New coronavirus in/from China

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Catweazle wrote:There you go again, accusing me of lying about there being a spike in deaths - I didn't write that there was a spike in deaths.

Again, you ignore the questions I ask about the lack of evidence to support your repeated claims that the people who have died would have died this year or shortly anyway.

Again, you post meaningless graphs to deflect attention from your mistaken assumptions.

It's impossible to reason with you if you continually obfuscate and attempt to divert attention.
Why should LJ have to prove the obvious that many elderly UK citizens die each year?
Take a look at the population distribution chart.
https://www.indexmundi.com/united_kingd ... cture.html
The grim reaper swings a wider and wider swath with each year after age 60.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

vtsnowedin wrote:
Catweazle wrote:There you go again, accusing me of lying about there being a spike in deaths - I didn't write that there was a spike in deaths.

Again, you ignore the questions I ask about the lack of evidence to support your repeated claims that the people who have died would have died this year or shortly anyway.

Again, you post meaningless graphs to deflect attention from your mistaken assumptions.

It's impossible to reason with you if you continually obfuscate and attempt to divert attention.
Why should LJ have to prove the obvious that many elderly UK citizens die each year?
Take a look at the population distribution chart.
https://www.indexmundi.com/united_kingd ... cture.html
The grim reaper swings a wider and wider swath with each year after age 60.
In a recent post he claimed that the elderly people who died would have died this year anyway, I simply asked for evidence of this. Being one year older than the average life expectancy doesn't mean you are expected to die this year. LJ's posted death numbers graph shows no dip to support his idea.

I also see contradictions in the arguments that all the "dry wood", ie the old and infirm have already died and that's why the death rate is now so much lower. If only 10% of our population have had covid, and LJ argues that the tests have a 90% false positive rate, they how can the virus have sought out and killed these elderly and infirm ?

Every source I can find is listing excess deaths, thousands of them, nobody else is suggesting that all these people would have died shortly anyway.

I have no axe to grind here, it's looking to me like a lighter tough local lockdown is the way to go now the initial lockdown has done what it was supposed to do - given us time to learn about Covid19 and put less destructive measures in place.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

While being older then your life expectancy is not an immediate death sentence being old and in the nursing home pretty much is. In Vermont over half of the deaths have been nursing home or hospice care patients. 21 of 58 died in a single nursing home.
Of all deaths in Vermont 77% were those age 70 or older and 43% were 80 or older.
Definitive evidence will be very hard to come by as rising deaths from suicides and drug use caused by lockdown induced depression along with late treatment of other ailments will replace and maybe even exceed those nursing home deaths that would have occurred later in the year but it should be obvious to you that a certain percentage of nursing home patients die each month in the normal course of events and all Covid did for some of these people is advance their death date by a few weeks or months.
Little John

Post by Little John »

Catweazle wrote:There you go again, accusing me of lying about there being a spike in deaths - I didn't write that there was a spike in deaths.

Again, you ignore the questions I ask about the lack of evidence to support your repeated claims that the people who have died would have died this year or shortly anyway.

Again, you post meaningless graphs to deflect attention from your mistaken assumptions.

It's impossible to reason with you if you continually obfuscate and attempt to divert attention.
There has been neither a second spike in hospitalisation or deaths.

As usual, if you want to see what obfuscation looks like, take a look in the mirror. It's pathetic.

All of this barrage of fearmongering propaganda.... It's sent you a bit deranged hasn't it

Also, as for your hysterical reaction to my suggestion of people dying this year in any event, there are some rather obvious responses to make to that;

1) The people who died were, on average the very oldest among us, So old, in fact, that their average age at death (82.4) was higher than the national average for age at death (81.5), leading to the perverse statistic that someone who dies of covid19 has, on average, a longer life expectancy than someone who dies of anything other than Covid19. It is, therefore, an entirely reasonable assumption to make that such people are more likely, all other things being equal, to die this year than anybody else.

2) The above assumption is predictably corroborated the moment you take a look at the total annual death rates for the last 5 years in the UK.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales

2015 - 529,655
2016 - 525,048
2017 - 533,253
2018 - 541,589
2019 - 530,841
2020 (thus far) - 453,803

From the above numbers is it plain to see that, whilst there is, indeed, a small but significant rise, thus far, in the death rate for this year, it does not particularly lie far outside the the normal range.

