30th March
Tim is the first person to refer to these ONS figures for total deaths.He quotes these figures , with the comment
At this point he is just talking about 'total deaths' - a hard, known, knowable, non disputed number in that no one can argue if someone is dead or notYou will notice that this year so far there have been if anything slightly fewer deaths than average
Tim then cites an expert in a spectator article and quotes him as saying
The implication in these posts by Tim and the line in the spectator article is 'we do not see in total death numbers evidence that justifies the measures being taken'The simplest way to judge whether we have an exceptionally lethal disease is to look at the death rates. Are more people dying than we would expect to die anyway in a given week or month?
CRG points out "Ahem, Tim.... Your stats ended on March 13th. At that time there were only eleven (11!) Corona related deaths in the UK"
I comment "Thanks for the data source link Tim. Personally I think it is too early to draw any conclusions from the mortality data available so far. In another month or 6 weeks time there will be sufficient data to start being able to do so."
In a different thread Tim cites an article, dated Mar 30th that talks about total deaths at EU level as gathered by EuroMOMO.
This article continues to refer only to the hard 'total deaths numbers' and the article follows the same line of 'we do not see in total death numbers evidence that justifies the measures being taken' and displays a EuroMOMO chart that today looks [url=https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps]very different
Paphitis chips in with "I saw some statistics the other day that the actual global mortality rate is the same. In other words, it hasn't increased which is quite interesting in my view and with "Apparently even Italy's and Spain's mortality rate is less than in previous years."
ONS figures available up to week 12
2nd April
LR posts citing a fullfacts article dated 11 March and notes "the average annual winter deaths in England (not UK) from influenza: 17000". The full fact article contains
Based on current evidence, Covid-19 has the potential to kill more people and cause more hospitalisations than seasonal influenzas. However, it hasn’t done so yet [up to 11th March], because so far it hasn’t spread as widely as seasonal flu
CG Chips in citing a hectordrummond.com article dated 1st April and CG notes from this 'Deaths in the UK are still running below average levels.'At this point posters and those being cited are still ALL talking JUST about the hard knowable number - total deaths. I will from this point on also track hectordrummond.com articles (using green text) as they progress down the time line. This first one cited by CG follows the same basic narrative of 'we do not see in total death numbers evidence that justifies the measures being taken'
First hectordrummond article on 1st April bemoans 'When I put up the last set of graphs on Twitter various people said, “Oh, but you have have to wait a few weeks for the bad stuff to show”. Well, I put these new graphs up on Twitter earlier and people were quick to say, ‘Oh, but you to wait a few more weeks for the bad stuff to show’.
CRG points out "Duh, there were hardly any corona related deaths until week 11."
3rd April
Tim posts citing WHO estimates for global influenza and asks
So why isn’t the media fanning the flames of hysteria and panic about influenza, giving us constant reports about numbers of cases and deaths, which celebrities have come down with it etc. etc. ad nauseum to the extent that there is no other news reporting, given that it causes more illness and death?
ONS figures available up to week 13
11th April
Tim posts about ONS total death figures now available up to week 13 and asks
Sorry, but I am still looking for some reflection in official statistics of all the hysterical, slanted reporting.
CG chips inand states "A very good point made elsewhere..." and then cites a timworstall,com article that includes
The ONS figures only come out after all the others but they have the advantage of not having been monkeyed about with.
Still everyone is just talking about the hard 'total death' figures which are being used as evidence to support the narrative 'overreaction'. Suggestions from myself and CRG that it's too early to make such conclusions from these hard total death numbers are either ignored or in the case of..Hectordrummond, with his new post following release of week 13 figures, ridiculed
ONS figures available up to week 14
Week 14 start to show significant and dramatic increase in total deaths
15th April
Tim posts that week 14 figures have come in with the entirety of his post about them being
Interesting, another week's figures are out, for the week ended April 3, and there is a jump to 16,387, which is well above the typical range for past years.
Hectordrummond also notes the week 14 figures saying "Finally we can see a rise in deaths," and "Does this change my mind on the lockdown? No." and goes on to intoduce two 'new' themes. Firstly "we don’t know how many [of the 6k rise for this week] have been caused by such things as the cancelled treatments" which is true but appears to put little effort in to 'guessing' how many that might be - just 'introduces doubt' imo. Secondly he also introduces the notion that he still does not think its a 'once-in-a-century' event but does say he thinks it probably is worse than flu.
17th April
Tim posts citing the SAME spectator article dated 28th March that he posted about on 30th March and then ads to it a 2nd expert who he quotes as saying " I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic."
This marks Tim's shift from using just the raw hard total death numbers to adding the theme 'its no worse than RECENT flu spikes', hectordrummonds comments not withstanding, once those number started to show large dramatic increases
Tim posts on theme 'its no worse than recent flu spikes' and says "We don't go into lockdown everytime there is a flu epidemic and we don't have to because of this flu-like illness."
I post about week 14 figures stating "The UK ONS stats for total deaths in England and Wales for week 14 - week ending 3rd April 2020 suggest that what is occurring is very different from the flu epidemic of 2015. next figures due on the 21st."
Tim concedes 'fair point' and then shifts my comparison which was to the most recent flu spikes in 2015, to one with Hong Kong flu in 1968. He also states 'There is a lot of controversy over that figure".
I talk about comparison of the current ongoing event in terms of total deaths with recent recurring flu spikes, that happen every 5 years or so and Tim shifts the comparison of current ongoing event to that of 1968 event, or a 'once every 50 years' event. He also introduces here what will become his main dominant theme from now on when presented with hard numbers that do not fit so well with the 'overreaction' narrative. Namely that of 'discrepancy in the numbers'.
I point out that in essence there is no controversy or discrepancy in the 'total death' figures, these are hard, only discrepancy when comparing these to the soft, guessed, 'how many deaths of the excess deaths are attributed to the virus' numbers. I also note the way use of these ONS numbers, on total deaths, by Tim and others has shifted as the numbers went from strongly supporting the 'overreaction' narrative to no longer doing so.
Tim 'defends' against my suggestion of shifting use of the ONS numbers by referencing his 'noting' of the week 14 increase. He then cites an expert that is using 'soft' numbers to maintina support for the 'overreaction narrative'.
Tim did 'note' the increase in week 14 in the post he cited above and that is all he did. He made no 'revision' of his position in light of these numbers. No 'maybe the ongoing current event' is more severe then recent regular flu spikes' musing or anything akin to such.
18th April
I state "I do not claim that the reaction has not been disproportionate to the actual risk. I just do not know and am yet to be personally strongly convinced one way or the other. I think my duty is not to 'pick a side' and seek to support that side having picked it but to do my best to be led by the evidence as best as I can understand and interpret it"
Tim states that " There is a major viral epidemic taking place, the like of which happens every decade or so, and it is placing a great burden on health care systems.This happens during every epidemic, as the following New York Times headline at the time of the 2017/8 flu epidemic shows:"
Having shifted my comparison using only the hard known total death figures vs RECENT regularly occurring flu spikes, in the face of those numbers, to 'once every 50 year event' (1968, 1918) Tim now returns to stating what is going on is no different from recent regular flu spikes that occur every 10 years.
CG now chips in and refers to ONS figures with the claim 'The numbers are still lower than in an average year..." and then post a graph, without citing source to support his claim.
I point out how grossly misleading CG's graph derived from a tiny (soft) subset of ONS figures are given they only show (soft) numbers for respiratory deaths, and ignores BOTH the hard 'total deaths numbers' AND the soft 'deaths from covid-19 numbers' entirely.
21st April
I post "We should today be getting week 15 ONS figures for total deaths in England and wales. I await those with interest. If they do not fit what you want to believe how will you react I wonder ?"
ONS figures available up to week 15
I post week 15 figures with no comment.
Tim replies with "Thanks for reporting. Let's hope this is the peak." And then goes back to his 'discrepancy theme'.
There is no 'discrepancy' in the hard known 'total death figures'. There is only discrepancy when you compare them with the soft guessed 'covid-19 death' figures and the question of how much of the excess in the hard known numbers is down to covid-19 or not.
I attempt to address the 'discrepancy issue Tim has raised. Making the point that 'total deaths' are hard known numbers and anything to do with covid-19 deaths are soft guesses. I also again concede that after first looking at the hard total death numbers and what they show we then need to start guessing about how many of this known, not disputed, excess is down to covid-19 or down to lock down and other things, with "People are getting less 'treatment' for things as a result of the lockdown. I accept that and I seek to do my best to understand to what degree that is the case or not. Right now with the information I have I find it hard to believe that a significant number of these apparent 'extra' deaths are related to or primarily related to 'lockdown' and not the virus itself."
