|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 24, 2020 17:10:31 GMT
I'm not sure how that relates to the point that I was making about there has been far more than 23 excess non covid deaths Andy. I think what I'm saying is that last year a pneumonia death would only be a pneumonia death and it would be excess. This year it has a new value it's falling into a Covid (and pneumonia) category. Ah got you, yes that's a very good point.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 24, 2020 17:20:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Nov 24, 2020 17:38:17 GMT
Absolutely crazy. Enjoy Lockdown January everyone and make the most of seeing the family, some of them might not be there next Christmas. Fu*king madness
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Nov 24, 2020 17:50:50 GMT
Absolutely crazy. Enjoy Lockdown January everyone and make the most of seeing the family, some of them might not be there next Christmas. Fu*king madness Don't you think the way this keeps getting painted as some daft game of 'would you rather' is a bit silly though? It's media driven and isn't really helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 24, 2020 17:52:18 GMT
What a pity PCSO Rich and PS Alec weren't around to sort the town's grooming gangs out.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 24, 2020 17:55:59 GMT
Krasnodar vs Sevilla now on TV6 Swe. They said crowd: 10000 people.
đź¤
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Nov 24, 2020 17:59:42 GMT
What a pity PCSO Rich and PS Alec weren't around to sort the town's grooming gangs out. I didn't realise you needed a valid reason to walk around aimlessly what the hell.
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Nov 24, 2020 18:01:44 GMT
Absolutely crazy. Enjoy Lockdown January everyone and make the most of seeing the family, some of them might not be there next Christmas. Fu*king madness Don't you think the way this keeps getting painted as some daft game of 'would you rather' is a bit silly though? It's media driven and isn't really helpful. That’s what it is though? Would you rather risk seeing your family and giving granny covid. Or not see them for a bit of turkey, and eliminate the risk?
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 24, 2020 18:03:19 GMT
Paul the terms "involving" and "due to" are key here. The ONS states: A death can be registered with both COVID-19 and Influenza and Pneumonia mentioned on the death certificate. Deaths where both were mentioned have been counted in both categories.
We use the term “due to COVID-19” or “due to Influenza and Pneumonia” when referring only to deaths where that illness was recorded as the underlying cause of death. We use the term “involving COVID-19” or “involving Influenza and Pneumonia” when referring to deaths that had that illness mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not. Look at the graphs in Fig 2. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending13november2020I think the comparison of this year's excess deaths to a 5 year average is misleading. Better to compare to a “bad” year or an average of 5 “bad” years. In that way we are comparing like with like. There is definitely a school of thought that has a credible argument that the last few years have been relatively mild in comparison to other big influenza years. Whilst it's not a nice term this leads to the "dry tinder" hypothesis that people who survived those recent low death years may be significantly more susceptible, as well as being then older. I won't post links on the basis the choice of article might prejudice the thinking but EWD (excess winter deaths) had it's own science long before Covid. Looking at the data back to 1950 shows some pretty erratic numbers. The moving average is not as one one might expect in one direction based on a gradually improving health care and technological society. It has some key variables based on weather and ageing populations. To put it simply if the ageing populations survive milder winters they cyclically increase numbers above average in future years. I'm not saying it balances out Covid by any means but the death variations are very spiky regardless of how they are codified by cause.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Nov 24, 2020 18:03:51 GMT
What a pity PCSO Rich and PS Alec weren't around to sort the town's grooming gangs out. I didn't realise you needed a valid reason to walk around aimlessly what the hell. In fairness it was his second wandering offence. Only has himself to blame. I've been for two runs today, but fortunately managed to avoid the fuzz.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Nov 24, 2020 18:05:41 GMT
I think the comparison of this year's excess deaths to a 5 year average is misleading. Better to compare to a “bad” year or an average of 5 “bad” years. In that way we are comparing like with like. There is definitely a school of thought that has a credible argument that the last few years have been relatively mild in comparison to other big influenza years. Whilst it's not a nice term this leads to the "dry tinder" hypothesis that people who survived those recent low death years may be significantly more susceptible, as well as being then older. I won't post links on the basis the choice of article might prejudice the thinking but EWD (excess winter deaths) had it's own science long before Covid. Looking at the data back to 1950 shows some pretty erratic numbers. The moving average is not as one one might expect in one direction based on a gradually improving health care and technological society. It has some key variables based on weather and ageing populations. To put it simply if the ageing populations survive milder winters they cyclically increase numbers above average in future years. I'm not saying it balances out Covid by any means but the death variations are very spiky regardless of how they are codified by cause. The dry tinder theory has been put forward as a reason Germany has done relatively well. In 17/18 they had a shocking flu season.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 24, 2020 18:06:41 GMT
Absolutely crazy. Enjoy Lockdown January everyone and make the most of seeing the family, some of them might not be there next Christmas. Fu*king madness The thing is, the government have absolutely no choice in this. People are going to do it anyway and the government know that there is absolutely no way they can stop them. Do we seriously think the police are going to break-up family dinners on Christmas Day? It's not going to happen. And if the government don't give people the green light and they break the rules en masse up and down the country, then as a government, you've completely lost control and once people realise that they can get away with breaking the rules at Christmas, you're no longer going to be able to get them to follow the rules in January or February or March. The thing that does piss me off though, is that the government have now painted themselves into a dangerous corner in how they're currently handling the situation. IMHO it should no longer be about locking down the whole of society and the narrative should have been about protecting the elderly and those people in the at risk groups, that's where our focus should have been but it hasn't. And the problem we have now, is that when people are given a green light, they then believe that that means so long as the light is green, then that means it's also safe, when in this particular instance it absolutely won't be. More than ever now in the run up to Christmas, we should be making people acutely aware of how at risk the elderly still are from the virus (it's always been really about them) and to continue the green light analogy, just because the green man is flashing at the zebra crossing, be aware that for many people, the traffic won't have actually stopped, the risk is still there and in reality, there's a fair chance, that it isn't safe to cross.
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Nov 24, 2020 18:08:00 GMT
Absolutely crazy. Enjoy Lockdown January everyone and make the most of seeing the family, some of them might not be there next Christmas. Fu*king madness Furthermore there is absolutely no way a household will stick to just two other households. And how the hell do you police it, absolutely no way of knowing who has seen who. Boy this government wants to sell some vaccines
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Nov 24, 2020 18:10:38 GMT
Absolutely crazy. Enjoy Lockdown January everyone and make the most of seeing the family, some of them might not be there next Christmas. Fu*king madness The thing is, the government have absolutely no choice in this. People are going to do it anyway and the government know that there is absolutely no way they can stop them. Do we seriously think the police are going to break-up family dinners on Christmas Day? It's not going to happen. And if the government don't give people the green light and they break the rules en masse up and down the country, then as a government, you've completely lost control and once people realise that they can get away with breaking the rules at Christmas, you're no longer going to be able to get them to follow the rules in January or February or March. The thing that does piss me off though, is that the government have now painted themselves into a dangerous corner in how they're currently handling the situation. IMHO it should no longer be about locking down the whole of society and the narrative should have been about protecting the elderly and those people in the at risk groups, that's where our focus should have been but it hasn't. And the problem we have now, is that when people are given a green light, they then believe that that means so long as the light is green, then that means it's also safe, when in this particular instance it absolutely won't be. More than ever now in the run up to Christmas, we should be making people acutely aware of how at risk the elderly still are from the virus (it's always been really about them) and to continue the green light analogy, just because the green man is flashing at the zebra crossing, be aware that for many people, the traffic won't have actually stopped and in reality, there's a fair chance, that it isn't safe to cross. Sounds like you're advocating personal responsibility there. Won't go down well.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Nov 24, 2020 18:10:50 GMT
I didn't realise you needed a valid reason to walk around aimlessly what the hell. In fairness it was his second wandering offence. Only has himself to blame. I've been for two runs today, but fortunately managed to avoid the fuzz. Funnily enough I've been for a walk today around westport lake i forgot we're under Marshall law and you're not allowed out without a destination or reason, isolation is having a detrimental effect on my memory.
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Nov 24, 2020 18:21:32 GMT
The thing is, the government have absolutely no choice in this. People are going to do it anyway and the government know that there is absolutely no way they can stop them. Do we seriously think the police are going to break-up family dinners on Christmas Day? It's not going to happen. And if the government don't give people the green light and they break the rules en masse up and down the country, then as a government, you've completely lost control and once people realise that they can get away with breaking the rules at Christmas, you're no longer going to be able to get them to follow the rules in January or February or March. The thing that does piss me off though, is that the government have now painted themselves into a dangerous corner in how they're currently handling the situation. IMHO it should no longer be about locking down the whole of society and the narrative should have been about protecting the elderly and those people in the at risk groups, that's where our focus should have been but it hasn't. And the problem we have now, is that when people are given a green light, they then believe that that means so long as the light is green, then that means it's also safe, when in this particular instance it absolutely won't be. More than ever now in the run up to Christmas, we should be making people acutely aware of how at risk the elderly still are from the virus (it's always been really about them) and to continue the green light analogy, just because the green man is flashing at the zebra crossing, be aware that for many people, the traffic won't have actually stopped and in reality, there's a fair chance, that it isn't safe to cross. Sounds like you're advocating personal responsibility there. Won't go down well. I agree some people would meet anyway, I disagree about the government allowing meet ups, it’s a easy get out. They should be taking a different stance, acknowledging people want to meet up, but saying it’s not allowed, not in a draconian manner like they have, but a sensible manner explaining the risks, educating people. And if they do meet, they meet. But this way the government maintain the higher ground, rather than just giving in.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 24, 2020 18:24:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 24, 2020 18:29:43 GMT
There is definitely a school of thought that has a credible argument that the last few years have been relatively mild in comparison to other big influenza years. Whilst it's not a nice term this leads to the "dry tinder" hypothesis that people who survived those recent low death years may be significantly more susceptible, as well as being then older. I won't post links on the basis the choice of article might prejudice the thinking but EWD (excess winter deaths) had it's own science long before Covid. Looking at the data back to 1950 shows some pretty erratic numbers. The moving average is not as one one might expect in one direction based on a gradually improving health care and technological society. It has some key variables based on weather and ageing populations. To put it simply if the ageing populations survive milder winters they cyclically increase numbers above average in future years. I'm not saying it balances out Covid by any means but the death variations are very spiky regardless of how they are codified by cause. The dry tinder theory has been put forward as a reason Germany has done relatively well. In 17/18 they had a shocking flu season. Here is the data from 1950 from ONS, an important statement in the narrative "There were an estimated 23,200 excess winter deaths which occurred in England and Wales in the 2018 to 2019 winter, the lowest since the winter of 2013 to 2014.The excess winter mortality index in England in 2018 to 2019 was statistically significantly lower than the 2016 to 2017 and 2017 to 2018 winters. The excess winter mortality index in Wales in 2018 to 2019 was statistically significantly lower than all years since the 2013 to 2014 winter. Excess winter mortality continued to be higher in females compared with males and highest in females aged 90 years and over compared with females at younger ages. Respiratory diseases continued to be the leading cause of excess winter deaths which occurred in 2018 to 2019.Attachment DeletedSource: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2018to2019provisionaland2017to2018final
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Nov 24, 2020 18:42:09 GMT
Whats the point of the entire thing then? Cheers for wasting 8 months of my life
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 24, 2020 18:56:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Nov 24, 2020 19:16:21 GMT
Excellent news Christmas with family and friends without feeling like a criminal.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 24, 2020 19:22:49 GMT
Do you actually know what corporatism means? What it doesn't mean is the world being run by globalist corporations hoovering up wealth. In all it's forms (and there are variants from a socialist, liberal, social democratic and even fascist perspective) it means people with particular specialist skills working together to influence whatever power structures are in place to incorporate the insights of their area of expertise into the decision making process and ensure they get their just reward. It is the exact opposite of what you think it is. There are people out there who want a world run by global corporations that hoover up wealth for those at the top. They happen at be at the top of those very global corporations. However their politics is entrenched in the extreme libertarianism that you're into. These are the people who hate the idea of corporatism because it means having to listen to experts (technocrats in your terms) and share the wealth that they have helped create. These are the people with an agenda against the likes of the WHO ,the WEF and altruists like Bill Gates because they are advocating a more equitable distribution of the world's resources and have a philosophy that goes beyond being a selfish greedy bastard in it for themselves. Why do you think Trump is so highly thought of by the alt right and features so highly in Qanon related conspiracy theories? It can't be because it's in the interests of him and his selfish bastard billionaire buddies to put out a political ideology that tries to undermine bodies and individuals like the WHO, the WEF and Bill Gates who would cut off their exclusive access to power and wealth? It's hilarious to think that you and your conspiracy theory buddies might just be pawns in their game. Well done you - I'm sure your puppet masters are pleased with your work. I have to say, I thoroughly enjoy your epic take-downs of starkiller on here. Keep fighting the good fight! Epic in length. But no takedown. And it depends on definitions of corporatism. Of which there are a number. I am talking state capitalism. Another definition of corporatism. This is anti-freemarket. And I am also refering to globalist state capitalism. Granted, this is based on whether you think such a Globalist 'state' exists. I would suggest through world bodies that it does. A difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Beloved Monkfish on Nov 24, 2020 19:25:02 GMT
