Censorship

[fishbiscuits]

Kruger is right. The figures add up. Nobody is saying they're 100% reliable, but they're certainly close.

[siousxiesue]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-nhs-doctors-death-certificates-conspiracy-theories-a9513981.html

Falsifying a death certificate is a criminal offence.

[jazzer]

No argument their, what would be the benefit for falsifying 100,000+ death certs?

The NHS are doing the very best they can in extremely difficult circumstances.

I doubt Boris, Hancock and co ever envisaged they would be dealing with a pandemic. All are politicians reliant on the scientists.

The vaccine is here and 17.4M have had their first jab with second jabs happening probably in less than a month.

It's not surprising that mistakes have been made, lockdowns raised too early and quickly, the Christmas fiasco. I only hope lessons have been learned and this time the lockdown is slowly released with the proviso it will be re-instated if the figures start to increase again. In four weeks we'll start to know.

The only experts in this are the scientists in who we all have to put our trust in. Is that not what happened with the Spanish Flu, I wasn't born then so can't comment.

Lastly, it's not just those who died prematurely because they contracted the virus, but all their families and friends who have all suffered and been affected and are grieving for their loved one's.

I do feel we all may have some responsibility though for the non essential socialising that may have contributed to the high death toll?

[uplandrd2020]

siousxiesue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-n

> hs-doctors-death-certificates-conspiracy-theories-

> a9513981.html

>

> Falsifying a death certificate is a criminal

> offence.

not saying falsifying death certificates but that BBC counts COVID death as "Death for any reason within 28 days of a positive test"

[uplandrd2020]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Covid deaths are including everyone dying

> within 28 days of contracting Covid, and many of

> them are not actually dying from Covid, then the

> usual figures for day-to-day business-as-usual

> deaths must be going down quite drastically, right

> ?

Yes you would think but there are other factors, like the people that did not get treatment for cancer or other issues due to fear or operations cancelled so those deaths will be up so I don?t think it is that easy.

From The Lancet:

Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types.

Interpretation

Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext

[KidKruger]

? ...you would think but there are other factors, like the people that did not get treatment for cancer or other issues due to fear or operations cancelled so those deaths will be up so I don?t think it is that easy?

But this is a separate conversation from the one you started about not all Covid deaths are (in your view) actually Covid deaths in reality.

People dying of illnesses due to late / no treatment are not recorded as Covid deaths, so irrelevant to your original point.

[TheCat]

I'm not supporting Uplannd's broader position on this thread KK....but to this specific point, isn't this actually directly relevant to the point about mis-recorded deaths?

I.e. If someone who has had a positive Covid test within 4 weeks prior of death, then actually dies of undiagnosed cancer...then it will be recorded as a Covid death.....

Am I missing something?

[uplandrd2020]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ? ...you would think but there are other factors,

> like the people that did not get treatment for

> cancer or other issues due to fear or operations

> cancelled so those deaths will be up so I don?t

> think it is that easy?

>

> But this is a separate conversation from the one

> you started about not all Covid deaths are (in

> your view) actually Covid deaths in reality.

> People dying of illnesses due to late / no

> treatment are not recorded as Covid deaths, so

> irrelevant to your original point.

this was in response to your question "If Covid deaths are including everyone dying within 28 days of contracting Covid, and many of them are not actually dying from Covid, then the usual figures for day-to-day business-as-usual deaths must be going down quite drastically, right ?"

I am saying it is hard to compare previous years to confirm this due to excess people dying from not getting treatment

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathfromheartattacksandcancerfrommarchtomayforthelastfiveyears

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinapril2020

[Blah Blah]

'There is a big difference between dying with Covid or of Covid. If you currently die of a Heart attack and have mild symptoms of covid it is recorded as a Covid death.'

This kind of statement is actually pretty offensive. Doctors treating patients in hospitals know very clearly when someone is dying because their respiratory system is collapsing from covid induced pneumonia. And that is what those figures are recording in the main, hospital deaths. In all likelihood, that actual figure is significantly higher, if we were to account for death in other places than a hospital. Autopsies take time to do and results are needed fast in a pandemic. So the emphasis is on 'excess' deaths compared to the five year average for the time of year, to gauge where we are. It is an indicator, not an absolute. Arguing the toss about absolutes it irrelevant and doesn't change the fact we are facing a epidemic virus that kills.

Also, on deaths where people have also been vaccinated. In most cases, that will be coincidental. The very elderly are still dying from more natural causes, linked to old age. In some however, the work the body has to do to create the new antibodies may also be a factor, but that is a risk with all treatments given to the very elderly. There is a greater good element to this. You can have lots of elderly dying because they have no immunity to the virus, or you can have a few dying because their immune systems are not capable of responding to the vaccine. For government, that decision is an easy one, but I also understand how relatives may think the vaccine may have caused their loved ones death. We have to show understanding on that one where it arises.

[Blah Blah]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not supporting Uplannd's broader position on

> this thread KK....but to this specific point,

> isn't this actually directly relevant to the point

> about mis-recorded deaths?

>

> I.e. If someone who has had a positive Covid test

> within 4 weeks prior of death, then actually dies

> of undiagnosed cancer...then it will be recorded

> as a Covid death.....

>

> Am I missing something?

No, because this in not how it works. The conditions covid induces or exacerbates to cause death are pretty well understood by now. There has to be a strong opinion that covid played some role in the death of a person for it to be recorded as a covid death. A better question to ask might be 'where are the grey areas?'.

So a grey area might be someone who has an underlying condition that can be deadly, even with treatment. If their death is not expected, and they have covid, then that may be an explanation offered for the sudden turn for the worse in their underlying condition. Why? Because covid is triggering the immune system, and if the immune system is already having to work hard on something else, then you can see where logically, covid may be argued to have played a role. So linking back to my previous post, it becomes about excess deaths again. Higher numbers of people in any group, suddenly dying isn't coincidence. There will always be a common causal factor. Will the conclusion around covid in every case be right? No it won't, but it will be right enough of the time to indicate where we are realistically in relation to the virus.

[alex_b]

Excess deaths have closely tracked recorded COVID deaths in waves 2 and 3 (and were well ahead of the recorded COVID deaths in wave 1 due to lack of testing). It?s simply not credible that there?s a wave of ?with but not of? COVID deaths occurring.

[fishbiscuits]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Excess deaths have closely tracked recorded COVID

> deaths in waves 2 and 3 (and were well ahead of

> the recorded COVID deaths in wave 1 due to lack of

> testing). It?s simply not credible that there?s a

> wave of ?with but not of? COVID deaths occurring.

Exactly. The figures correlate. If there is an element of "with but not of", it is clearly not statistically significant.

[TheCat]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm not supporting Uplannd's broader position

> on

> > this thread KK....but to this specific point,

> > isn't this actually directly relevant to the

> point

> > about mis-recorded deaths?

> >

> > I.e. If someone who has had a positive Covid

> test

> > within 4 weeks prior of death, then actually

> dies

> > of undiagnosed cancer...then it will be

> recorded

> > as a Covid death.....

> >

> > Am I missing something?

>

> No, because this in not how it works. The

> conditions covid induces or exacerbates to cause

> death are pretty well understood by now. There has

> to be a strong opinion that covid played some role

> in the death of a person for it to be recorded as

> a covid death. A better question to ask might be

> 'where are the grey areas?'.

>

> So a grey area might be someone who has an

> underlying condition that can be deadly, even with

> treatment. If their death is not expected, and

> they have covid, then that may be an explanation

> offered for the sudden turn for the worse in their

> underlying condition. Why? Because covid is

> triggering the immune system, and if the immune

> system is already having to work hard on something

> else, then you can see where logically, covid may

> be argued to have played a role. So linking back

> to my previous post, it becomes about excess

> deaths again. Higher numbers of people in any

> group, suddenly dying isn't coincidence. There

> will always be a common causal factor. Will the

> conclusion around covid in every case be right? No

> it won't, but it will be right enough of the time

> to indicate where we are realistically in relation

> to the virus.

Umm...Yep...I know....there's clearly some cross wires here (perhaps conflation with what others have said earlier on this thread?)....I understand excess deaths, I understand why that is the best metric to use. I didn't think that was being questioned here (admittedly I just asked my own question on this speficic data set, and wasn't really involved in the previous discussion)

As I understood it, the discussion was specifically about the death 'tally' regularly quoted on the BBC and in the Guardian etc on a daily basis....and that data specifically, and it's potential problems given the 'any death within 28 days of a positive test' thing.

I don't believe there's any meaningful problem with the data overall. As has been said here the 'with not by' thing is unlikely to be massively significant. But it is a potential discrepancy in the context of this specific data set....as all 3 recent posts seem to agree on (whether that's called 'grey area' or 'daily discrepency' that's ironed out once cross correlated with excess death data at a later date). So I'm not sure why I'm being lectured on excess deaths?

[Blah Blah]

I'm not lecturing you though. I am pointing out why this conversation around 'with or of' really doesn't matter. Yet it gets trotted out all the time, usually by people trying to question the risk the virus presents, as though the death figures themselves are not significant in a landscape of severe restriction on social contact. Bear in mind where this thread begins (although I did not see the deleted posts) with the OP complaining about have posts removed by admin.

[siousxiesue]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000s7lr

This is a link to the BBC radio4 programme More or Less, it specifically looks at the way Covid deaths are recorded compared to our European neighbours and is an interesting listen.

[ianr]

If you prefer to download it as an mp3 file you can get it, and previous More Or Less programmes, as well as several other radio series which also sometimes feature our favourite topic, at:

More Or Less https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nrss1/episodes/downloads

How To Vaccinate The World https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000py6s/episodes/downloads

Inside Health https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019dl1b/episodes/downloads

Science In Action https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsnb/episodes/downloads

BBC Inside Science https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036f7w2/episodes/downloads

There's an interesting overview of pandemics in a recent How to Vaccinate programme devoted to an interview with Larry Brilliant. He was involved in the work that eventually led to the eradicatiion of smallpox.

[uplandrd2020]

.

[uplandrd2020]

jazzer

> You think about others so much you are prepared to

> pass on the virus to them by remaining

> unvaccinated.

the vaccinated will be protected and i wont,i cant pass it on to vaccinated people.If i could what would the point be of the vaccine. The only life im risking is my own, as all the good citizens are happy to be be injected with experimental mRNA, which by the way has killed hundreds so far. Hands, face, Space are my limits with this. Forcing me to be injected via vaccine passport im not so much up for, sorry.

[jazzer]

You miss quoted me, it was said by someone else, but I agree with what they said.

[Blah Blah]

uplandrd2020 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the vaccinated will be protected and i wont,i cant

> pass it on to vaccinated people.If i could what

> would the point be of the vaccine. The only life

> im risking is my own, as all the good citizens are

> happy to be be injected with experimental mRNA,

> which by the way has killed hundreds so far.

Sadly, no vaccine is 100 per cent effective so some people who have been vaccinated will still get seriously ill and die. It will be far lower numbers than at present, but it will happen. I would argue we all have a responsibility to do our part to suppress this virus.

Your second point claiming that MnRNA vaccines has killed hundreds so far is not based in evidence. People will still die from natural causes and other conditions after having a vaccine. If you are going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then cite a peer reviewed report that backs that claim.

[uplandrd2020]

929 Deaths within 48 Hours of Vaccine

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/latest-data-cdc-vaers/

N

[Sephiroth]

That shitheel of a group have been Covid conspiracists from way before COVID vaccines even arrived, and they have a long history of, well...

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/01/anti-vaccine-group-childrens-health-defense-smells-coronavirus-conspiracy-14681

[uplandrd2020]

Yes but the Death Count they reference is only from VAERS which means it is most likely undercounted as it is only listing people who choose to report it to them, it is also only counting USA Covid vaccines deaths within 48 Hours, here is the raw data

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?EVENTS=on&PAGENO=12&PERPAGE=10&ESORT=NONE&REVERSESORT=&VAX=(COVID19)&VAXTYPES=(COVID-19)&L_THREAT=No&DIED=Yes

[jazzer]

meant to have said the jab, it's a small prick.

[TheCat]

As someone who deals with data or varying qualities on a daily basis.....I thought I'd indulge the antivax view and have a little look at this VAERS database to see what its all about....

Im sorry Upland, but OMFG...quite frankly...from a data integrity perspective....that is the biggest pile of complete horsesh!t I have seen in many a year....Im assuming the only reason its a thing is because of some powerful antivax lobby group in the US....I wouldn't even call it data, I'd call it a collection of unverified anecdotes....

There was even a bloke who 'Reported' into the system that a vaccine had turned him into the Incredible Hulk. Unlikely, as his name wasn't even Bruce....