FINALLY!! Ian Duncan Smith Releases Death Statistics!
The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted defeat in its attempt to hide the number of people who have died while claiming incapacity benefits since November 2011 – and has announced that the number who died between January that year and February 2014 is a shocking 91,740.
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 – compared with 32 deaths per day/222 per week between January and November 2011.The DWP has strenuously asserted that “any causal effect between benefits and mortality cannot be assumed from these statistics”.
It is correct to make this point.
The DWP has also claimed that “these isolated figures provide limited scope for analysis and nothing can be gained from this publication that would allow the reader to form any judgement as to the effects or impacts of the Work Capability Assessment”.
However, the increase in the frequency of these deaths is enough to raise questions about the way the incapacity benefit system is being run – questions that demand full, frank and immediate answers.
For example, 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?Deaths in the support group and the assessment phase are more problematic because they involve people who do have serious illnesses, many of whom may be expected to die while claiming. But are these deaths being hastened artificially by the DWP’s treatment of them?
A statistical release published today (August 27) in response to my Freedom of Information request dating back to May 28, 2014, states that 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.Add this to the 10,600 deaths that were already known between January and November 2011 and you have 91,740.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.And 3,320 deaths in which the claimant was not in receipt of any benefit payment and is therefore marked as “unknown”.
The total number of claimants who flowed off ESA, IB or SDA whose date of death was at the same time and of those the number with a WCA decision of “fit for work”, between December 2011 to February 2014 was 2,650 (2,380 ESA, 270 IB/SDA).And the total number of individuals who flowed off ESA, IB or SDA whose date of death was at the same time with a completed appeal following a WCA decision of “fit for work”, Great Britain: December 2011 to February 2014 was 1,360 (1,340 ESA, 20 IB/SDA).
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 compares with an average between January and November 2011 of around 32 per day – 222 per week.This Writer has not yet examined the DWP’s accompanying statistical release – providing the fudged Age-Standardised Mortality Rates between 2003 and 2014. The information in this one states that mortality dropped from 1,111 deaths per 100,000 (across all three benefits) to 1,032.But claims for Incapacity Benefit (ESA didn’t exist at the time) were at an all-time high in 2003 – of nearly three million throughout the year. The numbers claiming this kind of benefit have both fallen and risen since then.
So what are we to conclude?
Firstly, the figures released today demand more considered, in-depth study than can be managed by This Writer within an hour or so of their release.
Second, that the DWP should drop its appeal against publishing them (for obvious reasons).
Third, that the Age-Standardised Mortality Rates give a false picture of the number of deaths – as predicted on this blog.Finally, that serious questions must now be asked about the way incapacity benefits are being administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith.
So what do you think? Do you see here in black and white austerity at its finest? Is this not proof of attacking the vulnerable in this country while branding them "scum" so that nobody cares? People on benefits are being vilified in the media and yet are they not doing more than anyone else by dying for the cause? Are working class people not accepting the cuts and relying on benefits to top up their wages, doing their part in bringing us out this mess? Are the middle class not cutting back on expenditures because it isn't so comfortable now?
There are millions of people in this country, pulling up their socks everyday to drag us out of this financial mess, yet, if tax loopholes were closed we would be a lot closer to getting their rather than picking off the vulnerable, when lets face it, it doesn't make much of a difference if they get their £50 a week or not. The fact that after four year we are being rewarded for this hard work by, MORE CUTS, is just a disgrace! The government should be personally thanking every single one of us who has been paying taxes these past five or six years, NOT patting themselves on the back with a £10,000 wage increase and smile on their faces telling us "we're all in this together"!
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 – compared with 32 deaths per day/222 per week between January and November 2011.The DWP has strenuously asserted that “any causal effect between benefits and mortality cannot be assumed from these statistics”.
It is correct to make this point.
The DWP has also claimed that “these isolated figures provide limited scope for analysis and nothing can be gained from this publication that would allow the reader to form any judgement as to the effects or impacts of the Work Capability Assessment”.
However, the increase in the frequency of these deaths is enough to raise questions about the way the incapacity benefit system is being run – questions that demand full, frank and immediate answers.
For example, 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?Deaths in the support group and the assessment phase are more problematic because they involve people who do have serious illnesses, many of whom may be expected to die while claiming. But are these deaths being hastened artificially by the DWP’s treatment of them?
A statistical release published today (August 27) in response to my Freedom of Information request dating back to May 28, 2014, states that 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.Add this to the 10,600 deaths that were already known between January and November 2011 and you have 91,740.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.And 3,320 deaths in which the claimant was not in receipt of any benefit payment and is therefore marked as “unknown”.
The total number of claimants who flowed off ESA, IB or SDA whose date of death was at the same time and of those the number with a WCA decision of “fit for work”, between December 2011 to February 2014 was 2,650 (2,380 ESA, 270 IB/SDA).And the total number of individuals who flowed off ESA, IB or SDA whose date of death was at the same time with a completed appeal following a WCA decision of “fit for work”, Great Britain: December 2011 to February 2014 was 1,360 (1,340 ESA, 20 IB/SDA).
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 compares with an average between January and November 2011 of around 32 per day – 222 per week.This Writer has not yet examined the DWP’s accompanying statistical release – providing the fudged Age-Standardised Mortality Rates between 2003 and 2014. The information in this one states that mortality dropped from 1,111 deaths per 100,000 (across all three benefits) to 1,032.But claims for Incapacity Benefit (ESA didn’t exist at the time) were at an all-time high in 2003 – of nearly three million throughout the year. The numbers claiming this kind of benefit have both fallen and risen since then.
So what are we to conclude?
Firstly, the figures released today demand more considered, in-depth study than can be managed by This Writer within an hour or so of their release.
Second, that the DWP should drop its appeal against publishing them (for obvious reasons).
Third, that the Age-Standardised Mortality Rates give a false picture of the number of deaths – as predicted on this blog.Finally, that serious questions must now be asked about the way incapacity benefits are being administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith.
So what do you think? Do you see here in black and white austerity at its finest? Is this not proof of attacking the vulnerable in this country while branding them "scum" so that nobody cares? People on benefits are being vilified in the media and yet are they not doing more than anyone else by dying for the cause? Are working class people not accepting the cuts and relying on benefits to top up their wages, doing their part in bringing us out this mess? Are the middle class not cutting back on expenditures because it isn't so comfortable now?
There are millions of people in this country, pulling up their socks everyday to drag us out of this financial mess, yet, if tax loopholes were closed we would be a lot closer to getting their rather than picking off the vulnerable, when lets face it, it doesn't make much of a difference if they get their £50 a week or not. The fact that after four year we are being rewarded for this hard work by, MORE CUTS, is just a disgrace! The government should be personally thanking every single one of us who has been paying taxes these past five or six years, NOT patting themselves on the back with a £10,000 wage increase and smile on their faces telling us "we're all in this together"!
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
How many people didn't die?
What were the causes of death?
The last time statistics like this got. Real eased they we're so badly misrepresented by one side that they chose to ignore that fact that people's benefits stopped when they died and used those numbers .
What were the causes of death?
The last time statistics like this got. Real eased they we're so badly misrepresented by one side that they chose to ignore that fact that people's benefits stopped when they died and used those numbers .
Original post by MatureStudent36
How many people didn't die?
Haha what?!
So you think as long as more people who aren't dying are declared fit then those who are it's okay?
You think it's okay that the government declared 2380 people fit to work and stopped their benefits when they were so ill that they died within two weeks? You think all 2380 just dropped dead out of the blue despite the fact 1340 appealed the decision and had doctors declare they were not fit to work?
The last time statistics like this got. Real eased they we're so badly misrepresented by one side that they chose to ignore that fact that people's benefits stopped when they died and used those numbers .
I see you still haven't read the article or the figures. These figures released today are the official figures of the DWP who are the body in question. It reflects badly on the DWP so why on earth would the DWP publish figures which make them seem worse then they are? The benefits did not stop when they died, they stopped two weeks before when they were declared fit to work. Again this is all official data freely avaliable having been released earlier today by the DWP following the judgement of the information commisioner on the 30 April 2015.
So your case that there is a misrepresentation has been well and truly proved wrong.
Original post by Bornblue
Haha what?!
So you think as long as more people who aren't dying are declared fit then those who are it's okay?
So you think as long as more people who aren't dying are declared fit then those who are it's okay?
I think what he was (very poorly) trying to ascertain was the percentage of those who died following the cut to their disability allowance, so that it could be compared against the % of people who were not on disability allowance who died (in the same age category/with the same demographics) in the same time period.
Original post by Tadpole123
I think what he was (very poorly) trying to ascertain was the percentage of those who died following the cut to their disability allowance, so that it could be compared against the % of people who were not on disability allowance who died (in the same age category/with the same demographics) in the same time period.
Its a moot point anyway. We shouldn't be basing a policy on 'well yeah but more people stayed alive then died from this policy' etc.
Original post by MatureStudent36
How many people didn't die?
Original post by Tadpole123
I think it's a very relevant point if it's found that (for example) 0.5% of people who had their benefits cut died in the year following, but at the same time 0.4-0.6% of the total populace in the same demographic range died as well (i.e. no additional deaths as a result of the cut).
It's very unlikely, but surely worth looking into?
It's very unlikely, but surely worth looking into?
No because it's not the fact they are dying- it's the fact they were declared fit to work which they clearly were not.
Original post by Tadpole123
Yes, but if there's a correlation in the death rates (what a horrible term) of the general working populace and those who had their benefits cut, it's likely that a large number of the deaths may have simply been down to natural causes (or acts of god, if you like) which the population as a whole undergoes (accidents etc.)
Considering half of them appealed and many had doctors verifying that they were too ill to work - it seems bizarre that they were judged fit to work when they were dying.
Original post by Bornblue
Considering half of them appealed and many had doctors verifying that they were too ill to work - it seems bizarre that they were judged fit to work when they were dying.
I totally agree with you, all I'm saying is that there is a chance that these deaths could be attributed to natural causes, hence needing to know the amount of people who had their beneftis cut as a whole.
Original post by Slaw92
Yep, thanks for copying and pasting that from a blog, but in reality the Government had always said it would publish these figures as it has in the past.
since November 2011 – and has announced that the number who died between January that year and February 2014 is a shocking 91,740.
Not really shocking. Lots of the sickest people in the UK die. As the figures demonstrated, the death rate for benefits claimants had fallen.
For example, 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.
Well, no. People's conditions fluctuate. Being fit to work does not mean you're not ill in some way, nor does it mean that you're not weakened by a previous illness. People who have been ill are generally going to be more likely to die than people who have not been ill.
The total number of claimants who flowed off ESA, IB or SDA whose date of death was at the same time and of those the number with a WCA decision of “fit for work”, between December 2011 to February 2014 was 2,650 (2,380 ESA, 270 IB/SDA).
And yet we know from the statistics that around half of them appealed that decision - and we do not know the outcome of that. Nor, indeed, how they died.
Is this not proof of attacking the vulnerable in this country while branding them "scum" so that nobody cares?
Repeating fake quotes to try and make them accepted currency is the politics of the gutter.
As the Government has made clear, it is trying to make the Work Capability Assessment better and has been open to change. It receives an annual, independent review.
But of course, many people will simply object regardless.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
Haha what?!
So you think as long as more people who aren't dying are declared fit then those who are it's okay?
You think it's okay that the government declared 2380 people fit to work and stopped their benefits when they were so ill that they died within two weeks? You think all 2380 just dropped dead out of the blue despite the fact 1340 appealed the decision and had doctors declare they were not fit to work?
So you think as long as more people who aren't dying are declared fit then those who are it's okay?
You think it's okay that the government declared 2380 people fit to work and stopped their benefits when they were so ill that they died within two weeks? You think all 2380 just dropped dead out of the blue despite the fact 1340 appealed the decision and had doctors declare they were not fit to work?
Appealing the decision does not mean you have extra medical evidence, nor do doctors "declare" people fit to work. That is simply false.
But yes, a low level of deaths would be more meaningful in this case than a figure with no comparison.
A rough answer to the question is this: since the WCA started in October 2008 there have been about 1,120,000 fit to work decisions made. I appreciate the time scales are different, but it should certainly help contextualise the figures.
I see you still haven't read the article or the figures. These figures released today are the official figures of the DWP who are the body in question. It reflects badly on the DWP so why on earth would the DWP publish figures which make them seem worse then they are?
Um, Government often does that. They have to publish official statistics: whether they show negative things or not is irrelevant.
Original post by Bornblue
No because it's not the fact they are dying- it's the fact they were declared fit to work which they clearly were not.
That doesn't follow at all. I am fit to work, and I could die tomorrow quite reasonably.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Slaw92
x
I'm sorry to break this to you, but we do not yet have an elixir of life, people do actually die, and the majority of those that died will have been claiming for that exact reasons, but hell, let's not stop there. Of those declared fit for work we have 2650 having died over the course of 33 months out of 2m people, what this represents is a mortality rate of 0.13% over 33 months, the average mortality rate for the working population over 3 years? About 0.8%, so those being declared fit for work are less likely to die than the working age population as a whole. Well, let's not remove all those people that weren't declared fit for work because they were dying, then the average Joe STILL has a higher average 33 month mortality rate than 0.13% (in fact it sits at about 0.5%)
But hey, let's look at the rates of those who are actually dying and compare them to a similar time span, namely 08/9, 09/10, 10/11 where there were about 50% more fatalities, so now we have a statistically insignificant number of people dying who are being declared fit to work and a decrease in claimants of ESA and/or IB/SDA dying.
When I mentioned this last year the Tories rubbed it off as scare mongering. Now Tories are trying to justify the numbers. This simply shows you Tories do not care of people who die due to the DWP incompetence.
Original post by illegaltobepoor
When I mentioned this last year the Tories rubbed it off as scare mongering. Now Tories are trying to justify the numbers. This simply shows you Tories do not care of people who die due to the DWP incompetence.
So, does this mean that it is the responsibility of the DWP to create an elixir of life and their failure to do so in incompetence?
