The ONS responded after tweets by Davis suggesting that the figure 17,371 represented the death toll in people with no other underlying causes. Davis tweeted: “Up to the end of September 2021, the official count of the deaths of people with Covid was 137,133.” He added a freedom of information (FoI) request indicated only 17,371 of those deaths occurred in people with no underlying causes.
The FoI request to the ONS asked for all deaths in which Covid had been given as the sole cause on the death certificate, which is about a tenth of the generally stated toll.
default
James Tucker, an analyst at the ONS, said that to suggest the lower figure “represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading”. It was common for Covid victims to have had a pre-existing health condition, but that did not mean they were at “imminent risk of dying from that condition, or even considered to have reduced life expectancy”, he wrote in a blog.
I apologise in advance for not finding this on the BBC, Daily Mail, and the other absolutely to be trusted & transparently honest, fair and unbiased MSM outlets.
Should you care to watch you'll find a detailed explanation about the ONS/ FOI Cold19 death numbers at about 41 mins into the video. ( You're welcome Haysie ;-) *nod to Max*)
Oh, and before you go all Full Fact on this website again, you might want to watch the start of the video to find out who actually funds these fact checking sites and what the qualifications of the "experts" employed to do the, *cough* "fact checking" are.
I have tried to view it with an open mind. Genuinely. That said, it is important to recognise that viewing something with an open mind is difficult. However hard we try, we are always, at least to some extent, guided by our preconceptions due to past experience.
So, for example, Alan has previous positive experiences of "Dr" Campbell, and is therefore predisposed to believe what he says. And, equally, I am predisposed to think this man, at least as far as Covid is concerned, talks out of his backside.
Let's see if you agree with some of the things he says in that "data driven" video.
1. He says that, in his opinion, the ONS are the best source for data. "We have done nothing but praise them." He does not mention that the ONS stated, in response to the previous video, that "to suggest that [the 17,000] figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading". So-which is it? Best source? Or not?
2. His previous video banged on and on about deaths being over-reported, while using this 17,000 figure. The bit about 4:50 in this video. Where he tries to claim that he had always made it clear that he believes the most accurate figure is "excess deaths" (10:24). That would be c.130,000 excess deaths. Not the "much lower than the mainstream media have been intimating". Exactly one of the 3 main mainstream media figures. Anyone hear him saying people were misconstruing his figures? Thought not.
3. He still gets confused about comorbidities prior to catching Covid, and comorbidities on a death Cert, which is prior to death. They are not the same thing.
4. the "used as a weapon" bit. (About 11.00). No-he is arguing from the wrong position. The BBC are not stating that he is using it as a weapon. It is saying that his words are being used in this way. Which they are.
5. "The BBC have not contacted me". The BBC are going to be in the best position to know if they have tried to contact him. Not him. Just like he is in the best position to know of he has received it. In any event, he is aware that they have tried to contact him. He has discussed it with others. So-in what sense has he not been contacted by the BBC in relation to this?
6. The bit about the Pope. Talking in detail about the need for placing individual facts in a broader picture. While at the same time trying to ignore the furore caused by him quoting misleading data. How difficult would it be to say something like "I believe the accurate figure is c.130,000 deaths. The 17,000 is not accurate. Here is why the ONS say the 17,000 is misleading."
Thanks for the detailed reply @Essexphil . Some points we will not agree on, some we will. I do try to keep an open mind on things. I just think sometimes folks are too quick to judge without looking a bit further behind the point (s) being made.
Anyway, whatever our views are....I will always have time for a pint with you at any SPT we might attend. As long as we dont talk politics, convid...or footy
Thanks for the detailed reply @Essexphil . Some points we will not agree on, some we will. I do try to keep an open mind on things. I just think sometimes folks are too quick to judge without looking a bit further behind the point (s) being made.
Anyway, whatever our views are....I will always have time for a pint with you at any SPT we might attend. As long as we dont talk politics, convid...or footy
I think it should be a rule that, where alcohol and enjoyment is concerned, Covid should be added to Religion and Politics as automatic red cards
Hope to see you soon at an SPT. Think it is my round-you can quote me on that
I have tried to view it with an open mind. Genuinely. That said, it is important to recognise that viewing something with an open mind is difficult. However hard we try, we are always, at least to some extent, guided by our preconceptions due to past experience.
So, for example, Alan has previous positive experiences of "Dr" Campbell, and is therefore predisposed to believe what he says. And, equally, I am predisposed to think this man, at least as far as Covid is concerned, talks out of his backside.
Let's see if you agree with some of the things he says in that "data driven" video.
1. He says that, in his opinion, the ONS are the best source for data. "We have done nothing but praise them." He does not mention that the ONS stated, in response to the previous video, that "to suggest that [the 17,000] figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading". So-which is it? Best source? Or not?
2. His previous video banged on and on about deaths being over-reported, while using this 17,000 figure. The bit about 4:50 in this video. Where he tries to claim that he had always made it clear that he believes the most accurate figure is "excess deaths" (10:24). That would be c.130,000 excess deaths. Not the "much lower than the mainstream media have been intimating". Exactly one of the 3 main mainstream media figures. Anyone hear him saying people were misconstruing his figures? Thought not.
3. He still gets confused about comorbidities prior to catching Covid, and comorbidities on a death Cert, which is prior to death. They are not the same thing.
4. the "used as a weapon" bit. (About 11.00). No-he is arguing from the wrong position. The BBC are not stating that he is using it as a weapon. It is saying that his words are being used in this way. Which they are.
5. "The BBC have not contacted me". The BBC are going to be in the best position to know if they have tried to contact him. Not him. Just like he is in the best position to know of he has received it. In any event, he is aware that they have tried to contact him. He has discussed it with others. So-in what sense has he not been contacted by the BBC in relation to this?
6. The bit about the Pope. Talking in detail about the need for placing individual facts in a broader picture. While at the same time trying to ignore the furore caused by him quoting misleading data. How difficult would it be to say something like "I believe the accurate figure is c.130,000 deaths. The 17,000 is not accurate. Here is why the ONS say the 17,000 is misleading."
Rather than continuing to try and mislead.
I dont pretend to be that clever, but I dont understand the purpose of either video, unless they were to convince viewers that there were only 17,000 covid deaths. I suffer from type 2 diabetes, and have done for 10, or 12 years. As far as I am aware, it is not going to kill me anytime soon. Touch wood. If I had been admitted to hospital after being tested positive for covid, and subsequently died. It would be far more likely that covid had killed me than anything else. Yet my diabetes may well have been referenced on my Death Certificate. We all know that the majority of early deaths from covid related to old people. He points out in the video a couple of times that the average age of those that had died was 81.5 years old. What are the chances of reaching that age, and still being as fit as a butchers dog? It is surely much more likely that someone of that age will have one or more medical conditions, that will be referenced on their Death Certificate.
I am at a loss, There was a fair bit of debate surrounding the first video you posted on this thread. Yet you havent seen fit to defend your hero. You just disappeared for a bit. Phil just said the latest video was misleading. Why arent you defending the guy?
I find it strange that you would post a video, bill it as a revelation, and then, despite the fact that the majority of the posts that followed, criticised your revelation, you have not made the slightest attempt to defend your chap. You have not argued with a single post that criticised him. Not one. Why is that?
To get people to debate and think critically was the point of the post. That's been sadly lacking for two years+. Job done.
No heroes. That's one of my personal rules. But Richard Feynman comes close he seems to be full of joy, curiosity and in awe of being "alive", too much XTC if you ask me. ;-)
Comments
The FoI request to the ONS asked for all deaths in which Covid had been given as the sole cause on the death certificate, which is about a tenth of the generally stated toll.
default
James Tucker, an analyst at the ONS, said that to suggest the lower figure “represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading”. It was common for Covid victims to have had a pre-existing health condition, but that did not mean they were at “imminent risk of dying from that condition, or even considered to have reduced life expectancy”, he wrote in a blog.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/ons-debunks-spurious-covid-deaths-132200462.html
Ok.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-28th-january-2022
Should you care to watch you'll find a detailed explanation about the ONS/ FOI Cold19 death numbers at about 41 mins into the video. ( You're welcome Haysie ;-) *nod to Max*)
Oh, and before you go all Full Fact on this website again, you might want to watch the start of the video to find out who actually funds these fact checking sites and what the qualifications of the "experts" employed to do the, *cough* "fact checking" are.
ok.
Billed as a revelation.
I dont think so.
I have tried to view it with an open mind. Genuinely. That said, it is important to recognise that viewing something with an open mind is difficult. However hard we try, we are always, at least to some extent, guided by our preconceptions due to past experience.
So, for example, Alan has previous positive experiences of "Dr" Campbell, and is therefore predisposed to believe what he says. And, equally, I am predisposed to think this man, at least as far as Covid is concerned, talks out of his backside.
Let's see if you agree with some of the things he says in that "data driven" video.
1. He says that, in his opinion, the ONS are the best source for data. "We have done nothing but praise them." He does not mention that the ONS stated, in response to the previous video, that "to suggest that [the 17,000] figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading". So-which is it? Best source? Or not?
2. His previous video banged on and on about deaths being over-reported, while using this 17,000 figure. The bit about 4:50 in this video. Where he tries to claim that he had always made it clear that he believes the most accurate figure is "excess deaths" (10:24). That would be c.130,000 excess deaths. Not the "much lower than the mainstream media have been intimating". Exactly one of the 3 main mainstream media figures. Anyone hear him saying people were misconstruing his figures? Thought not.
3. He still gets confused about comorbidities prior to catching Covid, and comorbidities on a death Cert, which is prior to death. They are not the same thing.
4. the "used as a weapon" bit. (About 11.00). No-he is arguing from the wrong position. The BBC are not stating that he is using it as a weapon. It is saying that his words are being used in this way. Which they are.
5. "The BBC have not contacted me". The BBC are going to be in the best position to know if they have tried to contact him. Not him. Just like he is in the best position to know of he has received it. In any event, he is aware that they have tried to contact him. He has discussed it with others. So-in what sense has he not been contacted by the BBC in relation to this?
6. The bit about the Pope. Talking in detail about the need for placing individual facts in a broader picture. While at the same time trying to ignore the furore caused by him quoting misleading data. How difficult would it be to say something like "I believe the accurate figure is c.130,000 deaths. The 17,000 is not accurate. Here is why the ONS say the 17,000 is misleading."
Rather than continuing to try and mislead.
Anyway, whatever our views are....I will always have time for a pint with you at any SPT we might attend. As long as we dont talk politics, convid...or footy
Hope to see you soon at an SPT. Think it is my round-you can quote me on that
I suffer from type 2 diabetes, and have done for 10, or 12 years.
As far as I am aware, it is not going to kill me anytime soon.
Touch wood.
If I had been admitted to hospital after being tested positive for covid, and subsequently died.
It would be far more likely that covid had killed me than anything else.
Yet my diabetes may well have been referenced on my Death Certificate.
We all know that the majority of early deaths from covid related to old people.
He points out in the video a couple of times that the average age of those that had died was 81.5 years old.
What are the chances of reaching that age, and still being as fit as a butchers dog?
It is surely much more likely that someone of that age will have one or more medical conditions, that will be referenced on their Death Certificate.
There was a fair bit of debate surrounding the first video you posted on this thread.
Yet you havent seen fit to defend your hero.
You just disappeared for a bit.
Phil just said the latest video was misleading.
Why arent you defending the guy?
You have not argued with a single post that criticised him.
Not one.
Why is that?
To get people to debate and think critically was the point of the post. That's been sadly lacking for two years+. Job done.
No heroes. That's one of my personal rules. But Richard Feynman comes close he seems to be full of joy, curiosity and in awe of being "alive", too much XTC if you ask me. ;-)
Wasn't playing poker much recently either.
The complete FUN TO IMAGINE with Richard Feynman
enjoy!