Covid-19GovernmentHealthHealth fascism

Thomas Galen: Why Reported COVID-19 Deaths Are Too High

Thomas Galen (not his real name) took a degree in Medical Sciences and then spent thirty years working with models and numbers in finance and with large businesses.

Over the last few weeks, we have seen how hard it can be to understand how many people are dying and from what. For most people, this is a new experience, and perhaps somewhat baffling – they assume that death certificates are accurate and that we know how many people die and from what each year. The truth is, they are not and we don’t.

We now face an even bigger challenge. The government has chosen to shut down much of our economy based firstly on forecasts, but then on data on deaths from COVID-19. The problem is that the data is opaque and in some cases unreliable.

Dr. John Lee in the Spectator has given an excellent explanation of why making COVID-19 a notifiable disease has led to serious problems, not just in counting COVID-19 deaths, but in making comparisons with deaths from other diseases, notably flu.

To summarise his arguments, the problems with COVID-19 deaths are two-fold and are caused by the characteristics of those it kills – the elderly and those in ill-health. First, every day in England around 1,400 people die. In any epidemic, even one of a disease that kills no-one, some of those 1,400 will die infected by that disease. The percentage who do so will not be very different from the infection rate in the general population unless the disease infects certain age groups differentially, or we take some actions to protect certain age groups. With COVID-19, the evidence (e.g. the Diamond Princess cruise ship) suggests it infects adults at roughly the same rate regardless of age. Second, some people who die, die because they become infected by a virus or bacteria in what is inevitably the last week or so of their lives. What infection it is doesn’t usually matter much, and is not usually recorded. It is the infection that tips the balance, and contributes to the death, but is no more lethal than any other infection would be. If we test most people who die (particularly if we test post-mortem on a large scale), we are therefore – to some extent at least – simply testing the infection rate, not who is being killed by COVID-19.

What that suggests it that we are over-counting COVID-19 deaths. We can take a simple example of that to demonstrate the problem. The ONS breaks down deaths by location. Up to the week ending Friday 24th April (Week 17), it shows 300 cumulative COVID-19 deaths in hospices. That is clearly 300 too many. No doubt 300 people tested positive, but that was amongst people who were already terminally ill. It is quite wrong to count them as COVID-19 deaths. We can see that clearly, as the number of overall deaths in hospices over the period is exactly what we would expect from long term hospice averages.

The vast majority of recorded COVID-19 deaths are in hospitals (72%). There is no doubt that COVID-19 can make some people extremely ill and kill a small percentage of those. The evidence so far is that of those who die most have two or more other health issues. The question is whether they would have died if they had not contracted COVID-19? The answer in at least some instances, is yes. There is some evidence that some people dying in hospital of more obvious causes such as cancer, are being recorded as COVID-19 deaths because they have tested positive – because COVID-19, unlike flu and most other infections, is a notifiable disease.

For the elderly and frail a common problem caused by COVID-19 is pneumonia caused by a secondary infection. Would the patient have died without contracting bacterial pneumonia? We don’t know. Would they have contracted pneumonia without being infected with COVID-19? We don’t know. But we do know that many elderly and frail people contract pneumonia after getting infected with a whole range of other infections, not just COVID-19.

What that suggests is that a proportion of hospital COVID-19 deaths are not directly caused by COVID-19. It is impossible at this stage to know what proportion. We might have a better idea in a few months, when we can see more clearly how deaths in 2020 from other, non-COVID-19 causes compare to other years. At this point, all we can say that hospitals deaths are overstated, but we don’t know by how many.

This brings us to an interesting data point. The table below sets out the figures for deaths in hospitals from the ONS data:

Cumulative 2020

Weeks 11-17

Average Excess (number above average) COVID-19 Deaths Post COVID-19 Excess/(Deficit)
48,989 35,000 13,989 19,621 (5,632)

 

If we assume that all COVID-19 deaths registered in hospitals are additional deaths, then we are ‘missing’ 5,600 deaths that we would normally see in hospitals. That could mean those deaths have been displaced to other places – homes and care homes – accounting for some of the excess deaths we see there. Alternatively, some of the COVID-19 deaths are deaths that would have happened anyway and so should not be counted as COVID 19. The truth is likely to be some mixture of the two.

If some deaths that would have occurred in hospitals have been displaced to homes and care homes because people are not going there then we have to consider that some people who would have usually been hospitalised and recovered, have instead not been hospitalised and died. That is a point we will come back to.

Are there any hospital deaths that are COVID-19 but are not recorded as such? It is possible, but it seems likely that there would be very few. For all the fuss about testing, the vast majority of tests (Pillar 1), even at the height of the epidemic, were negative – over 500,000 people. That means we are testing hundreds of thousands of people with symptoms that might be COVID-19, but which are not. We are also testing post-mortem, when there is a suspicion somebody might have died from COVID-19. Finally, we are counting some deaths as COVID-19 without testing because a doctor believes it might have been. It seems unlikely therefore that many COVID-19 deaths in hospitals are slipping through the net.

The other significant location (22%) of recorded COVID-19 deaths is care homes. What is happening with those deaths is somewhat murky. The figures are set out below:

Cumulative 2020

Weeks 11-17

Cumulative 5 Year Average Excess COVID-19 Deaths Post COVID-19 Excess
31,218 17,300 13,918 5,887 8,031

 

Should we doubt those nearly 6,000 COVID-19 deaths? Probably. As far as we know, there is usually some time (days) from the onset of symptoms to death – COVID-19 doesn’t kill you quickly, let alone in your sleep overnight. If COVID-19 makes you ill enough to possibly die from it, people feel ill enough, and have enough time before they die to be hospitalised.

Moreover, given the age and health problems of those who have died in hospital, many must have come from care homes. Care homes are therefore well enough aware of the symptoms of COVID-19 and how important it is to send people to hospital. It seems unlikely that we have had nearly six thousand people (by 24th April) dying from COVID-19 in care homes but who were somehow not ill enough to be hospitalised prior to their death. Otherwise we must hypothesise that COVID-19 kills some of those in care homes more quickly but with fewer serious symptoms than others. That seems completely unlikely.

This strongly suggests that some, perhaps most, did not die of COVID-19, but with it. As a further piece of evidence, we now know that certification in care homes has become extremely lax. Care home deaths no longer need to be certified as COVID-19 by a doctor. For residents who have tested positive, why would care home directors not certify them as COVID-19 deaths? The ONS seems to be nervous about this and is treading carefully around care home deaths. It now says:

our regular weekly deaths release now provides a separate breakdown of the numbers of deaths involving COVID-19. That is, where COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, including in combination with other health conditions.” (My emphasis).

These issues with care home deaths are backed up by testing. The CDC in the USA found 30% of care home residents tested positive, and similar testing in Belgium (a large sample) showed an infection rate of 20% in many care homes. The majority of those testing positive in both instances were asymptomatic in terms of COVID-19. Those that were symptomatic were not serious enough to be hospitalised. That last point is important – we can assume that the more serious cases from those care homes have already been hospitalised, and so we have higher rates of infection than measured. Cleary those tested in these care homes were not seriously ill and on the point of death. What that strongly suggests is that most of those who die in care homes are dying with the virus rather than from it. We can use the testing figures and say that 20-30% of those who die in care homes are dying infected rather than dying of COVID-19.

If we take the average number of deaths in care homes over seven weeks and use an infection rate of 25%, we get around 4,300 deaths. That represents those who would have died anyway but died infected. That compares with the COVID-19 total of 5,900 in care homes. We could therefore explain most of the care home COVID-19 deaths as simply being residents who have died after testing positive.

However, this leads to a different problem. We have a significant number of excess deaths in care homes even allowing for COVID-19. If we assume that 4,300 out of 5,900 of the deaths recorded as COVID-19 in care homes are not actually COVID-19, then we have a larger number of excess deaths. If we say only 1,600 are actually COVID-19, then we have total excess deaths of over 12,000. We can reduce that by subtracting some of our missing hospital deaths – say 2,500 – but that still means we have 9,500 people dying in care homes that we would not expect to see.

That sounds like a great deal, but we can in fact further reduce it. The cumulative deaths in 2020 up to Week 11 (the beginning of COVID-19) was around 2,000 fewer than the cumulative five year average. If we apply that deficit to the excess of deaths in care homes reduce the care home excess to 7,300. That number is clearly still large. Over however half can be accounted for by excess deaths amongst those over 90, and the rest by those over 85. It is possible that those deaths will reverse in the next few months, and we will have weeks with below average deaths in the very elderly. That would mean that we have brought forward deaths by a matter of weeks rather than years, perhaps because of the lockdown and the focus of the NHS on COVID-19.

Of note in this regard, PHE monitors respiratory infections across England. For Weeks 11 to 18, it has shown a very high number of non-COVID-19 infections in care homes – far above the usual number. For example, in their latest release PHE reported 648 acute respiratory outbreaks in care homes, but only 243 tested positive for COVID-19. Is there a second infection circulating in care homes that is responsible for the excess deaths amongst the elderly? We cannot know for sure, but it is possible.

We should also note that we appear to have displaced some deaths from hospitals to care homes and elsewhere. If that has happened, we have moved people who should be hospitalised out of hospitals. Many of those would have died anyway, no matter where they were, but it is surely impossible that we moved only those people, those who would have died, and not at least some people who would have been saved by being hospitalised? If that is the case, then some of the excess deaths are a direct consequence of the NHS’ COVID-19 policies and represent people the NHS would otherwise have saved but did not.

To summarise all of this:

 

Unadjusted Adjusted
Average Deaths Weeks 11-17  

77,294

 

77,294

COVID-19
Hospitals 19,621 17,121
Care homes 5,887 1,587
Total COVID-19 25,508 18,708
Excess Deaths
Hospitals (5,632)
Care homes 8,034 9,202
Total excess 2,402 9,202
Total deaths 105,204 105,204
Cumulative 2020 deficit to Week 10  

1,937

 

1,937

Net excess 5,495 7,265

Note: These figures exclude deaths at locations other than hospitals and care homes. For the Unadjusted figures, that would give a further ~5,000 excess deaths.

The adjusted total for COVID-19 is 20,500, 75% of the unadjusted total. We could adjust that down further, particularly by further reducing COVID-19 deaths in care homes but at this stage it seems prudent to allow for some COVID-19 deaths outside hospitals. That may change as we understand more about the disease.

For the moment however, this is a reasonable readjustment to show we are significantly overcounting COVID-19 deaths and significantly undercounting excess non-COVID deaths. It is also reasonable to ask whether we have displaced unavoidable deaths from hospitals to other locations, and whether in doing so we have also displaced avoidable deaths and so contributed to the excess deaths elsewhere.

Social media

13 thoughts on “Thomas Galen: Why Reported COVID-19 Deaths Are Too High

  1. Yeah but covid sometimes affects the blood and not the lungs, so some deaths, even deaths while asleep, might have been covid-caused via stroke or heart attacks or just low pulse-ox. Only recently would these DoAs be tested post-mortem for covid.

    My conclusion: We don’t know, and juggling the numbers will usually produce uncertain results

  2. Hmm, in previous posts in this blog the arguments where vs total deaths and 5 year average. Now that the average deaths are of the charts (even the Sun has a graph on it https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11597257/uk-death-toll-higher-than-average-five-years/) the argument is about whether the deaths are covid-19 or not. The next argument is going to be that the average death rate is caused because of the lockdown I am sure. Amazing bias for a site that pretends it stands against it, among other things

  3. I find your speculation about another virus interesting as it could also explain another mystery.
    It appears that the disease dies out when circa 20% of the population is infected. That is way lower than the 60% assumed to be necessary for herd immunity to develop.
    But suppose a second virus sufficiently similar to C19 to generate immunity, but less deadly (in a similar way to how cow pox provides immunity to smallpox but is less deadly).
    That would tidy things up, as herd immunity would be reached by 60% of the population having one or other.

  4. There are many strains of the three main respiratory virus, rhino, influenza and corona. Whilst the other two pak earlier than corona in the year normally there is no reason why other strains of corona aren’t around at the moment. The percentage of peak infection for any corona is correct, about 20%, because corona does not prefer humans over other mammals. So-called herd immunity for covid-19 would occur at this level.

  5. Excess deaths from respiratory diseases usually occur over the midwinter period. If you compare the total excess of the ‘with’ covid-19 numbers with these excess numbers you will find them very comparable. Indeed excess deaths purely assigned to flu in some years has exceeded 40, 000.
    The interesting thing about last mid winter was that there were hardly any excess deaths recorded from respiratory diseases, so compared to a bad flu year there were probably up to 40,000 elderly people with comorbidities alive in March 2020 that probably would have died in a bad flu year. Now they have succumbed to their underlying illness with the covid-19 virus giving them the final push rather than flu.
    This whole episode is no more serious than that.
    But its the first time the general public has been made aware that this sort of thing happens every year in hospital wards, hospices and care homes. Its been hyped to the heavens by the media and the politicians are behaving like a combination of headless chickens and suspiciously corrupt individuals. But what new?

  6. @George Eton.
    It doesn’t mean it isn’t true, though. At the start, nobody expected the lockdown to go on this long, and the emptying of the hospitals of old people was an interesting by-product of the ’emergency’. As we’re always being told, this situation is unprecedented. Even if the virus itself isn’t.

  7. Different people have been posting on here for several days.

    If there’s a graph deaths are clearly not “off the charts”.

    We will only know how many people died in the UK this year some time next February, but is there anything in the numbers so far that suggests this is worse than the Hong Kong flu of the late 60s? And that didn’t result in the government trashing the economy, ending social life and severely restricting the freedoms of the population.

  8. Whereas you being Mr unbiased simply attribute all excess death to covid and don’t believe shutting down large parts of healthcare to be a problem? If this is the case I’m starting to wonder why we even have hospitals.

  9. Why do people keep comparing the death rate to the 5 year average? Surely we should be comparing it with similarly bad flu years in the past, to see if what we are seeing is really unprecedented, or in fact completely precedented, and indeed not as bad as some years within living memory? Times when we didn’t close our economy down and impoverish the entire country?

    The measures being taken over Covid-19 are utterly unprecedented, even including 10 years of world war in the 20th century. Thus we better be experiencing something that the nation has not experienced ever before, or we are being utterly shafted for no good reason at all.

  10. “I’m starting to wonder why we even have hospitals.”

    They are useful icons of worship and the high priests need somewhere to hang out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.