Nonsense.
COVID vaccines and heart attack risk revealed
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
- Status
Really?
How do you explain the new lower figure when the old methodology gave a higher one?
What happened to the data of the approx 8,000 people who were on the latter list and not on the former list?
'Disappeared' seems a pretty good description!
The ONS of course have a history of this because they changed the methodology of recording deaths of/with the 'virus' more than once some time ago...
And funnily enough, usually done so it makes 'better reading'
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 221031
Really?
How do you explain the new lower figure when the old methodology gave a higher one?
What happened to the data of the approx 8,000 people who were on the latter list and not on the former list?
'Disappeared' seems a pretty good description!
The ONS of course have a history of this because they changed the methodology of recording deaths of/with the 'virus' more than once some time ago...
And funnily enough, usually done so it makes 'better reading'
There’s no point asking nose, he’s just a blow hard
When you post nonsense, Imhighlight it.
If you don’t want me to respond, stop posting nonsense.
Really?
How do you explain the new lower figure when the old methodology gave a higher one?
What happened to the data of the approx 8,000 people who were on the latter list and not on the former list?
'Disappeared' seems a pretty good description!
The ONS of course have a history of this because they changed the methodology of recording deaths of/with the 'virus' more than once some time ago...
And funnily enough, usually done so it makes 'better reading'
You are an extremely dishonest person.
I’ve told you many many times on here the ONS have published figures for “died with covid” and “died from covid”
And every single time you slink off and ignore, then a few weeks later you come back stating the same abject nonsense.
There was a reason for using “died from covid” at the time, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just your lack of reasoning skills
The figures are revised annual estimates. Nothing unusual. Look the word up if you don't know what it means.
Just more anti-vaxx nonsense.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
The ONS explain in detail why it was changed, your selective quoting doesn't help. The previous method was just a crude average of the previous 5 years to give expected death numbers.
The new system would have shown 7,000 more expected deaths in 2022, not less, for example.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
Not for 2022. How do you explain that?
If it's about fudging the figures they aren't very good at it.
There are a number of changes to the baseline used. Excess deaths are the numbers above that baseline.
For one 2020 death data has been completely removed - odd year so not suitable for use as a baseline.
Then comes the main change. Split the population based on age groups and sex. Why simple as people get older they have more chance of dying. females generally live longer than men. Then include other factors such as region because that does relate to live span. Looks like Scotland need to do their own.
So you have the baseline based on previous years. That is used to predict the next year. Excess deaths are those that exceed this baseline. That can't be calculated until people have died in that year, The figure is for the entire population irrespective of other factors. Those can be looked at separately eg people in some parts of the country tend to live longer than others. Once again the baseline is calculated from a number of previous years.
It's not hard to see why the previous method was too simplistic and that the new method will produce more accurate predictions. Reality will fluctuate from it but that is an entirely different area. Say it was due to an increase in deaths of 30 to 35's or any other age group - that would have to be looked at separately. Same for people in different regions.
PMSL...
What an ignorant blind old fool you are!
If you haven't noticed the post was about methodology
'Slink off' you say?
Some of us have a life, and do useful things rather than surrounding themselves in a cocoon of 'virus' fear
And if you think regularly 'changing the goalposts' helps in an understanding of the figures, then you truly have lost the plot!
Neither does it install much trust in what you are told by the Gov and its agencies. Its like something you would see happen in putins Russia. Forget the silly anti vaxer trope nonsense, you have to be a child to not be at least a little bit dubious of what you are told - why you are told and who is telling you. Carry on with your simple life with your head in the sand believing everything you are told like an innocent child.
Is that aveatry I hear speaking.....
Stick to trying to brainwash gullible thickos, boyo. Rational folk have no interest in your tiresome bullshít.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
Cary on believing your conspiracy theories like a gullible fool. Nobody cares.
- Status