I again attempt to make the distinction between the hard known total death numbers and soft ones relating to the virus specifically and address the 'discrepancy issue' with "For me the total death numbers are vastly more 'hard' than any numbers relating specifically to the virus. My initial gut reaction when there are discrepancies therefore is that the chances are the total death ones are more a reflection of reality."
Tim dismisses my reasoning over hard numbers vs soft ones with "I am afraid to me that sounds like a classic case of [confirmation bias]"
Me pointing out that there are Two sets of numbers - one relates to indisputable status - dead or not and is collated using systems and people that have been in place and doing this for decades. The other numbers relate to a highly disputable, specialised status - 'cause of death' , collated using systems that have been put in place in a matter of weeks even as the virus spreads and rages, is dismissed as 'confirmation bias'
CG posts There LOL smilies in response the accusation of confirmation bias made against me.
I point out I point out that I have been consistent in my mantra of 'start with the hard indisputable simple numbers first, ONS total deaths and then Hopkins 'tested positive' numbners via 'the chart'.
26st April
I again Try and make the point about the difference between hard know number of 'total deaths' and the soft numbers relating to things like 'cause of death' or 'covid-19' deaths.
27st April
Having previously been quick at getting out his posts re new ONS figures, this week he is late , posting just one day before the next set of figures is due .week 15 post now moves away from the weekly totals and starts using 'year to date' numbers instead, which has the effect of reducing the scale of increase vs 5 year averages. He moves away from his previous 'this is probably worse than flu' in his week 14 post and states "but there’s no sign of a once-in-a-century disaster." with little else to say.
ONS figures available up to week 16
28st April
I post that new ONS figures are in , incorrectly saying they are week 17, when they are 16.
CRG posts these new figures in graph form noting 'So we are discussing measures now, not numbers?'
28st April
Hectordrummond [url=https://hectordrummond.com/2020/04/28/week-16-ons-numbers/] makes his week 16 post[/ulr]. He notes Tims 'discrepancy' between the hard total death numbers and the soft 'deaths from covid-19' numbers and states "So we still have reason to suspect the lockdown is killing people, and quite possibly more than it saves." yet provides NO evidence in support of the 'probably' that more than half of the excess deaths shown in the hard numbers is from lockdown.
29st April
In the face of large number of conspiracy theory and 'my expert is better than your expert at guessing the soft numbers' posts from Tim I ask him to "please do explain the UK ONS death statistics ? Not the numbers on covid deaths, just the ones on total deaths ?" and "Or are these numbers to just be ignored entirely"
30th April
I again try and get some discussion on the hard numbers we do have, asking "So if we are trying to get best picture of the truth, why are you pushing two doctors with minority opinions more than talking about the hard, simple to understand, total death numbers shown in the ONS England and Wales stats ? "
Tim responds with a chart showing 'flu spikes' in such numbers from recent previous years that appears to show the ongoing current event is not higher than the highest peak of these previous events. He then raises the 'discrepancy issue' again.
There is no 'discrepancy' in the hard known 'total death figures'. There is only discrepancy when you compare them with the soft guessed 'covid-19 death' figures and the question of how much of the excess in the hard known numbers is down to covid-19 or not.
CRG [url=https://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus47300-1090.html#p896227]posts [/ulr] the latest week 17 figures in chart form and asks "Please explain this to me, Tim"
I post in response to Tim's chart that appears to show the current ongoing event has a lower peak than highest peaks from previous recent flu spikes, pointing out "Oh and your chart only goes up to week 15, total 18,516. We now have week 17 with total 22,351 which is higher than any previous peak in your chart going back to 1993."
The hard data, of an event still ongoing, shows as fact that this current event is greater in 'peak deaths' than all previous recent flu spikes. That now the next 'target' is a once in lifetime or once every 50 years event like 1968 event.
I again address the 'discrepancy issue'
There is no 'discrepancy' in the hard known 'total death figures'. There is only discrepancy when you compare them with the soft guessed 'covid-19 death' figures and the question of how much of the excess in the hard known numbers is down to covid-19 or not.
