The UK now has lower case rates than all ten of the highest population EU countries.
Which is even more remarkable when you consider how stunning our test and trace is now and just how many tests are going on here to find these cases.
The UK now has lower case rates than all ten of the highest population EU countries.
Which is even more remarkable when you consider how stunning our test and trace is now and just how many tests are going on here to find these cases.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Over the past two months, we've had (on average) 1 case of Wernicke encephalopathy per week, where we'd expect to see several weeks or occasionally months between cases. All men in their 50s and 60s, all clearly associated with alcohol abuse, almost all with excellent response to treatment—but all with more severe symptoms at presentation than we usually see. This is a smallish town with a young, healthy, educated and mostly middle-class population, so a streak like this is very unexpected; in the 9 years that I've worked here, I can't recall a single year in which we've seen so many people with this condition in such a short time—not even last spring. Gonna try to see if I can get some info at the regional & national levels, but it's gonna be difficult due to inconsistent coding.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I thought you had condemned Lewk for treating covid as a league sport.
It is not a league sport it is far more serious than that. I was never against pointing out that eg states in the USA that were refusing lockdowns etc were having higher rates than the high population density states that had been hit hard first.
Lewk was misreading figures that were an accident of geography since he didn't understand the significance of population density etc, then when pointed out he'd dismiss it as if population density was a State's "fault".
That the UK despite having one of the highest population density of all now has lower rates now is not an accident of geography, it is not a coincidence, it is because the UK in 2021 [and in its procurement decisions made in 2020] is handling the pandemic far, far better than our neighbours are because the 4 governments in this country are following different policies that work. Which is why we are defeating the virus, and they are saying lies about catching up with the UK. The grim reality is that lies don't save lives, vaccines do, and the EU have not caught up with the UK that was a pathetic lie. If the EU had really caught up with the UK they'd be eliminating the virus like we are.
The sooner countries in Europe put their arrogance to one side, adopt our methods that work, the sooner this virus can be behind us and lives can be saved.
Some functional steps that can be done to save lives.
- Countries need to fix the procurement mistakes by seeking to purchase vaccines by any means necessary, at any price.
- Holding back vaccine for second doses is absolute insanity. If you have a vaccine dose available, use it. Second doses should come from future supply, not current supply.
- A first dose alone provides 80% protection, two doses give 95% protection. Halt doing second doses until all the vulnerable have had a first dose.
- Face saving should not come before life saving.
For what its worth even if the EU adopt these policies today they'll have lost close to 3 months so will take 3 more months to catch up with the UK. A wasted Quarter that will cost many tens of billions more in cash and tens of thousands of lives more than what they saved by penny pinching on vaccine procurement. But at least they will make progress and possibly quite rapidly. But instead they're still twisting in the wind with spin and lies to save face rather than learn lessons.
Still talking out of your ass as if your government didn't implement deadly policies—that you supported—leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Also point 1 is a bit odd since that would go at the expense of other countries (supply us limited), and if I recall correctly he was upset when EU flexed some muscle preventing export of vaccines. Yet now it seems like that's what he wants? Would make sense though considering he applauds the UK getting vaccines produced in the EU to make up for lost production in the UK (threatening repercussions if they don't).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You're right, it didn't. There's a deadly pandemic going on so deaths are almost inevitable and no western high population density highly connected nation has escapted unscathed, but vaccinations are the route out and we're doing it.Still talking out of your ass as if your government didn't implement deadly policies—that you supported—leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people
Supply is limited if there is limited investment. Invest more on producing vaccines sooner and more vaccines can be produced. Trying to steal vaccines bought and paid for by the investment of others is not the same as investing sufficiently yourself.
Splashing the cash to invest in and buy vaccines is different to trying to steal the vaccines others have paid for. The only people who have engaged in conspiracy theories or threatened repercussions is the EU to cover up for the fact that they chose to penny pinch on investing in vaccinations and were boasting that they'd spent months more to negotiate paying less per dose without comprehending the nature of first come, first served.
Penny pinching on vaccinations does not work.
There comes a point at which the nonsense becomes too much, too convoluted, and too time-consuming to address.
