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.

I was listening to More or Less on Radio 4 and they had a professor of statistics (or something like that) on. She said that in 2021 excess deaths worldwide was over 18,000,000 and that the vast, vast majority of those will be due to covid.

@Comedycook it really doesn't take much thinking about.

We slowly came our of lockdown. Kids weren't returned because the whole thing was new

By July cases were up again. Because we were coming out of lockdown.

I am not a huge fan of lockdown, I am glad we aren't facing another. But there were reasons decisions were made. Pretending everything was fine because cases were low for a few weeks so kids should have gone back.

It was obvious when kids went back cases would rise.

Its like people's memories aren't more than 18 months long.

From a moral perspective the one certainty we do have is that people will be adversely affected on many levels. Throughout the pandemic the balance has shifted between health and economic/societal harm many times but there has always been a balance. It’s impossible to completely ‘save’ one group or another, it’s always come down to less harm not no harm.

Yes exactly. In order to save more lives we need to sacrifice other aspects of our lives - the costs are largely borne by the younger generation (schoolchildren and University students) not only in terms of missed education but in terms of huge taxes to pay for all this (furlough etc).

"What is interesting is that this info hasn’t been on the news."

It's been covered relentlessly for the past two years! It's been widely aknowledged and promoted by goverment and MSM that older and medically vulnerable people are more at risk of death by covid. Remember the massive media campaign about "don't kill granny", the vaccines drive prioritising older people and those with underlying health conditions on the understanding that they are most at risk? I don't understand why Dr Campbell is pushing this as a conspiracy and that only deaths of certain people should matter.

Grow up

Grow up really is pertinent around the whole Covid debate. So many people are so infantile in their views of death.

When people are interested in the number the OP has posted, it is not "oh I don't care because they had underlying health conditions" it is a way of assessing risk and understanding the true picture of whether you could potentially die. It is just information. It isn't the judgement that people are inferring.

It's not like people like me who have been looking on in horror at all the restrictions we have put on people's lives think we are invincible. I too will die. I too may well develop "an underlying health condition" and I also fully expect to at some point. I know I have to die of something, so what I am trying to say is these infantile comments about "don't you care about the vulnerable?" are so misguided, so wrong because death is coming to us all one way or the other. And it is legitimate and valid to want to assess your risks of dying at this particular point of this particular disease - because that is all these stats are aboout

does mean that if/when a pandemic happens again, we might be better able to find a response that protects the vulnerable without destroying the education, mental health and livelihoods of millions of people.

But those vulnerable people will be teachers, pupils, mental health practitioners, doctors, nurses, lorry drivers etc etc.

But surely it's still better to 'protect' those vulnerable people (with vaccines, financial support if unable to work etc) than to shut down the whole society and economy again?!

Grow up

Nyer nyer.

OK calm your tits. As for being a doomsayer or whatever, I like to think I'm pretty middle of the road. Looking forward to all this being over, don't want another lockdown (never did, although I understood the need for restrictions). Never had cheese in my coffee, I you're the first person I've reported on this thread even though I disagree with many posters on here. My issue with you is that I believe some of what you have said is factually incorrect.

Differences of opinion, fine. Robust debate, fine. Lying in order to support a specific agenda - nope.

With regard the effects on mental health, suicide rates actually fell in 2020, as did self harm. This suggests to me that lockdown overall did not harm mental health, and infact might even have benefited it. If society, work, school etc is too stressful to engage in lockdown and remote working/school might have been a relief for lots of people. If this is the case then it raises questions about how we organise our society and if our normal way of life is actually harming mental health.

www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/coronavirus-and-suicide/one-year-on-data-on-covid-19/what-do-we-know-about-coronavirus-and-suicide-risk/

Yes there have been more non-covid deaths at home over the last two years, but those are largely deaths displaced from hospital/care homes/hospices - we haven't had more non-covid deaths from cancer/heart disease etc. David Spiegelhalter has taken an interest in these numbers and what they mean.
amp.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/oct/10/more-people-are-dying-at-home-than-in-the-past

@Blubells true, but that reads like you think these things wouldn’t have generated any cost (financial or otherwise) had no action been taken? I would disagree with that.

@Whydidimarryhim you realise this is third thread in the last couple of days attempting to make the same point using dodgy statistics?

Many posters replied on all the other threads.

A previous poster commented

'It’s not been widely reported because it’s pointlessly selective information.'

The same could be said ('pointlessly selective') of the information released until this point......

And if the excess deaths were caused by lockdown they wouldn't show the patterns they do. They track case numbers, not lockdowns. The tail end of each lockdown shows deaths below normal levels.

@Lilifer Well a huge amount of excess deaths were caused by the lockdown and restrictions for a start🧐

'A huge number', how scientific.

Does this help? www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

People could assess the risk themselves though, could they.

Packed pubs when it was announced they were closing. Thousands attending Cheltenham. Its fine to risk asses and decide you are happy to take the risk and it only impacts you.

Again, measures were not put in place directly to protect people. But to protect the NHS. So all the people who felt they were fine taking the risk, wee impacting other as some would have ended up taking valuable resource.

And while people are risking assess, poorly, themselves what happens to all the people who are at risk of serious death.

Saying 'well we all die at some point' is ridiculous. Of course we do. But that doesn't lessen the impact of these deaths.

And again, what state would the NHS be in if we had left the people risk assessing themselves, is such a shit way as they did?

@JesusInTheCabbageVan

Are the people posting these threads swept up in some kind of Aryan fascist wet dream of a society made up only of wholesome, hearty ubermensch vs sallow parasites who are clinging onto life by a fingernail?

👏👏👏

With regard the effects on mental health, suicide rates actually fell in 2020, as did self harm. This suggests to me that lockdown overall did not harm mental health, and infact might even have benefited it.

I don’t think that you can draw that conclusion from two single outputs of mental health problems. Reduced suicide rates is not the same as lockdowns benefitting mental health. This is dangerous, blinkered and ignorant thinking.

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

^ @Whydidimarryhim

these infantile comments about "don't you care about the vulnerable?" are so misguided

Yes. Nobody is saying that society doesn't care about the vulnerable.

We're asking whether the costs to society of preventing deaths is larger than the benefits.

We could try to prevent every single death by for example everyone staying at home, testing themselves daily, homeschooling etc, but the costs of that would be huge (not just in financial terms but in mental health terms etc)

your username says it all

I..... have a cabbage van? Wow, you got me.

Darn, I know this is going to look like I'm scurrying off to pray for another lockdown or something, but I really do need to get the hoovering done, sorry. I will pop back later to see how you're getting on.