They are, yes, so the direct effects of the pandemic changing the age structure of the population won't affect the numbers. But in theory Covid could have killed disproportionately weak people (at each age), leaving a more robust population behind.

I don't think that's a big part of this, though.

Source: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

Bad as it was, in the interests of not overstating Covid's effects, most people are surprised to hear the age standardised mortality rates in 2020 (peak pandemic) were better than in every year up to and including 2003. 3/3

Instead the (very real) after-effects of Covid are simply not enough to offset improvements in human health driven by things like new treatments and diagnostic techniques 2/3

Although theoretically possible, for this to account for much of the improvements would require the population left behind after the pandemic to be healthier, and isn't consistent with the known patterns of many Covid survivors experiencing health problems.1/3

Many thanks to the CMI for continuing to collate and distribute this information and presenting it in such accessible formats. I hope it continues into 2025, the first few weeks of which may be affected by respiratory viruses and pressures on hospitals./

www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files...

This is because the pandemic casts a shadow on UK mortality. Some deaths are still influenced by it, e.g. cardiovascular ones, which offset improvements relating to e.g. cancer. But the size of these competing impacts are not in exact opposition at all ages; only in aggregate.6/7

There are also significant variations by age. The picture is markedly less rosy for people at working ages. Not many people in this group die, relative to older ages, but their mortality remains above expectations. Mortality among older people is as low as it has ever been. 5/7

So while surpassing 2019 is an important milestone, the fact we've seen no improvements in life expectancy for 5 years is very unusual and clearly disappointing. Most actuaries project improvements into the future. 4/7

Pre-pandemic not every year was better on this measure than the one before it (2015 was worse than 2014 for example, mostly due to influenza patterns) but this was the general trend and, in the long run, more often than not each year has been the 'best ever'. 3/7

A change to how deaths are reported in 2024 means that it's possible the true number of deaths in 2024 was very slightly higher than shown, which could mean 2019 was technically very slightly better. It's very close, in any event. 2/7

As Stuart says, improvements are the norm. Finally getting back to 2019 levels is great compared to 2020 but far worse than any reasonable projection made from 2019.

The secondary and tertiary after-effects of the pandemic are now well-balanced with improvements (e.g. in cancer) seen since 2019.

Everything about the H5N1 situation is concerning and needs to be taken seriously. But the way each new development is assumed to be a step towards another pandemic is probably not really an accurate way to think about it. But it is human nature for us to see this as an inevitable march towards that