ONS.

[GotTheCityOnLockdown]

My friend made a really interesting point to me earlier.

According to ONS, in March '19 there were 42,000 deaths in England.
In the first 3 weeks of March '20 there have been 32,559 deaths (including those caused by COVID-19.)

If we are facing such a lethal disease, wouldn't the numbers be a hell of a lot higher?

We're all forced to stay at home, to only go to the supermarket.
We've been told we can exercise once a day, we can't see family/friends, to close our businesses if they're 'non-essential'
The police have been given the powers to fine/arrest people if they're caught out without (what the officers deem as) a good reason.
We're facing catastrophic effects on the economy, people reaching a point of financial destitution.
But the numbers are roughly the same as last year...

Can anyone explain it? I'm more than willing to accept I'm wrong, but I can't get my head around it!

Just to correct a prep, most deaths are dying WITH Covid not OF. There's an important difference.

This is a very interesting read, I have posted elsewhere, but it is pertinent to many of these discussions as it is questioning excess deaths versus scale of lockdown.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

Thank you for the link @Baaaahhhhh I'll have a read.

Straight away (in that article)

"Many people who die of Covid [the disease caused by coronavirus] would have died anyway within a short period," - Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter University of Cambridge

@kingofkings Are you that obstinate that you'll argue with his stance too?

The point of the measures it to reduce the deaths. We can't see (can only guess) what would happen without the measures.

But I would like to see figures on incremental deaths. Tricky I know. But most (not all!) of the deaths are in groups with a high death rate anyway.

You can't tell me that, if there was no pandemic, there'd be no deaths

Of course not ! People die, that is the only certainty in life.

However in a pandemic situation more people die than would normally.

@frumpety Complete agree! That's why I was wondering why the figures don't reflect that.

@irregularegular Exactly, with them being in a elderly age group doesn't that mean they'd have a higher risk of dying even without a pandemic?

Just re-read my point to @irregularegular and it doesn't make sense.

What I meant was isn't it likely they'd died without a pandemic anyway?

Are you suggesting that the 3,000 people who have died as a result of covid-19 were all going to die in the last few weeks anyway ?

@frumpety Not all of them.
However I do agree with Prof. Sir David Spiegelhalter in that many of those who die of COVID would have died anyway within a short period; going by age groups alone.

Does the Professor define ' a short period' ? days, weeks, months or years ?

I work in an acute hospital and we know that a very high percentage of over 80's in hospital at any one time are likely to be in their last year of life. This is because it is the less healthy elderly with underlying conditions who come into hospital. Many of these people are dying now in hospital either of Covid or other things. The difference with Covid is that it could also be deadly to many younger people with complex health issues and as there is currently no vaccine, we are having to keep those people safe. I think once deaths peak, likely within next 2-3 weeks, we may see some relation of lockdown but those vulnerable people will need to be self isolating for longer. ( hence the letters to stay home for 12 weeks)

relaxing not remaining!

Not even the ONS or epidemiologists can accurately differentiate "excess" deaths right now and won't be able to for some time. We do however know that all the deaths occurring at the samr time increases pressure on health services, which can lead to excess deaths from other causes , eg heart attacks etc, that would otherwise have the capacity for treatment and full recovery. So the stats on their own don't tell you much. Also bear in mind there is often quite a big lag between infection and death - up to four weeks as far as I can see from China. I do agree that the press give no context and may be unnecessarily stoking fear that will make the return to work , and therefore the end of this economic disaster, very difficult. A population that just reads screaming headlines will understandably be very afraid. It's the people in poor countries I feel for though, their lockdowns are utterly pointless - with no healthcare in the first place and much younger populations, they're surely better off taking their chances. Their alternative is starving with no work.

@Tootletum That's a fair point.
I was looking at the weekly data for this year so far to see if there was any big jumps that could be attributed to COVID, and therefore correlate with the sensationalist headlines.

Every day I look at my phone and there's another 'XXX people have died in the UK in 24 HOURS, leaving total deaths at XXXXX' which sounds genuinely terrifying. I don't think they're deliberately trying to evoke fear but the titles come across as 'click bait' which can cause an individual's mental health to take a dive.
I think it's especially important now (seeing as people are cut off from support networks, told to only go to the supermarket, being cooped indoors for 20 hours a day with constant access to news and media outlets...) that the media are completely transparent.

I believe there will be severe hangovers from this too which could bring on mental health crisis'.

It's awful for those in poor countries no sanitation, no welfare. Just get on with it. It's horrifying.

@frumpety he doesn't, but he has provided a graph.

I think the picture attached?

Stop with the numbers game, just look at the situation in ICU and ventilators, Talk to doctors and nurses on the front line

OP absolutely agree. The journalism is pretty irresponsible and will really bite us with people therefore thinking this is the plague and we're all going to die. And of course every anomaly in the age range is a screaming headline for days - saying "young people die too" is a fact, but if you put in context, I think something like 0.2% deaths are under 50. I might have got that wrong, but it's tiny. Obviously doesn't stop me following the rules, but it does allow me to let up on the awful paranoia that gripped me initially!!

I also clicked on this thread because I thought it was referring to a one-night stand and was hoping for salacious content, sigh.

OP, you're welcome to complain to Ofcom about media sensationalism if you want, but if your concern is actually for those with MH conditions, it might be more productive for you to help your friend and others practice self-care techniques for avoiding having their MH made worse by media coverage. The daily death count is going to be made (can you imagine the anxiety among many people if this were kept secret by the government?!) and therefore it's going to go into the headlines. The media (some of it) is also reporting a lot of good factual sensible information which people could turn to.

Therefore it's probably more useful for you to encourage your friends to do things that will actually be helpful, like limit the amount they look at the news each day, call a friend when they need to talk, do other activities that calm their anxiety, hell, write down the ONS figures from March 2019 on a piece of paper and look at it whenever they need reassurance.

People are going to die and the media are going to report it. There will always be a portion of the media that is sensationalistic. Those of us who find that preys on our existing anxiety or other MH problems need to take as much responsibility as we can in managing those conditions, rather than choosing to expose ourselves to a constant onslaught of doom.

That graph is a bit of mash up , did you find it on the BBC ? So is it saying that if you catch the corona virus at 60, you have a 99% chance of recovery and at 80 a 90% chance of recovery ?

Really really dissapointed that this thread isnt about whether you should have a one night stand during the covid crises.

Really really dissapointed that this thread isnt about whether you should have a one night stand during the covid crises.

Why don't you start one? 😂

One of the most striking stats I have seen is that you have the same probability of dying if you get Coronavirus as you do for dying anyway within a year. For each age group.

So, yes, you could take a cold view that we should 'take it on the chin' as the blonde said originally. However, it sounds like a really horrible way to go, and I'm not willing to give up any of my relatives as collateral damage. Even the annoying ones.

@HeartsTrumpDiamonds me too,what a let down