Bulletguy Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-24 9:37 AM Barryd999 - 2022-01-23 9:14 PM pelmetman - 2022-01-23 9:01 PM Try surfing without the blinkers *-) ......... "High Covid death rates skewed by people who died from other causes, admits Sajid Javid" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/19/high-covid-death-rates-include-people-did-not-die-virus-admits/ This of course will be trustworthy. From the Torygraph and Health Minister. Its behind a paywall so can you copy and paste the content please? No need........here it is straight from the ONS ;-) .......... https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathssolelyfromcovid19ratherthandeathswithin28daysofapositivetest Which proves that I was RIGHT all along that the death figure you like to bash Boris with also include those who didn't die from COVID :-| ......... Which of course PROVES JUST HOW UNTRUSTWORTHY YOU ARE >:-) ........... That's not the Torygraph article you linked to because you liked it's header. You couldn't post the the article because you don't have access to it so I posted it for you......it's ok, don't thank me. Now you quote an entirely different report claiming it "proves you RIGHT". It doesn't. It just proves you are a clot with an unhealthy infatuation of Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 Bulletguy - 2022-01-24 2:20 PM pelmetman - 2022-01-24 9:37 AM Barryd999 - 2022-01-23 9:14 PM pelmetman - 2022-01-23 9:01 PM Try surfing without the blinkers *-) ......... "High Covid death rates skewed by people who died from other causes, admits Sajid Javid" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/19/high-covid-death-rates-include-people-did-not-die-virus-admits/ This of course will be trustworthy. From the Torygraph and Health Minister. Its behind a paywall so can you copy and paste the content please? No need........here it is straight from the ONS ;-) .......... https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathssolelyfromcovid19ratherthandeathswithin28daysofapositivetest Which proves that I was RIGHT all along that the death figure you like to bash Boris with also include those who didn't die from COVID :-| ......... Which of course PROVES JUST HOW UNTRUSTWORTHY YOU ARE >:-) ........... That's not the Torygraph article you linked to because you liked it's header. You couldn't post the the article because you don't have access to it so I posted it for you......it's ok, don't thank me. Now you quote an entirely different report claiming it "proves you RIGHT". It doesn't. It just proves you are a clot with an unhealthy infatuation of Johnson. Not only that. The "Clot" Still hasn't learned how to use tinyurl and is screwing up the format of the threads with his massive long links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 malc d - 2022-01-24 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-24 9:38 AM malc d - 2022-01-24 7:56 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-23 9:01 PM malc d - 2022-01-23 4:09 PM Bulletguy - 2022-01-23 3:08 PM malc d - 2022-01-23 10:15 AM thebishbus - 2022-01-23 7:52 AM Colin. Perhaps it is because it is now coming to light that our real number of Covid deaths are over stated ? Brian B. Haven't come across that anywhere. Can you tell us the source of your info ? :-| Some bloke in Weymouth told him. ;-) I've done a bit of surfing on the net today and can find no reports of the number of deaths being overstated. If it IS true then I would like to know why the mainstream media are not reporting it. I did find one site which said the death RATE of Covid victims may be overstated - because it's believed that a lot of people may have it mildly ( and don't die ) and don't report to anyone - they are therefore left out of calculations and reporting. :-| Try surfing without the blinkers *-) ......... Dave - When you don't understand someone elses' posting, it's best not to respond to it. :-| Can you understand this? :-| ......... https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathssolelyfromcovid19ratherthandeathswithin28daysofapositivetest ..... It's a different subject - so why should I bother to read it ? :-| Eh? :-S .......... "I've done a bit of surfing on the net today and can find no reports of the number of deaths being overstated." Obviously the "d" stands for dementia 8-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2022-01-24 11:55 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-24 9:38 AM........................... https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathssolelyfromcovid19ratherthandeathswithin28daysofapositivetest *-) Sure can Dave. There are two columns of data. One for those who died up to March 2021 "involving COVID-19".." referring to deaths that had that illness mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not". The other for those who died up to the same date "due to COVID-19"..."referring only to deaths where that illness was recorded as the underlying cause of death". The first totals 7107, the second 6894, a difference of just 3.04264%. The reasons for the differences are clearly explained. Sorry, but I've now forgotten your point! (lol) (lol) (lol) Perhaps you can let Malcom "d" know that COVID deaths HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED by 3.04264% ;-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-25 8:49 AM...................................... Perhaps you can let Malcom "d" know that COVID deaths HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED by 3.04264% ;-) ........... Dave, you're being really obtuse now! 8-) As the ONS link in your 24 January 2022 9:37 AM post shows, the ONS has two ways of logging deaths during the pandemic (other organisations have yet other ways, which unsurprisingly, throw up other answers). But sticking to your own link (because it is, after all, yours) if you would just engage your little grey cells and for once read what the ONS says, you will see that both are slightly "quick and dirty" measures of deaths caused by Covid. You will also begin (hopefully! :-)) to understand that in many cases the actual cause of death is a matter of pure medical judgement - for instance when a patient concurrently has various other life threatening conditions. Such people do not conveniently pop up a sign saying "Covid got me" as they expire. Someone has to decide. Another doctor, viewing the same patient, may well have reached a different conclusion. That is the reality, and is why (as explained in your link - if only you'd bloody read it) the ONS has adopted the two methods they use. Unsurprisingly, each method produces a slightly different result. As I pointed out above, the divergence between the two methods is a bit over 3%. Very roughly (though much debated) for the level of variance to be considered statistically significant, it needs to be above 5%. It is not, so both methods are reliable in their own terms, and the results are within the limits of statistical variance, so although slightly different, are both valid. As an exact number is impossible to determine, claiming that either (or any) over, or under, states the true number is, to quote Boris, pifflewaffle - because there is no available exact number to over, or under, state. If you can't do the science, don't read scientific papers! *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2022-01-25 11:20 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-25 8:49 AM...................................... Perhaps you can let Malcom "d" know that COVID deaths HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED by 3.04264% ;-) ........... Dave, you're being really obtuse now! 8-) As the ONS link in your 24 January 2022 9:37 AM post shows, the ONS has two ways of logging deaths during the pandemic (other organisations have yet other ways, which unsurprisingly, throw up other answers). But sticking to your own link (because it is, after all, yours) if you would just engage your little grey cells and for once read what the ONS says, you will see that both are slightly "quick and dirty" measures of deaths caused by Covid. You will also begin (hopefully! :-)) to understand that in many cases the actual cause of death is a matter of pure medical judgement - for instance when a patient concurrently has various other life threatening conditions. Such people do not conveniently pop up a sign saying "Covid got me" as they expire. Someone has to decide. Another doctor, viewing the same patient, may well have reached a different conclusion. That is the reality, and is why (as explained in your link - if only you'd bloody read it) the ONS has adopted the two methods they use. Unsurprisingly, each method produces a slightly different result. As I pointed out above, the divergence between the two methods is a bit over 3%. Very roughly (though much debated) for the level of variance to be considered statistically significant, it needs to be above 5%. It is not, so both methods are reliable in their own terms, and the results are within the limits of statistical variance, so although slightly different, are both valid. As an exact number is impossible to determine, claiming that either (or any) over, or under, states the true number is, to quote Boris, pifflewaffle - because there is no available exact number to over, or under, state. If you can't do the science, don't read scientific papers! *-) "As an exact number is impossible to determine" It hasn't stopped the Squad from using the non exact number to bash Boris with has it? *-) ......... If you want to take sides, dont be surprised when your shot at! >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-26 9:32 AM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-25 11:20 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-25 8:49 AM...................................... Perhaps you can let Malcom "d" know that COVID deaths HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED by 3.04264% ;-) ........... Dave, you're being really obtuse now! 8-) As the ONS link in your 24 January 2022 9:37 AM post shows, the ONS has two ways of logging deaths during the pandemic (other organisations have yet other ways, which unsurprisingly, throw up other answers). But sticking to your own link (because it is, after all, yours) if you would just engage your little grey cells and for once read what the ONS says, you will see that both are slightly "quick and dirty" measures of deaths caused by Covid. You will also begin (hopefully! :-)) to understand that in many cases the actual cause of death is a matter of pure medical judgement - for instance when a patient concurrently has various other life threatening conditions. Such people do not conveniently pop up a sign saying "Covid got me" as they expire. Someone has to decide. Another doctor, viewing the same patient, may well have reached a different conclusion. That is the reality, and is why (as explained in your link - if only you'd bloody read it) the ONS has adopted the two methods they use. Unsurprisingly, each method produces a slightly different result. As I pointed out above, the divergence between the two methods is a bit over 3%. Very roughly (though much debated) for the level of variance to be considered statistically significant, it needs to be above 5%. It is not, so both methods are reliable in their own terms, and the results are within the limits of statistical variance, so although slightly different, are both valid. As an exact number is impossible to determine, claiming that either (or any) over, or under, states the true number is, to quote Boris, pifflewaffle - because there is no available exact number to over, or under, state. If you can't do the science, don't read scientific papers! *-) "As an exact number is impossible to determine" It hasn't stopped the Squad from using the non exact number to bash Boris with has it? *-) ......... If you want to take sides, dont be surprised when your shot at! >:-) .......... LOL! But your taking a pea shooter to a gun fight Dave. Always. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 Barryd999 - 2022-01-26 11:45 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-26 9:32 AM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-25 11:20 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-25 8:49 AM...................................... Perhaps you can let Malcom "d" know that COVID deaths HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED by 3.04264% ;-) ........... Dave, you're being really obtuse now! 8-) As the ONS link in your 24 January 2022 9:37 AM post shows, the ONS has two ways of logging deaths during the pandemic (other organisations have yet other ways, which unsurprisingly, throw up other answers). But sticking to your own link (because it is, after all, yours) if you would just engage your little grey cells and for once read what the ONS says, you will see that both are slightly "quick and dirty" measures of deaths caused by Covid. You will also begin (hopefully! :-)) to understand that in many cases the actual cause of death is a matter of pure medical judgement - for instance when a patient concurrently has various other life threatening conditions. Such people do not conveniently pop up a sign saying "Covid got me" as they expire. Someone has to decide. Another doctor, viewing the same patient, may well have reached a different conclusion. That is the reality, and is why (as explained in your link - if only you'd bloody read it) the ONS has adopted the two methods they use. Unsurprisingly, each method produces a slightly different result. As I pointed out above, the divergence between the two methods is a bit over 3%. Very roughly (though much debated) for the level of variance to be considered statistically significant, it needs to be above 5%. It is not, so both methods are reliable in their own terms, and the results are within the limits of statistical variance, so although slightly different, are both valid. As an exact number is impossible to determine, claiming that either (or any) over, or under, states the true number is, to quote Boris, pifflewaffle - because there is no available exact number to over, or under, state. If you can't do the science, don't read scientific papers! *-) "As an exact number is impossible to determine" It hasn't stopped the Squad from using the non exact number to bash Boris with has it? *-) ......... If you want to take sides, dont be surprised when your shot at! >:-) .......... LOL! But your taking a pea shooter to a gun fight Dave. Always. (lol) That's all I need with you lot in the same barrel >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-26 2:00 PM Barryd999 - 2022-01-26 11:45 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-26 9:32 AM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-25 11:20 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-25 8:49 AM...................................... Perhaps you can let Malcom "d" know that COVID deaths HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED by 3.04264% ;-) ........... Dave, you're being really obtuse now! 8-) As the ONS link in your 24 January 2022 9:37 AM post shows, the ONS has two ways of logging deaths during the pandemic (other organisations have yet other ways, which unsurprisingly, throw up other answers). But sticking to your own link (because it is, after all, yours) if you would just engage your little grey cells and for once read what the ONS says, you will see that both are slightly "quick and dirty" measures of deaths caused by Covid. You will also begin (hopefully! :-)) to understand that in many cases the actual cause of death is a matter of pure medical judgement - for instance when a patient concurrently has various other life threatening conditions. Such people do not conveniently pop up a sign saying "Covid got me" as they expire. Someone has to decide. Another doctor, viewing the same patient, may well have reached a different conclusion. That is the reality, and is why (as explained in your link - if only you'd bloody read it) the ONS has adopted the two methods they use. Unsurprisingly, each method produces a slightly different result. As I pointed out above, the divergence between the two methods is a bit over 3%. Very roughly (though much debated) for the level of variance to be considered statistically significant, it needs to be above 5%. It is not, so both methods are reliable in their own terms, and the results are within the limits of statistical variance, so although slightly different, are both valid. As an exact number is impossible to determine, claiming that either (or any) over, or under, states the true number is, to quote Boris, pifflewaffle - because there is no available exact number to over, or under, state. If you can't do the science, don't read scientific papers! *-) "As an exact number is impossible to determine" It hasn't stopped the Squad from using the non exact number to bash Boris with has it? *-) ......... If you want to take sides, dont be surprised when your shot at! >:-) .......... LOL! But your taking a pea shooter to a gun fight Dave. Always. (lol) That's all I need with you lot in the same barrel >:-) ......... Do you know, I think you actually believe that. (lol) Time and time again you get skewered on here but keep coming back for more. Maybe you are too dim to see it I dunno or just like being tortured. Bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-26 9:32 AM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-25 11:20 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-25 8:49 AM...................................... Perhaps you can let Malcom "d" know that COVID deaths HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED by 3.04264% ;-) ........... Dave, you're being really obtuse now! 8-) As the ONS link in your 24 January 2022 9:37 AM post shows, the ONS has two ways of logging deaths during the pandemic (other organisations have yet other ways, which unsurprisingly, throw up other answers). But sticking to your own link (because it is, after all, yours) if you would just engage your little grey cells and for once read what the ONS says, you will see that both are slightly "quick and dirty" measures of deaths caused by Covid. You will also begin (hopefully! :-)) to understand that in many cases the actual cause of death is a matter of pure medical judgement - for instance when a patient concurrently has various other life threatening conditions. Such people do not conveniently pop up a sign saying "Covid got me" as they expire. Someone has to decide. Another doctor, viewing the same patient, may well have reached a different conclusion. That is the reality, and is why (as explained in your link - if only you'd bloody read it) the ONS has adopted the two methods they use. Unsurprisingly, each method produces a slightly different result. As I pointed out above, the divergence between the two methods is a bit over 3%. Very roughly (though much debated) for the level of variance to be considered statistically significant, it needs to be above 5%. It is not, so both methods are reliable in their own terms, and the results are within the limits of statistical variance, so although slightly different, are both valid. As an exact number is impossible to determine, claiming that either (or any) over, or under, states the true number is, to quote Boris, pifflewaffle - because there is no available exact number to over, or under, state. If you can't do the science, don't read scientific papers! *-) "As an exact number is impossible to determine" It hasn't stopped the Squad from using the non exact number to bash Boris with has it? *-) ......... If you want to take sides, dont be surprised when your shot at! >:-) .......... I don't recognise "the squad": did you mean me? If so, then if I'm being shot at, I'm unaware of it. What weapon are you using? Whatever, I think you have it the wrong way round and have probably shot the person behind you! :-D The numbers we have all, including you, been relying on are ones that are considered statistically reliable, as I explained just above - in the bit you either didn't read, or couldn't understand. That source is the ONS, and they only publish numbers after they are checked and cleared as statistically reliable. Your claim, quoting a Telegraph article, was "High Covid death rates skewed by people who died from other causes, admits Sajid Javid". When that source was queried, you quoted, but obviously didn't bother to read, the ONS, whose figures I showed you were, within statistical norms, not at variance, but simply reflected the sheer practical difficulties in recording what had, actually, killed each individual who had died after being infected with Covid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2022-01-26 4:52 PM I don't recognise "the squad": did you mean me? Hmmm.......That's another Remoanervirus symptom :-| ........ Denial *-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 No Dave, not denial, but in the face of your reply, victory! (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.