COVID19

[arbboy]

Fingers crossed for your Nan, Mark.

What he said.

Hoping for the best Mark.

Cheers Ralph. Makes missing the derby at Nottingham slightly more real life when your family is involved in this chaos.

[bergeroo]

Fingers crossed for your Nan Arb.

My mum knows the family of this lady who is over 100 and came out of hospital last week.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/health/coronavirus-covid19/2020/04/15/birmingham-great-grandmother-106-becomes-oldest-in-uk-to-beat-coronavirus/

Obviously not good but it is beatable for an older person. Hope your Nan can do the same.

[Doobs]

Good luck to your Nan, Mark

[Woodsey]

Fingers crossed for your Nan, Mark.

What he said.

Hoping for the best Mark.

Cheers Ralph. Makes missing the derby at Nottingham slightly more real life when your family is involved in this chaos.

Never used my one time, want to pass it on to your nan and cross everything for her.

[MintTrav]

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

The all cause mortality international comparisons.

Seems that the U.K. excess non Covid deaths, that came along by coincidence (according to some), nearly all came along in the Covid hotspots.

Interesting data - I do like Burn Murdoch.
Who is saying it is coincidence?

It was a contentious topic ITT thread after the first relevant ONS update. Without a better explainer, the graphs in the Tuesday briefings make an absolute assumption that the other excess deaths aren’t Covid. I think it’s fair to say that just in general (including most people I talk to) people think U.K. Coronavirus deaths are “around 20,000” .

Terminology is important.

"...Seems that the U.K. excess non Covid deaths, that came along by coincidence (according to some), nearly all came along in the Covid hotspots. ..."

Is the right terminology, even if you didn't mean it. Some of those deaths are COVID19 but weren't recorded as such, some of them are not COVID19 - but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen because of the virus.

There is a difference between "died of COVID19" and "died because of COVID19".

The scientific advisors at the daily press conferences have been very clear about this over and over again, but some like the FT seem to be pretty much stuck on saying every excess death is "of COVID19" and not "because of COVID19", I'm sure they know exactly what the difference is - it goes back to what was previously mentioned about having a firm editorial policy and not moving from it.

The briefings including the hospital and ONS deaths - are exactly what they are described as. They explain exactly what they are, and they've explained about the other types of deaths caused by COVID19 indirectly. Do you think they should include the hospital deaths? And the ONS official death certificate count? And the difference between the 5 year average (the excess deaths)? As well as the hospital deaths, official deaths and excess deaths of every other country they include on their graphs?
At some point you've got to make a decision about how much information you include and given all this data is readily available anyway it doesn't seem a terrible decision to focus on the official figures on a weekly basis and leave the in depth analysis until later.

That reads almost like you think you’re lecturing me, quite odd at this stage of discussions. Given the Seb Payne article today, it might be time to move on from the idea that the FT have a one dimensional editorial position on this. I think the numbers are communicated very carefully so that people can go around with the idea that U.K. Covid death roll is around 20,000.

Check again with the actuary reports for a good understanding on what the fatalities classified as non Covid excess deaths probably died of.

Are you saying you do think that every excess death represents somebody who contracted COVID19, died from it, but didn't have COVID19 put on their death certificate?

Certainly not all but I am saying it appears that a lot have been missed and we know at least some doctors have been discouraged from putting Covid on death certificates. Check Doobs explanation to me earlier in the week, it would be too weird for us to be out of line with all other nations by an amount that’s strikingly similar to the number of unexplained excess deaths we have. Let’s wait and see what Tuesday morning brings. As always I’d welcome an explanation from Doobs if I have this wrong.

The point I was making was that the tweet you linked and the FT news stories are written in a way that infers that the number of people who have died from  COVID19 equals the ONS figure plus the excess deaths figure.

Even if you ignore variance it should differentiate between "died from" and "died because of"; particularly for international comparisons.

I've tried to figure out what you mean, but I'm not getting it. What is the difference between "died of" and "died because of"?
You say we need to be careful of terminology but then you change it to differentiating between "died from" and "died because of".
They all look the same to me. Could you explain the differences between "died of", "died from" and "died because of"?

I have tried to work it out, and I've come up with some possible explanations of what you mean, but none of them really make sense to me. Is it any of these:
1. Some people on FB are saying that there's a difference between "died of/from" and "died with", and I can understand that. Is that what you're getting at?
2. Are you saying in "of" or "from" that Covid killed them but some of them were about to die anyway, which is something else I've seen posted? Surely they would have probably struggled on a little longer, so Covid did shorten their life.
3. Someone might have died "of" Covid, but died "because of" the shortage of PPE or ventilators, medical mismanagement, nursing error, etc.

I shouldn't be guessing - could you tell me what you meant?

[Jon MW]

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

The all cause mortality international comparisons.

