In article <XnsADE0825BE316137B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> The BBC link I gave states: "Recent rise in daily deaths. There were 195
> deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported on Thursday". That
> seems a more balanced summary than Harwood's strident tones suggesting
> there's a con being played on the public by all media (except his own).

On one level it is predictable that commercial 'news' media will tend to
want to find a reason to assert: "We are revealing important things the
other outlets are missing or hiding." When this is true, it is useful. But
it may simply be driven by a need to gain attention, and thus income, etc.
Or fantasy/error/wishful thinking.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Pamela wrote:

> The intriguing thing is the Guardian's chart caption may be suggesting
> a "current week" average rather than a rolling 7-day average.
>
> I wonder if that accounts for some of the difference with the ONS.

The guardian's graph does claim to be based on the same data as the gov.uk
(mostly that's not from ONS) the most recent 3 days deaths are never included in
the average for that graph, other graphs (I think the ones that are from ONS
data) exclude up to 11 most recent days from deaths.

It's also sometimes worth looking at the individual country data, rather than
the UK-wide data, as not all graphs can be done across countries due to
reporting differences, e.g. the heatmap of cases by age versus the heatmap of
deaths by age highlights where the real risk are, but they only appear for England.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Pamela wrote:
>
>> I am getting a bit confused. Isn't the ONS survey the one which uses a
>> randomly seelcted sample in the community (as opposed to self-reported
>> cases) to determine the infection rates?
>
> I think that's the Imperial College "REACT" study?
>
>
>
ONS and REACT are different surveys but broadly similar

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/methodologies/covid19infectionsurveypilotmethodsandfurtherinformation

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3850/rr

On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 19:39:09 UTC, Tweed wrote:
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suspect former politics student Tom Harwood of GB News will not be
> > presenting a video pointing out death rates continue to rise to levels
> > seen only during the lockdown.
> >
> That is not correct if I read the govt data correctly. In January/February
> deaths peaked at about 1300 daily. At the moment at less than 200 daily and
> *declining*.

Declining - possibly, but long term trend fairly static or even rising slightly. Rose steadily throughout October.

UK Deaths Tuesday 9 November 262
UK Deaths Tuesday 10 November 214
UK Deaths Tuesday 11 November 195
UK Deaths Tuesday 12 November 145 (today), but over 40k cases
Average last four days 204

Please check your facts before typing, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

>
> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom
>
> Don’t get me wrong, I’m no supporter of GB news.

Maybe just an apologist.

On 12/11/2021 17:26, Pamela wrote:
> I am getting a bit confused. Isn't the ONS survey the one which uses a
> randomly seelcted sample in the community (as opposed to self-reported
> cases) to determine the infection rates?

That's right. As such it determines whether they were test positive on
the day the sample was taken, not whether that was the first day of
positivity, and it should provide an estimate that isn't affected by
people not noticing symptoms, or wanting to avoid the implications of a
positive test.

The dashboard figures represent the number of people testing positive,
for the first time within an infection, on a particular day.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> Average last four days 204

Yes it is, but so what?

The average for the two days prior to your four days was 59, again so what?

You perfectly illustrate the nonsense of averaging over fewer than 7 days, given
that the data by date reported is *utterly* cyclical because less reporting
happens on a weekend, than happens during the week!

The average for the past seven days is 157, now that number is worth looking at.

On 12/11/2021 18:05, Andy Burns wrote:
> the most recent 3 days deaths are never included in the average for that
> graph

At least for the "deaths reported" as against "deaths occurring", I
think you will find the four day offset is the result of plotting the
rolling average against the centre of the averaged period, rather than
the end of it.

David Woolley wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> the most recent 3 days deaths are never included in the average for that graph
>
> At least for the "deaths reported"

aka "that graph"

> as against "deaths occurring", I think you
> will find the four day offset is the result of plotting the rolling average
> against the centre of the averaged period, rather than the end of it.

That's what I assume too.

On 12/11/2021 20:36, David Woolley wrote:
> four day offset

three and a half. I was trying to be too clever with the fence posts.
The half is because the daily figures are really against the end of the
day, but the averages end up in the middle of a day.

David Woolley wrote:

> David Woolley wrote:
>
>> four day offset
>
> three and a half.  I was trying to be too clever with the fence posts. The half
> is because the daily figures are really against the end of the day, but the
> averages end up in the middle of a day.

