The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

Seweryn

And here are the numbers updated further now showing death rate comparison with the exclusion of the CV deaths, just to compare "apples with apples"...

bb1234567

So the figures are false/wrong/misleading then I take it if you're not willing to show their source

DarHan84

bb1234567 wrote: »

So the figures are false/wrong/misleading then I take it if you're not willing to show their source

Yep he's just making it up. He doesn't watch the news though, so he's a bit of a renegade!

Oddly, there were 3750 individual death notices issued in Ireland in April vs 2600 last April. Where do they show in your spreadsheet that you no doubt got in an email from George Soros, where he admitted the whole thing is a hoax?

bb1234567

Seweryn wrote: »

So, we have the official records from our most deadly month in records. Let's have a look at them.

You are welcome to prove me wrong or inaccurate. Here are the numbers:

CV Deaths end of March: 71
CV Deaths end of April: 1231
Total CV Deaths in April: 1160

Total number of deaths in April of 2018, 2019 and 2020:
April 2018: 2,613
April 2019: 2,456
April 2020: 2,787

Population in 2018: 4,818,690
Population in 2019: 4,882,495
Population in 2020: 4,947,145 (estimated)

Deaths per million:
April 2018: 542
April 2019: 503
April 2020: 563

Average deaths per million for 2018 - 2019 (for the month of April): 522
An increase in deaths per million for April 2020: 7.85% (similar difference to 2018 / 2019, so within norm).

Here is the interesting bit:

All deaths excluding CV:

April 2018: 2,613
April 2019: 2,454
April 2020: 1,627

Deaths per million excluding deaths by CV:

April 2018: 542
April 2019: 503
April 2020: 329

Average deaths per million for 2018 - 2019 (April): 522
An increase in deaths per million for April 2020: -37% (minus thirty seven %).

Do they tell that in your television? Because I stopped watching it a long time ago. And if so, what is their message about April?

BIG shoutout to user Seweryn for deliberately spreading misinformation. So these figures are completely falisified guys, hopefully a mod will remove Seweryns post which he has quite literally pulled figures from his arse to make



The actual figures have now been officially released.Excess deaths during the last 4 months in Ireland have been 13% higher than normal, or about 1200 more than expected in the 4 month period of March, April, May and June.

"Excess deaths peaked by 33% over a six-week period from 25 March 2020 to 5 May 2020", Dr Teljeur said. "During this period, there was an increase of 1,200 deaths from expected figures, with 1,332 Covid-19-related deaths officially reported."

While in June excess deaths have been below normal also,so it seems that people working from home ,less driving etc is also pushing excess mortality down.
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2020/0703/1151127-virus-report/
So ,considerably less than the 1700 or so deaths reported officially, but still a large increase in excess mortality in Ireland.

Bit cynical

bb1234567 wrote: »

While in June excess deaths have been below normal also,so it seems that people working from home ,less driving etc is also pushing excess mortality down.
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2020/0703/1151127-virus-report/
So ,considerably less than the 1700 or so deaths reported officially, but still a large increase in excess mortality in Ireland.

The low June numbers could be due to Covid-19 bringing forward deaths into earlier months from June, i.e. someone who would have died in June due to some underlying condition instead died in April or May.

bb1234567

Bit cynical wrote: »

The low June numbers could be due to Covid-19 bringing forward deaths into earlier months from June, i.e. someone who would have died in June due to some underlying condition instead died in April or May.

Perhaps. But scandinavian countries with small numbers of covid deaths that locked down had below normal excess deaths for this time of year so it seems that lockdown does cause a considerable reduction in excess mortality

Seweryn

bb1234567 wrote: »

BIG shoutout to user Seweryn for deliberately spreading misinformation. So these figures are completely falisified guys, hopefully a mod will remove Seweryns post which he has quite literally pulled figures from his arse...

The above figures are valid for the day I made the calculations using the death rates available at the time.
As of today, there are a few extra deaths added to the statistics (they were sent to me by email this morning), so here is an updated table based on today's numbers:




This time I don't see the point in publishing the calculations with the CV death rates deducted as the final number is laughable due to the officially published CV death numbers being "unreliable".

bb1234567

You made up figures, they are different to the ones released by the government. Stop pretending to know something we don't, nobody believes your lies.

Excess mortality is up on previous years, I have no idea how you have arrived to your negative excess final figure. Also don't see the relevance of including January or February seeing as there were no recorded COVID deaths in these months.

Seweryn

bb1234567 wrote: »

You made up figures, they are different to the ones released by the government.

What are the figures for each month released by the government? Or what are their basis for the released figures? How did they calculate them? I am not saying their figures are incorrect, just tell us how the released figures got calculated.

bb1234567 wrote: »

I have no idea how you have arrived to your negative excess final figure.

Well, if you have no idea how to add and compare a few numbers listed in the table then why are you trying to argue that the final numbers are incorrect?

bb1234567

I trust the figures released by our government, not a random poster making up figures and ironically claiminh they are sourced from the same people announcing completely different numbers. What are you hoping to achieve here through your made up figures?

bb1234567

I trust the figures released by our government, not a random poster making up figures and ironically claiminh they are sourced from the same people announcing completely different numbers. What are you hoping to achieve here through your made up figures?

Seweryn

bb1234567 wrote: »

I trust the figures released by our government,

What are the figures?

bb1234567

Seweryn wrote: »

What are the figures?

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2020/0703/1151127-virus-report/

Care to source your figures? Oh ye, you can't.

Seweryn

bb1234567 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2020/0703/1151127-virus-report/

There are no figures published in that article. We don't know how many people died in a particular month this year or last year. They don't even state how many people die on average in a month.

bb1234567 wrote: »

Care to source your figures? Oh ye, you can't.

They are from the GR Office. The figures quoted are still subject to change as there likely will be a few more deaths recorded in near future. That is why I wouldn't quote numbers post April.

martingriff

Seweryn wrote: »

There are no figures published in that article. We don't know how many people died in a particular month this year or last year. They don't even state how many people die on average in a month.


They are from the GR Office. The figures quoted are still subject to change as there likely will be a few more deaths recorded in near future. That is why I wouldn't quote numbers post April.

The what office. How do you say the massive difference between the overall change of death rate

bb1234567

Seweryn wrote: »

There are no figures published in that article. We don't know how many people died in a particular month this year or last year. They don't even state how many people die on average in a month.


They are from the GR Office. The figures quoted are still subject to change as there likely will be a few more deaths recorded in near future. That is why I wouldn't quote numbers post April.

Alright man. As I said I, and presumably most people, will take news from our national broadcaster over your false figures. But keep pedalling that, I'm sure somebody might think all your made up figures are interesting and worth while talking about


Still no source on your figures btw, until you show credible source, it's all bull****.

martingriff

I wonder what the difference of road death was from this years period to last year and what increase it makes to deaths by difference causes

martingriff

bb1234567 wrote: »

Alright man. As I said I, and presumably most people, will take news from our national broadcaster over your false figures. But keep pedalling that, I'm sure somebody might think all your made up figures are interesting and worth while talking about


Still no source on your figures btw, until you show credible source, it's all bull****.

The think is there are many who think that this was a mole hill made into mountain and they have inflated the firgures

Seweryn

martingriff wrote: »

The what office

General Register.

martingriff wrote: »

How do you say the massive difference between the overall change of death rate

What do you mean Martin? Are you comparing my numbers with the article above?

There are no single death rate mentioned in the article, so we don't know what the claimed % increase is based on.

Secondly, no relation to previous year(s) numbers. Just some % mentioned (based on what average?).

Also, no relation of their numbers (OK, there are no numbers) to population in a particular year, i.e. deaths per million or per XX thousand.

And the last thing, "...increase between 11 March to 16 June..." - June? The numbers are not yet updated for May, never mind June. And even April is a subject to a small change, so... all in all that article has no solid facts. Especially as there are no reliable numbers available for the last two months.

Charles Babbage

martingriff wrote: »

I wonder what the difference of road death was from this years period to last year and what increase it makes to deaths by difference causes

Road deaths were not reduced as they should have been because people were speeding on quieter roads.

Seweryn

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Road deaths were not reduced as they should have been because people were speeding on quieter roads.

Road death rates are small enough anyway and have tiny impact on the subject.

Even if all road deaths are eliminated to zero, they would make about 0.5 % of difference to death rates overall.

martingriff

Seweryn wrote: »

General Register.


What do you mean Martin? Are you comparing my numbers with the article above?

There are no single death rate mentioned in the article, so we don't know what the claimed % increase is based on.

Secondly, no relation to previous year(s) numbers. Just some % mentioned (based on what average?).

Also, no relation of their numbers (OK, there are no numbers) to population in a particular year, i.e. deaths per million or per XX thousand.

And the last thing, "...increase between 11 March to 16 June..." - June? The numbers are not yet updated for May, never mind June. And even April is a subject to a small change, so... all in all that article has no solid facts. Especially as there are no reliable numbers available for the last two months.

Well where did they get the figures. Well let me break it down for you slowly. Thay got the number of death notices from last year. Got the same from this year subtracted 1 from the other and divided the difference from last years number and then multiply by 100. I think by the articles they used RIP.ie and took away any death that would have had multiple notices

Now there figure is +13% yours are -21% that is a difference of 34%. Your firgures are meaningless unless you can link source to them.

martingriff

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Road deaths were not reduced as they should have been because people were speeding on quieter roads.

Thanks for that

Seweryn

martingriff wrote: »

Well where did they get the figures. Well let me break it down for you slowly. Thay got the number of death notices from last year. Got the same from this year subtracted 1 from the other and divided the difference from last years number and then multiply by 100. I think by the articles they used RIP.ie and took away any death that would have had multiple notices.

Which month(s) are that Martin?

Is that comparing only two years against each other and one particular month? That makes the comparison not very accurate. Taking average from at least 2 - 3 years would make more sense.

Secondly, how is that related to the population number in each year? It is not I take.

martingriff wrote: »

Now there figure is +13% yours are -21% that is a difference of 34%. Your firgures are meaningless unless you can link source to them.

No, my figure is -8.9 % and is based on months from Jan to April and years 2017 to 2020 to make the average more accurate. And importantly my calculations take the population growth into account.

bb1234567

Seweryn wrote: »

General Register.


What do you mean Martin? Are you comparing my numbers with the article above?

There are no single death rate mentioned in the article, so we don't know what the claimed % increase is based on.

Secondly, no relation to previous year(s) numbers. Just some % mentioned (based on what average?).

Also, no relation of their numbers (OK, there are no numbers) to population in a particular year, i.e. deaths per million or per XX thousand.

And the last thing, "...increase between 11 March to 16 June..." - June? The numbers are not yet updated for May, never mind June. And even April is a subject to a small change, so... all in all that article has no solid facts. Especially as there are no reliable numbers available for the last two months.

Seweryn you cannot claim they are GRO figures without a valid source . It's not how it works you can't just expect people to take your word for it . You're spreading misinformation until you can prove otherwise, which you cannot do as presumably these figures are fabrications on your part.

Seweryn

bb1234567 wrote: »

Seweryn you cannot claim they are GRO figures without a valid source . It's not how it works you can't just expect people to take your word for it .

I understand your point. The figures were issued by email and are in the email body. I can't and not going to publish someones name, etc. on the forum. But to be honest I have no interest in spreading false news. But you can email them and ask for the numbers yourself if you doubt in them.

bb1234567 wrote: »

You're spreading misinformation.

I have no interest in spreading false numbers, so could you please stop attacking me on this?

What Username Guidelines

Seweryn wrote: »

Road death rates are small enough anyway and have tiny impact on the subject.

Even if all road deaths are eliminated to zero, they would make about 0.5 % of difference to death rates overall.

True, lockdown itself obviously prevented some deaths due to having people physically move around far less, so road deaths, work place accidents, probably drownings, etc.

But you have to bear in mind that these events are relatively rare in comparison to “normal” deaths, as in most of these generally make the news in non-covid times, and are a tiny % of overall deaths each year alongside old age, terminal illnesses, etc.

martingriff

Seweryn wrote: »

Which month(s) are that Martin?

Is that comparing only two years against each other and one particular month? That makes the comparison not very accurate. Taking average from at least 2 - 3 years would make more sense.

Secondly, how is that related to the population number in each year? It is not I take.


No, my figure is -8.9 % and is based on months from Jan to April and years 2017 to 2020 to make the average more accurate. And importantly my calculations take the population growth into account.

How about you read the articles it will let you know the periods they took. What does population numbers got to do with it. Release a link to your figures if you are so sure of them and let us see them. Until the the piece of toilet paper I just used has more use then you figures

bb1234567

Seweryn wrote: »

I understand your point. The figures were issued by email and are in the email body. I can't and not going to publish someones name, etc. on the forum. But to be honest I have no interest in spreading false news. But you can email them and ask for the numbers yourself if you doubt in them.


I have no interest in spreading false numbers, so could you please stop attacking me on this?

If you're not willing to publish the source to show they are authentic then don't post them, or at the very least dont expect others to believe them , and definitely do not try to convince us they have more validity than actual figures published by our national news provider.

Seweryn

martingriff wrote: »

What does population numbers got to do with it.

Well... that is basic mathematics. Do we really need to go through that?

martingriff wrote: »

Release a link to your figures if you are so sure of them and let us see them.

As I said above, I have no interest in spreading numbers taken from a pie in the sky, but I will not publish an email here. If you do not believe in the base numbers, I will not try to convince you.