UK coronavirus death toll could be 15% higher than previously shown: new data

[7by7]

15 minutes ago, Forethat said:

You must have access to something completely different than the official reports as they state the reported deaths are "Hospital deaths where the patient tested positive".

You're the one who claims access to inside knowledge, not I.

 

But as anyone paying attention can tell you, until their deception was uncovered the daily statement by ministers and daily press release by the Department of Health made no mention at all of hospitals or tests, positive or otherwise.

[Forethat]

9 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Right so the governments total incompetence in testing is reason enough to declare that people dying who have not been tested is an excuse for reporting the low figures.

OK no problem. Glad we clarified that.

 

No, the reason why the Government only reports the COVID-19 related deaths is that they only have one source of information which identifies patients who died from CONFIRMED infections. I concur that they should ramp up testing to include care homes and hospices, in which case the person tested would be on the NHS radar. But EVEN if that happened, the Government wouldn't be able to report on a fatality for that day as the report typically takes a couple of days before it is registered. The SLA is indicated on the screenshot in the post you commented on. Six days.

 

So evidently, the Government doesn't know who has died, and they don't know what they died from. And yet you KNOW it's a Governmental cover-up, and you claim that I KNOW it as well...? Everybody knows it's a cover-up, right?

[Forethat]

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You're the one who claims access to inside knowledge, not I.

Did I now? Last time I checked I referred to publicly available information and I have provided links every time (as usual). Please provide an example of where I claim to have access to inside knowledge in this matter? 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Forethat

[Sujo]

Thank you 7by7 and chomper for your patience. At the very least you have enlightened me to what has occurred.

[jmccarty]

All this data in so little time.  For certain, short term studies tell nothing compared to long term.  Time will tell more. Not waiting will have us all eating malaria medication and other snake oil!

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

But as anyone paying attention can tell you, until their deception was uncovered the daily statement by ministers and daily press release by the Department of Health made no mention at all of hospitals or tests, positive or otherwise.

I think you'll find that a vast majority of those paying attention realise that the discrepancy between the daily Government report of fatalities and ONS analysis of data - that wasn't even known at the time of Government briefings - is completely innocuous. I'm also convinced a majority of citizens realise that the purpose of using NHS data is to analyse the situation and monitor the progress of the epidemic on a national level as well as the result of the Government actions on the aforementioned epidemic. In particular the result of the lockdown.

 

Roll up the tinfoil hat, there is no conspiracy to make us believe people are not dying. We know they are. In rather uncomforting numbers.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Forethat

[adammike]

A journalist on the Downing Street daily press conference asked a question,he said that people who work in health care claim that the real death figures could be up to 40% higher than the daily total that only showed hospital and people who have tested positive.

[Forethat]

21 minutes ago, adammike said:

A journalist on the Downing Street daily press conference asked a question,he said that people who work in health care claim that the real death figures could be up to 40% higher than the daily total that only showed hospital and people who have tested positive.

It was ITV-journalist Robert Peston who asked the following question (unofficial transcript):

Quote

Uhm, good afternoon to you, uhm, the ONS seem to indicate today with its data, that your deaths in hospitals are under reporting the total, the totality of deaths from covid-19, by as much as 40%. Do you think that IS right, do you think that we will, when we get to it, to the end of this, see the death rate roughly, you know, 40% odd higher than the numbers you’ve reported so far from hospitals.

 

I think the question is relevant. But at this point no one knows the answer. The answer that was given by Yvonne Doyle, Medical Director of Public Health, England, was (unofficial transcript):

Quote

So Robert, yes, it, undoubtedly the hospital data do not tell the whole story of total deaths, and, ehh, this week as for last week we will have a comprehensive view of that later in the week from ONS, ehm..I don’t know whether 40% is a correct figure I couldn’t really say that but I would expect more and we know now from looking at the pattern that nine out of 10 deaths do occur in hospital but I do, ehh...feel is that the burden of mortality outside of hospital isn't evenly distributed throughout the country it will mirror where for instance there may be more care homes or more hospices so we’ll see, ehh, an uneven pattern of that, ehh, but will certainly know for sure later this week what the comprehensive number is.

 

I think it's worth pointing out that had he suggested that the Government cooked the books by deliberately hiding the number of fatalities he more than likely would have been laughed at and sacked for being inept.

 

[Rookiescot]

How come other countries around the world (including Scotland and Wales) are able to include the number of deaths at care homes and elsewhere?

What is unique about England that it is not able to provide those figures?

We can all see why they are not included. And for some people on here to defend and obfuscate the reasons why is truly shameful.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Forethat said:

Did I now? Last time I checked I referred to publicly available information and I have provided links every time (as usual). Please provide an example of where I claim to have access to inside knowledge in this matter? 

Your previous regular use of 'we' and 'our' when talking about the figures and how they were arrived at. 

 

Then there are comments like this 

On 4/16/2020 at 12:59 PM, Forethat said:

It gets more than silly when I post information that is 100% accurate, only to see someone attempt to contradict that information by referring to another organisation; one that that operates under the very rules and guidelines I previously referred to. Especially when I work for the organisation in question

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Forethat said:

Roll up the tinfoil hat, there is no conspiracy to make us believe people are not dying. We know they are. In rather uncomforting numbers.

 

Yes we all know that people are dying in large numbers. 

 

But for reasons of their own the government wishes to conceal the full extent: or at least are giving an excellent impression of wishing to do so.

 

My personal opinion is that they are still feebly trying to somehow make excuses for their ineptitude at the start of the crisis and since.

 

But what else can one expect from a government led by a man who can't be bothered to attend at least five Cobra meetings on the pandemic. Even though that's his job! Maybe he's so used to Cummings making all the decisions he felt his presence wasn't required. 

 

8 hours ago, Forethat said:

Roll up the tinfoil hat

Has it ever occurred to you that if you dispensed with the supercilious belittling of those who don't agree with you then the information your posts would be taken more seriously? 

[Forethat]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

How come other countries around the world (including Scotland and Wales) are able to include the number of deaths at care homes and elsewhere?

What is unique about England that it is not able to provide those figures?

We can all see why they are not included. And for some people on here to defend and obfuscate the reasons why is truly shameful.

I have no idea - and no interest in debating that question - why other countries are able to include deaths in care homes. I guess they are better at reporting these matters.

 

I don't know what is unique about England in that aspect. 

 

They are not included in the daily figures because;

A. The deaths are not known at the time of the Daily Briefing (todays briefing made it clear that there is a 17 day lag for care home data). The ONS report subject to debate lags 16 days.

B. All care home deaths are not registered as deaths directly caused by COVID-19 or not registered as deaths where COVID-19 was a condition leading to the direct cause of deaths

C. The patients that died in care homes were not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and are therefore not included in the data that is presented in the Daily Briefing

[Rookiescot]

4 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I have no idea - and no interest in debating that question - why other countries are able to include deaths in care homes. I guess they are better at reporting these matters.

 

I don't know what is unique about England in that aspect. 

 

They are not included in the daily figures because;

A. The deaths are not known at the time of the Daily Briefing (todays briefing made it clear that there is a 17 day lag for care home data). The ONS report subject to debate lags 16 days.

B. All care home deaths are not registered as deaths directly caused by COVID-19 or not registered as deaths where COVID-19 was a condition leading to the direct cause of deaths

C. The patients that died in care homes were not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and are therefore not included in the data that is presented in the Daily Briefing

So how are other countries within the UK able to?

You know why the figures are not being included. Its to keep the numbers down.

So every day the UK government essentially lies to the public.

Making excuses for the government lying to the people during a crisis is the actions of a third world country. 

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

So how are other countries within the UK able to?

You know why the figures are not being included. Its to keep the numbers down.

So every day the UK government essentially lies to the public.

Making excuses for the government lying to the people during a crisis is the actions of a third world country. 

1. I don't know

2. Yes, I know why the numbers are not included. I have explained that in excess. Again.

3. Do they? You need to call the press since it'd be all over the news if you have proof. 

4. 

[BobBKK]

Unless you are an Epidemiologist maybe listen to one? death rate well below 1% 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/18/swedish_epidemiologist_johan_giesecke_why_lockdowns_are_the_wrong_policy.html?fbclid=IwAR3HQKiUgEJLqsA45dZ03Tp3xwTngFMJ7InMySfc8SROmPaaRr_rxS2T5zY

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Unless you are an Epidemiologist maybe listen to one? death rate well below 1% 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/18/swedish_epidemiologist_johan_giesecke_why_lockdowns_are_the_wrong_policy.html?fbclid=IwAR3HQKiUgEJLqsA45dZ03Tp3xwTngFMJ7InMySfc8SROmPaaRr_rxS2T5zY

And for every one who claims that 10 who claim otherwise.

[Rookiescot]

31 minutes ago, Forethat said:

1. I don't know

2. Yes, I know why the numbers are not included. I have explained that in excess. Again.

3. Do they? You need to call the press since it'd be all over the news if you have proof. 

4. 

It is all over the news. The government just keep avoiding the questions.

Helped by people like yourself who make excuses for Johnsons inept handling of the crisis.

 

Its actually revealing when even Conservative cheerleaders like Piers Morgan are ripping the government apart.

 

 

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

It is all over the news. The government just keep avoiding the questions.

I think we interpret the media's questions completely differently.

 

Nowhere in the clip above is it suggested that anyone is deliberately lying or 'hiding' information. Nowhere. The question raised is "how many have died in care homes?" They don't know for exactly the reasons I have accounted for. I think the question is perfectly valid, though. But they're not hiding anything. They don't know. Simple as that. That's why Piers is giving her a grilling. A follow-up question from me would be: why aren't you ramping up the testing to include patients in care homes and why aren't you making changes to guidance and reporting so that you can get an accurate picture of the extent of the epidemic without having to wait up to three weeks for an ONS analysis?

 

And please stop behaving as if I support or defend either side of this debate. Whether I believe the numbers to be incorrect or think the reporting should and could be improved is irrelevant. I have provided explanation that shows WHY the ONS figures are different compared to the Government. Nothing else. 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

Do they? You need to call the press since it'd be all over the news if you have proof. 

The press already know and have reported the discrepancy and taken the government to task over it. As shown in the OP. 

 

Which, as said before, is why the government changed their daily briefings to say that their figures are just for hospital deaths. 

 

If they'd been honest about this from the start we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

 

 

[7by7]

13 minutes ago, Forethat said:

And please stop behaving as if I support or defend either side of this debate. Whether I believe the numbers to be incorrect or think the reporting should and could be improved is irrelevant. I have provided explanation that shows WHY the ONS figures are different compared to the Government. Nothing else. 

 

Really? 

 

A trawl through your posts in this topic and your use of, for example, 'tin foil hat wearing' and 'gibberish' when addressing and referring to posters who question and criticise the government strongly indicates otherwise! 

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

The press already know and have reported the discrepancy and taken the government to task over it. As shown in the OP. 

 

Which, as said before, is why the government changed their daily briefings to say that their figures are just for hospital deaths. 

 

If they'd been honest about this from the start we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

 

 

Well, then we simply have to disagree. Personally, I find it perfectly reasonable that the Government only report on data they KNOW about at the time. I also find it impossible that they lied about data they didn't know about. The Daily Briefing death count only includes the deaths where the patient have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and for good reasons since it is the only source of accurate data. As much as you want it, there is no psychic interface between a care home patient and the person recording the deaths that automagically enters the fatality with COVID-19 as the direct cause of death.

 

I have yet to hear someone suggest that there wasn't a discrepancy between the ONS analysis and the daily briefings. 

 

[Forethat]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Really? 

 

A trawl through your posts in this topic and your use of, for example, 'tin foil hat wearing' and 'gibberish' when addressing and referring to posters who question and criticise the government strongly indicates otherwise! 

I don't use the term Tin Foil Hat other than when people come up with conspiracy theories. In this case there are a couple of posters who've come up with....conspiracy theories.

Do you want to refer to them as fact-based analysts? 

 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/tinfoil-hat/

 

And just to point out (once again) I don't support or defend either side, I'm simply pointing out the facts. Nothing else. And in this case the fact is that the Government couldn't report the deaths in question simply because they didn't know about them. Simple as that. There's goes the conspiracy in the bin...

 

 

 

 

[Forethat]

 

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

My personal opinion is that they are still feebly trying to somehow make excuses for their ineptitude at the start of the crisis and since.

Yea, we get that much. And that's ok. And as I previously pointed out, if you or anyone else wants to come up with conspiracy theories (even the ones involving alien insemination) you're free to do so. I couldn't care less. But if you ask me why there is a discrepancy between the ONS analysis in question and the government reports I've given you an explanation that focus on the technical and factual reasons to exactly why there is a difference.

 

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

You're the one who claims access to inside knowledge, not I.

You claim that I have written something, and when you're asked to show WHERE you come up with some twaddle? One more thing, the post you have quoted is taken out of its original context. You're breaching the forum rules. I won't report your post, but in the future, I want to ask you kindly to stop pulling similar stunts.

 

I was accused by another poster of not knowing about the publicly available Guidance for doctors completing Medical Certificates of Cause of Death until he posted the BMA guidance (which referred to the NHS guidance which in turn referred to the real guidance). I work for the organisation that publishes the document, and early in this thread I posted information contained within that very document. Why would I not know about it? And at which point did I claim to "have inside knowledge". This is public information that ANYONE who is interested in has access to. I think there's a better word to describe the "inside knowledge" you refer to, namely 'well informed'. In YOUR case, as well as @Chomper Higgot's, I'd say 'uninformed'. Google if you don't want to listen. ANYONE who's interested and literate can find the information and figure this out in less than 10 minutes. 

 

Lastly, I want to ask you kindly to stay on topic. Try to debate facts and opinions in an objective way and stop trying to deflect by creating discussions that focus on individual posters. I don't think anyone is interested in that. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Forethat

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Forethat said:

And just to point out (once again) I don't support or defend either side, I'm simply pointing out the facts. Nothing else. And in this case the fact is that the Government couldn't report the deaths in question simply because they didn't know about them. Simple as that. There's goes the conspiracy in the bin...

 

Phrasing the terms of the report is not the same as not being able to report wider data. 

 

For example, reporting Deaths in Hospitals as being the only report made when a more correct report would state, Deaths in Hospitals and add the caveat that Deaths in the Community will be added to these numbers. 

 

Reporting Deaths in Hospitals with no reference to the absolute certainty of the existence of Deaths int eh Community is a clear example of misreporting. 

 

 

Can you provide an  example of you supporting both sides?

[Chomper Higgot]

The difficulty the Government now has is coming up with a credible excuse for misreporting the deaths of people outside of Hospitals. 

 

When I wonder, would the Government have admitted they were under reporting the death count? 

 

I'm sure many people who have lost loved ones not included in the Government's under-reported data are asking the same question. 

[Forethat]

I have to admit I get confused when I debate someone who clearly doesn't read my posts.

29 minutes ago, Forethat said:

And just to point out (once again) I don't support or defend either side, I'm simply pointing out the facts.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you provide an  example of you supporting both sides?

If you want to I can repeat myself:

I don't support or defend either side, I'm simply pointing out the facts.

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Unless you are an Epidemiologist maybe listen to one? death rate well below 1% 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/18/swedish_epidemiologist_johan_giesecke_why_lockdowns_are_the_wrong_policy.html?fbclid=IwAR3HQKiUgEJLqsA45dZ03Tp3xwTngFMJ7InMySfc8SROmPaaRr_rxS2T5zY

That guy is not the most diplomatic guy, to say the very least... good grief! 

 

Keep in mind that the 0.1% CFR is a speculation. It's not supported by facts, but by applying epidemical knowledge to a subset of data. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. My guess (speculation based on statistics) is that the CFR will land in the 0.8%-1.2% range.

[Forethat]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The difficulty the Government now has is coming up with a credible excuse for misreporting the deaths of people outside of Hospitals. 

Well, the excuse is that the Government only reports on deaths that are confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 positive, and for that they have to be tested, which doesn't happen in care homes and hospices.

 

As I have pointed out - countless times, it seems - very few doctors will put COVID-19 as the direct cause of death or a condition leading to the direct cause of death unless there is a confirmed test. 1% of them put "suspected COVID-19". It takes at least six days for this information to be recorded, and in the case of ONS it took a total of 16 days to analyse and publish the report. Now, how would this information be available to the Government on a daily basis when it wasn't even recorded until six days later?

 

I think journalists have a valid point when they ask how many people have died from COVID-19, but the simple answer probably is that they don't know. And I also believe we should ask ourselves how many have died in care homes and hospitals where there is NO mentioning of COVID-19 on the death certificate.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Forethat

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I have to admit I get confused when I debate someone who clearly doesn't read my posts.

 

 

If you want to I can repeat myself:

I don't support or defend either side, I'm simply pointing out the facts.

Yes, you're saying that now after on a continuous basis defending the government reporting.

 

So please show posts where you did not defend the accuracy of the reports.

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Yes, you're saying that now after on a continuous basis defending the government reporting.

 

So please show posts where you did not defend the accuracy of the reports.

I am not defending it, I'm simply giving you a technical and factual explanation as to WHY the reporting is incorrect.