The deaths reported at 4pm (usually) on day 'n' include those recorded up to 5pm
on day 'n-1'

So maybe the average should be shown at 17/24ths of the way through a day on the
graphs :-)

R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 19:39:09 UTC, Tweed wrote:
>> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I suspect former politics student Tom Harwood of GB News will not be
>>> presenting a video pointing out death rates continue to rise to levels
>>> seen only during the lockdown.
>>>
>> That is not correct if I read the govt data correctly. In January/February
>> deaths peaked at about 1300 daily. At the moment at less than 200 daily and
>> *declining*.
>
> Declining - possibly, but long term trend fairly static or even rising
> slightly. Rose steadily throughout October.
>
> UK Deaths Tuesday 9 November 262
> UK Deaths Tuesday 10 November 214
> UK Deaths Tuesday 11 November 195
> UK Deaths Tuesday 12 November 145 (today), but over 40k cases
> Average last four days 204
>
> Please check your facts before typing, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
>
>>
>> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom
>>
>>
>> Don’t get me wrong, I’m no supporter of GB news.
>
> Maybe just an apologist.
>

I do check my facts. I’m relying entirely on the government data site,
unless you believe that to be incorrect.

I watched GB news for a couple of hours once and decided no more. Certainly
not an apologist.

I was simply pointing out that the current death rate is not rising to
levels only seen during the lockdown as was stated.

Where we go next is unknowable. Is maintained Europe following where we
went a few weeks ago with their massive increases, or are we going to
follow their massive increases in a few weeks?

Andy Burns wrote:

> Pamela wrote:
>
>> The BBC is reporting 195 deaths today, Thursday:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>
> Yes, yesterday 195 people were *reported* to have died, that is different from
> saying 195 people actually *died* yesterday, even disregarding the skew of
> whatever late reporting happens.

Not to rake over old coals, but purely for interest, I've kept a daily eye on
the death count by date of death (not by date of reporting) for Thursday the
11th, and it took until the 20th for the number to stop rising having reached
143 deaths and hasn't risen for 3 days now, so unlikely to creep higher.

So the grey columns showing 4 days of "incomplete" results are a bit optimistic.

The other issue seems to be that at this time of year with flu and all the
other ailments and possible extra reasons for being ill, its really hard to
tell how much the death was solely due to Cofvid and how much was an
unfortunate combination of causes. Back when I was much younger in city
centres you had many more deaths during these months, a lot of it due to
the pea souper fogs we used to have.
Everything is relative. I don't think if Boris stood up and wanted a lock
down now, whether anyone would actually take any notice of him.
We take all the precautions we can get vaccinated etc, and we simply
cannot be locked down for ever after all as it will come back as Flu does
when we all get together again.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

This document should only be read by those persons for whom Paranoia is
normal
and its contents are probably boring and confusing. If you receive this
e-Mail
message in error, do not notify the sender immediately, instead, print it
out and make
paper animals out of it. As the rest of this disclaimer is totally
incomprehensible, we have not bothered to attach it.
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:j04ncmFlqqmU1@mid.individual.net...
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Pamela wrote:
>>
>>> The BBC is reporting 195 deaths today, Thursday:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>>
>> Yes, yesterday 195 people were *reported* to have died, that is different
>> from saying 195 people actually *died* yesterday, even disregarding the
>> skew of whatever late reporting happens.
>
> Not to rake over old coals, but purely for interest, I've kept a daily eye
> on the death count by date of death (not by date of reporting) for
> Thursday the 11th, and it took until the 20th for the number to stop
> rising having reached 143 deaths and hasn't risen for 3 days now, so
> unlikely to creep higher.
>
> So the grey columns showing 4 days of "incomplete" results are a bit
> optimistic.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:51:54 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Everything is relative. I don't think if Boris stood up and wanted a lock
>down now, whether anyone would actually take any notice of him.

They've cried "wolf" too many times for anyone to pay attention, and
have conspicuously neglected to follow their own rules that they
prescribed for everybody else, which doesn't inspire confidence
either. The mainstream media may not have been reporting the massive
street protests as thoroughly as the internet has, but I'm sure our
politicians must know about them, and should have considered the
consequences of angering the public to no obvious purpose again.

Rod.