Private Boaters

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, PaulN said:

I'm  very confused about the death figures that are published each day.

In the first wave, the deaths published for Covid, were those that occurred in hospitals, this was obviously wrong initially, as it didn't include care homes or people who died at home.

Now the figures we are told each day, are for people who died withing 28 days of testing positive for covid. Does this mean that if someone with no symptoms tests positive and within 28 days they die of say a heart attack or car crash, they are calculated into the covid statistics when their death certificate goes to the central registry?

Simple answer is yes. In the early days they counted any death after a positive covid test, then as it dragged on they realised that there would come a time when someone could test positive and die three months later of something else and they would still be counted, so they set a time limit of within 28 days, but it will still be counted even if the cause of death is unrelated to Covid.

If you look at the ONS stats for the average number of deaths per year over the last 5 years, approx 540,000 per year and then look at the figure for the last 12 months you get closer to the true number of excess deaths caused by Covid, which is less than the figure currently being given. 

[ranworthbreeze]

16 minutes ago, PaulN said:

I'm  very confused about the death figures that are published each day.

In the first wave, the deaths published for Covid, were those that occurred in hospitals, this was obviously wrong initially, as it didn't include care homes or people who died at home.

Now the figures we are told each day, are for people who died withing 28 days of testing positive for covid. Does this mean that if someone with no symptoms tests positive and within 28 days they die of say a heart attack or car crash, they are calculated into the covid statistics when their death certificate goes to the central registry?

The figurers shown each day are still far too many considering we are being told that the virus is slowing down and that measures may be eased shortly

 

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, ranworthbreeze said:

The figurers shown each day are still far too many considering were are being told that the virus is slowing down and that measures may be eased shortly

 

The important figures as far as easing restrictions are concerned are the number of new infections and hospital admissions. Sad as they are, the death figures lag infections and hospital admissions by a number of weeks. As the effects of the vaccine are felt on new infections and hospital admissions and they are already dropping rapidly, then so the daily death figures will likewise follow. It is the reverse of what happened when the R number rose rapidly, new infections and hospital figures followed, and eventually the daily death figures rose some weeks later and continued to rise even when lockdown was announced.

[MauriceMynah]

24 minutes ago, PaulN said:

I'm  very confused about the death figures that are published each day.

In the first wave, the deaths published for Covid, were those that occurred in hospitals, this was obviously wrong initially, as it didn't include care homes or people who died at home.

Now the figures we are told each day, are for people who died withing 28 days of testing positive for covid. Does this mean that if someone with no symptoms tests positive and within 28 days they die of say a heart attack or car crash, they are calculated into the covid statistics when their death certificate goes to the central registry?

No, It does not and can not possibly mean that a car crash fatality (for example) could go down as a covid related death. Consider this... I intentionally infect somebody with covid. He gets tested and is positive. I then shoot him in the head.

Is anybody truly suggesting that this would go down as a covid death? COME on!  

[MauriceMynah]

I doubt many, and certainly not a significant number of covid deaths occur at home.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

No, It does not and can not possibly mean that a car crash fatality (for example) could go down as a covid related death. Consider this... I intentionally infect somebody with covid. He gets tested and is positive. I then shoot him in the head.

Is anybody truly suggesting that this would go down as a covid death? COME on!  

Technically yes. The daily death figure just records ANY death within 28 days of a positive Covid test.

Taken from the CoronaVirus Dashboard site.

Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. Data from the four nations are not directly comparable as methodologies and inclusion criteria vary. Data for the period ending 5 days before the date when the website was last updated with data for the selected area, highlighted in grey, is incomplete.

[Meantime]

The Government publishes two sets of figures on the Corona Virus Portal.

Deaths within 28 days of a positive death which is running at 121,305 since the start.

Deaths with Covid 19 on the death certificate 135,613 since the start. This is where Covid is mentioned as one of the contributing factors.

The ONS figures probably give a truer overall picture.

The 5 year average death rate per year for the five years prior to 2020 was 539,083, for 2020 it was 614,114 so an increase on the average of 75,031

The same figures for the first six weeks of 2021 are as follows, five year average 73,756, this year 105,463, an increase of 31,707.

If you add the 75,031 with the 31,707 that gives you a total of an extra 106,738 extra deaths since Covid started compared to the five year average before. This is a fair bit lower than either of the figures mentioned on the Covid portal.

[ExSurveyor]

We have also had substantially fewer flu and winter vomiting virus deaths as a result of increased isolation and better hygiene measures, this will distort the 5 year average excess deaths figure. I guess that when you adjust for these ' missing' deaths the figure will be near the current quoted covid death figures.

[Meantime]

27 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

We have also had substantially fewer flu and winter vomiting virus deaths as a result of increased isolation and better hygiene measures, this will distort the 5 year average excess deaths figure. I guess that when you adjust for these ' missing' deaths the figure will be near the current quoted covid death figures.

True, but if we hadn't had Covid then some of those people would have died from the things you mentioned. James Bond may live twice, but we can only die once, so the true excess death figure is likely to be far closer to the ONS figures given above. Likewise since Covid has taken some people early, once this pandemic is over you would expect the rolling five year average to come down a little, although this will be more than likely offset by the increases due to missed cancer screenings and others not attending A+E in a timely manner for other ailments, which will lead to a rise.

[HEM]

My daughter works in the forensic medicine department of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.
She works in the toxialogical lab & thus does not examine dead bodies...

However, the director of the forensic medicine department  states that MOST people (84%) die FROM Covid-19 rather than WITH Covid-19.  The equivalent insitutute in Kiel come to a similar conclusion.

 

[ExSurveyor]

Just now, HEM said:

However, the director of the forensic medicine department  states that MOST people (84%) die FROM Covid-19 rather than WITH Covid-19.  The equivalent insitutute in Kiel come to a similar conclusion.

I suppose the question is, would they have died so soon if they hadn't had Covid.

[Lastdraft]

On 23/02/2021 at 12:53, grendel said:

but is that more 'could have' 'suggested that' and media reporting, unfortunately, like the scientist I need more than could have, suggests that and early evidence suggests, the problem is that by reporting this as they are, the people who have been vaccinated feel they are invulnerable now, and will start unconsciously relaxing their guard, forget to take a mask, meet up with some old friends, head down the pub, etc. until there is clear evidence that the vaccine is reducing the transmission, we should still be careful. ie scientific proof.

I think people who have had the jab by now are largely responsible people who are taking all this seriously and will continue with precautions.

I could agree with you if the vaccination program had been in reverse order, if 18 - 30 year old party going ravers had been vaccinated I could see complacency there. I am sure, given time to assess, the vaccine will show a reduction in transmission as well as serious illness and deaths.

[Victoryv]

Our nearest town is well known as a popular retirement area, locals report the towns Aldi much busier in recent weeks with the elderly !

[HEM]

1 hour ago, psychicsurveyor said:

I suppose the question is, would they have died so soon if they hadn't had Covid.

The answer was a clear "No"  (well actually "Nein").

[grendel]

One thing I dont know and would like to, is there a higher chance of testing positive for covid after you have had the vaccine, I ask this because i can remember testing positive at school for TB when they did that, this was down to the fact that a a very small infant i was innoculated against TB shortly after birth, this enabled a visit to my grandfather who was in the final stages of TB to see me before he passed on.

I just wonder, - now I have been vaccinated, will this be detected by either the quick or more thorough covid tests? and if the answer is yes, with all the population getting the vaccine, does this affect the published figures?

[Ray]

I believe not because the older vaccines used a small amount of live virus but the Covid ones don't.

I had a Covid test 9 days after my first jab and the result was negative.