As someone familiar with databases, I have been wondering how deaths have been recorded.
I have always assumed that date and cause of death were on the death certificate and this information is recorded. I also understand that all deaths are recorded by the General Register Office in Southport for England & Wales (similar organisations in Scotland & NI).
What kind of database are these organisations using that cannot be queried for deaths caused by COVID-19 on every date. This excuse that data is not processed at weekends is just hogwash as the date of death is recorded.
Does the Office of National Statistics not have direct access to the General Register Office data?
I have really had little to add to my previous comments in March on the COVID-19 situation. However, back then I said, "There is a certain foolish element in UK society who don't seem to care or understand they could be the carrier that kills someone else's love one."
Little did I know at that time that the foolish were actually in charge of policy.
Boris may be a great orator but he is hardly an intelligent man. He could even have been a great leader by surrounding himself with experts, hard workers and people with vision.
Unfortunately, he has surrounded himself with quite a few foolish people.
We don't need fools or toadies in government or foolish advisers.
Dominic Cummins should go and Boris demoted to the backbenches.
We need government by those with the ability to reason and I don't mean those foolishly supporting the dynamical duo.
Nanoco a British technology company is suing Samsung in a Texas court for theft of its intellectual property and use of its technology without a licence. However, we openly see Samsung QLED TVs being advertised on British TV. This potentially is a loss of millions in royalties to Nanoco and the British economy.
How many times has this happened with British technology companies - either IP theft or buyouts of small tech companies - we need protection in law to protect our future.
I wouldn't be too surprised if 2020 saw a record number of people refusing to pay for their TV licence. It's not just about high salaries, poor programming or what seems like a string of endless repeats.
Even the untrained eye can see a complete lack of efficiency - from the duos ping-ponging the Autocue to the hundreds sent to cover events such as the Olympics. Was it also the BBC that first sent an outside broadcast unit and reporter to stand outside a building to report what is going on inside - surely a green screen would be far cheaper. A good example of this is the structures outside Westminster where both interviewers and interviewees brave the elements.
How many highly paid managers are responsible for commissioning programmes that fail and from companies owned by the people starring in them. Surely with an income of close to £4Billion, the BBC could make programmes themselves that had a worldwide market and that would stand or fall on their merit.
A final note on salaries: surely in a nation of more than 65 million people we can find an aesthetically pleasing presenter that can read an Autocue for £80K a year?
It's time for a change at the BBC and making them work harder and more efficiently would only be brought about by getting rid of the licence.
Oh! ...and my personal gripe. Cancelling programmes because Wimbledon runs over, has to stop. How many channels (and the red button) do you need to show sport.