Concerned that the government not releasing stats on child deaths

[Thewheelsarefallingoff]

Prompted by discussions on schools reopening; I tried to find more data on children seriously ill with CV and deaths of children.

On 27th April, the BBC reported the potentially fatal syndrome in children, at the time of the report, 20 children were in ITU with this in the UK: www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52439005

World meters just doesn't seem to have the stats for the UK by age and demographics:
www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

When I click on the link for age and demographics it takes me to a page with figures for New York City:
www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

I am concerned that we won't have the information in order for us to make reasoned decisions on whether to send our children back to school.

Does anyone have some reliable data on this?

Bloody hell OP! An embargo? What have you been reading?

As others have said the ONS data is updated weekly and is, as it has always been, freely available to anyone who looks.

There is no conspiracy. And the internal information that has been leaked has made a lot of pediatricians very angry - not the complex data but the fact that some unthinking twats saw fit to publicise it knowing that it would be used to spread yet more fear and disinformation.

Stop and think about what has been said here. Don't let the monster shouters get to you.

Are there any journalists that can confirm whether this is an embargo on reporting deaths and serious complications in children?

If the information is available it wouldn't be possible to stop it being leaked on the internet imo, unless there's a superinjunction of course but there's no suggestion of that.

Better to give time for accurate data to be compiled imo

I do think that many people, even MNs, would be surprised to learn that there have been 9 deaths of children up to 17th April. You may think I'm thick as mince, but there are many people even thicker than me that would like have the situation laid out in a more digestable form before we have to consider going back to some form of normal.

Why would it be a surprise that 9 children died? Do you mean surprisingly low?

I certainly don’t think you’re thick OP but I do think you’re looking for data that simply isn’t there because the figures we do have are correct.

I welcome somebody correcting me if I’m wrong but The figures we have for deaths of children cover 0-17 and is consistent with the percentages quoted from the beginning (even with China’s suspect figures).

9 is really low when you consider how many children have underlying health isuues. Both my DC do but fortunately nothing respiratory based.

@Thewheelsarefallingoff yes I am actually surprised to hear that because it’s a ludicrously low number. Out of the around 20k total deaths on April 17, only 9 were children. That seems extremely consistent with all the science and data form the beginning which suggested children dying would be extremely rare?

I don't mean I think the 9 is wrong. I mean I think the experts are right saying that children are less affected.

How do you want the data presented?

I ask as there are many MNers who have been producing a variety of graphs to try and clarify data streams.

If you find the daily graphs thread someone there will probably help you.

OK in Scotland in Weeks 1 to 17 ie Jan to 26th April at total of 83 under 14's have died. Of those ZERO died of COVID 19.

In England/Wales in the week ending 17th April a total of 66 under 14's died. 2 of these had involved COVID 19.

COVID is much, much less a risk to under 14's than many, many other causes of death.

PS - the above info took me about 2 minutes to dig out. Those sites contain huge amounts of other data if you are really interested.

I want much more information on what is happening in hospital and care homes. The ons does not have this. Also yes of course the ons has lots of data. A few weeks ago i wanted care homes figures, was was told the ons gives this - so the goverment on the daily update out the ons figures for all settings on the graph - great! It has now disappeared and been replaced by the government figures. I know this takes time but is no excuse for not doing it.
I want to know:
How people have been to hospital?
How many admitted in the laast 24 hours?
How many have been discharged?
How many been discharged in the last 24 hours
.how many exactly in intensive care?
How many admitted in last 24 hours?
How many deaths in care homes since lockdown occurred in care homes as per ons figures ( i.e covid 19 on death certificate)

I am really not being difficult and wanting ot argue with anyone but if anyone could tell me these no.s then i would love to know.

On the NHS website deaths from coronvirus for ages 0-19 is 9 as of the 2nd May, this may change as they update numbers on Monday after the weekend. Of the 19 children who had the rare syndrome none have died as yet.

And to clarify, I realise that 9 deaths are an incredibly low number. However, the prevailing thought that is that children are unaffected, or affected mildly. Also, I think that 'mild symptons' quite often equates to the worst illness you have ever had/would have been hospitalised in any other time.

On respect of the embargo question, I worked on a local newspaper for a short time. Embargoes were issued about the most mundane issues, so it didn't seem such an outlandish idea to me.

FOI request might get you some of that info, Humphries. You need to be extremely specific about where when & what.

Last 24 hours? You're having a laugh. Welcome to the world of NHS & social care data which is usually iffy quality and fairly out of date. Do you care if the info comes with anything about age, sex or usual residence? Coz all that could well be missing. And since thread started asking about children....

Most trusts only generate good numbers for 6 weeks ago when performance measures are applied and even those numbers may end up being revised. Plus you're thinking too linear about the pathways, how do you want classified..

