27 March 2021  /  Updated 17 July 2021
O.N.S. Deaths Ages ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

O.N.S. Deaths Ages 15-44 -10 year Analysis

Page 1 / 2

Pamela Stott
(@pamela-stott)
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 48
Topic starter  

Pamela Stott
Posts: 45
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 08:08
Contact: Contact Pamela Stott

Re: Latest Total Weekly Deaths Ages 15-44 England and Wales

Post by Pamela Stott » 12 May 2021 17:34
I have the following figures to report which I have taken from gov.uk Total Weekly Deaths Analysis 2012 - 2021 until week 16 , 23 April 2021 for age band 15-44. Why did I choose this range? Earlier, I posted my analysis for 2011- 2020 for age 45-upwards. These new figures seem pertinent to the vaccine roll-out and perhaps an explanation of the increase in deaths of this lower age range.I will leave others to argue about it. I stand corrected should anyone have a different set of figures as the ONS gets a little more confusing as time goes by, and I'm too busy trying to persuade people to wake up before it's too late.
2012 4566
2013 4655
2014 4747
2015 4613
2016 4844
2017 4482
2018 4645
2019 4615
2020 4739
2021 5512


Quote
Dame Lynet
(@dame-lynet)
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 11
 

Thanks, Pamela.

That is a shocking increase, although I despair of it being picked up and acted upon anytime soon.


ReplyQuote
thinksaboutit
(@thinksaboutit)
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 677
 

Pamela Stott
Posts: 45
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 08:08
Contact: Contact Pamela Stott

Re: Latest Total Weekly Deaths Ages 15-44 England and Wales

Post by Pamela Stott » 12 May 2021 17:34
I have the following figures to report which I have taken from gov.uk Total Weekly Deaths Analysis 2012 - 2021 until week 16 , 23 April 2021 for age band 15-44. Why did I choose this range? Earlier, I posted my analysis for 2011- 2020 for age 45-upwards. These new figures seem pertinent to the vaccine roll-out and perhaps an explanation of the increase in deaths of this lower age range.I will leave others to argue about it. I stand corrected should anyone have a different set of figures as the ONS gets a little more confusing as time goes by, and I'm too busy trying to persuade people to wake up before it's too late.
2012 4566
2013 4655
2014 4747
2015 4613
2016 4844
2017 4482
2018 4645
2019 4615
2020 4739
2021 5512

Looks like the 2021 jump will be dominated by covid deaths in that age group.

What's your explanation?


ReplyQuote
fon
 fon
(@fon)
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 1370
 

Well the deaths of young adults in 2020 is slightly more than the preceeding running average, while the deaths of young adult in 2121 is ~20% more than the preceeding running average.

In 2020, since the figures only run jan through April, the modest increase is explained that the Pandemic had not fully developed, whereas in 2020, the Pandemic was fuly developed.One might judge that the figure for 2020 would be much worse if May and June were also included, by which time the Pandemic had a full head of steam.

So it's likely that thousands of people aged 15-44 died in the Pandemic. From this column of figures, around 1,000 between jan ..Apr 2021. So likely to be <= 5,000 or so in total deaths of people 15-44 so far in this pandemic, which would be perhaps 4% of total.
While data from new york city health dated may 2020, showed they'd had between 3.9%and 4.5% share of total in the 18 - 44 years old group.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

This 3--5 % estimate is remarkably consistent in lots of data, here's one of many plots, showing the same thing.

In summary, that's why they are doing surge vaccination of younger people in Bolton. They might yet save a few thousand younger people.


ReplyQuote
Noumenon
(@noumenon)
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 11
 

They are also pertinent to lockdown deaths including suicides.

Might also be more useful if broken down into sex.


ReplyQuote
Pamela Stott
(@pamela-stott)
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 48
Topic starter  

You're free to go on the ONS site and work out for yourself. I can't get side-tracked with pleasing everyone. I'm only pointing out this tragic figure for people to take note. I shall be sending the info where it might have an impact.


ReplyQuote
jmc
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 502
 

Pamela Stott
Posts: 45
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 08:08
Contact: Contact Pamela Stott

Re: Latest Total Weekly Deaths Ages 15-44 England and Wales

Post by Pamela Stott » 12 May 2021 17:34
I have the following figures to report which I have taken from gov.uk Total Weekly Deaths Analysis 2012 - 2021 until week 16 , 23 April 2021 for age band 15-44. Why did I choose this range? Earlier, I posted my analysis for 2011- 2020 for age 45-upwards. These new figures seem pertinent to the vaccine roll-out and perhaps an explanation of the increase in deaths of this lower age range.I will leave others to argue about it. I stand corrected should anyone have a different set of figures as the ONS gets a little more confusing as time goes by, and I'm too busy trying to persuade people to wake up before it's too late.
2012 4566
2013 4655
2014 4747
2015 4613
2016 4844
2017 4482
2018 4645
2019 4615
2020 4739
2021 5512

I expect this trend to continue for the next 3 to 5 years at least as the toll from deferred diagnosis and treatments for all other medical conditions starts adding up. In all age cohorts.

This long term toll of the lockdown was always going to dwarf the very small number of people with deferred mortality due to the lockdown. I expect in terms of YLL (Years of life lost) the results will be even more stark. Of the order of 10x or 20x at least. A very small group of people with a low YLL traded for a very large group of people with a high YLL.


ReplyQuote
thinksaboutit
(@thinksaboutit)
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 677
 

Pamela Stott
Posts: 45
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 08:08
Contact: Contact Pamela Stott

Re: Latest Total Weekly Deaths Ages 15-44 England and Wales

Post by Pamela Stott » 12 May 2021 17:34
I have the following figures to report which I have taken from gov.uk Total Weekly Deaths Analysis 2012 - 2021 until week 16 , 23 April 2021 for age band 15-44. Why did I choose this range? Earlier, I posted my analysis for 2011- 2020 for age 45-upwards. These new figures seem pertinent to the vaccine roll-out and perhaps an explanation of the increase in deaths of this lower age range.I will leave others to argue about it. I stand corrected should anyone have a different set of figures as the ONS gets a little more confusing as time goes by, and I'm too busy trying to persuade people to wake up before it's too late.
2012 4566
2013 4655
2014 4747
2015 4613
2016 4844
2017 4482
2018 4645
2019 4615
2020 4739
2021 5512

I expect this trend to continue for the next 3 to 5 years at least as the toll from deferred diagnosis and treatments for all other medical conditions starts adding up. In all age cohorts.

This long term toll of the lockdown was always going to dwarf the very small number of people with deferred mortality due to the lockdown. I expect in terms of YLL (Years of life lost) the results will be even more stark. Of the order of 10x or 20x at least. A very small group of people with a low YLL traded for a very large group of people with a high YLL.

Attributing the long term effect to "lockdown" instead of the disease, requires some justification.

It would be reasonable to assume no lock down would have meant larger case numbers and subsequent demand on the NHS and even more missed diagnoses and treatments. Hence lockdown will have saved lives, short term and long term.

So what is your justification?

Where lockdown will have caused a long term negative impact is through economic impact and the direct impact of confinement.


ReplyQuote
halfhearted
(@halfhearted)
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 90
 

Pamela Stott
Posts: 45
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 08:08
Contact: Contact Pamela Stott

Re: Latest Total Weekly Deaths Ages 15-44 England and Wales

Post by Pamela Stott » 12 May 2021 17:34
I have the following figures to report...........
Just noticed your figures. They look too small, so I checked a few. I think they're about 1/4 of what they should be. Here are a couple of examples of the correct (I believe) 15-44 age group deaths -

2019 - 14,714
2020 - 15,623

You didn't say where you got your numbers or how you totalled the age group you were interested in. The figures are here -
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales
then you just use the Sigma function to add up the rows/columns you're interested in. It's interesting that everyone who replied was happy to take the figures at face value.


ReplyQuote
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 485
 

Pamela Stott
Posts: 45
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 08:08
Contact: Contact Pamela Stott

Re: Latest Total Weekly Deaths Ages 15-44 England and Wales

Post by Pamela Stott » 12 May 2021 17:34
I have the following figures to report which I have taken from gov.uk Total Weekly Deaths Analysis 2012 - 2021 until week 16 , 23 April 2021 for age band 15-44. Why did I choose this range? Earlier, I posted my analysis for 2011- 2020 for age 45-upwards. These new figures seem pertinent to the vaccine roll-out and perhaps an explanation of the increase in deaths of this lower age range.I will leave others to argue about it. I stand corrected should anyone have a different set of figures as the ONS gets a little more confusing as time goes by, and I'm too busy trying to persuade people to wake up before it's too late.
2012 4566
2013 4655
2014 4747
2015 4613
2016 4844
2017 4482
2018 4645
2019 4615
2020 4739
2021 5512

Looks like the 2021 jump will be dominated by covid deaths in that age group.

What's your explanation?

Covid deaths, by which you mean people who actually died of covid 19,or some other definition?

Because the definitions used by the NHS, ONS and govt have (by their own admissions and/or changes to how they record cases and therefore deaths) inflated the true number of "covid deaths".

The symptoms are so weak and generic now and testing so riddled with errors any statistics relating to "covid deaths" in lower age groups don't hold up without scrutiny of each individual case. There are so few, perhaps you could provide details of each one?


ReplyQuote
jmc
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 502
 

It would be reasonable to assume no lock down would have meant larger case numbers and subsequent demand on the NHS and even more missed diagnoses and treatments. Hence lockdown will have saved lives, short term and long term.

So what is your justification?

The single biggest correlation with positive health outcome all diseases is earlier detection and diagnosis. The earlier the detection the more successful the final results. For most diseases early detection has been single most important variable in improving survival rates and successful treatment rates over the last few generations.

They find the cancer early, you live. The find it later, you die. Therapeutic treatments have not improved that much since the 1970's, the big revolution was the previous 30 years, but early detection of diseases has improved in leaps and bounds mainly due to improvements in technology bringing down costs (and processing speeds) of very sophisticated test equipment.

So for the last 18 months or so almost all early detection, screening, and in the first six months, early stage treatments, were stopped for pretty much all medical conditions. So in other words all the medical measures than increased survival rates so much over the last 50 years were set aside for an extended period of time. So survival rates and severity rates naturally quickly declined to the levels of 50 years ago.

The history and impact of early detection and treatment on successful final outcome rates is well document in the published literature.

Its a 100% probability that when the final pandemic numbers are analysed and broken down that the true excess deaths (not substitute cause deaths) from probable SARs Cov 2 viral pneumonia will be far less than the excess deaths caused by the collapse in survival rates from all other disease post March 2020 due to lack of early detection and treatment. The only number that has to be discover is just how great the multiple is. I would not be surprised if its at least an order of magnitude . 10x. And 20x is quiet plausible too. Not many excess people died from SARs 2 viral pneumonia but very large numbers of people would have died from deferred detection and treatments.


ReplyQuote
MikeAustin
(@mikeaustin)
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 1156
 

The history and impact of early detection and treatment on successful final outcome rates is well document in the published literature.

And this is why ivermectin should be available immediately. It is so effective with early detection and as a prophylactic. It saves lives and keeps people out of hospital. It is an effective treatment for so-called 'long covid' and to some extent can alleviate some of the effects of the jabs (not the permanent damage, of course). It has been shown to be safe over many years and had an astounding impact on cases and deaths in India. And it is cheap!

There should be no hesitation with its availability. The recently-announced investigation by Oxford University is too late - possibly just a token gesture - and there is no need to wait for its outcome. We now have a treatment: end of 'emergency' and all its nonsensical measures.


ReplyQuote
fon
 fon
(@fon)
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 1370
 

And this is why ivermectin should be available immediately. It is so effective with early detection and as a prophylactic.

It's still too soon to say if it is any good, Oxford is trialling it now, so we should know soon enough one wayt or rhe other, since nobody/very few are dying of covid now we can afford to wait.
It saves lives and keeps people out of hospital. It is an effective treatment for so-called 'long covid' and to some extent can alleviate some of the effects of the jabs (not the permanent damage, of course). It has been shown to be safe over many years and had an astounding impact on cases and deaths in India. And it is cheap!

We still do not know that fore sure, you'll just have to shut up and wait, there are several serious trial and studies presently underway with ivermectin....


ReplyQuote
MikeAustin
(@mikeaustin)
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 1156
 

And this is why ivermectin should be available immediately. It is so effective with early detection and as a prophylactic.

It's still too soon to say if it is any good, Oxford is trialling it now, so we should know soon enough one wayt or rhe other, since nobody/very few are dying of covid now we can afford to wait.
"... we can afford to wait" I don't think so! Apart from the direct benefit of using it, the non-recognition of a treatment for covid enables the health emergency to be prolonged, with all its associated restrictions and damage to health and life.

It saves lives and keeps people out of hospital. It is an effective treatment for so-called 'long covid' and to some extent can alleviate some of the effects of the jabs (not the permanent damage, of course). It has been shown to be safe over many years and had an astounding impact on cases and deaths in India. And it is cheap!

We still do not know that fore sure, you'll just have to shut up and wait, there are several serious trial and studies presently underway with ivermectin....

Dr Tess Lawrie is concerned that the trials are not going to be performed properly. A bogus investigation of HCQ used dangerously high doses. Ivermectin has been demonstrated to work best in combinations - not part of the proposed trials. Where doctors have been able to do this - at no risk due to its proven safety - lives have been saved. This is in spite of governing agencies not authorising it.
On a precautionary principle, it should be allowed immediately.


ReplyQuote
fon
 fon
(@fon)
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 1370
 

Apart from the direct benefit of using it, the non-recognition of a treatment for covid enables the health emergency to be prolonged, with all its associated restrictions and damage to health and life.

It is still too soon to know if there is any direct benefit of using it. In my opinion, various people have become enmeshed in a battle over ivermectin, to promote it, on one side and to curb the enthusiasm on the other. Only time will tell who is right.

You are not the only person to be inconvenienced by the global health emergency , it is not possible to conclude Oxford's trial in time to end the present health emergency before July 19th, it will either end then or it will not. The covid19 epidemic here appears to be coming under control using vaccines. It is quite wrong to speak ill of Oxford's trial before it has even started.

So you'll just have to calm down a bit, perhaps you got carried away by the remote chance that ivermectin might actually be a wonder drug. I have high hopes for this trial, the interview with Dr. Edward Mills, the principal investigator in the TOGETHER Trial is very level headed, it is due to report now, you won't like it since the study is funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation!!!

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/whats-the-deal-with-ivermectin-and-covid/

The same trial has already concluded that patients given hydroxychloroquine were not significantly different compared with those who received placebo.

You are basing your ideas on faith. You have no idea if ivermectin is useful or not. We will know soon one way or the other. It is best to be patient.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: