Zero Excess COVID Deaths, How They're Twisting the Numbers

a reply to: ScepticScot
It's to 20th November.

That's 6 weeks max for another 50k deaths which will make us about 10% up on the 532k 5 year average. About 1100 per day.

I can't see that happening.

But I still don't understand why if we work out the 5 year average it gives a different projection to theirs.

Ive misunderstood nothing.

Covid data is misleading leading to misleading death figures. Pretty simple. Sorry you have swallowed the government bait.



a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot
It's to 20th November.

That's 6 weeks max for another 50k deaths which will make us about 10% up on the 532k 5 year average. About 1100 per day.

I can't see that happening.

But I still don't understand why if we work out the 5 year average it gives a different projection to theirs.

Look at the ONS spreadsheet it's week ending so 7 weeks.

a reply to: ScepticScot
I'm doing this from memory but even if it is 13th that's leaving 1100 deaths per day. We're nowhere near that.

Donyou agree that the 5 year average is 532k as a mean? And if not why?

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot
I'm doing this from memory but even if it is 13th that's leaving 1100 deaths per day. We're nowhere near that.

Donyou agree that the 5 year average is 532k as a mean? And if not why?

Increasing the YTD average by 13.5% to give a full year gives almost exactly the 5 year average you worked out.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Ive misunderstood nothing.

Covid data is misleading leading to misleading death figures. Pretty simple. Sorry you have swallowed the government bait.



a reply to: ScepticScot

Again the death figures don't require Covid data to tell us if excessive deaths are up.

Sorry you find that difficulty to understand.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Either I'm being stupid or you're not being straight.

First, we don't need a YTD average because we have the figure exactly, it's 529k deaths YTD. Increase that by 13.5% and we 600k.

To get to 600k by end of year that's 1500 deaths per day. That's not going to happen. At current rate it'll be another 600 per day maximum, that'll take us to 558k. And I reckon that's a worst case.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot

Either I'm being stupid or you're not being straight.

First, we don't need a YTD average because we have the figure exactly, it's 529k deaths YTD. Increase that by 13.5% and we 600k.

To get to 600k by end of year that's 1500 deaths per day. That's not going to happen. At current rate it'll be another 600 per day maximum, that'll take us to 558k. And I reckon that's a worst case.

That was to show the average for 5 year was in line which what I thought you were querying.

Not sure where you get 600 deaths a day figure from? Rate is more than double that.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot

Either I'm being stupid or you're not being straight.

First, we don't need a YTD average because we have the figure exactly, it's 529k deaths YTD. Increase that by 13.5% and we 600k.

To get to 600k by end of year that's 1500 deaths per day. That's not going to happen. At current rate it'll be another 600 per day maximum, that'll take us to 558k. And I reckon that's a worst case.

It's total deaths. The current rate is 12,000 a week so quite a bit over 1500 a day for England and Wales alone ONS

IIRC there's a lag in ONS reporting so the revised total is likely to be just shy of 650,000 (going off rusty memory, may well be wrong)

Here are the winter deaths in Scotland from official figures 2018-2019 dec-mar 20.188

www.nrscotland.gov.uk...

As at the 22nd of November, there have been a total of 5,380 deaths registered in Scotland where the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was mentioned on the death certificate.

www.nrscotland.gov.uk...

70% (171 deaths) were aged 75+

The provisional total number of deaths registered in Scotland in week 47of 2020 (16 November to 22 November) was 1,357. The average number of deaths registered in the corresponding week over the previous five years was 1,130, so there were 227(20%) more deaths registered in week 47of 2020 compared to the average

And if like me who has been begging my doctor for a heart check up for months after 6 heart attacks and still waiting it might explain the extra deaths

I personally know of people who died of old age /cancer /drink and covid was on the death certificate

So xxxxx them

a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes sorry you're right, that 600 a day is nonsense. I'll be back in the morning.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes sorry you're right, that 600 a day is nonsense. I'll be back in the morning.

25 November – Covid: UK – 696 deaths

westbridgfordwire.com...

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes sorry you're right, that 600 a day is nonsense. I'll be back in the morning.

25 November – Covid: UK – 696 deaths

westbridgfordwire.com...

Total deaths, not deaths from Covid.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes that's precisely the mistake I was making last night, for some reason I was only adding Covid deaths, not the entire number of deaths that happen per day, which is around 1500-1750.

So that would, by the end of December, take us to at least 602,000 total deaths. Which as you quite rightly said, is >13% above average.

Despite my complete opposition to 'lockdown' (I have a much better system) I admit that >13% or 68,000 deaths is 'significant'.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes that's precisely the mistake I was making last night, for some reason I was only adding Covid deaths, not the entire number of deaths that happen per day, which is around 1500-1750.

So that would, by the end of December, take us to at least 602,000 total deaths. Which as you quite rightly said, is >13% above average.

Despite my complete opposition to 'lockdown' (I have a much better system) I admit that >13% or 68,000 deaths is 'significant'.

Fair enough.

If people can at least acknowledge that the numbers of people dying are real then it's possible to have a sensible conversation about the best measures to control it are.

Cost of Lockdowns: A Preliminary Report


AIER


A global repository for research into the collateral effects of the COVID-19 lockdown measures



Lockdowns cause harm, even deaths....but it`s all good says the goverment.

originally posted by: Kenzo

Cost of Lockdowns: A Preliminary Report


AIER


A global repository for research into the collateral effects of the COVID-19 lockdown measures



Lockdowns cause harm, even deaths....but it`s all good says the goverment.

My government has certainly not described the lockdown as all good. Can you show who has?

Why are people always talking about the 5 year avarage?

Well, if you go to macrotrends, then you can see the death rate for countries for 50+ years. There you can see that the last death rate rising trend started around 2009 and has been rising ever since.
2020 is just following the same death rate trend so, it makes perfect sense that it would have more deaths then the previous 5 years.

2009 was probably because of the financial crisis and rising unemployment. This will also start to quicken the trend in 2021, since the chance of premature death rises 63% in the chance of losing one livelihood. This effect has a slight lag because people don't start killing themselves right away when they lose their job. They start killing themselves, start abusing alcohol or drugs, do crimes etc in the coming close years to come.

This is the manipulation with statistics. You don't tell a blunt lie, but choose very carefully how you present the statistics, so they look in your favour.
If I can shoot a hole in one once a year, but present this statistic in a 2 day frame, then I can say that 50% of days I can shoot shoot hole in ones, and I would not be lying, just you presentation of that statistic would be misleading.

originally posted by: eitea
Why are people always talking about the 5 year avarage?

Well, if you go to macrotrends, then you can see the death rate for countries for 50+ years. There you can see that the last death rate rising trend started around 2009 and has been rising ever since.
2020 is just following the same death rate trend so, it makes perfect sense that it would have more deaths then the previous 5 years.

2009 was probably because of the financial crisis and rising unemployment. This will also start to quicken the trend in 2021, since the chance of premature death rises 63% in the chance of losing one livelihood. This effect has a slight lag because people don't start killing themselves right away when they lose their job. They start killing themselves, start abusing alcohol or drugs, do crimes etc in the coming close years to come.

This is the manipulation with statistics. You don't tell a blunt lie, but choose very carefully how you present the statistics, so they look in your favour.
If I can shoot a hole in one once a year, but present this statistic in a 2 day frame, then I can say that 50% of days I can shoot shoot hole in ones, and I would not be lying, just you presentation of that statistic would be misleading.

incorrect. There has been a long turn downward trend in age adjusted mortality rates. 2020 has seen a significant increase.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So, macrotrends.net is incorrect?
www.macrotrends.net...

you can look at other countries, besides US there.