Exclusive: Lockdown patch sees surge in ‘excess deaths’

According to weekly registrations data from the Office for National Statistics, there were 94 “excess” deaths in the Leicestershire and Rutland area in the five weeks to the end of July.

Comparing NHS sustainability and transformation partnership areas, the next highest number of excess deaths was seen in North East and Cumbria, with 34. Only nine other systems saw a higher than normal number of deaths in this five-week period, whereas most areas have had fewer deaths than normal for several weeks.

As a proportion of population, Leicestershire and Rutland had 8.6 excess deaths per 100,000, with Norfolk the next highest at 3.5 per 100,000.

Excess deaths refers to the difference between the total number of deaths this year, compared to the average for the same time period between 2015 and 2019.

Leicestershire and Rutland had 47 deaths over this period which mentioned coronavirus on the death certificate, which was significantly fewer than several other systems.

Analysis of the detailed ONS breakdowns suggests Leciestershire had a higher proportion of deaths in people’s homes and care homes during this period, while a smaller proportion than average died in hospital. This could mean more people are dying from other causes than average, or that covid is not being recognised when it is present.

There have been serious concerns nationally that people have been afraid to seek emergency care for conditions unrelated to coronavirus.

The city of Leicester and parts of the county of Leicestershire have been subject to stricter lockdown restrictions than the rest of the country since 30 June, after a spike in coronavirus cases earlier that month.

Although some restrictions have been eased, Leicester residents are still not allowed to stay overnight in another household that is not part of their support bubble or meet with individuals in a private garden. The restrictions are set to be updated on 13 August.

HSJ used the same definition of excess deaths as the ONS, which records deaths by the date of registration, as opposed to when they occurred.

In its response, Leicester City Council pointed to the occurrence dataset and suggested the number of deaths has been lower than average.

However, the number of deaths recorded in the occurence dataset is typically significantly lower than for registrations.

The council did not dispute HSJ’s assertion that the registration data is that which is officially used by ONS, and is a more appropriate measure of excess deaths. This is because the data used to calculate the average death numbers between 2015 and 2019 relates to registrations, rather than occurrences.

A spokesman for the council added: “The number of cases we are detecting is coming down so we don’t think there is a need for action other than what we are already doing to continue to test widely across the city and use contract tracing including our local service to prevent further transmission.”

Leicestershire County Council made a similar point about the data as the city council. Rutland County Council said in the five weeks up to 31 July it had recorded one death linked to COVID-19.