Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
niggle
Posts: 3423
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby niggle » 1 May 2020, 3:17pm

Another version of the death rate up-tick:

Image

If that is not due to Covid-19 then something else very serious is happening, so not only are the government attributing it falsely, they are covering up something else very bad, e.g. a massive nuclear accident or something!










Or could it just be that it really is due to Covid-19?

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3337
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby roubaixtuesday » 1 May 2020, 3:27pm

niggle wrote:Another version of the death rate up-tick:

Image

If that is not due to Covid-19 then something else very serious is happening, so not only are the government attributing it falsely, they are covering up something else very bad, e.g. a massive nuclear accident or something!










Or could it just be that it really is due to Covid-19?


And don't forget, prior to lockdown, deaths were doubling every 3-4 days. That spike could have been 10x higher.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17774
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby [XAP]Bob » 1 May 2020, 3:49pm

Will be interesting to see whether there is a significant dip after this spike as many of the elderly patients who have, or will, die from covid19 related causes would have died in the next few years anyway - and now they won't (i.e. the elderly population will have been reduced and therefore there will be a corresponding reduction in death rate for a few years).

The "missed" deaths from younger groups will of course not show up statistically for many years (if they ever do).
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

reohn2
Posts: 39934
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby reohn2 » 1 May 2020, 3:49pm

-----------------------------------------------------------

niggle
Posts: 3423
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby niggle » 1 May 2020, 3:57pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Will be interesting to see whether there is a significant dip after this spike as many of the elderly patients who have, or will, die from covid19 related causes would have died in the next few years anyway - and now they won't (i.e. the elderly population will have been reduced and therefore there will be a corresponding reduction in death rate for a few years).


I suspect there will be some effect, but not massive, as the deaths now being concentrated into a short period would otherwise occur over a much more spread out period. E.g. not all the underlying health conditions would be particularly life threatening/limiting in normal circumstances and improving modern health care.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 1 May 2020, 5:46pm

yes, it's a nuclear disaster that is killing people, :roll:

Maybe some think that thousands of doctors are lying whom are entering the underlying reason for death, thousands of doctors across the country are all making up that C.19 is not the underlying cause?

We have unprecedented virus testing in the deceased that is adding confirmation bias in the number of deaths WITH a virus and is shown as such by the records distributed by ONS and mentioned by them that they are including pneumonia and influenza in the numbers and is being included on death certificates because someone said there's a positive test ergo it's corona virus.

If they are so confident that the test isolates corona virus why are they lumping flu and pneumonia in with the total and calling them all C.19? Does that mean despite a death certificate mentioning influenza and pneumonia, this is being ignored and called C.19 on the register or are doctors under so much pressure they have to put C.19 down on the certificate even if the test shows influenza or whatever other respiratory virus as well?

if it's corona virus alone why is whomever compiling the register stating that deaths being counted include all those for flu and pneumonia as well, what purpose for that, why not simply say these are respiratory deaths as underlying cause from this virus and these are deaths from a respiratory disease (listing them all) that's mentioned on the death certificate but is not underlying cause of death. Is that because the test is so flawed as to what it's picking up, that influenza is showing up in a masssive number of the cases, I'd link you to the study of how often flu shows up in the COV2 test but I'll get banned probably.


Are there more deaths, absolutely, but can people not join the dots up as to why people who were already very unwell, already very isolated already having mental health issues are being left to their own devices, isolated even more, more fearful of going to seek help or go to hospital/seek medical treatment, fewer NHS staff, more people diverted within hospitals, fewer home/residential/care home carers amongst same numbers of people.

When the system was already failing and unprepared worse than ever before, staffing levels already cut to the bone (not just NHS) you don't think that more deaths were going to happen despite the efforts of those at the front line?

Even the NHS staffing framework document in early April says that staff should not ideally leave other non COVID areas short staffed, code for we don't want this to happen but things are not ideal and thus there will be shortages in other critical care departments or do you think the NHS is overstaffed?

Or ONS are just lying in so far as recording the deaths by underlying cause, doctors across the nation are lying when they sign off the death by underlying cause. Somebody should expose all these medical professionals for not putting the correct cause of death in the certificate of death.