Tim concedes that the chart he posted was not up to date and then says "The point is there have been epidemics before and, sadly, deaths spike during them. Nature is cruel. We are not immortal. We will all inevitably die of something. There is nothing new about such spikes."
What the data shows, the hard know data on total deaths, is that this current event that is still ongoing, has so far already resulted in 'death peeks' greater than anything going back till 1968. That all the previous claims and suggestions that it was similar or akin to the normal 5-10 yearly flu peaks that occur, were wrong. It is not in the category of 'once every 50 years' event, and it is still onoging.
CG [url=https://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus47300-1110.html#p896244] accuses [/ulr] me of only using the ONS total death stats because 'they fit my side'.
1st May
I compare the ONS hard total death numbers from current event to date with same from 2015 flu spike. "Specifically to 'test' the 'thesis' that what is going on now is 'similar' to what always happens periodically in terms of flu". I conclude ""Thus when I see experts, no matter their credentials, no matter if they are pushing a consensus view or a non consensus one, saying with certainty things like 'the number of deaths is not different from previous flu spikes' , I have to respond with - I do not see that claim backed up in the simplest and best numbers we have about this that I can easily understand."
May 2nd
In response to yet another 'my expert is better than yours' using soft numbers from Tim, I askwhy not test experts opinions on soft unknowable numbers against the hard know numbers we do have and see if they stack up and make the point that 'totals deaths' when there were recent previous 'flu spikes' are not 'wildly approximate' numbers
4th May
In response to yet another 'my expert is better than your expert at guessing soft numbers' post , this time from Paphitis, I againstress the difference between 'soft guess' numbers and the hard known numbers of 'total deaths'
ONS figures available up to week 17
5th May
I post latest ONS figures for week 17
In face of CG several 'my expert is better than yours' post and link, using the softest possible number that his own cited expert explicitly states "is not a known number. It can only be guessed at, because the actual number of infections can only be guessed at." and in the face of his 'ridicule' I once more Explain why all such soft number guesses, from anyone, what ever narrative they support in terms of 'overreaction' or not should be 'tested' against the hard numbers we do have that are not guesses, because they they are guesses and the hard numbers we have are NOT guesses.
I try to again explain to Paphitis the concept of hard numbers (total deaths) and soft numbers (anything specifically related to covid-19 other than 'confirmed tested positive' saying "Can you understand that some numbers are 'hard' and some are not ? That some numbers represent known, indisputable things - like if someone is dead or not."
Paphitis responds with "No I am sorry but the numbers do not represent indisputable facts as to whether someone died from Chy-na Virus"
Talk about totaly missing the point being made!
I explain AGAIN to Paphitis that the hard numbers are hard BECAUSE they do not involve 'cause of death.
Tim now explicitly gives up on the 'current event is akin to recent previous flu spikes' narrative and explicitly moves to 'current (still ongoing) event is akin to previous 'once in a lifetime' events with "I doubt if this was less than the spike for the 1968 Hong Kong flu that claimed up to four million lives globally". He then bemoans "Once you have to start raising the same point again and again with the same person and they consistently ignore it, you realize that you are running up against some kind of cognitive dissonance that is preventing that person from seeing the point, and you are thus banging your head against a brick wall." He then again raises the 'discrepancy issues' and straw man accuses me of "the glib assumption that all the deaths above the average were due to Covid" and goes on to once more compare the hard numbers with the soft ones, because these two different things are published in the same singe ONS report, totally ignoring that the hard numbers have been reported by them for decades and the soft ones for a matter of weeks. He finishes by question how many of the excess deaths shown in the hard numbers are down to covid-19 or not. A totally valid thing to try and guess having first looked at the what the hard numbers show and which he guesses, is 'more of excess deaths are from lock down than covid' on the basis that "There are those who argue that the lockdown is itself causing deaths"
CG accuses me "You are the King of Straw Man arguments and bizarre obfuscation' and states 'Nothing else you post can be taken seriously"
Hectordrummond has not yet posted on the week 17 figures at all. Appearing to have let the ONS hard numbers drop in favour of soft NHS Covid -19 figures and 'my experts guess is better than your experts guess' about soft numbers.
Which brings us up to date