Seems that the U.K. excess non Covid deaths, that came along by coincidence (according to some), nearly all came along in the Covid hotspots.

Interesting data - I do like Burn Murdoch.
Who is saying it is coincidence?

It was a contentious topic ITT thread after the first relevant ONS update. Without a better explainer, the graphs in the Tuesday briefings make an absolute assumption that the other excess deaths aren’t Covid. I think it’s fair to say that just in general (including most people I talk to) people think U.K. Coronavirus deaths are “around 20,000” .

Terminology is important.

"...Seems that the U.K. excess non Covid deaths, that came along by coincidence (according to some), nearly all came along in the Covid hotspots. ..."

Is the right terminology, even if you didn't mean it. Some of those deaths are COVID19 but weren't recorded as such, some of them are not COVID19 - but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen because of the virus.

There is a difference between "died of COVID19" and "died because of COVID19".

The scientific advisors at the daily press conferences have been very clear about this over and over again, but some like the FT seem to be pretty much stuck on saying every excess death is "of COVID19" and not "because of COVID19", I'm sure they know exactly what the difference is - it goes back to what was previously mentioned about having a firm editorial policy and not moving from it.

The briefings including the hospital and ONS deaths - are exactly what they are described as. They explain exactly what they are, and they've explained about the other types of deaths caused by COVID19 indirectly. Do you think they should include the hospital deaths? And the ONS official death certificate count? And the difference between the 5 year average (the excess deaths)? As well as the hospital deaths, official deaths and excess deaths of every other country they include on their graphs?
At some point you've got to make a decision about how much information you include and given all this data is readily available anyway it doesn't seem a terrible decision to focus on the official figures on a weekly basis and leave the in depth analysis until later.

That reads almost like you think you’re lecturing me, quite odd at this stage of discussions. Given the Seb Payne article today, it might be time to move on from the idea that the FT have a one dimensional editorial position on this. I think the numbers are communicated very carefully so that people can go around with the idea that U.K. Covid death roll is around 20,000.

Check again with the actuary reports for a good understanding on what the fatalities classified as non Covid excess deaths probably died of.

Are you saying you do think that every excess death represents somebody who contracted COVID19, died from it, but didn't have COVID19 put on their death certificate?

Certainly not all but I am saying it appears that a lot have been missed and we know at least some doctors have been discouraged from putting Covid on death certificates. Check Doobs explanation to me earlier in the week, it would be too weird for us to be out of line with all other nations by an amount that’s strikingly similar to the number of unexplained excess deaths we have. Let’s wait and see what Tuesday morning brings. As always I’d welcome an explanation from Doobs if I have this wrong.

The point I was making was that the tweet you linked and the FT news stories are written in a way that infers that the number of people who have died from  COVID19 equals the ONS figure plus the excess deaths figure.

Even if you ignore variance it should differentiate between "died from" and "died because of"; particularly for international comparisons.

I've tried to figure out what you mean, but I'm not getting it. What is the difference between "died of" and "died because of"?
You say we need to be careful of terminology but then you change it to differentiating between "died from" and "died because of".
They all look the same to me. Could you explain the differences between "died of", "died from" and "died because of"?

I have tried to work it out, and I've come up with some possible explanations of what you mean, but none of them really make sense to me. Is it any of these:
1. Some people on FB are saying that there's a difference between "died of/from" and "died with", and I can understand that. Is that what you're getting at?
2. Are you saying in "of" or "from" that Covid killed them but some of them were about to die anyway, which is something else I've seen posted? Surely they would have probably struggled on a little longer, so Covid did shorten their life.
3. Someone might have died "of" Covid, but died "because of" the shortage of PPE or ventilators, medical mismanagement, nursing error, etc.

I shouldn't be guessing - could you tell me what you meant?

We haven't watched all the daily briefings but they've mentioned indirect deaths 2 or 3 times in the ones I have.

If you die of/from COVID19 it means you had the virus.

If you die because of COVID19 you didn't have the virus but you wouldn't have died if the pandemic wasn't happening . Like you didn't go to hospital because you were worried about catching COVID19, for example.

I thought these indirect deaths were pretty well documented and it was only a few in the media who were determined to ignore them but that looks like it might be wrong.

[jakally]

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

The all cause mortality international comparisons.

Seems that the U.K. excess non Covid deaths, that came along by coincidence (according to some), nearly all came along in the Covid hotspots.

Interesting data - I do like Burn Murdoch.
Who is saying it is coincidence?

It was a contentious topic ITT thread after the first relevant ONS update. Without a better explainer, the graphs in the Tuesday briefings make an absolute assumption that the other excess deaths aren’t Covid. I think it’s fair to say that just in general (including most people I talk to) people think U.K. Coronavirus deaths are “around 20,000” .

Are you saying that the government briefing on Tuesday inferred that the excess deaths are not Covid related? Surprised if that is the case.
As for the general public, I don't think anyone who is taking a close interest would say that 20,000 is the number, or even close to it.
The people who watch the news once per day for an update would probably think different to that though, & they almost certainly are a bigger number of people.

[Jon MW]

This is the kind of thing they have talked about with indirect deaths and trying to prevent them

‘We are here for non-coronavirus patients too.’ Our Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens has launched a major new drive to urge the public to seek care and treatment when they need it.
https://twitter.com/NHSEngland/status/1253941816363270145


And this was one of the replies to that tweet.
"I'm not coming. No, no no. And I have a permanent feeding line. Die at home or die in a hospital. Easy choice."
https://twitter.com/suey2y/status/1254105529217101834

If they said 10% of the excess deaths were indirect (for example) that wouldn't surprise me [for context the last weekly update from the actuarial monitoring showed nearly 80% of the excess deaths are registered as COVID19 which would leave just over 10% of the excess deaths being COVID19 but not registered as such).

[kukushkin88]

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

The all cause mortality international comparisons.

Seems that the U.K. excess non Covid deaths, that came along by coincidence (according to some), nearly all came along in the Covid hotspots.

Interesting data - I do like Burn Murdoch.
Who is saying it is coincidence?

It was a contentious topic ITT thread after the first relevant ONS update. Without a better explainer, the graphs in the Tuesday briefings make an absolute assumption that the other excess deaths aren’t Covid. I think it’s fair to say that just in general (including most people I talk to) people think U.K. Coronavirus deaths are “around 20,000” .

Are you saying that the government briefing on Tuesday inferred that the excess deaths are not Covid related? Surprised if that is the case.
As for the general public, I don't think anyone who is taking a close interest would say that 20,000 is the number, or even close to it.
The people who watch the news once per day for an update would probably think different to that though, & they almost certainly are a bigger number of people.

Good morning

No, they don’t do that, they just don’t mention the non Covid excess (for clarity: the ones where Covid is not mentioned on the death certificate) deaths at all.

Whitty has said that all cause mortality is the best indicator of the impact of the pandemic, I think we all agree on that.

If we (England) don’t think we are missing people who died directly of Covid, we must have a theory as to how we are better than other comparable countries at stopping old people getting Covid but they then die at the same increased rate as other countries anyway. Countries suitable for comparison on this Scotland/Ireland/France, also New York State.

In terms of the last part of your statement, it is primarily a PR exercise/crisis. It will be a huge priority for the government that the general population think the number of deaths is the smallest possible number.

[kukushkin88]

This is the kind of thing they have talked about with indirect deaths and trying to prevent them

‘We are here for non-coronavirus patients too.’ Our Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens has launched a major new drive to urge the public to seek care and treatment when they need it.
https://twitter.com/NHSEngland/status/1253941816363270145


And this was one of the replies to that tweet.
"I'm not coming. No, no no. And I have a permanent feeding line. Die at home or die in a hospital. Easy choice."
https://twitter.com/suey2y/status/1254105529217101834

If they said 10% of the excess deaths were indirect (for example) that wouldn't surprise me [for context the last weekly update from the actuarial monitoring showed nearly 80% of the excess deaths are registered as COVID19 which would leave just over 10% of the excess deaths being COVID19 but not registered as such).

Agree with the top bit but your numbers are off in the bottom part. It’s 47% more excess deaths than reported Covid deaths.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases

I am taking that JBM has done the maths correctly on trust.

[Jon MW]

This is the kind of thing they have talked about with indirect deaths and trying to prevent them

‘We are here for non-coronavirus patients too.’ Our Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens has launched a major new drive to urge the public to seek care and treatment when they need it.
https://twitter.com/NHSEngland/status/1253941816363270145


And this was one of the replies to that tweet.
"I'm not coming. No, no no. And I have a permanent feeding line. Die at home or die in a hospital. Easy choice."
https://twitter.com/suey2y/status/1254105529217101834

If they said 10% of the excess deaths were indirect (for example) that wouldn't surprise me [for context the last weekly update from the actuarial monitoring showed nearly 80% of the excess deaths are registered as COVID19 which would leave just over 10% of the excess deaths being COVID19 but not registered as such).

Agree with the top bit but your numbers are off in the bottom part. It’s 47% more excess deaths than reported Covid deaths.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases

I am taking that JBM has done the maths correctly on trust.

For quickness I just looked at the week 15 report

Expected deaths: 10,440
Actual registered: 18,516
COVID19 mentioned: 6213

So 8076 excess deaths
6213 are confirmed COVID19 = 77% of the excess deaths

The overall total might be different, some of his numbers look odd but I haven't looked at them in detail to see exactly what they're saying. I'm sure they're mathematically correct - I just don't know 'exactly' what they're a calculation of.


EDIT: oh unless 10440/18516 = 56%; could the 47% be related to that?

[kukushkin88]

This is the kind of thing they have talked about with indirect deaths and trying to prevent them

‘We are here for non-coronavirus patients too.’ Our Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens has launched a major new drive to urge the public to seek care and treatment when they need it.
https://twitter.com/NHSEngland/status/1253941816363270145


And this was one of the replies to that tweet.
"I'm not coming. No, no no. And I have a permanent feeding line. Die at home or die in a hospital. Easy choice."
https://twitter.com/suey2y/status/1254105529217101834

If they said 10% of the excess deaths were indirect (for example) that wouldn't surprise me [for context the last weekly update from the actuarial monitoring showed nearly 80% of the excess deaths are registered as COVID19 which would leave just over 10% of the excess deaths being COVID19 but not registered as such).

Agree with the top bit but your numbers are off in the bottom part. It’s 47% more excess deaths than reported Covid deaths.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases

I am taking that JBM has done the maths correctly on trust.

For quickness I just looked at the week 15 report

Expected deaths: 10,440
Actual registered: 18,516
COVID19 mentioned: 6213

So 8076 excess deaths
6213 are confirmed COVID19 = 77% of the excess deaths

The overall total might be different, some of his numbers look odd but I haven't looked at them in detail to see exactly what they're saying. I'm sure they're mathematically correct - I just don't know 'exactly' what they're a calculation of.


EDIT: oh unless 10440/18516 = 56%; could the 47% be related to that?

It’s not clear what period he is using. I think it’s possible that for comparative purposes, he has used weeks 13 and 14, I don’t have time to check the numbers atm. By lockdown standards, it’s a hectic morning.

[Doobs]

This is the kind of thing they have talked about with indirect deaths and trying to prevent them

‘We are here for non-coronavirus patients too.’ Our Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens has launched a major new drive to urge the public to seek care and treatment when they need it.
https://twitter.com/NHSEngland/status/1253941816363270145


And this was one of the replies to that tweet.
"I'm not coming. No, no no. And I have a permanent feeding line. Die at home or die in a hospital. Easy choice."
https://twitter.com/suey2y/status/1254105529217101834

If they said 10% of the excess deaths were indirect (for example) that wouldn't surprise me [for context the last weekly update from the actuarial monitoring showed nearly 80% of the excess deaths are registered as COVID19 which would leave just over 10% of the excess deaths being COVID19 but not registered as such).

Agree with the top bit but your numbers are off in the bottom part. It’s 47% more excess deaths than reported Covid deaths.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases

I am taking that JBM has done the maths correctly on trust.

For quickness I just looked at the week 15 report

Expected deaths: 10,440
Actual registered: 18,516
COVID19 mentioned: 6213

So 8076 excess deaths
6213 are confirmed COVID19 = 77% of the excess deaths

The overall total might be different, some of his numbers look odd but I haven't looked at them in detail to see exactly what they're saying. I'm sure they're mathematically correct - I just don't know 'exactly' what they're a calculation of.


EDIT: oh unless 10440/18516 = 56%; could the 47% be related to that?

I looked at those charts last night and gave up.   

I thought he was doing something like your (1-10440/18516)*100 to getthe percentage, but if you look at Italy that couldn't be right either.  Looking at his twitter then it was clear lots of people were confused as to why the numbers were inconsistent between the texts and the charts.   I do think it is some sort of averaging over a number of weeks, but it isn't clear which weeks he used or if they are used consistently over all countries. 

I just concluded he is doing what others are doing, but just in a less clear manner. 

[Chompy]

Sorry to hear about your nan arb. Sucks doing everything right and then ending up in hospital for something else.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1253995440338620416

https://theovertake.com/~beta/frankie-boyle-were-knee-deep-in-shit-and-drinking-cups-of-tea/

[Doobs]

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1254462206403588096?s=21

The all cause mortality international comparisons.

Seems that the U.K. excess non Covid deaths, that came along by coincidence (according to some), nearly all came along in the Covid hotspots.

Interesting data - I do like Burn Murdoch.
Who is saying it is coincidence?

It was a contentious topic ITT thread after the first relevant ONS update. Without a better explainer, the graphs in the Tuesday briefings make an absolute assumption that the other excess deaths aren’t Covid. I think it’s fair to say that just in general (including most people I talk to) people think U.K. Coronavirus deaths are “around 20,000” .

Are you saying that the government briefing on Tuesday inferred that the excess deaths are not Covid related? Surprised if that is the case.
As for the general public, I don't think anyone who is taking a close interest would say that 20,000 is the number, or even close to it.
The people who watch the news once per day for an update would probably think different to that though, & they almost certainly are a bigger number of people.

There some quite active COVID deniers out there who are raising doubts that even 20,000 people have died of COVID.