• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Death rate revised down

Status
Not open for further replies.

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
Can't see this being discussed anywhere else....

It seems that the UK death rate has been revised down by some 12% now they've removed the deaths of people who had positive Covid tests more than 28 days before.


A review of how deaths from coronavirus are counted in England has reduced the UK death toll by more than 5,000, to 41,329, the government has announced.

The recalculation is based on a new definition of who has died from Covid.

Previously, people in England who died at any point following a positive test, regardless of cause, were counted in the figures.

But there will now be a cut-off of 28 days, providing a more accurate picture of the epidemic.

Interestingly as well, in the last week they have recalculated (week ending July 24th) the death rates fell by 75% compared to 4heir initial calculation. So basically by now we're down in pretty much single figures each day.

What a farce. Why did the government try to exaggerate the deaths? (no conspiracy theories please)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Why did the government try to exaggerate the deaths?

If I had to guess, convenience. It's a lot simpler to count all deaths when all you have is a database of "these people tested positive" and "these people have died" and check the both, compared to adding in the bit of logic that checks when the positive test was.

That said, I find it interesting that the PHE number is now lower than the ONS number again - for week ending 24/7 PHE say 111, but the ONS have it at 182 for England
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,595
What a farce. Why did the government try to exaggerate the deaths? (no conspiracy theories please)

If you're going to ask the question like that, i.e. assuming this was deliberately done to exaggerate the figures, I'm not sure what's left other than conspiracy theories.

At the start I don't suppose this would have made much difference and it was presumably an easy way of getting figures that were wanted urgently.

But now it doesn't work well because there are much fewer deaths and more people who at some point had a positive test.

And it presumably has no effect on totals based on what was given as the cause of death on the death certificate.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
Can't see this being discussed anywhere else....

It seems that the UK death rate has been revised down by some 12% now they've removed the deaths of people who had positive Covid tests more than 28 days before.




Interestingly as well, in the last week they have recalculated (week ending July 24th) the death rates fell by 75% compared to 4heir initial calculation. So basically by now we're down in pretty much single figures each day.

What a farce. Why did the government try to exaggerate the deaths? (no conspiracy theories please)

They didn't.

The fact is that a methodology that worked, and was appropriate, in March and April is no longer suitable.

In the early days it was a pretty reliable way of determining deaths arising from the virus. Now that more time has passed people who have had the virus have had time to die of other causes.

There is no malice or conspiracy - remember all of this was done at great speed in the middle of a Pandemic and while this isn't great it is the right change to make.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,595
How come the other nations always used the 28 day rule?

Presumably because somebody thought a bit further ahead there.

It's still crude and presumably counts someone in a fatal car crash on the way back from the test centre as a Covid death.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The fact is that a methodology that worked, and was appropriate, in March and April is no longer suitable.

It wasn't suitable then, either.

Why can't they just use what's on the death certificate?
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
Even the death certificate is not the end story. Anyone who dies of viral pneumonia, whatever virus caused it, is likely to have Covid mentioned on the death certificate. That's not a criticism of the doctor writing it, it would indeed be remiss of them not to mention it as one of the differential diagnoses.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
How come the other nations always used the 28 day rule?
And why, if the government in England were too dim to realise someone testing positive in March who got hit by a bus in May might *not* have died of Covid, didn’t the medical advisers, or people in the other nations point out the methodology may inflate the death toll?
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
At the start, I doubt it made much difference. It does now.
Overstating the deaths by more than 12% is massive.
Imagine the outrage on TwitFace if it was reported that the true death toll was underreported by that magnitude. They’d be screaming about a ‘conspiracy of silence to get us socialising again’ and/or ‘Boris cares more about the economy than people’s lives!!’
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Perhaps because the government wanted numbers as quickly as possible, and that information wasn't available?

It really shouldn't be difficult to put together a system to collate this - all deaths have to be registered, so they could instruct the registrars to send this information once a week, or whatever.
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
And why, if the government in England were too dim to realise someone testing positive in March who got hit by a bus in May might *not* have died of Covid, didn’t the medical advisers, or people in the other nations point out the methodology may inflate the death toll?
The new method is equally dim. From the same BBC report:

Someone who stayed in intensive care with Covid-19 for five weeks and died would not be counted as a coronavirus death, for example.

That is somebody who died from Covid, now isn't counted as somebody who died from Covid!
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,595
The new method is equally dim. From the same BBC report:

That is somebody who died from Covid, now isn't counted as somebody who died from Covid!

Maybe the people involved in collating these figures are just incredibly stupid.
Or maybe for these figures all that is available is the date of death and date of a positive Covid test, and they are doing the best they can?

I know which one my money is on.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I understand this is pretty much a standard approach in many countries.

Though it does still mean someone killed in a car crash on the way home from testing positive would count.
 

Mugby

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Derby
Interestingly as well, in the last week they have recalculated (week ending July 24th) the death rates fell by 75% compared to 4heir initial calculation. So basically by now we're down in pretty much single figures each day.

What a farce. Why did the government try to exaggerate the deaths? (no conspiracy theories please)

Absolutely.

Also, it would be interesting to know how many of the single figure daily death toll are people aged over 80 who were in fragile health anyway.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You only get single figures for weekends and that's because some of the reporting administration function doesn't operate then. It's high double figures (mostly) on other days.
 

jtuk

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
423
It wasn't suitable then, either.

Why can't they just use what's on the death certificate?

Given that we've read on here that people were putting Covid on the death certificate for multiple reasons other than that they had Covid, I'm not sure that's a great idea either. Besides, if someone's heart gives out after 60 years of smoking, drinking and eating pies, and they did have Covid at the time, is Covid actually the cause of death?
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,864
Location
Airedale
It really shouldn't be difficult to put together a system to collate this - all deaths have to be registered, so they could instruct the registrars to send this information once a week, or whatever.
Which is where the ONS gets its figures from. More accurate (give or take) but 2 weeks later.
A related topic was discussed extensively here
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-so-many-deaths-outside-hospitals.206594/

Given that we've read on here that people were putting Covid on the death certificate for multiple reasons other than that they had Covid, I'm not sure that's a great idea either. Besides, if someone's heart gives out after 60 years of smoking, drinking and eating pies, and they did have Covid at the time, is Covid actually the cause of death?
It is a cause of death.

There is no one way of measuring deaths - AIUI the Excess Deaths figure is eventually safest for international/historic comparison - but you can determine trends from the PHE and ONS figures reasonably well, so long as the method is consistent.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,595
Which is where the ONS gets its figures from. More accurate (give or take) but 2 weeks later.
A related topic was discussed extensively here
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-so-many-deaths-outside-hospitals.206594/


It is a cause of death.

There is no one way of measuring deaths - AIUI the Excess Deaths figure is eventually safest for international/historic comparison - but you can determine trends from the PHE and ONS figures reasonably well, so long as the method is consistent.

As I understand it, a death certificate doesn't just give a cause of death.

It gives the main cause, then contributing factors.

Covid could be one or the other.

All the figures I've seen have just talked about "Covid" deaths, so it might be interesting to know if that includes everything where Covid was listed as a main or contributing factor. (I suspect it does).

But where Covid is given as a contributing factor that still means that the death would likely not have happened then without Covid - and indeed might not have happened for a long time.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
It gives the main cause, then contributing factors.

Covid could be one or the other.

That would actually produce even more useful statistics, as it would show clearly the proportion where there were already serious medical conditions.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
Maybe the people involved in collating these figures are just incredibly stupid.
Or maybe for these figures all that is available is the date of death and date of a positive Covid test, and they are doing the best they can?

I know which one my money is on.
I very much doubt if deaths had been understated by 12% that those terrified by media scaremongering would shrug and be happy with a ‘they’re doing the best they can’ explanation.

I’ve said it before in other discussions, but it bears repetition. The media are always reporting Covid deaths as ‘died after testing positive for coronavirus’. They are careful not to say ‘died of coronavirus’.

The way the stats were being compiled would imply that, if 250,000 people in England have had a positive test, ALL would eventually be counted as having ‘died after testing positive for coronavirus’, even someone dying 50 years from now! The ineptitude being displayed by the powers that be is of monumental proportions, it truly is.

Also, we’re now seeing flu deaths far outstripping even the inflated Covid19 death figures.
This has been the case for 7 weeks in a row. Where’s the screaming headlines about that?
Nearly five times as many people are now dying of flu and pneumonia than with coronavirus in England and Wales, new figures have revealed.

Numbers published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show 917 flu and pneumonia deaths were registered for the week ending on July 31.
In comparison, 193 people died that week after testing positive for Covid-19 – the lowest weekly level for 19 weeks.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,595
Yes, and?

The fact that these two common (and related) ailments combined are killing more people than the deadly killer virus is pretty telling.

Well, because it's true whereas saying the numbers are just flu is not true.

And because if it is just flu it would mean that one viral infection (or rather a set of related viral infections) were causing more deaths than the coronavirus.
But pneumonia is not necessarily caused by a virus.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
Well, because it's true whereas saying the numbers are just flu is not true.

And because if it is just flu it would mean that one viral infection (or rather a set of related viral infections) were causing more deaths than the coronavirus.
But pneumonia is not necessarily caused by a virus.
And the numbers for Coronavirus deaths are true? What the downgrade in numbers tells you is that the stated numbers are NOT true. Add in the fact that regulations requiring a second doctor to correberate the cause of death have been suspended (brought in as a result of the Harold Shipman scandal), and I don’t see the reduced toll being entirely true, either.
Point taken about flu and pneumonia. But they are related conditions.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,595
But they are related conditions.

In the sense that flu can cause pneumonia, yes, but there is a big difference between flu (a particular viral infection) and pneumonia (many causes, viral infections being one of them).
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Graph showing the difference - the red parts go away. Note how large a change it makes from around mid-June.

1597314722706.png
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,595
Graph showing the difference - the red parts go away. Note how large a change it makes from around mid-June.

View attachment 82162

Thanks.

So exactly as suggested, it was fine at the start (of course up to 28 days there can be no difference) but with time becomes increasingly inaccurate to the point where it starts to be fairly meaningless.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Thanks.

So exactly as suggested, it was fine at the start (of course up to 28 days there can be no difference) but with time becomes increasingly inaccurate to the point where it starts to be fairly meaningless.

Yes, a reasonable assumption at the start, but you'd think someone may have noticed as time went on. Indeed you started a thread on this issue some weeks back, as I recall.

Either the people responsible for publishing these figures realised this but didn't do anything about it for a long time - why? - or didn't realise, which is awfully incompetent when it was increasingly obvious there was something rather wrong. As ever in such matters, neither explanation is reassuring :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top