The ONS recently released more data on Covid-19 and used the 5-year average as comparison.
But is that the most appropriate measure?
The most fatal year in recent history was 2018. Perhaps comparing to 2018 would be a more appropriate measure?
The ONS reports that upto 24th April 2020 the total death count from all causes is 229,294.
For 2018 upto 27th April the total death count from all causes was 209,249.
So for 2020 there is an excess death count at the end of April of approximately 20,045.
This is in England and Wales, which have a total of 573 constituencies.
20,045/573 approx = 35.
So on average, compared to the fatal year of 2018 there have been an extra 35 deaths per constituency. On average.
That's about the population of a small street with 10 houses. Over 4 months. Per constituency.
But in 2018 there was no lockdown so the flu that year was allowed to spread naturally, while in 2020 there has been a lockdown with social distancing, isolation, face-masks, etc that have hindered the spread of the Covid-19 virus, if there is one.
We could compare UK to Sweden, where there has been none of these measures, but there are many other factors to consider other than lockdown, etc. (though if UK figures were better than they are then the government would say that it is fair to compare).
So the question is: what would have happened if the lockdown measures had not been implemented?
What would be the minimum number of excess deaths that would be a threshold over which you say, "It was worth trashing the economy".?
Most of the deceased were old or very old, and had at least one underlying serious or life-threatening health issue, and no positive test result for Covid-19 is required to sign the death certificate with cause of death due to Covid-19.
There is an agenda to microchip us. That much I'm sure of. And this Covid-19 is being used to advance that agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment