Truly shocking stats from the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

[ZuzusPetaIs]

Have a look at this graph, published recently by the ONS - an official government body would no incentive to lie

Note that these are for deaths up to 20th of April. For the majority of transmissions for these deaths will have occurred before lockdown.

Relevant, for example, for teachers

I fail to see what’s shocking about it.

Shock horror us "working class" are killed of faster than wealthy people 🙄 many of us have worked through the pandemic because we have hands on jobs that don't allow us to WFH on a computer. So work from home of you can didn't apply. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Where are the retired people on that graph?

I think the fact that women are missed off the graph makes it biased towards some professions. Those in the caring/nursing/teaching professions for example wouldn’t be fairly represented as the vast majority in that profession are women.
Someone would perhaps use something ch a graph if they were trying to ‘prove’ that it is safe to open schools for example, as look teachers are less prone to catching/dying from corona virus than anyone else. Yet a chart containing women would paint a much sorrier picture.
People will twist evidence any way they can to sell their idea.

Re food prep etc this says more likely to die rather than more likely to catch/carry so I’m not sure what is “eww” about it

We should be horrified that people with lower incomes have worse health outcomes - but it has always been the case and we seem to be very accepting of it generally, which is shit

I assume there is a corresponding female graph but the OP has only chosen to show this one - a link to the original at the ONS might be useful

I've looked at the corresponding graph for females on the ONS.

I think what's most interesting is how low down the list teachers are given how much hysteria they're whipping up about going back.

They were teaching right up until lockdown, so exposed when this was at it's mass transmission 1st March - lockdown, and although it's a tragedy of any death, if it really was that risky they'd be higher up the list.

The chart shows deathsper 100,000so it's irrelevant how many there are. It's about theproportionwho have died, not the number.

As pp said, looking at the graph, thats not clear.

#notallteachers

The unions are noisy and there are inevitably more worried voices on MN than those who aren’t so worried. My husband Was and is fully prepared to go back to school

In fact its really not clear.

Its looks like, its looking at 100,000 of the population. Not just that job role. According to that article.

They arent looking at how many deaths per 100,000 IT professionals. They are looking at how many IT workers are dying per 100,000 of the population.

So, yes, the less people doing a job the less there would be dying per 100,000 of the population.

However, that doesn't negate the fact that obviously people going out and about for work, are more at risk and tend to be lower paid. But this has been the case since before covid. Poorer people suffer worse health and die younger.

Its not hard to see why. I dont know many people in low paid job that have the time or money, to go to the gym before work everyday for example. Or worked from home before this and could go for a run at lunch or have a nanny to to do the school run to free them up.

They arent looking at how many deaths per 100,000 IT professionals. They are looking at how many IT workers are dying per 100,000 of the population.

That can’t be right can it? That would make the graph completely meaningless and also would mean that given how many fewer managers there are it would mean managers actually have a proportionally really high risk.

Teachers were safer than the average profession. Maybe that does suggest younger children are not spreading it.

Yes that looks encouraging for teachers’ risk. Especially as looking at the hospitality workers this is pre lockdown figures. Which would also fit in with the dates.

There is a separate graph for women. Retired people are not shown on THIS graph because it only relates to profession/employment.

That graph is not from the ONS, it's from some third-rate journalist .

The ONS include error bars and clarifies that these are age-standardised figures, in view of the fact that the death rate is essentially between age 40 or 50 and 65, so if a certain profession trends younger they will have to adjust the death rates upwards accordingly, and hence there is quite a lot of uncertainty in the results, which the stacked graph in the OP doesn't show.

There is already a thread on this and other such matters where this was discussed.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3905548-Daily-numbers-graphs-analysis-thread-8

I still don’t get what is “truly shocking” the OP? What is it you’re seeing on the graph that surprises you? It’s been widely reported that it’s low skilled men getting the brunt of the disease. Although there’s a reporting bias towards women in the NHS I suppose.

