I'm told (by the BBC so it must be true) that so far this month the THIRD biggest cause of death in the UK has been Covid19. After Alzheimers and heart attacks - Deaths from Covid19 is third on the chart.

But can I be sure of this? As I doubted the initial coverage of the Wuhan crisis in January, I suspect media are exaggerating and, worse than that, are wrong.

You see, I suspect if someone with Alzheimers tested positive for Covid 19 - even if the only had a slight cough - and then died from Alzheimers, they will be listed as dying FROM Covid19.

Not Alzheimers.

And the same for heart deaths, cancer deaths, flu deaths, pneumonia deaths, road traffic deaths...

The BBC woman currently reading the news just gave the figures for today's Deaths as only 9 had underlying conditions - no - oops - apologies - all BUT 9 had underlying conditions. It was almost as though she could not bring herself to speak the truth.

Her brain would not allow her tongue to speak the reality.

So around 400 people today died with other, serious illnesses but NINE had Covid19 without other conditions. But they are considered Covid deaths.

Hmm. You can understand why I'm so sceptical, can't you.

Even the BBC puts (in very small print) under its MASSIVE DEATH NUMBERS the qualifier "number of people who died of any cause within 14 days of a positive Covid test". Positive test today, run over by a bus tomorrow, Covid death statistic.

What kind of way is this to responsibly report on the death toll? Seems more intended to scare people with big numbers.

(I don't watch BBC news anymore after being shocked by the scaremongering back in April. This was at a friend's house - he has a bigger TV than me and I could see the small print...!)

C19 "death figures" are no such thing. They are a Frankenstein's Monster bolted together from weekly general excess mortality data, and as widely defined as possible.

PHE gets stats from ONS and has done since March 20. This is PHE's methodology for recognising C19 deaths:

"Measuring excess mortality from all causes, instead of focusing solely on mortality from C19, overcomes the issues of variation in testing and differential coding of cause of death between individuals and over time."

In truth, we can't measure C19 deaths, so cast the net wide among the excess data. They certainly do:

"All acute respiratory infections have been grouped together...rather than reporting influenza and pneaumonia separately..."

And:

"A separate colour is used on the charts to represent the number of deaths where C19 was mentioned on the death certificate. This includes any...where C19 was the underlying cause of death or was mentioned anywhere. This includes confirmed and suspected C19."

Finally, this from The Health Foundation in justifying the reliance on PHE methods, goes close to stating that the results of locking down should be included as "C19 deaths":

"The gap (between France and UK at end April 20)...suggests that France has been more comprehensive in recording C19 deaths. Some...will not be directly due to C19, but may be caused indirectly through pressure on the health care system, or people not accessing care when they need it."

It is a high praise indeed, it seems, in recording "C19 deaths", to include cancer deaths caused by lockdown.

This is what the BBC is reporting as "news": A Frankenstein's Data Monster.

www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/chart...qrIBteBoCYtsQAvD_BwE

You could re-frame it as " We are so utterly crap at following basic safety rules in hospitals that we are infecting large numbers of patients with covid and finishing off the vulnerable ones"

Could a “gossip drought” be one reason for the irresponsible reporting of Covid 19? Though probably intended to be tongue-in-cheek, could there not also be some truth behind a journalist’s recent confessions?

Social distancing means a gossip drought that grows more desperate by the day.

www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/the-d...ht-now-a4571216.html