Cancer death tsunami: I’m still puzzled

The Herald

For some time, I’ve been reading in Scotland’s MSM of probable increases in cancer deaths due to reduced referral, diagnosis and treatment during the pandemic.

Commonly, these reports have been platforms for opposition parties to attack the Scottish Government’s handling of the pandemic.

Nearly two years since the first measures were introduced, I see again anecdotal evidence used to suggest a crisis of some kind.

I don’t mean to be insensitive, but the data are not there:

Line chart presenting data that shows the age-adjusted cancer mortality rate, or risk of dying from cancer, has decreased over the last decade but the number of deaths due to cancer has increased.
https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/media/10559/2021-11-30-cancer-mortality-report.pdf

Taking account of Scotland’s elderly age profile, meaning that more are living long enough to develop and suffer from a cancer, the rate continues to fall.

I’ve written to several researchers and other medics to ask about this but none have replied.

Am I missing something here?

The Herald

6 thoughts on “Cancer death tsunami: I’m still puzzled

  1. As a general rule, almost any negative directed at the SG, Scotland and management of the pandemic in Scotland can be traced back to England’s media, cancer fears are no different. Just type in ‘ cancer deaths in England covid pandemic ‘ and a whole raft of articles from various sources including the Guardian and the lancet deal with the feared increase in deaths due to late diagnosis during the pandemic. You don’t get any statistical evidence, just fears. So, no your not missing anything.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. John you obviously understand graphs and statistics better than them.
    MSM clearly prefer the numbers which suit their agenda, eg the report mentions that the number of deaths have INCREASED over the decade and age-adjusted reductions are of no interest to their story.
    Lung cancers amount to 23.9% of total deaths and, while reading about the various types, this stuck out for me:

    “The largest decreases in mortality rates for men have been in stomach, lung and bladder cancers (28%, 26% and 16% respectively).
    The reduction in the mortality rate for stomach cancer reflects a decrease in incidence which is thought to be due mainly to a decrease in the prevalence of infection with the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, perhaps as a result of improvements in social conditions and treatment of peptic ulcers by eradicating Helicobacter infection. People infected with Helicobacter pylori have an increased risk of developing stomach cancer.
    The change in mortality rates for lung cancer over the last ten years for males reflects, in large part, historical trends in the prevalence of smoking, which has differed between men and women. These historical trends in smoking prevalence affect cancer incidence rates in the first instance, where the incidence rate has been decreasing for men. In addition, there have been increases in survival in recent years.”

    There are positive comments about other cancers too and generally the reduction in male cancers.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. One particular individual is certainly about to fall from a cancer that has spread like wildfire amongst his colleagues
    What type of cancer may that be
    Answer
    LYING

    Liked by 2 people

  4. 50,000 die in Scotland. Mainly the elderly after a long (and happy?)

    On average 1/2 million people die in the UK a year. Mainly elderly. 79. In the South the average life expectancy is going down. The first time in 40 years. Austerity and the bad management of the pandemic. Westminster unionist policies kill people.

    Highest life expectancy in the world is Japan 85. Diet fish and vegetable. USA 76. (drugs & gun crime?) Spain 84. Mediterranean diet. Women outlive men by 5 years worldwide.

    The countries with the highest drug problem (pro rata). US/UK and Iraq.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. This is a common media trope. An ‘expert’ predicts that some appalling thing MIGHT happen. By this it is meant that there is a finite, but very small, probability of occurrence some time in the future. Of course, in reality such catastrophic outcomes rarely happen, but the media are not interested in probabilities. Simply by having said it MIGHT occur, as far as the media is concerned, it HAS happened, and therefore someone must be blamed.

    However, this only applies to bodies which the media oppose. So, for most of our media, global warming predictions, for example are deemed alarmist. Concerns about cladding on Grenfell Tower we’re ignored, but when the catastrophe occurred the media blamed ….. the London Fire Brigade.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply to Robert Nugent Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.