What stats have not been undestood, and by whom? Be clear, who are you criticising?
It's a general comment as you well know. There is plenty of evidence throughout social media, on this board and in day to day conversations that stats are not being understood. It was not aimed at any individual. If you want a specific example though then I will use you. You have very clearly and evidently misunderstood the difference between the 2019 data and the 2020 data and that difference is the very reason that I used the 2019 data. It from the ONS itself:
"Bespoke analysis for 2020 Mortality data, for example breakdowns by influenza only, will be available to commission once the annual data has been finalised in 2021."
"Deaths where both were mentioned have been counted in both categories."
In other words, the data you are using in your post conflates influenza and pneumonia. The 2019 figures are for influenza only. There is also still double counting in the 2020 data (COVID deaths very often involve pneumonia and so they are also counted in the flu/pn stats thereby artificially inflating the figures).
But even using the stat you wanted to use in the way you advocated using it, the very clear point I made is still valid and still supported i.e. that this is a serious illness and shouldn't be downplayed in the way that it is being on this thread and elsewhere.
Your accusation that using that stat in that way was misleading is therefore very clearly and plainly wrong. I would stop doubling down on this point if I were you.
This is a terrible comparison for multiple reasons. Firstly you don't know how many people covid killed. The with and from argument. So how can you justifiably make this comparison? Are you trying to support a bias you had going in to your post? It's a rubbis argument, and you know it.
Lets look at 2020 data for flu and pnuemonia. The number of people in week 1, this week that died with flu was 2,596. The number of people who died from flu was 821. To compare how covid figures are calculated you have to use the with, otherrwise you are comparing apples and oranges.
Further evidence of your misunderstanding.
Firstly, the with and from argument has been repeatedly debunked and dismissed by the medical and scientific community. It is the consequence (by and large) of a delay in statistical reporting (i.e. death certification). When the figures for definitively 'of' COVID come out (usually several weeks later) they are only ever so slightly lower i.e. they are not materially affected.
The only one of us comparing apples with oranges is you given the nature of the 2020 stats versus the 2019 stats. They are, by definition, different stats with different qualifiers. That is precisely why I used the 2019 flu stats, because they are more sophisticated, more accurate and more reliable.
I will repeat the only point that the 2019 statistics were being used to support i.e. my contention that it is wrong to downplay this virus which is happening everywhere at the moment, including on this thread. You confirmed that the 2019 stats were accurate but also wrongly that the 2020 stats were a better comparator. So I provided the 2020 stats too. Guess what? The 2020 conflated stats you prefer *still* support the only point I was making i.e. that it would be wrong to downplay this virus.
So quite what point you think you are making is anyone's guess.
I can point to multiple studies that contradict your asserrtion that this strain could be worse for kids. It's headline grabbing
And this is precisely the point I was making. Pointing to studies a few weeks into a new variant to draw definitive conclusions is plainly silly. The medical and scientific community are telling us it is too early for that. On that basis they urge caution. I am not sure what headlines you think I am grabbing or what is misleading about saying that:
(i) it's too early to be relaxed about Omicron;
(ii) there is general consensus that it looks more transmissible from the early data; and
(iii) that it looks like there might be a risk to chidren,
and that therefore we should be cautious and not dismiss this variant as 'mild' just yet.
Again it's a point clearly made and easily understandable from the very first post.
It clearly is milder, it's not even an argument now. Is it being dismissed because it's milder? I don't know, and I wouldn't be looking to a crappy PM's sisterr for vindication one way or the other.
There isn't anything clear about it. Frontline doctors aren't happy with that messaging, it is still too early. But even if you did want to conclude it's milder you have to also conclude that it is more transmissible. So even a smaller percentage of deaths, hospitalisations and complications is applied to a bigger number. That's just maths. So mild is misleading at best and irresponsibly negligent at worst. It also fails to account for the strain not taking it seriously puts on the frontline: teachers, healthcare workers, emergency services.
Your entire post criticises, someone, I have no idea who, you don't say. Then it is peddling some handpicked incomparable data.
It is a general critcism not aimed at anyone in particular which is why I don't refer to anyone specifically. Again that is clear from the post itself. It is a commentary on where we are as a nation.
The handpicked data that you confirmed as accurate before then using your own handpicked and flawed/misunderstood data to, erm, confirm the same point I was making in the original post? That data?
You've had a proper stinker here fella. Put the shovel down.