However, even to limited extent it does, given that the vast and overwhelming demographic of those dying of Covid 19 are the elderly and the very elderly, we may still reasonably assume that even this relatively modest increase will be of people who were in, at most, the last two years of life. Though, this will not be confirmed until and unless we see a commensurate dip in the death rate next year due to the fact you cannot die twice.

So, in short, our country's economy has been reduced to a smoldering ruin and the liberties won with the blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors have been stripped away in order to prevent the deaths of people, the vast majority of whose lives were drawing to a natural close sometime in the next 12 or so months and a minority of whose lives were due to naturally end sometime in the next 24 or so months.
Last edited by Little John on 15 Oct 2020, 10:23, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

vtsnowedin wrote:While being older then your life expectancy is not an immediate death sentence being old and in the nursing home pretty much is. In Vermont over half of the deaths have been nursing home or hospice care patients. 21 of 58 died in a single nursing home.
Of all deaths in Vermont 77% were those age 70 or older and 43% were 80 or older.
Definitive evidence will be very hard to come by as rising deaths from suicides and drug use caused by lockdown induced depression along with late treatment of other ailments will replace and maybe even exceed those nursing home deaths that would have occurred later in the year but it should be obvious to you that a certain percentage of nursing home patients die each month in the normal course of events and all Covid did for some of these people is advance their death date by a few weeks or months.
Obviously, for some people, I wouldn't argue with that, nor would I consider it a sacrifice worth making to prop up the economy.

My argument is against the idea that covid has swept through, killed most of the people it's going to, and can now be let rip. The "dry wood" statements, which make no sense to me, especially given the low infection rates and, according to LJ, the 90% false positive rate of mass testing.

Why has the death rate been so much lower in the second wave ? Again I differ from LJ, his explanation is "you can only die once", mine is that treatment and precautions have improved.

What do you think ?
Little John

Post by Little John »

F--k me...

The ONS has now pulled all links to their pages showing annual total death rates for the last 5 years. Plus, the direct link now reads as "Internal server error". Clearly, I'm not the only one starting to put 2 and 2 together and rummage around the stats. Lots of people will be doing so.

Thankfully, I had already downloaded all of the excel sheets form the ONS since 2015. Here is a dropbox link to all of them

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a07532ipzfjmg ... 5.xls?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r43e83pgbpptq ... 6.xls?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhsxsivy6j8tp ... 7.xls?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbmttxy5ufga1 ... w.xls?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ejhy4f8bcs46h ... 9.xls?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cny12o0c9eprb ... .xlsx?dl=0
Last edited by Little John on 15 Oct 2020, 10:45, edited 2 times in total.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Well for one thing our healthcare systems and the use of flu vaccines have reduced the number of flu deaths and elderly deaths from other causes so our seasoned citizens were indeed older and dryer wood waiting for a match.
That first wave swept through nursing homes, from Italy to the US, before there were available testing and staff knew what if anything could be done.
The lower death rates now come from experience gained in both avoiding infecting elderly people and treatment methods for those that still do become infected. Those methods are improving day by day and I expect we will have both effective vaccines and post infection treatments within the next few months.
On the other hand the lockdowns are unsustainable and people are resuming more normal activities out of necessity which leads to higher case loads of younger people. Our highest case loads are in the twenty year old group with fully sixty percent falling between twenty and sixty years of age. New case among the elderly are way down due in part to their smaller fraction of the population and the greater care they are now taking.
So in the end you are both right. The government can let er rip all it wants and frail elderly people will not change their behavior one iota.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2522
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 08:48
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

UndercoverElephant wrote:Yes. I have given up even trying to understand what the rules are, because I am certain they are pointless and they will probably change next week anyway. I will just run my business in a way I see fit, and allow my customers to make their own minds up. Speaking of which... https://imgur.com/u4wMJc7
Nice one...., great marketing/endorsement :)
She's 85 though, so maybe wise to use a pic showing more than the requisite 2m ?
Just in case the worst were to happen...
Initiation
Posts: 93
Joined: 18 Jan 2008, 13:29

Post by Initiation »

On the 'died in the next year' question. Around 20,000 deaths with covid have occured in care home residents - a bit less than half of all covid deaths.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rovisional

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33895/1/dp2769.pdf
The median stay in a care home is reportedly 19.6 months. Now obviously not all care home residents arrived on day 1 of the pandemic, so lets assume a normal distribution and the average resident had been in a home for 9.8 months prior to the pandemic.

As nearly all care home residents leave in a coffin, that would lead to the conclusion that yes, over half of these (10,000) would have likely died within a year. That is conservative as it ignores any effects on the distribution of comorbidities.

75% of residents (so 15,000 of the care home deaths) would be expected to die within 2.6 years of the nominal start of the pandemic.

Other deaths in older people (e.g. those living at home or with family) are in addition to this.
Little John

Post by Little John »

The ONS link is working again now. Nevertheless, I will leave the links to my own copies, which were downloaded about 3 days ago. It will be interesting to compare the numbers on my copies and what is on the website now to see if there have been any "amendments" to the data
Little John

Post by Little John »

Initiation wrote:On the 'died in the next year' question. Around 20,000 deaths with covid have occured in care home residents - a bit less than half of all covid deaths.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rovisional

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33895/1/dp2769.pdf
The median stay in a care home is reportedly 19.6 months. Now obviously not all care home residents arrived on day 1 of the pandemic, so lets assume a normal distribution and the average resident had been in a home for 9.8 months prior to the pandemic.

As nearly all care home residents leave in a coffin, that would lead to the conclusion that yes, over half of these (10,000) would have likely died within a year. That is conservative as it ignores any effects on the distribution of comorbidities.

75% of residents (so 15,000 of the care home deaths) would be expected to die within 2.6 years of the nominal start of the pandemic.

Other deaths in older people (e.g. those living at home or with family) are in addition to this.
I'd lay money on the ones who have died in care homes being the ones who had been there the longest and, in being so, were the frailest amongst them. In other words, I am suggesting that it is likely that, given the typical life expectancy of people in homes is anywhere from, say, two years to nothing, the vast majority of the deaths in care homes will have been of people who were already a lot closer to nothing than they were to two years.
Last edited by Little John on 15 Oct 2020, 11:11, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

Analysis of week 40 UK.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales
The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 2 October 2020 (Week 40) was 9,945; this was 311 more deaths than in Week 39.

In Week 40, the number of deaths registered was 4.1% above the five-year average (390 deaths higher).

Of the deaths registered in Week 40, 321 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)�, accounting for 3.2% of all deaths in England and Wales; this is an increase compared with Week 39 (when there were 215 deaths involving COVID-19, accounting for 2.2% of all deaths).

The numbers of deaths in hospitals and care homes remained below the five-year average in Week 40 (233 and 81 fewer deaths respectively), while the number of deaths in private homes remained above the five-year average (725 more deaths).

The number of deaths involving COVID-19 increased in seven of the nine English regions; the South West was the only English region to have lower overall deaths than the five-year average.

In Wales, the number of deaths involving COVID-19 increased from 12 deaths (Week 39) to 25 deaths (Week 40), while the total number of deaths in Week 40 was 84 deaths higher than the five-year average.

The number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 2 October 2020 (Week 40) was 11,444, which was 591 deaths higher than the five-year average and 583 deaths higher than Week 39; of the deaths registered in the UK in Week 40, 343 deaths involved COVID-19, 109 deaths higher than Week 39.
Little John

Post by Little John »

Meanwhile, using the latest data off the ONS. Total deaths for 2019 and 2020 compared:

Image

There is no second spike in deaths

There is also no second spike in hospitalizations

Image
Last edited by Little John on 15 Oct 2020, 11:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

vtsnowedin wrote:
Catweazle wrote:There you go again, accusing me of lying about there being a spike in deaths - I didn't write that there was a spike in deaths.

Again, you ignore the questions I ask about the lack of evidence to support your repeated claims that the people who have died would have died this year or shortly anyway.

Again, you post meaningless graphs to deflect attention from your mistaken assumptions.

It's impossible to reason with you if you continually obfuscate and attempt to divert attention.
Why should LJ have to prove the obvious that many elderly UK citizens die each year?
Take a look at the population distribution chart.
https://www.indexmundi.com/united_kingd ... cture.html
The grim reaper swings a wider and wider swath with each year after age 60.
The assumption that someone catching covid19 at age 81 is already past the average life expectancy and therefore likely to die soon anyway is simply bad maths. Life expectancy at birth is very different to what you can expect if you've reached your 80's.

The FT can do sums...
For a start, each year that you manage to stay alive, your overall life expectancy increases. That means that while 81 is the average UK life expectancy at birth; by the time an average person has reached the venerable age of 79.5, they can expect to live for another nine or ten years, depending on their gender.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/04/15/ ... ockdown--/
Post Reply