Covid and the Economy

[Caseynotes]

15 minutes ago, Provaton said:

My point was that case numbers are feeding into hospital admissions. I have no idea whether hospital (NOT A&E) admissions are above or below seasonal averages - I can't find the official data.

I then criticised your ICU chart which you never really responded to. It is very misleading.

I then show ONS charts that demonstrate a clear above trend increase in deaths (above 5 year averages) and you just respond with some chart from an app and some chart about 999 calls.

We are going round in circles....

 

here is the ONS yearly deaths data (posted previously), see how they compare with previous years.

 

The latest 999 calls chart proves that despite a case numbers explosion no one is actually getting sick, apart from the usual numbers at this time of year.

I did explain precisely what the ICU chart showed and why it was relevant.

 

.

[Caseynotes]

oh right, should have seen that coming. Lets all celebrate Lockdown 3.

CLAP FOR HEROES  THIS THURSDAY AT 8PM

Clap For Our Carers is back for ‘Lockdown 3’,

Please join us on doorsteps and balconies (wearing masks and at a safe social distance) across the UK this Thursday at 8pm and let’s show our appreciation to all our heroes!

 

Clap For Heroes every Thursday at 8pm #clapforheroes (clapforourcarers.co.uk)

 

.

[redfeathered]

Absolutely delightful how people can give a good clap and pat themselves on the back for showing everyone how much of a good, brave person they are being protecting the lives of others by wearing a mask and supporting the down-on-its-knees not fit for purpose NHS.

Makes me so proud to be British.

[Caseynotes]

The only reason I started this thread in March was because the govt/nhs/bbc narrative did not add up, I've continued because it still doesn't.

The govt/nhs/bbc use stats to tell a one sided story, I use stats from the same sources to highlight the holes in that story. Peeps like to tell me I'm biased then they happily go back to watching the bbc.

 

The current cases data is false because the PCR test is not fit for the purpose it's being applied to.

 

There are 2 major problems;

The test can only pick up infectious cases if it's cycle threshold is limited to 25 cycles, if it doesn't pick up anything at up to 25 forget it. But most western countries are running it up to 45, if it's run at over 35 cycles it will pick up old, dead nucleotides - historic encounters with the a virus.

Covid is the current dominant flu strain, if you've had flu in the last 12 months it was probably covid and it probably presented as any flu does, after which you have natural immunity. When there is a virulent strain going around you may come in contact with it on a daily basis but your immune system just blasts it into fragment, these fragments however can remain in your blood for many months.

If you are subsequently tested by a PCR run at 45 cycles it will pick up the old fragments and you will test positive as a new case but it is a false positive, you are neither infected nor infectious.

The WHO now say the PCR should NOT be used on asymptomatic people as the first test and certainly should not the only test.

 

The second major problem is the testing labs, because the PCR can be used for many different types of testing there is no hard protocol but rather each lab makes up a 'home brew' procedure and thus all labs are not the same. 

This written about lab PCR tests in relation to a different pseudo-epidemic in 2007;

'With pertussis, she said, “there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,” and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. “We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added.'

 

“You cannot imagine,” Dr. Talbot said. “I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.”

 “The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said. “No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.”

Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

Mass testing asymptomatic people with PCR has caused pseudo-epidemics in the past. 

And so we arrive today at a situation with thousands of new positive tests every day but the numbers and timing relationships between cases, hospitalisations and then deaths that was established during the first wave has completely broken down.

Something has gone wrong with the data sets and it must be the case numbers.

.

 

 

[Caseynotes]

well timed tweets from Dr Craig;

 

Dr Clare Craig  @ClareCraigPath

32m

'This is Scottish data. There's a fairly tight relationship between cases, hospitalised patients, ICU patients and deaths up to end Oct. However....'

'Since then these measures are not trending together. You can no longer predict one from another. ICU patients rose before the rise in cases in the community. Deaths are falling when other measures would have predicted a rise'.

 

'This happens in a false positive pseudo-epidemic because the measures are no longer all a function of a single disease but each have their own relationship to the testing.'

 

.

 

[Provaton]

20 hours ago, Caseynotes said:

ere is the ONS yearly deaths data (posted previously), see how they compare with previous years.

 

 

Again, this is very misleading.

The 2020 number is not complete. The latest number is 604,045 so well above previous years.

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

 

 

[CharlotteIG]

Citi sees no further upside for world stocks in 2021

https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29C0UD?il=0

[Caseynotes]

1 hour ago, Provaton said:

The 2020 number is not complete. The latest number is 604,045 so well above previous years.

yes, that's the problem with estimations, you'd think the ONS would be able to make a better job of it really, so misleading.

So the latest 'estimate' total for 2020 weekly deaths occurrences is 603,077

No doubt though the same ratio are those excess deaths caused by non-covid denial of health care which was around 41%.

[Caseynotes]

more from the latest ONS data release. 

Respiratory disease deaths weekly 2019 vs 2020.

Makes you wonder just where the additional (excess) deaths this year came from.

 

[Provaton]

24 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

No doubt though the same ratio are those excess deaths caused by non-covid denial of health care which was around 41%.

Do you have an official source for this? I'd like to investigate further.

[Provaton]

11 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

Respiratory disease deaths weekly 2019 vs 2020.

And the official source for this chart?

[Caseynotes]

8 minutes ago, Provaton said:

And the official source for this chart?

sure, it's written on the chart.

[Caseynotes]

9 minutes ago, Provaton said:

And the official source for this chart?

sure, it's written on the chart.

[Provaton]

3 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

sure, it's written on the chart.

That doesn't help, I want to see the original official source i.e. web address and check it for myself.

We all need to be transparent on where the data we quote comes from. Anybody can knock up a chart in Excel and post it on the internet....

[Caseynotes]

1 minute ago, Provaton said:

That doesn't help, I want to see the original official source i.e. web address and check it for myself.

We all need to be transparent on where the data we quote comes from. Anybody can knock up a chart in Excel and post it on the internet....

I don't give a **** what you want, this may come as a shock but it's not my job to do your searching for you, if you are disputing the data look it up for yourself and prove it, not really that difficult, but it looks fine to me judged on what I know so am happy to stand by it until/if it is actually is disproven.

it's easy enough for someone to sit on their  @rse and just keep pointing the finger over and over but that's not really how things work.

 

[Provaton]

5 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

I don't give a **** what you want, this may come as a shock but it's not my job to do your searching for you, if you are disputing the data look it up for yourself and prove it, not really that difficult, but it looks fine to me judged on what I know so am happy to stand by it until/if it is actually is disproven.

That is not how it works, you don't post some random chart/theory and then expect somebody else to try to prove if it's true or false. I've tried looking online (ONS, gov.uk websites, WHO, John Hopkins etc.) and can't find the source data for the charts you recently posted.

You've been posting to this thread for months now and as soon as somebody asks for sources (real sources, links to government/medical websites) you go on the attack without providing those sources.

If I was a moderator at IG I would take down this thread.

[Caseynotes]

1 minute ago, Provaton said:

That is not how it works, you don't post some random chart/theory and then expect somebody else to try to prove if it's true or false. I've tried looking online (ONS, gov.uk websites, WHO, John Hopkins etc.) and can't find the source data for the charts you recently posted.

You've been posting to this thread for months now and as soon as somebody asks for sources (real sources, links to government/medical websites) you go on the attack without providing those sources.

If I was a moderator at IG I would take down this thread.

It's not science if it can't be proved wrong if it is wrong. That's how it works.

YOU linked the weekly death stats from ONS for 2020, the first chart uses the weekly stats from ONS for 2020.

Here's a tip, find the correct data set from the different sets list in the spreadsheet you already have in front of you and check that the data points match/or not on the chart. (weekly death report).

FFS how hard can that be???

Do the same for the ONS 2019 data.

That's it.

But no, pushing to get cancelled what you don't like the sound of is much easier.

ABSOLUTELY ******** PATHETIC

 

.

[Caseynotes]

Latest All-cause deaths data up to Dec 29 with the Cases overlayed in red.

Deaths declining while cases rising. As said before one of these is wrong and as Drs don't usually misdiagnose death it's likely to be the Cases data (the cases data is the reason you are sitting in Lockdown). 

 

Meanwhile BBC Employees to be Given Social Distance-Enforcing Electronic Tags.

But that's just a conspiracy theory.

BBC Employees to be Given Social Distance-Enforcing Electronic Tags - **** Fawkes (order-order.com)

[Caseynotes]

6 hours ago, ha05230 said:

Most of this thread is quite frankly b*ll*cks peddled with misinformation, out of context charts and tweets.

I will say this however; first hand data from frontline;

1. Yes the PCR/swab test produces false positives 

2. Because of false positives more frontline staff absenteeism and therefore over stretched and over worked NHS

3. Having said that; this year there ARE more patients in every hospital, in ICU, HDU, temporary makeshift wards with a respiratory illness than any other year in history. To put it into context; locally, one hospital would have maybe 45-65 inpatients on any day with a respiratory illness. Since around October this number has been consistently around 180, with a peak in December of 324, both these numbers higher than the peak in April. So no, this is not just another Flu, this is Covid! and people are dying daily because we just don’t have the workforce/services in the NHS to cope with the numbers.

The data is there, prove it wrong, no one gives a s**t about you 'think might' be the case.

1/ Yes I know the PCR produces false +ves, I've been providing the data to prove it for months.

2/ Yes I know, I've been providing the data to back that up.

3/ wrong, the ICU data is there, prove it wrong (population increase adjusted).

Population adjusted the flu death spikes of 1999 and 2000 were higher than for covid-19 so covid is really just a bad flu. People are dying daily because that's what happens every day (1,500). The numbers for this winter excess deaths is normal.

 

Reminder;

The NHS employs over 1.5 MILLION people, it's one of the largest employers on the planet competing numbers wise with the likes of Red Army and it burns through over £100 BILLION every year. 

 

.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Caseynotes

[Provaton]

22 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

3/ wrong, the ICU data is there, prove it wrong (population increase adjusted).

Adjusted for population, the gray lines are previous winters.

And here are ICU occupied beds for London:

You can view loads more charts and data collated by John Burn-Murdoch at the FT (@jburnmurdoch).

What none of the statistics/charts show are the people who have "recovered" from COVID but are still suffering affects months afterwards. I know of one person, in their 30s, previously fit and healthy who now stuggles to walk up a flight of stairs. Another was a keen singer who since COVID (again "recovered" months ago) struggles to get enough breath to sing. Anybody who claims it's "just the flu" frankly has no idea what they are talking about.

[Caseynotes]

 

Dr Clare Craig  @ClareCraigPath

We have a mass misdiagnosis problem. Deaths are labelled COVID but for every increase in COVID labelled deaths there is an equivalent decrease in non-COVID labelled deaths. We are in a testing crisis not a COVID crisis.

 

And this is why there has been no increase in ICU occupancy during this current cases spike despite what the media are telling you.

There was during the April spike, but this current cases spike, and the reason you are in lockdown, is fake.

[Caseynotes]

3 minutes ago, Provaton said:

Adjusted for population, the gray lines are previous winters.

And here are ICU occupied beds for London:

You can view loads more charts and data collated by John Burn-Murdoch at the FT (@jburnmurdoch).

What none of the statistics/charts show are the people who have "recovered" from COVID but are still suffering affects months afterwards. I know of one person, in their 30s, previously fit and healthy who now stuggles to walk up a flight of stairs. Another was a keen singer who since COVID (again "recovered" months ago) struggles to get enough breath to sing. Anybody who claims it's "just the flu" frankly has no idea what they are talking about.

Those look like the stats from that moron at the FT.

These numbers are saying that there are currently 4x more ICU beds in use than in previous years and that is just not true.

If you go round and test 100 patents in ICU beds and they all come back +ve then you don't have an extra 100 patients, they are the same ones.

He is double counting as patients test positive, and in my previous post, most cases are a asymptomatic and a misdiagnosis.

[Provaton]

2 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

Those look like the stats from that moron at the FT.

Yes, that "moron" John Burn-Murdoch at the FT. 10 years working in data journalism and an MSc in Data Science.

4 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

These numbers are saying that there are currently 4x more ICU beds in use than in previous years and that is just not true.

No, one of them is showing that there are 4x the number of ICU admissions compared to previous winters. Patients either die or recover and the bed can be re-used.

The other is showing ICU beds in use average 700 in London over the winter, currently that number is over 1000.

I'm not sure why you are so keen to downplay what is going on. There are countless stats, reports from inside hospitals, etc. all saying that things are dire. Here's one example describing the critical situation in London:

https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/exclusive-london-will-be-overwhelmed-by-covid-in-a-fortnight-says-leaked-nhs-england-briefing/7029264.article?storyCode=7029264

[Caseynotes]

3 minutes ago, Provaton said:

Yes, that "moron" John Burn-Murdoch at the FT. 10 years working in data journalism and an MSc in Data Science.

No, one of them is showing that there are 4x the number of ICU admissions compared to previous winters. Patients either die or recover and the bed can be re-used.

The other is showing ICU beds in use average 700 in London over the winter, currently that number is over 1000.

I'm not sure why you are so keen to downplay what is going on. There are countless stats, reports from inside hospitals, etc. all saying that things are dire. Here's one example describing the critical situation in London:

https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/exclusive-london-will-be-overwhelmed-by-covid-in-a-fortnight-says-leaked-nhs-england-briefing/7029264.article?storyCode=7029264

mate, I was posting his charts back in January (on the Something Interesting thread I think) and I realised he was a moron then, and who hasn't got a science degree?

The current ICU bed occupancy data from the ONS shows quite clearly that this winter is in line with previous years.

