But as was pointed out above, you will register excess deaths during a pandemic, but we might well register an exiguity of deaths at some future point, on account of those many with only one or two years left in any case, having lost those additional years all at once on account of the epidemic.

Thats my understanding too. The big way to transmit is where there are a lot of people in a confined space breathing out and in the same air, with little air coming in from outside. Someone breathing through their nose doesnt emit much of the virus, someone breathing through their mouth emits more, someone talking omits more, someone shouting or singing omits even more (have read of several superspreader events which were choirs). The longer you spend in virus contaminated air the more of the virus you breath in. During the summer you tend to be outside more or, if inside, you are more likely to have windows open helping to get fresh air in.

But over what period do you measure it? Annually? Monthly? If annually, a virus that reached its peak in the autumn would appear more deadly than one which peaked in spring and was then followed by a dip in deaths in the autumn.

No, the deaths you describe are part of normal mortality, the excess measures the anomalous mortality caused directly or indirectly by a phenomenon. Saying that some of those people had only limited time to live is almost irrelevant, we are all dying anyway.

The reporting by ONS is weekly, but science measures the excess mortality over the duration of the event. So, it's usually each season/year for the flu, and I guess it will be for the whole duration of this pandemic, but also for the first wave we are experiencing currently.

My only point was a statistical one - let's say that there are 20,000 elderly people would normally die between now and the end of 2021 in any event - should they all die in April/May this year instead because of COVID-19, then that presents (statistically) 20,000 people who will not be dying in the next 18 months - surely that would depress the normal death rate in those coming months (all else being equal and assuming the current epidemic has abated).

This is not like Spanish influenza which targeted healthy young people, in which case the excess deaths were not a temporary blip.

A bit of social darwinism.

Excess mortality has started spiking in Russia too. Preliminary data suggest that their CV19 death toll could be 70% higher than the official number published by the govt.

https://www.ft.com/content/77cd2cba-b0e2-4022-a265-e0a9a7930bda

I just had a look at my Strava cycling stats for this year. The overall distance has not been all that different from last year up to now, but there were a couple of long gaps in March coinciding with me stopping commuting and the weather being terrible. What is most notable is the lack of long rides - no big steps up in the graph, just regular small increases. This time last year I was starting to go out on long weekend rides with a pub lunch stop, whereas this year they have been mostly 7-10 mile rides in an hour or so before or after work. (Last year the end of May was a bit distorted because I did a long-distance ride across Wales over three days.)

Yes, assuming no second wave I would expect there to be fewer deaths than the long term average later in the year. Not only because of sick and elderly people who have died earlier in the year as part of the pandemic, but also, on a more cheerful note, because of the cleaner air and also perhaps because more people have been walking, jogging and cycling.

One positive aspect could be that more people decide to ditch public transport and cycle to work etc. Obviously that isn't possible for everyone, but it is something that local councils are taking seriously, for example by installing temporary cycle lanes etc to encourage more people to avoid public transport.

I'd put a 0 on that %, then double it will be nearer the mark.

Yes, that would make perfect sense. The number of people dying each year follows a shallow sine-wave and it stands to reason that if some of those who would have died during the following year are prematurely killed by Covid-19, then they won't be able to die later in the year as they'll already have died.

There should indeed be a marked dip in death rates - primarily the elderly - later this year as a result (assuming Covid-19 deaths have fallen by then).

Yes, that makes sense.

Would it though? Surely an annual measurement would be the same as an annual gas bill. The peaks will be smoothed out and annualised whenever they occurred.

edit: I see what you are saying above now.

I am aware of some who are absolutely shitting themselves going out in case they get it which on the flipside will only add to problems as well. Seems the SD and hygiene are the best and only defences we have at the moment.

Other things i would throw in are that some people are likely to be left in a weakened state following the coronavirus and so be killed off by the next bug that comes along or through one or more of their organs failing early, ie 'they never really got over the coronavirus.' We may well see a rise in the number of people dying from health problems where the treatment was put on hold to some extent because of the coronavirus or people have symptoms of health problems but did not get them checked out because coronavirus put them off going to hospital.

Then again, assuming that we are still socially distancing in the autumn, then maybe other bugs will not spread as quickly. For instance, seasonal flu might not spread as quickly come autumn resulting a lower death toll from that.

"People are not allowed to visit the homes of friends and family – unless it is for care and medical reasons"

Do we assume by that they mean "enter" homes. I mean door step drop offs to nearby family members are no more a risk than any other delivery or the allowable meeting of an outside family member in a park or playing golf, surely?

Just guessing but I wonder if transmission from infected surfaces is less of a worry than first thought? Perhaps transmission is mostly though more direct means such as been coughed on or in a small space with others shedding the virus?

If surfaces were a major part of transmission it's difficult to see how people in the same household could avoid it but anecdotal evidence as well as some studies show that transmission within households is not as high as expected. 

Apparently the government are sending these out at random. Shame they're still not doing antibody tests, this far into the pandemic they're a must IMO...

​

Union warns it will 'stop trains' after crowds on first day of eased lockdown

Quote

 

The government has been warned that rail services may have to be stopped to protect workers and passengers, following crowded scenes on some public transport routes on the first day of England's new lockdown rules. While plenty of services up and down the country remained eerily quiet due to the ongoing threat of coronavirus, some buses and trains were packed with people heading back to work on Wednesday.

Mick Cash, general secretary of the RMT transport union, told Sky News that public transport workers were worried about the crowding and that services may need to be stopped "to keep people safe".

Speaking to the Kay Burley@Breakfast programme, Mr Cash said: "We've been running train and bus services throughout this crisis and have been facing problems with much-reduced services. "Our members have been very worried about how passengers are congregating on the trains and the buses and the impact that this is going to have." He said strike action may be necessary to "protect workers and passengers", and that staff should "refuse to work" if they don't feel safe.

"If that's what needs to be to keep people safe, then we will stop trains," he added.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-union-warns-it-will-stop-trains-after-crowds-on-first-day-of-eased-lockdown-11987412

​