Page 4 of 4

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:47 pm
by Metalchemyst
slayerslays wrote:That Coronavirus deaths weren't included in the second graph
Or that most of the extra deaths were not caused by CoviD19.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:40 am
by Ghost
Metalchemyst wrote:
slayerslays wrote:That Coronavirus deaths weren't included in the second graph
Or that most of the extra deaths were not caused by CoviD19.


:lol: Yeah I'd say it's more likely that the covid 19 deaths just weren't included in the second graph. Are you suggesting 6000 people suddenly just died in a week of something else when there's hardly any road traffic accidents and A & E admissions at the moment?

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:57 pm
by houston4044
Ghost wrote:
Metalchemyst wrote:
slayerslays wrote:That Coronavirus deaths weren't included in the second graph
Or that most of the extra deaths were not caused by CoviD19.


Are you suggesting 6000 people suddenly just died in a week of something else when there's hardly any road traffic accidents and A & E admissions at the moment?


May not be to the scale of 6000 but given the laser focus on corona I can see lots of people with other diseases dying as a result of being unable to access care (cancer or dialysis being the main ones). I know people who've had vital medical procedures postponed that really cut it close to being too late be effective with fatal consequences. You just know those statistics will be brushed over though.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:29 pm
by Metalchemyst
Ghost wrote:
Metalchemyst wrote:
slayerslays wrote:That Coronavirus deaths weren't included in the second graph
Or that most of the extra deaths were not caused by CoviD19.
:lol: Yeah I'd say it's more likely that the covid 19 deaths just weren't included in the second graph. Are you suggesting 6000 people suddenly just died in a week of something else when there's hardly any road traffic accidents and A & E admissions at the moment?
But why would CVD19 deaths not be classed as deaths from a respiratory disease? The mainstream media said that about 40% of the extra deaths were not from the virus, so that could be an underestimate. We'll see what tomorrow's updates look like.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:11 pm
by ribbons69
Metalchemyst wrote:
Ghost wrote:
Metalchemyst wrote:Or that most of the extra deaths were not caused by CoviD19.
:lol: Yeah I'd say it's more likely that the covid 19 deaths just weren't included in the second graph. Are you suggesting 6000 people suddenly just died in a week of something else when there's hardly any road traffic accidents and A & E admissions at the moment?
But why would CVD19 deaths not be classed as deaths from a respiratory disease? The mainstream media said that about 40% of the extra deaths were not from the virus, so that could be an underestimate. We'll see what tomorrow's updates look like.

According to the BBC last week had the highest mortality rate for 20 years. So 20 years ago what were people dying of? It certainly wasn't bloody Covid - 19. Why were the public not informed? Etc and so forth.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:18 pm
by Ghost
ribbons69 wrote:According to the BBC last week had the highest mortality rate for 20 years. So 20 years ago what were people dying of? It certainly wasn't bloody Covid - 19. Why were the public not informed? Etc and so forth.


The millennium bug? :lol:

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:40 am
by gavdann

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:13 pm
by Metalchemyst
I'm just pointing out unexplained facts. I'm not getting it from Breitbart:

https://www.newstatesman.com/science-te ... ined-extra
“The disparity was even larger last week,” emphasises Dr Jason Oke, senior statistician in the Oxford University Medical Statistics Group. “In the week ending 3 April, there were 6,000 excess deaths, and 3,000 to 4,000 were unexplained. That was particularly surprising.”

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:02 pm
by Ghost
The government have stopped counting people who die 28 days after a positive test. So people that die on ventilators are no longer counted. Dodgy.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 8:13 pm
by Bizza
Ghost wrote:The government have stopped counting people who die 28 days after a positive test. So people that die on ventilators are no longer counted. Dodgy.


Not like the tories to try and manipulate the figures to make themselves look good.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:14 pm
by Green Man III


I would laugh at the irony but I worry about that my older brother is being taken in by conspiracy theories.

This reminds me, I should give him a call.

Speaking of which, anybody else notice how this whole pandemic has been making all our old friends come out of the woodwork?

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:44 am
by slayerslays
Bizza wrote:
Ghost wrote:The government have stopped counting people who die 28 days after a positive test. So people that die on ventilators are no longer counted. Dodgy.


Not like the tories to try and manipulate the figures to make themselves look good.


Scotland has used the 28 day method from day 1.
88% of deaths occur within 28 days, 96% within 60 days of a positive test.
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk ... 19-deaths/