Brits are dying in their tens of thousands - and we don't really have any idea why

[Drummer]

This part of the south coast has always been 'God's waiting room' - but it is now quite unusually empty. There are several properties for sale on our road which would have been snapped up in days, or taken over by the next generation of the family, but now they stand empty for weeks or months.
I just changed mobility scooter, as the first one started to cut out and it did so just in the middle of the town centre level crossing as the warning siren was sounding. Oddly enough it was the next half minute which flashed before my eyes, not my whole life, but perhaps that was because I got it going again - but I decided that it was not an experience I would like to repeat - so for a few hundred pounds I got an even bigger one with a seat more suitable for captaining a starship than trundling off to do a bit of shopping. As it can carry more than twice my weight I don't worry about the number of shopping bags I fill these days.
The local clinic has been very good about getting prescriptions for the pains in my feet. Cellulitis is pure agony.
I could not get to see a doctor, but using modern technology it was possible to get a prescription sorted in a few hours. The first antibiotic was a penicillin based one and although it seemed to be working Monday to Thursday morning, by the following Monday morning it obviously was not going to do the job. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is going to be a problem before very long, I fear.

 

[Amity Island]

Not sure I find this passage so reassuring which tends to suggest heart deaths at least are still a concern regardless of the questionable jiggery pokery explained in your preceding article regarding overall excess deaths whichever side of that you believe

“It follows warnings of a steep rise in heart deaths since the pandemic, with an extra 500 a week amid struggles to access NHS care and delays for ambulances.​

​

The charity said “extreme pressure” on the health service and the direct impact of Covid illness on the heart were two of the likely factors fuelling an increase in heart problems and deaths.​

​

Delays in accessing tests mean that symptoms which could have been treated easily are not being picked up until the disease is far more severe, and in some cases deadly.”​

​

We pretty much all acknowledge the issues the nhs is having right now but what’s not being talked about is the direct impact of Covid (and repeated infection cumulatively) is having on body organs and systems without anyone admitting this is happening and them being treated as entirely separate issues by most.​

The death stats were much promoted when it suited their policies, fear mongering and ultimately the jabs. Now the mission is accomplished, the death stats don't serve them and have them adjusted downwards.

Just goes to show there is no reliable sources of data, information or truth.

It's all made up (confected) or twisted, all of it.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

It's all made up (confected) or twisted, all of it.

No, that's unfair. It is all necessarily subject to interpretation. You can't just count excess deaths: that's not a thing that's separable from the deaths you'd expect anyway, and producing good estimates for those involves a fair bit of modelling (because the population is changing in various ways over time).

See this thread (by an actuary):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758127591356305471

 

[Dragonheart]

Are expected (but potentially avoidable) deaths better than unexpected (but unavoidable) ? I kind of feel that’s the argument being had about how the numbers are looked at?

 

[Amity Island]

No, that's unfair. It is all necessarily subject to interpretation. You can't just count excess deaths: that's not a thing that's separable from the deaths you'd expect anyway, and producing good estimates for those involves a fair bit of modelling (because the population is changing in various ways over time).

See this thread (by an actuary):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758127591356305471

What I'd like to know @Bruce Stephens is your thoughts on this well timed change (and back dated too) in stats? I can understand using a new methodology going forward but not applying a new method going back over (retro fitted).

Are you suspicious of the motives, given the increase in deaths has been increasing across much of the western world after 2021. Now we can claim there is nothing of any concern. What about how Britain's death toll now looks when compared to rest of the western world?

What will be our (new) reasons for not following the western worlds trend on excess deaths? How come we managed to avoid the excess death trend?

 

[Amity Island]

Are expected (but potentially avoidable) deaths better than unexpected (but unavoidable) ? I kind of feel that’s the argument being had about how the numbers are looked at?

They essentially moved from evidence based stats to modelling. They've done exactly the same with climate change.

It was modelling (ridiculous, badly modelled, unreliable) that got us into lockdowns.

By using models instead of evidence, one can drive whatever result and agenda one wishes.

 

[Amity Island]

It is all necessarily subject to interpretation.

Interpretation, judgement etc is where one moves away from reality.

 

[Amity Island]

Are expected (but potentially avoidable) deaths better than unexpected (but unavoidable) ? I kind of feel that’s the argument being had about how the numbers are looked at?

Good points.

Does this then mean almost anything could be expected (fires, pandemics, tsunami, vehicle accidents, illness, disease, accidents etc etc aka as life), and thus removed from the excess death stats as these are all things we can expect to happen?

What does that leave us with regards to the type of events that could be classified as unexpected?

 

[JITR]

Statistics need interpretation and evidence based models can be an essential part of that.
Assuming a model is correct and using it for forecasting and policy making is foolish.
Example: the US 1970s political decision that fat was enemy #1 on your plate - taken before the test results for that model were in. Turned out to be sugar, especially in combination with fat.

 

[Amity Island]

Assuming a model is correct and using it for forecasting and policy making is foolish.

Indeed. One has to question the motives behind using such foolish methods.

What is wrong with using evidence?

Can you imagine police using models instead of evidence in scenes of crime.

Buying a ticket for a concert is not evidence they went to same concert. Although one could predict they went to the concert, it is not the same thing.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

What is wrong with using evidence?

What is "evidence" in the case of excess deaths? You just can't avoid using a model to decide what the expected number of deaths should be, whether that's the relatively simple average over the last 5 years or something a little more complex.

Can you imagine police using models instead of evidence in scenes of crime.

No. Similarly, doctors wouldn't be using statistical models to decide cause of death for a particular individual.

I can certainly imagine police using models to decide whether certain kinds of crime are increasing or decreasing in frequency. Or whether certain approaches to reducing some crimes were working well or not. (The models might be simple population based models, but they'd be models all the same.)

 

[Amity Island]

What is "evidence" in the case of excess deaths? You just can't avoid using a model to decide what the expected number of deaths should be, whether that's the relatively simple average over the last 5 years or something a little more complex.

There are models that use no evidence and there are those that manipulate evidence to give a preferred outcome.

Let's not forget it was models (not evidence) that took us into lockdown, what evidence were these models based on?

Bruce, what is your view on using a model to eliminate a crisis of excess deaths?

I'd like to have those who instigated the changes made public and also those that agreed to the changes provide their reasons for making the changes.

 

[Amity Island]

Excess deaths.....there is an elephant in the room.

If this is the case, then by going by this latest news piece, the policticians are now washing their hands of all responsibility.

It's the doctors that are to blame for it all! They were the ones giving the advice to the politicians (apparently) and it wasn't a polticial decison, but a medical one?

So how come the government ignored the JCVI "medical" "expert" "advice" (that healthy kids would see little benefit to risk) and went ahead and offered the vax to healthy kids?

How come the JCVI publised a priority list for the vax with the elderly in care homes being those most at risk, yet we rolled out a vax that couldn't even be stored at the correct temperature to help those most in need?

Did these doctors advising government advise them to ignore natural immunity?

If the decison was a medical one, then how come I've yet to meet anyone that took the vax for their own health? I've heard all reasons but that reason, be it to go on holiday, to do your bit, to protect grandma, cos "they" are talking about mandating them for everyone, because they have mandated them, cos my mates got it, family pressure, because so and so who is famous got theirs etc etc

See pm's response about the doctors being responsible, not the politicians at 3mins in.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Let's not forget it was models (not evidence) that took us into lockdown, what evidence were these models based on?

They were published, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/

As for evidence, there was (inevitably, for a new pathogen) limited evidence to begin with. Hence the wide confidence intervals.

I think even the original worst case of (if I remember correctly) about half a million deaths if there was absolutely no action is really pretty good. I think it's probably in the right order of magnitude which is likely as good as you could hope to get back then. (Way better than estimates later by John Ioannidis, for example. Or our own CMO.)

I'd like to have those who instigated the changes made public and also those that agreed to the changes provide their reasons for making the changes.

The reasoning isn't secret: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...gexcessdeathsintheukmethodologychanges/latest

There are multiple threads on the service formerly known as Twitter discussing it (I gave one above by someone who was involved).

I know Carl Heneghan is skeptical of the change in a Torygraph article, but his argument doesn't look that compelling to me.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760678110490742967

So how come the government ignored the JCVI "medical" "expert" "advice" (that healthy kids would see little benefit to risk) and went ahead and offered the vax to healthy kids?

I think JCVI just got that decision wrong. JCVI itself was going against modelling they'd received suggesting that vaccination would be beneficial, so arguably the CMOs were reinstating the scientific view. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ck-youth-covid-jabs-despite-favourable-models

How come the JCVI publised a priority list for the vax with the elderly in care homes being those most at risk, yet we rolled out a vax that couldn't even be stored at the correct temperature to help those most in need?

Because the Pfizer vaccine was the first to be approved. Had the Ox/AZ one been approved first I think there's a pretty good chance it would have been the first to be offered (though in the trials it was a bit less effective). While I'm sure the storage problems for the Pfizer vaccine were pretty annoying, the people involved had had notice of that and had made appropriate plans so I don't think it caused too much of a problem. Particularly in places like care homes; much more of an issue for (say) an elderly couple on their own in a small village somewhere.