And so does the current deaths data.

Not sure why you are so keen to be lead by the nose into believing this blatant misinformation  in spite the govt's own data.

Incidentally the ONS said on Monday they were going to stop publishing regular ICU occupancy data which is curious, at this time, and funny because it's showing the propaganda narrative to be such a lie.

 

.

[Provaton]

1 minute ago, Caseynotes said:

The current ICU bed occupancy data from the ONS shows quite clearly that this winter is in line with previous years.

And so does the current deaths data.

What????

The charts I posted show ICU occupancy above average for winter. The article from the Health Service Journal warns we are approaching a critical point with respect to ICU beds. Numerous reports from frontline staff report the same, the government (ministers, medical advisors, chief medical officer etc) are warning the same, and anecdotally I hear the same from a doctor relative in the NW. Are all these people wrong and you are right?

We are on track for 70,000+ excess deaths for 2020:

2020 Total so far: 604,045
Average previous 5 years: 531,129

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending25december2020

Again, all these stats and charts do not account for the "recovered", many of whom are still suffering.

I don't understand what it takes to prove to you that we are in the middle of a global pandemic and health crisis?

[Caseynotes]

18 minutes ago, Provaton said:

What????

The charts I posted show ICU occupancy above average for winter. The article from the Health Service Journal warns we are approaching a critical point with respect to ICU beds. Numerous reports from frontline staff report the same, the government (ministers, medical advisors, chief medical officer etc) are warning the same, and anecdotally I hear the same from a doctor relative in the NW. Are all these people wrong and you are right?

We are on track for 70,000+ excess deaths for 2020:

2020 Total so far: 604,045
Average previous 5 years: 531,129

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending25december2020

Again, all these stats and charts do not account for the "recovered", many of whom are still suffering.

I don't understand what it takes to prove to you that we are in the middle of a global pandemic and health crisis?

Cases, ICU and deaths should be within a clear, established relationship, if that relationship has broken down then it's a data problem.

This is the latest deaths data, deaths are going down. If ICU occupancy was really going up then so would deaths.

 

Non-covid excess deaths have been running at nearly 50% of all excess deaths since the end of March and are a result of the govt shutting down the health service. And that's with blatant covid mislabelling.

 

And in case you've forgotten ...

  

[Caseynotes]

Hospital Trust data ICU beds Dec and Jan input by each trust, latest upload today for data up to Jan 3.

If you scroll through you will see London is the only one that currently stands out at around 87%

 

Microsoft Power BI

 

 

 

 

[Provaton]

35 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

This is the latest deaths data, deaths are going down.

This is the latest weekly all-cause excess deaths data:

 Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

35 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

Cases, ICU and deaths should be within a clear, established relationship, if that relationship has broken down then it's a data problem.

Not necessarily, for several reasons.

The medical profession now understands much more about COVID compared to the early days back in Mar/Apr. There are more effective treatments available so the relationship between cases/ICU/deaths will change over time.

It also depends on the demographics, younger people now account for a higher proportion of cases and are therefore less likely to end up in ICU and die.

Again, all these stats do not account for those that have "recovered" but are still suffering from the long term affects of COVID.

[Provaton]

21 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

Hospital Trust data ICU beds Dec and Jan input by each trust, latest upload today for data up to Jan 3.

If you scroll through you will see London is the only one that currently stands out at around 87%

 

Microsoft Power BI

 

 

 

 

Just as well that we have 20% more ICU beds in 2020 than 2019. Current national occupancy is at 80.57% according to you link.

Many Trusts at capacity (for ICU):

[Caseynotes]

32 minutes ago, Provaton said:

This is the latest weekly all-cause excess deaths data:

 Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

Not necessarily, for several reasons.

The medical profession now understands much more about COVID compared to the early days back in Mar/Apr. There are more effective treatments available so the relationship between cases/ICU/deaths will change over time.

It also depends on the demographics, younger people now account for a higher proportion of cases and are therefore less likely to end up in ICU and die.

Again, all these stats do not account for those that have "recovered" but are still suffering from the long term affects of COVID.

Garbage, Cases > ICU > Deaths. A rise in one automatically triggers a rise in the next and so on, always, never any different.

Cases started rising at the start of Dec and those numbers should, without doubt, have filtered through to ICU and on to Deaths, they haven't so there is a covid cases data problem.

It is not unusual for individual hospitals to be at 100% and they regularly ferry patients over to other hospitals so the trust data overall is the important one. 

  As for deaths vs 5 year average, not relevant, this has been an exceptional year and in spite of a massive recent surge in the case numbers actual deaths is currently coming down.