I have to say, I thoroughly enjoy your epic take-downs of starkiller on here. Keep fighting the good fight! Epic in length. But no takedown. And it depends on definitions of corporatism. Of which there are a number. I am talking state capitalism. Another definition of corporatism. This is anti-freemarket. And I am also refering to globalist state capitalism. Granted, this is based on whether you think such a Globalist 'state' exists. I would suggest through world bodies that it does. A difference of opinion. Out of interest starkiller, how long has this 'global elite taking over the world' been going on? 5 years? 20? 100? Since the beginning of time? When did it start?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 24, 2020 20:00:49 GMT
Excellent news Christmas with family and friends without feeling like a criminal. Speak for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 24, 2020 20:08:00 GMT
I have to say, I thoroughly enjoy your epic take-downs of starkiller on here. Keep fighting the good fight! Epic in length. But no takedown. And it depends on definitions of corporatism. Of which there are a number. I am talking state capitalism. Another definition of corporatism. This is anti-freemarket. And I am also refering to globalist state capitalism. Granted, this is based on whether you think such a Globalist 'state' exists. I would suggest through world bodies that it does. A difference of opinion. State capatilism isn't corporatism. You are using random words without knowing what they actually mean. A globalist state does not exist - it's not a difference of opinion it's a made up conspiracy theory v a statement of fact. The WHO is an organisation with no actual authority. They aim to influence governments to help people living in impoverished countries improve their life expectancy (the bastards). The WEF are a pressure group with no actual authority comprising dyed in the wool capitalists who recognise that capitalism premised on an unfettered profit motive just results in a clique of the mega rich exploiting the world for their own gain. They are advocating a moderated form of capitalism that benefits everyone. The "free marketeers" with an agenda against the likes of the WHO and the WEF are are the greedy bastards who head up major companies with no ethical agenda and who's sole purpose is to enrich their owners and create a world made up of the super rich and the exploited. To maintain their position they have propagated a populist Libertarian political ideology via the internet that proclaims any individual or organisation that challenges greed and wants the world to operate on an altruistic basis is part of a global plot to curtail individual freedom. The reason being they are a threat to greed. You're a fish who's been landed and living in a keep net.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Nov 24, 2020 20:08:24 GMT
Excellent news Christmas with family and friends without feeling like a criminal. Speak for yourself. I am.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 24, 2020 21:49:02 GMT
Is anyone planning to ski this winter?
We're booked for the French Alps in March but I see Austria and France have just closed their ski resorts following covid-19 spreads.
This vaccine can't come too soon.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 24, 2020 23:01:52 GMT
So your support bubble counts as one household then🤔
People can continue to meet people outside their Christmas bubble outdoors according to the rules in the tier where they live Children under the age of 18 whose parents do not live together may be part of both parents' Christmas bubbles Existing support bubbles count as one household towards the three household limit People are allowed to form a different Christmas bubble from the people they live with normally - they can choose to stay with different people for this period If a care home resident is able to leave their home, they can form a bubble with one other household - but should not form a three-household bubble. However, visits out of care homes should only be considered for residents of working age because of the risks Students are considered to be part of the household to which they have returned
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 24, 2020 23:48:03 GMT
Latest from Sweden
People living alone are allowed to meet just one(!) other person.
But up to 8 people can still gather.
However, there is no room in our law system for any kind of control about this ...
It doesn't make sense?!?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 25, 2020 1:37:04 GMT
Behave, so only 23 extra people compared to a normal year, across the entire nation, have died at home due to the lockdowns? EDIT: Just checked, try multiplying that figure by at least a thousand. www.cebm.net/covid-19/22268/Deaths in own homes have seen an excess of 23,619 since week 14, a similar number to the 23,005 excess deaths in care homes. Both far exceed the excess noted in hospital. While the majority of COVID-19 deaths have occurred in hospitals (n=32,275), the excess is only 8,486 or 7% higher than what would be expected. The deaths of people in their own homes are predominantly due to other causes: 2,421 (roughly 10%) are COVID-19 deaths. In care homes, COVID-19 deaths make up 65% of the excess (n= 14,999). While the number of COVID-19 deaths may be high, particularly in the hospital setting, the analysis of excess deaths is a crucial consideration for assessing the impact of covid. The data suggest that mortality has shifted from hospital to home, especially for deaths not associated with COVID-19. This “displacement” may be due to the reluctance of individuals to receive treatment in hospital or of clinicians to admit non-covid patients. Isn't this a nightmare to unpick? 23 non covid additional deaths isn't a real figure for a raft of reasons: 1 The baseline is a 5 year average - under other circumstances 2020 may have been a low year. 2 Lockdown may have driven the non covid death rate down - fewer road accidents, less communicable non-covud diseases, reduction in work related stress There may have been non-covid deaths for things like missed operations and people not getting treatment but there is no way anyone can extract that from those figures - somebody would have to do a targeted analysis on the base data to get anyway near even ballpark figures. Exactly mate, too many variables, presumptions and lack of understanding for anyone to try and base an argument on it.
|
|