Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

Can somebody explain this for me because I'm a bit miffed. I'm looking at two government graphs for covid deaths. One says deaths by date reported and the other one says deaths by date of death. Yesterday, 88 people died, but 397 deaths were reported. Does that mean that there are a lot of liars reporting deaths that didn't happen, or did they suddenly find a trove of reports for deaths from 6 months ago?

Why do they always use the deaths reported number on the news rather than the number of people that actually died?

Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

The Number of deaths per day is still more or less flat-lining since 21st Oct, and it might already be dropping before the lockdown has started.

View attachment 39096

The key seems to be the delays in reporting:

"The data are published weekly by the ONS, NRS and NISRA and there is a lag in reporting of at least 11 days because the data are based on death registrations."

Added to that is that there's several ways of reporting the deaths, such as:

Deaths reported

Deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

Deaths with Covid-19 mentioned on the death certificate.

Number of Weekly deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes.

Etc.

 

[vfr400]

There's another one that doesn't make sense to me either. It says 41,748 people died in England within 28 days of being tested positive, yet there are 51,844 with Covid as the cause on the death certificate. Logic would say that 10,000 (20% of all covid deaths) must have died after 28 days of their test or they were never tested but still diagnosed with covid based on their symptoms; however, a lot of people, who tested positive, died of other causes, like car accidents, suicide, cancer and things like that, so I would expect that number to be higher.

If somebody kills themselves because of their despair from the lockdown, does that count as a covid death? Should it?

 

[Danidl]

The key seems to be the delays in reporting:

"The data are published weekly by the ONS, NRS and NISRA and there is a lag in reporting of at least 11 days because the data are based on death registrations."

Added to that is that there's several ways of reporting the deaths, such as:

Deaths reported

Deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

Deaths with Covid-19 mentioned on the death certificate.

Number of Weekly deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes.

Etc.

I cannot answer for the UK, because a lot of the practices seem bizzare. What happens here is that any death where CV19, is the major contributor are listed as such. They are recorded in the statistics as the day they are notified, not necessarily the date of death. We have no 28 day rule, ..which only made sense in April. Then as and if pathology identifies other causes ..and these can be weeks later, they are denotified. Likewise in the April period, a number of CV19 deaths were not recorded for a while , there was a glitch in a hospital records system, and were then notified in a single batch..This created an enormous spike in the data for that day.

 

[Woosh]

There's another one that doesn't make sense to me either. It says 41,748 people died in England within 28 days of being tested positive, yet there are 51,844 with Covid as the cause on the death certificate. Logic would say that 10,000 (20% of all covid deaths) must have died after 28 days of their test or they were never tested but still diagnosed with covid based on their symptoms; however, a lot of people, who tested positive, died of other causes, like car accidents, suicide, cancer and things like that, so I would expect that number to be higher.

If somebody kills themselves because of their despair from the lockdown, does that count as a covid death? Should it?

if the doctor writes on the death certificate 'covid' and the person has tested positive for Covid in the previous 28 days the NHS and ONS will count him/her in their statistics. If the person died of Covid before a test then their death is only counted by the ONS. You have to use the ONS number for Covid deaths. The NHS number will always be smaller, good only for government presentation.

 

[vfr400]

The key seems to be the delays in reporting:

"The data are published weekly by the ONS, NRS and NISRA and there is a lag in reporting of at least 11 days because the data are based on death registrations."

Added to that is that there's several ways of reporting the deaths, such as:

Deaths reported

Deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

Deaths with Covid-19 mentioned on the death certificate.

Number of Weekly deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes.

Etc.

That sort of makes sense, but I've been watching the graph of deaths by date of death and I can't see any significant increase in any of the columns since 21st Oct. I have seen that the most recent columns start low, then rise up to the level of the rest, They made a big fuss about those 397 deaths as if it were something new, but AFAICS, they weren't significantly recent deaths. A large proportion of them probably were carried over from the weekend, which is always low. Call me cynical if you want, but I think this is just twisted data.

 

[flecc]

That sort of makes sense, but I've been watching the graph of deaths by date of death and I can't see any significant increase in any of the columns since 21st Oct. I have seen that the most recent columns start low, then rise up to the level of the rest, They made a big fuss about those 397 deaths as if it were something new, but AFAICS, they weren't significantly recent deaths. A large proportion of them probably were carried over from the weekend, which is always low. Call me cynical if you want, but I think this is just twisted data.

I believe the obfuscation is deliberate, it serves the government better for the public not to have a clear picture of what is going on. And as Woosh has shown above, it enables smaller figures to be shown as the NHS ones, which in the public's mind will probably be seen as the authentic ones.
.

 

[OxygenJames]

The way I see it Georgia and N Carolina will go Trump - as will Pennsylvania - but those are not the problem for Trump - the problem is Wisconsin and Michigan - which though Trump is ahead now the postal votes will probably take it Bidens way.

So Biden will win by 3 electoral college votes.

Trump is such a twat coming out saying he's won and saying the election has been stolen.

This is hardly going to unite the country.

OK - responding to my own post always a dangerous thing to do but in some ways I want to argue with the final line. I think of all the possible results - this is one of the best.

Possible outcomes were:

1) Big Biden win
2) Big Trump win
3) Small Biden win
4) Small Trump win.

