Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

Excess deaths are additional deaths in a given period over and above the 5 year average. That does not mean the death toll is unusual as some years must always be higher than the average. An unusual weekly death toll would be one where deaths are 2 standard deviations above the 5 year average.

Ah, I get what you are saying.

I was being loose with the terminology and talking about the difference in deaths between policy option A (unlocking) versus policy option B (continued lockdown), i.e. the "excess deaths of one policy versus another". When SAGE talk about 18k COVID deaths from unlocking, I suspect that's also what they mean, i.e. 18k net deaths that would otherwise have occurred beyond mid next year (perhaps not very far beyond, I don't know).

SAGE only ever talk about deaths involving COVID. They don't use the 'excess deaths' terminology.

So they just mean we might see another 18k COVID deaths. That could happen without any unusual increase in overall death toll.

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

So they just mean we might see another 18k COVID deaths. That could happen without any unusual increase in overall death toll.

When you say "unusual increase in overall death toll" do you mean an increase versus the average of the last 5 years or the counterfactual where there is zero COVID prevalence in the UK?

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

So they just mean we might see another 18k COVID deaths. That could happen without any unusual increase in overall death toll.

When you say "unusual increase in overall death toll" do you mean an increase versus the average of the last 5 years or the counterfactual where there is zero COVID prevalence in the UK?

The ONS are using the 2015-2019 average to compare both 2020 and 2021 deaths.

So the 'average' in each case is pre-COVID.

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

The ONS are using the 2015-2019 average to compare both 2020 and 2021 deaths.
So the 'average' in each case is pre-COVID.

Gotcha. I don't think that's a hugely helpful baseline against which to evaluate policy choices given the "harvesting" of 2020 but I understand why they do it.

[jm doc]

NickCQ said:

Breadvan72 said:

Discussion of last summer is relevant only as history. There were no vaccines then.

The issue is that SAGE doesn't believe that, and the government listens (only) to SAGE.
They are looking at a model output that does this, assuming restrictions are lifted in line with the current schedule:


(page 9) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

SAGE said:

Under the default assumptions, we expect to observe 84,400 hospital admissions (CI 20,900-
168,000) and 18,600 deaths (CI 4500-36,200) from 12th April 2021 until June 2022

This forecast is from the 29th March so takes into account the current vaccination trajectory. I would be interested to see whether the Great Barrington group or others have done their own modelling (I haven't checked) and whether there is scientific consensus on the 2021 summer peak.

Edited by NickCQ on Thursday 8th April 09:45

This is either completely delusional or Goebbels level propaganda for God only knows what purpose.

The average age of death is over 80 from Covid and currently, at least locally where I work, over 80% of this population group have had their second vaccination and can be considered immune, and over 90% of all those over the age of 50 have had their first dose which is considered to prevent hospital admission and death. I'm not sure who they think is going to be dying, other than the tens of thousands denied hospital treatment by Sage over the last year.

Interesting use of the word "assumptions". So no facts then to justify denying us basic human rights?

Perhaps an explanation from Sage as to why my colleagues and I have spent the last 4 months of our spare time vaccinating all these people if it doesn't work. Perhaps when they crawl out of their central London basements in a year or two to survey the wreckage of the UK and it's economy we might get an answer.

[Smoggy XJR]

Breadvan72 said:

SAGE seems to have been captured by worst cases viewpoints, and seems also obsessed by prediction rather than by observation of what actually happens. So UCL and others who suggest what might be more real world views are whistling in the wind.

Although about climate change rather than a pandemic Michael Crichton's State of Fear has some very interesting observations on this.

[RSTurboPaul]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

The ONS are using the 2015-2019 average to compare both 2020 and 2021 deaths.
So the 'average' in each case is pre-COVID.

Gotcha. I don't think that's a hugely helpful baseline against which to evaluate policy choices given the "harvesting" of 2020 but I understand why they do it.

As Covid is now endemic and one more thing on the list of things that might kill us each year, and hashtagZeroCovid is an unachievable fantasy, one would hope that the baseline would be, er, re-baselined in due course to take account of that fact and not forevermore imply that Covid deaths are 'excess deaths'.

[NickCQ]

RSTurboPaul said:

As Covid is now endemic and one more thing on the list of things that might kill us each year, and hashtagZeroCovid is an unachievable fantasy, one would hope that the baseline would be, er, re-baselined in due course to take account of that fact and not forevermore imply that Covid deaths are 'excess deaths'.

I think you are missing the point. If you take 2015-19 as the baseline, you would expect to see negative excess deaths in 2021-22 almost whatever you do because a load of old people that would have died in 2021-22 already died in 2020. That's what "harvesting" is. It doesn't mean that your policy was a success per se.

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

RSTurboPaul said:

As Covid is now endemic and one more thing on the list of things that might kill us each year, and hashtagZeroCovid is an unachievable fantasy, one would hope that the baseline would be, er, re-baselined in due course to take account of that fact and not forevermore imply that Covid deaths are 'excess deaths'.

I think you are missing the point. If you take 2015-19 as the baseline, you would expect to see negative excess deaths in 2021-22 almost whatever you do because a load of old people that would have died in 2021-22 already died in 2020. That's what "harvesting" is. It doesn't mean that your policy was a success per se.

If we continue to see very low levels of all cause mortality for the rest of 2021, then the most likely reason would be that many people who died in the pandemic are no longer around to die of something else.

In some ways, that would be a relatively positive outcome, because it would confirm that a substantial number of COVID-19 fatalities were of people who were already quite near the end of their lives.

The impact of the pandemic might ultimately have been to accelerate their normal deaths by a year or so, which is still terribly sad for those involved, but obviously less damaging to society than a disease that killed indiscriminately regardless of age and infirmity,

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

If we continue to see very low levels of all cause mortality for the rest of 2021, then the most likely reason would be that many people who died in the pandemic are no longer around to die of something else.
In some ways, that would be a relatively positive outcome, because it would confirm that a substantial number of COVID-19 fatalities were of people who were already quite near the end of their lives.

Agreed. There was a study done in Scotland early on last year which suggested that the average "years of life lost" from a COVID death was something like 10+, which was surprisingly high, so it will be interesting to see how this can be refined on 2021/22 data.

https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2020/apri...

[Elysium]

You might find this interesting. The blue bars are weekly ONS deaths ‘due to COVID’ and the orange line is excess deaths compared to the 2015-2019 average. You can see that the numbers of reported COVID deaths in each are similar, but the number of extra people dying peaks much lower in the second wave.

Some of this is down to timing. The second wave coincides with the normal winter virus season, whereas the first wave came at an unusual time when deaths tend to be lower. It could also be due to our open methodology which, if there is doubt, tends to favour COVID as a cause of death alongside other conditions.

However. It could also be a sign that there are already less vulnerable people. Excess death inevitably corrects itself at some point.

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

You might find this interesting.

That is interesting, thanks. Is there an explanation for why first wave excess deaths were greater than the number of COVID deaths? That would seem to contradict the idea that COVID is overly favoured as a cause of death, unless what we are seeing is the impact of restricting other healthcare services in the first lockdown.

[RSTurboPaul]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

You might find this interesting.

That is interesting, thanks. Is there an explanation for why first wave excess deaths were greater than the number of COVID deaths? That would seem to contradict the idea that COVID is overly favoured as a cause of death, unless what we are seeing is the impact of restricting other healthcare services in the first lockdown.

That graph makes my head hurt lol

I *think* it's saying that in the first wave, some excess deaths were not attributed to Covid (which is remarkable, given how it was/is the 'get out of jail free' card if a Dr wanted to avoid an autopsy or any further investigations, which seemingly lots wanted to do), whereas in the second wave, Covid is being used for eeeeeverything and more, replacing other illnesses as the/a cause of death on Death Certificates.

That the second wave has numbers of Covid deaths in excess of the Excess Deaths line could be seen as 'Covid is causing all excess deaths', but the fact the Covid deaths are higher than the Excess deaths shows that Covid is mopping up other causes of death. We should therefore see reductions in deaths from other illnesses in the figures.


I *think*...

[NickCQ]

RSTurboPaul said:

That the second wave has numbers of Covid deaths in excess of the Excess Deaths line could be seen as 'Covid is causing all excess deaths', but the fact the Covid deaths are higher than the Excess deaths shows that Covid is mopping up other causes of death.

Per the earlier discussion, underlying / non-COVID mortality in Q4 last year was probably below the 5 year average because of deaths of old / vulnerable during the first wave of COVID. It doesn't mean that "COVID is mopping up other causes of death", it just means that absent COVID in those weeks, excess deaths would have been negative.

[jm doc]

RSTurboPaul said:

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

You might find this interesting.

That is interesting, thanks. Is there an explanation for why first wave excess deaths were greater than the number of COVID deaths? That would seem to contradict the idea that COVID is overly favoured as a cause of death, unless what we are seeing is the impact of restricting other healthcare services in the first lockdown.

That graph makes my head hurt lol

I *think* it's saying that in the first wave, some excess deaths were not attributed to Covid (which is remarkable, given how it was/is the 'get out of jail free' card if a Dr wanted to avoid an autopsy or any further investigations, which seemingly lots wanted to do), whereas in the second wave, Covid is being used for eeeeeverything and more, replacing other illnesses as the/a cause of death on Death Certificates.

That the second wave has numbers of Covid deaths in excess of the Excess Deaths line could be seen as 'Covid is causing all excess deaths', but the fact the Covid deaths are higher than the Excess deaths shows that Covid is mopping up other causes of death. We should therefore see reductions in deaths from other illnesses in the figures.


I *think*...

Just to be clear, it's always the either the Coroner or the relatives who put a lot of pressure on you as the GP not to ask for a post-mortem. In the case of the Coroner especially, when asked he will always push for a death certificate to be issued rather than have a PM. Otherwise many more deaths would end up as a PM.

[RSTurboPaul]

Oh look - Government are issuing edicts again based on guidance, and attempting to pretend they are law

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/ex...

Telegraph said:

Drinkers must hand their phones to pub staff to prove they have registered on the NHS Test and Trace app when beer gardens open on Monday under a tightening of rules to track Covid in hospitality venues.

The latest guidance says pub staff must look at customers' mobile phone screens to make sure that they have registered with Test and Trace before they can be served.

Drinkers will still have the option of registering manually by filling out a form with their name and telephone number.

The guidance, issued ahead of the outdoor reopening, says that "should someone choose to check in with the official NHS QR code poster, a venue should check their phone screen to ensure they have successfully checked in".

Under the rules from Monday, all customers will have to register with Test and Trace rather than just one person per group.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 9th April 16:15

[NickCQ]

I think the solution here is to stop reading the Telegraph, it may be good for your blood pressure.

[RSTurboPaul]

NickCQ said:

I think the solution here is to stop reading the Telegraph, it may be good for your blood pressure.

Why do you think I've stopped watching the BBC?

If I wanted to be force-fed a diet of state propaganda I'd move to North Korea, lol.

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

That is interesting, thanks. Is there an explanation for why first wave excess deaths were greater than the number of COVID deaths? That would seem to contradict the idea that COVID is overly favoured as a cause of death, unless what we are seeing is the impact of restricting other healthcare services in the first lockdown.

PHE deaths within 28 days are influenced by the extent of testing, which was quite restricted in the first wave.

I think this will have affected decisions about what to include on death certificates.

[Flooble]

Tragedy