“the work-related activity group is composed entirely of people who are expected to recover from their illnesses and be well enough to return to work within a year. In that group, there should be no deaths at all – barring accidents. Why have nearly 10,000 people lost their lives after being assigned there?”
According to the FOIR the figure was 7,200, not 10,000. Where have the extra 2,800 come from?
From how many? Without understanding the number of claimants it is impossible to understand what % these people make up.
So, no one could die in that category from any illness? What about murders? Only accidents are allowed. Besides, it appears unknown how many accidents have taken place too so this number could easily be far less. Regardless of the number that is left, in order to determine a causal relationship it needs to be proven that the benefits situation has led to their deaths. People added to this group in error that should have been left alone should not be considered part of a causal relationship either if they would have died anyway regardless of what list they were on. The ONLY proof of wrongdoing has to come from those who have died as a result of the pressure put on them whether financial, mental or both.
“the total number of deaths involving claimants of Incapacity Benefit, Employment and Support Allowance and Severe Disablement Allowance – between the start of December 2011 and the end of February 2014 is 81,140, including 50,580 (ESA claimants) and 30,560 (IB/SDA claimants). All figures are rounded up to the nearest 10.”
From how many? Millions or a hundred thousand? Without understanding the number of claimants it is impossible to understand what % these people make up.
How does this number compare to the number of deaths over the last 20+ years based on their % of population? If you don’t actually know the expected mortality rates of this group, you have no clue as to what this means.
The author then asks “But are these deaths being hastened artificially by the DWP’s treatment of them?”
Based on what?
To suggest more are dieing due to DWP treatment is pure speculation. No evidence is supplied to suggest they are.
“The new numbers suggest the average number of deaths per day between January 2011 and February 2014 was around 79.5 – 556 per week.”
“This represents an increase to an average of 99 deaths per day or 692 per week, between the start of December 2011 and the end of February 2014 –“
So, according to the author the figure has risen to both 79 & 99 deaths per day and 556 & 692 deaths per week. Which is it?
79 is based on 1st Jan 2011-28th Feb 2014 (1,154 days). I can’t get 99 deaths per day between 1st Nov 2011-28th Feb 2014, 1st Nov 2011-31st Jan 2014, 1st Dec 2014-28th Feb 2014 or 1st Dec 2011-31st Jan 2014. Those are all higher (108, 111, 112, 116)
“Information for ESA claimants shows:
- 7,540 deaths while claims were being assessed, bringing the known total to 9,740.
- 7,200 deaths in the work-related activity group, bringing the known total to 8,500.
- 32,530 deaths in the support group, bringing the known total to 39,630.”
Where do these figures come from?
All of this suggests a load of “spin” on a set of high level statistics. There has been no attempt to make a comparison to previous data or to factor in growing population number, increases in unemployment (where applicable), changes in demographics, etc. To use a Mean average, which the author can’t even get right anyway, is flawed as there has been no factoring in of seasonal information. Basically, the author put in a FOIR asking for largely meaningless data and the author should have considered how to make a proper comparison to determine if any of this data even means anything at all.
Taken from The Guardian article posted above:
“Tom Pollard, policy and campaigns manager at mental health charity Mind, said it was hard to comment on the statistics as they only revealed the number of people who have died while on ESA, not the circumstances or details of the deaths.”
So, MIND agree the data is meaningless.
“Nearly 90 people a month are dying after being declared fit for work, according to new data”
90 is accurate based on 1st Dec 2011-28th Feb 2014 (792 days) using the 2.380 that died as declared “fit for work”.
Originally Posted by Dizzy_Dave
