Deaths from Covid alone in 2020 = 9,400

[Whydidimarryhim]

There has been a freedom of information release from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) - Jan 7th 22
There data show that total deaths from Covid in 2020 - this is the number of deaths from adults who had NO underlying issues ie heart disease/diabetes etc - the total No is 9400.
From Jan 2021 to Sept 2021 the total deaths from Covid alone - was 0-64 age range = 2225 and 65+ 5746. All this is for England and Wales
This information is on utube from Dr John Campbell - He has been covering Covid since late 2019.
What is interesting is that this info hasn’t been on the news.

*28% UK adults are obese

an additional 36% are overweight

8 million people have asthma

4 million have diabetes

1 in 3 adults has high blood pressure*

Yes, a lot of people are unhealthy or are unfortunately suffering from a health condition. And yes, they are unfortunately at higher risk of death from Covid.

And yet it is reassuring that for those without these health conditions the risk of covid is thankfully low.

@blubells
How many people in the uk have no underlying medical condtion on their medical records ?

5% was quote upthread which would mean only approx 3and half million people would be classed as no underlying conditions.

Do you know if you you would be classed as died with or without underlying condition if covid killed you?

I also feel its fake reasurance if someone doesnt consider that their medical history would mean that they wouldnt be included in without underlying conditions because they dont realise how many things this includes

Maybe it should be split vereeniging underlying conditions known yo increase your COVID risk and other underlying conditions.

Between
To increase

Only 5% of the population has NO health condition?

Wow, I find that hard to believe.

I mea broke bones are counted but not sure how my broken foot related to an increased COVID risk. It was an accident.
Hoe many people think they are in the healthy camp but broke a bone as a child for example.

@Blubells well if you look at whats counted as underlying its not that hard to believe is it
I had endo and have broken a bone so i would go down as underlying condition

I don’t think that’s correct?

bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-10427-2

@Blubells people with diabetes don't all have it due to weight etc or asthma or being unhealthy as you put it
You might be surprised to find you have what would be considered an underlying health condition if you knew all that were counted
Your a little blinkered

From that link

On 5 March 2019, 24.4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition

@MarshaBradyo still shows a high percentage considered at risk and thats the ones they know about
Im not sure the same conditions are used when reporting deaths though
I have read things like broken bones , excema etc but have no idea if true and would be helpful if they listed what underlying conditions they actually do include

@MarshaBradyo so basically a 1/4 of population is still pretty high

Yes but the 5% / 95% in the pp was a bit extreme!

I think this underlying conditions thing is a bit more complex than it appears.

Some conditions definitely increase the risk of severe outcomes from covid in their own right.

Other conditions are included more because they can predict higher likelihoods of other ones. For example a lot of people with depression, particularly severe depression, will over-index on extremely poor diet and nutrition, poor access to/trust of health services, obesity and alcohol/drug abuse.

Similar somewhat situation to give an example of this. A few years ago I went for a heart health check at my GP. The HCP told me that despite my active lifestyle, low resting heart rate, low cholesterol and normal BP I was at a technically higher risk of developing a heart problem. Why? I asked. 'It's because of your postcode,' she said. 'There are a lot of takeaways in your postcode area, and because high numbers of takeaways in a postcode tends to correlate with higher numbers of heart problems in the population, it's included as a theoretical risk because of the way the NHS works out risk percentages.'

@MarshaBradyo maybe they were referring to whats included when they state underlying condition on deaths chart
Your example was how they calculate risks
Does anyone actually know what conditions they include as underlying when they count a death? As i have heard all sorts

@marshabradyo

2 different meanures. 1. Is the people believed to be more vunerable to covid and therefore more likely to have worse outcomes if thet contract covid.

1. Is the number of people that would be recorded as with underlying condition should they die of covid even if the underlying c9ndition would have no impact on the outcome of covid.

It makes sence for those wanting to minimise covid to ensure the data of died without underlying c9ndition is as low as poss8ble hence including a vast array of underlying conditions in this data. It would not be in their interest to measure using the same benchmark, although for transparancy they should

@Blubells

*28% UK adults are obese

an additional 36% are overweight

8 million people have asthma

4 million have diabetes

1 in 3 adults has high blood pressure*

Yes, a lot of people are unhealthy or are unfortunately suffering from a health condition. And yes, they are unfortunately at higher risk of death from Covid.

And yet it is reassuring that for those without these health conditions the risk of covid is thankfully low.

I don't think you understand

Many of the things that put you in the "underlying condition" category do not put you at increased risk of COVID

Hypertension, asthma, a UTI, previous blood clot, enlarged prostate, broken bone etc. These are incredibly common conditions that mean most people will have at least one, whilst living normal lives.

