In the Times yesterday:
This last question should be relatively easy to answer. In a little-noticed commentary last week, Professor David Spiegelhalter, the authority on medical risk, repeated the fact that Scottish death rate was worse than England’s. This despite Sturgeon’s precautionary principles, her mask mandates, her extended lockdowns and the draconian penalties for breaches of social distancing.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5b0b39a-7bef-11ee-8622-c717cb07544d?shareToken=af1067d0f4e29813156db1de4f3fcefa
The facts from the ONS:
As of 31 August 2023, there have been 193 870 deaths in England with Covid 19 on the death certificate.
In Scotland, there were 17 751.
All things being equal and with a tenth of the population, Scotland might have been expected to have had around 19 387, nearly 2 000 more.
Why the Scottish deaths may have been overstated compared to those in England:
From: stewartb in 2020:
Headlined by BBC UK: ‘Figures released in the last hour in Scotland suggest more people have died after contracting …
Reading more from the National Records of Scotland (NRS) about death statistics.
Source:
“… figures for a particular cause of death can be produced on THREE BASES:
• ‘UNDERLYING CAUSE’ – cases where it was the disease or injury which initiated the chain of morbid events leading directly to death, or was the accident/act which produced the fatal injury;
• ‘CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR’’ – cases where it was not the underlying cause of death, but it did contribute to the occurrence of the death – e.g. it did not cause the death, but may have hastened its occurrence;
• ‘ANY MENTION’ – i.e. whether it appeared to be the underlying cause of the death, or was just a factor which contributed to, or may have hastened, the occurrence of the death.”
The same source adds : “Figures are normally provided on the basis of the ‘underlying cause’. Every death has just one ‘underlying cause’ code, and so is counted only once in figures which are produced on the ‘underlying cause’ basis.”
“A death may have several other causes coded as contributory factors, so could be counted several times in figures which are produced on the ‘contributory factor’ or ‘any mention’ bases. For that reason, figures are normally provided on the basis of the ‘underlying cause’.”
However, NRS is currently reporting the number of deaths where Coronavirus has been ‘MENTIONED’ in death registration certificates.
“Between 30th March to 5th April, 282 deaths relating to COVID-19 have been registered”. And for context: “… the total number of deaths registered in Scotland from 30th March to 5th April was 1,741. The average number of deaths registered in the same week over the last five years was 1,098.”
The NRS Director of Statistical Services explains: “We have produced these statistics based on deaths involving COVID-19, so this includes any deaths where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate, whether it is the underlying cause of death or a contributory cause and includes registered deaths resulting from suspected or probable COVID-19.”
The same source adds: “Using this methodology means that our statistics will differ from the number of deaths released daily by HPS (Health Protection Scotland) which report on deaths with an associated positive test for COVID-19, and it is expected that NRS statistics will show a higher number of deaths. This is because NRS figures report on deaths involving confirmed and also suspected or probable cases of COVID-19.”
So perhaps ‘accuracy’, as a strict statistical term, should be used with caution. This may be a more appropriate characterisation: the NRS data provide a better representation of the overall impact on mortality of the virus. However, the partitioning between ‘underlying cause’ and ‘contributory factor’ is still to be made public as far as I can see.
Also, we will in time no doubt learn about ‘excess mortality’ i.e. a significant number of deaths reported OVER THAT EXPECTED for a given point in the year based on historical patterns.
Why England’s excess deaths may have been even higher:
By Sam in June 2020
Nick Stripe is Head of Health Analysis and Life Events Division, Public Policy Analysis @ONS. He has recently analysed excess deaths and concludes that up until May, excess deaths were not accounted for by covid19 appearing on death certificates. The analysis suggests that many, two thirds, of these excess deaths were due to covid19, not diagnosed, in care homes. Excess deaths for other reasons, such as unattended existing serious illnesses, are not yet showing up to any great degree but may later.
“The balance of evidence so far points to undiagnosed COVID in the elderly being the most likely explanation for a majority of excess deaths that did not mention CV on certs This fits: demography, locations, esp where testing was sparse, causes of death & timings of peaks….
…..Dementia increases are so sharp it’s implausible that they are unrelated to COVID They generally affect the very old, they would tend to impact women to a greater extent than men simply due to pop structure. Especially once care home epidemics took hold with ltd testing..
– Most notably, they show v significant increases in deaths due to Dementia & Alzheimer Disease and for deaths due to old age & frailty (“signs, symptoms and ill-defined conditions”) Deaths with these causes account for two thirds of all “non-COVID” excess deaths”
At Progressive Pulse, Professor Sean Danaher provides an update on comparisons across countries of excess deaths using z scores. These standardise data on excess deaths by scaling by the standard deviation of deaths.
Professor Danaher presents the average z scores between weeks 10 to 20.
- England 19.89
- Scotland 7.63
- Wales 7.07
- Northern Ireland 3.31
- Ireland 0.84
“England does extremely badly on this measure, and Wales looks slightly better than Scotland. Northern Ireland does well, but the clear leader using this metric is Ireland. The English figures are more than twice as bad as Scotland and Wales and far worse than NI or IE…
It’s worth noting that outside the main cities of Dublin and Cork the highest numbers of Covid cases in Ireland occurred in the border region, notably in County Cavan, suggesting that Ireland’s figures may include adverse effects of having two different public health regimes with different guidance (e.g., 7 and 14 day isolation periods in NI and IE respectively).
…The z-score for England and some chosen European countries are plotted in Fig. 5. Three of the countries Belgium (BE), Spain (ES) and Italy (IT) have been chosen as they are the worst in the EU. Sweden (SE) because of its controversial “herd immunity” strategy and Norway (NO) as being one of the best in class and a good comparator for Sweden. The average z-scores from Wk10-20 are:
- England 19.89
- Spain 11.9000
- Belgium 11.2700
- Italy 8.5300
- Sweden 6.9000
- Norway 0.1900
Spain and Belgium are more or less tied at 2nd place. England once again is a clear “winner”, approaching a score double the worst in the EU.The contrast between Sweden and Norway is very stark. It seems Sweden is taking a gamble, let’s hope it pays off.”
Finally, Jamie Jenkins, former statistician with ONS, states the current estimate of excess deaths in the UK .”Update: Up to the 05 June 2020, estimate 67,975 excess deaths (above average) related to the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK.”
Scottish journalists are unlikely ever to provide their readers with this kind of information. It is a corrupt system concerned more with propaganda
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
MONEY IS HIS GOD
<
div>AND HE GETS PLENTY OF IT FROM JOHNS
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the guy that was binned by the Herald last year.
I mean just how bad a journalist do you have to be for that to happen. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
There is something DEEPLY unpleasant about the easy disdain sprayed around by Mr McWhirter’s article. If only this journalist had rule the UK, nay the World at the time of the pandemic all would obviously been just fine! However, there may be more reason to call him out than just his tone.
He writes: ‘On March 19 Sturgeon told parliament that SHE DID NOT THINK IT WAS WISE TO GO INTO LOCKDOWN BY CLOSING SCHOOLS and banning large scale events.’ (my emphasis) Candidly the more I read the sentence the less clear its meaning: was closing schools not an feature of lockdown? Is the claiming that on 19 March the FM thought lockdown and/or closing schools was unwise?
Fortunately we can examine the transcript of proceedings in the Chamber of the Scottish Parliament from March 19, 2020. From a quick read I could find nothing in the record of the FM’s statements that day which accord with Mr McWhirter’s claim
However, the transcript of a debate entitled Covid 19 (Education) from 2.02pm onwards would appear to ‘clarify’ Mr McWhirter’s sentence. What follows is from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills (John Swinney):
‘The approach of the Scottish Government to the crisis has been to deliver clear and open communications with members of the public. WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, WE NEED TO SET OUT THE BASIS OF THAT CHANGE, AND WE REACHED THAT POINT YESTERDAY IN RELATION TO OUR SCHOOLS.
‘First, SCIENTIFIC ADVICE NOW HIGHLIGHTS THAT CLOSING SCHOOLS WILL HELP TO SUPPRESS THE SPREAD OF CORONAVIRUS. Secondly, as people follow the advice issued on Monday, it is BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN EDUCATION PROVISION. As a consequence of those two factors, the FIRST MINISTER SET OUT YESTERDAY THAT SCHOOL AND NURSERY CLOSURES FOR PUPILS ARE NOW INEVITABLE.’
And two additional sections from the transcript of the same session. First from Jamie Greene, Tory education spokesperson:
‘Yesterday, the First Minister commented that closing schools and nurseries is arguably one of the most difficult decisions that a Government will ever have to take. To that, I would add that a huge light has been shone on the importance of schools and nurseries and their role in society, especially in these extraordinarily difficult times.
‘I DO NOT ENVY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SOME OF THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT IT HAS HAD TO TAKE TODAY, AND I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY WITH THEM. However, Conservative members COMMIT THEIR FULL SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT ON THE ISSUE. We do that today and we will do that tomorrow and every day in this unprecedented crisis. [Applause.]
And then from Iain Gray, Labour’s education spokesperson:
‘WE SUPPORTED THE CABINET SECRETARY IN THE DIFFICULT DECISION THAT HE TOOK TO KEEP SCHOOLS AND NURSERIES OPEN WHEN MANY THOUGHT THAT THEY SHOULD BE CLOSED. That was right, and WE SUPPORT HIM IN THE EQUALLY DIFFICULT DECISION TO CLOSE THEM NOW THAT IT IS RIGHT TO DO SO. I also echo his tribute to teachers and other school and nursery workers who have kept our education establishments open in difficult times.’
Recall that Mr McWhirter told the readers of The Times: ‘ ‘On March 19 Sturgeon told parliament that SHE DID NOT THINK IT WAS WISE TO GO INTO LOCKDOWN BY CLOSING SCHOOLS and banning large scale events.’ (my emphasis)’ Puzzling!
LikeLiked by 7 people
Not really ‘puzzling’ Stewartb if the editorial imperative of The Times is to portray the performance of the Scottish Government in the worst possible light. Can anyone recall an instance where The Times has praised the performance of the Scottish Gov’t since the SNP came to power? Maybe McWhirter’s alibi will be “I was only obeying orders!”
LikeLiked by 5 people
Judging by that photo of McWhirter , I would not let Suella Braverman see it . She might think him one of those nasty tent-living people whom she wants to demonise . He certainly looks as if he has had a hard night on the tiles !
LikeLike
gblk
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
If you ever need to know why and how the likes of McWhirter has converted to the dark side and too those other Scots who are ‘celebrities’ on TV and who are cheerleaders for the (non) union…..then always remember that old proverb “never bite the hand that feeds you”………..then it makes it easier to understand why they are then obliged to ‘play the Pro UK game’ as demanded by those who PAY them……then principles are very easy to cast aside…..and too all faith and allegiance to one’s OWN country (of birth) when another country controls all of the media and also the ‘entertainment’ business in the state (UK) that you live in…..also known as ‘selling out’
LikeLiked by 1 person
McWhirter was clearly commissioned to divert attention from revelations at the UK Covid Inquiry, but consider his opening salvo – “We’ve had the foul-mouthed WhatsApps, the misogyny and petty score-settling, but what have we actually learnt from the UK Covid inquiry as it staggers on? ”
The answers are chaos and unnecessary deaths, but Iain ignores that simple fact to fulfil his remit of diversion and go after SG.
HIS observations on Spiegelhalter stating a fact, not a recorded statistic, not an official number, but a FACT, is a schoolboy error no expert would make, but McWhirter would and did…
Yet it is in his signoff where he truly demonstrates the attempted disconnect – “The UK Covid inquiry needs to move on from gossip and get serious”
Gossip ? Which Covid Inquiry was McWhirter was watching using which illicit substance ?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Excellent analysis of the stats, but perhaps we should also reflect on another structural factor – that Scotland is not a sovereign nation (obvious I know) and is linked completely to England and the House of Commons. Among the very many consequences of this are
1. the overall spend – and its timing – was determined there and not in Scotland. It is increasingly clear for instance that the Johnson gang considered ‘herd immunity’ as a policy, so no lockdown, no furlough, no “stay at home” and “keep safe”. Perhaps what was happening in France and had happened in Italy frightened them? Anyhow, the decision was not Nicola’s but BoJo’s at a cost also determined (in so far as it was) by Johnson. Nicola got sent the financial consequences
2. but more than that, in terms of policy, England again if not in charge at the very least exercised enormous power. For instance, furlough ended when the Treasury decided. If Wales or Scotland felt another lockdown was warranted it only happened if it was ok with the HoC.
So what? Well, if, through control of funding, have so much practical control over perhaps not policy itself so much as its implementation, then you can hardly wash your hands of involvement in the outcome. To take a very simple analogy – the Scottish Government is often criticised for not doing more about poverty here, but how much is poverty in Scotland the consequence of Welfare decisions taken at Westminster?
LikeLiked by 3 people
TOTALLY off topic, sitting watching State Opening of Parliament. I doubt Walt Disney would put this stuff into his cartoons – unlikely to be believed. In the absence of Huw Edwards, Nicky Campbell has got the gig. He has four talking heads – Chris Smith (BBC), Chris Bryant (Labour) some Tory also called Chris and the SNP’s Kirsty Blackman. In a discussion about the whole thing all the Chrises spoke of history, tradition and how everyone loved it yada yada yada. On turning to Blackman, she responded that while she had no problem with tradition and loved ceremony she was concerned about the cost of it all when many were “worried about how to get to the end of next week” with the bills they had to pay.
The response of Tory Chris was that he was “very disappointed” in “Kirsty’s response, and went back to talking about tradition. Yet, what is that tradition? Much of it is English (ie before 1707). We’re just going through Black Rod getting the door shut in her face. This goes back to just before the English Civil War when Charles 1 sent Black Rod along to arrest a few MPs. Nothing to do with us. Then there’s stuff like the Gentlemen at Arms (Henry 8) Crown of State (which gets carried there in a carriage with the “Cap of Maintenance” – carried on its own stick – and the sword of state first introduced by James 2 England, so again pre 1707).
Given that we are told that the Union was a consensual Union, this whole farago totally undermines that view as practically the whole thing is English in origin, which actually is not what I mind. It’s being lied to that bothers me, because 1707 was clearly a takeover however, it’s dressed up. For instance, this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1705_English_general_election is an interesting read. The last English election was in 1705. It was only dissolved in 1708. As the above link makes clear “The constituencies used in England and Wales were the same throughout the period. In 1707 alone the 45 Scottish members were not elected from the constituencies, but were returned by co-option in a part of the membership of the last Parliament of Scotland elected before the Acts of Union 1707.[” What history shows is that the Enlgish Parliament just carried on as before, co-opting a few Jocks who would have about as much influence as the 59 do just now. As Wiki says, till 1707 it was the English Parliament, but changed its name that year to the Parliament of Great Britain.
Last thing, we are told that today was the full ceremony and I suppose there are reasons for this – Charlie’s first opening in his own right, the need to keep it short given the age and health of his elderly mother. However, given debate in the Tory Party and its focus on promoting “Britishness”, I just wonder how much that was a factor and it being Charles’ first go in his own right was just a convenient excuse.
Last, last thing – the age of many of the main players. Charlie in his middle 70s, John Mcfall who is speaker of house of Lords is 79. It’s not just an elite. It’s an elite of elderly white men
LikeLiked by 2 people