UK Covid death toll

[billybassett]

The dangerous fact is that the govt is allowed to publish stats and data with no reference, no transparency and no accountability. And make decisions on the basis of that. The BMJ article was proof of all that.

The fact that they refuse to, publish the amount of beds available across the country each week
The fact they refuse to publish the false positive rate for the PCR
The fact they used 3wk old data to enforce an unnecessary lockdown
The fact they've published no information on the costs of lockdown to the health wellbeing and finances of the people and the country.
The fact they changed the reporting rules and method but don't signpost them
The fact that the more sensitive LHR test has proven what a sham the PCR test is but they've dodged the Q so far

I know that last post is another dig at me. I don't care. And I see Deko weighs in with his useless waste of time posts as well.

I think of the 2 of us you're information is way more dangerous. It's one-dimensional and fed from the bbc and govt and has no context whatsoever. You've sided yourself with Hancock Johnson and the SAGE modelling team.

Your approach to defend your position is to call me a liar and gullible. It's an easy deflection to a narrow minded and locked in mindset.

If you really really believe that every person registered as a Covid death actually died specifically from Covid, if you actually believe the PCR test is a valid way of identifying positive cases, if you really believe that through the power of covid we've eliminated flu and if you actually believe handling 1 disease at the cost of all others is correct then there really is no helping you.

I actually don't think you're doing it on purpose now I actually think you believe we should be locked away until the virus is "cured". I did at one point think you had an open mind but as you consistently dodge the question about whether since June you think there's been a net benefit to society I now know what the answer is. I actually feel a bit sorry for you and those you must inculcate with some of the information you provide. That's probably more dangerous to you and 99.966% of the population you meet than actually acquiring covid.

[baggy1]

My info comes from gov.uk on hospitalisations and people on ventilators and the ONS on excess deaths.

Your info comes from Jon the Stats Guy on twitter

[billybassett]

Still no answers

And nope it doesn't. What I do is go to multiple sources and validate - what you do is go to the information stream the NHS is allowed to publish...

[baggy1]

The graph you posted with the manipulated comparison figures was from TheStatisticsGuyJon, you hadn't validated the figures, they were simply wrong to hide the current excess deaths figures, you reposted it believing it to be accurate. If you validated them can you explain to me the % increase for population amount was? I'll save you the trouble - it isn't justifiable, it's a made up figure to suit the answer. If you want some help in working it out to check, the year he must have based the previous high on was 2016 (it could have been 2019 but that wouldn't allow for such a large increase in population as 4 years growth).

[billybassett]

The graph you posted with the manipulated comparison figures was from TheStatisticsGuyJon, you hadn't validated the figures, they were simply wrong to hide the current excess deaths figures, you reposted it believing it to be accurate. If you validated them can you explain to me the % increase for population amount was? I'll save you the trouble - it isn't justifiable, it's a made up figure to suit the answer. If you want some help in working it out to check, the year he must have based the previous high on was 2016 (it could have been 2019 but that wouldn't allow for such a large increase in population as 4 years growth).

Still no answers. Still waiting Tik Tok...

Seemed perfectly justifiable to me and validated in numerous other statistical outlets. Unlike your excess deaths comparison that does not take into consideration any population growth, whether they are excess covid deaths or not, where they happened, and any comorbidity or nosocomial aspects. They also take no consideration of when they were registered or how.

The govt figures are like Moses' tablets for you aren't they. And you have the nerve to pick away at what I produce...

[baggy1]

Pack it in with the Tik Tok, there isn't an answer because we don't know enough. It will cause damage both ways and no one knows what will be worse because no one has a time machine. The government have handled this appallingly all the way through and that is why we are still here with no real protection and increasing deaths which you put down to a bad flu year. I've genuinely tried to engage with you but you are that adamant you are right it's lunacy. Even when I point out where there are errors you still won't accept it.

Deaths are a fact, they are up on any other year in history; there are 13k in hospital for covid, you say that is a lie and it's the same as flu; hospitalisations for covid are increasing week on week, you say that is a lie. All of these figures are with restrictions in place, without those restrictions there is every chance they would be worse. it is simply mental.

[foreveralbion]

billy you keep mentioning that flu has disappeared.

from this weeks figures

deaths with covid mentioned on death certificate was 1937 with 1743 with covid as the underlying cause.

deaths where flu and pneumonia mentioned were 2267 with 307 as covid as the underlying cause.

when this debate started on here you made a lot more sense than you are now.

you still have lots of valid points but they are getting lost amongst some of you other musings.

[billybassett]

You call it lunacy yet a medical system that only treats one illness at the cost of everything else is just that.

You quote 13k like it's extraordinary. 700,000 admissions a year for respiratory/lung related conditions - many cancer many more influenza, copd, asthma etc etc. 115000 people a year die of a condition of the respiratory tract.

That 13k is again completely out of context because are you saying ALL those people are being treated for Covid because they are symptomatic and need treatment for Covid?

Of course not it means those admitted to hospital who have tested "positive" for covid which will be a proportion of symptomatic and a proportion asymptomatic. The proportion of asymptomatic will be very much higher otherwise the PCR results would be tracking symptoms and A&E attendances and COVID deaths would be correlated regionally to excess deaths which they are not. Also the majority will be there for some other treatment.

Estimates are that between 20-30% of covid "positives" are actually "caught" in hospital.

You call my numbers heresy and my opinion lunacy but then you post a number out of context that's meant to shock.

---

billy you keep mentioning that flu has disappeared.

from this weeks figures

deaths with covid mentioned on death certificate was 1937 with 1743 with covid as the underlying cause.

deaths where flu and pneumonia mentioned were 2267 with 307 as covid as the underlying cause.

when this debate started on here you made a lot more sense than you are now.

you still have lots of valid points but they are getting lost amongst some of you other musings.

You've only got to go to the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS) and see how influenza has completely dropped off the map.

[Derek Hardballs]

The dangerous fact is that the govt is allowed to publish stats and data with no reference, no transparency and no accountability. And make decisions on the basis of that. The BMJ article was proof of all that.

The fact that they refuse to, publish the amount of beds available across the country each week
The fact they refuse to publish the false positive rate for the PCR
The fact they used 3wk old data to enforce an unnecessary lockdown
The fact they've published no information on the costs of lockdown to the health wellbeing and finances of the people and the country.
The fact they changed the reporting rules and method but don't signpost them
The fact that the more sensitive LHR test has proven what a sham the PCR test is but they've dodged the Q so far

I know that last post is another dig at me. I don't care. And I see Deko weighs in with his useless waste of time posts as well.

I think of the 2 of us you're information is way more dangerous. It's one-dimensional and fed from the bbc and govt and has no context whatsoever. You've sided yourself with Hancock Johnson and the SAGE modelling team.

Your approach to defend your position is to call me a liar and gullible. It's an easy deflection to a narrow minded and locked in mindset.

If you really really believe that every person registered as a Covid death actually died specifically from Covid, if you actually believe the PCR test is a valid way of identifying positive cases, if you really believe that through the power of covid we've eliminated flu and if you actually believe handling 1 disease at the cost of all others is correct then there really is no helping you.

I actually don't think you're doing it on purpose now I actually think you believe we should be locked away until the virus is "cured". I did at one point think you had an open mind but as you consistently dodge the question about whether since June you think there's been a net benefit to society I now know what the answer is. I actually feel a bit sorry for you and those you must inculcate with some of the information you provide. That's probably more dangerous to you and 99.966% of the population you meet than actually acquiring covid.

Could you be anymore condescending? There is a clear rationale behind B1s use of data and on the other side those who are trying to find data that fits their beliefs. 

If you want to change people’s mind to support your beliefs then you should try not to insult them along the way. 

Please note usual suspect(s), I never try to persuade others to change their mind I just offer an opinion on what decisions they made sometimes rudely. That’s the difference... I’m not proclaiming I’m doing a public health campaign. Sorry I had to put the last sentience into the reply but I’m preempting the usual dragged up quote / misquote nonsense.

[Ossian]

Cheers for the stats B1. Good for those of us with an interest in them but not enough to bother looking it up ourselves.

Just make sure you check the maths, lest you make a stupid mistake like this idiot.

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1...3896420354

The worrying thing about that is that - incomprehensible as it might seem - there are plenty out there who see the likes of Toby Young and The Mail online as reliable sources of information. Information which they in turn circulate onwards via retweets and other devices.

Anybody looking at Trump, how he operates, and thinking at least we'd never fall for that is sleepwalking.