horsefly

yep! looks like Barca are using Aarons in the same way that Liverpool used Lewis to get their real target for a cheaper price.

Barca have agreed a deal for Dest. looks like Aarons interest is over. Maybe Bayern will come in for him.

So deluded, but if that keeps you happy so be it. We certainly don't agree and the fact that you might think that demonstrates your lack of understanding. I understand the statistics you don't . The NHS accept these stats, the government accept these stats but you don't (perhaps you might think about that).

Read my whole statement accurately and you will see there is absolutely no contradiction in my position. If it helps you out let me amend the first statement that you have taken out of context to the following: "No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions other than they would not have died (of those underlying conditions)at the moment they did if they had not caught Covid-19." In other words Covid-19 killed them, and we do not speculate at all how long they would have survived with their underlying conditions if it had not. No doubt future studies utilising statistical analysis will seek to do just that, but this set of statistics doesn't. If this isn't clear enough for you then I'm afraid I do not know how to make it any simpler.

YES! exactly! if they had not got Covid-19 they were not expected to die from those underlying conditions at the point at which they died. That is why the doctor concerned records the death as caused by Covid-19. I think you're missing the point that a doctor's recording of death is an indexical statement. It rightly makes no reference to what they might have died of later if they hadn't died of Covid-19 (just think about this for a moment and you will see that it would be absurd to do so)

I have already dealt with this earlier, for e.g. "We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age." No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions. The statistics do not attempt in any way to do this. Thus your examples do not in anyway shape or form undermine the fact that they record circa 29,000 deaths from Covid-19. They are entirely consistent with accepting the point of your examples, because of this.

I see your point now. Certainly the statistics in the chart we are considering do not deal with such cases

Thanks for the apology, but it's not that I just "think" you misrepresented me, it's that you "actually" misrepresent my claim. And I'm afraid you are continuing to misrepresent the statistics shown in the chart. You say: "your point as I understood it was that nobody was expected to die of anything else if they hadn’t caught covid. The point is that you cannot possibly know that from the data in Jools’ chart. It doesn’t give you any information on the severity of the other conditions. It doesn’t tell you whether they might have died a day later from something else. If covid is the thing that finally stopped the organs from working, it doesnt mean that whatever else they had wouldn’t have stopped their organs from working a week later." The point is that the statistics are not remotely attempting to make such claims and I certainly don't either (just re-read my contributions). It is not the point of the statistics to make any sort of claims about the life-expectancy of the individuals recorded as a result of their underlying conditions. The statistics simply record that the individual died from the effects of Covid-19. That's it, period.

Sorry but I just don't get what your trying to say here or what is supposed to be its significance

I appreciate your effort to explain yourself but I'm afraid you're still making a fundamental mistake. I think the best way to demonstrate this is as follows: You said: "Horsefly’s initial post stated nobody who died with covid on the death certificate was expected to die from anything else." Now let's look at what I actually said: "They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus." By NOT quoting me accurately and missing out the crucial conditional "...if they had not caught the virus..." you radically misrepresent the point I made and thus confuse the statistics. The point is they were not expected to have died from the effects of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus. Thus in the example I presented, the individual was not expected to die from angina, and while the angina contributed by making it harder for him to recover from Covid-19, it was the Covid-19 that killed him and not the angina. If he had not had Covid-19 he would not have died. That is why the doctor correctly recorded the death as caused by Covid_19 and not angina.

Perhaps the easiest way to grasp it is think from the perspective of the doctor filling in the death certificate. She is effectively saying that if the patient had not contracted Covid-19 then she wouldn't have died (i.e. Covid-19 killed her). It's worth remembering that death certificates are a legal document and filling them in falsely can result it severe punishment.

so you don't have an answer then?

