All the data is on the ONS website and the years register of deaths, though this is for Eng & Wales it's representative for UK and indeed how 'deaths' are being counted and represented.
You see the same experts making the same mistake time and time again (it happens in all fields), producing more confirmation bias and all from the original errors at the outset. Most of it through fear of standing out from the rest and thus herd mentality is as prevalent in 'experts' wanting to save their behinds as it is in the general populous. Openly admitting the errors now simply will not happen due to the damage done, it wouldn't just be a career ender but far far worse. They are too far down the road to turn back and admit to the errors.

The bare facts prove that the death toll from respiratory disease as underlying cause of death is fewer than for the first 6 weeks of the year and lower than any first 6 week period for the last 5 years.

It proves that government are not just counting ALL pneumonia and influenza deaths in the C.19 new column (or rather row as it's shown on the register of deaths) but the number they are giving is a massive misrepresentation, their number are total deaths WITH a virus mentioned on a death certificate or a suspicion of a virus present in the deceased.
The governments own adviser Prof Neil Ferguson admitted in March that the vast majority of deaths would be from people with such serious underlying conditions that sadly they would die no matter what. The government number is a number that includes every positive test, or in a significant number, no positive test at all, even if the presence of C.19 or influenza, or pneumonia has very little or no effect on outcome. In terms of coding a death it can only be done by underlying cause, you can't double count simply because something else was present even if it did have a contribution in some small way, or even not.

Counting deaths in the way the government are doing has never been done before, not even when we had massive influenza pandemic's far worse than we see currently with C.19(2017/18, 2014/15, 2009, 1999 etc), this is why the actual respiratory deaths by underlying cause for the weeks that C.19 has been around are fewer than weeks where it wasn't.
This is why the actual number of deaths directly caused by (underlying cause) Covid19 is massively fewer than people are being told it is, deaths FROM and deaths WITH/INVOLVING are two totally different things with regards the register of deaths. That the government have instructed ONS to show basically all respiratory deaths and make them out to be all from C.19 is a distortion of the truth.

That's before you even get to the huge differential in testing numbers compared to say influenza in any given year, before you get to flawed way the numbers re mortality rate have been worked, testing lots of already sick people and a large % die when we know that flu type viruses spread so ridiculously easily should have given cause to question the WHO mortality rate from the start.

Last year in E&W there were just over 71,000 respiratory deaths, ALL as underlying cause of death*, not simply because that RD is mentioned on a death certificate or there's a 'suspicion' as is being applied to C.19 currently.
*just type in ONS deaths in your search engine and there should be a link that will take you to the 'deaths' section, you can download the XLS sheets for any year you want.

Since the first recorded death WITH C.19 (week 11 of the death register), there have been 10,035 deaths in the respiratory disease category in England and Wales recorded in the register to week 16 inclusive (w/e 17th April). That's all respiratory diseases in total including all different types of flu, all pneumonia, all coronaviruses (seven including current type) and anything else that gets thrown into that section.

This total including C.19 is fewer RDs than the first 6 weeks, that being Wk1-6 2020 inclusive, for England and Wales which recorded 12,108 respiratory deaths by underlying cause.

2019 the supposed 'best' flu death totals for years, week 1-6 there were 10,741 respiratory deaths in E&W, all by underlying cause.
2018 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 15,613 respiratory deaths
2017 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 14,249 respiratory deaths
2016 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 10,944 respiratory deaths
2015 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 16,317 respiratory deaths
all deaths by underlying cause

weeks 1-6 are generally the peak winter respiratory deaths.

If you continue to test more of the deceased for a virus that spreads like wildfire you find more of the deceased with that virus or had had it, if they had done the same level of testing for influenza in bad flu years and applied the same way to represent the death it'd likely show hundreds of thousands of 'deaths' in the UK by influenza because most people will have or have had flu, more so in 'winter' months.
But this was never done because that's not how deaths are coded, so why have the government changed the way they are counting and representing deaths when the register massively contradicts what they are saying, contradicts what the media are saying regarding deaths by underlying cause?

All the data is on the ONS website and the years register of deaths, though this is for Eng & Wales it's representative for UK and indeed how 'deaths' are being counted and represented.
You see the same experts making the same mistake time and time again (it happens in all fields), producing more confirmation bias and all from the original errors at the outset. Most of it through fear of standing out from the rest and thus herd mentality is as prevalent in 'experts' wanting to save their behinds as it is in the general populous. Openly admitting the errors now simply will not happen due to the damage done, it wouldn't just be a career ender but far far worse. They are too far down the road to turn back and admit to the errors.

The bare facts prove that the death toll from respiratory disease as underlying cause of death is fewer than for the first 6 weeks of the year and lower than any first 6 week period for the last 5 years.

It proves that government are not just counting ALL pneumonia and influenza deaths in the C.19 new column (or rather row as it's shown on the register of deaths) but the number they are giving is a massive misrepresentation, their number are total deaths WITH a virus mentioned on a death certificate or a suspicion of a virus present in the deceased.
The governments own adviser Prof Neil Ferguson admitted in March that the vast majority of deaths would be from people with such serious underlying conditions that sadly they would die no matter what. The government number is a number that includes every positive test, or in a significant number, no positive test at all, even if the presence of C.19 or influenza, or pneumonia has very little or no effect on outcome. In terms of coding a death it can only be done by underlying cause, you can't double count simply because something else was present even if it did have a contribution in some small way, or even not.

Counting deaths in the way the government are doing has never been done before, not even when we had massive influenza pandemic's far worse than we see currently with C.19(2017/18, 2014/15, 2009, 1999 etc), this is why the actual respiratory deaths by underlying cause for the weeks that C.19 has been around are fewer than weeks where it wasn't.
This is why the actual number of deaths directly caused by (underlying cause) Covid19 is massively fewer than people are being told it is, deaths FROM and deaths WITH/INVOLVING are two totally different things with regards the register of deaths. That the government have instructed ONS to show basically all respiratory deaths and make them out to be all from C.19 is a distortion of the truth.

That's before you even get to the huge differential in testing numbers compared to say influenza in any given year, before you get to flawed way the numbers re mortality rate have been worked, testing lots of already sick people and a large % die when we know that flu type viruses spread so ridiculously easily should have given cause to question the WHO mortality rate from the start.

Last year in E&W there were just over 71,000 respiratory deaths, ALL as underlying cause of death*, not simply because that RD is mentioned on a death certificate or there's a 'suspicion' as is being applied to C.19 currently.
*just type in ONS deaths in your search engine and there should be a link that will take you to the 'deaths' section, you can download the XLS sheets for any year you want.

Since the first recorded death WITH C.19 (week 11 of the death register), there have been 10,035 deaths in the respiratory disease category in England and Wales recorded in the register to week 16 inclusive (w/e 17th April). That's all respiratory diseases in total including all different types of flu, all pneumonia, all coronaviruses (seven including current type) and anything else that gets thrown into that section.

This total including C.19 is fewer RDs than the first 6 weeks, that being Wk1-6 2020 inclusive, for England and Wales which recorded 12,108 respiratory deaths by underlying cause.

2019 the supposed 'best' flu death totals for years, week 1-6 there were 10,741 respiratory deaths in E&W, all by underlying cause.
2018 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 15,613 respiratory deaths
2017 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 14,249 respiratory deaths
2016 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 10,944 respiratory deaths
2015 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 16,317 respiratory deaths
all deaths by underlying cause

weeks 1-6 are generally the peak winter respiratory deaths.

If you continue to test more of the deceased for a virus that spreads like wildfire you find more of the deceased with that virus or had had it, if they had done the same level of testing for influenza in bad flu years and applied the same way to represent the death it'd likely show hundreds of thousands of 'deaths' in the UK by influenza because most people will have or have had flu, more so in 'winter' months.
But this was never done because that's not how deaths are coded, so why have the government changed the way they are counting and representing deaths when the register massively contradicts what they are saying, contradicts what the media are saying regarding deaths by underlying cause?

I'm not a scientist obviously. What do you think of these charts?
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status ... 01761?s=19

I'm not a scientist obviously. What do you think of these charts?
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status ... 01761?s=19

[url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/24/why-you-should-never-trust-a-data-visualisationHe needs to make his mind up about trusting data visualisation[/url

73.6% of statistics are made up on the spot afterall....

[url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/24/why-you-should-never-trust-a-data-visualisationHe needs to make his mind up about trusting data visualisation[/url

73.6% of statistics are made up on the spot afterall....

I think they’re the best we have currently.

My point of disagreement with our new friend Squirrel Hexadecimal, really, is that he suggests very few people can interpret the data, given their subtleties or (he suggests, I think) inconsistencies in their collection. While there’s a plausible case to be made that a lot of people aren’t great with statistics, these data are not remotely subtle in the UK. And I don’t think anybody is suggesting that living people are being mis-registered as dead.



Data visualisation can be done in a misleading way. Messing about with the y-axis without making it glaringly obvious that you’ve done so is a bugbear of mine. However, these look fine and the graphics include the numbers. Also, tbf to the FT, they identified this as the best metric a while ago, in Early April.

https://www.ft.com/content/88f993a0-74e ... d274e920ca

One area where I think scientists have maybe shot their discipline in the foot is in encouraging scepticism and questioning (and quite right), which has found broad appeal, alongside rigorous scientific thinking, which hasn’t so much. And then struggling engage the public on whether the Earth is getting warmer and why that might be, rather than whether it is flat or round.

I think they’re the best we have currently.

My point of disagreement with our new friend Squirrel Hexadecimal, really, is that he suggests very few people can interpret the data, given their subtleties or (he suggests, I think) inconsistencies in their collection. While there’s a plausible case to be made that a lot of people aren’t great with statistics, these data are not remotely subtle in the UK. And I don’t think anybody is suggesting that living people are being mis-registered as dead.



Data visualisation can be done in a misleading way. Messing about with the y-axis without making it glaringly obvious that you’ve done so is a bugbear of mine. However, these look fine and the graphics include the numbers. Also, tbf to the FT, they identified this as the best metric a while ago, in Early April.

https://www.ft.com/content/88f993a0-74e ... d274e920ca

One area where I think scientists have maybe shot their discipline in the foot is in encouraging scepticism and questioning (and quite right), which has found broad appeal, alongside rigorous scientific thinking, which hasn’t so much. And then struggling engage the public on whether the Earth is getting warmer and why that might be, rather than whether it is flat or round.

Jones wants to leave and Evalds has signed for Cas so were stuck with Shaul

https://www.totalrl.com/?fbclid=IwAR0EH ... Z_IS9HWgII

Jones wants to leave and Evalds has signed for Cas so were stuck with Shaul

https://www.totalrl.com/?fbclid=IwAR0EH ... Z_IS9HWgII