I'd like to clarify, in this thread Lewis talks about % increases and decreases in different causes of death at home vs in hospital, and suggests that the % rise in home deaths being larger than % drop in hospital deaths means more deaths of that cause overall. Not necessarily. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1318180176480653312

We can see that the *total* deaths in private homes versus hospitals have changed by almost identical amounts, suggesting across all causes a 1 for 1 swap. But if we imagine a disease that is largely hospitalised at end of life, say, 80-20 in favour of hospitalisation, then
>

if the were was a 25% drop in hospitalised deaths, and a 50% gain in home deaths, that actually doesn't mean more deaths overall. 80 becomes 60, but 20 only becomes 30 - the total is now 90 instead of 100. Less deaths total, not more!
>

Now, I'm not saying this is definitely happening, but it would surprise me to learn that each individual cause of death splits 50/50 between home and hospital. Percentage differences here are less important than the raw numbers, like we have for total deaths.
/end

ADDENDUM: At some point during me writing this thread, Lewis deleted the tweet where he suggested higher overall heart disease deaths based on their percentages (I pointed this out there too). That's good, actually; far better than leaving potentially misleading suggestions up!

I don't think he meant anything nefarious by it - it's really easy to just think 'this number went up more than this went down, must be more overall', but you just can't do that with percentages alone, you need the raw numbers.