From ONS site stats for healthcare workers. Note the different scales on the two graphs

For men just under 25 per 100000 and for women under 10 per 100000 in social care for 20-64 yr olds so no “elderly “. The shocking part is how much more susceptible men are to this disease.

They were teaching right up until lockdown, so exposed when this was at it's mass transmission 1st March - lockdown, and although it's a tragedy of any death, if it really was that risky they'd be higher up the list.

This is not correct at all. On 1 March tests were less than 1% positive daily. On 1 April it was 40%

The point with teachers is that in fact schools were closed by 20 March and you'd expect deaths from that to peak around 3 April. Other jobs continued to work and would have continued to be infected. This dataset goes up to around 15 April death date

That's not to say that teachers have a higher or lower risk than average in normal circumstances, just that it would be wrong to compare teachers with other jobs that continued beyond 20 March.

Probably teachers have a normal or slightly higher death risk, but that's not proven by this chart in any way

Note that we can't either compare NOW when we know pretty much how many people are infected across the country and WHERE they are infected, with the shitshow we had in March when the testing was inadequate. Even with no vaccine we are much better off than then because we are testing 100k per day rather than 3k

So even if teachers were at high risk, it doesn't follow that they are at high risk now....

That can’t be right can it? That would make the graph completely meaningless and also would mean that given how many fewer managers there are it would mean managers actually have a proportionally really high risk

I am not 100% sure but the op says the article explains it better. The article says Men in low-skilled jobs are almost four times more likely to die from coronavirus than professionals, with 21.4 deaths per 100,000 people

100,000 people not people working in that profession.

As I said, its really not entirely clear.

And also because this graph is upto April 20th, the data isn't easy to look at what it means long term. Because, lots of these cases will be caught before lockdown.

I know restaurant managers, I am senior manager, friends work as managers in other jobs. We were the one the still working in our work places last.

I didnt leave until I know my team were all set up working from home, making sure the technology worked and they had everything they need. Then packed up the office. The people who work for us in the field, were already furloughed. They are back out now and more at risk. I am now wfh and lower risk.

My MD was the last to start working from home. My friend that runs a restaurant was still the same and has to travel in once a week to check stock.

All my friends that work as supervisors or managers, were the last to go home in furlough or to wfh.

It would also deoends on who they have grouped in these groups.

Our IT support went home one of the first and were testing if they could WFH from early March. So very low risk. Is their manager a manager or an IT professional?

I am surprised by the teacher stats. I (obviously wrongly) assumed that teachers had been disproportionately adversely impacted by the virus before lockdown and that preventing this from happening again was a key barrier to schools returning. The data would suggest this wasn't the case which is counterintuitive when you think how long schools stayed open for and the fact that they would have largely been unable to implement social distancing in the weeks prior to lockdown. Is there an explanation as to why teachers haven't been worse affected?

For men just under 25 per 100000 and for women under 10 per 100000 in social care for 20-64 yr olds so no “elderly

We don't have the raw death rates. Young men aged 20-29 doing social care will have much lower death rates than accountants aged 55-64

If jobs are done mostly or solely by young people then there won't be a significant death rate.

You will get a very high actual death toll for example in a factory of middle aged men, while a care home staffed by 20-somethings (or conceptuallly 1000 such care homes) cannot possibly produce a high death toll

The overwhelming risk is with age, which doubles about every six years for both sexes, and then men are about double women of the same age. So for example it's much better to furlough a 60 year old woman and allow a 30 year old man to keep working because the man will be around 15x less likely to die of covid-19.

Young people including children have a statistically zero (not 0, but 0.0001 or whatever - lower risk than being hit by a car on the way to work/school) risk of death from covid-19

"They arent looking at how many deaths per 100,000 IT professionals. They are looking at how many IT workers are dying per 100,000 of the population"

It is per 100 000 of the particular occupation but yes not clear from that graph.

@bumpitybumper

That's the point I was trying to make!

@ShootsFruitAndLeaves I agree

@IvinghoeBeacon yes sorry, I should have said 'some', thank you to your DH for being more rational :)