By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The scale of the Chinese-virus pandemic is now beginning to become visible. Yesterday, the death toll of 59,000 in the United States exceeded the 58,000 in the Vietnam war.
In Europe, 488,764 people died of all causes in the six weeks to mid-April, according to an analysis of data from the European mortality monitoring agency carried out by Sky News. That is 117,641, or 32%, above the 371,302 deaths that would be expected over those six weeks in an average year. Sky comments that while these excess deaths are not necessarily all caused by the pandemic, the majority are likely to have been caused by it.
Across Europe, weeks 14 and 15 were the worst for excess deaths, with 64% above the average in both weeks. In normal times, even a 15% excess-death figure is regarded as exceptionally severe.
Fig. 1. All-cause excess mortality and Chinese-virus mortality to early/mid April 2020.
In most European countries, excess mortality (gray in Fig. 1) has greatly outstripped reported deaths from the Chinese virus (blue). It is likely that most of the additional excess deaths are also attributable to the virus but have not been reported as such.
As Fig. 2 shows, the four countries with the greatest peaks in excess deaths are England, Spain, Belgium and Italy. England recorded the highest number of excess deaths anywhere in Europe for three consecutive weeks (14 to 16). For the past two weeks, England is alone in having scored more than 40% above the average: it did so in two successive weeks.
Sky News also reports that England has had more excess deaths per head of population than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The most likely reason for this high mortality is England’s high population density, which increases the transmission rate of the virus, aggravated by the Government’s month of dithering before locking down the country, which allowed unchecked exponential growth every day.
Fig. 2. Mortality z-scores (%) for various European countries, weeks 1-16 of 2020.
Lack of sunshine contributing to widespread Vitamin-D3 deficiency among the large elderly population is another possible factor: of all the various nostrums for reducing the probability of infection and severity of symptoms, the one that has been demonstrated by a meta-analysis of clinical trials involving at least 10,000 patients to be efficacious against respiratory viruses is daily supplementation with 10,000 units (25 micrograms) of Vitamin D3.
The darker the skin, the more likely is Vitamin D3 deficiency in sunless, northern climes. The large immigrant population in Britain has proven more susceptible to the Chinese virus than the Caucasian population – another reason why the UK figures are so bad. Finally, the Government failed to provide clear, timely instructions to care-homes for the elderly, where there have been thousands of hitherto-unreported Chinese-virus deaths.
The Netherlands, France and Switzerland also saw a steep rise in excess deaths. In Scandinavia, not so much. In Denmark and Norway, the deaths so far are what would be expected in a normal year. However, no-lockdown Sweden shows a small but significant excess already, and, based on the date of the tenth Chinese-virus death, which in Sweden was March 18, against March 7 in Spain, March 12 in the UK and February 25 in Italy, the next few weeks will reveal whether the no-lockdown strategy has been a success. Even then, the greater severity of the pandemic in territories where population densities are a lot higher than in Sweden would not have allowed those territories safely to avoid lockdowns altogether.
England will be the worst-affected country in Europe. In one recent week, 22,351 deaths were recorded: more than in any other week since modern records began (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Weekly all-cause mortality, England & Wales, 1970-2000.
In England, as in the other worst-affected countries, the discrepancy between Chinese-virus deaths and total excess deaths is substantial (Fig. 4), suggesting that thousands more may have died of the virus than official death-counts show. Notoriously, HM Government has until now excluded deaths outside hospitals from the daily counts it announces. From today, however, under pressure from the news media, it will count the deaths properly.
Fig. 4. Chinese-virus and “other” deaths against mean all-cause mortality, England & Wales.
Sky News has commented that were it not for the lockdown in the UK the death count might well have ended up in the hundreds of thousands.
Sir David Spiegelhalter, the Professor of the Public Understanding of Statistics at Cambridge, said on All Fools’ Day that, since the Chinese virus chiefly strikes the aged and infirm, many of them would soon have died in any event – a viewpoint that has hitherto been echoed, regrettably, by some commenters here.
Now, just four weeks later, the very sharp increase in excess deaths not only in Britain but also in other European countries shows that the victims of the Chinese virus are dying significantly sooner with the virus than without it.
Our daily graphs show that the daily compound growth rate in estimated active cases remains positive in some of the countries we are tracking – notably the United States, England and Sweden. In Britain, at any rate, the lockdown will not be ended until the rate is well below zero. The Prime Minister has been quoting Cicero: salus populi suprema lex.
As today’s graphs (Figs. 5-6) show, the global daily compound growth rate in estimated active cases – the key indicator of how bad the pandemic will eventually prove to be, and of whether ending lockdowns will be a prudent step – is zero in the world excluding China and occupied Tibet, where the numbers are fictitious.
Tomorrow I shall provide a simple mathematical wrinkle that will allow anyone to convert any compound active-case growth rate below 0% into an estimate of the total cases that would eventually arise if that negative growth rate were to persist.
Fig. 5. Mean compound daily growth rates in estimated active 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 April 1 to April 28, 2020.
Fig. 6. 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 8 to April 28, 2020.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
South Korea now thinks their “reinfections” have just been false positives. There had been some nervousness about the reinfections being a sign that herd immunity was not possible, so this is excellent news:
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1266758/tests-in-recovered-patients-in-s-korea-found-false-positives-not-reinfections-experts-say
Mr Postema raises an important point. If the other places where reinfections have been reported are similarly recording false positives, then we can perhaps hope for herd immunity after all. But we cannot yet assume that it is possible.
From my perspective the explanation from the South Korean experts is questionable. One of the defense mechanisms of our body are secreted RNAses that degrade extracellular RNA because it is most likely of viral origin. Free RNA is therefore unlikely to stay for days or weeks in the tissue of patients.
It is also unlikely that the RNA detected by the tests are from “dead” viruses as a virus doesn’t live in the first place. If its envelope gets compromised it will be most likely degraded by the host’s defenses.
A more plausible explanation is a false negative testing in between the two positively tested time points because of how the swap was taken. False negative rate even of known positive patients is up to 2-3 out of 11:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.22.056283v1
“Excess Deaths” is meaningful if you have enough historical data – it doesn’t matter “why” the deaths occurred only that as a statistic more deaths are occurring. For example, one can make the claim that the lock-down caused an increase in suicides – easy to claim and hard to prove that it actually made a difference. Had no lock-down occurred, I can claim there would have been many more deaths directly related to the disease (in certain areas) and that these deaths would have lead to excess suicides (from people grieving). It’s a claim, not a fact (so an opinion, nothing more).
It is most likely that excess deaths are occurring as a result of health complications mixed with the symptoms of the disease. In older people who have health issues and are bed-prone, there is an expectation that death is near and so one needs look no further for a cause – their heart stopped.
There is another way of looking at the “deaths” caused by this virus – and one that many will find distasteful. Take the mean age of those dying and subtract from the mean life expectancy of their group (adjusted for sex, race, smoking habits, etc). The higher the number is positive, the more “youthful” years that have been lost. This is like applying a weight to the statistic of death (and rather immoral according to some). If 1,000 people die who are 90+ years old, that makes for a negative number (the were past their live expectancy). If 1,000 children die, well now that is alarming (a large positive number). I suspect (but do not know) that if such a calculation were applied to the “excess deaths”, we would discover it is a low number, possibly negative.
The reason this is actually important is because of economics. Older people require more and more resources to maintain a healthy life. This requires a healthy income, which requires a healthy economy. If you do too much harm to the economy, the older people are going to suffer the most. The economy WILL come back, but it could be years… Meanwhile, if you have run-away inflation then you will cause early deaths in the older people (through lost wealth and therefore access to costly medical choices). There is an important balancing act here if the objective is to save the most “living years” over time.
Robert of Texas does not, perhaps, understand the elementary morality of valuing every human life, however young or old. One should no more allow an elderly person to die of the Chinese virus without making reasonable attempts to defend that person’s life than one should slaughter a little child in the womb of its mother.
The moment the State starts to calculate who shall be allowed to live and who shall be condemned to die, that is the end of morality, and history tells us that the end of morality is followed swiftly by the end of civilization.
Fortunately, very few governments outside the totalitarian countries think as Robert of Texas does.
That reply was unnecessarily condescending. Read work of Kip Viscusi before resorting to sanctimonious righteous indignation about morals.
God may see the little sparrow fall but I don’t expect a government to do anything other than what perpetuates both it’s self and it’s supporters/benefactors. Love the Brits, especially those of the WWII era but that little bit of moralizing about what constitutes a just and moral State pretends a long and rich history of doing the opposite never occurred.
While I appreciate your efforts on the Climate Change monte, I’m going to have to agree with Greg Goodman as to his assessment of you regarding this particular issue.
I hate the term “excess deaths”. We are all going to die. Period.
It is “accelerated deaths” or a lowering of the more official measure “life expectancy (in years”) that is happening with Corona Virus-2 ripping through vulnerable sub-populations across the various nations bringing about those people’s demise earlier than otherwise might happen with thier set of co-morbidities.
Skipping over the obvious problems or accidental death, suicides, and murders,…None of us will die a natural death of “being too healthy as a cause.”
So when CMoB writes about “excess deaths” above a statistically meaningful confidence interval, we are talking about an effect of lowering a country’s life expectancy. Then in a few years when sufficient herd immunity rises to levels to extinguish widespread transmission, then the Life expectancy values tracked by health professionals and epidemiologists should predictably rise again.
Like a pack of wolves looking at elk or caribou or the Serengeti lion pride surveying a herd of wildebeasts looking for the sick and weak to single out for an easier score, Corona Virus-2 (COVID-19) is largely (though of course not exclusively) culling the herd (us). Eventually the herd (that is us, the human population) will be largely immune to it, and the virus will circulate at low levels with sporadic clusters for many years forward.
Mr O’Bryan appears to imply that we should take no precautions against the Chinese Virus or anything or anyone else taking our lives, on the morally tenuous ground that we are all going to die anyway. Perhaps he should read any textbook of Christian morality.
You are the one applying moralistic judgements CMoB. Not me.
The virus isn’t moral or immoral. The 1918 Spanish Flu in the US had high mortality on the 18-22 yr old army conscripts, a demographic very different from the most affected with COVID-19. In a harsh economic reality, the life of a 20 yr old is worth more to a society than an invalid 80 year old in a nursing home. Morally we should try to protect both, but if we prioritize protecting the life of an 80 year old invalid at the great economic harm and future of poverty for the young, then that is a moral sin as well, and likely greater. A Sophie’s choice that should not be too hard to make now that we have data on what is happening with COVID-19.
A wake up call for those who believe in lockdowns from Sweden’s top epidemiologist
There is a longer interview with Dr Giesecke here, explaining Sweden’s approach in more detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY
For the sake of balance, this is an interview by the same interviewer with Prof Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London, the author of the report which convinced Boris Johnson to lock down the UK.
Eliza continues to fail to take account of at least the following points: a) Sweden’s comparatively low population density; b) the growing concern among the medical community in Sweden at the public-health agency’s policies; c) the fact that Sweden’s case-growth and death-growth rates are appreciably higher than in the comparable Scandinavian countries; d) the fact that the official chiefly responsible for Sweden’s policy has himself expressed concern at the growing death-toll in Sweden; e) the fact that Sweden’s earliest deaths occurred a week or three after the first deaths in the worst-affected European countries. Frankly, it is better to do what we have been doing in the head postings here: reporting Sweden’s cases and deaths and discussing them, but not yet drawing any firm conclusions either way. Like it or not, the jury is still out. The next month will tell us much. If Sweden’s lockdown proves to work, that fact will be reported here and will form the basis of our developing strategy for ending lockdowns.
“the Chinese virus chiefly strikes the aged and infirm, many of them would soon have died in any event”
This can be checked later, if we see “lack of deaths” in the weeks after covid19 finishes its harvesting.
Alex wrote:
“This can be checked later, if we see “lack of deaths” in the weeks after covid19 finishes its harvesting.”
Actually Alex, I suggest that the “lack of deaths” occurred BEFORE the Covid-19 mortalities of ~April 2020.
I posted this on Monday 27Apr2020:
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/21/end-the-american-lockdown/comment-page-2/#comment-13215
[excerpt]
Re the Financial Times article at: https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c
The input data appears to be here:
Mortality monitoring in Europe (1Jan2016 to present)
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
The winter flu season in 2019-2020 was the mildest in many years, with far fewer than average winter deaths. Sadly, elderly and unwell people die. Then along came Covid-19 and it killed a large number of elderly and unwell people who survived the winter flu season. Total ~winter deaths from all causes are depicted by the area under the curve in these plots, and are still (approximately) no greater than the 2017-2018 flu season – these deaths just happened later than usual
Correct. If “excess deaths” for the whole year are near normal then it’s likely that Covd-19 has ‘accelerated’ rather than caused deaths.
How many elderly are there in the US, Alex? With a population of 360 million and if 10% are classed as elderly, that’s 36 million people. That’s a lot of deaths before covid 19 “finishes its harvesting”.
I still don’t understand “excess deaths”. Are there deaths statistical projections? If so, they aren’t real deaths since they exist only to help balance equations.
In response to PaulH, excess deaths are the number of deaths in a given week that exceed the average number of deaths in that week over the previous five (or sometimes ten) years. If, as there has been in many European countries, there is a sudden spike in excess deaths at a time of year not usually associated with such spikes, and if the spike is bigger than any other spike, and if the spike follows the arrival of a highly infectious and highly deadly pandemic, then in the absence of any other explanation the cautious and responsible government will bear in mind the probability – though not the certainty – that the pandemic caused the increase in excess deaths.
The value of studying the excess-death figures is that it overcomes the futile debate about whether people are dying of or with the Chinese virus. For they are dying in larger excess numbers than the reported Chinese-virus cases, which means that governments are undercounting those cases, possibly (and definitely in the UK) by a very large margin.
I had to read that explanation four times, but I think I understand how it can be a useful tool.
As for the under-counting issue, remember these spikes and other artifacts are based on ‘reported’ case counts, not ‘actual’ case counts. There will necessarily be data that are late and possibly subject to revision. There may even be political reasons to “hide the decline”.
4076 new cases and 4419 new deaths in the United Kingdom “Public Health England (PHE) has developed a new method of reporting daily COVID-19 deaths, to give a more complete number of those who have died from the virus. For the first time from today, Wednesday 29 April 2020, the government’s daily figure will include deaths that have occurred in all settings where there has been a positive COVID-19 test, including hospitals, care homes and the wider community. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales already report out-of-hospital deaths. Today’s figures have been revised retrospectively by PHE since the first death on 2 March 2020 to include additional data sources. This will bring the total number of deaths in the UK to 26,097 from 2 March until 28 April, including 765 deaths reported in the 24 hours to 5 pm on 28 April .
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
For some years now The Economist repeats the flutter about aging populations and the need to keep GDP growth through immigration of the young. Moreover, there has been (until the outbreak) constant jabbing at the boomers (OK Boomer) about our “privileged, costly and selfish” role in society. Now they are telling me that my life is worth several millions and it must be saved at all cost. Cost it will.
Those of us that do not work (I do) and draw national superannuation (I do) HAVE to be a financial cost to our countries. Now, apparently, we are to be wrapped in cotton wool. Where did this BS come from?
M’Lord has mentioned covid panic within my generation. I would like to see the data behind this claim. I see no such thing. Quite the opposite actually.
Cheers – M
Why can’t we maintain growth by increased adoption of robotics? Robotic production should be competitive with Chinese labour and much more secure.
I could not agree more. This has been clear for over a decade. Authorities and their consultants are in their own mirror-lined bubble. They are people-people. More the merrier as far as they are concerned, with as much diversity as possible.
Mr Carter says he wants evidence of panic within the older population. Well, the younger population are not panicking about dying of the virus, because the chance that they will do so is small. Some of the older generation are concerned, and have said so in interviews. Those who have imposed the lockdowns are largely people in their 50s and 60s, who have decided to act in good time to prevent the virus from spreading unduly fast or far. And those people, in some countries (the UK among them) have not yet realized that lockdowns can now be cautiously dismantled. For they are frit.
So if corona virus (s) of one sort or another are definitely doing this , then I take it summer has come early, sunlight hours are way up , and people are out and about soaking up the sun and manufacturing Vitamin D, people are bathing in the sea , and in general enjoying excellent health and diet.
That being the case we can rule out any effect on excess mortality from a late season flu , cold weather , low sunlight, people cramped up in houses,extreme high density housing, with poor diets and multiple underlying health conditions .
Good to know.
CMoB writes </iB
aggravated by the Government’s month of dithering before locking down the country,
A month?? The UK announced the full lockdown on March 20th. A month earlier the UK had only recorded 9 cases and, from what I recall, none were due to community transmission.
Mr Finnj imagines the British lockdown began on March 20. No, it was not announced until March 23 and not enforced until March 26 onwards. A properly-instructed government, seeing what had happened in China, would have taken decisive action on February 23, when the case count first exceeded 10. Indeed, if the successful South Korean strategy had been followed, HM Government would have tested all contacts of the very first case, isolated all carriers and tracked all their contacts. Had that been done with sufficient speed, vigor and determination, the virus could have been prevented from taking hold.
However, the UK strategy for handling pandemics was fatalistic. It assumed from the outset that such a pandemic could not be contained. And that assumption has proven fatal. Within the next week or two it is likely that the UK will have had more deaths from the virus than any other country on Earth except the United States, where the death rate per million is considerably below ours.
If my memory serves correct, early on in the pandemic, the UK authorities were testing and quarantining cases and suspected cases. I say the authorities, because it wasn’t directed by the government. It seemed to me that the non elected officials were acting in the correct and prudent manner and doing what they were trained to do. But when the government got involved, the first thing was, they threw the towel in. I believe the UK had the means but the government overruled.
The only people I know of that were actually quarantined were the returning Diamond Princess passengers.
All the othes were told to self isolate, which is decidedly not quarantine.
Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness right up until the State and it’s armed minions say otherwise.
Freedom of association? Gone. Freedom of Assembly? Gone.
Other rights appear tenuous but at least the right of adult males to use women’s restrooms seems to be on the upswing.
Constitution 2020
Mr DeCaro appears to believe that if legislators in various States disagree with him, then democracy must be set aside. In Britain, however, whether Mr DeCaro likes it or not the legislators gave HM Government explicit powers to deal with the current emergency. This is not, therefore, a power-grab by the executive but a responsible decision of the people’s representatives – a decision that is kept constantly under review, and that will be reversed as soon as the worst of the pandemic is under control. Not long now, I think.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley…
I am a climate skeptic. But your use of “Chinese Virus” considering other information that the virus may have started elsewhere and your attempt to slander a country…is sad.
The only thing that I can think of is that your trying to round up donations from racists.
China is no friend of America or of me. It’s a dictatorship. No excuse though to call this “Chinese Virus”
You have a magnificent name…and yet on this your a small man.
There is no evidence that it started elsewhere.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/coronavirus-live-updates.html
I think you need to read that again. The CHINESE VIRUS spread worldwide from CHINA. because Trump shut down air traffic from China it had to go to other places first. One place is popped up was Europe. That does not mean it did not start in China. Where did Europe get it from? China.
Trump did not shut down air traffic from China.
What evidence that this virus started elsewhere? There is no such evidence. It started in China. It originally came from a bat native to China. Hence Chinese virus.
In response to Blue Sky, there is no credible evidence that the Chinese virus emerged anywhere except China. I am currently studying its origin. The Chinese authorities themselves say that it first emerged in the Huanan Seafood Market, a wet market that also sold pangolins and other protected mammals prone to infection via bats, in the city of Wuhan, in the province of Hubei, China. However, there is some evidence, which the Western intelligence community regards as credible though not definitive (and probably incapable of confirmation, thanks to the destruction of evidence and disappearence of relevant personnel at the hands of the Communist regime), that the virus first emerged on or about November 17, and that at least the first two cases, in chronological order, had no association whatsoever with the wet market. Oh, and the Chinese propaganda machine now denies that wet markets existed or exist, which is more than somewhat baffling because if the wet market where the Chinese propaganda machine original said was the source of the outbreak did not exist then the intelligence community’s assessment that the virus was fabricated in the P4 biolab in Wuhan or its satellite becomes the most likely current explanation.
Therefore, I call the Chinese virus the Chinese virus just as I call a spade a spade. And I note that one of the first propaganda messages peddled by many officials from the Foreign Minister downwards, and echoed by the Chinese Communists’ wholly-controlled subsidiary the World Death Organization, was that anyone who called the Chinese virus the Chinese virus was a “racist”.
There has been a sudden explosion of such pietistic accusations of racism in this thread. Since I know that policymakers in many countries are now reading these columns daily for the information they contain, it would not surprise me if shills for the Chinese Communist Party were now trying to disrupt these discussions with ritualistic accusations of “racism”.
The simplest way to dispel any such accusations is to publish the timeline of the Chinese regime’s defalcations, breaches of international law and crimes against humanity that led directly to the global circulation of this pandemic. The evidence against the Communist Party, both in Hubei and in Peking, and latterly in Heiliongjiang Province, is overwhelming and damning. Perhaps I had better present just some of that evidence here, so that people can decide for themselves whether the suspiciously large number of commenters now complaining about “racism” whenever the Chinese virus is described as what it is are wittingly or unwittingly doing the bidding of the increasingly desperate Chinese Communist regime – a regime that now lacks any legitimacy and must be overthrown by the suffering people of China. Enough is enough.
Monckton of Brenchley April 29, 2020 at 4:15 pm
In response to Blue Sky, there is no credible evidence that the Chinese virus emerged anywhere except China. I am currently studying its origin.
Maybe you should wait till you finish your study of origin before you label this the Chinese virus.
It is not the virus that causes fibrosis of the lungs, heart and kidneys, but an excess of the hormone angiotensin II, which results from the inactivation of the ACE2 enzyme, to which Cov-2 attaches. Therefore, the one who counts only on his immunity is a fool.
That’s overly simplistic. Glutathione is the lung’s main antioxidant (up to 1000x more in lungs than in other parts of the body) and protects the lungs against pathogens. People with depleted glutathione are at higher risk of severe infection. Pharmaceutical/recreational drugs, acetaminophen (paracetamol) and alcohol (among other things) deplete glutathione. Having enough vitamin C is essential for glutathione to work optimally.
And there’s this :-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3627551/
The role of zinc .
A number of pharmaceuticals deplete zinc (e.g., ACE inhibitors). I suspect that is a factor in this illness.
” the inactivation of the ACE2 enzyme,”
Is Cov-2 the only virus which could do this?
Cov-1 and another corona virus does it too. When they attach to the ACE2 enzyme it can no longer do its function.
Well I guess I will foolishly not worry about a disease that has a 0.00004% lethality of people my age. I have a bigger chance of dying from TB.
Mr Turner makes – over and over again – the elementary error of trying to derive the mortality rate of the Chinese virus in the absence of anything like adequate data, and while the number of deaths is still climbing rapidly every day.
The early indications are that young people are not much at risk, which is why this column has been suggesting that they should be allowed to return to work, with suitable sensible precautions such as wearing face-masks and keeping their distance and washing their hands and not assembling in large crowds indoors or (in the light of recent UK evidence) outdoors.
Your chance of dying on the road or at work is close to 0% during a lockdown … so perhaps we should keep you in lockdown forever to keep your risk low 🙂
That is like arguing people don’t die from bullets because the rate of lead poisoning is very low 🙂
It is likely that most of the additional excess deaths are also attributable to the virus but have not been reported as such.
Leaping to a conclusion like an Olympic long jumper.
What is more likely is that the Lockdown, not the virus, is responsible for the excess deaths.
People with non-Covid symptoms are fearful to go to the doctor, leading to increases in heart-related deaths, missed cancer screening, other infections, domestic tension, blunt force trauma, stab wounds, suicidal aspirations, etc etc.
It is easy as pie to make that allegation with zero evidence, as is the allegation that Covid deaths are under reported. That’s the beauty of zero evidence. Anything goes.
“It is easy as pie to make that allegation with zero evidence, as is the allegation that ”
“missed cancer screening” might be a cause of more death, and not a prevention of death.
In response to the irredentist Mr Dubrasich, there is plenty of evidence that most of the excess deaths not yet attributed to the Chinese virus are indeed attributable to it. The discrepancy between the officially-stated death counts and the excess mortality data was particularly severe in the United Kingdom, where upon enquiry it soon became apparent that HM Government was counting only deaths in hospitals.
After pressure from the news media and the public, from today HM Government is now including all deaths from the Chinese virus outside as well as inside hospitals in its daily tallies. Result – a sudden jump by more than 4000 from the previous 22,000 to today’s 26,000 deaths.
Epidemiologists studying the excess-mortality data without Mr Dubrasich’s prejudice have concluded that even the new daily total from HM Government appreciably undercounts deaths from the Chinese virus. Similar stories are being told in other European countries with high death rates.
No, it is not more likely, in these early stages of lockdown, that a large fraction of the deaths are attributable to the lockdown. Some fraction are, but that fraction is at present likely to be small.
It is no good looking at questions such as these through prejudiced eyes. One must be dispassionate, and one must not simply dismiss the overwhelming and growing weight of data simply because one finds the results uncongenial.
Lord Monckton, please. I am not a dentist or an irredentist, or a provincialist, racist, anarchist, or prejudicial. But even if I was, it would not refute my argument. Your ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies and when you resort to such you weaken your position, not mine.
The NHS (your country’s socialized health care system) was a basket case before the bat flu, and has plunged even deeper into incompetence and disservice with it. Your draconian Lockdown dissuaded sick and dying citizens from engaging with the NHS; either from established distrust, or fear of catching Covid in hospitals, or fear of mindless authoritarian backlash, or on the advice of NHS doctors who also have lost faith in their own bureaucracy.
Heart conditions, pulmonary conditions, diabetes, pneumonia, intestinal inflammations, and a hundred other life-threatening conditions went undiagnosed and untreated because Covid-panic commandeered the system.
You claim “epidemiologists’ conclusions” without citation. Are you making that up? In contrast, the evidence of dissatisfaction with the NHS from patients, doctors, nurses, Parliament, and the general public is widespread, longstanding, and voluminous wherever one seeks it.
Please present your “growing weight of data”. I’m interested. The mountain of data that the NHS system is a wreck is already widely available.
Please explain what expertise your so called “Epidemiologists” have that could be in any way related to that cristal ball reading conclusion.
“The darker the skin, the more likely is Vitamin D3 deficiency in sunless, northern climes. The large immigrant population in Britain has proven more susceptible to the Chinese virus than the Caucasian population – another reason why the UK figures are so bad. Finally, the Government failed to provide clear, timely instructions to care-homes for the elderly, where there have been thousands of hitherto-unreported Chinese-virus deaths.”
The deaths from Chinese virus is overwhelmingly about deaths of people older than 60 years old and only thing comparable is deaths from 50 to 60 years old.
UK has a fairly higher percentage of people who 60 and older. And that is the entire story of UK and Chinese virus. And applies to all countries.
It why New York State has the high death per million of 1,197 per million and why Florida has low death of 59 per million. Florida has more 60 and older people than New York State, but Florida protected it’s older population. The extreme of how stupid NYC dealt with it’s older pop is that it send back “recovering” older people to nursing homes and also send a body bag with the patient. And when there was available a vast capacity near empty beds provided by the Federal govt.
The UK:
In 2011 UK had 22.5% was aged 60 years, and over 66 million times 22.5% = 14.85 million.
For the population of 60 or older, one can assume a mortality from Chinese virus of 1%:
1% of 14.85 million is 148,500 dying from Chinese virus if they are infected, though a lot more
than that will become seriously ill and could recover.
If 20% of population has 1% chance of death, in terms of entire population the death rate is
.2% or if none of below 60 year old die, the total death of entire population is .2 % if they were infected.
If there is the significant factor regarding herd immunity, then herd immunity will prevent all people
from becoming infected, or herd immunity could stop the 14.85 million ever getting the Chinese virus and thereby lower that percentage of death. Or of 1/2 of 14.85 million are prevented from getting the virus, than it’s 1/2 of 1% [.5%}.
Or course another way is to isolate the older than 60 years, and if 100% are isolated none die from the Chinese virus.
And it’s possible the intensity of exposure the virus {the virus load} is a large factor in whether 60 year old or older, die. Likewise if 60 year old or older have enough Vitamin D3, they may not get very sick and/or don’t die.
Anyhow, the population less than 60 years, have much lower mortality and that mortality rate is largely affected by mortality of 50 to 60 year old in that population.
But to give a number for less than 60 year old population it is about .03% {as high estimate/guess}.
66 million – 14.85 million is 51.15 million which times by .0003 = 15,345 deaths by virus and
most of these deaths will be 50 to 60 years old.
And if had herd immunity which limited number which got infected, and if have enough D3, and had exposure to low viral load, less would die. Though probably more important particularly with younger population than 60, is you get far fewer which got seriously ill, and managed to avoid dying.
So, isolating older than 60 years [or at least large portion of them} should have been a no brainer.
But we should never underestimate how stupid governments can be.
But it seems the purpose of “the lockdown” is the huge amount people who would got seriously ill- who
might have died, and would require medical treatment.
Also other than Vitamin D3 {or sunlight} and I say maybe a zinc supplement, there is no known medical treatment, so addition purpose of “the lockdown” is to provide some time to find more types of medical
treatments {which apparently we so far, have failed to do}.
Oh forgot to include a older news story:
google: “death from coronavirus in UK age over 60”:
“NHS figures show 92% of coronavirus victims in England are over 60 – while only FIVE under-20s have died from the killer infection”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8203673/NHS-figures-92-coronavirus-victims-England-60.html
So UK current total is 26,097 and if times that by 92% it’s
26,097 – 24,009 = 2088 died younger the 60 years old.
So if UK had done better with with over 60 population, fewer of 14.85 million population would died.
And instead of death of 384 per million it would have closer to Florida’s 59.
But if UK did even better than Florida, it could about 1/10th or about 38 per million.
But better would have generally, been doing things that doesn’t include having the Prime Minister, get infected.
Germany also has a remarkable result so far in in terms of it’s response to Chinese virus.
So total pop of Germany is
“60-64 years 5.49
65 years and older 17.88”
5.49 + 17.88 = 23.37 million people 60 or older
And: “Germany’s current total population stands at 82.79 million” and:
“40-59-year-olds make up the largest age group in Germany, at 23.9 million people.”
{{2018 numbers}}
https://www.statista.com/statistics/454349/population-by-age-group-germany/
Some interesting background stuff:
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/1/12-020112/en/
http://www.silvereco.org/en/germany-one-of-the-super-aged-societies-in-the-world/
23.37 / 82.79 = .28228
So 28% of population are 60 or older in 2018 and probably a bit higher in 2020
23.37 times 1% is 233,700 deaths they could have had.
And to date they had: 6,399 deaths
Now, they could problems with how deaths are counted, there has been such problems with lots
of other countries in terms of nursing home deaths. And Germans seem quite proud about their long term care programs {see above refs} and these programs seems to me like a very civilized “plan”.
But as said above, one can’t predict how stupid any government can be.
But a point I want to make is it seems to me, that if a government has a lot politician interest in older people, like Florida does, that political focus, seems to be the greatest force that has been apparently successful against this Chinese virus.
I also note the cultural respect for the elderly, which famously Asia countries seem to have, and will note
the general success of Asia countries in how they manage this pandemic.
And in terms monetary gain, such respect has resulted large cost saving in this pandemic and it seems to me this also applicable as general condition which probably is not as noticeable.
Of course there is also the moral aspect- but I think even having such higher morals as general thing, is a “money maker”. Not net cost, but net gain.
And advantage of this pandemic, is it’s measure how stupid countries, are. And maybe citizens should do something about it.
@PaulH
“Therefore, our standard method defines the winter period as December to March and compares the number of deaths that occurred in this winter period with the average number of deaths occurring in the preceding August to November and the following April to July. The calculation used is:
EWD=winter deaths-average of non winter deaths.”
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2018to2019provisionaland2017to2018final#measuring-the-data
There is a chart at 2. that shows the first year these data were collected for the 1950-1951 period, EW deaths were 106,400. The 5 year moving average was above 50,000 until the start of the 70’s.
Christopher Monkton is looking more and more like Covid19’s answer to Michael Mann.
Of course there will be more deaths due to the coronavirus scamdemic. Health services everywhere are in collapse, and furthermore healthcare practices have been widely condemned – “the genociding of the elderly”, someone put it. Almost everyone put on a ventilator dies. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/medical-advances/494274-nearly-half-of-all-patients-placed-on?fbclid=IwAR2Y8lyG3hse5P21z4AOMq1CEA8K0JpYo6L1lusZW-600UWhrdMelZhcu-k
Businesses are going to the wall, British Airways is looking at laying off 40,000 people. Will people like Monkton be attributing suicides to coronavirus?
“It is likely that most of the additional excess deaths are also attributable to the virus but have not been reported as such.” Umm … what about the reports from Italy, UK, US etc which indicate that every death in creation is being attributed to Covid19? The authorities are quite open about it. 99% of Italian ‘Covid” deaths are associated with other serious conditions https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says
There is a meme about someone whose parachute didn’t open being declared a Covid death. The time for joking is over – looks like anyone who shows positive according to the disreputable tests is recorded as a coronavirus death, even when the death was quite clearly a drug overdose or a head injury. https://truepundit.com/drug-overdose-head-trauma-deaths-added-to-coronavirus-death-toll/
Yeah, the Vietnam Death numbers would be MUCH higher too, if they counted heart attacks, strokes, and overdoses.
Don’t be silly.
If Ms McKenzie does not like the facts that are provided here about the Chinese virus, she need not read them. She can continue to bury her head in the sand.
In the head posting, I have provided hard evidence that this virus is proving both more infectious and more fatal than even the most extreme year for flu or other winter respiratory infections.
I do not like that evidence any more than Ms McKenzie does, but my training and experience as a policymaker have taught me that the evidence is to be considered calmly and dispassionately, and not with the desire – regrettably exhibited by Ms McKenzie – to peddle a particular narrow viewpoint.
In these columns I have presented the evidence for and against lockdowns, and have discussed the conditions precedent to ending them, and have produced a simple test, with graphs every day to show progress, that allows people to see that soon it will be possible to bring the lockdowns cautiously to an end.
Ms McKenzie tries, more than somewhat futilely, to maintain that the additional excess deaths that have occurred following the worldwide spread of the pandemic are somehow not attributable to it. But the statisticians and epidemiologists disagree with her. She is entitled to her opinion, for one must not assume that the experts are always right.
But there is a great deal more evidence, some of it in the head posting, for the fact that the Chinese virus is the chief cause of the observed excess mortality in recent weeks than there is for the climate-change nonsense.
She must learn to follow the evidence, and not to follow her prejudices.
The writer would have more credibility if he avoided attacking the messenger rather than the message.
COVID-19 lethality is now commonly estimated at below 0.2%, in the range of a bad flu, but not as bad as something like SAARS, which was 0.4-5%.
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford argues that the lethality of covid19 (IFR) is between 0.1% and 0.36% (i.e. in the range of a severe influenza). In people over 70 years of age with no serious preconditions, the mortality rate is expected to be less than 1%. For people over 80 years of age, the mortality rate is between 3% and 15%, depending on whether deaths so far were mainly with or from by the disease. In contrast to influenza, child mortality is close to zero. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/
Data from the best-studied countries such as South Korea, Iceland, Germany and Denmark, likewise indicates that the the overall lethality of Covid19 is between 0.1% and 0.4% and thus up to twenty times lower than initially assumed by the WHO.
https://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-coronavirus-testing-death-rate-2020-3?op=1
https://www.covid.is/data
https://www.t-online.de/gesundheit/krankheiten-symptome/id_87680236/lockerung-der-corona-massnahmen-ergebnisse-der-heinsberg-studie-machen-hoffnung.html
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/doedelighed-skal-formentlig-taelles-i-promiller-danske-blodproever-kaster-nyt-lys
MoB the really funny part is BaahBaaahRa does even realize that “True Pundit” is an inflammatory fake news site that takes the mickey out of stupid people by making up stories. In usually targets progressives and Democrats but got BaahBaaahRa.
Someone obviously told BaahBaaahRa about the sky diver satire but she was still to stupid to realize her linked art was in the same vein and taking the mickey out of stupid people …. ooops embarassing.
Gateway Pundit referenced:
A report in the Ventura County Star, which stated “coronavirus death toll increased to 16 on Thursday as county officials reported two additional deaths, including a 37-year-old man. The man died as a result of a drug overdose while infected with COVID-19”; and
LehighValleyLive, which reported, “Lehigh County Coroner Eric Minnich confirmed the patient died Friday night at St. Luke’s University Hospital in Fountain Hill. He said the primary cause of the man’s death was a head injury from a fall at home, but that the virus was listed as a contributing factor to his death.”
Sad to see what WUWT has come to.
Barbara the WUWT site obviously causes you some distress. Of course there is a very easy solution.
Don’t visit!
The question is whether a person who suffered from Covid-19 and does not have the virus, but it has pulmonary fibrosis, is healthy?
The number of deaths per million in Lincolnshire I calculate is roughly 108 but nearly half of children are living in poverty and the area where I live is the third highest in the county. Do we need to end the lockdown?
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/coronavirus-deaths-lincolnshire-care-homes-4086143
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/child-poverty-by-neighbourhood-lincolnshire-4079820
In some areas I meant to say the total in Lincolnshire is 16%.
Don’t attack the person attack what they say cheers. I have to say I’ve been very guilty of this re Mocktons posts. I apologise.
Perhaps Mr. Monckton would be so kind as to estimate what part of these excess deaths were first caused by the initial incompetent reactions (such as the New York governor forcing nursing homes to accept coronavirus patients) and are now being caused by governments locking down everybody instead of protecting the vulnerable.
Yes those , and all other epidemiological factors which might have a bearing on the excess deaths numbers.
Well, if Lark will provide the evidence, I shall examine it. But I do not investigate mere speculation rooted in prejudice.
At this point I’m convinced at least half the numbers are fabrications to induce panic. And anyone not ready to get most of the economy back to relatively normal needs to be treated as a chicom agent.
Convinced, eh? On what evidence?
“That is 117,641, or 32%, above the 371,302 deaths that would be expected over those six weeks in an average year. ”
117,641 is also 0.015% of Europe’s population.
Not quite “startling”.
Assuming one tenth of the population caught it (conservative estimate), that would be a death rate of about 0.1%.
Stephen W. appears to be unfamiliar with mortality statistics. If in just a couple of weeks the excess deaths suddenly spike as they have done, anyone other than an armchair DIY epidemiologist nursing a profound and irrendentist prejudice would at least be open to the possibility that there just might be some sort of a problem.
Reading the head posting would be a good start. There, Stephen W would learn that even a 5% excess over the normal weekly death rate is treated as severe by statisticians, and 15% excess as very severe. There are good reasons for this. Excess mortality statistics are not collected just for fun. They are collected precisely so as to obtain an independent assessment of changes in mortality so as to flag up and enquire into any sudden increase.
In the present instance, the sharp increases we have been seeing in some European countries and US states were foreseeable, provided that one kept a close eye – as we have here – on the key indicators, the most important of which, at this stage of the pandemic, is the estimated daily compound rate of growth or decline in active cases.
It was by following those numbers that we were able to expect increased excess mortality, which is why I began looking at the excess mortality statistics a couple of weeks ago.
One appreciates that some people have very strong views, and are distressed because of the sudden change in circumstances: but it is important to be ruthlessly dispassionate and to look at the evidence honestly and carefully, and not to assume that because a few weeks’ figures represent a small fraction of a given population the matter will rest there.
Watch the case-growth rate. Even when it falls below zero, there will be many more cases and deaths to come. The math is ineluctable, and I shall explain some more of it tomorrow.
I suppose what startles you, is different to what startles me.
I hope mockton keeps posting climate stuff here although I believe the modeling is similar to corona viruses. forget about the virus and get a life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiYqECpOgzs
I hope Mockton keeps posting climate stuff here although I believe the modeling is similar to corona viruses. forget about the virus and lets all enjoy life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiYqECpOgzs
If Eliza wishes to forget about the virus, she should cease to read articles about it. However, it is plain from the continuing strong response to this series from commenters that the series is of widespread interest to readers from all round the world.
There will be many, many more deaths from this virus before the worst is over. It is better to face that fact than to try either to ignore or to minimize it.