*People who developed cv19 symptoms after they were admitted for something else?

*People who are readmitted or attended within 7 days of being discharged? How do you define if the primary reason for readmission /treatment is essentially still cv19 or something else?

*You need a very specific time point (like 9am each day) for counts in intensive care; I think CHESS data has this, though, and is updated daily, possibly broken down by age as well as where.

*What is a 'hospital': bear with me. If there are 20 inpatients with cv19 in my local mental health wards, are they in a 'hospital'; maybe they developed cv19 before they were sectioned. Maybe we can't tell where and when they were exposed. There are other types of inpatient beds that are not in acute care trusts.

In my world, everyone is quoting Docherty which has some of the info Humphries asked for, but certainly not the 24 hours bit, lol. You can get accurate or up to date. Don't expect both.

Right now we scientists are getting an amazing level of access to individual patient data, btw, undreamt of info detail that would have been impossible 6m ago. Normally the NHS won't share patient data with anyone, it would take years of wrangling to eventually fail to get anything like the level of info we are getting (flawed as it is). So maybe the next scandal will be that we were given too much detail (sigh).

Well that entirely fits that theory doesn't it? And mild COVID illness in children is not the same as in adults. Have you read any of the numerous worldwide studies? Or did you just want to assume there is a cover-up of child deaths without having any clue of what you're talking about?

Ps: there a couple of howler data entries (incorrect numbers, ourliers) in my local CHESS data. I've been chasing the trusts to get the real numbers. Data entry errors will be common in a live database.

there are many people even thicker than me that would like have the situation laid out in a more digestible form

The trouble is, this isn't simple problem, are there aren't simple answers.

I understand that people have a hard time dealing with complexity and seek straightforward explanations, but sometimes we just have to accept that we don't have, and probably never will have a straightforward answer.

As an aside, this was the main issue with the Brexit referendum - the problem was far too complex to be understood by Joe Public and should therefore never have been put to them to make such an important decision.

Scotland issues information at 2.00pm each day on the number of people in hospital and the number of those in ICU at midnight the night before in each NHS area. This is still only a little bit of the picture but it is helpful.

@Humphriescushion - there's some reasonable extra info you might want if you're running a hospital trust or a member of SAGE. How could it possibly help you as an individual though?

If you really want the info then you can research published stats to find out, I don't know why you think stats you're interested in should be tracked daily though when they aren't the most important for tracking the virus spread nor lethality. You can find the data for all that but perhaps with a small lag. For example, critical care capacity for NHS England is here. Just use the search here and ONS if you want stats:
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/critical-care-capacity/

Does no one on this thread think that the government will be trying to manipulate the data to present the best case scenario? I really do not understand this blind faith in the data that we already know to be flawed: The lack of testing being the biggest factor.

Are we just to accept the information given at daily briefings, trust that when government begins to end the lock down (that they were too slow to implement) they have our best interests at heart?

Surely every death of a child would have a full post-mortem exam done, so it will take a long time for coroner's reporting? I believe coroners are somewhat stretched at the moment...
I've said previously on other threads- we aren't going to know any country's true figures for a number of years to come. Once the number of those that died due to the economic impacts are added, that picture is going to change tremendously.

Because the government does not make or control the data.

Many hospital trusts, registrars etc do the data collection. There are far too many organisations and individuals involved. And basically, we may not have faith in any government de jour but we don't live in a dictatorship.

To question the ONS data is something we should all do. But to fear it is itself disinformation requires a whole extra level of fear and loathing.

I agree @Krakow. Even the time from virus exposure at to complications to death can be many weeks in itself. We cannot have any confidence (as members of the public) in current data.

@Thewheelsarefallingoff - Do you think no NHS employee would whistleblow about a steady stream of dead children? Do you think the government is made up of people so evil that they would be happy to cause the death of children? Governments worldwide are struggling to get a steady stream of plastic aprons, yet you think can manage to collude along with millions of healthcare professionals in each country to hide child deaths? And parents of these dead children; they've stopped using forums, social media etc and have elected not to tell their friends and family?

I mean this very kindly, your theory is delusional. You might want to talk to a GP about your anxiety levels, you're past the point of reasonable.

If you are that untrusting in the raw data then I’m not sure there is an answer to that. I believe the government will seek to present the data in a way that suits their particular aim (because the reality is that most people will never seek out the source information) but I think we have to have reasonable confidence in the raw data.

If your particular concern is that the virus is more risky to children than the data is telling us then you will have to make a choice based on what you believe to be best. I’m not sure you are ever going to find data you are comfortable with? If it’s official then you would consider it possibly doctored, if it’s unofficial it cannot be verified.