So according to the Telegraph the most recent COVID data shows

[IUFG]

To be clear, I’m not questioning the number of deaths, I’m questioning the idea that the only way to avoid them is by a full lockdown (which the scientists told us we needed) rather than a more intelligent, evidence-based lockdown, and how many deaths we might have ultimately experienced without a full lockdown.

And I’m pointing out that the reason we didn’t explore a different approach is because the scientists couldn’t admit they didn’t know and the Prime Minister lacked the balls to call them on it.

The fat, blithering idiot.

As I see it, I'm sure if we had locked down earlier, people whould have just ignored it earlier. The lockdown wasn't to save lives, rather to ensure OUR NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It wasn't. And won't be.

An epidemic (or pandemic) has a lifespan and will naturally fade away and the weaker version of the virus survives and will be around for ever - Spanish 'Flu is still around and is currently known as Influenza.

[Burney]

I would have thought that counting deaths would be quite easy - simply based on whether a human being is either dead or not.

Don't tell me that death is now also non-binary

Counting them is one thing. Determining whether they are excess deaths based on an average over at least five years while taking in account all factors that might cause anomalies during those five years (weather, other disease outbreaks, etc) is quite another and again - obviously due to differing local factors - there are significant variations between countries in how this is calculated.

Basically, trying to make sense of the whole thing on a national scale - let alone an international one - is a fúcking nightmare.

[IUFG]

Counting them is one thing. Determining whether they are excess deaths based on an average over at least five years while taking in account all factors that might cause anomalies during those five years (weather, other disease outbreaks, etc) is quite another and again - obviously due to differing local factors - there are significant variations between countries in how this is calculated.

Basically, trying to make sense of the whole thing on a national scale - let alone an international one - is a fúcking nightmare.

I think the maths is quite easy, tbh. Actual number of deaths in a current period compared to the average number of total deaths from the same periods, from the last five years.

Agreed - it is defining what counts as a 'normal death' that is tricky



It's relating deaths directly to C-19 which is the bullshít bit.

[Burney]

I think the maths is quite easy, tbh. Actual number of deaths in a current period compared to the average number of total deaths from the same periods, from the last five years.

Agreed - it is defining what counts as a 'normal death' that is tricky



It's relating deaths directly to C-19 which is the bullshít bit.

Oh, yeah. Those numbers are totally meaningless. I'll give you an example: my friend sadly lost both his parents this year - both in their 80s. Both were being treated for cancer and responding well to treatment. One went into hospital in January for a routine procedure and while there came down with a lung infection and died. This was before Coronavirus was officially here, but they retrospectively think it might have been that, but that's not on the death certificate. The other was in late March, she was being treated at home and had been self-isolating. However, she developed breathing difficulties and was admitted to hospital where she eventually died. Covid-19 was put on the death certificate.

Both of these people were suffering from cancer. Neither of them was tested for Covid-19. One of them did have it on the death certificate, the other didn't. There are thousands of cases like this up and down the country.

So yeah, the numbers of 'confirmed' Covid-19 deaths are total horseshít.

[Burney]

I think the maths is quite easy, tbh. Actual number of deaths in a current period compared to the average number of total deaths from the same periods, from the last five years.

Agreed - it is defining what counts as a 'normal death' that is tricky



It's relating deaths directly to C-19 which is the bullshít bit.

The other factor, of course, is that pretty much every hospital in the UK reported a massive and worrying decline in the number of patients coming in for treatment for 'routine' life-threatening illness. When you have vulnerable people being told that leaving the house - let alone going to a doctor or the hospital - will kill them, how much do you think deaths will increase from non-Covid causes?

Estimates suggest we've seen - and will see - much higher mortality rates from cancer, heart disease, strokes and chronic conditions as a result of people not presenting for treatment. That makes the calculation of 'excess' deaths even more difficult - particularly as many of them will falsely end up with Covid on their death certificates anyway.

[redgunamo]

Kung-lung deaths pay more too, so naturally people want to inflate the mortality figures. Here they even stopped doing proper post mortem exams as it was "too dangerous". lol

The other factor, of course, is that pretty much every hospital in the UK reported a massive and worrying decline in the number of patients coming in for treatment for 'routine' life-threatening illness. When you have vulnerable people being told that leaving the house - let alone going to a doctor or the hospital - will kill them, how much do you think deaths will increase from non-Covid causes?

Estimates suggest we've seen - and will see - much higher mortality rates from cancer, heart disease, strokes and chronic conditions as a result of people not presenting for treatment. That makes the calculation of 'excess' deaths even more difficult - particularly as many of them will falsely end up with Covid on their death certificates anyway.

[WES]

The other factor, of course, is that pretty much every hospital in the UK reported a massive and worrying decline in the number of patients coming in for treatment for 'routine' life-threatening illness. When you have vulnerable people being told that leaving the house - let alone going to a doctor or the hospital - will kill them, how much do you think deaths will increase from non-Covid causes?

Estimates suggest we've seen - and will see - much higher mortality rates from cancer, heart disease, strokes and chronic conditions as a result of people not presenting for treatment. That makes the calculation of 'excess' deaths even more difficult - particularly as many of them will falsely end up with Covid on their death certificates anyway.

Yes, there is an important distinction that the government is loathe to make.

How many additional people died because of the virus itself, as opposed to how many people died because of how we reacted to it.

[taxman10]

Surely it’s easy to look at total deaths (dosent matter how caused) versus whatever average you want to use for whatever period and you likely have the covid death number. Obvs it won’t be totally accurate as road deaths have dropped due to the lockdown etc. But would disprove the stupid notion that “not that many have died from covid” which seems to be floating around.

[Burney]

Surely it’s easy to look at total deaths (dosent matter how caused) versus whatever average you want to use for whatever period and you likely have the covid death number. Obvs it won’t be totally accurate as road deaths have dropped due to the lockdown etc. But would disprove the stupid notion that “not that many have died from covid” which seems to be floating around.

The point I’m making is that no, it’s not easy at all. Trying to apply normal averages to a definitively abnormal situation just doesn’t work.
So, for instance,, road deaths down, but suicides up 200%. Once you fück with normal,all statistical bets are off.