Piers Morgan is saying 62 thousand have died

[Destinysdaughter]

On GMB this morning he said this. Why is his figure almost double the official number? Not being goady, I genuinely don't understand the discrepancy, does anyone know where he is getting these figures from?

There are extra deaths to "average" in this period, in the region of 60k but even Piers doesn't know if the difference is down to untested covid, the effects of lockdown and isolation, other medical needs being neglected or something else entirely.

So sorry StopGo.

StopGo how incredibly sad for you, you must be in shock right now.

Before long the very same people who demanded we should lockdown harder and earlier are going to be outraged at the increased deaths caused by pretty much closing down the NHS and mental health services. And then the deaths due to the poverty that follows.

I think the 40,000 are covid in all settings, ( up to 8 th may) then 20,000 are other unexplained but not with covid on the death certificate. I believe the ons is looking into an explanation of these extra deaths. Hopefully someone from the graphs thread can throw more light on it.

Excess deaths is the measure which will, with hindsight, show us the full impact of the way the government have handled C19, whether direct deaths or not.

Here's the tweet from Chris Giles, mentioned earlier.

twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1262407386884706305?s=20

stopgo I am so very sorry for your loss. X

StopGo so sorry to hear this.

Isn't it generally accepted that the real death toll from Covid-19 is much higher than the official figure? AFAIK you only get included in that official figure if you've been tested for it and died in either an NHS hospital or a care home. The ONS figure suggests a much higher death toll, based on the difference between the number of deaths this year vs. the same time last year.

However, some of those extra deaths will be from things other than Covid, because a lot of people are afraid to call an ambulance or go to hospital when they really to. So people have been dying, sometimes unnecessarily, from other things too.

@StopGo I’m so so sorry x

I suspect the real death figures are much higher than reported. This is good news for the government though as it means more people have had it and it fits in with their herd immunity plan.

What I would like to know is the prevalence in the community now vis a vis in care homes. I have a feeling the sad situation in care homes is what’s keeping the R value bumped up but it’s just a hunch.

Yeah, that seems about right, even assuming that some of the discrepency (1/3 is the highest end estimate) is not caused by Covid 19.

The FT are coming up with similar numbers and I've seen an insurance company analysis which says the same.

Just read what the ons said on the bbc ( via the guardian) he said it was just under 55,000 for up till the 8th may. Presume the 62,000 figure is the no.s includes the deaths up to now?

Before long the very same people who demanded we should lockdown harder and earlier are going to be outraged at the increased deaths caused by pretty much closing down the NHS and mental health services. And then the deaths due to the poverty that follows

All of the above is due to policy decisions, NHS is running at 50% the capacity it was at lockdown... so there is no need to be restricting life saving treatments, even if routine still has to be.
Excess poverty, again is a policy decision, we did not need 10 years of austerity.

An earlier, harsher lockdown, as seen in europe, actually means a quicker economic recovery.

@jasjas1973

"Today, a care home owner said he had a letter from CQC, dated 31/3, care homes have to relieve pressure on hospitals...'

"But blame the messenger!"
If I ran a care home and received such a letter from the CQC, in the circumstances, I would be professional and determine whether to admit someone based on their health condition and Covid-19 status. I would refuse entry to anyone who hadn't tested negative for it who had been discharged from a hospital setting.

Care home managers should be capable of running a safe and secure home for their residents. Those incapable of making decisions for the benefit of those in their care shouldn't be in the job.

@NotEverythingIsBlackandWhite

True and some did, which why CV is in less than half of all care homes but alongside these pressure to admit hospital patients was the advice that care homes and staff were not at risk of contracting CV.

Surely, it is the job of the Govt to protect the vulnerable and not to rely on individual decisions of care home bosses? After all, they have the ALL the facts don't they?
There is also anecdotal reports that care homes were threatened with cuts in funding if they did not comply and that they were denied PPE....

The U.K. government have said excess deaths are the best objective measure of deaths caused by CV19. These deaths can be directly by having Covid or indirectly by being unable to or afraid to access healthcare.

The U.K. excess deaths are at over 60,000.

Actually the reason so many hospital beds are blocked is due to delays in setting up funding packages between the care home and local authority. The instruction from government/NHSE was to bypass funding package negotiation and all patients being transferred would be funded as required. So the care home funding argument is anecdotal rather than fact.

Between 21st March and 8th May 121,002 people have died of all causes*. The five year average for this period is 71,427. So 50,000 people have died as a result of Covid and/or a consequence of lockdown.

*8th May was a bank holiday where only 88 deaths were registered, compared to 2,950 the previous Friday. This will distort the figures for the following week when they're released so will look much higher and artificially lowers this week's.

@StopGo so sorry for your loss, heartbreaking situation for many families at the moment

It’s hard to get the data atm. Also decline in deaths such as RTA etc will be part of mix.

I’m not that surprised by the figures.

But Sparklfairy for accurate statistical comparison you need to look at the whole winter period not just a few weeks. If you do you will see that because there were significantly lower deaths over this period than average (mild winter) the actual excess deaths is actually much lower than your quoted figure.
"There are lies, damn lies and statists." - Mark Twain.
Statistics can be used to prove any argument if you extract the right figures.

*statistics

@oralengineer Well no, because Covid wasn't here and killing people in huge numbers over the winter period. You're comparing apples with oranges. In any case there were not 'significantly lower deaths' than average over winter at all.

If you go right the way back from Mid-March all the way through 2019, our weekly death rate is within a few hundred (either above or below) of the five year average. Every single week. That kind of difference when the total deaths every week around 10 or 11 thousand is negligible. Any difference is far from significant.

Then once the Covid death rate starts to accelerate at the end of March, and lockdown happened, you see a massive spike in total or excess deaths. Suddenly you're looking at 6,000, 8,000, 12,000 higher than the five year average every week.

Some of these are a consequence of lockdown, not directly Covid related. However, if the virus wasn't here, they wouldn't have happened. Therefore they should be looked at as an indirect result of Covid and lockdown and the wider impact of this pandemic should include these figures.

I would just like to put some peoples minds at rest with regards to non-treatment. We have had 3 grandparents in hospital over the last 6 weeks. All mid 80's, one from a care home. A dislocated hip, a heart attack, and a bone infection. All had ambulances, all were treated, all were Covid tested, several times, all negative, they had operations and scans, and what not, and all are still alive.

Good news, but of course, they did all call for help, and get it. I also know of a terminal cancer suffered who had surgery in a private hospital.

Before long the very same people who demanded we should lockdown harder and earlier are going to be outraged at the increased deaths caused by pretty much closing down the NHS and mental health services. And then the deaths due to the poverty that follows

I’m baffled by how some people think the NHS would have operated if we had carried on as normal and not postponed non-urgent appointments, and we had not “locked down”.

There’s this bizarre and ridiculous fantasy amongst some that everything would have been fine if we’d buried our heads in the sand and let Covid wash over us, and that the NHS could have carried on operating all it’s services as normal throughout a Covid influx of patients whose numbers were unmitigated by any lockdown

Firstly, Covid cases would almost certainly have been far, far higher... but as the hospitals had simply carried on with their usual business, they would have been utterly overwhelmed.

Secondly, even if hospitals could somehow have physically continued to deliver their other work whilst dealing with an unmanageable Covid influx, they would quickly have become riddled with Covid throughout, and death traps for the vulnerable patients who were being treated.

So yes, of the 60,000 excess deaths some will probably could have been avoid had Covid not existed.... But had we simply carried on regardless, you could probably have added an extra zero to that and it wouldn’t be too much of an exaggeration.