Printable View
Excellent news, this wave is over according to Chris Giles.
Twitter Link
I agree and I think this will be the last one. The government are being ridiculously cautious IMO with the timeline, I understand why they're doing that but hopefully after Easter it gets accelerated.
I hope this ages well (emphasis added). I do recall your confident predictions about Valentine's, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I hope so too, though it was the Kent variant's evolution that upended that prediction, after that evolved I said that I thought Easter was the likely new date.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Our government's timeline puts lockdown lasting well, well past Easter. I think that is ridiculously over cautious. I understand why they're being cautious and it will be maintained until Easter at least I expect, but lifting lockdown really ought to be escalated rapidly after Easter in my opinion.
I don't think they either should or will be able to maintain a closure of indoors hospitality until near the end of May if we're having daily figures reporting no deaths.
Oh no. Oh mate. Oh you poor fucking idiot. You "read" and regurgitated some confused right-wing dingdong talking points and thought you had a slam dunk, didn't you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What you're trying to argue here is both stupid and ignorant in several ways. Let me explain.
- The public health agencies in most western nations have compiled pragmatic datasets using the same general approach of tallying deaths within ~30 days of a positive covid test as covid deaths; the UK is not unique in this respect, and it should have no measurable impact on relative ranking. On the contrary, reporting only this figure for international comparisons advantages the UK somewhat, because some countries—such as Belgium—also include suspected—ie. not test-confirmed—covid deaths in their official stats.
- In practice, the "dead within x days of positive test" approach does not result in overcounting covid deaths. There is a good a priori reason for expecting it not to result in overcounting—many people who die of covid or complications thereof have not been tested (esp. for much of the first wave). We can also confirm this by comparing figures obtained from medical cause-of-death certificates that report covid as direct or contributing cause of death. In Sweden, the two sources correspond very closely to one another; in the UK, the latter source gives you a number ~18k higher than the one you get using the definition you use for international comparisons—ie. by using the former for international comparisons, you're doing yourself a favour. Do you believe physicians in the UK have reported 18k road traffic collisions as covid deaths? If anything, estimates based on a simple/naive parsing of death certificates are liable to represent an undercount, due to inconsistencies in how physicians report cause of death, due to inconsistencies wrt testing, and due to the difficulty of correctly attributing cause of death (eg. a person who dies of a pulmonary embolism that was itself a complication of covid might not end up being registered as a covid death).
- Excess deaths is not "the gold standard", and describing it as such demonstrates an extremely simplistic understanding. "The gold standard" for what purpose? Excess deaths is an important and useful public health metric; it allows us to get a fuller picture of overall health impact, and it can help guide us eg. when we have reason to believe we're underdiagnosing deaths due to a pandemic. It does not, however, enable straightforward assessments of a country's performance, or straightforward comparisons between countries. One important reason why is that estimates of excess deaths necessarily obscure differences—and differential shifts—in the underlying causes of death. This is an especially important concern for the present situation, with a devastating global pandemic that has entailed the imposition of many strict restrictions and requirements. Hypothetically, these restrictions and requirements can have a significant mitigating impact on other important causes of death, the impact of which will vary from country to country—eg. fewer deaths due to influenza, bacterial pneumonia, viral gastroenteritis, sepsis, falls among the elderly, traffic accidents, drowning, etc. Conversely, they can also result in more deaths from other causes, due to changes in healthcare provision & utilization—eg. due to delay in seeking care after getting a heart attack—or a stroke—or fewer vaccinations against common and deadly infectious diseases. Sweden provides an illustrative example: in 2020, over 9000 people are believed to have died of covid, in Sweden; nevertheless, we had just over 6000 excess deaths, as estimated by the simplest and most common approach (deaths compared to average for the preceding 5 years)—ie. 3k lower than the official covid death toll. Do you believe we overcounted covid deaths by 3000, by including people who died 27 days after testing positive?
If you still think that's a plausible—rather than asinine—argument, consider that the UK's excess deaths estimate for 2020 is around 10k higher than the official covid death toll that you believe represents an overcount of covid deaths.
- The factors you listed as being relevant for the comparison may indeed be associated with increased risk of transmission as well as death, but the question is whether or not they are relevant for the comparison being discussed, which—at the very least—requires us to determine their importance in quanititative terms as well as whether the countries being compared differ sufficiently in these respects for it to matter. Estimates of the putative impact (ie. effect size) of various measures of population density—as well as of obesity and population age structure—remain very uncertain, and western countries don't differ all that much in these respects anyway; if you adjust for these things, chances are the top five western countries for covid deaths per capita will remain about the same. Of course, it goes without saying that a government is supposed to tailor its policy to the circumstances of its people.
RB, this was really embarrassing for you. I took no pleasure in turning what you thought would be your moment of triumph into another taste of humiliation, and I really wish you'd be a little more thorough and a little less sloppy.
Oh no, you poor naive ignoramus.
- Yes health authorities do a general approach of ~30 days within a test, but not all countries test the same. Did you actually think they did? Seriously? :rolleyes: It does not advantage the UK because the UK have done 900 million tests, more than any other significant EU country per capita besides Austria by an order of magnitude. The UK have done 3 tests for ever 2 in Belgium, despite Belgium's higher death toll and higher positivity rate, so who do you think is catching a higher proportion of their own cases? Italy have done half the tests we have per capita so does that magic away the cases they didn't test for? Simply not testing and not catching cases does not mean people didn't die from the disease you ignoramus which is why there's a gold standard that exists otherwise. Oops. Do you seriously, seriously think the UK's and Italy have identified the same proportion of deaths using this approach? Is this backed up by looking at neutral sources like excess deaths instead? Idiot. :rolleyes:
- So because you might not catch all people through testing, it is right to rely on numbers caught via testing? Even though countries aren't testing the same? Do you actually believe this drivel when the UK is testing considerable amounts more and others aren't? So any nation that under-tests, under-reports deaths and they're magically better in your eyes? Give me a break you must be trolling me as you can not be so stupid as to believe that! :rolleyes: Since you were too pigheaded and ignorant as to seriously believe that this metric works, let me enlighten you with some actual facts since you couldn't provide any of your own. Since this pandemic began until 19/02/2021 the UK has within 28 days registered 140,160 deaths while in the same time having 124,170 excess deaths which means we've over-recorded 112.9% of deaths compared to excess deaths. On the other hand Italy for instance have only provided data until 30/11/2020 but their supposed Covid death tally was 54,380 but their real death toll in the same time was 92,730 excess deaths. That means under-recorded registering a mere 58.6% of deaths compared to excess deaths. Russia claim to have had 72k deaths but have had an excess death toll of 425,290 by 31/01/20 instead. You think that's comparable? Don't be an idiot. Nobody with any integrity combined with two braincells to rub together could seriously claim 58.6% is comparable to 112.9% - so that just leaves you.
- When in a hole stop digging. Yes 10k is the overcount that I was reporting to you. People die, there are going to be many people who die within 28 days from entirely natural causes or accidents. 124k excess deaths in the UK over the past 12 months is still a lot and doesn't justify Covid-denialists, it is a massive and serious death toll but lets not pretend that when Italy are reported 59% of deaths and the UK is reporting 113% of deaths that the reported death tolls are the slightest bit comparable. If you want to die on this hill you just lose all credibility. Incidentally Sweden's figures until 14/02/21 are 12,420 reported deaths versus 11,170 excess deaths so Sweden like the UK is one of the very few nations in the world over-reporting, the overwhelming majority of countries like Italy are significant under-reporting.
- Except the UK isn't even in the top 5 per capita to begin with even before we consider these factors. The impact of these factors are known to be considerable and you're a denialist of the facts if you wish to dispute that. How considerable is unknown of course, but you're delusional if you don't think these are relevant but since you're still dying on the hill of using dodgy unreliable data that makes everything irrelevant anyway.
Well, well, well Aimless that was really embarrassing and humiliating - for you. Sorry to humiliate you like that but the idea that comparing a country reporting 59% of its deaths with a country reporting 113% of its deaths is reasonable in your eyes - it just shows what I have long suspected about you: you have zero credibility whatsoever and will troll with whatever dodgy data you can find. Plus I'm guessing you're buying into Putin's BS about not having much Covid in his country, while nearly half a million are dead in reality? Afterall you believe it from Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands and all the other countries under rather than over reporting deaths.
You're right—not all countries test the same. For example, some countries have governments whose decisions ensure a much worse outbreak, and therefore have to test much more per capita—simply because they have more sick people per capita, people who end up hospitalized and tested repeatedly. That's your country, RB. We can mitigate this problem by also looking at medical cause-of-death certificates, where you can include deaths that are suspected of being caused by covid even without a positive test. That is the source of the numbers Belgium reports for the purpose of international comparisons. Were the UK to do the same, your death toll would be almost 20k higher. When I say your choice to report using the dead-within-28-days definition gives you an advantage over reporting deaths based on death certificates, that is what I'm referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
[QUOTE]Italy have done half the tests we have per capita so does that magic away the cases they didn't test for? Simply not testing and not catching cases does not mean people didn't die from the disease you ignoramus which is why there's a gold standard that exists otherwise. Oops. Do you seriously, seriously think the UK's and Italy have identified the same proportion of deaths using this approach?
Wrong wrong wrong :)Quote:
[...] let me enlighten you with some actual facts since you couldn't provide any of your own. Since this pandemic began until 19/02/2021 the UK has within 28 days registered 140,160 deaths
https://i.imgur.com/3bdLHH8.png
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
You should provide your sources for these figures, because I suspect you're doing something wrong.Quote:
while in the same time having 124,170 excess deaths which means we've over-recorded 112.9% of deaths compared to excess deaths.
This is from your own authorities, re. England:
https://i.imgur.com/tCQr0rZ.png
https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static...nd-latest.html
This shows that, in England, looking at death certificates—which should not give you an overcount of covid deaths, but, rather, an undercount—gives you 20k more deaths than just looking at excess deaths. This is another illustration of the problem I explained to you in my previous post, using the discrepancy between excess deaths and confirmed covid deaths in Sweden as an example—the excess deaths metric obscures shifts in the underlying causes of death. Do you believe physicians in England are coding fatal traffic accidents as covid deaths on death certificates?
There is official data from Italy until the end of last year. By the end of 2020, Italy had recorded 74k confirmed covid deaths. ISTAT estimated ~84k excess deaths by the end of November, so the 92k figure is more likely to be for the whole year. The problem with using Italy's excess deaths metric to compare it with other countries is that Italy, as you might recall, was the western country that was hit the hardest, early on in the first wave—and completely taken by surprise (unlike your govt., which had time to prepare). As a result, for a long time, Italy's healthcare system was completely overwhelmed—especially in Lombardy—leading to preventable non-covid deaths. In other words, you cannot assume that Italy's excess mortality reflects covid deaths only—it is likely to also reflect a surge in non-covid deaths as well. This, again, is a problem with using the excess deaths metric.Quote:
On the other hand Italy for instance have only provided data until 30/11/2020 but their supposed Covid death tally was 54,380 but their real death toll in the same time was 92,730 excess deaths. That means under-recorded registering a mere 58.6% of deaths compared to excess deaths.
It's not a question of whether or not excess deaths is "neutral"; it's a question of what excess deaths can and can't tell you about what you're interested in. Excess deaths can't give you an accurate estimate of covid deaths for the purpose of international comparisons between western countries. I have explained why, and also given you several examples that show the problem more clearly. You're using this metric like a stupid person—a person who doesn't understand numbers and thinks they're some sort of magic. Sadly, you have to understand the numbers, and what they can and can't tell you.Quote:
Is this backed up by looking at neutral sources like excess deaths instead? Idiot. :rolleyes:
Russia is not a western nation and not comparable to the UK, so you're the one being an idiot :confused:Quote:
Russia claim to have had 72k deaths but have had an excess death toll of 425,290 by 31/01/20 instead. You think that's comparable? Don't be an idiot. Nobody with any integrity combined with two braincells to rub together could seriously claim 58.6% is comparable to 112.9% - so that just leaves you.
[...]
Plus I'm guessing you're buying into Putin's BS about not having much Covid in his country, while nearly half a million are dead in reality?
You seem to have gotten things confused.Quote:
When in a hole stop digging. Yes 10k is the overcount that I was reporting to you. People die, there are going to be many people who die within 28 days from entirely natural causes or accidents. 124k excess deaths in the UK over the past 12 months is still a lot and doesn't justify Covid-denialists, it is a massive and serious death toll but lets not pretend that when Italy are reported 59% of deaths and the UK is reporting 113% of deaths that the reported death tolls are the slightest bit comparable. If you want to die on this hill you just lose all credibility.
Here's what I said:
What this means is that the UK's dead-within-28-days figure does not represent an overcount when compared to excess deaths; on the contrary, it represents an undercount—by around 10k. So the definition that you believe causes the UK to overcount covid deaths actually undercounts covid deaths relative to death certificates (which certainly undercount covid deaths) as well as relative to excess deaths.Quote:
consider that the UK's excess deaths estimate for 2020 is around 10k higher than the official covid death toll that you believe represents an overcount of covid deaths.
Again, you need to understand the numbers you're using, and you clearly don't understand them. I explained to you very carefully why you're wrong about this. We know that, for Sweden, estimates of the covid death toll based on medical death certificates—which are likely to undercount covid deaths—correspond very closely to the covid death toll estimated by the simpler approach of registering deaths x days after a positive test (which, incidentally, is also likely to undercount covid deaths—because we, like the UK, did a piss-poor job of testing for most of the first wave)—and the estimate of excess mortality differs greatly from both. We have official estimates of excess deaths for 2020—around 6000 for the year, compared to around 9000 covid deaths. This is an indication of fewer deaths from other causes—most likely as a result of pandemic-related restrictions and recommendations. Do you believe we have 5000 more excess deaths in the first two months of 2021 than we had in all of 2020? While having 4000 more covid deaths? That does not pass even a cursory plausibility check, but, if we were to accept it, it would show that Sweden is now undercounting relative to excess deaths. So which is it?Quote:
Incidentally Sweden's figures until 14/02/21 are 12,420 reported deaths versus 11,170 excess deaths so Sweden like the UK is one of the very few nations in the world over-reporting, the overwhelming majority of countries like Italy are significant under-reporting.
The fact is that the excess deaths figure for Sweden—and for most other western countries—is not very useful for estimating covid deaths for the purpose of international comparisons. I have explained why, but you seem to be too thick to understand. I have even shown you that the numbers don't tell you what you think they do, but you seem to be too thick to understand that as well.
Please provide a list of top 5 western countries wrt covid deaths per capita.Quote:
Except the UK isn't even in the top 5 per capita to begin with even before we consider these factors. The impact of these factors are known to be considerable and you're a denialist of the facts if you wish to dispute that. How considerable is unknown of course, but you're delusional if you don't think these are relevant but since you're still dying on the hill of using dodgy unreliable data that makes everything irrelevant anyway.
Let me refer you, once again, to my story about my friend and the surgeon. I keep referring to it because you're too stupid to understand that you're stupid—and I am fairly certain anyone who has the patience to read our exchanges will understand the specific mistakes you're making. In your latest post, you have used the wrong numbers, shown that you don't understand the numbers you're trying to use, and demonstrated—once again—that you can't read very well. But don't worry, RB—I have an infinite amount of patience when it comes to helping you develop these rudimentary skills.Quote:
Well, well, well Aimless that was really embarrassing and humiliating - for you. Sorry to humiliate you like that but the idea that comparing a country reporting 59% of its deaths with a country reporting 113% of its deaths is reasonable in your eyes - it just shows what I have long suspected about you: you have zero credibility whatsoever and will troll with whatever dodgy data you can find.
So you are digging in to dodgy data with zero credibility. Got you. :rolleyes:
The like-for-like source for my data is here, which allows a like-for-like comparison (though weirdly for some reason Italy's data has reverted to October, it was to November previously which is where I got the numbers I quoted to you): https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...deaths-tracker
Yes PHE are doing a more advanced modelling, calculating based on generally increasing life expectancies and fewer deaths in general so not using the five year average that is typical but there's no like-for-like comparison between that and other countries.
Your notion that healthcare crashing in a country by losing control of the pandemic means you can't use excess deaths as a metric, because they died from other means due to healthcare crashing is absolutely preposterous. Deaths caused by the healthcare system crashing are deaths caused by the pandemic, whether the deceased was infected or not if they would have survived were it not for the pandemic they absolutely should be counted.
The UK is testing more not because the pandemic is worse here, but because we're handling it better which is why we're testing more and ending the pandemic sooner. To try and hoist the UK on the petard of having better, more accurate statistics is a pathetic mudslinging from you and if you had any dignity you would be ashamed. But you don't.
Russia may not be in the west but it proves the point as well as Italy does. Do you believe Putin's lies that there are 72k deaths in Russia? Or do you believe the 425k excess deaths are more accurate? Putin or actual dead bodies, which is more accurate?
Perhaps you should read my post before talking about "dodgy data" RB.
I did. You're still insisting that countries that don't report Covid deaths because they're not testing Covid deaths are doing better.
Preposterous bullshit and lies.
Incidentally "death certificates mentioning Covid" can also be "deaths with Covid" rather than "deaths from Covid". It doesn't mean that Covid was the proximate cause of death.
I know someone who lost their father, who was already terminally ill and getting palliative care. He had a stroke, was taken into hospital where the family was called to say goodbye to him. While in hospital he picked up Covid and he never recovered from the stroke. The death certificate puts down the stroke as cause of death but mentions Covid as well since he was Covid positive.
Did Covid cause his death, or did the fact he was very ill and had a stroke cause his death? He is down on the Covid stats since he is "within 28 days of a test" and "certificate mentions Covid" despite the stroke being the cause of death and the stroke being on the death certificate and the doctors saying that he died from having a stroke.
In other countries someone receiving palliative care having a stroke might not be even taken to a hospital, let alone taken to a hospital, getting tested after acquiring Covid at the hospital and recorded that way.
But I look forward to you clarifying whether you believe Putin's 72k figure or the 425k excess deaths as the more accurate benchmark? Presumably you'll side with Putin as you're not a stark raving hypocrite only using dodgy data to make partisan pointscoring points - oh wait, yes you are.
You did not read it. Do you know how I know?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I know because, if you had read my post, you would've seen this part of it:
https://i.imgur.com/SPC7ioz.png
And, if you had seen that part of the post, you would've realized that the "dodgy data" you're referring to comes from your own government—whose publicly reported statistics directly contradict two of you central claims about covid stats for the UK.
Specifically, you said
But your own government says that the number of covid deaths tallied under that definition is currently 124,987. Do you believe your government removed 15k deaths from that list between Feb 19 and today? Does that sound plausible to you? Curiously, the number you attribute to the dead-within-28-days definition corresponds extremely closely to the number the UK govt. instead reports for the number of deaths where covid was on the death certificate. Do you think that is a coincidence? A conspiracy?Quote:
Since this pandemic began until 19/02/2021 the UK has within 28 days registered 140,160 deaths
A more plausible explanation is that you did not bother to verify your assumptions, and therefore got the data mixed up. The figure you took is from The Economist's tally, which uses the ONS's figures for deaths with covid on the death certificate. That is why the figure the Economist reports is larger than the one your own govt. reports for the dead-within-28-days definition, and so close to the figure your govt. currently reports for the number of deaths with covid on the death certificate. Do you understand what I am saying? You have gotten the death certificates figure and the dead-within-28-days figure mixed up.
Your government says 124,987 people died within 28 days of a positive covid test. The Economist estimates that, in roughly the same time span, there were approximately 124,000 excess deaths in Britain. Tell me, does that sound like a massive overcount due to using the dead-within-28-days figure?
What the above strongly suggests is 1. the dead-within-28-days definition does not, in practice, result in overcounting covid deaths, and 2. the excess deaths metric, if interpreted as only reflecting covid deaths, represents a substantial undercount of covid deaths, compared to data from death certificates. This is what I explained to you in two separate posts, using Sweden and the UK as examples.
In light of the foregoing, I think I am within my rights to describe you as lazy, sloppy, and bad at both reading and thinking. I think that is an accurate description of a person who has made the completely avoidable and extremely stupid mistakes you've made here.
Moving on, you said:
If you had read the source you claim to be using, you would've seen this:Quote:
The like-for-like source for my data is here, which allows a like-for-like comparison (though weirdly for some reason Italy's data has reverted to October, it was to November previously which is where I got the numbers I quoted to you): https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...deaths-tracker
Yes PHE are doing a more advanced modelling, calculating based on generally increasing life expectancies and fewer deaths in general so not using the five year average that is typical but there's no like-for-like comparison between that and other countries.
https://i.imgur.com/7G7DwnE.png
The Economist conducts the same general type of modeling as PHE. The figures they report are adjusted for general trends in a similar manner. The discrepancy between the Economist's estimate of excess deaths and the one from PHE that I posted a screenshot of, is that the Economist tries to estimate excess deaths for Britain as a whole, whereas PHE estimates excess deaths for England.
The Economist's analysis, of course, does not permit a like-for-like comparison between countries, even if you disregard the issue with different time periods being analyzed. The reason, as I have explained several times, is that the excess deaths metric obscures differences and differential shifts in the underlying causes of death; even though the method is the same, the underlying data that it's applied to is not comparable enough. By definition, the metric cannot be used to attribute specific causes of death with any degree of certainty. You keep going on about Russia, because you clearly don't realize how irrelevant that argument is. You cannot use Russia's excess deaths figure to determine how many people have actually died of covid; all you can do is note that the official tally is probably very wrong. This is irrelevant to the present discussion, because the present discussion concerns western nations.
My "notion" as you describe it is that excess deaths cannot be used to attribute deaths to covid for the purpose of international comparisons. For Italy, this has no relevance to the present discussion, about the culpability of your govt. in the preventable deaths of tens of thousands of people. You cannot credibly blame the Italian govt. for the situation during the first wave, because Italy was hit first—and hardest—with next to no warning. The UK, in contrast, had several more weeks to prepare—and chose to initially pursue a reckless herd immunity strategy, losing precious time and dooming tens of thousands to death, before being forced to change course due to severe criticism. It made similar mistakes again in autumn, and, later, in winter—deliberately implementing deadly policy due to incompetence and chancery.Quote:
Your notion that healthcare crashing in a country by losing control of the pandemic means you can't use excess deaths as a metric, because they died from other means due to healthcare crashing is absolutely preposterous. Deaths caused by the healthcare system crashing are deaths caused by the pandemic, whether the deceased was infected or not if they would have survived were it not for the pandemic they absolutely should be counted.
Oh dear you're still digging your own reputation's grave aren't you?
Did you read what I wrote? Or what you quoted? Because the "dodgy data" is not the UK's data which is reasonably accurate however you slice it because the UK is reporting honest data and doing a good job at handling and measuring the pandemic. The dodgy data comes from . . . ooh lets look at what I wrote which you quoted:
https://i.ibb.co/VWm8dt4/image.png
That's not the UK's data in the comparison I'm objecting to. It is other countries data is not as reliable as ours because they're "countries that don't report Covid deaths because they're not testing" as well as we do. Oops silly you.
Yes the UK's deaths with Covid on the certificate are counting "deaths with Covid" as opposed to just "deaths from Covid" but that doesn't change the UK figures that much either way. Other nations though are comprehensively out.
The UK's data whether you measure using "deaths within 28 days", "deaths with covid on death certificate" or "excess deaths" are all pretty much of muchness. Other countries are not. Using other countries data that is patently wrong and is patently undermeasuring deaths by an order of magnitude is wrong.
Plus as we know in many countries, like in the USA but not alone there, there have been allegations that deaths have been politicised and allegedly Gov Cuomo in New York and allegedly GOP governors in the South etc have exerted pressure to label deaths as not Covid to flatter their figures. Whatever you think of the UK's handling of the pandemic I have never seen anyone allege that of the UK. The data is handled honestly and with integrity and transparency, which is why all 3 measures of deaths are fairly close to each other unlike in other nations.
That Italy was hit hard and early is true. That doesn't change anything, its maybe an explanation as to why they have a high excess death toll but that shouldn't be brushed away. They have it. The people are dead and the fact that nearly half the death toll is missing from the official data doesn't magically bring them back to life or write them out of the conversation. Use honest data.
If you want to use preposterously dishonest data from countries that are either hiding or missing their deaths then that's on you. You can use that to pretend that the UK is handling the pandemic worse, but that's just your bigotry in action. All its really showing is the UK is handling the pandemic better by having a true picture of what has really happened during a global pandemic.
If you wish to use data with integrity, like that excess death chart then we can have a meaningful comparison. But if that's flawed then it just means no valid data exists and you can't make international comparisons. So you can't claim the UK is worst. Of course we all know the real truth, you're dismissing the excess deaths figures because you have an agenda and reality doesn't fit with your agenda so you'd rather lie and use other nation's dishonest or incomplete data to push your own dodgy lies.
If you wish to dig down to demonstrate that the UK data is fairly accurate that's fine because I don't dispute that. There's a bit of an overcounting but not much. It is other countries data that is inaccurate. Why for instance has the Netherlands got 4 excess deaths for every 3 officially reported? Why for instance does Portugal miss even more? How come Serbia have less than a quarter of their excess deaths reported as actually reported deaths? How come Poland have 2 deaths for every 1 reported?
But I suppose in your parallel universe all those excess Dutch, Portugese, Serbian, Polish etc families mourning their deceased loved ones aren't real since they weren't counted. Whatever suits your agenda to hate Britain.
Oh my God you pathetic and illiterate fucking moron, the only thing wrong here is that you don't even know what numbers you're using and what they signify. You explicitly stated that the UK is overcounting deaths based on explicit reasoning about the definition. I have now shown you that you were, in fact, full of shit; the UK is not overcounting deaths due to that definition, but is, instead, undercounting deaths—probably by at least 20k. You made specific claims about what the actual numbers were, telling me you'd enlighten me about the "facts", and then it turns out your own govt. sources put the lie to your claims about those numbers, and you—like a lazy and sloppy fucking moron—had neglected to check what numbers it was that you were citing—ie. you didn't have the first clue about what the "facts" actually are. How the fuck do you expect to be taken seriously about any of this, after being caught—red-handed—being so fucking lazy and sloppy and stupid with your own numbers? Getting your own numbers so hopelessly mixed up like a fucking dingdong? Get your shit in order man. Learn to read, learn to use basic plausibility tests, learn what your data actually represents, and learn to verify your claims before trying to engage in a technical discussion. Even now you're bullshitting about Italy, talking about how "nearly half the death toll is missing from the official data" based on an analysis that hasn't been updated past October. Jfc, how dumb are you?
You can try to spin it however you like, but you're still among the top 5 western countries wrt covid deaths per capita—even if you adjust other countries' figures upwards by 30% based on your asinine and scientifically illiterate ideas about excess mortality. Most importantly, you're in that position specifically because of deliberate decisions by your govt. to implement policies that actively facilitated transmission. You could've been far lower on the list, but your govt.—and you—chose death.
Oh jeez more spin, spin, spin and lies, lies, lies from you. You're so obsessed with Britain that is so clearly permanently resident in the front of your mind because you're butthurt for some reason that almost your entire post again is ranting and raving about Britain - without understanding that the issue is with other countries.
We're not in the top 5 western countries. That is a lie using dishonest data. You can't help yourself from lying can you? The EU has "caught up" with UK vaccinations (by magically pretending the first vaccinations don't exist and only counting second vaccinations that the UK is deliberately not doing). The UK has "more" deaths (by magically pretending all the piled high dead bodies that haven't been reported as Covid deaths don't exist). You can't help yourself.
If you wish to claim we are in the top 5 then please feel free to provide a list of that top 5 with sources showing why that data has integrity so we can compare who's missing off your list?
Look at the top 5 western countries wrt covid deaths per capita on statista and then give concrete and well-justified estimates for what their numbers should actually be and why. Given that you don't even fucking know what numbers you're citing for your own fucking country—and don't even have the integrity and dignity to acknowledge how badly you fucked that up, just how fucking stupid and lazy it was to babble on like that about numbers that you should've known were just plain wrong—I have little confidence in your ability to make a compelling quantitative argument about any other country. RB, it's time for us to be honest about your personal limitations. The illiteracy, the stupidity, the laziness and sloppiness. I don't think it's reasonable to expect you to perform even at the level of a curious highschooler, at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Oh I knew it you slimy toad, I guessed you were using a source as dodgy as Statista. :rolleyes:
Garbage in garbage out with that one.
Take just one example: Portugal.
The UK's NHS never collapsed but like Italy, very sadly, the Portugese one did. The scenes coming out of Portugal in January especially were absolutely horrific. As is the death toll. Look at the Economist excess death tracker and Portugal by the 7th February had passed the grim milestone of over 2000 deaths per million, with 201 per 100k - by that point their excess deaths were 50% higher than their reported deaths.
Yet in Portugal according to Statista they've had a month later "just" 1618 deaths per million, despite a month earlier over 2000 excess deaths per million had already occured. I suppose nobody died in the past month (not true) and 400 people per million magically died of spontaneous combustion unrelated to the pandemic according to you.
It couldn't possibly be because the Portugese aren't testing very well and don't have a clue how many positive tests they've actually got, can it? The higher the positivity rate the more out of control the pandemic and the more cases being missed. The WHO says positivity in testing above 5% shows a countries pandemic is out of control and cases are being missed, I suppose in your Trumpian "alternate facts" universe the Portugese have as firm grip of testing like the UK? Lets look at positivity rates for the entire second wave and see how it compares? The UK lost control in January which is why we went into lockdown, have the Portugese got lower positivity this wave?
https://i.ibb.co/NmNzFJH/image.png
Oh. :rolleyes:
The entire second wave, from September to March, the Portugese testing has not had a clue who actually has Covid which is why they're missing many hundreds of deaths per million. Garbage in, garbage out. Stop using Statista it is shit. If you think Portugal has a lower death toll than the UK I have a bridge to sell you.
Your entire premise comprehensively demolished because you were using dodgy data.
I feel like this is a time when I should dust off my moderator hat, but since nobody's complained and it's about nothing of consequence I'm content to let it play out.
https://uncyclopedia.ca/w/images/3/3...nife_fight.jpg
I felt like there would be a conflict of interesting in me dusting off my moderator's hat but this conversation must be nearing an end now. Now he's nailed his colours to the Statista mast and its been comprehensively demolished I'm sure Aimless is about to bow down before my superior intellect rather than defend the notion that about 500 people per million in Portugal have magically and spontaneously died but shouldn't be counted for some magical reasons that have nothing to do with either the pandemic, the terrible news stories about Portugal about the pandemic, nor the fact their testing has failed.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/15BuyagtKucHm/200.gif
That is why I encouraged you to explain how you feel the numbers should be adjusted. You see, unlike you—a functionally illiterate idiot—I am aware of the limitations of data sources. Do you remember when you thought you would enlighten me about the "facts" and then clowned yourself by presenting the death certificate figure as the dead-within-28-days figure because you didn't realize that was what your own source was reporting and was too illiterate to notice it even though you had a large screenshot showing you your mistake?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The best estimate we have of the UK's covid death toll is from death certificates, which works out to roughly 2167/million. Because of issues with death certificate data, this is almost certainly an undercount, but we can go with it. The UK's dead-within-28-days figure is around 125k, which works out to roughly 1894/million. Your officially reported test-based figure is, in other words, around 14% lower than your more plausible death certificate-based figure. Because some other countries may be worse at accurately attributing deaths, we can give them a 28% penalty—with the exception of Belgium, for which we have death certificate data that includes both confirmed and suspected covid deaths. The US also reports provisional data based on death certificates, but I'll give them the same steep penalty, just to be nice to you.Quote:
Take just one example: Portugal.
The UK's NHS never collapsed but like Italy, very sadly, the Portugese one did. The scenes coming out of Portugal in January especially were absolutely horrific. As is the death toll. Look at the Economist excess death tracker and Portugal by the 7th February had passed the grim milestone of over 2000 deaths per million, with 201 per 100k - by that point their excess deaths were 50% higher than their reported deaths.
Yet in Portugal according to Statista they've had a month later "just" 1618 deaths per million, despite a month earlier over 2000 excess deaths per million had already occured. I suppose nobody died in the past month (not true) and 400 people per million magically died of spontaneous combustion unrelated to the pandemic according to you.
For western countries, the ranking is (approximately) as follows:
UK - 2167/million
Italy - 2140/million
Portugal - 2071/million
USA - 2048/million
Belgium - 1946/million
It's very difficult to change the rankings to the point of knocking the UK out of the top 5 for western countries. You have to make extremely implausible assumptions about several other western countries' data for that to happen. You have presented no compelling evidence to show that the UK should currently be in 6th place or lower, wrt covid deaths per capita.
This is a misunderstanding of the utility of the test positivity statistic. Test positivity rate is helpful for guiding interventions aimed at reducing community transmission; it is an epidemic control tool. High test positivity rates imply—with caveats—a higher-than-ideal level of community transmission, with many cases being missed. However, they do not imply that a substantial number of covid deaths are being missed. The vast overwhelming majority of people who test positive for covid do not die—esp. among community-dwelling adults.Quote:
It couldn't possibly be because the Portugese aren't testing very well and don't have a clue how many positive tests they've actually got, can it? The higher the positivity rate the more out of control the pandemic and the more cases being missed. The WHO says positivity in testing above 5% shows a countries pandemic is out of control and cases are being missed, I suppose in your Trumpian "alternate facts" universe the Portugese have as firm grip of testing like the UK? Lets look at positivity rates for the entire second wave and see how it compares? The UK lost control in January which is why we went into lockdown, have the Portugese got lower positivity this wave?
I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue. You should go back and re-read (sorry, read) this exchange. What has been demolished are your claims that the UK is overcounting deaths due to the dead-by-28-days definition (fact: the death toll calculated using that definition is almost exactly the same as excess deaths, and substantially lower than the more plausible but still lower-than-reality death certificate figure); that the UK has seen 140k deaths due to that definition (fact: that is the figure based on the death certificate data, and you were using dodgy data that you did not understand); that excess mortality is a useful metric for comparing countries for the purposes of assessing covid death toll (facts: excess mortality can't attribute specific causes of death, and underestimates likely covid death toll in several countries—such as in the UK and in Sweden); that Italy has only reported half of its covid deaths (fact: you were working from an out-of-date figure that you were too lazy to verify, and official covid deaths accounted for 70% of Italy's excess mortality over the course of the first two waves of the pandemic). On top of this, there are the minor but still very embarrassing brainderps like your stupid claim about The Economist's methodology, but I'll let that slide.Quote:
Your entire premise comprehensively demolished because you were using dodgy data.
RB, you simply do not know what you're talking about. It's sad but 100% true. It was true when you were trying to debate vaccine studies. It was true when you were trying to defend the UK govt's pro-covid policies. It's even more true now, when you can't even keep track of where your data is coming from and what it says.
Oh dear you fool you are flinging mud so fast as you have no credibility and no integrity. :haha:
So after sharing the bullshit of Statista and it was comprehensively demolished, it was good to see you apologise and own your mistake, admit that Statista is dodgy like I'd told you. Oh wait, you didn't do that.
OK then, instead it was good to see you defend Statista that you had only just cited and explain why the Portugese figures are not dodgy. Oh wait, you didn't do that.
You think that you can get away with these lies? Nice try.
You claimed Statista was reliable. You claimed these comparisons were reliable. I already explained why, you dug your heels in. For what?
So again: Is the notion that Portugal has 1618 deaths per million reliable? Is that comparable to the UK figure?
Instead you're trying to throw around BS now about death certificates and putting the spotlight on Britain, because you have a permanently erect dick for Britain. Nice try but no. You claimed 1618 deaths per million for Portugal by March was your reliable figure to compare with, despite over 2000 excess deaths per million being recorded a month earlier. Don't try and move it on to Britain or anything else, do you admit that this Statista bullshit is dodgy fake data, or do you intend to defend the data as reliable?
I'm sorry, where have I claimed that? Unlike you, I have gone to the individual countries' official sources. It turns out that, for most western countries, Statista—and other sources such as OWiD—reports the official figures, whereas, for the UK, they only report the much lower dead-within-28-days figure. Meanwhile, you explicitly claimed the UK was overcounting deaths due to using a dead-within-28-days definition, and I showed you that this is untrue—both the claim that the UK is overcounting deaths, as well as what you claimed was the death toll using that figure. So where is your apology for being a lazy and sloppy idiot, RB? Where is you acknowledgement that what you claimed was the figure for the overcounted dead-within-28-days figure was actually the death certificate figure? And that the actual dead-within-28-days figure is about the same as the excess deaths figure, both of which represent undercounts of the covid death toll?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You confidently constructed a stupid argument based on stats that were demonstrably wrong—not even suspect but flat out wrong according to your own government as well as your own sources. Where is your apology, you ludicrous clown? Never mind—an apology has no real value; I just want you to read and to be less sloppy. Can you do that? Or are you going to keep citing the wrong numbers without knowing where they're from and what they represent?
As I explained to you, accounting for even massive ~30% error—and giving the US a double penalty—doesn't change the rankings substantially. I have even shown you that this is the case. You can see the adjusted numbers—incl. for Portugal—above. I have also explained to you why and how you are misunderstanding excess death data. You keep talking about "fake" data like a dumbass who doesn't understand what the data represents.Quote:
So again: Is the notion that Portugal has 1618 deaths per million reliable? Is that comparable to the UK figure?
Instead you're trying to throw around BS now about death certificates and putting the spotlight on Britain, because you have a permanently erect dick for Britain. Nice try but no. You claimed 1618 deaths per million for Portugal by March was your reliable figure to compare with, despite over 2000 excess deaths per million being recorded a month earlier. Don't try and move it on to Britain or anything else, do you admit that this is dodgy fake data, or do you intend to defend the data as reliable?
Sorry but Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Is the Statista data reliable, yes or no? Is 1618 reliable for Portugal, yes or no?
I explained patiently to you why the data was unreliable yet you insisted upon making comparisons with it. Now you're trying save face by pretending you can "fix" the errors by adding 30% and acting like that still leaves Britain in the top 5. That's erroneous for three reasons: you were still wrong, many countries are out by more than 30% indeed Portugal were out by 50% as I told you - and adding 30% puts nearly the entire Top 20 higher. Which incidentally brings the two tables back into line ironically. So you've in a roundabout way converted your table . . . back into the real one.
But lets get to the root of the issue: Is 1618 a reliable figure for Portugal? Despite their excess deaths per million having passed 2000 over a month earlier? Or is it unreliable?
All data has limitations. That is why you have to understand how the data was derived, what it represents, what it can and can't tell you. For example, you have to understand what the death toll is for the UK if you use the dead-within-28-days definition, and what the death toll is if you look at death certificates. I remind you once again that you did not understand this, and made a fucking ass of yourself by confidently portraying the latter number as if it were a massive overcount due to counting deaths within 28 days of a positive test.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Now, you keep babbling like a dull-witted orange child about how awful Statista is, but you've been more than happy to use figures from Our World in Data. So what does Our World in Data tell us about the rankings of western countries like the UK?
This:
https://i.imgur.com/zh70NCo.png
By and large, the same figures and same ranking as on Statista—with the same advantage for the UK due to reporting the undercount of covid deaths that results from using the dead-within-28-days definition rather than the more plausible death certificate data. The reason is that the two sites use the same sources for covid deaths, for these countries. So why are you sharing bullshit data from OWiD, RB? Why do you think OWiD is reliable but not Statista, when they provide the same figures for covid death tolls?
The reason is that you—being an idiot—don't understand what a primary source is, and you don't understand the data from these sources. All you're trying to do is to figure out whose "team" a particular figure is on. Figures on the UK's "team" are "good", and figures on Portugal's "team" are "bad". But numbers don't have teams.
Now, you said something incredibly stupid in your post about "fixing" errors by adding 30%, but that is not what I did. What I did was show you that, even if we make assumptions about the data that are incredibly favourable to the UK and very unfavourable to other western countries, the UK remains among the top 5 comparable western countries wrt covid deaths per capita. You insist that Portugal's figures leave off half of their covid deaths, and then suggest that their actual per capita covid death rate should be 2000/million. But 1618/million is not half of 2000/million. Even if Portugal's true per capita covid death rate were 2000/million, the UK's own data—death certificate data reported by the ONS—indicates that the UK's true per capita death rate is at least 2167/million—ie. still higher than Portugal's. Do you believe Belgium, Italy, and the US are also only reporting half their covid deaths as such? You have no evidence to support that claim. The point is that, whatever you believe about the accuracy of the data from comparable western countries, a reasonable tally will still see the UK somewhere in the top 5 wrt covid deaths per capita; that's just how the numbers will work out, unless you start making genuinely outlandish assumptions about the stats from half a dozen western countries—assumptions that you cannot justify, because there is no compelling data to justify them. You can check for yourself. I penalized three of the other countries twice as hard as the UK—unfairly hard, in the case of the US, given that they're reporting suspected deaths as well—and the UK still ended up on top among large western nations. It remains there even if you move Spain into the list and knock out Belgium. Try any configuration you like. Report your results here. I await your findings with bated breath.
Liar, liar pants on fire.
You have no integrity. You disputed the data is dodgy. Excess deaths were over 2000 by the start of February, but is supposedly 1618 now - Is the 1618 Portugese deaths legitimate or flawed? Simply question, legitimate or flawed?
You're not bullshitting anyone.
I can address your other bullshit once you actually answer a straight question with a straight answer. Because you've dug yourself into a hole and you know it.
What? Do you even know what you're trying to say, at this point? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The two figures do not denote the same thing, so it's dumb as fuck to compare them in that manner. 1618/million is almost certainly an undercount; it is, however, almost certainly not half the true death toll as you claim—like an idiot—that it is. The UK's per capita death toll is at least 2167/million. If 2000/million is accurate for Portugal, then the UK has done worse than Portugal, based on the UK's own statistics. Even if that weren't the case, the UK would still be among the top 5 nations wrt covid deaths per capita. The UK's dead-within-28-days figure is an undercount of total covid deaths; your claim that it results in an overcount is demonstrably false, and stupid to boot—what you thought was the exaggerated dead-within-28-days estimate is, in fact, the more plausible (but still too low) death certificate figure; you were just too sloppy to check what numbers you were using. That's as simple as I can make it for you; you being a simpleton doesn't make the world simple—it just makes the world difficult for you to comprehend.Quote:
Excess deaths were over 2000 by the start of February, but is supposedly 1618 now - Is the 1618 Portugese deaths legitimate or flawed? Simply question, legitimate or flawed?
