The big Coronavirus thread

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

Last year deaths were substantially lower than average for teenagers, for obvious reasons. So any comparison year on year should take that into account.

Yes, but apparently if you compare against a five year average it is still higher.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Last year deaths were substantially lower than average for teenagers, for obvious reasons. So any comparison year on year should take that into account.

Yes, but apparently if you compare against a five year average it is still higher.

For 15-19 year old it's 30 deaths higher than the average over the 20 weeks the ons released the figures for, and 6 higher than in 2018. So high, but not insanely high.

Deaths in 20-24 year olds are lower in 2021 than the average in the same period.

DeVlaeminck

Didn't the ONS release figures for a different time range though? I mean there may be good reasons but if people claim excess deaths over time period X it doesn't really disprove it to provide deaths for time period Y

Pross

Maybe it was unvaccinated teenagers dying of Covid but that wouldn't work well for anti-vaxxers

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck said:

Didn't the ONS release figures for a different time range though? I mean there may be good reasons but if people claim excess deaths over time period X it doesn't really disprove it to provide deaths for time period Y

Not so different as to make a massive difference. It looks like the figures in the claim deliberately use the week after the may bank holiday as the start date for 2021, as that will include a few delayed registrations. The ons had four more weeks.

The original article only compared 2021 with 2020 as weekly figures aren't available before then.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Last year deaths were substantially lower than average for teenagers, for obvious reasons. So any comparison year on year should take that into account.

Yes, but apparently if you compare against a five year average it is still higher.

For 15-19 year old it's 30 deaths higher than the average over the 20 weeks the ons released the figures for, and 6 higher than in 2018. So high, but not insanely high.

Deaths in 20-24 year olds are lower in 2021 than the average in the same period.

That's meaningless without context.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

3-5 days a week. I realised rather later than I should have that sitting at the dining room table every day was doing my head in. Has massively improved my state of mind. Collaborative working is also ten times easier face to face.

Seem to remember making the case in favour of going into the office a few days a week a several months ago and quite a few people disagreed at the time.

Several months ago we were still waiting for our staff to get vaccinated.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Last year deaths were substantially lower than average for teenagers, for obvious reasons. So any comparison year on year should take that into account.

Yes, but apparently if you compare against a five year average it is still higher.

For 15-19 year old it's 30 deaths higher than the average over the 20 weeks the ons released the figures for, and 6 higher than in 2018. So high, but not insanely high.

Deaths in 20-24 year olds are lower in 2021 than the average in the same period.

That's meaningless without context.

What context do you want?

30 deaths is 10%

pblakeney

Pross said:

Maybe it was unvaccinated teenagers dying of Covid but that wouldn't work well for anti-vaxxers

This is a primary context.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

It certainly looks like we've got our tactics right and Europe has ballsed it up again.

You are obsessed.

I'm right.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

It certainly looks like we've got our tactics right and Europe has ballsed it up again.

You are obsessed.

I'm right.

Lol no.

Want me to pull up the death charts again? Or is it too early to tell?

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Last year deaths were substantially lower than average for teenagers, for obvious reasons. So any comparison year on year should take that into account.

Yes, but apparently if you compare against a five year average it is still higher.

For 15-19 year old it's 30 deaths higher than the average over the 20 weeks the ons released the figures for, and 6 higher than in 2018. So high, but not insanely high.

Deaths in 20-24 year olds are lower in 2021 than the average in the same period.

That's meaningless without context.

What context do you want?

30 deaths is 10%

Thanks again for your tireless service to statistics during the pandemic.

The anti-anti-vax article I found suggested 17% when compared to a five year average. Not sure on the difference between the figures.

I guess 30 deaths is not that many in absolute terms and could probably be explained if the cause of them was known. For example, there were a lot of reports of more people drowning.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

Maybe it was unvaccinated teenagers dying of Covid but that wouldn't work well for anti-vaxxers

The anti-vax poster was comparing excess deaths to the number of children who have died of covid. I know that very very few children have died, so I didn't need to look up that figure.

mully79

Of the top of my head I thought there was an increase in suicides for youngsters.

rick_chasey

mully79 said:

Of the top of my head I thought there was an increase in suicides for youngsters.

So data on the 2021 lockdown is not out yet but during the 2020 although there were reports of an increase in "suicidal thoughts" in young, the actual suicide rate was basically unaffected / actually went down during lockdown.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsfromsuicidethatoccurredinenglandandwales/aprilandjuly2020

1,603 suicides occurred between April and July 2020 in England and Wales, the most complete period because of the late registration of deaths, equivalent to an age-standardised mortality rate of 9.2 deaths per 100,000 people; this rate is statistically significantly lower than rates for the same period in the previous three years, however, is statistically similar to the rate in 2016.

Between April and July 2020, age-specific suicide rates in England and Wales statistically significantly decreased for those aged 10 to 24 years and 25 to 44 years, when compared with the same period in 2019

joe2019

Pross said:

Maybe it was unvaccinated teenagers dying of Covid but that wouldn't work well for anti-vaxxers

The figures are for boys, not all teenagers.

kingstongraham

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

Numbers here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/13787deathsfromallcausesbysexfiveyearagegroupandyeardeathsregisteredinweek19toweek38of2015to2019englandandwales

Pretty much twice as many boys as girls is usual.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

Numbers here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/13787deathsfromallcausesbysexfiveyearagegroupandyeardeathsregisteredinweek19toweek38of2015to2019englandandwales

Pretty much twice as many boys as girls is usual.

I know it is small numbers, but some of those figures deserve more attention. 2.7 times more men 20-24 die than women 20-24. 1,370 more under 40 males than females.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

It certainly looks like we've got our tactics right and Europe has ballsed it up again.

You are obsessed.

I'm right.

Lol no.

Want me to pull up the death charts again? Or is it too early to tell?

Lol. Head in the sand over current stats?

kingstongraham

Genuinely too early to say.

longy

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

Numbers here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/13787deathsfromallcausesbysexfiveyearagegroupandyeardeathsregisteredinweek19toweek38of2015to2019englandandwales

Pretty much twice as many boys as girls is usual.

I know it is small numbers, but some of those figures deserve more attention. 2.7 times more men 20-24 die than women 20-24. 1,370 more under 40 males than women.

This has been getting quite a lot of attention of the past few years although specifically more to do with the suicide rate of men which is I believe generally around 3 times that of women. This will account for some of the disparity in the figures shown.

Dorset_Boy

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

Numbers here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/13787deathsfromallcausesbysexfiveyearagegroupandyeardeathsregisteredinweek19toweek38of2015to2019englandandwales

Pretty much twice as many boys as girls is usual.

I know it is small numbers, but some of those figures deserve more attention. 2.7 times more men 20-24 die than women 20-24. 1,370 more under 40 males than females.

Factors such as 17-24 year old boys killing themselves on the roads and in fights might play a part, but unlikely to account for all the discrepancy.

TheBigBean

I think men account for most work place deaths as well.

webboo

There used be a statistic that the largest cause of death for teenage girls was being in a car with a teenage boy.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

It certainly looks like we've got our tactics right and Europe has ballsed it up again.

You are obsessed.

I'm right.

Lol no.

Want me to pull up the death charts again? Or is it too early to tell?

Lol. Head in the sand over current stats?

Feel free to share current death rates per capita.

Also feel free to share the deaths per capita over the past 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and the whole pandemic.

(here's a clue, Germany, with a bigger population, just crossed the 100k deaths mark. UK is around 144k. That's a lot of deaths in a broadly vaccinated population to "catch up")

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

I looked at the last 5 years' data - standard dev is 46. Average is 185. So 223 is well within one std. dev. You would expect something like 70-75% of all data to fall within this range. It isn't a big data set but this tells you it is pretty much what you'd expect. i.e. This isn't a significantly high number.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

I looked at the last 5 years' data - standard dev is 46. Average is 185. So 223 is well within one std. dev. You would expect something like 70-75% of all data to fall within this range. It isn't a big data set but this tells you it is pretty much what you'd expect. i.e. This isn't a significantly high number.

The standard deviation of 197, 155, 204, 204, 164 is 23.5. So, it is within two SDs. It doesn't really change your point though.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

For boys aged 15-18, 223 compared to average 185. High, and probably does need an explanation.

The number for girls has stayed lower than average.

Thanks. That's more consistent with the number of I quoted above.

If you have the stats to hand, are the number of deaths of girls and boys usually similar?

I looked at the last 5 years' data - standard dev is 46. Average is 185. So 223 is well within one std. dev. You would expect something like 70-75% of all data to fall within this range. It isn't a big data set but this tells you it is pretty much what you'd expect. i.e. This isn't a significantly high number.

The standard deviation of 197, 155, 204, 204, 164 is 23.5. So, it is within two SDs. It doesn't really change your point though.

I was looking at different figures - 2019's was 184.

Anyway, yes. And these figures also don't take into account population changes. Point is, correlation really isn't causation, no matter how you spin it.