Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Coronavirus


Bjornebye

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

All these people hating Sikora, why? He was initially accused of being a government shill, but is now highly critical of the government. While I disagree with his views on the NHS, his commentary on the pandemic has been pretty good on the whole.

 

He was one of the first people to talk about T Cell Immunity, and I just find him to have offered a very balanced view throughout.

 

The none Covid deaths which will be caused by the extended lockdown, will surely dwarf the actual Covid death's in the long term.

Because he’s obviously a massive bullshitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Maybe they contracted it from all that patting themselves on the back.

If that's the case, I'm expecting imminent news...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone subscribe to The Times?

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/three-coronavirus-death-tolls-as-authorities-disagree-x7tk3tms7

 

It seems to widely accepted now that PHE figures include any person who dies who ever had a positive test.

 

Another article here shows that 41% of excess deaths were not Covid related - https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-ae-safe-says-pm-after-fears-led-to-16000-non-covid-deaths-12046765

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Anyone subscribe to The Times?

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/three-coronavirus-death-tolls-as-authorities-disagree-x7tk3tms7

 

It seems to widely accepted now that PHE figures include any person who dies who ever had a positive test.

 

Another article here shows that 41% of excess deaths were not Covid related - https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-ae-safe-says-pm-after-fears-led-to-16000-non-covid-deaths-12046765

Absolutely fucking not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three different daily Covid-19 death tolls are to be published after a compromise between ministers and scientists.

 

The one favoured by ministers is likely to show a big reduction in daily deaths, bringing it close to single figures rather than the dozens usually reported on weekdays.

 

Public Health England (PHE) is due to publish within days a review ordered by Matt Hancock, the health secretary, last month into the existing system of reporting virus deaths. He acted after it was pointed out that official daily figures included anyone who had died after a positive coronavirus test, whatever their cause of death and however long ago any test occurred.

 

Ministers favour only including deaths within 28 days of a positive test, as in Scotland. Thisis expected to lower the overall death toll — which increased by 21 yesterday to 46,526 — by about 10 per cent. However, PHE argued that this would wrongly exclude thousands of cases including those with “long Covid” symptoms which are increasingly being recognised.

 

Government statisticians favoured a third option, known as a “60 day plus” measure. It uses a 60-day cut off, but allows for additions for those who died later after a positive test and had Covid mentioned on their death certificate. This is expected to bring the overall toll down by only a few per cent.

 

Although recommendations were made within days of Mr Hancock ordering the review, debate over the two methods continued into last weekend.

 

It is understood that both the 28 and 60-day measures will be published, with the existing method also reported temporarily for comparison purposes.

 

“It’s not a clean solution but the combination of those two measures does make sense,” a source said. While the 28-day measure allows final totals to be reported faster, the 60-day version, which will need revision as death certificates are filled in, is seen as more comprehensive.

 

However, Professor Carl Heneghan, of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, whose work first alerted Mr Hancock to the issue, criticised the plan, saying that he preferred a 28-day measure as used in clinical trials to identify the most immediate cause of death.

 

“It doesn’t make sense,” he said. “The public are so confused by this and all they will see is the highest number and that up to 100 people a day are still dying. That’s unhelpful and inaccurate. What they should do, if they accept they don’t know how to make sense of this, is to publish the raw data and so people like us can analyse it.”

 

In July PHE figures showed 2,158 deaths in England, against nine in Scotland, and Professor Heneghan argued that most are likely to have been caused by something other than Covid.

 

Although the present method had been agreed with the Department of Health at the start of the pandemic, some in government were frustrated that it was still being used. PHE said it was always due to review this way of counting over the summer.

 

All three measures are separate from the figures provided by the Office for National Statistics, which includes all deaths where Covid is mentioned on a death certificate, whether a person was tested or not. This is regarded by some in government as an over-estimate, as GPs included pneumonia and other conditions as Covid at the height of the pandemic.

 

The most comprehensive measure, regarded as the gold standard by Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, is excess deaths. This avoids disputes over death recording by measuring how many more people are dying than usual, whatever the cause, and so also includes indirect deaths caused by disruption to care and other lockdown measures.

 

While five different ways of measuring deaths might be confusing, the source said: “People want statistics to give reassurance and clarity, but things are never black and white and you have to use different statistics for different purposes.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

So, even using the ministers' favoured method, we're still talking over 40,000.

But the current numbers are largely made up of deaths counted using this method.

 

Regardless of the number of days after a positive test, surely it should really just be included if it was a/the cause of death?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

The most comprehensive measure, regarded as the gold standard by Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, is excess deaths. This avoids disputes over death recording by measuring how many more people are dying than usual, whatever the cause, and so also includes indirect deaths caused by disruption to care and other lockdown measures.

I used to agree with this, but now if 41% of the deaths are not caused by Covid, then what is this actually measuring? The damage caused by lockdown + Covid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spy Bee said:

But the current numbers are largely made up off this method.

 

Regardless of the number of days after a positive test, surely it should really just be included if it was a/the cause of death?

I actually don't know what the best/most helpful metric is. Clearly there isn't consensus in the scientific community about it, either. My point was more that even taking the option with the lowest outcome, the number's still high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I actually don't know what the best/most helpful metric is. Clearly there isn't consensus in the scientific community about it, either. My point was more that even taking the option with the lowest outcome, the number's still high.

Yeah, I get that, but current numbers would be about 6 per day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

So basically they don't want to tell us how many deaths there are daily so they are going to try and bamboozle us with bullshit. 

Yep, obfuscate so no one knows which figure can be relied upon for comparison, and get their press pals to cast doubt on the figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Yep, obfuscate so no one knows which figure can be relied upon for comparison, and get their press pals to cast doubt on the figures.

Gives a certain few headtheballs on here some 'figures' to lie about though. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

Another article here shows that 41% of excess deaths were not Covid related - https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-ae-safe-says-pm-after-fears-led-to-16000-non-covid-deaths-12046765

 

 

In the long term, I'm fully expecting that lockdown and its knock-on effects, including the impending great depression, will kill more people than the actual virus.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

So basically they don't want to tell us how many deaths there are daily so they are going to try and bamboozle us with bullshit. 

Or, they are standardising with the rest of the UK?

 

Do you really want someone who tested positive 5 months ago and died of something totally unrelated to be counted as a Covid death? I think you may have a position which is slightly too entrenched.

 

Anyway, in other news, watch how you fuck - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-53736087

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

 

In the long term, I'm fully expecting that lockdown and its knock-on effects, including the impending great depression, will kill more people than the actual virus.

 

I thought reaction to the virus was 'embarrassing' ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Yep, obfuscate so no one knows which figure can be relied upon for comparison, and get their press pals to cast doubt on the figures.

Farbeit for me to defend the government, but if they wanted to report the lowest possible figures, they would adopt Spain's method of counting deaths. To show much lower figures they would just standardise with Scotland, Wales and NI.

 

I think the question that needs to be asked, is why they are not doing that? How does it benefit them and their cronies to have exaggerated figures? They have already shown that they will use this as an opportunity to transfer public funds to private pockets, and I think we should be looking at how they are continuing to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Er, the months of essentially shutting down the country? Surely you haven't forgotten already.

At a time when we were losing over 500 people a day to the virus? An over-reaction? You are one absolute fucking clown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Er, the months of essentially shutting down the country? Surely you haven't forgotten already.

Wasn't that the reason the numbers came down, especially when there were no rules on masks? Surely you haven't forgotten that already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...