If the decison was a medical one, then how come I've yet to meet anyone that took the vax for their own health?

You mostly listen to anti vaxxers? I think I've only heard a handful of people who said they wanted the vaccine for one of the reasons you mention, though I'm not sure that those are particularly bad reasons.

See pm's response about the doctors being responsible, not the politicians at 3mins in.

I'm shocked! Politician wants to shift any responsibility to someone (anyone) else. (And in the specific case John Watt seems to have suffered ever since his heart attack in February 2020 which weakens his case that it's related to this vaccine.)

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Another thread on why the change is happening now:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1761186336407801940

 

[Amity Island]

I think even the original worst case of (if I remember correctly) about half a million deaths if there was absolutely no action is really pretty good.

In a pandemic when were we ever going to be doing nothing? and as you say, the model wasn't based on any evidence either. So to frighten a country into lockdowns based on little to nothing is ludicrous. Then the msm published the pictures of people dying in the street. Bruce when did we ever see this happening? It's all fallacy and scare tactics.

As I have been saying from the very beginning, the message could have been for people to "stay at home if you have covid symptoms (to reduce the spread)." Thus, the Ferguson model could have started at that point instead of his "doing nothing" model.

A man lies dead in the street: the image that captures the Wuhan coronavirus crisis

‘These days, many have died,’ says bystander as image shows workers in protective suits and masks taking body away

www.theguardian.com

I think JCVI just got that decision wrong.

I think JCVI got it right. That the benefit to risk for a brand new novel therapy was not worth the risk.

Because the Pfizer vaccine was the first to be approved.

So they helped develop and approve a therapy that didn't meet their own (JCVI) priority advice (to vaccinate the elderly in care homes first).

You mostly listen to anti vaxxers? I think I've only heard a handful of people who said they wanted the vaccine for one of the reasons you mention, though I'm not sure that those are particularly bad reasons.

? uh. No, these are people I have spoken to who have had the vaccine not those who didn't, they are certainly not anti vaccine (nor am I), most gladly took it for reasons other than their own health though. If you had had covid (the disease or were young, fit and healthy) then this was more than enough reason not to take a vaccine (by the time they had arrived a year or so later) also (infection is natures remedy and how vaccines have always worked by providing an immune response).

As I said, the numbers of people I have had the opportunity to ask or have told me, none of them have said they got the vax for their own health. It was to go on holiday, for others (they "believed" it would stop them catching covid, getting sick and passing it on), because the government were discussing mandating it for everyone (not sure that would of ever of happened or been lawful), peer pressure, family pressure or because of some famous person promoting the jab etc.

I'm shocked! Politician wants to shift any responsibility to someone (anyone) else.

Fair comment, although it doesn't put those doctors who apparently made all those decisions about the vaccines/rollout and the pandemic etc in a good place should anything transpire.

 

[Dragonheart]

They were the ones giving the advice to the politicians (apparently) and it wasn't a polticial decison, but a medical one?

Where are you getting this from? Whilst drs may have offered their opinions or advice it doesn’t mean it was followed in its entirety and more than a few have come out to say it was basically ignored in favour of political decisions

 

[Dragonheart]

If the decison was a medical one, then how come I've yet to meet anyone that took the vax for their own health?

You’ve claimed this before and I’ve answered I did. As did almost everyone I know.

I've heard all reasons but that reason, be it to go on holiday, to do your bit, to protect grandma, cos "they" are talking about mandating them for everyone, because they have mandated them, cos my mates got it, family pressure, because so and so who is famous got theirs etc etc

Says a fair bit to me about the people you know in some of these situations imo

 

[Amity Island]

You’ve claimed this before and I’ve answered I did. As did almost everyone I know.

I've also answered you before. These are people I have physically met, not people I haven't (e.g on forums etc)

Says a fair bit to me about the people you know in some of these situations imo

These are not all people I know, but people I have met on my travels etc random people, they are not part of some anti-vax group (they had all been vaccinated willingly or under coercian/pressure of some kind). For an example, I was at a hotel at an older peoples gathering 3 weeks ago (i'd say about 40), I was sat amongst them at the bar. They all talk about covid etc, and I heard at least three of them say they got it (the jab) so they could still go to their outings etc, not for their own health. Said they wouldn't of been accepted at any social places they attend without having had the jab.

Thus, it makes me wonder, how many did get it for their own health? I do wonder.

 

[Amity Island]

Where are you getting this from? Whilst drs may have offered their opinions or advice it doesn’t mean it was followed in its entirety and more than a few have come out to say it was basically ignored in favour of political decisions

From the prime minister, see video link I added, he says this at 3mins in.