There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
Among other things.... Am I right in saying that it's been a mild flu season?
We've had low rates of flu for two years, because the measures to slow the spread of COVID have also slowed the spread of flu. Last winter's flu deaths were very low because of this. Some other infectious diseases appear also to have been reduced likewise.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
Among other things.... Am I right in saying that it's been a mild flu season?
yes, hardly any cases. Masks seem to work for flu.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
The average age of people dying from Covid-19 is apparently 82.5, which is slightly higher than the overall average age.
Yes, but life expectancy aged 82 years is not zero!
The actuarial estimate is that the average covid death lost 10 years of life.
That would be like a geriatric Logan's Run if it were. Quite a thought.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
You'd expect the latter, though - people whose death was hastened by Covid by weeks or months rather than by years,
The birthday gathering with cake was an article in The Times and no one even noticed.
LOL. No-one cared at the time, because there was really nothing to care about. It’s only a story now, because of Cummings being vindictive and the Lobby trying to find a story. So we have this rubbish leading the news for a week, and the Leader of the Opposition calling for the PM to resign because his wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
You really are living up to the second part of your name this morning Mr Sandpit.
It really matters because most of this country went through hell during the lockdowns. We weren't able to visit loved ones. We weren't able to have birthday parties. In some cases we even had to endure loved ones dying alone.
Do you really not understand why this matters so much to us all or are you just trying the hardest to be the nastiest person on the forum?
I understand why people are angry, I’m saying that the anger specifically about the government is misplaced, and that events are being re-cast with the benefit of hindsight and a lack of knowledge as to what were actually the regulations at various times.
Talking of Times, the newspaper of record mentioned that the PM received a birthday cake, the day after it happened. Why didn’t everyone jump up and down about it at the time? Because at the time there was actually nothing wrong with it.
Are you related to a certain Mr Icke
The Times at the time seems to have said
"Boris Johnson celebrated his 56th birthday yesterday with a small gathering in the cabinet room. Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, and a group of aides sang him Happy Birthday before they tucked into a Union Jack cake."
Which may or may not have been within the rules at the time.
"Up to 30 people attended, sang Happy Birthday and were served cake, according to ITV News. As well as Downing Street staff, the interior designer Lulu Lytle - who was not a member of No 10 staff - was present."
It's not exactly the same thing is it? At that time "small gathering" would have made me think 5 or 6 people. And Lulu Lytle can't be described as an "aide".
According to the same article, at the time
"Gatherings of more than two people inside were banned by law. An exception was allowed if the gathering "was reasonably necessary" for work purposes."
Not sure why Sandpit is so confident that there was nothing wrong with the birthday party. Sounds quite likely that it broke the law to me.
The birthday gathering with cake was an article in The Times and no one even noticed.
LOL. No-one cared at the time, because there was really nothing to care about. It’s only a story now, because of Cummings being vindictive and the Lobby trying to find a story. So we have this rubbish leading the news for a week, and the Leader of the Opposition calling for the PM to resign because his wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
You really are living up to the second part of your name this morning Mr Sandpit.
It really matters because most of this country went through hell during the lockdowns. We weren't able to visit loved ones. We weren't able to have birthday parties. In some cases we even had to endure loved ones dying alone.
Do you really not understand why this matters so much to us all or are you just trying the hardest to be the nastiest person on the forum?
I understand why people are angry, I’m saying that the anger specifically about the government is misplaced, and that events are being re-cast with the benefit of hindsight and a lack of knowledge as to what were actually the regulations at various times.
Talking of Times, the newspaper of record mentioned that the PM received a birthday cake, the day after it happened. Why didn’t everyone jump up and down about it at the time? Because at the time there was actually nothing wrong with it.
Are you related to a certain Mr Icke
The Times at the time seems to have said
"Boris Johnson celebrated his 56th birthday yesterday with a small gathering in the cabinet room. Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, and a group of aides sang him Happy Birthday before they tucked into a Union Jack cake."
Which may or may not have been within the rules at the time.
"Up to 30 people attended, sang Happy Birthday and were served cake, according to ITV News. As well as Downing Street staff, the interior designer Lulu Lytle - who was not a member of No 10 staff - was present."
It's not exactly the same thing is it? At that time "small gathering" would have made me think 5 or 6 people. And Lulu Lytle can't be described as an "aide".
According to the same article, at the time
"Gatherings of more than two people inside were banned by law. An exception was allowed if the gathering "was reasonably necessary" for work purposes."
Not sure why Sandpit is so confident that there was nothing wrong with the birthday party. Sounds quite likely that it broke the law to me.
People are confusing rules, guidance and law, as they applied to private individuals, workplaces, and public events.
There is a difference between inviting people to a party, and the wife of the boss, who lives on site, showing up with a birthday cake at a workplace. Remember that most white-collar workplaces were closed at the time, so there’s very few direct comparisons to be made.
I’ve been that project manager who sends for pizza and occasionally beer, for a team working their arses off into the night. It is a massive boost to morale.
I’m not a massive Boris Johnson fan, but think that both the media and Oppsoition are being idiots in not looking at what’s actually important at the moment. I’d rather they were all expending their energy on what’s happening in Ukraine, than petty obsessions about whether or not the PM had a cake for his birthday two years ago, or how much it costs for a diplomatic delegation to travel to Australia.
Also in the news today, Ursula VdL told by EU court to disclose text messages with Pfizer CEO. Governments everywhere were under mad pressure in 2020, and bent all their normal rules to keep people alive. I have litttle sympathy with people trying to micro-analyse their decisions now, with plenty of time and 20/20 hindsight.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
And we can check by looking at countries with lockdowns but very few covid deaths (eg Australia and New Zealand), where excess deaths were negative.
In addition, the death certificates do split out "Deaths where covid was the underlying cause" and "Deaths were it was mentioned as a contributory cause"
It's overwhelmingly the former, especially as the "caused by" is concentrated heavily in the periods where covid deaths were highest.
I took a look at the England covid deaths data from the ONS (deaths on death certificates) and took the proportion of "covid the underlying cause" per month and came out with 88.96% of deaths with covid on the death certificate having covid as the specific cause of death.
In England, that's 137,790 out of 150,397. If it's the same UK-wide, then 156,943 out of 176,428 (as at the date I did this, a few days ago) were deaths FROM covid.
It would leave 20,000 or so where covid was merely a contributory factor.
Labour are the low-tax party now – that said, I have never understood why putting money back into the pockets of working people was somehow 'rightwing'.
Fairly soon, I expect Labour to be also better trusted on the economy, as prices rise and the Tories do sod all about the cost of living.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
Among other things.... Am I right in saying that it's been a mild flu season?
yes, hardly any cases. Masks seem to work for flu.
Something that’s been understood in Asia for a while. I wonder if people wearing masks with a winter cold will become more commonplace in the West as a result of the pandemic, alongside employers encouraging people to work from home when feeling a little sick but not incapacitated.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
Among other things.... Am I right in saying that it's been a mild flu season?
yes, hardly any cases. Masks seem to work for flu.
Something that’s been understood in Asia for a while. I wonder if people wearing masks with a winter cold will become more commonplace in the West as a result of the pandemic, alongside employers encouraging people to work from home when feeling a little sick but not incapacitated.
If you have a nasty cold or flu, you shouldn't be going out and mixing with people, never mind wearing a mask.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
Among other things.... Am I right in saying that it's been a mild flu season?
yes, hardly any cases. Masks seem to work for flu.
Something that’s been understood in Asia for a while. I wonder if people wearing masks with a winter cold will become more commonplace in the West as a result of the pandemic, alongside employers encouraging people to work from home when feeling a little sick but not incapacitated.
If you have a nasty cold or flu, you shouldn't be going out and mixing with people, never mind wearing a mask.
Indeed. But how many people - until a couple of years ago - would go to work anyway, including the train and the Tube? Including people in service jobs, and many in office jobs who didn’t want to be seen as taking time off no matter how sick they were.
On the 'Social Care Levy' – I suspect one of the reasons why the government have struggled to retail it is that nobody trusts them with their money anymore. They think it is likely to go into a black hole and/or line the pockets of Bozza's cronies, the likes of Owen Badgerson.
I don't recall Blair having anything like as much trouble with the '1p on NI for the NHS' policy, which was a very similar gambit.
A hat trick for the Tories: Con hold on Kent CC -Wilmington.
Surprisingly robust Tory performance. I read somewhere that this area is pretty similar, and close to, Old Bexley and Sidcup where, again, there was a better-than-expected performance in the by-election. Presume its solid middle-class, oldish, with none of the accoutrements that lend themselves to LibDem tendencies.
I worked in the area for many years - it's more lower m/c and aspirational w/c to be fair. In my view these are among the more solid Tory voters which resemble many parts of the so-called Red Wall parts of the north. Dartford and Gravesend were both Labour seats duringt the Blair years and earlier would often see-saw. Nowadays they're pretty safe Tory areas with little sign of any big changes despite all of the recent kerfuffles which have excited so many on here.
Dartford has the longest running record of choosing the government party. Back to 1964. It is the bellwether seat. For now anyway. I suspect that will change with the next non-Tory government, however.
Almost 20k majority last time. So yes!
Is the field for most bellwether seat seriously narrowed by seats being created and abolished, so only seats with full succession from 1964 can be considered?
That being so, I wonder if there are any geographies - wards or, given that wards change as well, parts of wards - that have tracked for longer.
I'm sure there are a decent number of geographies that have been blue forever or red since the first Labour government in terms of MPs, but I wonder how many places have been red/blue at all levels, I.e. councils and MPs, forever? I mean even Liverpool was LD run at one stage.
Tough one to find out at that granularity, but something I have wondered about at times.
Makerfield is generally considered the longest. Labour since 1918. Though boundaries and names have changed. Used to be Ince. At next boundary review the constituency keeps the name, but neither place with Makerfield in the name, Ashton-in-Makerfield and Ince-in-Makerfield, won't be in it! Wigan MBC has been Labour for ever. Not sure before LA reform, but would be surprised if some of the Makerfield bits weren't. Unless they were Independent of course.
There is a quick calculation for working out "coincidental" deaths within 28 days of a positive test which is remarkably simple.
1/4 of the population has had a positive test for Covid. 600,000 people give or take die every year normally in the UK. 28 days is 28/365ths of the year
1/4 * 600,000 * 28/365 = 11,500.
That's 11,500 per year, right? So ~23k over the ~2 years of the pandemic?
(Now expecting to be told I've missed something obvious...)
No, you don't need to double it, because the 1/4 of the population is over the whole pandemic, so the estimate of deaths is as well.
As an even rougher rule of thumb, you can say that the probability of anyone dying in a given year is about 1%, and in a given month about 0.1%. It's much smaller than the ratio of the death rate to positive tests before most people were vaccinated, and even before Omicron. But it's more comparable now.
The answer to 'how many deaths did covid cause' is very difficult to pin down. Not many people who died did not have other conditions. But having - say - asthma is not a death sentence by itself. You can ask how long the individual would have lived had they not caught covid. It's impossible to answer of course - would they have caught flu if not covid? - would they have been hit by the proverbial bus the next day? - but you can ask it. But even if you can estimate an answer, there is a question of where you draw the line. My next door neighbour, for example, died of covid last August, I think - but he also had an unusual variant of Parkinson's disease, which 18 months previously had given him 12 months to live. He was already on borrowed time. It would have been a major surprise had he made it through another winter. So do you include him in the 'killed by covid' figures? I would argue probably not. But I am sure there are countless examples of those with co-morbidities where covid finished them off but who might have reasonably expected another 5, 10 years. It's hard to say in those cases that they would have died anyway. Where do you draw the line? Another 6 months? Another 2 years? 5?
As always, I'd say the key figure of interest in excess deaths.
Excess deaths is pretty clearly the best estimate we have, and not just because it's the most reliable comparisobn between countries. It'll be too high, but hopefully not by much.
Excess deaths does, of course, include people killed by lockdown. But I'd say that is of interest too.
Indeed so, that's what I meant when I said "it'll be too high" - it would be nice to know the number of people killed by lockdown as a separate figure, though, not lumped in with all the people killed by the virus. It would be pretty difficult to measure, though.
We know that excess deaths have mostly occurred at the same time as 28 day deaths, and certificated deaths. Those due to lockdown would be spread more evenly. Indeed excess deaths have gone negative at times during lockdown away from the peaks.
Among other things.... Am I right in saying that it's been a mild flu season?
yes, hardly any cases. Masks seem to work for flu.
Something that’s been understood in Asia for a while. I wonder if people wearing masks with a winter cold will become more commonplace in the West as a result of the pandemic, alongside employers encouraging people to work from home when feeling a little sick but not incapacitated.
If you have a nasty cold or flu, you shouldn't be going out and mixing with people, never mind wearing a mask.
Indeed. But how many people - until a couple of years ago - would go to work anyway, including the train and the Tube? Including people in service jobs, and many in office jobs who didn’t want to be seen as taking time off no matter how sick they were.
Far, far too many is the answer.
I remember, about three years ago, walking into the office one morning to find the entire marketing team coughing and spluttering, and the head of sales white as a sheet and sneezing. I told my boss that it was completely grim and they were going to spread their germs to the whole office, and that he should send the lot of them home instantly. To be fair to him, he agreed, and banished them to WFH and/or rest until they were better.
I simply cannot imagine such a scene nowadays. Very few office workers would dream of going in if they were ill like that.
I said the storm would blow over. A pretty good week for Johnson.
He’s going to survive isn’t he?
I still think he should go - morally - but I can’t deny it will be amusing to watch the raging apoplexy of his enemies, if he does survive
If you count surviving as everyone thinking he is a lowlife cheating lying criminal clown. At least that would mean an absolute thrashing for the nasty party at next election.
So says the man that is the no1 fanboy with undying adulation and love for a man that was described by his own QC as "a bully and a sex pest".
And on that non-bombshell, I am going to have some lunch. Hope you are well Malc. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
F Off scumbag
You need more of the cask strength turnip juice - that really isn't up to your standards for insults.
Enough for that cretin, I would not waste any energy on it.
Comments
There is a difference between inviting people to a party, and the wife of the boss, who lives on site, showing up with a birthday cake at a workplace. Remember that most white-collar workplaces were closed at the time, so there’s very few direct comparisons to be made.
I’ve been that project manager who sends for pizza and occasionally beer, for a team working their arses off into the night. It is a massive boost to morale.
I’m not a massive Boris Johnson fan, but think that both the media and Oppsoition are being idiots in not looking at what’s actually important at the moment. I’d rather they were all expending their energy on what’s happening in Ukraine, than petty obsessions about whether or not the PM had a cake for his birthday two years ago, or how much it costs for a diplomatic delegation to travel to Australia.
Also in the news today, Ursula VdL told by EU court to disclose text messages with Pfizer CEO. Governments everywhere were under mad pressure in 2020, and bent all their normal rules to keep people alive. I have litttle sympathy with people trying to micro-analyse their decisions now, with plenty of time and 20/20 hindsight.
It's overwhelmingly the former, especially as the "caused by" is concentrated heavily in the periods where covid deaths were highest.
I took a look at the England covid deaths data from the ONS (deaths on death certificates) and took the proportion of "covid the underlying cause" per month and came out with 88.96% of deaths with covid on the death certificate having covid as the specific cause of death.
In England, that's 137,790 out of 150,397. If it's the same UK-wide, then 156,943 out of 176,428 (as at the date I did this, a few days ago) were deaths FROM covid.
It would leave 20,000 or so where covid was merely a contributory factor.
Fairly soon, I expect Labour to be also better trusted on the economy, as prices rise and the Tories do sod all about the cost of living.
• Crime
• Immigration
• Cost of living
• Levelling up
• NHS
Tories still hold a slight lead on the economy, so work still to do.
I don't recall Blair having anything like as much trouble with the '1p on NI for the NHS' policy, which was a very similar gambit.
Labour since 1918. Though boundaries and names have changed. Used to be Ince.
At next boundary review the constituency keeps the name, but neither place with Makerfield in the name, Ashton-in-Makerfield and Ince-in-Makerfield, won't be in it!
Wigan MBC has been Labour for ever. Not sure before LA reform, but would be surprised if some of the Makerfield bits weren't. Unless they were Independent of course.
I remember, about three years ago, walking into the office one morning to find the entire marketing team coughing and spluttering, and the head of sales white as a sheet and sneezing. I told my boss that it was completely grim and they were going to spread their germs to the whole office, and that he should send the lot of them home instantly. To be fair to him, he agreed, and banished them to WFH and/or rest until they were better.
I simply cannot imagine such a scene nowadays. Very few office workers would dream of going in if they were ill like that.