Judging from discussions within the medical community here in Sweden, we have a massive wave of working-age adults—as well as a not-insignificant number of children and adolescents—with a broad range of more or less severe post-covid issues heading our way. Countries that failed to protect these groups—and esp. countries that implemented policies that actively facilitated infections in these groups—are going to pay for those failures of leadership for a long time to come. I thought at first that this would be an esp. big challenge for my specialty, but we're seeing issues crop up in a variety of specialties, and primary care physicians are absolutely swamped ofc. Our healthcare & social security systems are not equipped to deal with what's coming, as things currently stand; neither are any other country's healthcare & social security systems, tbh.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You mean there comes a point where the facts are so unequivocal you can't bullshit and lie your way out of them anymore?
But don't worry, the UK fucked this up and the EU has "caught up" with the UK hasn't it? Because that wasn't a complete and utter lie, was it?
What pathetic spin. In comparison to similar countries, your country is doing uniquely poorly wrt deaths and infections, and a very large proportion of that poor performance can be attributed to deadly—and stupid—decisions that you yourself enthusiastically supported in a breathtaking display of partisan psychosis. You were told what the consequences would be, but you cared more about upholding political spin and saving face—and pretending you knew what you were talking about—than about saving lives. Sad and gross
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Remember my story about my friend and the surgeon
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Absolutely untrue. On current infections and deaths the UK is doing far better than comparable countries, thanks to wisely not penny pinching on vaccines and not wasting them on second doses or even more gross keeping them in fridges for three weeks then using them on second doses.What pathetic spin. In comparison to similar countries, your country is doing uniquely poorly wrt deaths and infections, and a very large proportion of that poor performance can be attributed to deadly—and stupid—decisions that you yourself enthusiastically supported in a breathtaking display of partisan psychosis. You were told what the consequences would be, but you cared more about upholding political spin and saving face—and pretending you knew what you were talking about
On overall excess deaths its not a league sport, but the UK is doing comparable to other high population density western nations. Despite the Kent Covid variant evolving here when the UK had lower rates and lower excess deaths at the time than other comparable nations.
How do you possibly define the UK as doing uniquely poorly? Or are you not aware that the UK is rather uniquely actually measuring deaths accurately (indeed we're overmeasuring them) when other nations are not?
I think you need to listen to your own story about your friend and the surgeon as you're falling for spin and lies hook, line and sinker.
Eerily Aimless won't say a word about this absolutely tragic, will lead to deaths and has been fed by the lies from EU leaders.
Twitter Link
This is the outcome of having a lack of integrity. What a tragedy.
Especially in France with Macron feeding antivax conspiracy loons dismissing vaccines authorised by the EMA as "ineffective".
Lmao you sneaky little fucker
Deaths, hospitalizations, ICU-admissions, and cases per capita, over the course of the pandemic, compared to other similar nations as well as compared to plausible counterfactual scenarios with different policy decisions.How do you possibly define the UK as doing uniquely poorly?
You're not "overmeasuring" deaths.Or are you not aware that the UK is rather uniquely actually measuring deaths accurately (indeed we're overmeasuring them) when other nations are not?
Sadly, the point of the story strongly suggests that your advice re. the story is probably worthlessI think you need to listen to your own story about your friend and the surgeon as you're falling for spin and lies hook, line and sinker.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Seems you don't have a foggiest what you're talking about.
Go on then provide facts and figures to substantiate your preposterous lies. Which countries do you think are comparable to the UK in ways that matter - ie population density, age profile, levels of obesity etc - and please provide the "deaths" figures you're using for them to justify the claim the UK has done "uniquely" badly. Facts and figures please, because it seems you don't understand them.
Sadly, this discrepancy between confidence in Pfizer's and AZN's vaccines is primarily a consequence of AZN's clumsy trial designs and messy reporting, in combination with pre-existing vaccine skepticism that has been amplified by irresponsible journalism. Nobody outside France cares about Macron's statements, and nobody in France is going to have their already skeptical attitudes to vaccination influenced by Macron. Antivaxx sentiments are spread and fueled by existing groups and networks whose impact is independent of and far greater than whatever some national leader in another country may have said. It should be noted that Macron's statements were criticized by representatives of other EU member states, in Brussels. Do you think antivaxx conspiracy loons would've gotten vaccinated if only Macron hadn't irresponsibly criticized a specific vaccine? Having spent a decade grappling with the Swedish antivaxx movement—and helping to assuage patients' concerns about vaccines—I can say that I don't buy that simplistic view at all.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yeah the irresponsible German lies to Handelsblatt etc then the German government overturning the EMA approving a vaccine for approved for all ages had absolutely no impact.
I know you're having a difficult time in the coalface but you've really gone off the deep end and can't see the wood for the trees now. Probably why you thought the EU had caught up with the UK on vaccines.
I think it's best if you first start by explaining your strange position that the UK is "overmeasuring" deaths. That way we can reach a consensus on a key aspect of the comparison, before proceeding. In addition, I think you should first present evidence that any particular population density measure is particularly relevant to the comparison at the population level—and the same for age profile, obesity and "etc". Why should these things be taken into consideration at all, and in what way should we adjust for them? These are important questions to answer before trying to make a meaningful comparison.Seems you don't have a foggiest what you're talking about.
Go on then provide facts and figures to substantiate your preposterous lies. Which countries do you think are comparable to the UK in ways that matter - ie population density, age profile, levels of obesity etc - and please provide the "deaths" figures you're using for them to justify the claim the UK has done "uniquely" badly. Facts and figures please, because it seems you don't understand them.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I literally said "amplified by irresponsible journalism" in my post you illiterate buffoon. It's right there in my post. "Irresponsible journalism" is a reference to the Handelsblatt incident, in which an unknown source provided a very dubious and harmful bit of information that was not adequately vetted. What "etc" are you referring to wrt "German lies"? Which lies have been told by "Germans" to "etc"? You mentioned EU leaders. Which German leader provided Handelsblatt with that misleading figure and forced Handelsblatt to publish it without adequate vetting?
The German government didn't "overturn" an EMA approval; Germany's equivalent to the MHRA recommended against deploying Astrazeneca's vaccine among the elderly, pending more data, acknowledging the same issue the EMA had identified wrt the insufficient data on efficacy in that age group. That is what I acknowledged in my post, in my reference to "AZN's clumsy trial designs and messy reporting". The issue could have easily been avoided if AZN had set up trials with more people in the relevant age-group—as their competitors did.then the German government overturning the EMA approving a vaccine for approved for all ages had absolutely no impact.
I again refer you to my story about my friend and the surgeon. See, the problem here is that you, being functionally illiterate and a little dim, are not capable of understanding what was said—now or then.I know you're having a difficult time in the coalface but you've really gone off the deep end and can't see the wood for the trees now. Probably why you thought the EU had caught up with the UK on vaccines.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In case you were not aware here are some basic facts for you.
- The UK "official" death tally is deaths with Covid, not deaths from Covid. Even if someone tests positive, is asymptomatic or makes a full recovery, then dies of natural causes or from a road traffic collision 27 days later they're still counted as a Covid death. I agree that there's an accurate way to look at real figures and I said excess deaths, which pretty much everyone at the start said was the gold standard. What are you using or preferring instead?
- You want evidence that population density affects viral transmission? Seriously? I refer you back to the past 100 pages of this thread and countless evidence worldwide.
- You want evidence age profile affects mortality? Refer to WHO advice from over a year ago now, the past 100 pages of this thread and countless studies worldwide.
- You want evidence obesity affects mortality? As above though not quite 100 pages but countless studies and concrete evidence known since at least last summer.
So go on then. Do you accept excess deaths as the gold standard or something else you'd rather use instead? And were you unaware UK figures are otherwise "with" and not "from" Covid? Oops that's embarrassing for you.
Or have you got an agenda? Since you claimed deaths were unique you must have had a metric, what is it?
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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
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.
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.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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?
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.
- 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!
- 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.
Last edited by RandBlade; 03-11-2021 at 05:53 AM.
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.[*]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?
[...] 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!
[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[...] 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://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
You should provide your sources for these figures, because I suspect you're doing something wrong.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://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.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.Is this backed up by looking at neutral sources like excess deaths instead? Idiot.
Russia is not a western nation and not comparable to the UK, so you're the one being an idiotRussia 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.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.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?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.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.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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So you are digging in to dodgy data with zero credibility. Got you.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
