Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Guest makapaka]

11 minutes ago, top4718 said:

what caused the excess deaths in '96 do you think?

The number of deaths and percentage mortality in 96 was consistent with the previous 6 years and the following 6 years.

 

there was no sudden jump of 80,000 deaths from the previous year after a new virus had been identified.

 

so  what other plausible explanation is there for 80000 more people dying this year than last year?

[top4718 838]

4 minutes ago, makapaka said:

The number of deaths and percentage mortality in 96 was consistent with the previous 6 years and the following 6 years.

 

there was no sudden jump of 80,000 deaths from the previous year after a new virus had been identified.

 

so  what other plausible explanation is there for 80000 more people dying this year than last year?

Its still a very high figure compared to this year with 9m people less.

[whiteowl 54]

1 hour ago, top4718 said:

Its still a very high figure compared to this year with 9m people less.

It's 25 years ago, treatments for many things have improved since then leading to more people surviving things like cancer - just look at the increase in lifespan  (about 5 years extra now compared to 1995) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/ 

 

For anyone interested here's a link to the mortality numbers from 1838 - there's a similar spike in 1918, although more pronounced due to the smaller population (you need to be able to read an xls file)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/12735annualdeathsandmortalityrates1938to2020provisional

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, top4718 said:

Its still a very high figure compared to this year with 9m people less.

Whiteowl has given you a probable explanation above - don’t know why  you are so obsessed with 1996 anyway.

 

so why do you think deaths leapt in the space of a single year by 80,0000 at the exact same time a new virus emerged?

 

 

 

 

 

[butlers 259]

The ONS when comparing year to year take the previous 5 as an average..

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by butlers

[Guest makapaka]

16 minutes ago, butlers said:

The ONS when comparing year to year take the previous 5 as an average..

 

 

And what?

[top4718 838]

48 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Whiteowl has given you a probable explanation above - don’t know why  you are so obsessed with 1996 anyway.

 

so why do you think deaths leapt in the space of a single year by 80,0000 at the exact same time a new virus emerged?

 

 

 

 

 

Your missing the point, I’ve never said Covid doesn’t exist but the threat to anyone who is old/vulnerable is virtually nil, it’s like stopping everyone driving to prevent car accidents 

[Guest makapaka]

28 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Your missing the point, I’ve never said Covid doesn’t exist but the threat to anyone who is old/vulnerable is virtually nil, it’s like stopping everyone driving to prevent car accidents 

That wasn’t the point you made though - you challenged whether there had ever been excess deaths.

 

presumably you agree then that there has been excess deaths from Covid and a good indicator of the amount would be the 80,000 leap we got in the space of 9 months when the Covid pandemic started?

[Carbuncle 0]

21 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Your missing the point, I’ve never said Covid doesn’t exist but the threat to anyone who is old/vulnerable is virtually nil, it’s like stopping everyone driving to prevent car accidents 

I can agree with some of this: the chance of dying from covid increases as you get older so while a 20 year old has very, very little risk of dying, an eighty year old faces a very big risk - sorry I can not remember the numbers. So your suggestion that there should be strong shielding for the old and vulnerable while letting the young go about their business could make sense. For example, one could let covid blow through the younger portion of the population over a period of a few months after which a re-emerging vulnerable population could come out of hiding with some protection from herd immunity. Two difficulties:

 

(1) How does one do this strong shielding?

(2) What about long covid? Death is not the only hazard.

[top4718 838]

4 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

I can agree with some of this: the chance of dying from covid increases as you get older so while a 20 year old has very, very little risk of dying, an eighty year old faces a very big risk - sorry I can not remember the numbers. So your suggestion that there should be strong shielding for the old and vulnerable while letting the young go about their business could make sense. For example, one could let covid blow through the younger portion of the population over a period of a few months after which a re-emerging vulnerable population could come out of hiding with some protection from herd immunity. Two difficulties:

 

(1) How does one do this strong shielding?

(2) What about long covid? Death is not the only hazard.

Life is full of risks, we have to get away from this nanny state mentality where we have to wait for the government to tell us our every move. If you are vulnerable then you have to assess where you are safe to go or leave a place if you do feel unsafe.

 

I think long Covid was invented by people on full sick pay that want an extended break.

[butlers 259]

Do you regard the nanny state insisting on seatbelts  a step to far because I remember people moaning about that.

We test cars we test drivers we design safety into road layouts .

And those rules have brought deaths down to 1800 a year.

The restrictions are there to mitigate the risk.

From the ONS about 5 percent if 50/60 year olds who get Covid die .

That's not even close to " nill"

[Carbuncle 0]

5 hours ago, top4718 said:

I didn't say Covid didn't exist I said its impact had been exaggerated, I asked if the age range of the dead was available, they are not indispensable but are much easier to target for protection whilst the majority carry on with normality, like we do with flu season. Once the majority of the vulnerable were vaccinated restrictions should have been lifted.

Ahhh, ... I took the bold bit to mean you would actually try to protect the vulnerable during the early stages of the pandemic.