Number of Deaths

[Birdie Boy]

Surely, the numbers will be needed later on at least to provide full details of how this virus has spread and affected us?

It's also a bit strange in that, on one hand you could say all the correct numbers showing a really high figure and we can then be told, see, we told you to stay in. On the other hand, we could see a low number and we are then told, see, this social distancing and lockdown is working!
Maybe the government are going for the 2nd hand...

Sent from my WAS-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This has brought up a strange new issues too. The initial thought obviously is that all 15 have died of COVID-19, which would seems reasonable.

But having read this article it is clear that only 5 have been registered as COVID-19 deaths, as the care home has been told by Public Health England - "In occasions where some cases have already been tested positive in a care home, we do not advise testing of new cases as it will not change the public health management."

So what they are doing is effectively manipulating the figures down! Why? Granted testing the dead isn't going to bring them back, but at least it could give a better understanding of the true magnitude of the outbreak...!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52175891

That was my point exactly. It is so easy to record the cause of death as pneumonia, which is common amongst very elderly residents, whereas pneumonia could be caused by this virus or bacterial.
I think the numbers are being manipulated too.

 

[darkwolf666]

Exactly!
Did a member of nsc then get up and tell them they were thick and a troll for not getting it?

No, but he didn't KEEP telling everybody how clever he was to have this opinion!

 

[loz]

Does this mean only 140 (too Many) died yesterday ??

New England numbers - and interesting insights into the dates the deaths actually happened, with 41 in Wales and 81 in Scotland, that is 887 reported today without NI

Further 765 hospital deaths in England, bringing total to 7,248

A further 765 patients have died in hospital in England, up from 6,483 the day before. This brings the total to 7,248.

Of the 765 new hospital deaths announced today by NHS England, 140 occurred on April 8 while 568 took place between April 1 and April 7.

The remaining 57 deaths occurred in March, including two on March 19 and one on March 16.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Because people interpret the death count as the cost of coronavirus, and that interpretation is not consistent with how it is counted.

For me I think Plooks has won the argument in this thread, because those arguing with him seem to have taken as fact that the death count is primarily not due to covid, instead just 'with covid', but as yet there is most definitely no actual evidence at present to confirm that to be true.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Does this mean only 140 (too Many) died yesterday ??

New England numbers - and interesting insights into the dates the deaths actually happened, with 41 in Wales and 81 in Scotland, that is 887 reported today without NI

Further 765 hospital deaths in England, bringing total to 7,248

A further 765 patients have died in hospital in England, up from 6,483 the day before. This brings the total to 7,248.

Of the 765 new hospital deaths announced today by NHS England, 140 occurred on April 8 while 568 took place between April 1 and April 7.

The remaining 57 deaths occurred in March, including two on March 19 and one on March 16.

No, it doesn't mean that. If there are 100's of unreported deaths from the last week, there will certainly be many many unreported deaths from yesterday that will only be reported in the coming days or longer.

 

[loz]

No, it doesn't mean that. If there are 100's of unreported deaths from the last week, there will certainly be many many unreported deaths from yesterday that will only be reported in the coming days or longer.

I thought as much , but why put out daily numbers if they are not correct. Just do it weekly ?

 

[Si Gull]

I thought as much , but why put out daily numbers if they are not correct. Just do it weekly ?

It does make you wonder why the daily numbers are being released in the way that they are; they are more or less useless and just lead to conjecture.

 

[dazzer6666]

For me I think Plooks has won the argument in this thread, because those arguing with him seem to have taken as fact that the death count is primarily not due to covid, instead just 'with covid', but as yet there is most definitely no actual evidence at present to confirm that to be true.

Incorrect.

SOME deaths attributed to Covid 19 will have occurred during the patient's hospital stay anyway - we don't know how many (and never will, obviously)
SOME deaths have occurred earlier than they otherwise would have done due to Covid19 - we don't know how many
SOME deaths are recorded as Covid19 when they may not have been ('suspected' as recorded by the doctor certifying - particularly in care homes I expect)
The OVERALL number of deaths in the UK isn't significantly higher than usual for this time of year so far (yet) - this, at least in part, supports the relative impact of Covid19 as a cause with other conditions. Using the (inaccurate) figures, Covid19 was accounting for c5% of all UK deaths per week at the end of March - not seen the current number expressed in that way as the ONS lags a lot but clearly Covid will be having a material effect now given the 'normal' total is c11-12,000 per week (so if we end up with the 'best' of the Government's estimates of 20,000 being met we'll have an extra 2 weeks deaths nationally, or about 4% additional deaths)

The numbers are not 100% reliable either way - not everyone who dies is being tested, no-one is (or can) accurately state how many would have survived, or for how long without contracting Covid19 in addition to any underlying conditions.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Incorrect.

