I didn't make up the first two pretty graphs . They're lifted directly from the ONS link I posted. They're mainly there to add colour to my post. The data will be from the start of the outbreak, for England & Wales. If you're interested in this stuff , then those ONS links and the spreadsheet posted have loads of quality data to work with.
I only made up the shitty spreadsheet screen grab (third pic), please disregard it , as it's not publication quality data. I made it because I wanted to see what the mortality rate was for different age groups, rather than having it rounded for the whole country, which is all the media will ever say (if they mention it at all).
>Did your data show really that around 20% of 55-59 and 60-64 y.o. deaths are from the virus???? because if so it's not great.
Yes, it does show that, but I think you've got a bit of the base rate fallacy going. It's like when they say "DRUG INCREASES RISK OF CANCER BY 50%!" . And you find it means an incredibly rare form of cancer goes from 2 in 10,000,000 to 3 in 10,000,000 .
I cut these graphs off at 13-Mar because nothing happens before then. But yes, normally in England and Wales (pop 55 million) about 250 50-54 year olds are dying week in , week out. Covid bumped that up to 400 or so per week for a few weeks . There are about 4,500,000 people in that age bracket.
I agree, it's not nothing, but it's not huge.
Hello and thanks for the answer, quite informative.
I just would like to pick up on this -
"Yes, it does show that, but I think you've got a bit of the base rate fallacy going. It's like when they say "DRUG INCREASES RISK OF CANCER BY 50%!" . And you find it means an incredibly rare form of cancer goes from 2 in 10,000,000 to 3 in 10,000,000 ."
I disagree, because we're talking overall deaths, not a statistical improbability. So it's not like there was some rare disease in England and Wales which went up from 5 a year to 7 a year, but overall deaths.
So I mean every year there's a share of heart attacks etc. but if an infectious disease adds to the deaths of the overall population then it's doing something.
This being said, I wonder if it means really overall or hospitalised patients...
... and I checked and it's not deaths caused by the virus but "involving the virus".
The overall deaths during some weeks went up 100% compared to last year. I wish they had the average age though. Because as you say, some people were very old and sick.
But if we're talking about deaths "involving" the virus instead of "caused by" the virus it's a big difference.
What is interesting is that checking the first page of the thread, people were being very right about the future of the virus in January. Also I think people are wasting too much time talking about the virus, that's a definite side-effect