Mate, I've demonstrated very clearly how stupid you're being. As a matter of fact, you yourself have demonstrated how stupid you are—eg. when you got your own numbers mixed up like an illiterate fucking clown. You can "address" these points, but, like my friend in the story about him and the surgeon, your ability to address anything is limited—because you're too stupid, too ignorant, too lazy and too sloppy to understand the things you're attempting to "address". So who would it benefit? You would just be pulling more ignorant shit out of your ass and wasting my time like you always do because you're too dumb to understand how dumb you are. Knock yourself out. Keep trying to play with numbers that you don't understand. I'm done, and I will now leave you to continue demonstrating how fucking dumb you are all on your own. This behaviour of yours is dysfunctional, and I won't let it waste any more of my time and energy.Quote:
You're not bullshitting anyone.
I can address your other bullshit once you actually answer a straight question with a straight answer. Because you've dug yourself into a hole and you know it.
There we have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You can spew a wall of text because you're trying to hide your embarrassment but you lose. It has taken you all day but you have finally acknowledged what I already told you pages ago - the statistics on that site are wrong. Undercounts are wrong and that is the end of the matter. If you know the data is wrong then it is completely dishonest and improper to compare them.
Making political points out of data that you know to be an undercount is dishonest and that is all there is to say on the matter.
Come back when you have some figures with integrity. But figures with integrity won't suit your agenda.
BTW since you keep claiming that others don't read, simply because they disagree with you, it seems either you don't read or can't do basic mathematics.
You've dug in a few times saying that I said that Portugal were reporting "half the true death toll" which is not what I said. What I said was "excess deaths were 50% higher than their reported deaths."
Do you actually believe adding half to a lower figure is the same as taking half away from the higher figure? Do you not understand the difference between those concepts?
If I add 50% to 10, then halve the answer, am I back at 10?
https://i.imgur.com/Yo67DrO.png
There was blood everywhere so I think I might be doing the half-dose-full-dose protocol. It's a bit unfortunate that investigators at regional & municipal authorities haven't already coordinated studies to see whether simple measures like prophylactic paracetamol use can prevent post-vaccination symptoms severe enough to keep personnel from coming to work, and whether people with each resp. reaction type have something in common wrt heritable components of the immune system, or pre-existing immunity towards some part of the vector, or pre-existing immunity to covid, or whatever. Around 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 are still getting knocked out for 1-3 days by the first AZN dose; either implausible and fishy, or real and important. Unpublished findings indicating 80% of the covid patients at my hospital r n may have the English B1.1.7 aka colonialist covid variant, which fits well with a scenario where my region had good epidemic control until this variant was recently brought to a nearby worksite with hundreds of workers living and working under unsafe conditions. One school here has closed due to a major outbreak among teachers, and a few schools in other parts of Sweden have closed or are closing in anticipation of outbreaks after people return from their skiing trips. Swedish schools continue to chastise or outright punish students and teachers who choose to wear face masks at school, because, well, of course.
Glad you got your vaccine :up:
What!? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It's almost comical. Feels like almost every week there's a story of some teacher or student who's been told off for wearing a face mask at school, justified by a load of nonsensical arguments ranging from masks not being necessary (fair enough, that's what our official recs indicate—but they aren't supposed to be prohibited, either) to masks being bad (either for education/communication/sense of safety or because they're outright dangerous from an infection risk perspective). During much of the first wave, personnel at care homes and even at hospitals were told off—or outright threatened with dismissal—for using masks except when working with patients who had a confirmed covid diagnosis and were clearly symptomatic. From a sociological perspective, it's very interesting; from a not wanting people to die unnecessarily perspective, not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
This week I finally got (politely) told off by a customer for wasting their time with the disinfection protocols we have. I've been expecting it long before now. I equally politely reminded the customer that the protocols weren't just for their benefit but ours as well and watched them fume and look for new things to gripe at me about for the rest of the interaction.
https://amp.ft.com/content/8e2e994e-...c-31becd2ae0a8
Hazir, Flixy, and Ziggy, I'm gonna need y'all to pay Halix a visit and ask them to submit their paperwork. "Best efforts"/"on track" this ain't.Quote:
Last week Breton visited the Halix facility — which should produce at least 5m doses a month — as part of a tour of European vaccine manufacturing sites. Discussions over regulatory approval for the plant from the European Medicines Agency to supply the EU market were ongoing, the officials said.
Asked about the Halix situation, the commission said on Friday that the EMA was ready to fast-track authorisation of new production facilities once it received an application and the necessary information from AstraZeneca. “It is, however, the responsibility of the company to request plants to be covered by a marketing authorisation and to submit all necessary data to that effect,” it said. “The commission encourages the company to do so.”
You're still buying into conspiracy theories? :haha:
Its almost as if not paying much money and signing contracts months late has an impact. Who could have foreseen that?
Just learned that my last living uncle is in the ICU with covid—awake but on the brink. One of my two remaining aunts is hospitalized. Youngest aunt died recently; now her husband is also hospitalized. All doctors. The situation in Bangladesh is much more dire than it was last year, and my family is being crushed.
That's terrible. It's sad to see how little either the governments of many developing states or the international community is doing to stop the deaths of millions. When all is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if we find out tens of millions died, many of them thanks to incompetence and political opportunism.
That's terrible Aimless, hope he makes a recovery.
Limited scope to do much in Bangladesh, beyond lockdowns. Even with much more testing, they're screwed. PPE shortage difficult to make up for. Incredibly frustrating to see Great Barrington Declaration eggheads going on about how the cure is worse than the disease, for developing nations, without any regard for how bad the disease is—and how limited the resources are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So much for all the Covid-denying idiots banging on about "false positives".
https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads...6y5v13nfdb.png
I don't know about Bangladesh, but too many countries are claiming that local medicines will cure Covid, which has led to highly irresponsible behavior. And while I'm aware social distancing isn't always possible, many aren't even trying. I don't think getting cheap paper masks to most people would be impossible either, at least in major urban areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless