POI for the Coroners Society of Ireland, Nphet’s figures for deaths may be innacurate

drunkmonkey

odyssey06 wrote: »

True. Which speaks to the point I made that we would expect the excess deaths to be more likely present in those living in the community rather than those already in nursing homes requiring enhanced daily care.

Your basing that on the 4,900 official deaths, we know 2000+ of the recorded ones were in Nursing homes, so therefore you can draw the conclusion that 2900 happened in the community. All good so far. Then we glance back up at the thread title and remember what the discussion is really about, deaths being recorded incorrectly not excess deaths.

odyssey06

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your basing that on the 4,900 official deaths, we know 2000+ of the recorded ones were in Nursing homes, so therefore you can draw the conclusion that 2900 happened in the community. All good so far. Then we glance back up at the thread title and remember what the discussion is really about, deaths being recorded incorrectly not excess deaths.

And looking back at the opening post what exactly... nothing would have changed in how Ireland would have responded if the numbers of dead assigned to covid were as per official figures or as per excess mortality.

We have thousands of excess deaths with the most significant measures ever undertaken by the state to combat an infectious disease.
Even if you accept the mismatch in figures as being down to people with other conditions or frail who may not have survived the year and so do not affect excess mortality.

It still means the majority of people recorded as dying from covid died from covid.

And shows how important the measures were at keeping a lid on excess mortality and preserving hospital capacity to treat those who could be saved in ICU. And that I think has always been the priority... ensuring that capacity is there rather than trying to keep official fatalities down in those at a very frail stage who would not even be sent to ICU should covid hit them hard.

drunkmonkey

odyssey06 wrote: »

And looking back at the opening post what exactly... nothing would have changed in how Ireland would have responded if the numbers of dead assigned to covid were as per official figures or as per excess mortality.

We have thousands of excess deaths with the most significant measures ever undertaken by the state to combat an infectious disease.
Even if you accept the mismatch in figures as being down to people with other conditions or frail who may not have survived the year and so do not affect excess mortality.

It still means the majority of people recorded as dying from covid died from covid.

And shows how important the measures were at keeping a lid on excess mortality and preserving hospital capacity to treat those who could be saved in ICU. And that I think has always been the priority... ensuring that capacity is there rather than trying to keep official fatalities down in those at a very frail stage who would not even be sent to ICU should covid hit them hard.

Tbh I don't agree with nearly all your personal assumption there, from lockdown worked and the majority of recorded Covid deaths died from Covid.
If the response in the nursing homes was different so would have been our reaction, that's a failure of public health policy.
As for ensuring capacity is there, we denied so many healt care based on false numbers from NPHET. It's quite clear they were pumping up the fear o'meter based on I'm not quite sure, why are their numbers so wrong.
Was it yesterday or today, 7000 cases a day by July, these guys are running unchallenged with full Government support.

jimmycrackcorm

odyssey06 wrote:

"What should be questioned however is how the pandemic was used to justify a lengthy and massively harmful lockdown when the numbers seem to show that the excess deaths were, in fact, no worse than a bad flu season."

Where Comorbidity exists then it might be valid to question a lockdown based on deaths. However the core factor is the effect covid has on our health system where there is no question that it is a strain on hospital beds, staff out sick, ICU resources.

The facts cannot be disputed that without a lockdown then those resources would have been overwhelmed.

So if there is any question, it is what level of deaths directly caused by covid would you be happy with?

Millions were killed by spanish flu, it was just a bad flu season?

Danno

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Where Comorbidity exists then it might be valid to question a lockdown based on deaths. However the core factor is the effect covid has on our health system where there is no question that it is a strain on hospital beds, staff out sick, ICU resources.

The facts cannot be disputed that without a lockdown then those resources would have been overwhelmed.

So if there is any question, it is what level of deaths directly caused by covid would you be happy with?

Millions were killed by spanish flu, it was just a bad flu season?

Much of the two opening decades of this century have seen resources overwhelmed from basic winter flu.

The issue the Irish healthcare system has is that it is stuffed with "admin staff" with little more than an ECDL course to get them there. Meanwhile the money wasted on these through exorbitant wages should be used to pay Irish trained nurses and doctors who emigrate to US/Canada/Oz/NZ for better conditions and pay.

Meanwhile the HSE is quite happy to hire agency staff (usually of Asian origin) and stuff the pockets of some glorified "recruitment agency" whose CEO happens to golf with the health minister of the day.

drunkmonkey

Not sure if this is correct if someone would like to fact check it..

https://twitter.com/GrahamNeary/status/1398234422583910402?s=20

Smee_Again

Good to see that the restrictions worked.

PintOfView

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not sure if this is correct if someone would like to fact check it..

https://twitter.com/GrahamNeary/status/1398234422583910402?s=20

Do you happen to know Graham Neary's prediction for deaths,
and for hospitals being overrun,
if we didn't have restrictions for the past 15 months?

PintOfView

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not sure if this is correct if someone would like to fact check it..

https://twitter.com/GrahamNeary/status/1398234422583910402?s=20

When I look at Graham Neary's twitter one of his posts today is :
"Here's a simple view of the #fraud used to justify ongoing human rights abuses against the population."

So it looks like he's still trying to say we were all hoodwinked, and no restrictions were necessary!!

Our excess deaths in 2020 were not high,
with 1,000 deaths more than normal in April (3,500 vs 2,500 avg over prev 5 years)
but the rest of the months were back to average, or below.

This, of course, is only 2020, and doesn't include the spike in Jan/Feb 2021.

Graham Neary seems to be ignoring one important factor when drawing his conclusions!
That we had a couple of lockdowns last year, and restrictions during the rest of the time.
Is he trying to say that if we didn't have those, the picture would have been the same?

It looks like he is trying to say that!


For comparison, see the following from the BMJ (dated 23/3/2021)
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n799

"The UK had a higher rate of excess deaths among people aged under 65 in 2020
than almost every other country in Europe, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
By 18 December 2020 only Bulgaria had a higher cumulative excess mortality rate
among under 65s (12.3% above the five year average) than the UK (at 7.7%)."
and
"By midway through last year (26 June) the UK had the highest cumulative excess mortality
rate in Europe of 6.7% across all age groups.
By 18 December the UK (at 7.2%) remained among the 10 worst affected countries
but was behind Poland (11.6%), Spain (10.6%), Belgium (9.7%), Bulgaria (8.9%),
the Czech Republic (8.4%), and Slovenia (8.2%)."

So, is Graham Neary trying to say that if we had no restrictions,
our outcome last year would not have been different, despite what we see
happened in the countries mentioned above, who also had restrictions to varying degrees?

Smee_Again

I saw another tweet of his where he was apologising for the poor performance of a stock pick, now that poor performance was directly related to the covid restrictions so I'm more than a little suspicious of his motives here.

But, I do find it very amusing that people are using evidence that the restrictions were very effective at minimising the number of deaths as proof that they weren't needed. Farcical stuff altogether.

ArthurDayne

Smee_Again wrote: »

I saw another tweet of his where he was apologising for the poor performance of a stock pick, now that poor performance was directly related to the covid restrictions so I'm more than a little suspicious of his motives here.

But, I do find it very amusing that people are using evidence that the restrictions were very effective at minimising the number of deaths as proof that they weren't needed. Farcical stuff altogether.

Yeah but hold on here — that’s a reasonable thing for you to say so long as you aren’t just automatically jumping to the the other extreme end and entirely ignoring whether those figures suggest that the nature and duration of the restrictions were overdone. Coming to a view that restrictions were necessary doesn’t necessitate a view that things like prolonged distance limits and closure of certain businesses were in themselves necessary.

I agree that it’s wrong to say “oh look, this figure shows that lockdowns didn’t achieve anything” because, as you say, lockdowns would have prevented transmission — but it doesn’t vitiate the need to ask whether we ended up well below what we might otherwise have been willing to tolerate, to the point we got the balance wrong.

crossman47

The most relevant sentence in the CSO report is: There were 1,672 registered deaths where COVID-19 was assigned as the underlying cause of death in 2020.

Silentcorner

crossman47 wrote: »

The most relevant sentence in the CSO report is: There were 1,672 registered deaths where COVID-19 was assigned as the underlying cause of death in 2020.

We have doubled our HSE Waiting lists (now approaching 1 million) for cancers and heart disease and other ailments, in the coming years we will see premature deaths, I'd imagine a lot more than 1,700.

Smee_Again

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yeah but hold on here — that’s a reasonable thing for you to say so long as you aren’t just automatically jumping to the the other extreme end and entirely ignoring whether those figures suggest that the nature and duration of the restrictions were overdone. Coming to a view that restrictions were necessary doesn’t necessitate a view that things like prolonged distance limits and closure of certain businesses were in themselves necessary.

I agree that it’s wrong to say “oh look, this figure shows that lockdowns didn’t achieve anything” because, as you say, lockdowns would have prevented transmission — but it doesn’t vitiate the need to ask whether we ended up well below what we might otherwise have been willing to tolerate, to the point we got the balance wrong.

drunkmonkey’s whole shtick is that restrictions, masks, covid measures aren’t and weren’t needed at all as it’s not that serious a disease.

So I’ll agree with your point that’s there’s a conversation to be had about where the government got it right or wrong but I’ll disagree that that is what dm was arguing.

drunkmonkey

My whole what?

Restrictions were needed, masks were needed and yes it's not all that serious of a disease to the vast majority of people.
My argument is where those interventions are needed, we've taken a hammer to crack a nut, the health services completely failed to shield the vulnerable infact they made a bad situation a whole lot worse.
What was the number recently, around 750 people picked up covid in hospital and died as a result of it, the nursing homes was a complete horror show.
There's still a refusal to use antigen testing to open up society, the media haven't even brought up the subject of when people can take off masks, hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed, businesses are on life support only open due to government handouts.
Tell me again how wonderful a job we've done.

Smee_Again

drunkmonkey wrote: »

My whole what?

Restrictions were needed, masks were needed and yes it's not all that serious of a disease to the vast majority of people.
My argument is where those interventions are needed, we've taken a hammer to crack a nut, the health services completely failed to shield the vulnerable infact they made a bad situation a whole lot worse.
What was the number recently, around 750 people picked up covid in hospital and died as a result of it, the nursing homes was a complete horror show.
There's still a refusal to use antigen testing to open up society, the media haven't even brought up the subject of when people can take off masks, hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed, businesses are on life support only open due to government handouts.
Tell me again how wonderful a job we've done.

Shtick - Think I spelled in incorrectly and that’s why it’s been caught by curse word filter.

I’ll edit it now.

And just to add, there’s no point me engaging with you because, like I said above, you’re using evidence that the restrictions worked as proof they weren’t needed.

PintOfView

Silentcorner wrote: »

We have doubled our HSE Waiting lists (now approaching 1 million) for cancers and heart disease and other ailments, in the coming years we will see premature deaths, I'd imagine a lot more than 1,700.

Yes, I think there is likely to be future fallout from the longer waiting lists.
However how do you quantify it?
And, how do you compare it to what would have happened in the absence of restrictions?

If we didn't have restrictions do you think life would have just went on as normal,
and waiting lists would not have been affected?

Without restrictions surely the hospitals would have been severely disrupted
and the waiting lists would now be just as bad, if not worse, or a lot worse?

pjohnson

Neary is just another of Ivor Cummins crew of gombeens.

drunkmonkey

Smee_Again wrote: »

Shtick - Think I spelled in incorrectly and that’s why it’s been caught by curse word filter.

I’ll edit it now.

And just to add, there’s no point me engaging with you because, like I said above, you’re using evidence that the restrictions worked as proof they weren’t needed.

You've used the numbers as evidence all the restrictions were necessary but the numbers show we could have prevented thousands of deaths with proper controls in just 2 places, hospitals and nursing homes.
I'll bet if I ask how many lives masks on in shops saved you've no idea, now in a month or so we can go on the batter all day inside a pub with no masks but we'll still need one waking into an empty shop to get a carton of milk while the attendant is behind a sheet of perspex, can you not see how nonsensical the rules brought in by politicians are. There is no science or logic being applied.

Smee_Again

Can’t prove a negative, which is what you’d be asking me to do by quantifying the number of people who didn’t die because of masks.

Anyway, you’re right about one thing; there is no science or logic being applied. You’re just wrong about who isn’t applying it.

PintOfView

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've used the numbers as evidence all the restrictions were necessary but the numbers show we could have prevented thousands of deaths with proper controls in just 2 places, hospitals and nursing homes.
I'll bet if I ask how many lives masks on in shops saved you've no idea, now in a month or so we can go on the batter all day inside a pub with no masks but we'll still need one waking into an empty shop to get a carton of milk while the attendant is behind a sheet of perspex, can you not see how nonsensical the rules brought in by politicians are. There is no science or logic being applied.

You're talking like it's easy to do what you're saying, and that it was obvious at the start!
If it's so easy, and so obvious, how come so many other countries got it wrong?
(you don't have to look any further than the UK to see a country that did a lot worse than us)

As regards nonsensical rules brought in by politicians!
Firstly, it was a team of mostly medical people who recommended what the politicians implemented.
These people had more information than the rest of us, and the knowledge to use it,
so do you think your ideas were somehow better, or more implementable, than what they came up with?

Silentcorner

PintOfView wrote: »

Yes, I think there is likely to be future fallout from the longer waiting lists.
However how do you quantify it?
And, how do you compare it to what would have happened in the absence of restrictions?

If we didn't have restrictions do you think life would have just went on as normal,
and waiting lists would not have been affected?

Without restrictions surely the hospitals would have been severely disrupted
and the waiting lists would now be just as bad, if not worse, or a lot worse?

Well, in time, when we get to look back at this, we'll be in a much better position to determine how effective severe restrictions were, verses say lighter restrictions.

Because at this point, the best defense of severe restrictions is that the jury is out...there isn't a single example a person can point to categorically that suggests severe restrictions saved lives.

drunkmonkey

Infection control was obvious, someone made a decision to send in untested sick people to the nursing homes. Our hospitals were severely lacking in that area long before covid.
Was it yesterday Tony Houlihan was quoted by Mattie McGrath saying lock it down and we'll look at the science later, I had my ppe/sanatising order in February while the Government were still wondering about letting in the Italian fans and heading off to the horses.
I think there's been serious failures by Government at the end of the day NPHET are only advisors they don't make the decisions.
Saying look at the balls the UK and other county made of things doesn't excuse our failings. There will be implications for bad decision makers, we've already been told an investigation will happen.
Even down to our meaningful Christmas, who opens up at the height of flu season in a pandemic driven by a novel respiratory infection, NPHET were right that time but again they failed to protect the most vulnerable in hospitals and nursing homes. The Government took the lead on that so the blame lies with them for not having the proper controls in places where it mattered.

I don't believe they had more information than the rest of unless there's one set of evidence for the general public and another for NPHET.

I do believe a better team could have done a better job, they've made an absolute balls of things by not following best advice, it was Tony's way or the highway now NIAC are so confused they're looking for NPHET to advise them.

PintOfView

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, in time, when we get to look back at this, we'll be in a much better position to determine how effective severe restrictions were, verses say lighter restrictions.

Because at this point, the best defense of severe restrictions is that the jury is out...there isn't a single example a person can point to categorically that suggests severe restrictions saved lives.

Yes, it will be interesting to see a well written post mortem of all this in due course,
or multiple post mortems, from multiple countries, and see how much they agree, etc!

drunkmonkey

PintOfView wrote: »

Yes, it will be interesting to see a well written post mortem of all this in due course,
or multiple post mortems, from multiple countries, and see how much they agree, etc!

Amnesty put one out last year it was discussed here at the time, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/uk-older-people-in-care-homes-abandoned-to-die-amid-government-failures-during-covid-19-pandemic/
We know where the screw up's were, what we don't know is which experts are responsible.

Ten of Swords

Are we still discussing the death numbers or have we disappeared down the rabbit hole completely?

Back on topic please, or this thread will be closed if it keeps going as a free for all

astrofool

We have the controls in this, we have Italy and Spain in the early days, we have the UK's brief dalliance with herd immunity we have trumps America, Brazil, India, Belgium all this is easily calculable, Ireland did incredibly well up until Jan/Feb, it could have done better, but could have done a lot worse, we could have had to let people die due to lack of hospital capacity and we managed to avoid that entirely.

UK had very similar restrictions but delayed in applying them and ended up with 2.5x more deaths per capita.

suicide_circus

I think the story we tell ourselves re how the pandemic was handled in ireland will be dictated by how we do economically in the years to come. If we are no worse off than the average EU country then i'd say it will be pats on the back all round. If we head into another 2009/2010 or worse i can see questions being asked and a different (or at least disputed) national narrative emerging.

crossman47

Silentcorner wrote: »

We have doubled our HSE Waiting lists (now approaching 1 million) for cancers and heart disease and other ailments, in the coming years we will see premature deaths, I'd imagine a lot more than 1,700.

Yes but Covid has caused that. It is not the fault of government or NPHET.