By March of 2022, rates of mortality appeared to have reverted to normal, but a closer look reveals all age cohorts have paid a heavy price over the course of two years of poor public policy.
Troubling charts. The confounding of drugs with the vaccines makes the analysis difficult. Still among working age people, drug use in not typically normal. Despair might play a part but by middle age coping skills ought to exist.
Will look forward to the state by state analysis. That might bring clues.
Just so I understand what percentage excess mortality means. If the normal number of deaths in a period is say 100 but actually there were 150 deaths then that would be a 50% excess mortality. Is that right?
It would be interesting to see how sensitive the analysis is to different measures of excess deaths. I have seen other analysis where the picture changes totally depending on what years are included in the baseline.
Do you also get more of a breakdown of cause of death from this data? In the UK it has been heart disease type issues that have stood out more than anything.
I must admit that I hadn't realised how many excess deaths there were even before the vaccines were rolled out.
When the pharmaceutical companies started bringing out their vaccines but before they'd rolled out the big vaccination programmes those companies were quoting figures like 70-90% effectiveness. At the time I assumed that this was the effectiveness against infection. So if it had 90% effectiveness and 100 people were exposed to the virus 10 people would catch it and 90 would not. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought that. It's obviously wrong. Vaccination doesn't stop you catching the disease at all. So what did the pharma companies mean by effectiveness? Effectiveness against dying? Also have they changed their definition of effectiveness?
Troubling charts. The confounding of drugs with the vaccines makes the analysis difficult. Still among working age people, drug use in not typically normal. Despair might play a part but by middle age coping skills ought to exist.
Will look forward to the state by state analysis. That might bring clues.
Just so I understand what percentage excess mortality means. If the normal number of deaths in a period is say 100 but actually there were 150 deaths then that would be a 50% excess mortality. Is that right?
It would be interesting to see how sensitive the analysis is to different measures of excess deaths. I have seen other analysis where the picture changes totally depending on what years are included in the baseline.
Do you also get more of a breakdown of cause of death from this data? In the UK it has been heart disease type issues that have stood out more than anything.
I must admit that I hadn't realised how many excess deaths there were even before the vaccines were rolled out.
When the pharmaceutical companies started bringing out their vaccines but before they'd rolled out the big vaccination programmes those companies were quoting figures like 70-90% effectiveness. At the time I assumed that this was the effectiveness against infection. So if it had 90% effectiveness and 100 people were exposed to the virus 10 people would catch it and 90 would not. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought that. It's obviously wrong. Vaccination doesn't stop you catching the disease at all. So what did the pharma companies mean by effectiveness? Effectiveness against dying? Also have they changed their definition of effectiveness?