He says it's "hard to imagine, let alone measure, the side effects of lockdowns", and kind of proves that by listing lots of deaths that mostly have nothing to do with lockdown.
Claim 1) "28,200 more deaths among diabetics than we'd normally expect".
This is true, but very misleading. Because 23,667 of those "diabetes" deaths actually listed covid as the underlying cause of death!
So most of them definitely aren't lockdown deaths. They're covid deaths!
Also, almost all the excess diabetes deaths that *weren't* listed as being directly caused by covid happened around the first wave peak.
It seems highly unlikely that the first lockdown somehow killed about 500 diabetics a week almost instantly .. but later ones didn't kill any.
Claim 2) "For people with heart disease, it’s 17,100".
Again, technically this is true, but what he's not telling you is that 16,200 of those were people with heart disease who died from covid.
So again, almost all of these are categorically NOT lockdown deaths.
Claim 3) "For dementia and Alzheimer’s, it’s 22,800."
This one's a bit more complex. But the short answer is that there were 27,000 deaths involving dementia and Alzheimer’s where covid was the underlying cause of death.
So non-covid dementia deaths are actually BELOW average!
The long answer is there were some excess dementia deaths in the first wave that weren't attributed to covid.
But since then non-covid dementia deaths have been at or below average, despite months of continuing restrictions on care home visits, which Heneghan cites as a concern.
Also, it's now thought that many of those first wave dementia deaths were actually undiagnosed covid.
There was little or no testing in care homes at the time, and we now know covid symptoms in elderly people can look a lot like dementia.
So far then Carl Heneghan has listed 68,000 excess deaths, but a quick look at the data shows almost 63,000 of those (92%!) listed covid as the underlying cause of death.
As sceptics would put it, they died "with" heart disease, diabetes or dementia, but they died "from" covid.
Given that the article is titled "the hidden death toll of lockdown", you would be forgiven for thinking that the excess deaths he lists are in some way related to lockdown.
But almost all of them were directly caused by covid!
They're NOT lockdown deaths, hidden or otherwise.
Either he doesn't understand the data he's using or he's deliberately misleading readers. Neither is a good look for a professor of Evidence Based Medicine.
He's implying lockdown killed tens of thousands of people. But there's no evidence to support it.
The only area that's not so clear cut is his claim that there's been a "big rise in at-home deaths".
This is true. But it's continued all year largely regardless of the level of lockdown restrictions, and is fairly closely mirrored by below average non-covid deaths in hospital.
It seems likely that due to changes in palliative care and people being unable or unwilling to go to hospital, at least some excess home deaths are people who would otherwise have died in hospital or hospice.
But Heneghan tries to link them to his phony lockdown deaths.
The whole article seems more like random rambling than a coherent argument about how many deaths may have been caused by lockdown measures.
After listing the misleading excess death figures, he has nothing more to say about lockdown, but instead has a jab at Neil Ferguson. 🙄
Casual readers are likely to go away thinking that lockdown has killed tens of thousands of people.
It certainly seems to be the narrative Heneghan and The Spectator are pushing.
But it simply isn't true, and the deaths the article lists are almost all directly caused by covid!
Update: It looks like even Heneghan and the Spectator have realised how wildly misleading the article was, and quietly reworded it today to admit that "most were categorised as Covid deaths". Which somehow still implies maybe they weren't.
Before: After:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The problem is he's a racist crank with no expertise in viruses and a long history of writing nonsense.
His recent output on ResearchGate (which he was repeatedly warned about before the ban) includes articles claiming "vaccines are inherently dangerous" and that the surge in deaths last spring wasn't caused by covid but was "mass homicide by government response".
Before covid he was also a climate change denier.
A 2007 article claimed global warming was a "useful myth" that "deflects attention away from real world issues" such as "power-driven financiers, corporations and their cartels backed by military might".
We now have data from mass testing in schools for the first 4 weeks after they fully reopened on March 8th, up to the end of the spring term.
The results suggest that transmission of the virus *has* increased since schools went back .. but mostly amongst staff.
Starting with nurseries and primary schools, the data initially looks rather alarming, with a huge jump in positivity rates the week after schools reopened.
However...
The data is also broken down by role within the school, and we can see that the government started rolling out free lateral flow tests for support and household bubbles to use at home when schools fully reopened.
These are included in the main school test figures!
The latest graph and interview from @RealJoelSmalley starts by claiming that the response to covid killed more people than covid itself, and ends with a wild theory that vaccination drove the surge in deaths in January!
Needless to say, there's no real evidence to support this.
First he claims that there have been almost 40,000 deaths over the last year due to denial of healthcare.
Many of them over the summer, when there were no excess deaths!
As he says in his podcast interview, "any analysis is worthless if the data that goes in is not good".
And his data is not good.
Instead of using the five year average, he generates a baseline curve that he believes deaths would have followed in 2020 without covid and lockdown.
But this is based purely on deaths in late January / early February, extended out to the whole year!
There are anti-immigrant posts citing Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech and calling an old French novel about immigrants taking over the west "a good approximation of reality".
Sceptics make wild claims about the number of deaths caused by lockdown, but there's no evidence to support them.
The vast majority of excess deaths last year were directly caused by ("from", not "with") covid-19.
So what do ONS and PHE data and academic studies actually show?
Removing covid deaths, you can see more clearly that despite 10 months of varying levels of restrictions, the only time there have been large numbers of non-covid excess deaths was during the first wave.
Mostly elderly care home residents registered as dying from dementia.
We now know that many elderly people suffering from covid experience confusion and delirium, often without a cough or fever.
This is obviously easily mistaken for other, pre-existing conditions.
The same thing is thought to happen with flu each winter.
The latest Test & Trace report is out, covering the week before Christmas.
Cases in London and the South East were soaring, and an outbreak of coronavirus at the Lighthouse Lab in Milton Keynes caused further issues in the testing system as demand for tests rapidly increased.
There was another big increase in testing as demand rose, with increasing numbers of quick but less sensitive Lateral Flow Tests being used to screen asymptomatic people.
In total 2.6 million tests were done. But a higher percentage than last week were positive.
If you separate Lateral Flow (which are ONLY used on asymptomatic people) and PCR (which are used on both symptomatic and asymptomatic people) tests, positivity for PCR is back to the peak last seen at the beginning of November, while positivity for LFTs is rising fast now too.