Why is it so complicated to daily find out the ages of those who passed?

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

A 70+ year old person has lived a fairly full life - not that it's okay that they die, but it's wrong to stop everything and put everyone elses lives on hold just to try and squeeze out an extra year or two of that 70+ year old.

You might be giving an 80 year old man an extra year of life, but you've taken a year of life away from so many younger people. This past year people have basically put their lives on hold. It's not really living so much as it is existing.

That young person will also have their whole life ahead of them to make up for it.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

The real one. Apparently the average age to leave home now is early thirties. Especially if you're in Dublin. Lots of posts on this forum about it, usually related to paying rent to parents while still living at home.

Also, I never said late 30s or 40s. Don't embellish what I posted.

You said in 20 years time when those 18yos start to leave home.

Also what difference does it make whether people move out early or late? They'll still be working and paying for all these measures, it's ridiculous to state that they won't be the ones paying for it. All taxpayers will be paying for it - and the younger generation will be shafted even more than ours because higher taxes will mean they will have to live at home for longer, or stuck in rental trap for longer.

Deleted User wrote:

That young person will also have their whole life ahead of them to make up for it.

Yes but all you've done is give an extra year or two to some older people who have lived full lives, and in doing so you've taken away some of the most important years of younger people's lives. Formative years - years you can't really make up down the line.

Life isn't about racking up numbers, so you can die at 90 and be happy you made it this far. It's about living, actually making the most of the years you have. Restricting people's lives and freedoms to eke out a few more years at the far end, it's not living. For anyone involved.

jim salter

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Can you explain how this is done while we have widespread community transmission?

From a mortality perspective.

5 people I work with (between ages 24 - 36) have had the virus and described it as the worst flu they had - 2 of them have 'underlying' respiratory issues but they DID NOT DIE.

charlietheminxx

jim salter wrote: »

From a mortality perspective.

5 people I work with (between ages 24 - 36) have had the virus and described it as the worst flu they had - 2 of them have 'underlying' respiratory issues but they DID NOT DIE.

That's a completely different issue from what I asked you though.

It's still a good point, why are we only focusing on those who die as being the only relevant statistic? What about those who will be left with long term illness to manage?

Would it not have been better if there were better controls in your workplace to prevent 5 people getting Covid? That's quite a high number of young people infected in one place.

NoBread

timmyntc wrote: »

You said in 20 years time when those 18yos start to leave home.

Also what difference does it make whether people move out early or late? They'll still be working and paying for all these measures, it's ridiculous to state that they won't be the ones paying for it. All taxpayers will be paying for it - and the younger generation will be shafted even more than ours because higher taxes will mean they will have to live at home for longer, or stuck in rental trap for longer.




Yes but all you've done is give an extra year or two to some older people who have lived full lives, and in doing so you've taken away some of the most important years of younger people's lives. Formative years - years you can't really make up down the line.

Life isn't about racking up numbers, so you can die at 90 and be happy you made it this far. It's about living, actually making the most of the years you have. Restricting people's lives and freedoms to eke out a few more years at the far end, it's not living. For anyone involved.

I disagree with this. You keep saying things about adding a year or two onto old people's lives - your average 70 year old today should have 15 years or more left to enjoy their lives after years of hard work, and enjoy their grandkids and have their grandkids really love them.
And these formative years you speak of, they happen much younger than you think. 0 - 8 are much more formative than any other age period in anyones life, and those years aren't being affected much at all in the new level 5 restrictions.

Teenagers are being denied a decent amount of their social lives for sure, but they still can go to school and college and meet there. Nights out drinking isn't where you live your whole life.
It's never been easier to socialise with modern technology, you just need to be inventive and adaptable to utilise what you can do.
2 - 3 years of social life being impacted isn't the end of the world for a person.
And as for paying for it - we all will be, but maybe the rent trap issue might be solved with an economic crash - those happen anyway all the time in a cyclical fashion, and usually reset things that have gone too far the wrong way. With all the working from home, these things might be better after, who knows.

Whatever about the argument about a 60 year old having a less right to live then a 20 year old if you had to choose, but a 60 year old can't be expected to lose his or her life so the 20 year old can enjoy some parties.

timmyntc

NoBread wrote: »

I disagree with this. You keep saying things about adding a year or two onto old people's lives - your average 70 year old today should have 15 years or more left to enjoy their lives after years of hard work, and enjoy their grandkids and have their grandkids really love them.
And these formative years you speak of, they happen much younger than you think. 0 - 8 are much more formative than any other age period in anyones life, and those years aren't being affected much at all in the new level 5 restrictions.

Teenagers are being denied a decent amount of their social lives for sure, but they still can go to school and college and meet there. Nights out drinking isn't where you live your whole life.
It's never been easier to socialise with modern technology, you just need to be inventive and adaptable to utilise what you can do.
2 - 3 years of social life being impacted isn't the end of the world for a person.
And as for paying for it - we all will be, but maybe the rent trap issue might be solved with an economic crash - those happen anyway all the time in a cyclical fashion, and usually reset things that have gone too far the wrong way. With all the working from home, these things might be better after, who knows.

Whatever about the argument about a 60 year old having a less right to live then a 20 year old if you had to choose, but a 60 year old can't be expected to lose his or her life so the 20 year old can enjoy some parties.

Younger years most definitely are the most important I agree, but these are also definitely impacted. You can't visit family, see your cousins, friends etc. You can't socialise except for school. It definitely will have an impact on development.

Worse though is the likes of college students - there is no on campus college anymore. Maybe 1 week in 4 depending on the institution, but the rest is online lectures - very little opportunity to meet people and make friends at university anymore.

I don't think that drinking/nightclubs should be where you live your whole life - I do think that clubs should stay closed, and pubs should have to enforce table service only - those are compromises that make sense, protecting people's safety but still letting them live their lives.

Where it crosses the line for me is the pursuit of no deaths to the detriment of everyone else's quality of life for an indefinite period of time. This latest lockdown is a good example of that. Level 5- for 6 weeks, and then a review and maybe level3/4 after that, and then maybe in January/February we may end up in level 5 again they say. It may save more lives (from covid at least, more deaths from other causes but thats another issue), but at what cost?

And what about us lucky people in 20-40 range, working, and with no social outlet because everything has been shut. No sports, no gym, no socialising, no pubs/restaurants. But we dont go to school to see our mates. Most of the economy depends on us working and paying tax, and yet we get all our privileges taken from us for it.

FintanMcluskey

78% of deaths are over 75.

The median age of death is in the late 80s according to Dr Glynn.

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

Guy:Incognito

Whelo79 wrote: »

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions. They want us afraid, they want us thinking that you, I, our brother, mother, sister, father could all drop dead tonorrow if we catch it tomorrow. Rule by fear.

So what are they gaining by this "rule by fear"?
Everyone going to work, a thriving economy and no talk of deaths would be infinitely better for any government.

Ficheall

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Is it not more like "Person A has probably only four years left to live, but we could sacrifice* one year of Person B's remaining seventy years to let them have those"?

*Where 'sacrifice' is an oversimplification, really meaning they don't get to play with their friends.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

You said in 20 years time when those 18yos start to leave home.

Also what difference does it make whether people move out early or late? They'll still be working and paying for all these measures, it's ridiculous to state that they won't be the ones paying for it. All taxpayers will be paying for it - and the younger generation will be shafted even more than ours because higher taxes will mean they will have to live at home for longer, or stuck in rental trap for longer.

Yes but all you've done is give an extra year or two to some older people who have lived full lives, and in doing so you've taken away some of the most important years of younger people's lives. Formative years - years you can't really make up down the line.

Life isn't about racking up numbers, so you can die at 90 and be happy you made it this far. It's about living, actually making the most of the years you have. Restricting people's lives and freedoms to eke out a few more years at the far end, it's not living. For anyone involved.

No, I didn't. My reference to 20 years, was to people of my age who are working now.

Deleted User wrote: »

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

It makes sfa difference to me when people move out. I made the comment in relation to this notion being bandied about that somehow it will be "the young will pay for this" ... they will not.

The most important years of their lives? Maybe in your opinion. In my opinion, a year's delay is nothing for someone in their teens/ twenties. This pandemic will be blip in their memory in what hopefully for them will be a very long lifetime.

In the meantime the opinion is being openly expressed that the lives of older people are somehow of lesser value, in their favour. The very people that built this country in the first place, and they are now basically expendable, and not really worth making too much effort to protect. Sure, they were going to die soon anyway, is the attitude. That is what it comes down to, and that is disgusting and abhorrent to me, in every way.

I'm out. I hope I die (relatively) young, rather that end up with some value being placed on my life depending on my date of birth. Now I understand why so many elderly people express shame when they need care as they get older, and consider themselves to be a burden on their families.

NoBread

timmyntc wrote: »

And what about us lucky people in 20-40 range, working, and with no social outlet because everything has been shut. No sports, no gym, no socialising, no pubs/restaurants. But we dont go to school to see our mates. Most of the economy depends on us working and paying tax, and yet we get all our privileges taken from us for it.

I'm one of those - and I'm happy to make sacrifices for about 2 years in the hope that the long term benefits will be there.
My basis for that reasoning is on the Spanish Flu data, which is our best histroy lesson to cope with this.
If it extends beyond that, then we have to do something else, as this will likely mean that Covid is different in a new way.
I'm not saying it's easy, but I can still buy food (no rations like war times), I can still have video chats with the parents and let the kids do the same, and we have plenty of entertainment sources in the house and space outside to get excercise. It's not that easy for everybody I know, but I think we need to pay some price in order to do the best for everyone, all things considered.
5 years time will tell some of what we got right or wrong, for others we'll never know. You can't live a period twice two different ways to see which fares out better unfortunately!

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

No one is suggesting the life of an elderly person is as worthy as a child's life.
Thankfully the decision isn't a child's live versus an old person's life. It's a society's restricted movement versus vulnerable people's health and lives, and healthcare system coping mechanisms.

FintanMcluskey

Beasty wrote: »

Would have thought it was quite straightforward. Providing an age and in particular adding underlying conditions could easily identify an individual. Would you really like to find out someone you are close to has died from the daily HPSC stats?

That’s a strange attitude.

How is giving someone’s age and underlying conditions going to identify them?

Why does media broadcasts publish names in road deaths, often with pictures taken from social media accounts of the victims, and also macabre pictures of the wreckages of the vehicles involved?

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

78% of deaths are over 75.

The median age of death is in the late 80s according to Dr Glynn.

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

Children are not dying of Covid19.

Protecting elderly people does add any risk to any child's life.

They might miss out on a few play dates and a few birthday parties, - but like I said earlier, they probably won't even remember much about this when they are older - say 70. It will be a blip in their lives.

But apparently worth letting old people die for, in your view.

Now I really am out.

With a few more added to my ignore list.

Some people have no shame.

DaSilva

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Ok let's say we do it it your way. Widespread community transmission. Jo is tested and now has to isolate. Mary's son has picked it up and now she has to isolate. Who is looking after the vulnerable when it's running through the community and carers have to isolate?

My mam works in a maternity hospital, say she picks it up in your scenario but she's getting tested every day so she finds out quickly. I mean she's frontline medical staff in her 60's, so it's not great for her if she gets it, but it's worse if she brings it home to my sister, who is higher risk. So where does she go then? We've had to actually have these conversations in my family.

To some of us, this isn't all hypotheticals.

I'm absolutely sick of the way things are, but I wouldn't trade someone else's life to improve the short-term quality of mine.

How is this "my way", I was simply arguing that covid being in the community doesn't guarantee it gets to the vulnerable and that there are ways of preventing vulnerable people getting infected that don't depend on the infection not being present in the community. I'm not for a second suggesting we can throw all caution to the wind and simply test care workers and that's the problem solved.

Deleted User wrote: »

Children are not dying of Covid19.

Protecting elderly people does add any risk to any child's life.

They might miss out on a few play dates and a few birthday parties, - but like I said earlier, they probably won't even remember much about this when they are older - say 70. It will be a blip in their lives.

But apparently worth letting old people die for, in your view.

Don't present this complicated situation as this false dilemma between letting young people party and old people dying. It's not a good way to discuss things, you can't just pretend people who have different views on how we should handle this situation as being uncompassionate and happy to let old people die. Some people just have the view that a more nuanced approach could allow lesser restrictions on less vulnerable people while providing safety for the vulnerable.

StupidLikeAFox

Whelo79 wrote: »

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions. They want us afraid, they want us thinking that you, I, our brother, mother, sister, father could all drop dead tonorrow if we catch it tomorrow. Rule by fear.

Talk about scare mongering! What does this even mean? If the government could wave a magic wand tomorrow, open up the economy and have everything back to normal they would do so in a heartbeat and would much prefer that outcome than some vague attempt to "rule by fear" - whatever the hell that means.

Nermal

Beasty wrote: »

How many in the country are, say, 98?

450, in 2016. Probably more now.

https://statbank.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=E3003&PLanguage=0

KennisWhale

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Talk about scare mongering! What does this even mean? If the government could wave a magic wand tomorrow, open up the economy and have everything back to normal they would do so in a heartbeat and would much prefer that outcome than some vague attempt to "rule by fear" - whatever the hell that means.

You know what it means? People of minimal risk to society getting terrified hearing about the numbers, worrying they might contract it and getting fits of rage seeing people not following the OTT guidance. That is ruling by fear.

facehugger99

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

78% of deaths are over 75.

The median age of death is in the late 80s according to Dr Glynn.

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

The irony of course, is that it is the children of today that are having their future's taken away from them with the current response to Covid.

Debt burden, unemployment, cuts to vital services are what they have to look forward to.

Not that today's politicians will have to worry about any of that.

facehugger99

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s a strange attitude.

How is giving someone’s age and underlying conditions going to identify them?

Why does media broadcasts publish names in road deaths, often with pictures taken from social media accounts of the victims, and also macabre pictures of the wreckages of the vehicles involved?

I can just see Dr. Tony announcing that the death today was an 88 year old suffering from colon cancer.


Jaysus, that was Tommy from down the road.

StupidLikeAFox

KennisWhale wrote: »

You know what it means? People of minimal risk to society getting terrified hearing about the numbers, worrying they might contract it and getting fits of rage seeing people not following the OTT guidance. That is ruling by fear.

But the implication is that "they want us to be afraid" - it makes no sense who "they" are and why they want everyone to be afraid

timeToLive

L'prof wrote: »

Nothing should be given daily if you ask me. Weekly would suffice, even monthly. It’s just feeding into everybody’s anxieties

I think your issue might be with the reporting and not with the stats.

KennisWhale

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

But the implication is that "they want us to be afraid" - it makes no sense who "they" are and why they want everyone to be afraid

The message being given by the government, advocated for by NPHET, coordinated by their advisors and delivered via the media. This is the "they" and the "fear" is the irrational hysteria and sense of doom about covid which does not align with any data set regarding its harmfulness.

DaSilva

DaSilva wrote: »

you can't just pretend people who have different views on how we should handle this situation as being uncompassionate and happy to let old people die.

I don't have to pretend anything. I only wish I was.

There are plenty right across this forum who are openly saying as much, if it meant restrictions were lifted and they could go back to their pre-March lives.

Its disgusting.

Maxpfizer

DaSilva wrote: »

Can't say for today, but from the last two reports (Page 11):
Change from midnight 14th to midnight 17th



65-74: 2
75-85: 4
85+: 5

What troubles me about those numbers is that if we had figured out early on exactly how those people had contracted the virus we might have done a better job of saving others.

Figuring out how to effectively protect citizens over the age of 65 would have seen us cutting the total number of deaths significantly.

I mean, if you managed to cut the death toll for those above 65 in half then you pretty much cut our total death toll in half.

We've had over 7 months now and still don't seem to be any better off in terms of being able to protect those specifically vulnerable groups.

To the point where the answer is just "shut everything down".

So we open up early December and then just say to people that they can do household visits to elderly relatives with no problems over the xmas and new year period?

The fact that we've known specifically who is most vulnerable all this time and have utterly failed to do anything about it is a poor reflection on the government and society as a whole. Not sure you can lay the blame completely at the feet of the general public when basically no attempt has been made to properly inform them.

Protect the over 65s effectively and you can bring that death rate right down. How were we not able to do this?

Wibbs

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Protect the over 65s effectively and you can bring that death rate right down. How were we not able to do this?

It depends on the over 65's too M. Those otherwise in good health living independent lives in their own homes are much easier to protect and can protect themselves more easily than those living in care homes, or in need of daily care visits at home. The latter have way higher contact with others coming in, plus once any bug gets a hold in a shared accommodation keeping it under control is like trying to hold back the tide. Plus many such homes can be under staffed or have more underqualified staff than they should have. Well more and better qualified staff eats into profits so...

Zebra3

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So what are they gaining by this "rule by fear"?
Everyone going to work, a thriving economy and no talk of deaths would be infinitely better for any government.

It's political cowardice.

No politician has the balls to stand up and say this is not what we thought it originally was and in the context of the number of people dying in the state, the number is not high in anyway and that we never shut down to protect those lives lost during flu outbreaks.

It will take a lot of manipulation with the media's backing before any politician will do that with the calls of granny killer being aimed at those who want us to get on with living.

Somehow covid deaths and related health issues are the only thing that counts in the state.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vs/vitalstatisticsfirstquarter2019/#:~:text=There%20were%208%2C618%20deaths%20in,points%20from%20quarter%201%202018.

Q1 2019

8,618 deaths over 90 days.

That's 95.75 deaths on average per day.

Can't recall any outcry about those deaths.

ShineOn7

Anyone with an eye for data/able to decipher the Chinese Algebra of the HSPC site find the ages of yesterday's mortalities?

I think there's a day or two delay of when they publish them versus when they're announced

ShineOn7

timmyntc wrote: »

What world do you live in where current 18 year olds are living at home until their late 30s/early 40s?

I dare say, unfortunately, this is very common in some Dublin working class areas

They simply can't afford to move out

DaSilva

From last two:


Difference between "notified in Ireland up to midnight 17/10/2020" and "notified in Ireland up to midnight 18/10/2020"

65-74: 2
75-84: 7
85+: 5

Ficheall

Zebra3 wrote: »

8,618 deaths over 90 days.

That's 95.75 deaths on average per day.

Can't recall any outcry about those deaths.

Which of those deaths would you have a plan to prevent?

46 Long

Deleted User wrote: »

They asked Glynn about this already and he said he didn’t want to give out the information because it might send out the wrong message.

He also said median age of deaths was late 80s.

"It is my experience that when the people ask questions that are not in their own best interest, they should simply be told to keep their minds on their labour – and to leave matters of the state to the state. We seal off the city. No one leaves. And cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how you keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labor."

Pete_Cavan

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What troubles me about those numbers is that if we had figured out early on exactly how those people had contracted the virus we might have done a better job of saving others.

Figuring out how to effectively protect citizens over the age of 65 would have seen us cutting the total number of deaths significantly.

I mean, if you managed to cut the death toll for those above 65 in half then you pretty much cut our total death toll in half.

We've had over 7 months now and still don't seem to be any better off in terms of being able to protect those specifically vulnerable groups.

To the point where the answer is just "shut everything down".

So we open up early December and then just say to people that they can do household visits to elderly relatives with no problems over the xmas and new year period?

The fact that we've known specifically who is most vulnerable all this time and have utterly failed to do anything about it is a poor reflection on the government and society as a whole. Not sure you can lay the blame completely at the feet of the general public when basically no attempt has been made to properly inform them.

Protect the over 65s effectively and you can bring that death rate right down. How were we not able to do this?

Yes putting more resources into protecting the most vulnerable would likely be more successful than the current policy of telling most people to stay at home. Unfortunately anything which impinges (or is perceived to impinge) on the elderly is highly emotive and provokes a lot of people, even when it ultimately is for the benefit of those elderly people. Its not that we can't protect the over 65s, its that doing so is unpalatable for many.

I think the message being put out by government and emotional blackmail on social media doesn't help. I saw a poster in another thread earlier suggest that schools should be closed as kids are infecting Granny. The only solution is to keep them away from Granny. Closing schools would still see the kids infect Granny and there are lots of other places where the kids could pick it up, and they are going to be in those places if not in school.

ShineOn7

DaSilva wrote: »

From last two:


Difference between "notified in Ireland up to midnight 17/10/2020" and "notified in Ireland up to midnight 18/10/2020"

65-74: 2
75-84: 7
85+: 5

Thanks Da Silva



So these are from upto Sunday at midnight?

milli milli

During the bad days of the pandemic, they would show names & pictures of the people who died before the 6pm news.
What struck me was that a small but noticeable percentage was of people under 60.
Still it was very sad to see these people, regardless of age, losing their lives. I actually had to stop watching this as these were the faces behind the numbers, someone’s parent, much loved grandparent, companion, etc, etc. I just thought of all the grieving families and found it upsetting to be honest.

Anyway apart from all that, even if the deaths are weighted toward the older age of the scale, and most people (outside of elders and medically vulnerable) feel it won’t really affect them, there is a game of Russian roulette to be played with the chance of Long Covid.
It’s not a game I’d have any desire to play nor would want any loved one (or anyone in general) to risk. There are varying percentages of Covid cases that develop into Long Covid from different sources but it still seems fairly significant.

So instead of dissecting death demographics, there are other things to consider too.


https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/long-haulers-covid-19-recognition-support-groups-symptoms/615382/

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1234814

ShineOn7

milli milli wrote: »

During the bad days of the pandemic, they would show names & pictures of the people who died before the 6pm news.

On the Irish news?

I don't remember that

ShineOn7

Laura on Reddit Ireland (she's spot on with data every time)

60 deaths so far in October, 24 of which were in nursing homes

Zebra3

Ficheall wrote: »

Which of those deaths would you have a plan to prevent?

All the road deaths.

Remove all vehicles from the road.

Problem solved.

Or do those lives not count?

ShineOn7

Zebra3 wrote: »

All the road deaths.

Remove all vehicles from the road.

Problem solved.

Or do those lives not count?

Sweet suffering Jaysus

7 months into a once in a century pandemic and people are still comparing stats to automobile accidents

Zebra3

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Sweet suffering Jaysus

7 months into a once in a century pandemic and people are still comparing stats to automobile accidents

I was asked a question and I answered it.

Problem solved.

We're a few months from a pandemic into a casedemic, but there's still people who have a hierarchy of deaths.

Sweet suffering Jaysus indeed.....

milli milli

Xxxx

ShineOn7 wrote: »

On the Irish news?

I don't remember that

During the bad days of the pandemic, they would show names & pictures of the people who died beforethe 6pm news.

milli milli

milli milli wrote: »

Xxxx

Please ignore the Xxxx - the post above wouldn’t allow me to quote another post, so I added some letters. And then was unable to edit out the Xxxx

JustAThought

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Out of 5 million people? :rolleyes:

Whatever about them not providing underlying conditions, the ages should 100% be given to us without having to dig deep into the HSPC site

There is a hidden policy of NOT testing deaths that were ‘expected’ in nursing homes. No doubt the figures should be much higher in that bracket - they are being casually suppressed and disguised.

They are also not doing PM covid deaths so if you doe inna car crash due to exhaustion or in a farming accident due to collapsing and not being found and had covid it would not be listed as a covid death or covid related.

Atlantic Dawn

JustAThought wrote: »

They are also not doing PM covid deaths so if you doe inna car crash due to exhaustion or in a farming accident due to collapsing and not being found and had covid it would not be listed as a covid death or covid related.

And rightfully so. Someone who crashes their car and dies but had Aids wouldn't have Aids listed as their cause of death.

Pete_Cavan

JustAThought wrote: »

There is a hidden policy of NOT testing deaths that were ‘expected’ in nursing homes. No doubt the figures should be much higher in that bracket - they are being casually suppressed and disguised.

I'd say the opposite is most likely the case, deaths from Covid are being over-reported due to lack of testing. Many days we have deaths denotified and the total deaths reduced, although this largely gets ignored (we haven't had any denotifications for the past two weeks for some reason). I haven't seen any reason given for continuously incorrectly reporting deaths due to Covid after all these months but I can only presume deaths are being put down to Covid until proven otherwise. Wasn't there also stats during the summer showing Covid deaths were being over-represented based on excess deaths?

ShineOn7

JustAThought wrote: »

There is a hidden policy of NOT testing deaths that were ‘expected’ in nursing homes.

Source on this?

This is new to me

I thought the reason our mortality numbers were so high in Wave 1 was because of all those who passed away in Nursing Homes

normanoffside

The indo reporting that at least 24 of the deaths this month are nursing homes.

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/death-rate-is-set-to-climb-as-second-wave-threatens-care-homes-39658189.html

ShineOn7

normanoffside wrote: »

The indo reporting that at least 24 of the deaths this month are nursing homes.

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/death-rate-is-set-to-climb-as-second-wave-threatens-care-homes-39658189.html

I mentioned this yesterday


Laura on Reddit Ireland spot on with stats again

bodhrandude

This was posted on the main Covid thread, which might help explain the ages question in relation to deaths. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries14/

ShineOn7

bodhrandude wrote: »

This was posted on the main Covid thread, which might help explain the ages question in relation to deaths. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries14/

That's a great link BD, thanks. It's much clearer than the Chinese Algebra of other government websites

I've a few bits on today so I'll have a full read of it later

But this is the first part jumping out

Underlying Conditions

There have been 1,531 deaths of people with underlying conditions from 14,938 confirmed cases with underlying conditions. The median age of those dying with underlying conditions is 83.


There were 1,417 deaths of people with underlying conditions in the over 65 age group. Of the 129 deaths in the 25-64 age group, 112 had underlying conditions.

Before we get too optimistic, the confusing part comes in is what exactly they're counting as an underlying condition

Some countries are counting mild asthma and high blood pressure as you having an underlying condition and some aren't. Where does Ireland stand with this?

These are the questions journalists should be asking at the briefings, as opposed to queries about weddings and Zoom quizzes