Mutating Corona Virus

[BazzaS]

9 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

This is probably a question that @BazzaS would know the answer.

 

Is it possible for someone with Covid type symptons to have a negative LFT, but to then go on to have a positive PCR ?

 

The PCR is more sophisticated as far as I understand it, with a greater level of accuracy ?

 

 

 

You absolutely can (have a negative lateral flow test, and a positive PCR).

 

This can also happen when someone is symptomatic, and actually has Covid (the scenario most people would consider first, and what I think you are asking about).

There is a fallacy to that scenario, though : if symptomatic, they shouldn't be using the lateral flow test (which is for SCREENING of the ASYMPTOMATIC), but those people should be going for the higher sensitivity PCR as the initial test.

 

If used 'correctly', (both in terms of 'both samples taken correctly', and 'used for the asymptomatic'!) then it is possible for someone asymptomatic to test negative by lateral flow, and positive by PCR.

There is again an inherent issue to this scenario, though : the testing (for someone asymptomatic, for most situations!) should stop when they have the negative lateral flow test, and they wouldn't need the PCR - so why would they then know the PCR result?

 

An exception here would be e.g. someone traveling internationally, who might get a (self taken) lateral flow test (which comes back negative, with a result within 30 mins), and then a PCR taken at the same time, which takes longer to come back, but then comes back positive ........ presumed then to be the PCR being the more sensitive test, and the 'true picture' (rather than the PCR being a 'false positive'!).

In the academic scenario (or if you were a leading politician, or a titan of business willing to pay for a clearer answer ..... or an answer you prefer if it meant you could travel / not self-isolate!): one could then re-test by a different PCR that uses a different target ... which then gives the suggestion of which is the 'false' test (false negative 'insensitive' lateral flow vs. false +ve PCR!).

 

Where does one stop, though?. All tests have false negative rates and false positive rates, so I can create the possible (but unlikely!) scenario where there is a true negative lateral flow, with one or MORE false positive PCR's. One would tend to 'believe' the PCR's (especially if more than one!), but it would be POSSIBLE (if unlikely!) that the PCR's could all be false positive. As you get more and more positive PCR's using different targets, the likelihood diminishes, though (although this wouldn't affect other sources of error such as sample crossover [what if they tested a sample which was someone else's sample, and was in fact +ve, but it had been labelled as the first person's sample??).

Again, where do you stop? cell culture? (the 'gold standard' by which the PCR and lateral flow test sensitivity and specificity should be measured, but not widely available).

 

None of these are new issue, or specific to COVID, though. The National Blood Transfusion Service has dealt with screening tests (albeit it, not for COVID, but for other infectious diseases) for many years.

Blood samples from donations may test HIV +ve (on screening!), and then there is a whole protocol (different tests on the original sample, repeat testing by the original test methodology whilst going back to the primary sample tube, and getting a completly new sample [to ensure different people's samples haven't been inadvertently 'switched'!] if there are still concerns!) to ensure that :

a) the donor isn't told "you have HIV", when they HAVEN'T but at the same time

b) If the donor does have undiagnosed HIV infection, they get followed up, retested, (and then told!).

 

All this relies on an understanding of test specificity and sensitivity (and of what can go wrong at any point in the testing : pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical !), while appreciating that most people just want a test result and would consider  the report as 'gospel' : "positive means you have it, negative means you don't".........

[BazzaS]

It (as ever!) isn’t that simple, I’m afraid, HB.

 

You mention measles : no real variants, so good (but one can never say ‘lifelong’ as an absolute!) immunity. Yet the coronaviruses can gave different variants / strains (more like ‘flu) so you can get immune to one strain and have only partial protection against others. The coronavirus protection even for one strain isn’t lifelong (so, with evolving strains, too - expect ongoing booster programmes)

 

You mention TB: BCG is  a live (attenuated) vaccine, but never gave 100% (or anywhere close to 100%) protection.

 

As a general rule (there is usually an exception to any rule, and then the exception to the exception!): attenuated vaccines give better protection than killed / sub-unit vaccines.

The “stimulus” to the immune system ‘stays around longer’ than for the killed vaccine, giving both better functional levels, and better immune memory.

 

Hightail : measuring levels is fine, but again, isn’t the whole story. “High levels must be better than lower levels” seems obvious, and is (usually!) correct, but it may be that once a threshold is reached, “higher” doesn’t always mean better protection (though, it may mean “stays above threshold” for longer)

 

There is also the concept of “immunological memory”, so in some situations a lower level but with an immune system “primed” to react better offers more protection. So, there used to be a (near-obsession?) with antibody levels against Hepatitis B for healthcare workers.

Regular (if infrequent!) testing, and ‘boosters’ if the level had waned.

Then they found what mattered was “immunological memory”, and it didn’t matter if the level had dropped as long as the immune system responded well to a challenge: so they stopped doing regular testing for levels, just giving boosters if the worker had an exposure risk event.

 

To add to the mix : “high antibody levels” must be better, right?. It seems obvious, yet initially there was the the theoretical concern of ADE : antibody dependant enhancement, where some antibodies can actually cause increased binding of the virus to a receptor - increasing infection risk. Fortunately not the case for the Covid vaccines, though this had to be shown not to be the case before work progressed on candidate vaccines.

 

[BazzaS]

1 hour ago, hightail said:

This is the current argument against vaccinating children -  you might kill the odd one with the vaccine and so far the risk of serious illness in children doesn't warrant that risk.

The best (current!) reason for not vaccinating children in the U.K. in public health terms (assuming maximal U.K. adult vaccination)  is that those doses of vaccine will do more good (for the U.K., let alone abroad!) being used for adults in the developing world.

Less cases there, especially in the immunocompromised, less variant development, less imported variants, less U.K. cases.

[BazzaS]

22 hours ago, snowdragon said:

  ahve go for an echo-cardigraph  when I make appointment as my Doctor  found I have a heart murmer ! Never been picked up on ECG 

 

Talking in general terms (especially as I don;t know the details of the type of murmur they've found, nor do I need to know to explain about the lack of correlation between ECG and murmur!)

 

Murmurs are related to flow (uneven / turbulent flow -> noise made).

Many are innocent and get found incidentally.

 

Echo-cardiography looks at flow, (using ultrasound and the 'doppler effect') so they'll (hopefully!) 'see' why there is a murmur (I say 'see', but the device 'hears' but converts that into a false colour picture, red and blue, of the flows).

 

ECG's (electro- rather than echo-cardiography) instead looks at the electrical signal associated with making the heart pump.

 

Someone can have an abnormal ECG with no murmur (the electrical signal is disordered, but the flow itself isn't turbulent enough to give even a slight murmur). There are LOTS of people walking around with AF (atrial fibrillation, a very common ECG abnormality) and no discernible murmur.

 

Someone can have a murmur (abnormal flow, indicative of a problem, or 'innocent' and merely an incidental finding), but a normal ECG.

So, never having anything picked up on an ECG doesn't rule in or rule out a murmur.

 

(For sake of completeness, and not suggesting this is the situation in your case!), a structural problem giving rise to a murmur can be significant enough to affect the electrical conduction, so a murmur and an abnormal ECG can be related. Equally, just because someone has a murmur and if they also have an abnormal ECG doesn't mean they are related ...... the ECG abnormality (or the murmur!) could have been there first, and they aren't related.

 

So, one might influence the other, but it is nowhere close to being 'causal link'.

 

So, expect an ECG (if you haven't had one recently) and the echo-cardiography - almost always a 'trans-thoracic echo' (TTE) to start.

Trans-thoracic: they look (using the ultrasound head) from the outside of your chest ; like an ultrasound in pregnancy, except from the chest rather than belly!

 

This gives a good enough view much of the time. Only if they don't get a good enough view (or for some specific conditions where the TTE doesn't give enough detail to rule them in or out) do they then need to consider a trans-oesophageal echo (TOE) - most of the time (for a murmur discovered incidentally, and not found when looking for a specific problem) the TTE is good enough.

 

You may get your answer the same day, or they might want the tapes of the echo reviewed by a cardiologist ; not getting your answer the same day doesn't mean there is a problem.

 

[BazzaS]

On 06/08/2021 at 13:05, unclebulgaria67 said:

COVID-19: Delta infections produce similar virus levels regardless of vaccination status, suggests early analysis

NEWS.SKY.COM

---

Coronavirus levels in people with the Delta variant are similar regardless of whether they've been vaccinated - and it "may have implications for...

 

That is half the story, though, UB.

 

IF infected, similar levels.

True, but if you are less likely to get infected if fully vaccinated.

 

So, vaccines still good, but Delta variant gives similar levels with breakthrough infections.

[BazzaS]

37 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Come on UB as far as PCR  Test at 40 cycles is concerned a cold IS covid.

And the UB asked if there were more common colds, would there be more “positive” covid tests.

 

It depends.

It depends on what you mean by “positive test”!

 

People want perfect tests: no false positive, no false negatives, so 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with resulting 100% “predictive values” (both pos and neg predictive values).

 

but those tests only exist in theory, not in practice.

 

As the number of tests change, the sensitivity and specificity don’t: they are a function of the test, not of the number of tests.

 

However, the positive and negative predictive values change with the prevalence of the condition.

more tests for whatever reason:  more false positives : in direct relation to the number of tests, as the sensitivity and specificity hasn’t changed.

 

But, with a falling prevalence of covid : the same number of “more tests” (due to more colds that aren’t covid), the same number of false positives still, but the number of true positives falls, so the positive predictive value of the test falls ……..

 

(and PPV and NPV are what matter to the individual : “what does my test result mean to me”, whereas sensitivity and specificity matter more to the scientists and statisticians…..)

 

 

As for “cycle time” : the lower the cycle time the more of the “target sequence” was present.

 

A high cycle time can mean a false positive (the “target sequence” was never really present, but got created during the process as an incidental effect of doing the PCR, and then gets “amplified” to the level of detection, so “signals positive” late in the process)

 

For targets where the organism can colonise, a late CT can reflect colonisation.

As an example : Almost all of us have our “respiratory tree” colonised with Pneumocystis jiroveci (what used to be called Pneumocystis carinii, the bug that causes Pneumocystis pneumonia in the immunocompromised). It isn’t causing an infection, it is just residing there minding its own business.

 

So, if I said “hey, do a bronchoscopy on me for fun, and send lots of PCP PCR’s!” : I’d expect them eventually to get a result that was positive, with a high cycle time.

”Positive test” but doesn’t indicate disease.

 

So, all tests should be interpreted in the light of their PPV / NPV, the “cycle time” (where relevant), if the organism can colonise, and the “pre-test probability” of the test.

[BazzaS]

I agree with UB that there is a rationale to business telling staff with respiratory diseases to stay home even with a negative Covid test.

 

1) unlikely it’s a false negative covid test (there are much better targets than the initial “ref.,lab. only, PCR), but there still can be false negatives

2) even if it isn’t Covid, you don’t want people with symptoms in spreading it to others, who will then need to get Covid tested and isolate, as when they get symptoms the “could this be Covid” cycle restarts anew for someone else.

Edited September 24, 2021 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

Who gets it, and for what severity of illness, though.

 

”Trial results suggest molnupiravir needs to be taken early after symptoms develop to have an effect. An earlier study in patients who had already been hospitalised with severe Covid was halted after disappointing results.”

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58764440

 

 

[BazzaS]

TJ : how does the brown seaweed’s “sulphated long chain polysaccharides”

a) get from your GI tract (since you are taking them as capsules) to the site where they protect you? And

b) which site is that (that they protect you at)

[BazzaS]

Yes, but activity in cell culture is not the same as activity in the human.

spraying a substance in the nose isn’t the same as swallowing tablets / capsules.

 

One of the papers you refer to (in your lack of understanding) highlights these substances as alike to heparin / fractionated heparins.

 

This highlights your lack of understanding as heparin can’t be taken by mouth (like the capsules you take) and have any effect. Heparin has to be injected.

This is why heparin is given by injection (and when anti-coagulation has to be continued longer term people get swapped to warfarin).

Warfarin (a very different molecule and working by a completely different mechanism) can work being taken by mouth, heparin can’t.

 

of course I could produce papers showing bleach has activity against a wide range of pathogens. Most sensible, sane people won’t suggest injection or ingestion of bleach (although one [now ex-] President of the USA showed how ignorant they were by asking how it could be used!)

 

So, I ask again as it shows you seem to quote papers as if you understand them:

 

TJ : how does the brown seaweed’s “sulphated long chain polysaccharides”

a) get from your GI tract (since you are taking them as capsules) to the site where they protect you? And

b) which site is that (that they protect you at)

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

Heparin!

 

Seaweed!!!

 

Snake Oil!!!

 

(TJ quoting random videos and research papers cited apparently without understanding that these are cell culture studies ……, not clinical efficacy studies!)

 

TJ :  Where is the heparin needed? In the nose? The blood? The lung??

 

How are you suggesting you get the heparin there, and (if in blood) what APTTR of heparin is needed for an anti-Covid effect?

 

Given severe covid disrupts the normal clotting (with both localised micro thrombi and wider impaired clotting), are you sure systemic heparin treatment offers an overall survival benefit (or even any treatment benefit)?

Hint; patients on haemofiltration on ITU (for renal failure as part of multi-organ failure due to Covid) will be heparinised. No one is yet advocating heparin treatment for Covid, well, except maybe TJ…….. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

83 % for herd immunity implies an initial Ro (should be a subscript ‘o’) of 6.

 

If current Rt (again subscript!) is “double that” then that would be 12, and have a herd immunity requirement of 91.7 %

 

these figures assume no change in variant changing host antibody protection or changing Rt : change those parameters and the level of coverage to give herd immunity changes, too.

[BazzaS]

Pretty rich to insist @hightail answer questions, when TJ dodges questions (such as when asked about PPV and NPV, or asked what anatomical site the snake oil seaweed extracts act at, and/or how they get there …..)

 

‘Pot, kettle and black’ springs to mind!

[BazzaS]

What is meant by “not properly authorised to do so”?

 

Do you mean accredited by UKAS (previously CPA)?

 

Do you mean not accredited by UKAS at all? Do you mean accredited by UKAS but not for a specific test or (type of test[s])??

 

Labs can be accredited for some tests and not others. Some (very reputable) labs (UKAS accredited!!) may offer ‘niche’ tests that aren’t UKAS accredited - the devil is in the detail.

 

As ever, does that poster actually know the facts and issues around their ‘throwaway’ comments …….. or should we expect ‘radio silence’ and a lack of explanation / detail (that, if given,  might confirm they know about what they are posting, rather than them just posting ‘sound bites’ or citing random sources without understanding what they mean ……)

[BazzaS]

HB : I wasn’t expecting you to check, as you weren’t the one saying “not properly authorised” ………

[BazzaS]

Again, the devil is in the detail …..

 

Preliminary accreditation could mean accreditation for tests other than Covid PCR, or for Covid PCR but at Stage 1 or Stage 2.

 

https://www.ukas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Covid-19-Private-Provider-FAQs.pdf

 

If at Stage 1 or Stage 2 but they hadn’t exceeded the timescale for progressing their accreditation: that shouldn’t be used to infer fault (there may be lots of labs with accreditation ongoing that still have robust systems in place!)

If they breached the timescales for maintaining their preliminary accreditation: then that is a concern.

 

Infer fault from what they have done wrong:

accreditation?

testing protocols??

(were there

a) inadequate positive controls?

b) adequate positive controls but inadequate IQA to ensure e.g. adequate sample being pipetted to allow positive results)?

These details haven’t yet been released from the investigation, and will be of much more significance than if they held preliminary accreditation but were waiting for it to be progressed.

Edited October 31, 2021 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

3 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

@tobyjugg2   Letter out of the blue, saying I had been ramdomly selected.

 

I think it is because I would be due a booster jab in December and they want to see what my antigens are like before this.

UB, is “antigens” a typo?

 

I suspect this is from the REACT-2 study (rather than ECCOVACC) : does it mention either of these? Is it looking at antibody levels (rather than antigens)?

 

Does it look similar to the more widely available Covid lateral flow tests, but with the letters C, G, and M (in sequence from top to bottom, by the side of the “results window”)?

[BazzaS]

React-2 has a number of “arms”, one of which is Covid PCR (the swab tests), while there is also community antibody testing (on blood, rather than swab(s)).

Edited November 14, 2021 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

(Almost) absolutely (to your first point) HB, and partial agreement with your second point.

 

It isn’t now low vaccination rate though, it is low vaccination rate in the immunocompromised (and the whole host of other pressures that come with sociopath-economic challenges in the developing world) .

Virus mutation is expected for the coronaviridae. Add to that prolonged replication / shedding in the immunocompromised, increased risk of transmission in those environments (poorer housing / access to healthcare / lower vaccination rates / inability to self-isolate when unwell), and emergence of variants can be expected.

(If you are in a marginalised group and living hand to mouth at best, when unwell you can’t self-isolate / stop doing whatever gives you some income, let alone arrange for food deliveries ……)

 

vaccines? Production in the developing world needed, as well as vaccines from the developed world. At what point should the focus switch from “vaccinate our population at most risk” to “vaccinate the developing world’s population at most risk” to protect OUR population (from the emergence of new variants that have greater escape from current vaccine).

 

Whilst travel bans appeal to those who want to blame “Johnny Foreigner”:

a) Omicron is already here.

b) “Punishing” South Africa (or anywhere with a robust sequencing / surveillance system!) is counter-productive.

We don’t seem to learn the lessons of history (1918 H1N1 ‘Spanish Flu’ didn’t originate in Spain ……)

[BazzaS]

Just released : latest WHO guidance on masks.

 

(community link first)

 

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC_masks-2021.1

guideline covers healthcare settings, the public / community settings, with advice for adults, children, and younger children.

 

(Want to know what goes into an effective fabric mask for the general public? This shows / tells you ……)

 

guidance for healthcare settings

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC_Masks-Health_Workers-Omicron_variant-2021.1

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

I'm not clear who the Nightingales are meant to be for. I've read that, staff permitting, they're meant to be used for people who are on the mend and don't need a lot of attention.

 

Does that mean covid patients go into the main hospital?

there is a difference between the original Nightingale Hospitals, and the newer Nightingale Hubs.

 

Nightingale Hospital : intended to take Covid patients including those significantly unwell, to add bed capacity to the system of all types by providing additional beds intended for Covid patients.

 

Nightingale Hubs: to take well patients of low dependency / minimal “medical need”, so for low dependency non-Covid (or “recovered Covid” patients). The intended gain here is freeing up standard in-patient beds by moving those who don’t need a hospital bed (or have minimal needs).

 

I note the description of the Hubs as

”They will be staffed by a mix of consultants, nurses, and other clinical and non-clinical staff.”

https://apple.news/A3YpNJ3-ET8qC9N5Z3_qZ5w

 

 

So that can mean limited numbers of nurses (with a patient:nurse ratio lower than ordinary wards), and it doesn’t say how often the consultants will be on site.

 

(Gosport memorial Hospital [nominally!] had Consultant cover…….)

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/20/gosport-war-memorial-hospital-opioid-drugs-policy-inquiry

 

 

[BazzaS]

On 05/01/2022 at 11:45, honeybee13 said:

I don't agree with a lot of the proposals. We know someone who had a false positive LFT and then tested negative with a PCR. If that happens it's disruptive if you can't have a PCR to confirm.

 

It is because of

a) availability of PCR's, (it makes sense to reduce unnecessary demand if the supply isn't enough).

b) Positive predictive value, ('PPV', which rises as prevalence rises, while sensitivity and specificity remain constant), and

c) the impact of a false +ve on the individual vs. the impact of the false +ve on society.

 

for b), lets say for (purely for sake of illustration, not based on any COVOD-19 real-world example) that for 100 people tested  there is one false +ve.

If there are 2 true positives in those 100 people, then there are 3 positives total, but one third of those 3 are false positives (PPV=2/3=66/7%)

Yet if there are 20 true positives in those 100 people, then there are 21 positives, and one 21st of those are false positives (PPV=20/21=95.2%)

 

One in 3 false positives, not acceptable, so they use PCR to confirm. One in 21 false positives, acceptable to society that that some people will have to self-isolate unnecessarily, (even if it is rotten for that one person .....). Still only one person in 100 having a false positive, but a shift in the proportion of the total positives that are false positives from 1 out of 3 to 1 out of 21.

 

If there was an endless supply of PCR slots, and the cost of PCRs (against the societal cost of someone having to isolate when they don't need to!), then it'd still make sense to do PCR confirmation (absence of factor a), and comparing factor b) against factor c).

When you couple b) with the PCR tests running out of booking slots (a) as case number soar ... you stop confirmatory testing ( as long as c) isn't an over-riding major factor!.

