Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, asperity said:

Firstly are the ONS Covid 19 deaths with or from Covid 19?

Secondly, in a normal year i.e. one without Covid 19 do you know what the fatality rates are for 65-74 year olds and over 75 year olds? I'm guessing that the fatality rates would be more or less the same. It should be obvious that the 99% recovery rate covers all age groups and is lower for old people than for the young and fit. The average age of Covid 19 deaths is over 80.

The figures I quoted on covid deaths from the actuaries we defined as "Registered deaths where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate" which corresponds to the ONS definition "“involving COVID-19” when referring to deaths that had COVID-19 mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not".

The other question on prior rates is harder but the ONS Nomisweb tells us

Age 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
total (all ages) 528,507 523,857 532,130 540,265 529,553
Aged 65-69 37,827 38,429 36,420 35,693 34,164
Aged 70-74 47,244 48,836 51,691 54,010 53,535
Aged 75-79 64,668 64,018 64,206 65,085 64,596
Aged 80-84 87,003 84,403 85,552 86,582 85,928
Aged 85-89 97,809 96,044 97,943 99,534 96,190
Aged 90 and over 114,218 111,156 116,070 117,120 113,944
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Perhaps they need to tell doctors they are supposed to be open to the public.

They have to have somebody to blame and the government is an easy target. Joe public are the one's who buy their services so they will not blame them and of course they are not to blame themselve

What I said about viruses is true, over the centuries they all mutate (that is evolve) to be less deadly to their host or they find a different host. No sentience is required for evolution to work it

Posted Images

I see some think what we call Lockdown, but in reality is nothing close to full lockdown, doesn't work. Well expalin why you don't think it works with reference to this data about Warrington.

The axes are (Y) rolling 7 day average of new cases in a population the size of Warrington and (X) the date.

The blue line is Warrington and it sure looks like the measures worked to me. That downward slope is equivalent to an R number currently at 0.8 or less (you can only make an estimate of R it is impossible to do properly)

That stunning improvement is why Warrington got a mention by Boris in tonight's press conference as well as Liverpool.

Edited by Confused52
Save limited space - graph out of date
Link to post
Share on other sites

The government is trying to claim that the dramatic fall in the infection rate in Liverpool has been caused by the mass testing they put in place. Ignoring the fact that the fall n rates began before the mass testing started, can anyone explain how measuring something can change the rate of what you are measuring?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think we've said, that "mass" testing is pointless exercise; as it doesn't prevent spread.   Testing should be used as a means of screening access to high risk areas such as Hospitals and Care Homes, and thus provide regular and instant identification of infection.  It should also be used, when the spread reduces to identify new cases and trace contacts. So I think we can agree that Liverpool was a PR stunt.     😷

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...