P.K. Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, wrighty said: The change was brought in to standardise mortality reporting. It was nothing to do with the NHS managing to keep people alive for 29 days such that Boris saw an opportunity to make the figures look slightly less bad. I don't believe that for one second. Right at the start of the pandemic one of the Scientific Adisors, I forget which, stated at a presser that the UK "Would be doing well if we came out of this with less than 25,000 Excess Deaths". The change in the measurement criteria simply moved a chunk of the covid deaths into the excess deaths. But I haven't seen the number of Excess Deaths front and centre in the MSM for absolutely ages. Have you? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 Embarrassing picking fights with medics now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 6 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: Embarrassing picking fights with medics now. Why? When I met Wrighty I recall he was a perfectly normal person and a nice guy. He probably thought I was a bit of a fruit-loop. But then I'm manx. All that inter-breeding etc... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, P.K. said: I don't believe that for one second. Right at the start of the pandemic one of the Scientific Adisors, I forget which, stated at a presser that the UK "Would be doing well if we came out of this with less than 25,000 Excess Deaths". The change in the measurement criteria simply moved a chunk of the covid deaths into the excess deaths. But I haven't seen the number of Excess Deaths front and centre in the MSM for absolutely ages. Have you? You really don't understand, do you? The 28 day threshold was brought in because, previously, anyone with a covid diagnosis was counted as a covid death if they died from any, I repeat any, cause at any time after. That was clearly absurd as people die from all kinds of things, as well as covid, but how could we track the real death stats from covid? So 28 days was chosen as a reasonable time to expect direct cause fatality. But, of course, there are a whole host of intervening factors which still skew the figures How on earth could it move a chunk of covid deaths to excess deaths? Think about it, that makes no sense. TBH, PK, I get the feeling that you made some lifestyle choices (much like you told people who were facing real hardship with the travel restrictions) that didn't actually pan out as you had intended. That's no shame, just live with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Daily death toll announcements were suspended in mid-July after the health secretary, Matt Hancock, announced a review of the deaths included in the government’s figure. At the time, Hancock claimed the Public Health England figures were overstating the Covid-19 death toll. There is a discrepancy between the Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures, which counts fatalities where Covid-19 is mentioned on the death certificate and include deaths in all settings, and the PHE data, which covers deaths in hospitals or those linked to a positive Covid test. The official PHE figures are still likely to be a significant undercount of the true death toll. Coronavirus deaths registered by the ONS are almost a third higher than the government figure. The new PHE figures, which cover the period to 12 August, report the death toll as 36,695 for England, while the ONS reported 49,183 that occurred by 31 July 2020 but were registered by 8 August. However, due to differences in how deaths are counted, experts have cautioned against relying solely on Covid-19 death statistics. Excess deaths, which compares the number of deaths in a given week with the five-year average, are widely understood to be the “gold standard” in measuring the impact of coronavirus. The UK has one of the highest excess death tolls in Europe. The total number of excess deaths exceeded 65,000 across the UK between the first coronavirus deaths being recorded in mid-March and late June. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Yes, you're probably right. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Gladys said: Yes, you're probably right. Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh! Oxygen tent. NOW! Atropine! Atropine! This virus is so shit though. More divisive than Thatcher. Some 8000 folks on the island are self employed. The downside being time off for hols, sickness etc but it comes with the turf. But when they signed up I'm sure a particularly nasty virus pandemic didn't enter the equation. Sure I feel sorry for them, who wouldn't, but the characteristics of the virus are nobody's fault.... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, P.K. said: Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh! Oxygen tent. NOW! Atropine! Atropine! This virus is so shit though. More divisive than Thatcher. Some 8000 folks on the island are self employed. The downside being time off for hols, sickness etc but it comes with the turf. But when they signed up I'm sure a particularly nasty virus pandemic didn't enter the equation. Sure I feel sorry for them, who wouldn't, but the characteristics of the virus are nobody's fault.... I despair. You cannot recognise sarcasm or the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: I despair. You cannot recognise sarcasm or the truth. Well, in your opinion anyway. Ever thought you might actually be wrong? Sorry, how silly of me... Harum-Scarum. It's the only way to be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Gladys said: You really don't understand, do you? The 28 day threshold was brought in because, previously, anyone with a covid diagnosis was counted as a covid death if they died from any, I repeat any, cause at any time after. That was clearly absurd as people die from all kinds of things, as well as covid, but how could we track the real death stats from covid? So 28 days was chosen as a reasonable time to expect direct cause fatality. But, of course, there are a whole host of intervening factors which still skew the figures But both ways of doing it are wrong. While it's stupid to automatically regard a death as Covid-related simply on the basis of a previous test, equally saying that someone didn't die of it because they managed to survive more than 28 days with it is bonkers as well, if they've been in an ICU for most of that time. The UK Department of Health statistics have been confusing and badly defined from the start and there has been a constant attempt to use them for political purposes by the government and its friends in the media from the start. For a long time in the Spring they did their best to minimise the deaths (only counting those that happened in hospitals for instance) and maximise the number of tests done (at one stage they had to reduce the number they claimed by, literally, millions). Now they seem to be trying to undermine them completely by making a big fuss of methodological changes and trying to imply that people didn't really die of Covid. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: But both ways of doing it are wrong. While it's stupid to automatically regard a death as Covid-related simply on the basis of a previous test, equally saying that someone didn't die of it because they managed to survive more than 28 days with it is bonkers as well, if they've been in an ICU for most of that time. The UK Department of Health statistics have been confusing and badly defined from the start and there has been a constant attempt to use them for political purposes by the government and its friends in the media from the start. For a long time in the Spring they did their best to minimise the deaths (only counting those that happened in hospitals for instance) and maximise the number of tests done (at one stage they had to reduce the number they claimed by, literally, millions). Now they seem to be trying to undermine them completely by making a big fuss of methodological changes and trying to imply that people didn't really die of Covid. Hear hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 9 hours ago, rachomics said: Fairly straightforward for pathogen surveillance as the ethical part of the process is more along the lines of not publishing data and results in a way that might identify patients. The UK on a whole has been good so far in using genomics for COVID19 - have a look at https://www.cogconsortium.uk/ as the IoM data will be (anonymously) feeding into this. If a person's health information has been compiled into anonymised data and sent off island shouldn't that person at least have knowledge and potentially give consent to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: But both ways of doing it are wrong. While it's stupid to automatically regard a death as Covid-related simply on the basis of a previous test, equally saying that someone didn't die of it because they managed to survive more than 28 days with it is bonkers as well, if they've been in an ICU for most of that time. The UK Department of Health statistics have been confusing and badly defined from the start and there has been a constant attempt to use them for political purposes by the government and its friends in the media from the start. For a long time in the Spring they did their best to minimise the deaths (only counting those that happened in hospitals for instance) and maximise the number of tests done (at one stage they had to reduce the number they claimed by, literally, millions). Now they seem to be trying to undermine them completely by making a big fuss of methodological changes and trying to imply that people didn't really die of Covid. Absolutely Roger. What many of us have been saying for a very long time is that the stats in this are not accurate nor are they compared to anything to give context or scale. Similarly, with the number of cases - of course they will be higher with increased testing and to count positive tests as cases is not consistent with the usual medical view of a case of anything being one that is symptomatic. Nor is the methodology of gathering stats consistent between countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 53 minutes ago, Apple said: If a person's health information has been compiled into anonymised data and sent off island shouldn't that person at least have knowledge and potentially give consent to that? Surely not if there is no identifying information. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 7 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said: Embarrassing picking fights with medics now. Why, are they beyond reproach? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.