So what we have (or will do I think) is a small Biden win - still a win but nothing like the 'blue wave' some predicted. It looks like Trump will hold onto the Senate. So what does this mean? Well it seems to me this means Biden will not be able to boldly go ahead and implement some of the more nutty far-left policies (I'm thinking the mad green deal or some of the more nutty climate-alarmist-nonsense) - ie the super-woke will not be going to get their way. He's going to have to reach out to the Republicans in the Senate. And as for Trump - well he can go on about how the election was stolen and slink off stage right relatively quietly. And what we will be left with is a more moderate USA.

 

[OxygenJames]

Biden overtook Trump in Michigan 7 minutes ago.
Trump has lost and the exit polls were pretty accurate.

Yup. And same thing will happen in Wisconsin but not Pennsylvania.

 

[OxygenJames]

FIX!

Dear oh dear Barry. You're at it again. It is not a fix. These are votes that were sent in the post. They were not allowed to start counting them till today. And because of COVID many many more people voted by post. It just so happens that more democrats take this option historically than Republicans do. It has always been thus. Trump knows it which is how come he wants the counting to stop. By doing this he can for the rest of his days say he didn't lose the election he was robbed. Which is total boll0cks if you ask me.

 

[Woosh]

Yup. And same thing will happen in Wisconsin but not Pennsylvania.

I reckon Trump will keep PA but I think NC could flip.

So what does this mean? Well it seems to me this means Biden will not be able to boldly go ahead and implement some of the more nutty far-left policies (I'm thinking the mad green deal or some of the more nutty climate-alarmist-nonsense) - ie the super-woke will not be going to get their way. He's going to have to reach out to the Republicans in the Senate. And as for Trump - well he can go on about how the election was stolen and slink off stage right relatively quietly. And what we will be left with is a more moderate USA.

Joe won't do much and the US needs to put things back to the old cosy setup anyway. Harris may try to run in 2024 then we'll have a proper fight.

 

[oldgroaner]

Yeah right. Fact is people don't tell the truth to pollisters and people decide on the day.

Democracy rules OK!

And the candidate with least votes wins, odd that...

 

[Nev]

Dear oh dear Barry. You're at it again. It is not a fix.

I could be wrong but I assumed Barry was joking when he made that fix comment.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

And the candidate with least votes wins, odd that...

The system has always been like that, nothing has changed in this regard. The same voting system has been used to appoint presidents, both Republican and Democrat, throughout the ages.

Unsurprisingly, you choose today to complain about that same system. Now that is odd! It’s a classic case of it being ok whilst it delivers the outcome You want, but you’re going to get a sour-face on when it doesn’t.

 

[Danidl]

The system has always been like that, nothing has changed in this regard. The same voting system has been used to appoint presidents, both Republican and Democrat, throughout the ages.

Unsurprisingly, you choose today to complain about that same system. Now that is odd! It’s a classic case of it being ok whilst it delivers the outcome You want, but you’re going to get a sour-face on when it doesn’t.

In virtually every election, some voters are worth more than others. It is an automatic consequence of having geographic constituencies. It is unfortunate, but inevitable. . However the USA system is crazy. Since it is a national ballot ,there is no need for any constituencies

 

[sjpt]

The system has always been like that, nothing has changed in this regard. The same voting system has been used to appoint presidents, both Republican and Democrat, throughout the ages.

Unsurprisingly, you choose today to complain about that same system. Now that is odd! It’s a classic case of it being ok whilst it delivers the outcome You want, but you’re going to get a sour-face on when it doesn’t.

We've commented before how absurd that system is; and also the gap between election and inauguration of a new president. They were appropriate when introduced because of the huge delays in communication over a country as big as the US. The are completely anachronistic in this day and age.

There are logical reasons for the unequal voting system in say the UK (where the party with fewer votes has got in several times in the not too distant past), because the vote is actually for an MP, and (despite my many reservations) MPs do perform a useful local role. I don't actually hold with our system, but there is a reason for it. There is no such rationale in the presidential vote; the presidential election is to choose a president and nothing else (other elections at the same time choose senators etc), and there is no logical or logistical reason to use the electoral college.

 

[Wicky]

Trump graciously admits defeat, congratulates Biden and wishes him well

President Donald Trump has graciously admitted the US election was entirely fair and that he has been beaten by a better man.

www.suffolkgazette.com

 

[OxygenJames]

And the candidate with least votes wins, odd that...

Not this time OG. Biden's going to win the most electoral votes and the popular vote too.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

In virtually every election, some voters are worth more than others. It is an automatic consequence of having geographic constituencies. It is unfortunate, but inevitable. . However the USA system is crazy. Since it is a national ballot ,there is no need for any constituencies

I agree, but find it amusing that OG chooses today to complain about a system which has been in use since long before he was born.

 

[Wicky]

Trump if he wins can vastly simplify voting in subsequent elections by only including one candidate name on each ballot paper. That should streamline things and cut down fraud...

 

[OxygenJames]

The fact that 48% of the US voters have voted for Trump says all we need to know about the USA... irrespective of how it pans out.

THAT is exactly the kind of attitude that sunk the 'Remain' campaign. No attempt to understand why people voted the way they did - just an assumption that they must be stupid and I am SO much more educated and refined from those morons.

Talking down to people just doesn't win votes.