Forethat
-
Posts
3877 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Forethat
-
-
12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:
You're the one who claims access to inside knowledge, not I.
Did I now? Last time I checked I referred to publicly available information and I have provided links every time (as usual). Please provide an example of where I claim to have access to inside knowledge in this matter?
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:
Right so the governments total incompetence in testing is reason enough to declare that people dying who have not been tested is an excuse for reporting the low figures.
OK no problem. Glad we clarified that.
No, the reason why the Government only reports the COVID-19 related deaths is that they only have one source of information which identifies patients who died from CONFIRMED infections. I concur that they should ramp up testing to include care homes and hospices, in which case the person tested would be on the NHS radar. But EVEN if that happened, the Government wouldn't be able to report on a fatality for that day as the report typically takes a couple of days before it is registered. The SLA is indicated on the screenshot in the post you commented on. Six days.
So evidently, the Government doesn't know who has died, and they don't know what they died from. And yet you KNOW it's a Governmental cover-up, and you claim that I KNOW it as well...? Everybody knows it's a cover-up, right?
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:
The symptoms are fairly specific and well defined.
We all know the reason why they are not being recorded. Its because the UK did not want to break the 1000 deaths per day psychological level.
I know that.
You know that.
Why are you defending the indefensible?
I have absolutely no clue if someone is deliberately manipulating the numbers. Personally, I want to believe that it'd be easier for the Government to defend their actions - or lack of actions - causing a shortage of PPE etc. if the number of fatalities was HIGHER. So if there was a reason to cook up the books it might be in the direction opposite to the one you suggest. But that's not something I'd be prepared to debate, for the simple reason that I don't know. The same way none of you doesn't know anything of what you claim in the post quoted above.
But now you're telling me there's an exact number that UK doesn't want to break for psychological reasons. Where do you people find this information where these specifications and conspiracies are revealed? Sounds like a People's Front of Judea gathering, if you ask me.
I'm not defending anything (another thing you fail to comprehend). What I HAVE done is to explain WHY there is a discrepancy between the numbers reported by the Government and the analysis performed by ONS. In terms of statistical accuracy, I am more concerned with the number of cases where patients died in a care home and COVID-19 wasn't even mentioned on the death certificate.
Just to point out; not even ONS knows how many patients died today from COVID-19. And yet you want the Government to include them in their report? And when they don't they are deliberately cooking the books?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:
No, you haven't. We all know what causes the discrepancy. For starters it's in the OP! The government only reports deaths in hospitals, the ONS reports all deaths.
No, they report cases where the patient has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. And as I pointed out it is clearly defined in the ONS analysis. I even included a screenshot. Here is is again:
13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:A fact now acknowledged by the government as their daily spokesperson now says they are reporting hospital deaths.
You must have access to something completely different than the official reports as they state the reported deaths are "Hospital deaths where the patient tested positive".
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:That report, which contains the one in the OP, includes all the deaths from the virus no matter where they occurred. The government figures only contain those which occurred in hospital.
No, you're not reading the information correctly. The Government report on cases that HAVE BEEN TESTED POSITIVE for COVID-19. It's even in the report YOU referred to:
"Definitions of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths between different sources". It's there in black and white. So in essence, both ONS and the Government have published information that shows exactly how wrong you are. I've linked to it several times. You would think that'd be enough...
Obviously, this is a result of not testing for COVID-19 outside NHS hospitals (I've pointed this out several times). That's what I've been trying to tell you (with mixed result, to say the very least).
YOU seem to believe that the Government run a query based on ONS data, deliberately omitting stats. They don't. I get it, you want the Government to report on cases where SARS-CoV-2 hasn't been tested positive. And that's exactly where ONS can step in and provide an analysis to display a picture where PROBABLE cases are included. But the Government can't report them as confirmed COVID-19 related fatalities. Sorry, It won't happen.
20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:You can make as many condescending posts and childish remarks about alien insemination as you like, they won't alter that fact.
No doubt you will now make yet another post in which you believe that you are proving how much more intelligent than everyone else you are. Go ahead, my attitude is identical to that expressed by Rhett Butler as he walked out of the door for the last time.
I have proven what causes the discrepancy between ONS analysis and Government reports. Judging by your written language I take it the coin has finally dropped? Don't get upset though, pay attention instead, and you'll learn something new.
-
3
-
1 minute ago, 7by7 said:
For England and Wales see
and links contained therein.
But, hehe, that link doesn't show that anyone has been underreporting anything. The under reporting is your (as well as others) suspicion. Nothing else.
