Zero Excess COVID Deaths, How They're Twisting the Numbers

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Fine...whats the percent of actual Covid deaths then? I didnt see that in any of these aforementioned sources.

And I am not talking about a main contributing factor...actual main factor. It an important difference, otherwise its like saying shark attacks are the main contributing factor of drowning.




.
a reply to: [post=25585219]ScepticScot[/post

ONS figures put Covid as a contributing factor in about 11% of UK deaths so far this year.

That obviously understates it as is full.year figures versus shorter period covid had been wide spread.

OK....11% aint much, especially given that the ONS relies on death tags by doctors...many of whom are not even in contact with the patient at the time of death.

And again....its only a contributing factor, not the actual cause. What percentage of that 11% is the ACTUAL cause?

I feel like you are not trying to be honest here man. Gimme actual primary cause of death as Covid, and THEN we can talk excess deaths properly.



a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: lakenheath24
OK....11% aint much, especially given that the ONS relies on death tags by doctors...many of whom are not even in contact with the patient at the time of death.

And again....its only a contributing factor, not the actual cause. What percentage of that 11% is the ACTUAL cause?

I feel like you are not trying to be honest here man. Gimme actual primary cause of death as Covid, and THEN we can talk excess deaths properly.



a reply to: ScepticScot

Since we don't live in an alternative universe where people only die of one thing that is sadly not possible.

What we do know is that excess deaths figure (which does not rely on any test or doctors opinion) is pretty close to where Covid is recorded on the death certificate.

So people don't die of just cancer or Parkinson's? They gotta get hit by a car to make it official?

And if cancer can be a primary cause on the death certificate...why cant Covid be?

BTW the excess deaths figure damn well depends on a doctors opinion as he or she writes the death certificate.


And as a previous poster pointed out...normal hospital visits are down.......36% on average pre-covid. How many of those ended in deaths? Are those counted as Covid related?! LOL


www.health.org.uk...











a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: lakenheath24

People don't just die of Covid. That's not how viruses work. It leads to other body system failures which kill you, most commonly pneumonia and acute respiratory failure. So a death certificate that only lists covid as the cause of death would be an improperly filled out death certificate.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
So people don't die of just cancer or Parkinson's? They gotta get hit by a car to make it official?

And if cancer can be a primary cause on the death certificate...why cant Covid be?

BTW the excess deaths figure damn well depends on a doctors opinion as he or she writes the death certificate.


And as a previous poster pointed out...normal hospital visits are down.......36% on average pre-covid. How many of those ended in deaths? Are those counted as Covid related?! LOL


www.health.org.uk...











a reply to: ScepticScot

Excess deaths don't depend on an doctors opinion other than their opinion on is the person dead or not. I would hope they get that right most the time...

As already pointed out if the excess deaths were caused by lockdown we would expect them to increase as lockdown went on. The opposite is true.

Gee, no kidding?

That was not my original argument. The Gov has been counting anyone who has had Covid as a Covid death, up to 60, and now 28 days AFTER a positive test. This was true in 33% of cases.

The point is that these so called excess deaths cannot be legitimately connected to Covid as a PRIMARY cause of death due to said government using any death certificate with Covid mentioned as a Covid death.


Its absurd.




a reply to: LordAhriman

Really?

You sure bout that?

"The updated guidance for doctors on completing medical certificates of cause of death in England and Wales states: "There is no clear legal definition of attended", but it is generally accepted to mean a doctor who has cared for the patient during the illness that led to death and so is familiar with the patient's medical history, investigations and treatment. For the purposes of the emergency period, the attendance may be in person, via video/visual consultation, but not audio (e.g. via telephone). The certifying doctor should also have access to relevant medical records and the results of investigations.

The guidance goes on to state that where the certifying doctor has not seen the deceased before death, they should delete the words 'last seen by me'. If the patient was seen by another medical practitioner within the last 28 days, but not the certifying doctor, that doctor's name should be included on the MCCD."

www.themdu.com...

Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Really?

You sure bout that?

"The updated guidance for doctors on completing medical certificates of cause of death in England and Wales states: "There is no clear legal definition of attended", but it is generally accepted to mean a doctor who has cared for the patient during the illness that led to death and so is familiar with the patient's medical history, investigations and treatment. For the purposes of the emergency period, the attendance may be in person, via video/visual consultation, but not audio (e.g. via telephone). The certifying doctor should also have access to relevant medical records and the results of investigations.

The guidance goes on to state that where the certifying doctor has not seen the deceased before death, they should delete the words 'last seen by me'. If the patient was seen by another medical practitioner within the last 28 days, but not the certifying doctor, that doctor's name should be included on the MCCD."

www.themdu.com...

Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you think they are issuing death certificates for people who aren't dead?

Otherwise has no impact on excess death figures.

WTF are you on about? Seriously. Its not about IF they are dead, but HOW they died you doughnut.

Jesus H. Christ. Are you taking the piss or being for real?









a reply to: ScepticScot

a reply to: ScepticScot
Do these statistics look like they will show 2020 will have significantly more deaths?

Mortality rates for 2015 – 539,007
Mortality rates for 2016 – 524,474
Mortality rates for 2017 - 533,125
Mortality rates for 2018 - 539,340
Mortality rates for 2019 - 527,234

Mortality rates for 2020 up to November 529,928

Significant? Or a blip?

originally posted by: lakenheath24
WTF are you on about? Seriously. Its not about IF they are dead, but HOW they died you doughnut.

Jesus H. Christ. Are you taking the piss or being for real?









a reply to: ScepticScot

Read the OP.

The topic is have more people died and that is what's being discussed.

Then read your original post about testing which has nothing to do with that.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot
Do these statistics look like they will show 2020 will have significantly more deaths?

Mortality rates for 2015 – 539,007
Mortality rates for 2016 – 524,474
Mortality rates for 2017 - 533,125
Mortality rates for 2018 - 539,340
Mortality rates for 2019 - 527,234

Mortality rates for 2020 up to November 529,928

Significant? Or a blip?

Mortality figure up to mid November show 60k more deaths. So definitely more than a blip.

Dont tell me to read the OP..... some arguments are not linear, they evolve...its how you learn.....or dont in your case.








a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Dont tell me to read the OP..... some arguments are not linear, they evolve...its how you learn.....or dont in your case.








a reply to: ScepticScot

One of us certainly isn't learning

Let's recap.

The OP is false, there is an unequivocal increse in deaths in the UK.

How do we know that is predominantly caused by covid?

We have multiple strands of evidence as already covered

Testing data.
Death certificate data.
The shape of the deaths over the year corresponding with what we would expect if caused by the Virus.

Evidence it's caused by some other factor. Well pretty much zero.

Can I make it any clearer for you?

originally posted by: lakenheath24
But are they accurate?

The UK counts a death as Covid related if one dies within SIXTY DAYS of having Covid. That is insane and cannot be accurate.

From the Article
www.ft.com...

"The government has overhauled the way coronavirus death data is compiled in England after scientists revealed Public Health England had been counting people as having died from the virus regardless of when they tested positive.

The move meant the UK death toll was revised downwards by 5,377 to 41,329 on Wednesday after a review concluded the daily death figure should only include deaths which had occurred within 28 days of a positive test. The new methodology brings England in line with rest of the UK".

Following an extensive debate between government ministers and scientists over how best to record the data, a new weekly set of figures will also be published for deaths that take place within 60 days of a person reporting a positive test.




a reply to: ScepticScot

Just for reference here is your first post where you misunderstood that excess deaths has nothing to do with testing data.

a reply to: ScepticScot
OK, let's take a look, using the ONS pre calculated 5 year average:

So far in 2020 total deaths in the UK - 529,928 (up to 20th November)

Against a 5 year average which is - 469,445 (up to same date appx)

Now, if we make our own 5 year average from:
Mortality rates for 2015 – 539,007
Mortality rates for 2016 – 524,474
Mortality rates for 2017 - 533,125
Mortality rates for 2018 - 539,340
Mortality rates for 2019 - 527,234

We get 532,000.

We are currently at 529k deaths.

Do you expect another 63k deaths in December? Because that is what we will need.

So why is their 5 year average SIGNIFICANTLY lower than if we work it out ourselves using their own figures?

originally posted by: Kenzo
We need World wide disobey strategy to dismantle this idiocy.

Not saying you are right but that's not going to happen. You can't even convince enough people on a conspiracy theory site.

a reply to: and14263
Yeah, but those numbers can't be trusted. They have been inflated by 1,000% to back up the propaganda. /s

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ScepticScot
OK, let's take a look, using the ONS pre calculated 5 year average:

So far in 2020 total deaths in the UK - 529,928 (up to 20th November)

Against a 5 year average which is - 469,445 (up to same date appx)

Now, if we make our own 5 year average from:
Mortality rates for 2015 – 539,007
Mortality rates for 2016 – 524,474
Mortality rates for 2017 - 533,125
Mortality rates for 2018 - 539,340
Mortality rates for 2019 - 527,234

We get 532,000.

We are currently at 529k deaths.

Do you expect another 63k deaths in December? Because that is what we will need.

So why is their 5 year average SIGNIFICANTLY lower than if we work it out ourselves using their own figures?

The current UK figure is to week ending 13th November so 7 more weeks (13.5% of year) it sounds about right.