主题：【原创】【商榷】上海的防疫，具体问题要具体分析 -- 孟词宗

这3个数字就从来没对上过。英国政府数据永远比一夜情小一大截。

个人认为一夜情数据相对而言可靠性最高，一夜情（国家统计局）负责统计生老病死，其数据是根据死亡证明统计而来，所以要比小金毛的政府可靠很多。链接可以看我之前的帖子。

按照我从21年7月开始在一夜情抓取的英格兰和威尔士数据存档，死亡证书上新冠死亡的数字如下：（我顺便把统计条件也贴出来）

2020年

80830人

Footnotes:

1 Coding of deaths by cause for the latest week is not yet complete.

2 For deaths registered from 1st January 2020, cause of death is coded to the ICD-10 classification using MUSE 5.5 software. Previous years were coded to IRIS 4.2.3, further information about the change in software is available.

3 Deaths involving COVID-19 have been included within weekly death registrations figures due to the pandemic.

4 Does not include deaths where age is either missing or not yet fully coded. For this reason counts of 'Persons', 'Males' and 'Females' may not sum to 'Total Deaths, all ages'.

5 Does not include deaths of those resident outside England and Wales or those records where the place of residence is either missing or not yet fully coded. For this reason counts for "Deaths by Region of usual residence" may not sum to "Total deaths, all ages".

6 These figures represent death registrations, there can be a delay between the date a death occurred and the date a death was registered. More information can be found in our impact of registration delays release.

7 Figures in this table are added for the current week; data for previous weeks are not updated each week.

2021年

76094人

Footnotes:

1 Coding of deaths by cause for the latest week is not yet complete.

2 For deaths registered from 1st January 2020, cause of death is coded to the ICD-10 classification using MUSE 5.5 software. Previous years were coded to IRIS 4.2.3, further information about the change in software is available.

3 Deaths involving COVID-19 have been included within weekly death registrations figures due to the pandemic.

4 Does not include deaths where age is either missing or not yet fully coded. For this reason counts of 'Persons', 'Males' and 'Females' may not sum to 'Total Deaths, all ages'.

5 Does not include deaths of those resident outside England and Wales or those records where the place of residence is either missing or not yet fully coded. For this reason counts for "Deaths by Region of usual residence" may not sum to "Total deaths, all ages".

6 These figures represent death registrations, there can be a delay between the date a death occurred and the date a death was registered. More information can be found in our impact of registration delays release.

7 Figures in this table are added for the current week; data for previous weeks are not updated each week.

8 For breakdowns of deaths registered in 2020 please see Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales 2020 provisional dataset.

9 From week ending 26th February 2021 (week 8) new ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO) have been implemented for deaths involving COVID-19. The new codes are U09.9 (Post-COVID condition, where the acute COVID had ended before the condition immediately causing death occurred) and U10.9 (Multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 (also called Kawasaki-like syndrome), a specific, uncommon effect of COVID-19 in children). These are in addition to the existing codes of U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) and U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified, i.e. COVID-19 stated to be unconfirmed or suspected).

2022年截至wk13也就是22年4月1日

12767人

Weekly provisional figures on death registrations involving COVID-19 in England and Wales by sex and age group, registered 2022

====================

总结一下就是按照一夜情的统计，单纯英格兰和威尔士官方认可的新冠死亡总数截至2022年4月1日是是80830+76094+12767=169691人

这里是英国政府的统计

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom

可以选择按照nation下载死亡数据。

Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death

Number of people who died within 28 days of being identified as a COVID-19 case by a positive test. Data from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales use different methodologies, so can’t be directly compared. Data for the last 5 days, highlighted in grey, are incomplete. Data are shown by date of death.

去除22年4月1日之后的数据后汇总如下

英格兰+威尔士

20年共计70341， 一夜情统计的要比英国政府的多出14.9%

21年共计66711， 一夜情统计的要比英国政府的多出14.1%

22年截至4月1日共计16788， 一夜情统计的要比英国政府的要多24%

总数是153840

和一夜情的统计差额是15851人. 也就是一夜情统计的同期数据比英国政府统计的要多10.3%。

======================

但是用同一个网页里Daily deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date of death统计

Daily numbers of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes, and 7-day rolling average. There is a lag in reporting of at least 11 days because the data are based on death registrations. Data are shown by date of death.

按理说这个数据应该就是一夜情所用原始数据，但是也对不上

截至22年4月1日

英格兰+威尔士的总数是172362，而一夜情的是169691.

22年英格兰和威尔士总死亡是12254， 全英是14163.

反正不管怎么统计，英国官方认可新冠死亡人数超17万是铁板钉钉的事情。也就是2年时间，新冠（这里取17万简化计算）造成了总人口（按照7千万算）的0.24%死亡。

22年的Q1 三个月新冠死了总人口（按照7千万算）的0.02%也是大差不差的。这个数据不能直接套到国内去算国内开放后可能的死亡数字，因为英国老年人和身体不好的，在20年和21年差不多都应死尽死了。