Sorry but you really are being quite silly now. I'm not sure whether you are just trying to be provocative or genuinely don't understand how to read health statistics. You say "if they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions?". Whether they were expected to die from their underlying conditions or not is utterly irrelevant. The relevant point is that it was Covid-19 that killed them. I really fail to see what is so hard to grasp here. We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age. I really don't know how to make this any easier for you to understand. You need to stop conflating underlying conditions and life expectancy with the actual cause of death. Even this Government is not crass enough to do that and quite rightly accepts the statistics the NHS provides. It's simply a matter of science.

I think you're probably right about this, because it really shouldn't be that hard to understand these statistics (Even the Government is not stupid enough to conflate underlying conditions with the actual cause of death).

Oh dear! I'm afraid you have totally missed the point again. The statistics state very clearly that they died from Covid-19. That is why they are labelled "Covid-19 Daily Deaths". They make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned where there were also underlying complicating conditions. The absolutely crucial point you need to be clear on is that in these cases the underlying conditions were NOT the cause of death, Covid-19 was. So for example (to use a real case I know of), a patient with angina was made more vulnerable to the virus because of his condition, but it wasn't the angina that killed him, it was Covid-19, and that is why it was recorded as a death from Covid-19. Exactly the same principle and practice applies to all those deaths recorded as Covid-19 deaths in the statistics quoted.

They say ignorance is bliss, it clearly isn't, it's just plain embarrassing

Is that because we're in the transition period?

Actually it does, they specifically describe the cause of death as Covid-19. It's the underlying condition that is described as a contributory factor insofar as it makes the patient more vulnerable to being killed by Covid-19. But Covid-19 is definitely regarded as the cause of death in these statistics (hence the title). This point has been explained very clearly by a scientist in one of the "More of Less" radio episodes that I mentioned (I'm afraid I don't recall which weeks episode). I think we can trust the NHS here to label their statistics as "Covid-19 daily deaths" only if the statistics record precisely that.

You really are quite the buffoon. It's bloody obvious that once we withdrew from the EU we couldn't then hold on to all the benefits that it's actual members enjoy. FFS that's why so many of us wanted to remain. You can't seriously be objecting to the EU's position here, no one can be that stupid. Please try to engage some semblance of thought here. On your account I have a perfect right to pop down to the Carlton Club and tell them that although I'm not a member there I claim right of access to everything that their paid up members have access to. Jesus wept!

Gosh! must be some mistake, next you will be telling me that they pis*ed multi-millions up the wall on a failed test and trace app. As we and others predicted Herman, the reality of Brexit, as opposed to the flag waving nationalistic ideology driving it, is crumbling before our eyes into a farcical mess

Normal procedure is to quote your source when you cut and paste something like this. The idea that you would be capable of writing this is laughable. But don't worry I'll put the source here for you: https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/a-backstop-solution-for-the-irish-border-problem/

do please pass on the statement from the EU that says NI must stay in the EU. Utter tosh!

Could you please explain just what point you're trying to make here. No one on this site claims anything different. Indeed the points many of us are making concerning the need to avoid a hard customs border between the UK and Ireland depend precisely on this being the case. So what the hell is it that your trying to say?

Not quite sure what you mean by "filter", but the site is the one Fools cut and paste from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/ Hilariously he doesn't seem to have noticed that the title of the page he pasted is: "Covid-19 daily deaths" and NOT "1,396 Covid-19 deaths and the rest are all due to another cause". They are ALL Covid-19 deaths (even the Government doesn't dispute this). If you are interested, Radio 4's excellent maths and statistics programme "More or Less" has for many weeks covered the statistics relating to Covid-19. The programme employs genuinely impartial statisticians and scientists to provide analysis, and they are truly enlightening.

Here we go again. You display a startling inability to read and understand the statistics, I suggest you try listening to the officials who provide them. Your claim that, " we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions." is simply wrong. ALL the deaths listed are attributed to the virus. The breakdown simply demonstrates that those with a pre-existing condition are more likely to die if they catch the virus. They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus. It really isn't that hard to read these statistics accurately so do try a bit harder