Original post by Jammy Duel
So, does this mean that it is the responsibility of the DWP to create an elixir of life and their failure to do so in incompetence?
Declaring dying people fit to work clearly is incompetence yes.
Original post by Bornblue
Declaring dying people fit to work clearly is incompetence yes.
That is a gross misinterpretation of the statistics.
You cannot say that those numbers represent people who are dying.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RollerBall
Protip # 371. Use enter to create new paragraphs in order to make large peices of text more easily readable.
Pro tip #372. Do not misspell words while attempting to correct someone
.Original post by Jammy Duel
So, does this mean that it is the responsibility of the DWP to create an elixir of life and their failure to do so in incompetence?
The DWP job is to ensure there is a welfare state to make sure people do not fall into destitution. Yet we have a Government who is happy to let people fall into destitution though the sanctions regime.
Most Tories will never be in dire poverty, never be homeless and never experience the lower end of the spectrum. There for the majority of things you say come from a perspective of privilege which is miles away from those sleeping rough in London tonight.
You think that when the Left-wing talk about poverty they are asking for a utopia. No. We just want the basic's to survive and live in dignity as a collective view. Some how the right to a safe warm home and decent nutrition is viewed as giving the masses a utopia by the right-wing.
And to escape responsibilities of looking after neighbors the right-wing compares British poverty to that of the poorest countries in the world to justify the need to do nothing about British poverty.
Most of you have a silver spoon in your mouth and you don't want things to change. You live on the top of the pyramid while you want everyone to scatter about like insects on the floor.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by illegaltobepoor
The DWP job is to ensure there is a welfare state to make sure people do not fall into destitution. Yet we have a Government who is happy to let people fall into destitution though the sanctions regime.
Most Tories will never be in dire poverty, never be homeless and never experience the lower end of the spectrum. There for the majority of things you say come from a perspective of privilege which is miles away from those sleeping rough in London tonight.
You think that when the Left-wing talk about poverty they are asking for a utopia. No. We just want the basic's to survive and live in dignity as a collective view. Some how the right to a safe warm home and decent nutrition is viewed as giving the masses a utopia by the right-wing.
And to escape responsibilities of looking after neighbors the right-wing compares British poverty to that of the poorest countries in the world to justify the need to do nothing about British poverty.
Most of you have a silver spoon in your mouth and you don't want things to change. You live on the top of the pyramid while you want everyone to scatter about like insects on the floor.
Most Tories will never be in dire poverty, never be homeless and never experience the lower end of the spectrum. There for the majority of things you say come from a perspective of privilege which is miles away from those sleeping rough in London tonight.
You think that when the Left-wing talk about poverty they are asking for a utopia. No. We just want the basic's to survive and live in dignity as a collective view. Some how the right to a safe warm home and decent nutrition is viewed as giving the masses a utopia by the right-wing.
And to escape responsibilities of looking after neighbors the right-wing compares British poverty to that of the poorest countries in the world to justify the need to do nothing about British poverty.
Most of you have a silver spoon in your mouth and you don't want things to change. You live on the top of the pyramid while you want everyone to scatter about like insects on the floor.
I see you are a serial statistics denier
Original post by Bornblue
Declaring dying people fit to work clearly is incompetence yes.
So you believe that the DWP have either a) a device that says exactly when somebody will die or b) an elixir of life?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Hurt or Heal (Actors edition)
- Help! I'm struggling :( (moot presentation)
- Analysis of the Macbeth movie
- Macbeth study guide!
- my eng literature notes (grade 7/8) (gsce 2022)
- English Literature help
- Could someone mark my GCSE AQA Macbeth essay? thanks
- how is macbeth presented as an ambitious character
- An Inspector Calls
- GCSE AQA English Literature - Macbeth
- gcse aqa urgent please help
- FREE Grade 8 An Inspector calls essay here if anyone wants it :
- Understanding Statistics
- Pls help me mark my answer
- Edexcel English Lit Paper 1: Macbeth Section A, Question 1: Grade 9 Answer?
- Hey can someone mark this AQA English Literature Essay -
- Macbeth practice
- Critical essay an inspector calls
- can someone give me a mark out of 24 and a grade.
- Could someone mark my Macbeth essay on guilt?
Latest
Last reply 5 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 7 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 8 minutes ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsLast reply 13 minutes ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 14 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
857
Last reply 14 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 18 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 20 minutes ago
What are your thoughts on poverty eradication programs in the worldLast reply 27 minutes ago
UAL Bsc Fashion Management and fashion marketingLast reply 28 minutes ago
Choosing Subjects for S5 to study Software engineering in the UkLast reply 29 minutes ago
R u 18-25 & studying in a England Uni, spare a few mins to fill my survey. 1 wk left.Last reply 35 minutes ago
LAW: How to answer a problem question in Contract LawLast reply 37 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
