Important as this is, a reminder that is has no effect whatsoever on excess deaths, which is the definitive way to measure the impact of the pandemic. In fact it’s just this sort of recording issue that is why excess deaths are the gold-standard. https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/1284039715415613440

The Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI) report regularly on excess deaths on behalf of @actuarynews. A summary of their last report (released 7 July) is below. Their next update is due on 21 July. https://twitter.com/covid19actuary/status/1280501394106126338?s=21

It’s hard not to feel somewhat vindicated by this developement.

For months, actuaries have been clear on the need to look at excess deaths rather than officially reported COVID deaths.

I’ve been reporting on excess death since before there were any!

https://twitter.com/actuarybyday/status/1242418456752017409?s=21 https://twitter.com/actuarybyday/status/1242418456752017409

The CMI analysed them properly each week from w/e 27 March.

@COVID19actuary cautioned about use of DHSC numbers back in April.

The FT and a few others (including most of my followers ) were quick on the update but excess deaths has still remained a bit of a minority interest.

With the best will in the world (and we can form our own view on whether that‘s the case) there were ALWAYS going to be problems trying to count official C19 deaths. I believe they’ve been significantly undercounted. This news (in the other direction) is v. small in comparison.

Of course, when I say “v. small” I am talking quantitatively. The issue has been spotted before the numbers got large. The harm it does to public confidence and perception may be significant, and the consequences remain to be seen.