[BazzaS]

4 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Its spurious HB

For example if a person had diabetes, it would be on a death certificate - so the claim they didn't die from Covid

It isnt the ONS claiming that HB, its persons misrepresenting bits of data without context

 

 

Ahh, more unsupported piffle regarding stats ....... so, I shall again ask you to "put your money where your mouth is" (not that I expect you to be able to show that you actually understand the real world detail for that which you pontificate about!)

 

James Tucker appears to understand the process, but doesn't give the details, so, with your expertise, you can illuminate us.

 

So, for  death within 28 days of a diagnosis of Covid:

Which section of the certificate would diabetes be in then, if you are saying it would be on the death certificate ?

Which section do the ONS actually use when deciding what to classify as the cause of death (for creating the statistics) (So, if diabetes is on there does it actually influence the ONS stats??)

 

While we are on a roll:

If those people are wrong to say diabetes should be on the certificate: Do you think diabetes should be on the certificate or not?

If you do think it should be on there, which section do you think should diabetes be in, and why?

 

How about if they had Covid within the last 28 days, but had recovered, were out shopping and had a heart attack (and then a fatal cardiac arrest) in a store:

same questions but for both

a) Covid, and

b) diabetes.

 

How about if they had had Covid within the last 28 days. but had recovered, were going out shopping but got hit by a bus while crossing the road, suffering fatal injuries.

Same questions (again, both for Covid and diabetes) which section and why.

 

If you are saying people misrepresent the data : for those examples, can you correctly / accurately classify that data (all the sections of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death [MCCD}), so that ONS can collate it and report on it correctly  ....... (as its easy to spot off about certification, but even those who actually do it sometimes get these issues wrong!)

 

..... I suspect you won't be able to answer the above, and will ignore the questions or skate over them with a trite reply , but bonus questions if you can :

a) which are 'unnatural deaths' (and why)?

b) Which should be reported to Her Majesty's Coroner?

 

Don't forget, if you get it wrong on any of the MCCD's issued the way you would have it, a GRO Registrar might HAVE to refuse the MCCD (causing the Registrant distress because they can't register the death after all.......and it goes to the coroner when the family aren't expecting it.)

 

So, these aren't solely academic concepts

A) Accurate aggregated ONS data is important for health care planning, and

B) each MCCD that a Registrar has to refuse adds misery to an already grieving family.

Edited January 26, 2022 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

13 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Bazza, I know this isn't directly connected to the above posts but has anyone calculated if the limit of within 28-days of a covid diagnosis has made a significant difference to the mortality figures?

 

HB, the 28 days is a recognized period used for certification. The figure for "how many extra deaths are attributable to Covid" will be the "excess mortality" figure, and isn't based on any 28 day period. It will include deaths directly AND indirectly* due to whatever has changed that year (so, primarily covid).

 

* Directly and indirectly: directly as in "died of Covid". Indirectly will include such as cancer treatment got delayed because of Covid, and "died because there was no ITU bed", why no ITU bed? taken up by an unvaccinated person with Covid" and so on. 

[BazzaS]

7 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Thank you, Bazza. Do you happen to kow what the current excess mortality figure since the beginning of covid in the UK please? I couldn't find it earlier.

(Statistician’s pedant head on)…

depends when you believe Covid began in the U.K….. Feb 20? (It was likely here before, unnoticed ….)

 

 

The data is released yearly:

(latest) 

Deaths registered in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

WWW.ONS.GOV.UK

---

Registered deaths by age, sex, selected underlying causes of death and the leading causes of death. Contains...

 

 

(Monthly, latest)

Monthly mortality analysis, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

WWW.ONS.GOV.UK

---

Provisional death registration data for England and Wales, broken down by sex, age and country. Includes deaths due...

and weekly

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics

WWW.ONS.GOV.UK

---

Provisional counts of the number of deaths registered in England and Wales, including deaths involving coronavirus...

for precise figures you’d have to subtract from the “start year” the months / weeks you didn’t want included from the start of that year, then add any subsequent years / months / weeks to get to the end date you want to use.

 

the closest (approximate) summary I could find is 2020 to mid-21

Excess mortality and mortality displacement in England and Wales: 2020 to mid-2021 - Office for National Statistics

WWW.ONS.GOV.UK

---

Deaths registered in England and Wales by week, from 28 December 2019 to 2 July 2021. Breakdowns include...