Duly updated. It does look as if the headline 30,000 coronavirus-related deaths are all incremental additional deaths, not (as I was expecting) overlapping with deaths that would have occurred anyway.
Sunday, 10 May 2020
Weekly deaths, England & Wales, all causes, week 1 to 17
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Yes. People should stop confusing facts with strategies.
How many do you reckon are incremental deaths caused by the actions taken.
Typically this number is not insignificant. Fukushima us a good case study for that
Some may be deaths that would have occurrred in the coming months.The chance of surviving the first year in a care home is around 0.55. Wait to see if there is a dip in excess deaths before the end of the year.
S, sorry, that's not clear.
RS, there will be some.
1. Can't fault NHS for that. If choice is to prevent two COVID deaths or one cancer death, they have to prevent the two COVID deaths. So the two prevented deaths never show up but the one cancer death does.
2. The lock down itself will result in some more deaths (suicide because of job loss or boredom) and will also prevent some deaths (fewer accidents, fewer fights outside pubs, fewer sexually transmitted diseases, less pollution etc). Difficult trade off.
JB, that is also what I expect will happen. So I will update these figures every month or so and either
a) say "I told you so!" or
b) eat humble pie.
So far I'm on b).
@Mark: what I meant was, there's been a lot of denialism. It is happening, but the strategy is certainly open to question.
Mark, I understand.
Some are saying the numbers will be significant. In Fukushima no one died from the melt downs (that can be traced with statistical significance). But many did from government failure due to actions
I don't think this should be underestimated because it's hard to measure
S, every country will get it wrong. It's all guesswork. The UK is doing pretty badly but we're not getting the horror stories about NHS being swamped like the stories from Italy.
RS, deaths are deaths. Only way to tell is extra deaths. That way it doesn't matter whether these are directly COVID related or knock on effects.
Mark, I'm looking at government failure in general, and the extra deaths caused by them being there when the people would be better off if they got out of the way.
I realise its a soap box topic for you - "who would not want free health service". Well...any population that was better of with the better alternative.
MW. Excepting chaotic states like Italy, the main health care system difference between us and the rest is that here healthcare is de facto fully nationalised. Pretty well every other jurisdiction has mixed provision.
And I am making a bet that over a 12 moth period covering the Covid outbreak there will be no or only a minor statistically significant increase in the number of deaths.
Lola, odds on
But this will not highlight the incremental government failure deaths?
L, yes, we messed up, but the NHS beat the Italians hands down (unless that was shroud waving by the Italians?). The Yanks aren't doing very well either. In turn, The S Koreans and Germans beat us hands down.
"I am making a bet that over a 12 month period covering the Covid outbreak there will be no or only a minor statistically significant increase in the number of deaths."
I am making the same assumption, as is JB above.
RS, it's easy slagging off government failures. And I'm at the front of the queue for that. But there is a hell of a lot to be said in favour, we take all the good stuff for granted.
Mark, agreed
But I'm not slagging off government. I am asking us not to be afraid to look into it objectively.
More and more it's becoming forbidden language to do just that, and the NHS is a basket case what with all the clapping at the sky and fake emergencies
RS, by international comparisons, the NHS does reasonably well on cost-results basis. Sure, there is massive waste, they make mistakes, there's too much bureaucracy, quasi-religious worhsip etc - and I am happy to moan about that - but that's in the nature of things.
Mark, agreed
But it's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying if we're serious about our campaign, let's not take these things for granted.
If we're not serious, then fine, we can follow mediocrity like the rest.
The US healthcare system is the worst of all worlds, unless you are wealthy in which case it's very good...
Is that based on personal experience, verified evidence or media reports Lola?
Post a Comment