Not so bad, then?

[EFLImpudence]

The article states that there were 7% more deaths in the UK in 2020 "than normally expected".

Although no actual numbers are given, if we assume that 600,000 deaths in a year is, by recent numbers, high then 7% would be something below 42,000.

It does not use the term 'excess deaths' (I wonder why?) yet states the figure is compared to the previous five years, therefore must be the same as excess deaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56456312

There seems to be some discrepancy with this article from 12 January when excess deaths were stated as 85,000 and 15% higher in the UK in 2020.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55631693

At least those two figures tally 15% and 85,000 ~double 7% and 42,000.



Someone will point out where I have gone wrong.

 

[durhamplumber]

7% more deaths in the UK in 2020 "

does not use the term 'excess deaths'

Excess....7% more....Seem very similair to me...Are you picking fault with terminology or suggesting some sort of cover up or other?

 

[durhamplumber]

The article states that there were 7% more deaths in the UK in 2020 "than normally expected".

Although no actual numbers are given, if we assume that 600,000 deaths in a year is, by recent numbers, high then 7% would be something below 42,000.

It does not use the term 'excess deaths' (I wonder why?) yet states the figure is compared to the previous five years, therefore must be the same as excess deaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56456312

There seems to be some discrepancy with this article from 12 January when excess deaths were stated as 85,000 and 15% higher in the UK in 2020.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55631693

At least those two figures tally 15% and 85,000 ~double 7% and 42,000.



Someone will point out where I have gone wrong.

Death is random... Covid and any virus is random... Stats are not an exact science...Therefore errors...quite possibly large, can be expected..

 

[EFLImpudence]

Excess....7% more....Seem very similair to me...Are you picking fault with terminology or suggesting some sort of cover up or other?

In a way, yes, I was thinking it might have been to deter people from thinking it was (the same as) excess deaths.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Death is random... Covid and any virus is random... Stats are not an exact science...Therefore errors...quite possibly large, can be expected..

I am therefore glad that only half as many have died than previously thought.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Strange?

It's been twenty four hours and no one else has commented on, let alone celebrated, this wonderful news that the excess death rate (because of covid) is but half that previously thought.

Nor that the article does not mention this.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Accurate stats are just trifling details, people don't want to be bothering with them. Government and MSM have done a great scare job and Bozza is riding to our rescue. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

 

[Trazor]

Strange?

It's been twenty four hours and no one else has commented on, let alone celebrated, this wonderful news that the excess death rate (because of covid) is but half that previously thought.

Nor that the article does not mention this.

This from the ONS.

"2020 was an unprecedented year in many ways, including the number of deaths; the overall number of deaths registered in 2020 was 75,925 higher than we would expect when looking at the five-year average between 2015 and 2019."

https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/01/12/counting-deaths-involving-coronavirus-a-year-in-review/

I think the BBC did not do a very good job, with the links you supplied.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You will see that that document is from 12 January; the same as the BBC article with the higher numbers.

The BBC article from yesterday quoting the 7% higher than the five year average is also attributed to the ONS.

 

[transam]

What’s the situation in Portugal with this virus ?

 

[JohnD]

Strange?

It's been twenty four hours and no one else has commented on, let alone celebrated, this wonderful news that the excess death rate (because of covid) is but half that previously thought.

Nor that the article does not mention this.

The twelve-month year, and the period of the peaks (especially around April 2020) are very different.

 

[festive]

Ive had 2 fairly close friends end up in hospital due to Covid, both pretty fit and no underlying conditions, both were in their 40's though, one other is suffering Long Covid now. I also have many family members who work in the NHS and other research companies who know. That was enough to make me think it wasn't something to be taken lightly.

 

[JohnD]

true, 7% is not the same as 14%.

but...

Someone will point out where I have gone wrong.

one of your documents says "Nevertheless, the UK had one of the highest excess death rates among people under the age of 65 in 2020 at 7.7%."

"...people under the age of 65..." "...at 7.7%..."is obviously not the whole UK population.

The other document says "The Covid pandemic has caused excess deaths to rise to their highest level in the UK since World War Two.

There were close to 697,000 deaths in 2020 - nearly 85,000 more than would be expected based on the average in the previous five years.

This represents an increase of 14% - making it the largest rise in excess deaths"

So "...in the UK... "...an increase of 14%..."

And, the wording suggests, IS the whole UK population.

 

[Charlie George]

one of your documents says "Nevertheless, the UK had one of the highest excess death rates among people under the age of 65 in 2020 at 7.7%."

"people under the age of 65" is obviously not the whole UK population.

But it does state 7% overall which is not right surely,15% is more realistic.

 

[fillyboy]

What’s the situation in Portugal with this virus ?

It could be very bad given EFL hasn't replied.