Maybe have a read of this to understand underlying cause of death and how it's supposed to be recorded https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... r-patients , and again a reminder that Prof Neil Ferguson stated that 2/3 of all C.19 deaths were people who would succumb to their pre existing conditions with a positive test or not, which openly admits the deaths in the vast majority of cases aren't actually COVID19 deaths at all but deaths by their underlying condition, which is the only way a death can be recorded/coded as per the register of deaths.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 5022
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Oldjohnw » 1 May 2020, 5:50pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Will be interesting to see whether there is a significant dip after this spike as many of the elderly patients who have, or will, die from covid19 related causes would have died in the next few years anyway - and now they won't (i.e. the elderly population will have been reduced and therefore there will be a corresponding reduction in death rate for a few years).

The "missed" deaths from younger groups will of course not show up statistically for many years (if they ever do).


Many with underlying health conditions could also live fill and normal and long lives. I have severe chronic asthma and have done for three decades. It is well managed and I could reasonably look to another 15 years or so. But I fear that if I got this virus I'd not last more than a few days.
John

mjal
Posts: 16
Joined: 4 Jul 2011, 2:22pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby mjal » 1 May 2020, 6:53pm

Has anyone else noticed that The Utility Cyclist has not replied to my post re the "Dr Erickson video"?

I have not quoted the posts in question because of their length ; see page (12) of this thread on 28 April 2020 at 1123 pm.

My carefully constructed missive was designed to elucidate some evidence of logical thinking (and its consequences) but, as TUC has not replied, none of us can judge what he has made of my dissection of the Erickson video. Are we entitled to assume either that he does not understand my post or, perhaps more likely, he sees that he has promoted a distinctly flawed piece of evidence in support of his thoughts re Covid-19?

Can we now hear from TUC?

Phileas
Posts: 289
Joined: 18 Feb 2009, 6:12pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Phileas » 2 May 2020, 7:15am

The utility cyclist wrote:Are there more deaths, absolutely, but can people not join the dots up as to why people who were already very unwell, already very isolated already having mental health issues are being left to their own devices, isolated even more, more fearful of going to seek help or go to hospital/seek medical treatment, fewer NHS staff, more people diverted within hospitals, fewer home/residential/care home carers...


So your explanation for the excess deaths is that most of them are indirectly caused by Covid-19?

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17774
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby [XAP]Bob » 2 May 2020, 10:22am

Oldjohnw wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Will be interesting to see whether there is a significant dip after this spike as many of the elderly patients who have, or will, die from covid19 related causes would have died in the next few years anyway - and now they won't (i.e. the elderly population will have been reduced and therefore there will be a corresponding reduction in death rate for a few years).

The "missed" deaths from younger groups will of course not show up statistically for many years (if they ever do).


Many with underlying health conditions could also live fill and normal and long lives. I have severe chronic asthma and have done for three decades. It is well managed and I could reasonably look to another 15 years or so. But I fear that if I got this virus I'd not last more than a few days.


The risk factors for the elderly aren’t just chronic health conditions, they are purely age related as well.

I have multiple, serious, chronic health conditions - and have (as far as my GP/Consultants are concerned) had the virus. I continue shielding (now nearly seven weeks, we started shielding before the schools shut even) since we don’t yet know whether having had the virus confers decent immunity.

The peak will have to get taken off later deaths, and it may be detectable as a reduction from the average for years to come, particularly that fraction of deaths which are in the current elderly population - if it’s too many years (as the younger deaths are likely to be) then the drop won’t be statistically significant...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18397
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Vorpal » 2 May 2020, 10:28am

niggle wrote:Another version of the death rate up-tick:

<image reomoved to save space>

If that is not due to Covid-19 then something else very serious is happening, so not only are the government attributing it falsely, they are covering up something else very bad, e.g. a massive nuclear accident or something!

Or could it just be that it really is due to Covid-19?


Thanks for that. I was thinking of doing something like that. I juat hadn't gotten round to it.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

niggle
Posts: 3423
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby niggle » 3 May 2020, 9:28am

My perspective:

The annual 'flu death total in the UK averaged about 17,000 between 2014/15 and 2018/19, with the worst year being 2014/15 with a total of 28,330.

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus ... influenza/

The total number of deaths from Covid-19 so far in the UK is 28,131 in less than two months. So yes it is poised to surpass the worst death total for 'flu in recent years and I think it would be very optimistic to think that it will be less than 50,000 by the time we have had a year of it.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

The total number of deaths from terrorism in the UK is 3395 in 40 years (most were in Northern Ireland, GB mainland total is 430).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ... ed_Kingdom

TUC you keep delving into the minutiae of individual causes of death, whilst ignoring the rampantly destructive elephant in the room of the huge spike in the over all death rate, then trying to attribute it all to the impact of lockdown, based on zero evidence. I do not understand why you are so resistant to the more likely scenario and persistently cling on to the rather unlikely scenario of some kind of global conspiracy of unknown motivation, in the face of continually growing evidence to the contrary. You ironically mention confirmation bias whilst displaying exactly that by cherry picking the odd outlier evidence and opinions that confirm your beliefs, whilst ignoring the much greater bulk of it that contradicts your view.

Re cause of death, you are saying that an underlying health condition is an "underlying cause" but really it is a susceptibility, that makes the individual less able to fight Covid-19 once infected, so what actually kills them? Can you even state a single cause of death on a death certificate in these cases, when we do not know if Covid-19 would have killed them without the underlying condition, nor do we know if or when their underlying condition might have killed them. Saying that 75% of people with underlying health conditions will die of them misses out the important word "eventually", i.e. some might have died in the next few days or weeks but equally some might have lived on for decades before succumbing to their condition.

Re infection death rate, it is misleading to consider that in isolation, maybe it won't be that much higher than flu when the figures are all in and analysed (recent population test based studies are estimating a range roughly between 2x and 5x that of flu), but you need to factor in the transmission rate, which we are now reasonably sure is 2-3 times higher than that of flu, so without social distancing that combination of factors suggests it might kill between 4x and 15x as many people as seasonal flu.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 5 May 2020, 2:14am

More follow up from Bakersfield Doctors

mjal
Posts: 16
Joined: 4 Jul 2011, 2:22pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby mjal » 5 May 2020, 10:05am

The utility cyclist wrote:More follow up from Bakersfield Doctors


So you find time to post a link to another video from Dr Dan Erickson but you do not reply to my criticism of the original (see page (12) of this thread, 28 April at 1123 pm). Do you not understand that what little credibility you have re Covid-19 cannot be sustained unless you take up my points?

I am sure you are by now aware that the original Erickson video has been pulled from Youtube. No doubt this simply confirms your theories of a far-reaching plot to subdue the population etc etc. An alternative explanation might be this:

https://www.acep.org/corona/COVID-19/covid-19-articles/acep-aaem-joint-statement-on-physician-misinformation/

"The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making."

There is more after the above statement :

"The data cited by Drs. Erickson and Massihi is extrapolated from a small population to the state of California, resulting in misleading conclusions regarding the mortality of COVID-19. Their data is flawed and represents selection bias. In order for data to be extrapolated to a population, the investigator must assure that the populations are homogeneous, and in this case they are not."

This is essentially the statement I made in my original post regarding Erickson's first video.

Over to you , TUC.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18397
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Vorpal » 5 May 2020, 11:33am

The utility cyclist wrote:<snip for space>

Or ONS are just lying in so far as recording the deaths by underlying cause, doctors across the nation are lying when they sign off the death by underlying cause. Somebody should expose all these medical professionals for not putting the correct cause of death in the certificate of death.

Maybe have a read of this to understand underlying cause of death and how it's supposed to be recorded https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... r-patients , and again a reminder that Prof Neil Ferguson stated that 2/3 of all C.19 deaths were people who would succumb to their pre existing conditions with a positive test or not, which openly admits the deaths in the vast majority of cases aren't actually COVID19 deaths at all but deaths by their underlying condition, which is the only way a death can be recorded/coded as per the register of deaths.

On that basis, we should stop testing for prostate cancer and breast cancer, as well. Treating breast cancer includes a significant risk of treating cancers that would never have progressed, or that would not have killed the victims before other things do so. Prostate cancer victims are more likely than the general population to suffer from other life threatening conditions, and roughly 10% of them die from underlying conditions.

Additionally, since deaths are generally recorded as the best medical judgement of the doctor or specialist, perhpas all should go to inquest to ensure that we have the correct cause of death?

Of course my reply is not serious, but independent of the recorded causes of death, statisticians analyse and review all of the data recived by ONS. And they furthermore publish, not just the statistics, by how they arrive at various conclusions, what they do with incomplete data, and why they say waht they do about COVID-19. So you see, they don't rely solely on how the death is recorded, but they also look at other data.

I deal with statistics in my daily life. It is part of my job. When I look at those graphs, it is clear to me that most of those folks would not have died this month without a pandemic. Most of them would not have died this year without a pandemic. Underlying conditions or no. Sure, some of them would. When would those 2/3rd have succumbed to their underlying conditions? This year? Next year? 5 years years from now? 20 years from now?

So, while the criticism about correctly recording deaths may be valid, that is not the only thing used to describe the damage COVID-19 is doing in the population.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom