By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The United Kingdom now has a higher death toll than any other European country, and the second-highest in the world after the United States. Yesterday’s officially declared count was 29,427 (433 per million population), just above Italy’s 29,315 (485 per million).
However, Fig. 1, from the Cabinet Office daily briefing, shows that the seven-day rolling mean recorded daily deaths has been falling since April 14, about three weeks after the Prime Minister announced the British lockdown:
Fig. 1. UK recorded daily Chinese-virus deaths, March 14 to May 5, 2020 (COBR)
By contrast, the United States had reported 72,271 total deaths to yesterday, or 218 per million population.
However, such international league-table comparisons are problematic, for several reasons. The start-dates for the infection vary from country to country. Worse, the World Health Organization has failed to implement an agreed reporting standard for deaths. Therefore, different countries count the deaths in widely differing ways.
China, for instance, has been under-reporting both cases and deaths from the outset, and has recently ceased to report deaths altogether, even though outbreaks are known to be occurring in various provinces, notably Heiliongjiang.
For some weeks, the United Kingdom did not report deaths that occurred outside hospitals. This turned out to be a grave mistake, for it transpired that large numbers were dying in care homes, a problem that several countries have faced. Fig. 2 shows reported deaths by sector. It is about ten days behind the times, since the recording of deaths by the Office for National Statistics is a slower but more complete process than HM Government’s daily totals.
Now that the United Kingdom does report deaths in care homes and in all other settings as well as in hospitals, it is closer to the true numbers than Italy, for instance, where a recent audit suggested that fewer than half of all Chinese-virus deaths were being reported.
Fig. 2. UK recorded weekly Chinese-virus deaths by sector
However, even the more complete figures provided by the Office for National Statistics appear to be a significant undercount. For instance, the ONS weekly statistical report for the week ending April 24 shows that 8237 Chinese-virus deaths occurred. However, the excess mortality compared with the same week averaged over the previous five years was 11,539, suggesting that even HM Government’s revised death counts are underestimating the true position by 40%. If so, the true cumulative death toll may well exceed 41,000.
In the long run, and in the absence of a competent, internationally-standardized reporting protocol, it is the excess deaths that will be the best guide to the true fatality rate.
That the statistics should have been so inadequately kept as to allow a grave discrepancy between Chinese-virus deaths and excess mortality even in Western countries is bad enough. However, elsewhere in the world the under-reporting is still more severe.
In Brazil, for instance, where the President decided that no lockdown was needed despite the high population densities in the major cities, the hospital system has been overwhelmed, mass graves are being dug and the number of deaths reported is a severe understatement of the true position. The President also fired his health minister, who had criticized him for not following social distancing guidelines.
The Cabinet Office briefing on daily new cases (Fig. 3) shows that a peak was reached about two weeks after the Prime Minister’s announcement of the lockdown. The fact that the peaks in new cases and in deaths occurred two weeks and three weeks respectively after the lockdown was announced is an indication that the measures have had some effect.
Fig. 3. UK daily new Chinese-virus cases, March 21 to May 5, 2020.
Of the countries we have been monitoring, only Canada has a daily growth-rate in active cases (Fig. 4): all the others now show declines.
Fig. 4. 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 8 to May 5, 2020.
As for cumulative deaths, Canada is again the high-end outlier, with a daily compound growth rate exceeding 5%. All others, including the U.S.A., are at or below 3%. However, there are signs that the slowing of the growth rates is itself slowing. Lockdowns can now be brought to an end, but with caution.
Fig. 5. 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 15 to May 5, 2020.
Ø High-resolution images of Figs. 1-5 are here.
Today’s column will be the last in this series. I hope that readers will have found it useful to see, day by day, the decline in growth rates that provides governments with the opportunity to phase out their lockdowns.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lord Monckton,
Despite a handful of tenacious detractors, your posts have been a pleasure to read.
The information on the prophylactic value of vitamin D was especially interesting. Perhaps you will consider additional timely updates on prophylactic and therapeutic treatments for the CCP virus?
I am most grateful to RobR for his kind comments. It is unfortunate that the internet seems to bring out the worst in the self-opinionated, but the number of objectors has been quite small, though they are tediously repetitive, suggesting strongly that some of them are paid to disrupt these threads.
I shall keep an eye on prophylactic and therapeutic treatments. My suspicion is that a vaccine will not prove as easy to develop, or as effective once developed, as we should wish. That is why one may have to work the odds by measures such as universal Vitamin D supplementation, which is now recommended by Public Health England, for instance.
You were never able to illustrate the actual numbers – who died “of” or “with” the virus. So meaningless posts from yourself. Some actual in depth re-search into this would have been better spent time from yourself, time you normally spend in addressing facts from the alarmist, climate change crowd . oh how easily you slipped into this role yourself and condemned those that disagreed with you as “paid to disrupt” with out any evidence , how odious of you!. A term used by the alarmist climate mob.
Again and again we illustrated with facts that the number of deaths were misattributed. Of course being a sensitive soul you saw this as disrupting your rather, baggage handling, theme to push the government’s reasons for lock down.
So let’s , once again, run through observations from experts.
Expert interviews
“Stanford professor John Ioannidis explains in an interview with CNN that Covid19 is a „widespread and mild disease“ comparable to influenza (flu) for the general population, while patients in nursing homes and hospitals should receive extra protection.
Stanford professor Scott Atlas explains in an interview with CNN that „the idea of having to stop Covid19 has created a catastrophic health care situation“. Professor Atlas says that the disease is „generally mild“ and that irrational fears had been created. He adds that there is „absolutely no reason“ for extensive testing in the general population, which is only necessary in hospitals and nursing homes. Professor Atlas wrote an article at the end of April entitled „The data are in – Stop the panic and end total isolation“ that received over 15,000 comments.
Epidemiologist Dr Knut Wittkowski explains in a new interview that the danger of Covid19 is comparable to an influenza and that the peak was already passed in most countries before the lockdown. The lockdown of entire societies was a „catastrophic decision“ without benefits but causing enormous damage. The most important measure is the protection of nursing homes. According to Dr. Wittkowski, Bill Gates‘ statements on Covid19 are „absurd“ and „have nothing to do with reality“. Dr. Wittkowski considers a vaccination against Covid19 „not necessary“ and the influential Covid19 model of British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson a „complete failure“.
German virologist Hendrik Streeck explains the final results of his pioneering antibody study. Professor Streeck found a Covid19 lethality of 0.36%, but explains that this is an upper limit and the lethality is probably in the range of 0.24 to 0.26% or even below. The average age of test-positive deceased was approximately 81 years.
Biology professor and Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt, who has been analyzing the spread of Covid19 since February, describes the general lockdown as a „huge mistake“ and calls for more targeted measures, especially to protect risk groups.
The emeritus microbiology professor Sucharit Bhakdi explains in a new German interview that politics and the media have been conducting an „intolerable fear-mongering“ and an „irresponsible disinformation campaign“. According to professor Bhakdi, face masks for the general population are not needed and may in fact be harmful „germ catchers“. The current crisis was brought about by the politicians themselves and has little to do with the virus, he argues, while a vaccine against coronavirus is „unnecessary and dangerous“, as was already the case with swine flu. The WHO has „never taken responsibility for its many wrong decisions over the years“, professor Bhakdi adds. (Note: The video was temporarily deleted by YouTube).
The Swiss chief physician for infectiology, Dr. Pietro Vernazza, explains in a new interview that the Covid19 disease is „mild for the vast majority of people“. The „counting of infected people and the call for more tests“ would not help much. In addition, most of the people listed in the corona statistics did not die solely from Covid-19. According to Dr. Vernazza, there is no evidence for the benefit of face masks in people who do not show symptoms themselves”
Long overdue-
“There are increased calls for the British government to release the modelling upon which the national lockdown was based after it was revealed that its author, Professor Neil Ferguson, was found to have been flouting the social distancing rules in order to visit his left-wing activist married lover.
Leading Brexiteer and Conservative MP David Davis said that “a bigger issue than Professor Ferguson’s private life is the accuracy of his model. When applied to the Swedish policy, it forecast 40,000 deaths by now, over 15 times the reality.”
Leading Brexiteer and Conservative MP David Davis said that “a bigger issue than Professor Ferguson’s private life is the accuracy of his model. When applied to the Swedish policy, it forecast 40,000 deaths by now, over 15 times the reality.”
Indeed, in the case of Sweden Ferguson’ modelling is a total failure. Model built by some Swedish researches, which was closely based on Ferguson’ model, gives the following estimations:
“Statement of principal findings
This individual-based modelling project predicts that with the current mitigation approach
approximately 96,000 deaths (95% CI 52,000 to 183,000) can be expected before 1 July, 2020.”
Number of actual deaths in Sweden due to covid-19 as per 8th May: 3175.
Number of ICU patients according to the model:
“At the peak period (early May), the need for ICU beds will be at least 40-fold higher than the
pre-pandemic ICU-bed capacity, not considering ICU admissions for other conditions.”
From the graph we can tell that Ferguson’ model predicts 22,000 – 30,000 ICU hospitalizations in the early May. Actual number as per 7th May: 450. Contrary to the model the ‘peak’ plateau in ICU hospitalizations in Sweden was was between 13th April – 3rd May, not early May as predicted by models and also much flatter.
Must be said that Swedes have properly aligned balls. They suspected that Ferguson’ model is – at least in the case of Sweden – complete fantasy.
Intervention strategies against COVID-19 and their estimated impact on Swedish healthcare capacity
“A new overview of existing PCR and antibody studies shows that the median value of Covid19 lethality (IFR) is about 0.2% and thus in the range of a strong influenza”
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh4zL0tF6fIHbA6fcG5RQdqSc/htmlview?pru=AAABchkIBck*6FfsvD2YDS14cneGZbjC9A
and no reason for a lock down.
The profoundly prejudiced and insufficiently identified “richard” continues to display his prejudice. While I do not defend the Ferguson model, I do not defend the IHME model either. One appears to have overshot; the other appears to have undershot just as egregiously.
However, during the weeks that this column has run, it has become apparent that those who thought that – to take one example – there would be only 10,000 deaths in total in the U.S.A. before the end of the pandemic, or – to take another example – that there would only be 1783 deaths in California by August 4, were incorrect. This virus must be taken seriously. This column has calculated, on the basis of casting back deaths, that the infection fatality rate for the Chinese virus is between 0.1% and 1%. If so, there may yet be between 8 million and 80 million deaths worldwide, unless palliative, prophylactic or therapeutic treatments can be found in good time. At the 0.2% infection fatality rate imagined by “richard”, there would be some 16 million deaths. So there is really no point in attempting to maintain that this virus is no worse than the annual flu. The UK figures have already shown that that is not the case.
“richard” and his ilk have deservedly lost the debate about lockdowns. The lockdowns were introduced because, though some models were exaggerated, governments were not taken in by those models that have consistently and prodigiously undershot.
It is also by now self-evident to all but the wilfully irredentist that the fatality rate for the elderly and infirm is very much worse than that of flu. Therefore, though it would now be right to end the lockdown for those under 60, those most at risk must not believe the likes of “richard”: they must realize that the risk to them is considerable, and they must take appropriate precautions against contracting the infection.
the numbers speculated for Sweden were 15 time less.
Poor , Mr Monckton, continues to speculate with out any evidence of who died “with” or “of” the virus.
“New statistical data show that in mid-April, out of about 12,000 additional deaths, about 9,000 were „related to Covid“ (including „suspected cases“), but about 3,000 were „not related to Covid“. Moreover, of the total of about 7300 deaths in nursing homes, only about 2000 were „related to Covid“. In both the „Covid19 deaths“ and the non-covid19 deaths, it is often unclear what these people actually died of. The Association of British Pathologists has therefore called for a „systematic review of the true causes of death“.
Having commented before with concerns about attributing excess deaths to CoVID as the cause, I know that I have mostly focused, myself, on criticizing the exaggeration of the *rate* of death for infected people. This seeming exaggeration of the death rate (given a poorly understood ‘denominator’ for calculating the rate) is unfortunately something that the head poster C. Monckton has encouraged roundly at times — with his talk of how the Wuhan virus is somehow “ten times’ worse than influenza, etc? Now in talking about ‘excess deaths’ we are apparently talking about the size of the ‘numerator’ for such a calculation, so maybe that deserves a comment, too.
Part of the problem with this, is simply that the numbers as such are bound to fluctuate week to week, and presumably it isn’t always easy to know how to account for variations in these numbers? So, once again there is a ‘trends and correlations vs. causation’ issue — and if *only* this were susceptible to some sort of easy statistics to separate out the causal effect! My point here is that this whole business is even more difficult than one would imagine just trying to take random fluctuations account.
To see what I mean, just refer to the following news article and the quotation from that which follows:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8216721/Boss-Britains-largest-care-operator-claims-TWO-THIRDS-homes-coronavirus.html
(from the page referenced above)
“A furious care home boss said ‘you’d be hard-pressed’ to find a care home provider that wasn’t angry about being told to re-admit COVID-19 patients..”
Now, part of the problem with attributing causes is that the same event (like the death of an elderly person with CoVID), can easily have not one but *two* equally important causes. In this case the angry care home boss mentioned is concerned that large numbers of deaths due to CoVID are ultimately being caused by the medical system malpractice of sending infectious elders directly back to their group homes! In this kind of case (and my impression is that this is very significant in the numbers racked up) is the true cause of death the virus as such, or is it the common medical practice that has caused the death? Is the virus really so much more dangerous than other viruses, or is it the inappropriate handling of this virus that is the real culprit?
In other words, even if the head poster, CoM, has separated the ‘signal from the noise’ properly here, has he reached the correct conclusion about where to assign ultimate blame/causation for the excess deaths?
‘No!’ said Mole, ‘and that’s a fact, and no mistake!’
‘Of the 3,912 deaths that occurred in March 2020 involving COVID-19, 3,563 (91%) had at least one pre-existing condition, while 349 (9%) had none. The mean number of pre-existing conditions was 2.7.’
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/latest
‘Across Europe, Covid only kills the under 60’s in very small numbers. For example in Italy which has had a relatively high number of deaths overall, less than 3% were under 60 years old. In England and Wales the corresponding percentage is around 7%. This difference shows up in the Euromomo charts, where the UK is more or less unique in having high mortality in the under 65’s.’
http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/england_special_28Apr.html
Mr Blenkinsop selectively cites the Office for National Statistics, which has also concluded that most of the very large number of excess deaths in the UK are attributable to the Chinese virus. Yes, many of the deaths are in elderly people, and many of them have comorbidities, a point that this column has repeatedly made. But we are not God, and we cannot predict how long those with comorbidities would have lived had they not been finished off by the Chinese virus.
This column has also fairly pointed out that many of the deaths have arisen in care homes, where the opportunities for transmission are many. Yes, the ill-considered policy of the UK Government to send infected people from hospitals into care homes contributed to the death toll, as did the failure of countries such as Sweden to inhibit visits to care homes by people who were infected. Like it or not, though, all or nearly all of the excess deaths in care homes arose because the Chinese virus was the proximate cause of death.
We now have enough data to refine the lockdown-ending strategy set forth here some weeks ago. The most important distinction is between people under 60, who are not much at risk and can go back to work straight away, and those over 80, particularly with comorbidities, who need to protect themselves or – if they are vulnerable, as some of the very old are – be protected.
On the data, there is no longer any need for lockdowns. They achieved their primary purpose of preventing the hospitals from being overwhelmed as they were in northern Italy and as they are in Brazil and Ecuador, to name but a few. Since the risk to people of working age is small, there is no longer any justification for locking down the economy.
But there is no point in belittling the danger this virus represents to the old and infirm.
Why are comorbidities being mentioned time and time again? The data I have seen (example: https://www.jwatch.org/na51250/2020/04/01/association-comorbidities-with-covid-19-outcomes ) Shows that little under half of all deaths have 1 or more comorbidities. That’s a fifty-fifty chance. You are not worse or better off with comorbidities. That’s how I read the data. How do you read it?
Here’s what a couple of actual real-life investigative reporters (not independently wealthy and not connected to/serving the elite agenda) have to say about the BS red-baiting “China did it” narrative:
The Deeper Historical Roots of Chinese Demonization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/deeper-roots-chinese-demonization/5711679
The AngloZionists are launching a strategic PSYOP against China
https://thesaker.is/the-anglozionists-are-launching-a-strategic-psyop-against-china/
If the Chicoms had been up front about this, they would have earned a bit of sympathy on it, independently of any other problems with them. As it is, they’ve earned our contempt — again.
Julius, one of various paid agents of the Chinese regime who have infested this thread, should realize that given the facts it is futile to pretend that calling the Chinese virus the Chinese virus is a racialist attack. The virus originated in China, and the Communist regime that pays Julius can be proven to have known about it since mid-November 2019 (and may even have known about it as early as mid-October).
However, the regime failed, for at least six weeks, to comply with Article 6 of the International Health Regulations, which require notification of new pathogens to the world community within 24 hours. It only reported the epidemic to its wholly-controlled subsidiary the World Death Organization on December 31. It then lied to the effect that the pathogen could not pass from person to person, and went on doing so for a further three weeks, and was supported in this contention by the World Death Organization, which failed to admit the person-to-person transmission for three weeks after it had been told in writing by Taiwan that patients infected with the virus were having to be placed in isolation.
The Communist regime in China also disappeared numerous doctors and researchers who knew about the origin and transmission of the virus – and that in itself is a crime against humanity. It prevented the WHO from visiting the source of the outbreak for two vital weeks. It now refuses the international community the right to inspect the laboratory in Wuhan from which the outbreak appears to have originated. It will not allow anyone into China to investigate until the pandemic is over. In the meantime it can be proven to have destroyed evidence. Even then it will only admit the WHO to investigate, because the WHO is controlled by Communists who have shown themselves willing to do its bidding.
This column stands solidly with the Chinese people in this affair, and as solidly against their government, which has committed the crimes against humanity of mass extermination and of disappearing whistleblowers.
The fatuous links that the Communist shill Julius posts here are so silly that they serve as a marker of the increasing desperation of the Communist regime in Peking, which has ceased altogether to act rationally. Just one example: the regime originally stated that the origin of the transmission from animal to human was a filthy wet market in Wuhan. Now, however, its foreign ministry spokesman has declared that there are no wet markets anywhere in China. This declaration is, of course, hilariously at odds with the overwhelming evidence. However, let us pretend it is true. if it is true, then the infection cannot have arisen in the wet market in Wuhan, for no such wet market existed. In that event, the laboratory where experiments to make the coronaviridae more infectious were being conducted becomes far and away the most likely source.
Of course, we shall never know for sure, because the regime has placed the laboratory under the control of the People’s “Liberation” Army-Navy, and is denying international access, and is busy continuing to destroy evidence. So there is really no point in Julius and his ilk trying to say that calling the Chinese virus the Chinese virus is racialist or indicates hatred of the Chinese people, any more than there is any point in trying to maintain that this virus is not killing very large numbers worldwide.
If the Chinese Communist Party wishes to be taken seriously ever again, it will have to learn that crude Communist propaganda of the sort that Julius here tries to peddle fools no one except Communists – and they, as we have seen from the head-bangingly, cringingly deferential statements of the ghastly Communist Ghebreyesus at the WHO and his minions Aylward and Ryan, will lap up and parrot whatever nonsense the regime utters. The rest of the world is not fooled. It is very much in the world’s interest that the Communist regime in China be overthrown by its suffering people.
Julius and his ilk had better be very careful. There will be prosecutions at the end of this affair, and those who have shilled for the Communist regime may yet find themselves standing trial for conspiracy with that regime to perpetrate crimes against humanity.
any proof yet of who died “with” or “of” the virus , Mr Monckton. Imagine all that time you wasted with speculation.
“There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!”
The individual states have taken strict social-distancing measures. This has to be remembered when being critical of the Federal Government.
In Britain, following on from the ‘Carry on Covid!’ fiasco starring Professor Pantsdown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAg1s1ByYfM
…..a new report has just come out from Oxford University.
The data is now in and it makes the entire lockdown mullarkey look foolish, risible even; just plain silly:
‘Population 17,425,445 adults. Time period 1st Feb 2020 to 25th April 2020. Primary outcome Death in hospital among people with confirmed COVID-19.’ ‘Results There were 5683 deaths attributed to COVID-19.’
‘In summary after full adjustment, death from COVID-19 was strongly associated with: being male (hazard ratio 1.99, 95%CI 1.88-2.10); older age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); uncontrolled diabetes (HR 2.36 95% CI 2.18-2.56); severe asthma (HR 1.25 CI 1.08-1.44); and various other prior medical conditions. Compared to people with ethnicity recorded as white, black people were at higher risk of death, with only partial attenuation in hazard ratios from the fully adjusted model (age-sex adjusted HR 2.17 95% CI 1.84-2.57; fully adjusted HR 1.71 95% CI 1.44-2.02); with similar findings for Asian people (age-sex adjusted HR 1.95 95% CI 1.73-2.18; fully adjusted HR 1.62 95% CI 1.43-1.82).’
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999v1
That is 5683 Covid 19 deaths in England from results covering about one third of the population in England out of a cumulative total of all cause mortality for the same period of circa 180,000 in England and Wales; so crude extrapolation gives about 10% of all deaths directly attributable to Covid 19 during that period, mainly the aged, infirm, socially deprived, particularly amongst specific ethnic minorities.
That seems to me to be pretty much in line with the expected outcome from a minor coronavirus/rhinovirus cold epidemic, which happens just about every other year!
No wonder all the computer games modelling fun is coming to a close!
Mr Monckton , in his own twisted way, lashing out at those who disagree with him, will continue with his foolish thoughts and never admit he was wrong. Once a baggage handler, always a baggage handler.
‘richard’, Be Specific! The actual ‘lashing out’, by Lord Monckton (if it may be described so), was in his recent comment detailing the corruption and ineptitude of the the current government of China. If sound criticism of dangerous oligarchs is the ‘lashing out’ you refer to, then maybe we could use more of that?
(At the same time, I could wish, myself, that Monckton was a bit more right wing skeptical, or ‘contrarian’ in assessing some of the unjustified lock down decisions, at least for countries or regions where the threat of overwhelming the health system was the merest supposition — but that’s more a ‘defense’ of establishment decisions, not a ‘lashing out’ — again, be specific?)
look back over comments with those of us who disagreed.
Of course if the useless, Mr Monckton , actually did some re-search –
“New study from Germany finds that every COVID-19 death was someone who had cancer, lung disease, was a heavy smoker or morbidly obese”
“Head of Forensic Pathology in Hamburg on covid19 autopsy findings: “not a single person w/out previous illness has died of the virus in Hamburg. All had cancer, chronic lung dis, were heavy smokers or heavily obese, or had diabetes or cardiovasc dis” 1/3 https://t.co/u4Pi9ntRT0 pic.twitter.com/PaSdh2UnF5″