What I have done is provide you with an explanation to show WHY there is a discrepancy between Government reported numbers and ONS analysis. Here, page 17 in the report you refer to but apparently haven't read:
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:
COVID-19 kills within a known period of time, you either recover within that time or you die
Did you have link where the known period is specified? A COVID-19 manual, perhaps. Or maybe not?
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:
No, but I can direct you to read the OP.
Hehe, the OP doesn't show that someone is underreporting. It proves exactly my point - there IS a difference between suspected and confirmed. That's the whole issue.
You can of course speculate and come up with as many tinfoil theories as you like. Evidently. But if you want an answer to the question why, you can go back and read my posts again. I think I've over-clarified this ten times too many already.
How about that alien insemination, did they report that? Huh? Huh? I bet you wonder why they under report that all the time..
-
2
-
-
Just now, Chomper Higgot said:
Yes we know that people already weakens by underlying disease are more likely to be killed by COVID-19.
If you have data that includes a higher number of fatalities, please feel free to provide some information.
-
3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:
The ONS has revealed data that demonstrates the Government have been under reporting COVID-19 deaths.
Do you have a link?
-
1
-
-
To add some additional facts to this discussion, Italy issued a report based on 19,996 COVID-19 related deaths. The report included data recorded until April 16th.
Gender
Women: 34.7%
Men: 65.3%
Age
Average age: 79
0-9 years old: 2
10-19 years old: 0
20-29 years old: 7
30-39 years old: 40
40-49 years old: 178
50-59 years old: 756
60-69 years old: 2,284
70-79 years old: 6,203
80-89 years old: 8,070
90+ years old: 2,455
Comorbidities (based on 1,738 deaths)
At least one underlying condition: 96.4%
One underlying condition: 14.4%
Two underlying conditions: 20.7%
Three or more underlying conditions: 61.3%
Other
There were 49 fatalities under 40 years old. Medical records were available for 43 of them. 35 had serious pathologies (cardiovascular, renal (kidney), psychiatric, diabetes, obesity). 8 of them had no existing major pathologies.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:
COVID-19 kills within a known period of time, you either recover within that time or you die.
Can you please post a link to the COVID-19 manual where the known period of time is specified?
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, chessman said:
From previous global crises, it seems that the reported totals of deaths at the time is always less than the real total. There's a good chance the real total is much more than 15% higher.
Most likely. But what do you expect the government to do? Take to Twitter to count the people that allegedly died from COVID-19 (because a nurse in a care home is confident that's the case)?
-
11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:
Indeed.
But the scandal here is that the government are deliberately under reporting the deaths by only counting those which occur in hospital.
The government can only report on deaths caused by COVID-19 that have been reported as a death caused by COVID-19. It's not that hard to comprehend, is it?
Extraordinary that this is seen as a scandal. With the same kind of logic as the one you apply to this I could say that it's a scandal that the government didn't report the 3,000 deaths caused by alien insemination.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:
Deaths in care homes in Scotland where COVID-19 is suspected as being the cause of death are being recorded. It may be imprecise, but it is taking place.
Scottish Government changes how COVID-19 deaths are counted
"information on the daily number of deaths will be taken from National Records of Scotland official death registrations, in addition to data from individual health boards.
...“suspected” deaths, where coronavirus or COVID-19 are mentioned on the death certificate, will be counted. These will include deaths which occur both in hospital and in the community. "
Yup.
That's how easy it is - issue a report where it is clearly stated that there are X deaths. For clarity, the report should clarify that out of the deaths, Y was confirmed COVID-19 and Z suspected COVID-19.
But then there's the real elephant in the room that I mentioned earlier:
"To be perfectly honest, I'd be more worried about how many potential cases there are where COVID-19 is NOT mentioned on the death certificate."
-
4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:
I respectfully urge you to read the book (the classic on death and dying). The vast majority who get C19 will self isolate and recover and I'd be amazed if the mortality rate is anywhere near 1%. Most who pass will have other health conditions and be Elderly (not all but most).
The vaccine clinical trial at Oxford University began their screening process this morning. I think this is incredibly interesting for exactly the reason you mention. This is, as far as I know, the first time when they bring in (1000 maybe??) people who all believe that they have never been infected. I doubt the numbers will be published before the result of the trial, but it'd be incredibly interesting to know...
-
1
-
-
On 4/16/2020 at 1:51 AM, 7by7 said:
Indeed.
One must wonder why the government originally only announced figures for the the hospital cases.
Incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to conceal the real figures by Cummings and his political puppets?
Have you not been paying attention to what I've written?
I'll clarify once more:
The reason why the government cannot account for care home deaths caused by COVID-19 is that the deaths are not recorded as such as long as they aren't tested. Having a "hunch" isn't enough. In cases where the patient has been tested but not been confirmed positive they CAN state COVID-19 as direct cause of death and later share the result. In cases where they HAVE NOT been tested they are told to use clinical judgement. I can GUARANTEE that very few, if any, doctors will enter COVID-19 as the direct cause of death in these situations. Instead, this WILL be "pneumonitis", "acute renal failure", "sepsis" or something similar. That's the issue. They're not tested and therefore the death certificate doesn't indicate that they died from COVID-19. As a result, they are not included in the data.
Now you can stop wondering why the government didn't announce the figures for care homes.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:
Once again, it’s not a ‘statistical conundrum’.
Basing your own argument on a twitter account is not a good excuse for why the Government representative doesn’t have the correct data.
It wasn’t you who linked to the procedures for recording deaths, that was me and I did so to demonstrate the holes in your earlier weak arguments.
I clearly described the procedure for issuing a death certificate, with 100% accuracy.
YOU, on the other hand, have demonstrated clearly that you don't understand what a death certificate is. You tend to believe it's a one liner. And for what it's worth; it's not the statistician who decides cause of death, just as I've previously told you.
This gets rather ridiculous when I tell you how certain things work, only to see you post a link that confirms exactly what I've said. And then you claim I've been proven wrong?
QuoteI should also point out that we have issued clear instructions to doctors that COVID-19 is an accepted direct or underlying cause when certifying death. With that in mind, I'm intrigued as to the notion that COVID-19 is 'mentioned' on the death certificate as oppose to stated as cause of death.
To stay on topic:
The reason why the government cannot account for care home deaths caused by COVID-19 is that the deaths are not recorded as such as long as they aren't tested. Having a "hunch" isn't enough. In cases where the patient has been tested but not been confirmed positive they CAN state COVID-19 as direct cause of death and later share the result. In cases where they HAVE NOT been tested they are told to use clinical judgement. I can GUARANTEE that very few, if any, doctors will enter COVID-19 as the direct cause of death in these situations. Instead, this WILL be "pneumonitis", "acute renal failure", "sepsis" or something similar. That's the issue. They're not tested and therefore the death certificate doesn't indicate that they died from COVID-19. As a result, they are not included in the data.
Is it sinking in?
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, chickenslegs said:
How about NO then?
Sorry, this is no laughing matter.
As long as you inhale it, you'll be fine. At least your mates will have a good laugh watching you try. ????
-
3 minutes ago, Almer said:
We need a qualified brewer to answer.
Calling all brewers please.
Make sure you get the Belgians.
-
11 minutes ago, Monomial said:
Is Egypt considered the Middle East?
I thought it was Africa.
https://www.ancient.eu/article/1033/beer-in-ancient-egypt/
Could be. I thought it was Mesopotamia. At least that's what I've been told. But Egyptians or Sumerians could be right.
QuoteIn Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq), early evidence of beer is a 3,900-year-old Sumerian poem honoring Ninkasi, the patron goddess of brewing, which contains the oldest surviving beer recipe, describing the production of beer from barley via bread.[18] Approximately 5,000 years ago, workers in the city of Uruk were paid by their employers in beer.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_beer
I know I read somewhere of a brewer who tried to reproduce that four thousand year old beer recipé. Apparently it was awful.
-
20 minutes ago, moogradod said:
I am German and my ancestors invented the thing. Google "Weihenstephan". And real beer - especially Pils - has CO2 and is served cold. It is an art. No discussion. At least since the invention of refridgerators. Everything else is just a curiosity such as pineapple on a pizza.
You're from the Middle East?
-
4 hours ago, Surelynot said:
Good. Proper beer should be flat, warm and very hoppy.
Presumably, you mean "Proper Ale". We are in total agreement.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, KKr said:
seems like the neighbours closing the borders protected the Swedes, but the virus seems to have travelled anyway and is catching up.
Don't know if they were protected as in this category Sweden is the worst performing country in the world. At least I can't find one that's worse...
-
2
-
UK coronavirus death toll could be 15% higher than previously shown: new data
in World News
Posted · Edited by Forethat
I think you'll find that a vast majority of those paying attention realise that the discrepancy between the daily Government report of fatalities and ONS analysis of data - that wasn't even known at the time of Government briefings - is completely innocuous. I'm also convinced a majority of citizens realise that the purpose of using NHS data is to analyse the situation and monitor the progress of the epidemic on a national level as well as the result of the Government actions on the aforementioned epidemic. In particular the result of the lockdown.
Roll up the tinfoil hat, there is no conspiracy to make us believe people are not dying. We know they are. In rather uncomforting numbers.