I co-authored it and we published in Mar, which seems a lifetime ago
2/11
Although the no. of deaths registered this year will be similar to 1918, the population is much different – bigger and older
The country is totally different too. Better sanitation & living conditions, antibiotics & universal healthcare, welfare support etc etc
3/11
For example, at the start of the 20th century, 14% of babies born did not survive beyond their first birthday
We clearly don’t want to return to those times, so how best to contextualise the numbers of deaths we’re currently experiencing?
4/11
Crude mortality rates (deaths/popn) are one measure. But the population structure (e.g. by age) changes over time, so better to use age-standardised mortality rates
We regularly produce these and will do so for 2020 as a whole once all the data is with us and fully assured
5/11
Mortality rates have improved hugely over time, although in the last 10 yrs long-term improvements started to slow down and even reverse in more deprived areas
There will be a significant jump in mortality rates this year. Potentially 10-15% higher
6/11
But how to account for all the other changes to our society and the way we live (eg. less smoking) etc?
Very difficult to do. The best proxy is to look at what’s happening in light of the most recent context. That’s why we consider excess deaths in terms of the last 5 yrs
7/11
So, E&W is likely to have c.70k excess deaths this year
That is likely to see a 10-15% jump in the crude mortality rate compared to the 5-yr avg
But maybe <10% jump in the age-standardised rate, due to the average age of those dying from CV19
8/11
Some may say, “is that all?”
Remember, these are not just numbers. Real people are ill and dying. Family and friends are worrying and grieving
What would we have thought about this at the start of the year? Or when we saw what was first happening in Italy?
9/11
In terms of the no’s, such increases in mortality rates would be the equivalent of reversing all the gains of the last 10-20 yrs, depending on which rate is used
Excess deaths this year as a % of population could be at their highest level since 1940 - thx @MattWalls99
10/11
And it’s within the context of the personal and societal measures we’ve taken to limit the spread of CV19
Whatever your views on those, when CV gets out of control the health service has to focus on it, deaths rise, our health and economy suffer
The virus is the enemy
11/11
Finally, apologies - ideally I’d do all the latest sums and cut and paste relevant charts, but I’ve got a thumping headache
You want to avoid Long COVID too ☹️
All data is publicly available and we will publish full annual reports next year. Do read the report in tweet 2
ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have seen the table below being widely shared to falsely imply that deaths are no higher than normal this year
The table is both factually incorrect and misleading
Those who created it deliberately sow confusion and doubt
1/6
Firstly, a common approach used to manipulate statistics is the selective use of dates or time periods
In the table you can see that previous complete years are being compared to a partial year – only going up to week 45 of this year, which ended on 6 Nov
2/6
Secondly, having made it look like official numbers are being used, the wrong number is actually given
There had been 517k deaths registered by 6 Nov this year, not the 485k that are stated in the table
3/6
For both the MSOA and LA maps you can select areas, months, and whether to include all deaths that occurred or only those where COVID was mentioned on death certs
2/n
London had the highest COVID-related age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) with 137.6 deaths per 100k persons (Mar-May)
This was significantly higher than any other region in Eng and more than a third higher than the region with the next highest rate (the NW)
This was another bank holiday (Mon 25 May) affected week
As a result, we expected to see a reduction in the number of deaths registered. We also hoped to see a drop in the % that deaths remained above the 5-yr weekly average
1/n
There were 9,824 deaths registered, 20% fewer than the week before
This was 1,653 “excess” deaths above the 5-yr weekly average
= 20% above what we’d expect in this week of the year, down from 24% above the week before
2/n
1,822 deaths mentioned COVID on death certificates, 19% of all deaths registered
As in the week before, this was 110% of the number of excess deaths i.e. slightly more
Deaths not mentioning COVID on death certs were slightly below the 5-yr weekly average