Here’s a graph of weekly respiratory deaths for England and Wales up to the end of week 14 (3 April), with the prior five-year average in there for context. The blue line is 2020, the orange line is the five-year average. (Click to enlarge.)
Note that the sharp upturn in respiratory deaths in week 14 (about 500 more than the five-year average for this time of year) only accounts for less than a tenth of the week 14 increase in all-deaths (about 6000 more than than the five-year average for this time of year).
And now a graph of the cumulative respiratory deaths in England and Wales up to the end of week 14 (3 April), with the prior 5-year average in there (orange line) for context. (Click to enlarge.)
Note that 2020 is still under the 5-year average by 2732.
However, it does look like Covid-19 is killing off elderly, medically vulnerable people in non-respiratory ways (much like flu often does), so don’t read too much into the respiratory numbers.
(Graphs done by one of my blog readers, Robert Watson, a retired Professor. Numbers from the ONS.)
31 thoughts on “Respiratory deaths graphs”
The large uptick in non-Covid deaths would suggest that the lockdown is transferring the increased threat of death, from the elderly, to the general population.
No, it’s still very much the very old dying, the ONS stats tell us this (see my earlier post on the week 14 line graphs, look at the age graphs).
Hector I enjoyed your radio interview.
With regard to the stats.Irrespective of when people died. Fact of the week 14 stats, is that 90% of all dead are over 60. Inclusively 80% of all dead are over 70. I hope the death rate doesn’t extend into younger population groups. What would be interesting, are the statistics regarding the age demographics of the infected.
More importantly, how does this translate to the mortality figures, overall.
I’ve tried searching for these stats to no avail.
Possibly take this with a grain of salt, though the Chinese do have some stats;
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1095024/china-age-distribution-of-wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-patients/
Please, I would appreciate, anyone who has the skill, and data set, to mine out these statistics.BTW, why are there no recoveries yet in the U.K? Is Boris one?
We are saying that a few weeks after imposing a sudden, artificial ripping up of the fabric of society, of methods of treating the sick, of recording the statistics of illness and death, we have seen an uptick of deaths. By ‘lumpily’ differentiating the cumulative deaths line, we see an unprecedented uptick. The narrative is that this is purely the result of Covid-19 infections. In fact, we may even have set up our own such narrative, saying to ourselves “The way to see past the hype is in the total number of deaths – it won’t change”. But it has, and now we’re thinking we might have been wrong: C19 really might be the once-in-a-century plague that has been claimed.
Maybe it is or maybe it isn’t. Two (or maybe more) major factors have coincided. The lockdown trashes the original ‘experiment’ because it is no longer a comparison of apples with apples.
We’re talking about statistics where small, individual anomalies would normally be smoothed out by the sheer scale of the population, but here we have, extraordinarily, applied a whole slew of ‘anomalies’ to the whole population simultaneously. It would be very surprising if it didn’t show up in the death rate in one form or another – even if Covid-19 had never been invented.
Xavier,
Trouble is, unless every cause of death is to be recorded absolutely accurately, which doesn’t appear to have happened so far, how is one to judge Covid death numbers precisely, notwithstanding “of”, “from” or “with”?
Won’t it be the case that the only way one will be able to make any sort of judgement will be to view the 2020 overall death numbers and compare to previous years? The apparent skewing and casual cause of death reporting, whether deliberate or otherwise, will now muddy the waters for ever and a day.
How else will any valid estimate/comparison be made?
COVID-19 now recruited in service of the persecution machine we call “the left”, which doesn’t exclude otherwise decent law-abiding conservative types whose obedience we’d normally consider a virtue.
After all if Boris and entire nomenklatura are licensing the accusatory clamour, with the official ‘Stay Home Save Lives’ mantra emanating from every official/commercial media outlet, what are people supposed to think?
In your ideal polity, right-thinking men in public life place at least some value on speaking the truth, especially where basic liberties are at stake. But true to form, crowd-pleaser Boris bends with the wind. But could anyone except Napoleon withstand corrupting influence of the incessant media glare?
In effect the loyalties of the ordinary man are caught in a pincer movement between an unholy alliance of officialdom/global plutocrats above and intelligentsia/Marxist street or Twitter thugs – “left” – below.
I’m aware this is not a double blind trial, yet it is not the first report of Doctors in the US having success in treating the elderly long before IC is needed.
It makes you wonder how much lower deaths in UK care homes would be if the UK medical establishment had pushed this.
https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/texas-elderly-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-treatment-texas-city/287-7383185c-940c-4cb2-82ea-c4a5ffad3ffb
I second what Sane Majority said – you radio interview was very informative and balanced, with no panic attached.
Here’s an idea – what if the death rates are actually very similar (for patients of similar age and health before catching it)? Then the strangely different outcomes across the world would indicate huge under-counting of the infected. So, assuming the Johns Hopkins figures for UK’s deaths to date (15,500) are broadly correct, with a nominal death rate of 1%,it would mean the number infected is not 110,000, but actually nearer to 1.5 million. For Italy, using the 1% figure, it changes from 172,000 infected to 2,270,000.
‘unless every cause of death is to be recorded absolutely accurately, which doesn’t appear to have happened so far’: it’s never happened in human history.
Cause of death is often just a judgement. The imperative is probably mainly to distinguish a natural death from “someone done ‘im in”. Next, to plonk him into a broad class: heart, stroke, cancer of the xyz, renal failure … How often have attempts been made to distinguish, at the level of an autopsy and multiple tests, the causes of respiratory deaths? ‘Almost never’ is my guess.
I have a memory, but can’t find the link, of a study of deaths classified as caused by flu. Tests were done on a sample of corpses. In less than half was the flu virus identified.
People are chasing a will-o’-the-wisp if they think there will ever be a “true” number of deaths attributed to the Wuhan virus. Just as there isn’t a “true” number of people killed by flu every winter. All you ever get is an estimate.
If you don’t mind a bad joke, you could refer to The Fog of Ward.
“Doctors in the US having success in treating the elderly long before IC is needed”
Also, in the US, Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell thinks the rush to use ventilators is doing more harm than good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elgct0nOcKY
Latest interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Who was involved in the antibody testing in Santa Clara, California)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7v2F3usNVA
via Guido Fawkes: a Swede speaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY&feature=emb_logo
I suspect that we are trying to read meaning into ONS numbers which are flawed. It is understandable that mistakes would be made at a time like this, when the sleepy backwater of recording deaths suddenly moves to center stage.
In the Week 14 ONS spreadsheet, on the tab marked “Covid-19 – E&W comparisons”, there is an effort to show (for status at April 3) C-19 deaths by Date of Registration and by Actual Date of Death.
The total number of deaths in both columns should logically be the same — since the Actual Date of Death simply redistributes some of the Registered Dates of Death from any particular day back to the earlier day on which the death occurred.
However, the total number of registered C-19 deaths as of April 3 was 16,315. When those registered deaths are redistributed to the actual Dates of Death, the total number almost doubles to 33,242 deaths.
The clear conclusion is that there are errors in the database feeding that spreadsheet. Therefore, we should be cautious about interpreting this flawed data. Let’s see what next week’s ONS data shows.
@Gavin – I think those numbers on that page are cumulative (though not clearly titled as such), so it’s not legitimate to sum them – they’re already a series of sums.
I’m not clear why column C ends 4122 and column D ends 4123, but they’re not grossly different.
Dave — Good observation. Thanks for that. If the title “ONS deaths” actually means “Cumulative ONS deaths”, it certainly would be a possible explanation for the anomaly
If we assume the numbers are cumulatives and back-calculate what the numbers would be for daily actual deaths & daily registered deaths, it would show that registrations were running below actual deaths in Weeks 11, 12 & 13, while registrations in Week 14 are running far above actual deaths as they catch up with prior deaths — which could be part of the explanation for the anomalous spike in Week 14 All Causes deaths.
Let’s see if ONS Week 15 data clarifies some of this confusion.
@Gavin
Figures are a mess and being misreported by Gov & msm
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/lies-damn-lies-and-virus-statistics/
A slightly more analytical explanation of all the various daily measures and their lags can be found here:
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/reconciling-covid-19-death-data-in-the-uk/
I do think Richard North is stretching a point to say that much of the hospital data is as much as two weeks late though.
The media doesn’t represent numerical or technical stuff well, ever. It’s too much to hope they’ll start now.
What odds would anyone give me on the total number of deaths in the UK in the calendar year 2020 being lower than the average of the last 5 calendar years? Or indeed lower than the highest year of the last 5? Because thats about what I suspect we will see. The first 6 months cumulative total may be above the 5 year average (but not by a statistically significant amount), but the last 6 months will be well below, because the extremely sick and frail have been cleared out by CV in the first half of the year.
One thing I’ve yet to see addressed in all this is the precedent being set. Whatever ends up being the excess deaths number for this outbreak is now a bar. Anything that looks like it could approach that number in the future will presumably need the economy to be closed down to prevent it happening. And if not, why the f*ck are we doing so now?
It seems to me that we have (with present company honourable exceptions) been grasped by a madness that has suddenly declared that old people may never die en masse again (in a way thats been happening forever) from a viral infection sweeping the country. And that anything that physically can be done to prevent that must be done, regardless of the cost. That does not seem to be a viable long term economic policy.
Hi Jim, I agree with you.
“What odds would anyone give me on the total number of deaths in the UK in the calendar year 2020 being lower than the average of the last 5 calendar years? ……… because the extremely sick and frail have been cleared out by CV in the first half of the year.”
I wouldn’t give you no more than 1.25 to 1. I agree that CV-19 will ravage the sick, weak, frail. All, in a relatively short period of time. Then once they stop the madness of miscounting cause of death, the public interest in these sorts of stats will diminish. The press will be trumpeting the win in the war against CV-19. Though take into consideration, how many people have literally been frightened to death. Stress, mental health, isolation, poverty, violence, lack of NHS scheduled treatments, will all manifest in H2/2020 (and beyond) death numbers.
“It seems to me that we have (with present company honourable exceptions) been grasped by a madness that has suddenly declared that old people may never die en masse again (in a way thats been happening forever) from a viral infection sweeping the country. And that anything that physically can be done to prevent that must be done, regardless of the cost. That does not seem to be a viable long term economic policy.”
I totally agree. If this was a disease that struck down the under 40’s, then sure, we must do everything possible. Governments around the world are bowing to political pressure. Be they leftist or right wing. No one wants to be the one who says, “Granny’s old, she’ll die soon anyway”. Is life to be considered so sacred we must take all and every step possible to save lives? Though, in this instance, it’s more a case of prolong lives. Have governments panicked and overreacted?
Sane Minority (of which I hope I’m one),
Your last question is the one that, in my opinion, carries most weight. I believe our government did, very obviously, panic and overreact. I can never watch the Health Secretary without being reminded of a rabbit in the headlights.
I also firmly believe that that panic was, prior to that, directly caused by politicians viewing pictures of empty supermarket shelves, and seeing sales of toilet rolls going stratospheric. The BBC, the Daily Mail et al were complicit in portraying this particular aspect to a degree that I think borders on the criminal.
I further believe that the public (or most of them) were initially panicked into clearing out supermarket shelves etc. by having watched or read the sensationalist media “reporting” on “The Killer Virus from China”, as I think one “news” paper headlined it at the time.
Panic is a killer in it’s own right.
Jim has it right and I would not take his odds but, and this is the biggest but, when this ludicrous hysteria has passed on and we’re all back out in the sun enjoying our new found freedom, what the hell are these political fools going to do when next a person coughs in China?
And, probably far more importantly, just how are the media going to report it?
“I further believe that the public (or most of them) were initially panicked into clearing out supermarket shelves etc. by having watched or read the sensationalist media “reporting” on “The Killer Virus from China”, as I think one “news” paper headlined it at the time”.
Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre?
Its the ‘all at once’ that appears to be the problem. Everyone has no problem with Granny dying in a care home as long as she has the decency to do so at suitably separated intervals from every other Granny who dies. If 40k Grannies die spread over 6-8 months then no one bats an eyelid. If 40k Grannies die in 6 weeks then all hell breaks loose, and we have to close the entire economy down. Its the hypocrisy that gets me.
Which is why I said right at the start of this, before there were even 100 deaths from it, the lockdown has nothing to do with protecting the population, and everything to do with protecting the NHS. The politicians were sh*t scared the NHS would be exposed as totally unable to cope with something that other healthcare systems around the world are coping with and have overreacted because of the fear of what an NHS failure would mean for them, the politicians. It would expose the myth that State direction of things is ‘more efficient’ than private provision.
Its noticeable that the totally private food production, manufacturing, distribution and retailing system has managed to deal with a switch in food consumption patterns of massive proportions (ie the overnight ending of all of the catering trade and all that demand for food being loaded onto the food retailers) within a few weeks, and largely without any shortages. Yet the wonder of the world NHS can’t cope with a totally predictable public health crisis without abandoning everyone else’s healthcare needs, and requiring everyone to be locked into their homes.
So much for ‘the man in Whitehall knows best’.
Exactly. Disasters at football matches etc.
“If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you….”
Jim,
Your second paragraph nails it. No-one is allowed to be ill with anything other than the virus.
You could be right, but which nation’s healthcare system are you comparing ours to? The lockdown has been widespread so presumably we weren’t the only country to panic and overreact.
Matt,
If one attends the “All politicians are ******(fill in as necessary) School, then one normally graduates with the opinion that, no matter what country they “govern”, underneath they’re all a bunch of self serving knaves, vagabonds and mountebanks, only interested in protecting their own interests and positions.
I graduated an awfully long time ago.
Apologies to any who still believe Mr. Johnson is a good reliable sort of fellow.
The German one for a start, which is largely run privately, though of course the State is involved in creating a social insurance funding model.
But Germany has also had a lockdown.
Jim.
A comment you made here some time ago that might yet come to pass when a sufficient number recover from this Extraordinary Madness of Crowds.
https://hectordrummond.com/2019/12/10/choose-one/#comments
Jim on Thursday 12th December 2019 at 00:57 said:
I’ve said it many times, I suspect there is a completely hidden seam of public opinion that is anti-NHS.
[…]
Regardless its the political viewpoint that dare not be acknowledged. But it exists, and its growing every day, as more and more people get the raw side of the ‘wonder of the world’. One day it will be unleashed on an unsuspecting political class, and the howls of anguish unleashed by a vote for Brexit will be nothing as to what we’ll see when an anti-NHS party hoovers up millions of votes.
@Jim on Saturday 18th April 2020 at 23:04
Odds? 1:1,000 I’ve been saying same from Feb/Mar “Don’t expect deaths in whole year to be outlier” However, lockdown and “Protect NHS” seems to be causing excess deaths
“and everything to do with protecting the NHS” No, protecting the politicians with Church of NHS as cover: they surrendered to CV19, same as they did to EU
+1 on Food, Morrisons selling catering industry 5kg sacks of Marshalls Macaroni, problem is their H&S idiots won’t let customers in and lots of fresh produce being binned. Following same “rule” Michigan is: 4 customers per 1,000 square feet
Lockdown cost is ~£2.4 Billion per day, or ~£30 Million for each death delayed
@Sane
+1
– Crowder on Michigan Governor’s INSANE Laws
Michigan Law: 4 customers per 1,000 square feet in stores
https://youtu.be/CaxTpeOjzGU?t=64
That’s minimum 16ft separation – madness; however UK stores seem to be applying equally insane quotas on numbers in store. Also shorter opening hours (except Aldi)
Result: long queues outside (Thank God it’s not winter and little rain), security (extra cost) at door, unsold perishables binned, isles mostly customer empty. Bottleneck: checkout, 3/14 open and 3/10 self-checkout open. Shooting foot hysteria
@ microdave 18/April, yes, Hindsight has proved Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell was correct.
We in Australia were fortunate in that there never was a yawning chasm between (inadequate by world practice) ventilator numbers and – feared – demand. CPAP and BiPAP have been shown to be effective when used earlier. Bonus is less snoring in the ICU !
Comments are closed.