little bit (only a little, mind) interested in death rate figures. Does anyone know if there's a graph about death rate vs expected death rate?

As if the UK death rate is around 10-11k a week normally, and this has killed 10k in 6 weeks on top of that 60-65k, that's a lot. But if some of those deaths have been misplaced, and it's broadly similar...that's a different matter.

This might help:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:I'm a little bit (only a little, mind) interested in death rate figures. Does anyone know if there's a graph about death rate vs expected death rate?

As if the UK death rate is around 10-11k a week normally, and this has killed 10k in 6 weeks on top of that 60-65k, that's a lot. But if some of those deaths have been misplaced, and it's broadly similar...that's a different matter.

This might help:

It does, thank you. Means I don't have to dig for it Confirms my own belief. That's a pretty sharp rise. 50% more deaths...

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Galfon wrote:Numbers behind the numbers..weekly deaths surge 6k more than usually expected at this time. (Nick Spike ?..)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52278825

It's unacceptable for the government not to publish these extra numbers. Even if they're delayed compared with the hospital numbers they need to be reported as soon as they're known. Hard to see any reason not to do this other than political advantage.

I suspect the ONS would have a fit if the Government started releasing figures without verification, context or explanation. There will be a time for such analysis and given our coroner's system there's little opportunity for the government to escape from the facts if our 4th estate have anything about them.

ONS releasing suitably contextualised info: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 3april2020

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

ONS releasing suitably contextualised info: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 3april2020

Thank you, that also says a lot.

Stom wrote:I'm a little bit (only a little, mind) interested in death rate figures. Does anyone know if there's a graph about death rate vs expected death rate?

As if the UK death rate is around 10-11k a week normally, and this has killed 10k in 6 weeks on top of that 60-65k, that's a lot. But if some of those deaths have been misplaced, and it's broadly similar...that's a different matter.

The second thing...

I have a friend convinced this is a conspiracy. That the WHO are paid by big pharma to ensure we're all scared and will get vaccinated because they're going to poison us with their vaccines.

And the question then is...what the hell do they get from poisoning us?

And the question then is...why is David Icke more believable than the WHO?

And the question then is...the guys behind worldometer have done a spiffingly amazing job. Someone was super quick on optimising that site for keywords, and they're raking it in right now.

But on the other hand, a lot of people are taking what they say as gospel, when it seems to simply be a site aimed at making ad money.

Tell your friend to spend a day in the ICU checking out the hype first hand. Then get him/her on loading corpses into refrigerated trucks detail. Anti-vaccine agitators need to STFU right now.

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:I'm a little bit (only a little, mind) interested in death rate figures. Does anyone know if there's a graph about death rate vs expected death rate?

As if the UK death rate is around 10-11k a week normally, and this has killed 10k in 6 weeks on top of that 60-65k, that's a lot. But if some of those deaths have been misplaced, and it's broadly similar...that's a different matter.

The second thing...

I have a friend convinced this is a conspiracy. That the WHO are paid by big pharma to ensure we're all scared and will get vaccinated because they're going to poison us with their vaccines.

And the question then is...what the hell do they get from poisoning us?

And the question then is...why is David Icke more believable than the WHO?

And the question then is...the guys behind worldometer have done a spiffingly amazing job. Someone was super quick on optimising that site for keywords, and they're raking it in right now.

But on the other hand, a lot of people are taking what they say as gospel, when it seems to simply be a site aimed at making ad money.

Tell your friend to spend a day in the ICU checking out the hype first hand. Then get him/her on loading corpses into refrigerated trucks detail. Anti-vaccine agitators need to STFU right now.

I told him I don't want to speak to him about this anymore.

Good.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

ONS releasing suitably contextualised info: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 3april2020

The easy answer to the question in the tweet is "testing".
You canno of classify cause of death as being COVID if they've tested positive for it.
Which isnwhy total deaths compared to the average for that time frame is the only stat that really matters.
It doesn't matter if you die due to COVID infection, or because you couldn't get an ambulance when you stroked out. Both not those patients died because of Covid

Stom wrote:I'm a little bit (only a little, mind) interested in death rate figures. Does anyone know if there's a graph about death rate vs expected death rate?

As if the UK death rate is around 10-11k a week normally, and this has killed 10k in 6 weeks on top of that 60-65k, that's a lot. But if some of those deaths have been misplaced, and it's broadly similar...that's a different matter.

The second thing...

I have a friend convinced this is a conspiracy. That the WHO are paid by big pharma to ensure we're all scared and will get vaccinated because they're going to poison us with their vaccines.

And the question then is...what the hell do they get from poisoning us?

And the question then is...why is David Icke more believable than the WHO?

And the question then is...the guys behind worldometer have done a spiffingly amazing job. Someone was super quick on optimising that site for keywords, and they're raking it in right now.

But on the other hand, a lot of people are taking what they say as gospel, when it seems to simply be a site aimed at making ad money.

Lots of conspiracy theories. And still lot of people who think the cure is worse than the disease.

The role of the WHO should be reviewed after this, but I don't think anyone with any sanity is denying that the disease is real. I think that many people aren't seeing this first hand, or the impact of it. We are all cocooned in our homes (or most of us are) and some have very little to occupy themselves with. Whilst the numbers of dead in this country are sobering, their relevance to the percentage of the county is small and so the majority of people won't know anyone, or anyone they are close to, who has died as a result of this. Therefore, its easier to believe the nonsensical conspiracy theories.

Which Tyler wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

ONS releasing suitably contextualised info: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 3april2020

The easy answer to the question in the tweet is "testing".
You canno of classify cause of death as being COVID if they've tested positive for it.
Which isnwhy total deaths compared to the average for that time frame is the only stat that really matters.
It doesn't matter if you die due to COVID infection, or because you couldn't get an ambulance when you stroked out. Both not those patients died because of Covid

I think this is the question that will cause a lot of disparity and confusion. If someone is terminally ill from cancer, but catches covid, is their eventual death a result of the cancer or covid19? Or both? If someone dies at home who is elderly and had cover symptoms but isn't tested, is it covid 19 on the death certificate or respiratory failure caused by unknown cause? Then there will be deaths caused by an extremely busy NHS that might not otherwise have happened, plus other deaths caused by the lockdown and ensuring economic impact. There could be lots of figures suggested going forward.

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

ONS releasing suitably contextualised info: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 3april2020

The easy answer to the question in the tweet is "testing".
You canno of classify cause of death as being COVID if they've tested positive for it.
Which isnwhy total deaths compared to the average for that time frame is the only stat that really matters.
It doesn't matter if you die due to COVID infection, or because you couldn't get an ambulance when you stroked out. Both not those patients died because of Covid

I think this is the question that will cause a lot of disparity and confusion. If someone is terminally ill from cancer, but catches covid, is their eventual death a result of the cancer or covid19? Or both? If someone dies at home who is elderly and had cover symptoms but isn't tested, is it covid 19 on the death certificate or respiratory failure caused by unknown cause? Then there will be deaths caused by an extremely busy NHS that might not otherwise have happened, plus other deaths caused by the lockdown and ensuring economic impact. There could be lots of figures suggested going forward.

Well, that's why overall deaths is all that matters. If it's 50% higher than normal, that's caused by Covid, even if they were cancer patients.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Galfon wrote:Numbers behind the numbers..weekly deaths surge 6k more than usually expected at this time. (Nick Spike ?..)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52278825

It's unacceptable for the government not to publish these extra numbers. Even if they're delayed compared with the hospital numbers they need to be reported as soon as they're known. Hard to see any reason not to do this other than political advantage.

Or because they genuinely don't know how accurate this reporting is. You can't allocate an additional x number of deaths based on an assumption. That there are additional deaths outside of hospital has been mentioned at every media conference so far, the exact numbers won't be released until they know for definite what that number is.

incidentally, we aren't the only country in this predicament, its almost certain that every country's number of deaths from cover will have to be increased in due course, even before you start to add the knock on effects (i.e. suicides from business failure). I don't think any government with any credibility would guess at additional numbers as the media would jump all over them.

I'm not asking them to guess. I want them to report the number of death attributed to Covid-19, regardless of the place of death. Even if it's a weekly update of non-hospital deaths, if the number is known, it should be reported by the government in their press conferences.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: It's unacceptable for the government not to publish these extra numbers. Even if they're delayed compared with the hospital numbers they need to be reported as soon as they're known. Hard to see any reason not to do this other than political advantage.

Or because they genuinely don't know how accurate this reporting is. You can't allocate an additional x number of deaths based on an assumption. That there are additional deaths outside of hospital has been mentioned at every media conference so far, the exact numbers won't be released until they know for definite what that number is.

incidentally, we aren't the only country in this predicament, its almost certain that every country's number of deaths from cover will have to be increased in due course, even before you start to add the knock on effects (i.e. suicides from business failure). I don't think any government with any credibility would guess at additional numbers as the media would jump all over them.

I'm not asking them to guess. I want them to report the number of death attributed to Covid-19, regardless of the place of death. Even if it's a weekly update of non-hospital deaths, if the number is known, it should be reported by the government in their press conferences.

And as Ive pointed out, they won't release figures unless they are certain. Too many variables. You may think the government is trying to spin this positively, but no responsible government would release information that is potentially going to change later.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Or because they genuinely don't know how accurate this reporting is. You can't allocate an additional x number of deaths based on an assumption. That there are additional deaths outside of hospital has been mentioned at every media conference so far, the exact numbers won't be released until they know for definite what that number is.

incidentally, we aren't the only country in this predicament, its almost certain that every country's number of deaths from cover will have to be increased in due course, even before you start to add the knock on effects (i.e. suicides from business failure). I don't think any government with any credibility would guess at additional numbers as the media would jump all over them.

I'm not asking them to guess. I want them to report the number of death attributed to Covid-19, regardless of the place of death. Even if it's a weekly update of non-hospital deaths, if the number is known, it should be reported by the government in their press conferences.

And as Ive pointed out, they won't release figures unless they are certain. Too many variables. You may think the government is trying to spin this positively, but no responsible government would release information that is potentially going to change later.

The US government has been doing exactly that for two months.

Since Jan 2017 tbf, when we got a great example of Trump using his own metrics to assign his pitiful inaugural crowd the claim it was the biggest ever

Digby wrote:Since Jan 2017 tbf, when we got a great example of Trump using his own metrics to assign his pitiful inaugural crowd the claim it was the biggest ever

Word

Sandydragon wrote: 1. I think this is the question that will cause a lot of disparity and confusion.
2. If someone is terminally ill from cancer, but catches covid, is their eventual death a result of the cancer or covid19? Or both?
3. If someone dies at home who is elderly and had cover symptoms but isn't tested, is it covid 19 on the death certificate or respiratory failure caused by unknown cause?
4. Then there will be deaths caused by an extremely busy NHS that might not otherwise have happened, plus other deaths caused by the lockdown and ensuring economic impact. There could be lots of figures suggested going forward.

1. That's why total deaths is the relevant figure. It's the only one that actually matters (it's also the only one that can be actually known)
2. Both will be on the death certificate (UK - different countries will use different systems)
3. "Pneumonia"
4. Yes, that's why total deaths is the important number.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Or because they genuinely don't know how accurate this reporting is. You can't allocate an additional x number of deaths based on an assumption. That there are additional deaths outside of hospital has been mentioned at every media conference so far, the exact numbers won't be released until they know for definite what that number is.

incidentally, we aren't the only country in this predicament, its almost certain that every country's number of deaths from cover will have to be increased in due course, even before you start to add the knock on effects (i.e. suicides from business failure). I don't think any government with any credibility would guess at additional numbers as the media would jump all over them.

I'm not asking them to guess. I want them to report the number of death attributed to Covid-19, regardless of the place of death. Even if it's a weekly update of non-hospital deaths, if the number is known, it should be reported by the government in their press conferences.

And as Ive pointed out, they won't release figures unless they are certain. Too many variables. You may think the government is trying to spin this positively, but no responsible government would release information that is potentially going to change later.

If the death certificate says cause of death Covid-19 what other kind of certainty are you waiting for?

morepork wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:The Swedish numbers are erratic to say the least. The daily deaths shot up to around 100 for a few days then straight down to the 10-20 range for the last few days. Is it just a data collection delay over the Easter weekend? I imagine they'll go up again.

If data collection at this time were delayed for a space zombie festival, then I'd want someone's head on a fucking plate.

There's certainly something messing the numbers up. They were between 12 and 20 for 3 days and suddenly up to 114 today.

Looks like a 7-day average is needed. Or banning space zombie festivals.