This is such a pernicious myth that is being used to propagate the idea that only people who would've probably died from something else were killed by COVID.

Getting very tired and frustrated of the COVID minimising on this and other threads. Yes policies need to be constantly reviewed to make sure the benefit/risk profile is justified, no we shouldn't be spreading misinformation to pretend COVID wasn't and isn't a public health threat.

[quote leafyygreens]To repeat again

• underlying conditions does not include very common things such as high blood pressure and obesity. This means a significant chunk of the population is automatically excluded from these numbers.
• these are the numbers with substantial measures in place to reduce deaths.
• death is not the only outcome from COVID - you're totally ignoring the significant number with long term damage or complications.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4459378-Why-is-the-government-website-misinformation

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4458837-Deaths-from-covid-19-with-no-underlying-comorbidities

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4454080-17-731-total-deaths-from-Covid-in-the-UK-with-no-other-underlying-health-issues?msgid=114281441[/quote]
Stated on this thread and all the other threads that have linked this table with no further context.

Here they are copied and pasted:
Original ONS source can be found on the many other threads.

Dementia and Alzheimer's disease
Diabetes
Hypertensive diseases
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
Symptoms signs and ill-defined conditions
Diseases of the urinary system
Ischaemic heart diseases
Heart failure and complications and ill-defined heart disease
Cardiac arrhythmias
Cerebrovascular diseases
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue
Parkinson's disease
Malignant neoplasms of lymphoid haematopoietic and related tissue
Malignant neoplasm of prostate
Nonrheumatic valve disorders
Pulmonary heart disease and diseases of pulmonary circulation
Pulmonary oedema and other intestinal pulmonary diseases
Malignant neoplasm of trachea bronchus and lung
Obesity
Cirrhosis and other diseases of liver
Records with pre-existing conditions, but none of the above

I think it's really complex because a particular condition might contribute directly to one person's severe illness or death with covid, but in another person it might not.

Broken bones is another one. My gut says the reason this one is included on some lists of underlying conditions isn't so much because there's anything directly pathological that causes a former bone break or fracture to worsen covid.

I wonder if it's more because large numbers a majority, I think, certainly of adults of the people who break or fracture bones are older, many elderly, and have a string of other conditions already -- osteoporosis, arthritis, dementia, etc etc.

It's not the fracture itself that causes the increased risk, it's the intersection of the likelihood of a recent break x age x other potential conditions? Certain conditions predict other conditions, statistically if not in every case.

I could be wrong but I don't think it's true that you're at increased risk of a severe outcome from covid because you broke your arm when you were 8.

I'm not covid minimsing.

I think so many people have "conditions" that it's meaningless to talk about whether we have conditions or not.

There are a huge number of people with pre diabetes and metabolic syndrome for example in the UK.

I think we should have kept the small number of mitigations we had for the sake of "everyone's" health. right now.

[quote Covidworries]@marshabradyo

2 different meanures. 1. Is the people believed to be more vunerable to covid and therefore more likely to have worse outcomes if thet contract covid.

1. Is the number of people that would be recorded as with underlying condition should they die of covid even if the underlying c9ndition would have no impact on the outcome of covid.

It makes sence for those wanting to minimise covid to ensure the data of died without underlying c9ndition is as low as poss8ble hence including a vast array of underlying conditions in this data. It would not be in their interest to measure using the same benchmark, although for transparancy they should[/quote]
Ok I understand this difference you are referring to now

But are you saying that when, back at the beginning the report was either had underlying condition or did not have that 95% of population fall into have category?

I have no view on what it should be just trying to get understanding

@hamstersarse

I don’t know how accurate this is but on the back of this a stat has been produced that the average life lost is 7 weeks.

Significant to know

Wrong

A man's average expected life span has been reduced by seven weeks.

Significant to interpret correctly

I honestly don't get this responses on this thread. People really don't care about accurate statistics?

This is a national scandal. How many people have died needlessy because of the lies that have been pumped at us for two years?

And no one cares??

@doublemonkey

I honestly don't get this responses on this thread. People really don't care about accurate statistics?

This is a national scandal. How many people have died needlessy because of the lies that have been pumped at us for two years?

And no one cares??

Of course people care about "accurate statistics". Replicated data globally demonstrates why coronavirus was such a serious issue that required intervention to this scale.

The inferences being made from this one FOI request does not show that coronavirus was not a threat, or that reactions were over the top.

Many scientists have commented explaining this (which have been linked to on this thread, and others), and how when you put this info in context, it doesn't say what you are assuming it to @doublemonkey