By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
In the United Kingdom, total excess deaths are now causing real alarm among statisticians. The 18,516 deaths recorded in England and Wales in the week to April 10 are the highest weekly total since winter 2000 – and we are not in winter now. There 7996 (or 76%) more deaths than the mean weekly death toll for the time of year.
Fig. 1. UK weekly excess deaths by the thousand, compared to the five-year mean, attributed to the Chinese virus (grey) and not currently attributed to it (green), weeks 8 to 15 of 2020.
It can no longer be argued that the Chinese virus is “no worse than the annual flu”. If these are the excess deaths even after a lockdown, one can imagine how much worse the position might have been without a lockdown.
Of the 7996 excess deaths, 6213 had the Chinese virus registered on the death certificate, leaving 1783 unexplained excess deaths. A handful of these are attributable to suicide and other adverse consequences of the lockdown: inferentially, nearly all the rest are uncounted Chinese-virus deaths.
Sir David Spiegelhalter, Professor of the Public Understanding of Statistics in the University of Cambridge, described the excess-deaths spike as “incredibly vivid”. He told the Daily Telegraph:
“I don’t think I’ve ever been as shocked when I’ve looked at something, particularly as just over half of that spike were death certificates with COVID written on them. We knew there was going to be a jump in COVID-registered deaths. I hadn’t expected such a huge number of deaths which didn’t mention it on the death certificate.”
Sir David would not have been so surprised if he had been tracking our daily graphs showing the compound daily growth rates in confirmed (i.e., usually more serious) cases and in deaths. These growth rates, though a lot less bad than before the world began to take the Chinese virus seriously, are still dangerously high, baking in substantial numbers of future deaths.
The unallocated deaths reveal yet another weakness in HM Government’s recording and publication of the figures. It was already known that the death statistics announced in Downing Street’s daily press conferences were underestimated by at least 52% nationally (41% in England and Wales, 70% in Scotland, 91% in Northern Ireland: Fig. 2) because the figures were for hospital deaths only, excluding all deaths in care homes and in people’s houses.
Now it seems that even after adding 52% the figure is a 76% underestimate (Fig. 1), because the Government has not taken the elementary step of issuing instructions that all fatalities where the virus is suspected to have caused suffocation should be tested for the virus and the results reported to it within 24 hours where possible.
Fig. 2. Daily death counts reported by hospitals and the total corrected by the Office for National Statistics to allow for deaths registered later.
The absence of credible death statistics compounds the difficulties caused by HM Government’s failure to give instructions to hospitals and doctors to report all cases where the patient was infected but has recovered. In the absence of these basic numbers, HM Government is visibly stumbling about in the dark.
Daily growth rates in new cases and in deaths are no longer falling much, but they need to be lower before it becomes safe to end the lockdowns in those nations that have them. Sweden, with no lockdown, continues to track a little above the global daily growth rate in cumulative cases, and appreciably above it in cumulative deaths. Sweden has 175 deaths per million population, compared with 64 per million in Denmark, 34 in Norway and 25 in Finland.
Fig. 1. Mean compound daily growth rates in cumulative confirmed cases of COVID-19 for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from March 28 to April 20, 2020.
Fig. 2. Mean compound daily growth rates in cumulative COVID-19 deaths for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 4 to April 20, 2020.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since Covid-19 is like flu, why do staff in infectious hospitals use “space” overalls and numerous airlocks when entering the infectious ward?
Why does the doctor wear 3 pairs of gloves at the same time?
A patient who leaves the hospital does not recognize the people who treated him because he cannot see their face.
When the doctor enters the room with Covid-19 patients, the patients put on their masks and keep their distance from the doctor. They are very careful not to infect the medical staff.
not sure why-
“New data from the Swiss Canton of Zurich shows that about 50% of all Covid19-related deaths occurred in retirement or nursing homes. Nevertheless, even there about 40% of all test-positive people showed no symptoms. The median age of test-positive deaths in Switzerland is currently about 84 years’
Because they do not know how dangerous it is, yet. That’s what the stats are suppose to show/hint.
If the stats (later on) conclude that Covid-19 is no more dangerous than flu, they will stop using additional protection.
I’m sorry, but “statistics” do not work in infectious wards, but experienced medical staff.
“ren April 22, 2020 at 2:08 am
Why does the doctor wear 3 pairs of gloves at the same time?”
Because they are thin and wear quickly. The second layer protects when the outer first layer fails. The inner most layer protects the best.
Excess deaths are shown in country after country. Many comments here have a wishful thinking bias, even with the claim that there are less COVID-19 deaths than reported, as more people die with corona than by corona.
So, just get down to earth.
It is unclear what exactly you are cautioning about, NK.
There seem to be three basic schools of thought that I have identified: One sees the whole thing as greatly exaggerated, in terms of the severity of the disease and the danger to health it represents (the economic danger/catastrophe is another matter entirely and I am not referring to this, personally), while another group see the danger as greater than is being widely considered the case, and yet a third group of people seem to be taking a more or less balanced approach.
It is unclear from this comment, as written, to whom you are suggesting needs to get down to Earth.
In any case, it is not just the number of cases and the number of deaths that are uncertain and contested.
Also in doubt is exactly how valid are comparisons of recent deaths to historical tallies of such.
The unprecedented nature of the many changes in behavior has certainly changed the number of all cause deaths for a variety of reasons, as well as thrown into doubt the reliability of recent statistics of deaths from any particular cause and for all causes on the whole.
Large numbers of workers in all sectors, public and private, are not working regular schedules and many are not working at all, while still others are working from home as best they can.
As well, we are in the midst of an unprecedented crisis, both medically and economically, and it is reasonable to suppose that priorities have been altered, lines of communication are less reliable than is typical, and basically people have other things to worry about than diligent and timely reportage of statistics. Different sets of individuals report the numbers than those who have the job of compiling and disseminating them, and people can only report what they have available to report.
On top of all of this, is it widely recognized that very recent statistics are at best guesstimates, and nearly all such stats are revised over time, with reliable data only taken to be available after a considerable period of such revisions. Many real time statistics are little more than estimates based on past trends and numbers.
When all of this started, I had inferred that things like auto accidents, workplaces accidents, and other types of deaths would decline sharply, given that far fewer people were out driving and going to work.
Since that time I have read reports from ER physicians and other doctors than this is indeed the case…far few people are showing up in hospitals after being injured or killed in accidents.
Those doctors have also reported something else I had speculated on: That deaths from many other causes would be lower than is typically the case. These doctors have said people showing up in ERs with heart attacks and strokes are down by over half the usual numbers.
No one is really sure what to make of this. It may be people are dying at home and such deaths have not decreased, but it is also possible that people sitting at home watching TV are having less heart attacks and strokes than people engaged in typical daily activities.
In addition to such medical causes of deaths, I have also speculated that deaths due to many sorts of crime may be greatly reduced, as well as such causes as drug overdoses.
Since that time, I have seen numerous accounts confirming that global crime rates are down substantially, and are now a fraction of typical numbers.
Other accounts seem to confirm that the global and local drug trades are being greatly disrupted, for numerous reasons: It is hard for people to smuggle stuff by air, for example, when planes are not flying.
It is harder to drive contraband across borders when borders are closed, and harder to get away with simply driving around while doing illegal stuff when few drivers are on the road to provide cover and to blend into the midst of.
Also, supply lines for ancillary materials and chemicals used in processing have been severed. Many drugs and precursors apparently have been coming from China for many years, and the flow of such materials has, by these accounts, come to a halt or at least been greatly diminished.
On top of all of this, social distancing and enforced or voluntary quarantines and isolation could be expected to have greatly disrupted transmission of all causes of infectious diseases, and not just the ‘Rona.
People sitting at home being health conscious could be expected to lead to less people dying than when these same people are going about normal everyday routines, and all of the factors noted above and perhaps some others not thought of could be have a huge impact on the numbers of people dying in the normal course of daily events.
Combine that with spotty data recording and reporting, and any attempt to get at the severity of the disease by comparing statistics in real time, is very likely, in my view, to be confounded.
“Combine that with spotty data recording and reporting, and any attempt to get at the severity of the disease by comparing statistics in real time, is very likely, in my view, to be confounded.”
I think this lack of data is what needs to be addressed more than anything. Governments are falling down on the job of collecting readily avialable data. We are walking around in the dark without adequate data. Governments could correct this situation if they would focus on this problem. The data is out there, they just need to gather it all into one place and make it available.
From the beginning i have had the feeling that all of the information and statistics being disseminated needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.
Lot’s of specific reasons for thinking so can be identified at this point, but at the beginning I was not thinking of any specific thing, but simply the general observation that, during some crisis, such as an earthquake or a hurricane, the information that emerges during and even immediately after the event is very often of poor quality.
There will surely be undercounts, and also overcounts. Some deaths may be double counted.
Some dead people will not be found for some time.
Some that died will be misidentified as being caused by the event, on both sides of the ledger.
Just one example from a different sort of event: In a bad snowstorm or blizzard, anyone who dies on the road is likely to be counted as a death caused by the storm. But this ignores that on any given day, lots of people are injured and die in traffic accidents, both motorists and pedestrians, etc. And in fact with most people avoiding travel, the overall number of such injuries and fatalities may be greatly reduced during a snow event. So how to decide if a traffic death is due to the storm, or due to the fact that whatever is going on, some people are going to have accidents and some of them will die?
Consider a large multiday snowstorm that paralyzes the northeastern US for several days, and curtails travel and business for several more days.
It might be, for example, that five people die in road accidents that are blamed on the storm over these several states and several days.
But it might also be the case that within this same area and number of days when there is NOT a snowstorm, on average perhaps 100 people could be expected to die in road accidents, statistically speaking.
So, overall five people died because of the storm, but is it not also the case that 95 people lived because of the storm?
Can I just say, Im proud of Australia and New Zealand for stopping COVID in its tracks (at this stage). NZ went harder with a slightly stronger lockdown, but both countries have comparable death/population ratios. Australia with a population of 25m has just 74 deaths (the far majority being nosocomial) with only ~40 in intensive care currently. Approx just 25-30 cases are now being identified each day now, despite one of the worlds most rigorous testing regimes ongoing.
Australia has allowed public transport, most shops and shopping malls to open on regular hours, many small businesses to continue to operate,no face mask directive, freight, couriers and mail operating as normal, cafes and restaurants staying open with take away service, as well as about 35-40% of manufacturing and construction still continuing. The aviation, tourism and education sectors are completely shut. Public services are all operating close to normal as well. And as a result the economy has a faint heartbeat. A living wage is now being provided for six months too. Many are quick to joke about Australia and NZ being a little bit behind the rest of the world, but right now they are leading the world.
Until it has worked its way through the population, Mr Corona, will be back. They haven’t stopped anything.
Sweden made the right choice.
In response to Richard, it is not yet clear whether Sweden made the right choice, as opposed to the choice Richard prefers.
Sweden’s rate of growth in deaths is among the highest we are tracking. Let us hope that that comparatively high rate of growth comes down.
It is becoming clear across Europe that lock down was not the correct strategy.
Cam
Give it two or three months and see what happens.
Please compare total 2020 deaths from all causes with three other plots of total deaths.
1. Average of last ten years
2. Lowest deaths in last 10 years
3. Highest deaths in last 10 years
I don’t have this data. But I have little tolerance for things like “excess” deaths. There can be significant differences in deaths between good and bad flu years.
Note that if we see total deaths from all causes, we can divide by population of each year to get total deaths per million.
We have to make decisions about when to end lockdowns. Knowing total deaths will help us make decisions for a second wave in the fall.
Joe Long: “Please compare total 2020 deaths from all causes”
Yes, that`s right. But we have to wait 8 months to do that.
By now we can take a week to week and a month to month comparison.
Please compare total 2020 deaths from all causes with three other plots of total deaths.
I’ve got weekly mortality rate across the year for last 10 years – no min-max and avg though but the trends can be easily seen:
Mortality rate per week
I think the telling data will be if and how far this year’s trend falls below the aggregate data in the coming months. The question is are the deaths simply changed in distribution rather than quantity over the longer term.
Indeed, we need to see longer term trend – whether those deaths are simply accumulation in one month deaths otherwise distributed more evenly or there is persistent higher mortality.
Many have speculated that the virus was spreading and sickening people considerably earlier than the officially recognized timeline would indicate.
This morning I was reading an account which has placed the first US deaths due to the virus considerably earlier in time than what had been seen to be the case.
In addition to extending backward the timeline, and also shifting the geographical focus southward into California, this new report also seems to lend credence to the idea that many people are dying of the virus in their homes, and thus have not been included in the official tallies.
The net effect of all of the implications of this story, if confirmed, is that there are not only more cases than have been counted, which I do not think anyone really disputes, but that the number of deaths is greater than what has been included in official tallies. Since many have assumed that a larger number of cases means the CFR is lower than has been estimated, a large number of uncounted deaths muddies the picture greatly.
IOW…we do not know the number of cases, and we also do not know the number of deaths. If the CFR is 1%, there would only need to be 1 uncounted death for every 100 uncounted cases, to keep this figure intact.
But since no one really knows with any great accuracy the number of deaths or cases, numerical analysis of the pandemic ought to really be placed into the context of a large degree of uncertainty.
The article I am referring to, here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/autopsies-find-first-u-s-coronavirus-death-occurred-in-early-february-weeks-earlier-than-previously-thought/ar-BB131mhb?ocid=msedgntp
Thank you for the reference.
A good confirmation of undercounting, both of cases and deaths.
One of the more surprising details included in this article was the comment from a doctor that in the early days of the spread of the virus, the CDC had such strict rules for doing virus testing, that doctors were not even allowed to test people they suspected may have become sick and even died from the virus, unless their was specific information that the patient in question has recently travelled to China or had a known close contact with another person already known to be infected.
Such a rule makes it obvious that early instances of community transmission would necessarily be missed, and that in the case of someone who was too sick to be interviewed, even people who had travelled to China or who had been in contact with someone else who was known to be infected, there would be no way to know if either of these risk factors was present.
To me this is yet another instance where the CDC can be shown to have been extremely negligent in their duties. It almost seems, in this case that they were possibly deliberately negligent.
After all, if the only way anyone could know if the virus was present in the US and spreading via community transmission was to test people, and no one was being tested, and in fact testing of people was actively prohibited unless they had travelled or known to have been in contact with an infected traveler, there is not even any theoretical way community transmission could have been revealed to be occurring.
“IOW…we do not know the number of cases, and we also do not know the number of deaths.”
What if in some cases people don’t experience the upper respiratory problems of the Wuhan virus, but instead, the virus attacks other organs in the body like the heart, liver and kidneys. Without the upper respiratory symptoms, the people might not even suspect they were sick with it. Just speculation on my part.
As more time goes by, it does seem to be becoming ever more clear that in many ways, this is a very unusual illness.
I am hard pressed to think of any other disease which spares the youngest, or which causes a very mild illness and even in many no illness at all, but which effects a large number so severely.
By severely I am referring to the number of people who wind up needing hospital care and who get viral pneumonia.
But I think it is also the case that many infectious organisms do not cause disease in many of the people who are exposed and infected, and that this is just not that widely known and discussed.
I am thinking that in the long run, this virus and this disease will advance medical knowledge, hospital care, and pandemic awareness and response to a very large degree…once it is all figured out.
The medical statistics for 2020 in many countries continue to show the absence of good control numbers, thus causing much confusion. Planned experiments trump ad hoc data collection, surprise.
This confusion has assisted those pushing the line that lockdowns are medically ineffective, but very destructive of national economies. Again, this is a claim made without a controlled comparison.
Personally, I think that many countries were already on a big economic slippery dip. They were pushed into motion by this pandemic. National economies degrade when production of valuable, needed goods lessens in favour of non-essential frivolities like Hollywood epitomises. Creation of new wealth cannot be replaced by increased circulation of existing wealth.
There is bound to be some reconstruction, with changes. The leftist State government where I live has already instigated/approved many changes as Christopher Heathcote outlines in a splendid article in Quadrant Online today. By any measure they are extreme and communistic.
If you already expend personal effort, like MoB does, in suggesting future directions, maybe effort can be redirected from halting a pandemic to opposing governments salvating at this huge opportunity for a drastic set of policy changes. Geoff S
It can no longer be argued that the Chinese virus is “no worse than the annual flu”.
How many have been arguing that? So far, it can be argued that COVID-19 is on a par with a bad flu season. It certainly isn’t the feared once in a century mass killer for which it would be necessary to lockdown.
Sir David would not have been so surprised if he had been tracking our daily graphs showing the compound daily growth rates…
Indeed, and also the daily tallies coming from the NHS and others. Sir David doesn’t seem to have been paying attention. It should have been no shock at all; in fact the most surprising aspect is that it didn’t show up in the ONS figures sooner. But the reporting systems are normally glacial, and now disrupted. The ONS deaths figures have always been a dry backwater of government statistics and now they’ve suddenly got the world waiting for them. They’ve had to add personnel and they’ve changed their software recently.
…leaving 1783 unexplained excess deaths. A handful of these are attributable to suicide and other adverse consequences of the lockdown: inferentially, nearly all the rest are uncounted Chinese-virus deaths.
Total assumption. Monckton of Brenchley has pulled that “handful” out of his rear end and used it to conclude that most of the unexplained excess deaths are what he believes them to be.
What do we know? We know that normal deaths occur with an approximate 50 / 50 split male and female. We know that COVID-19 deaths occur with an approximate split 60% male / 40% female.
Of the total non-COVID-19 deaths for week 15 (12303) the split is normal: 49.8% male / 50.2% female. If the excess 1783 non-COVID-19 deaths were actually nearly all uncounted COVID-19 deaths, then they would also have the 60/40 split and would throw the total split over to the male side. This is not the case. Inferentially (from actual figures, not assumptions) the excess non-COVID-19 deaths are just that, non-COVID-19 deaths.
Why are there excess non-COVID-19 deaths after weeks of normal health care being largely suspended due to the COVID-19 response? Can we infer?
[With thanks to Hector Drummond for compiling the sex differentiated figures and highlighting this]
Your whole argument rolls around what you believe, it is no better or worse. So why is what he thinks any less valid than what you think?
Even your stats are dubious you claim a 60%/40% covid death rate as a fact. That stat is currently garbage status it could simply be that in the whole world there are places men are more often exposed or more often grouped in large gatherings (plenty of examples like muslim countries). Then you try to use that statistic to a specific demographic. Science requires you to apply the look elsewhere application to statistics and that trash fails the basic test. The easiest person to fool is yourself.
Now both views are equal, construct a valid argument and stop worrying about what people think and make sure you give careful thought to any use of statistics.
Even your stats are dubious you claim a 60%/40% covid death rate as a fact. That stat is currently garbage status…
It isn’t garbage, it is a fact. For reasons not understood, across the world COVID-19 fatality is higher in men than women. In the UK the ratio is approx. 60/40. In some places it is higher still.
Then you try to use that statistic to a specific demographic.
You clearly have no idea how I applied the information.
Science requires you to apply the look elsewhere application to statistics and that trash fails the basic test.
Are you related to Joe Biden?
The easiest person to fool is yourself.
You appear to have fooled yourself that you have something worthwhile to say.
I did enjoy “it’s a fact”, “For reasons not understood” in my science statistics that aren’t understood are called data but hey it’s your version of science you go with it.
As you then do the typical dummy spit rather than just dealing with the facts you win the true believer award …… you have beaten me into submission I am now a true believer and I believe anything you say. So you convinced me and I promise I won’t bother ever interacting with you ever again 🙂
Shameless attempt by the Babylon Bee to trick snopes into giving the thumbs up fact check on one of its postings:
https://babylonbee.com/news/infographic-common-covid-19-talking-points-and-what-they-actually-mean
Okay, wait…a spoof news site is trying to trick a fake fact check site?
It is meant to be a satire but actually it isn’t far from the mark in some instances.
In other important news, I can report that a detailed cursory analysis of a systematic random look at the most critical pandemic emergency crisis metric, has led me to conclude that we can sound the “All Clear” siren, as things are now back to normal.
I am speaking, of course, of toilet paper availability.
A few days ago, I wandered into a Walmart at a late evening hour, and found to my shock and surprise that the shelves were stocked brimful of toilet paper, paper towels, hand sanitizers, bleach, and all manner of other critical hoarding supplies.
Furthermore, I found a large supply of pinto and black kidney beans, shelves full of rice, cases full of meat and cheeses, as well as all the cat food my cats could eat in a month of Sunday Brunches. If not more.
Furthermore, I was able to grab me some of these rare supplies while not seeming to be in any danger of being trampled by housewives and stay-at-home dads.
Of course, it may be I was the only one to have even bothered to check those aisles this week, and that at any moment someone else found these items, and incautiously let out some kind of whooping noise or other such signal, and alerted other shoppers of the presence of these goods, at which time a loud whooshing sound signaled the instantaneous disappearance of all such items.
It is hard to say…I can only report I managed to make it out of the store in one piece, although I did cover my cart with several large opaque tarpaulins as a precaution once I had selected a package from each of these categories.
Potting soil is the new toilet paper 😀
And yeast is undeliverable (not outof stock) since weeks in Germany.
I am not sure I understand.
They have yeast but will not sell it?
Seems they get no yeast for selling, the production can’t follow the requests, there are only 5 in Germany. Main problem is packaging if I read right.
Clearly we know that is satire because we all know you need a sidekick to ride shotgun on the trolley because there can be unexpected ambush from the zombies out of any of the isle shelves.
The test is bunkem, therefore we cannot rely on attributaion figures. [1]
“A study [2] from the Department of Microbiology, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong found wild variations in RT-PCR accuracy. It was found to be between 22% – 80% reliable depending on how it was applied. This general unreliability has been confirmed [3] by other studies. Further studies show clear discrepancies [4] between RT-PCR test results and clinical indication from CT scans.
Most of these studies indicate RT-PCR failure to detect C19 in symptomatic patients, so-called “false negative” tests. When Chinese researchers from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics School of Public Health conducted data analysis [5] of the RT-PCR tests of asymptomatic patients they also found an 80% false positive rate.
Having passed peer review and publication the paper was subsequently withdrawn for what seem quite bizarre reasons. It was removed from the scientific literature because it “depended on theoretical deduction.” The paper was not testing an experimental hypothesis, it was an epidemiological analysis of the available statistical data. All such statistical analysis relies upon theoretical deduction. The claimed reason for withdrawal suggests that all data analysis is now considered to be completely useless.
It seems scientific claims that C19 numbers are underestimated are fine, claims they are overestimated are not. Either way, whether false negative or false positive, there is plenty of evidence to question the reliability of the RT-PCR test for diagnosing COVID 19.
The MSM has suggested [6] that enhanced RT-PCR testing can detect the virus SARS-CoV-2 and, in particular, the amount of it in the patient’s system, the viral load. This is disinformation.
The Nobel winning scientist who devised PCR, Karry Mullis, speaking about the use of PCR [7] to detect HIV stated:
“Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers [viral load]…These tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all…The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”
Reported C19 deaths can be registered without a test clearly diagnosing any coronavirus, let alone C19. The death can be signed off by a doctor who has never seen the patient and can then be registered by someone who has never met the deceased and was nowhere near them when they died.
Further provision in the Coronavirus Act then allows for the body to be cremated, potentially against the family’s wishes, ensuring a confirmatory autopsy is impossible, though it is unlikely one will be conducted anyway.
To say this raises questions about the official reported statistics is an understatement. Questions in no way allege either medical malpractice or negligence. Neither are required for significant confusion to occur because the potential for widespread misreporting of causes of death seems to be a core element of the C19 MCCD process the State has constructed.”
[1]https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/20/coronavirus-lockdown-and-what-you-are-not-being-told-part-2/
[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14522060
[3]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32219885
[4]https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2020200642
[5]https://web.archive.org/web/20200315014616/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32133832
[6]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-abbott-idUSKBN21F014
[7]https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ebola-test-let-the-tests-inventor-speak/5406779
Drat. Made a post earlier but forgot to avoid the k word in reference to COVID-19. Now in mod purgatory. The pain, William, the pain.
Shocking news from Virologist https://truepundit.com/exclusive-top-scientist-disturbing-details-of-threats-research-theft-tainted-vaccines-fraud-cover-ups-pay-to-play/
Any comments on this? How long will virus last? Will it be cured, eg., by hydrochloroquine? Will it have lasting impact? Can we avoid vaccine? Will anyone be held responsible?
I would be interested in knowing where, in the United Kingdom, are deaths occurring. Are they occurring in nursing homes (or whatever those are called in this part of the world)? Are they occurring in hospitals?
And is there some other factor, caused by the lock downs, that could cause a spike in deaths in certain places?
In response to Mr Kernodle, the UK’s Chinese-virus mortality rates on which our graphs are based are for deaths in hospital only. As the head posting explains, at present deaths in care homes (which the Government has today announced had been undercounted by about 50%) account for most of the remaining deaths. The Government is going to try to produce proper, up-to-date mortality statistics that include all deaths of those infected with the Chinese virus. On the evidence to date, one should increase the daily hospital mortalities by 50 to 100% to obtain the true daily mortalities.
The Office for National Statistics estimated last week that there had been approximately five deaths attributable to stress caused by the lockdowns. On the other side of the account, there are fewer deaths from flu and other infectious diseases, fewer industrial accidents, fewer road deaths.
I’m sorry, but to me something called “excess deaths” sounds like a statistical stunt useful for “proving” that your theories are correct.
“Excess deaths” is a standard statistical concept. One takes the average weekly deaths for the week of the year in question, averaged over five years, and compares that with the number of weekly deaths in the current year. If the number of deaths is above the quinquennial average for that week, the additional deaths are known as “excess deaths”.
Sweden and Norway have the worst number of recoveries per death of all countries (0.31 and 0.18 respectively). The country with the best ratio is Hong Kong – 169.5 recoveries for every death. Why on earth is there such a huge gulf in survivability between countries that should have similar outcomes ?
Paul, you’re wrong on Hong Kong. The Faeroe Islands have 185 cases, 178 recoveries and no deaths at all so far. Some countries are having difficulties counting recovered cases at all. The UK admitted they couldn’t do it a few days ago, and now it seems the Netherlands has followed suit.
But your question is a good one. Population density (and most of all in the most crowded areas) may have something to do with it. Incompetence in the health system, and in its reporting, may be another factor. Cultural factors, like a Carnival festival in Catholic Europe at exactly the right time for the virus to spread, may be a third.
I’ve been tracking the progress of COVID-19 by analyzing the Johns-Hopkins collected data. The metric I think reveals critical information for decision making is “running weekly death rate per million population”. This value is calculated as the least squares slope on seven consecutive daily deaths (a daily moving trend line). The resulting curves are unique for countries, regions, states, and cities. One unknown variable is number of deaths attributable to COVID-19. Most of the reported deaths are confirmed by tests in hospitals. It appears to me that in the US the data Johns-Hopkins collected were these deaths. However, about a week ago, I observed a large increase in death rates in New York State, California, and New York City. The New York City COVID-19 web site indicates they are now reporting deaths probably caused by COVID-19. These are deaths of individuals that did not occur in hospitals and had not been tested but were recorded as probable cause on death certificates.
This metric can be used to decide when and which mitigation measures to relax. For example, this death rate in the US for flu averages between 1 and 3 deaths per week per million population during the flu season. The present COVID -19 metric for New York City is more than two orders of magnitude greater than three. NYC has peaked and is expected to continue to decline. NYC will have to decide at what level they are able to manage this death rate.
Most low population density states have not peaked this metric and are expected to peak at a level much less than New York State. At what level will they be able manage or accept?
In New Jersey, USA where I live we have a high number of positives and 4753 deaths as of yesterday. Here is the daily report from the state government https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/topics/covid2019_dashboard.shtml. They have a break out of positives and deaths for long term care facilities eg nursing homes. 43% of COVID
deaths were in nursing home type facilities. If New Jersey is typical then that says volumes about who should be locked down
Can Monkton certify that the figures quoting deaths are DIRECTLY from the corona
Virus? We have heard that deaths from people testing positive for this virus are dying from other diseases present, or physiological problems, e.g. Heart conditions?,
Nobody dies from the virus, they all die from side effects of the virus…..
In response to Mr Welsh, more than 90% of deaths caused by the Chinese virus are in people who are over 80 or have certain comorbidities, notably hypertension, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and, in more recent studies, obesity, which did not show up as a risk factor in the first U.K. analysis of intensive-care deaths.
Very nearly all of those in whom the virus was detected and who then died will have died as a result of the virus, and would not have died if they had not become infected.
Lord Monckton
i’m a bit late here so I’m not sure you’ll read this. While not disagreeing that the CV19 virus is a serious disease for certain sections of the community I’d like to make a few points. Using ONS data for England and Wales and years 2010-2020 up to week 15 (last week).
The years 2010 t0 2014 had particularly low death rates, until this year 2018 was by far and away the worst year for deaths. A high proportion of the CV19 deaths are in locked down care homes, vulnerable people with underlying health issues confined together with poorly protected carers seems a recipe to wipe most of them out.
These are weekly totals fir weeks 1 to 15 for 2018 and 2020
2018 2020
12,723 12,254
15,050 14,058
14,256 12,990
13,935 11,856
13,285 11,612
12,495 10,986
12,246 10,944
12,142 10,841
10,854 10,816
12,997 10,895
12,788 11,019
11,913 10,645
9,941 11,141
10,794 16,387
12,301 18,516
As we know the UK Government doesn’t know its a4se from its elbow on this one, panicikng and expecting things to happen just because they’ve said they will. From the top down there’s not a single person capable of tackling a crisis.
The more worrying aspect of this is athat 2018 wasn’t regarded as newsworthy, yet the average weekly deths for the first 15 weeks in England and Wales is the highest of the last 10 years.
In response to Ben Vorlich, the deaths in weeks 14 and 15 of 2020 are well above the mean for the time of year, notwithstanding that the lockdown has reduced flu deaths, road deaths and industrial-accident deaths. The problem is that the rate of growth in confirmed (i.e. more serious) cases and in deaths remains significant. Therefore, the excess deaths will be very likely to continue for some weeks, even with the lockdown, because the lockdown was imposed far too late for prudence.
The excess deaths would have been far greater without the lockdown, which has reduced person-to-person contact by 85-95%.
Christopher Monckton claims “one can imagine how much worse the position might have been without a lockdown>”
Well, actually I cannot imagine that.
Imagine taking all the old and ill folks in nursing homes and separating them. This is what was done with those on the cruise ship “The Grand Princess” [ not Diamond Princess – I did not know anyone on that one ]. Those that were taken off the Grand Princess were quarantined in nice quarters – quite different than being in lockdown (closed up).
Now social and economic problems (bankrupt hospitals, organizations, and businesses)
are increasing faster than an unchecked virus.
Imagine that! Fully predictable.
Panic 2020
Well , Mr Monckton, back in the day was calling on all people effected by AIDS it be quarantined for ever. So this is his way of thinking on everything. The same as Neil “500,00 for every virus” Ferguson- go big, go alarmist and then reign back the numbers before you look like the charlatan you are.
500,000
Mr Monckton continues his theme that lock down would have led to less deaths when we know that flu kills more and of every age , including healthy children and those countries without lock down have not experienced any greater threat.
See- US Navy experiment.
Richard continues to be poisonously prejudiced. The reason for quarantining HIV patients was that if it was done right at the outset, when I was among those who advocated it, the 30-50 million deaths that subsequently occurred would have been prevented. The numbers quarantined would have been very small. However, a particular section of the community did not wish to spare the rest of humanity, so there was no quarantine and 30-50 million died.
Same with the Chinese virus: if governments had acted as promptly and determinedly as the South Koreans, there would have been no need for lockdowns and the large number of deaths that this virus is causing could have been prevented.
New data from the ONS yesterday revealed the number of coronavirus deaths in England and Wales up to April 10 was 41% higher. The ONS said 13,121 people in England and Wales had died by April 10 with mentions of Covid-19 on their death certificates, compared with 9,288 in the government’s daily toll. The FT said it came to a ‘conservative estimate’ of 41,102 UK deaths by analysing the relationship between the ONS figures and the daily hospital deaths, which it says have remained stabled during the pandemic.
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/22/another-757-dead-uks-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-18000-12593976/?ito=cbshare
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/22/another-757-dead-uks-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-18000-12593976/
“It can no longer be argued that the Chinese virus is “no worse than the annual flu”. If these are the excess deaths even after a lockdown, one can imagine how much worse the position might have been without a lockdown.”
Every year there is a vaccine produced for theannual flu.
Actually, it is a “best guess” (any one from four) vaccine. In the UK, 3 different types depending upon age!
In response to Mr White, there is indeed a vaccine for the flu, but there is no vaccine for the Chinese virus: therefore, if it had been left unchecked, it would have killed very large numbers indeed in those countries where population density is very high.
well not really. You first have to work out who died “of” and who died “with” the virus.
You are heavy on alarmism and light on the numbers who actually died of the disease.
And every year, there is zero evidence that vaccine was of any use.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab
The coronavirus pandemic has already caused as many as 41,000 deaths in the UK, according to a Financial Times analysis of the latest data from the Office for National Statistics.
The estimate is more than double the official figure of 17,337 released by ministers on Tuesday, which is updated daily and only counts those who have died in hospitals after testing positive for the virus.
The FT extrapolation, based on figures from the ONS that were also published on Tuesday, includes deaths that occurred outside hospitals updated to reflect recent mortality trends.
The analysis also supports emerging evidence that the peak of deaths in the UK occurred on April 8 with the mortality rate gradually trending lower since, despite the 823 hospital deaths announced on Tuesday, which were sharply up on the 449 in the previous 24 hours.
The ONS data showed that deaths registered in the week ending April 10 were 75 per cent above normal in England and Wales, the highest level for more than 20 years.
https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab
Milord,
Sweden, with no lockdown, continues to track a little above the global daily growth rate in cumulative cases, and appreciably above it in cumulative deaths. Sweden has 175 deaths per million population, compared with 64 per million in Denmark, 34 in Norway and 25 in Finland.
Correct me if I’m wrong but lockdown supposed to protect healthcare system from overloading due to sharp rise of serious cases following sharp rise of infected in wider population. Looks like neither is happening in Sweden. Infection rate is fairly stable, healthcare their system – as far as I’m aware – is not overwhelmed. Maybe then their relaxed lockdown so far works fine? Maybe Swedish approach is perfectly fine though may not be easily applicable in countries as the UK.
Outcome of Cases (Recovery or Death) in Sweden
Paramenter may or may not be right that the Swedish approach is proportionate. At present, though, the rate of increase in deaths is among the highest we are tracking. If that were to continue for another week, i suspect that the Swedes would be asking for a lockdown (some already are).
Sweden’s approach, which has been regularly discussed in this series since it is a striking counterexample to the lockdown countries, may (or may not) be suitable for a country whose capital city has a low population density: but it would certainly not have worked in London or New York, for instance.
and Japan?
After reading comments, here, today, I am reminded of a famous quote:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” — Mark Twain
“Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, warns in a new article that the damage caused by the lockdown could be greater than that caused by the virus. The peak of the epidemic had already been reached in most countries before the lockdown, Professor Heneghan argues’