Recording of deaths UK
- Thread starter artie
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
On a non-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic. Presumably we'll all be under Bill Gates' and his 9-foot shape-shifting lizards mates' mind control by then, so it won't matter to us what they charge after that.
This is an interesting read.
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/03/01/lockdowns-have-killed-millions/
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/03/01/lockdowns-have-killed-millions/
It doesn't actually inform me about anything other than the assertions of a junior doctor who read a paper.
Nor do I actually think a clinician from his specialty (chronic disease) has any particular training which makes his insights compelling or persuasive in the absence of any actual data or methodology.
However, if you have a link to the original paper, or a pre-print, I'd be interested to read it because it probably does highlight important trends which would enhance my insight.
It wasn't so much about the numbers, but about the areas that people don't think of when a lockdown is imposed. Ask your average man on the street what is affected by lockdowns and they might say the pubs lose money for instance, how many do you think will say marriage of children has increased, or teen pregnancy has increased? It's an interesting thought experiment and there were things in there that even I hadn't considered.
Lons
Established Member
The only way teenage pregnancy could increase during a lockdown if if the persons responsible were breaking the law and meeting up. It would be difficult from a distance 
Unless of course it was immaculate conception or a result of incest. How marriage of children increased during a lockdown is also more than a little strange.
Unless of course it was immaculate conception or a result of incest. How marriage of children increased during a lockdown is also more than a little strange.
Last edited:
Sachakins
The most wasted of days is one without woodwork
Just to bring the thread back on line a bit about the numbers.
The guidelines on collecting the data, and the framework giving the parameters of "... who have died within the last 28 days and had a positive covid test..."
These were set early on in the pandemic. As for their accuracy or lack of today, it is maintaining a consistent measure.
Patient records are coded, according to a very structured system, albeit a very convoluted one. Ie a broken femur is coded different to a broken tibia, a heart attack, depending on type can have a variety of codes, etc, there are literally thousands of codes.
Being able to extract only 9ne subset, ie covid, may sound simple, but in reality, the coded death may have been pneumonia, or COPD or Coronary Thrombosis. But, And its a BIG BUT, was the pneumonia death just pneumonia, or was Covid the cause of the resulting pneumonia and subsequent death.
It is for this reason they have included the caveat ..." and had a positive Covid test in the last 28 days.
Sure, this may overstate the figures, but at the time and still today it is impossible just to say who died of covid.
That will only come much later, even years later, when the data, histology, pathology and viral analysis post pandemic is done.
So yes, you can get the obvious anomalies, had a positive covid test, then had a fractured neck of femur from fall and died 10 days later. Yes this is clearly not a covid death, they died from a fall with complications as recovery from fractured of femur in elderly can a very low rate. BUT, it turns out they had on set chest difficulties and lung infection, with which a bad coughing fit was pre-emptive to the fall, which in all consideration could be a coded death.
So yes the measure looks wrong at first glance, the reality is the waters are very muddied.
But to change the measurement criteria now would just cause confusion and calls of a cover up, especially as the figures would like be revised down.
Believe me, its no mean feat to get data to be accurate/consistent/compatible within hospitals in the same trust, let alone across each and every trust, hospitals, primary care and every other branches of NHS care available.
To answer your first question. Yes I am qualified with a BSc(Hons) in Applied Statistics. Yes I worked in the private sector, then in the Public sector in an NHS Hospitals Trust, Then in a Primary Care Trust / Clinical Commissioning Group. In each for the Information and Technology sectors, with both an analyst remit and a project governance remit, and am aware of the hurdles to get data sorted, let alone issued daily.
If you got this far, thankyou for taking time to read it.
I neither seek to defend nor debunk the death rate, but trying to give you a flavour of its complexity.
The guidelines on collecting the data, and the framework giving the parameters of "... who have died within the last 28 days and had a positive covid test..."
These were set early on in the pandemic. As for their accuracy or lack of today, it is maintaining a consistent measure.
Patient records are coded, according to a very structured system, albeit a very convoluted one. Ie a broken femur is coded different to a broken tibia, a heart attack, depending on type can have a variety of codes, etc, there are literally thousands of codes.
Being able to extract only 9ne subset, ie covid, may sound simple, but in reality, the coded death may have been pneumonia, or COPD or Coronary Thrombosis. But, And its a BIG BUT, was the pneumonia death just pneumonia, or was Covid the cause of the resulting pneumonia and subsequent death.
It is for this reason they have included the caveat ..." and had a positive Covid test in the last 28 days.
Sure, this may overstate the figures, but at the time and still today it is impossible just to say who died of covid.
That will only come much later, even years later, when the data, histology, pathology and viral analysis post pandemic is done.
So yes, you can get the obvious anomalies, had a positive covid test, then had a fractured neck of femur from fall and died 10 days later. Yes this is clearly not a covid death, they died from a fall with complications as recovery from fractured of femur in elderly can a very low rate. BUT, it turns out they had on set chest difficulties and lung infection, with which a bad coughing fit was pre-emptive to the fall, which in all consideration could be a coded death.
So yes the measure looks wrong at first glance, the reality is the waters are very muddied.
But to change the measurement criteria now would just cause confusion and calls of a cover up, especially as the figures would like be revised down.
Believe me, its no mean feat to get data to be accurate/consistent/compatible within hospitals in the same trust, let alone across each and every trust, hospitals, primary care and every other branches of NHS care available.
To answer your first question. Yes I am qualified with a BSc(Hons) in Applied Statistics. Yes I worked in the private sector, then in the Public sector in an NHS Hospitals Trust, Then in a Primary Care Trust / Clinical Commissioning Group. In each for the Information and Technology sectors, with both an analyst remit and a project governance remit, and am aware of the hurdles to get data sorted, let alone issued daily.
If you got this far, thankyou for taking time to read it.
I neither seek to defend nor debunk the death rate, but trying to give you a flavour of its complexity.
The only way teenage pregnancy could increase during a lockdown if if the persons responsible were breaking the law and meeting up. It would be difficult from a distance
I can see plenty of reasons in the UK why lockdown would increase teenage pregnancy rates, but the article was referring to issues worldwide, hence the marriage of children part, not really an issue here but it is in other countries.
Lons
Established Member
Of course you can Mr resident expert in all matters google, so please explain how when those very teenagers are NOT ALLOWED to get within 2 metres of each other never mind intimate they would be more likely to get pregnant than in normal times when they are drunk free and loose. Unless of course they are breaking the law which is hardly the fault of a lockdown.
so please explain how when those very teenagers are NOT ALLOWED to get within 2 metres of each other never mind intimate they would be more likely to get pregnant than in normal times when they are drunk free and loose. Unless of course they are breaking the law which is hardly the fault of a lockdown.Of course you can Mr resident expert in all matters google,
I'm gonna blow your mind here, but teenagers generally don't follow the rules! Shocker I know. Teens are going out and meeting up even though it's illegal, who would have thought but it's true!
A list, by no means exhaustive of the reasons teenage pregnancies could increase during lockdown. STI's could increase for the same reason.
Restrictions on gatherings force teens inside out of public gaze. Underage drinking goes on and in the small intimate groupings it is easier to get the privacy needed for a bit of nookie. (Drink not necessarily needed of course)
Fear and depression leads to desperation for intimacy, you'll settle even for that rough looking girl next door in these times.
Nothing to do socially anymore, why not have sex?
Schools (and other places that are currently closed) are a location where teens can get free contraception. So even if actual intimates acts are not increasing, those intimate acts may not have easy access to contraception.
Girls who would normally get their contraception without their parents knowledge may not now be able to do that as their trips outside are much more closely monitored. No contraception, much riskier sex.
Doctors appointments have gone to phone only in a lot of cases. Again more difficult to access contraception and emergency contraception.
Teens less likely to seek advice/help because of the fear of fines for breaking the law in meeting up.
And now onto the darker side.
Vulnerable teens stuck at home with abusers. I think that's all I will say on that one.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
You need to work on your chat up lines
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Use it with some of the Yorkshire girls and your nose soon would beIt if ain't broke!
Sachakins
The most wasted of days is one without woodwork
And Liverpool Scouse girls too, nuts would be very swollen after a 6" stiletto aimed at your groin as well.....Use it with some of the Yorkshire girls and your nose soon would be
Lons
Established Member
If I tell you what the Geordie lasses would have done to him the mods would need to delete the post. Let's just say it would be slow and painful and he'd need to change his name to a female version.
This message brought to you by folks who specialize in taking subsidies rather than paying taxes, and whose long line of accomplishments improving life in society is negative posts on social media. It's the new thing. Doing something is negative. Criticizing and avoiding accomplishing anything positive that could somehow be construed as negative is positive.
Reminds me the rank and file employees here who have their benefits in trusts (where more than half of their benefit costs have been paid by investment earnings from companies like those who develop and make vaccines).
Somehow, the people complaining (who are on the take rather than the produce) are claiming the noble position, but they certainly wouldn't want to pay the actual costs of their benefits.
I heard this logic from my mother - she didn't have ill intentions, but her message was ill. She retired early on a public pension and has lived comfortably in retirement, having more free time and more hours to herself than any privately employed individual I know. Her retirement continues to be paid by market earnings because the profession she was in didn't contribute enough to cover their own benefit costs.
But she talks all the time of other greedy people and the sacrifice that she made.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
It is and my post wasn't seeking to make light of it. I'm not sure what I can do about it though. It doesn't change my view of the actions that have been taken in response to Covid 19. I accept that it has had other consequences but I believe the downsides of not taking them would have been greater for society as a whole. I also accept and respect others hold different views ... history shows the likelihood of consensus on an Internet forum is low!
Going back to the original post my comment would be there is no new news here. The reporting has been clearly labelled and this is just a repeat of an argument against (or for a different form of) lockdown. There is a degree of irony that Richie Allen has a strap line saying he covers the news the MSM won't and then repeats a Daily Mail article.
Yeah fair enough, I didn't think you were making light in general though one person seems to think child abuse is amusing worryingly. I wasn't expecting a solution, in any event it's too late now, the damage has been done in all aspects. I am very glad to see schools going back, hopefully that will somewhat slow the damage to kids though I suspect we are at the beginning of a long road for our youngsters just to get back to where they were a year ago.
- Status