SOME deaths attributed to Covid 19 will have occurred during the patient's hospital stay anyway - we don't know how many (and never will, obviously)
SOME deaths have occurred earlier than they otherwise would have done due to Covid19 - we don't know how many
SOME deaths are recorded as Covid19 when they may not have been ('suspected' as recorded by the doctor certifying - particularly in care homes I expect)
The OVERALL number of deaths in the UK isn't significantly higher than usual for this time of year so far (yet) - this, at least in part, supports the relative impact of Covid19 as a cause with other conditions. Using the (inaccurate) figures, Covid19 was accounting for c5% of all UK deaths per week at the end of March - not seen the current number expressed in that way as the ONS lags a lot but clearly Covid will be having a material effect now given the 'normal' total is c11-12,000 per week (so if we end up with the 'best' of the Government's estimates of 20,000 being met we'll have an extra 2 weeks deaths nationally, or about 4% additional deaths)

The numbers are not 100% reliable either way - not everyone who dies is being tested, no-one is (or can) accurately state how many would have survived, or for how long without contracting Covid19 in addition to any underlying conditions.

Well, what I said wasn't incorrect, I'm sure you can give me that at least.

The point is that its still conjecture. I will give you the 'some' but that's a word with such a wide meaning as to be meaningless in this context. It substantially matters if comorbidity is a minor component or a major component, and the truth of this is pure speculation. Secondly, as we saw today with just 140 of the 765 deaths reported today occurring yesterday, the remainder earlier, there is clearly a reporting lag so will be a while till we see if theory that death numbers are stable is true or not.

What's more important is what the take home message is? Unfortunately it is being interpreted in some quarters that if comorbidity is high, 'the lockdown isn't necessary'. The better interpretation would be 'the lockdown is working'. People who were not imminently about to die anyway are being saved because the health service is not overwhelmed and they can be treated.

 

[dazzer6666]

Well, what I said wasn't incorrect, I'm sure you can give me that at least.

The point is that its still conjecture. I will give you the 'some' but that's a word with such a wide meaning as to be meaningless in this context. It substantially matters if comorbidity is a minor component or a major component, and the truth of this is pure speculation. Secondly, as we saw today with just 140 of the 765 deaths reported today occurring yesterday, the remainder earlier, there is clearly a reporting lag so will be a while till we see if theory that death numbers are stable is true or not.

What's more important is what the take home message is? Unfortunately it is being interpreted in some quarters that if comorbidity is high, 'the lockdown isn't necessary'. The better interpretation would be 'the lockdown is working'. People who were not imminently about to die anyway are being saved because the health service is not overwhelmed and they can be treated.

because those arguing with him seem to have taken as fact that the death count is primarily not due to covid, instead just 'with covid', - that's incorrect (in my case anyway)

I don't disagree with your lockdown strategy comments BTW...........

 

[oldboyroy]

Still around 4 and half thousand new infections which surely will massively reduce with social distancing nearly at 3 weeks. I would imagine that's got to drop to less than a few hundred before any rules can be relaxed

 

[dazzer6666]

You are taking these things as fact though. You need to include the word "could" in a lot of places to be accurate: "some deaths attributed to Covid 19 COULD have occurred during the patient's hospital stay anyway" - not WILL as you used. WILL implies certainty. Unless you have hard evidence to use the word WILL you need to use COULD. If you you use could you are speculating.

The fact is we do not know the exact affect the virus had on some/all the deaths. What they do know is the numbers that died with it. The idea that we should play the numbers down is EXTREMELY dangerous given that ALL the deaths could have been directly due to virus. Of course none could be. But do you want to take that risk and play with people lives potentially?

It’s definitely ‘would’ rather than could........simply, as one example, there are patients under palliative (end of life) care that have become infected whilst in hospital. Their death may have been hastened a little, but in some cases this won’t be by much. I’m not speculating - if I’m wrong then someone I trust implicitly is lying (and has no reason to).

 

[dazzer6666]

If that person is a medical professional I would bet they use the word COULD in reference to if those patients. I very much doubt a medical professional could say for certain what day a patient on palliative care will die on with and without the virus. If the virus brought a death forward it is virus related isn't it? We are all going to die at some point.

You’ve literally repeated what I explained earlier. I’m not responding to any more of your tripe.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Does this mean only 140 (too Many) died yesterday ??

New England numbers - and interesting insights into the dates the deaths actually happened, with 41 in Wales and 81 in Scotland, that is 887 reported today without NI

Further 765 hospital deaths in England, bringing total to 7,248

A further 765 patients have died in hospital in England, up from 6,483 the day before. This brings the total to 7,248.

Of the 765 new hospital deaths announced today by NHS England, 140 occurred on April 8 while 568 took place between April 1 and April 7.

The remaining 57 deaths occurred in March, including two on March 19 and one on March 16.

Hundreds of UK care home deaths not added to coronavirus toll.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...k-care-home-deaths-not-added-to-official-toll

 

[oldboyroy]

Scotland death toll reduces by half in last 24 hours so better news but still many more loved 1s lost...let's hope it's better news in UK overall later

 

[oldboyroy]

866 in England so overall in UK well over 900...please let this be the peak

 

[jabba]

866 in England so overall in UK well over 900...please let this be the peak

Of which 117 happened yesterday according to BBC News, rest between April 1-8

 

[oldboyroy]

Of which 117 happened yesterday according to BBC News, rest between April 1-8

So that must mean that things are much better and social distancing has worked.!!

 

[Bodian]

So that must mean that things are much better and social distancing has worked.!!

Not necessarily. More likely to mean that most of those who died yesterday will appear in subsequent stats.