> The total number of excess deaths in 47 countries of the Western World was 3 098 456 from 1 January 2020 until 31 December 2022.
Hmm, would have been better to talk about lost quality adjusted life years, because someone old and frail dying 3 months earlier than expected vs someone previously healthy dying are two very different things.
Well man, mine too. My mother already had a poor health and even before covid I was aware that any respiratory infection like the one she had two years before covid could be fatal.
But at least in 2018 she was promptly treated, with medicines to avoid the progression of secondary infection and fluid accumulation and despite the scare, was given oxygen, and she was saved.
In 2021, despite her old age, doctors were prohibited in her city to pro-actively avoid secondary infection and in the end when they finally decided to treat her, she was put in a ventilator and had complications commonly associated with the use of ventilators. You can call me anything you want, but I will never stop believing that despite her death certificate says she died of Covid, she was an iatrogenic death.
Paper puts concerns into vaccine dangers, which I am positive about to look at. But it's emphasis on vaccines seems cherry picked to me - their own excessive-death-by-country table shows countries with late / low vaccination (mostly eastern europe) coming out top on excessive deaths. This is not mentioned or explained in the analysis at all.
"In 2020, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic onset and implementation of containment measures, records present 1 033 122 excess deaths (P-score 11.4%). In 2021, the year in which both containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines were used to address virus spread and infection, the highest number of excess deaths was reported: 1 256 942 excess deaths (P-score 13.8%). In 2022, when most containment measures were lifted and COVID-19 vaccines were continued, preliminary data present 808 392 excess deaths (P-score 8.8%)."
I can only read the Abstract, but from the quote above, it may seem that the containment measures had only a limited effect in reducing excess deaths... but wouldn't the number of excess deaths in a hypothetical world where no measures had been taken at all (no masks, no vaccines, no social distancing) be exponentially growing?? Say, it started at 1 million, went to 1.2 million the next year (with some containment measures already in place) and it would probably have gone way higher the next year (but it didn't) if the pattern continued, wouldn't it? I guess eventually it would go back down, but that would probably only have happened when most people who are prone to dying from the virus would've have died already, which probably would take many millions more (ignoring the fact that viruses naturally become less lethal over time, as killing too many hosts is bad for spreading further). So I don't know, given all of these variables I would say 800,000 excess deaths in 2022 is perhaps showing that containment actually did work, just not as well as one would've hoped.
> but wouldn't the number of excess deaths in a hypothetical world where no measures had been taken at all
To me, a more likely scenario is that the virus would basically run through the world's population during the first year, killing most susceptible quickly. The fact the original was a more deadly strain and the complete overloading of medical care would not help either.
> ignoring the fact that viruses naturally become less lethal over time, as killing too many hosts is bad for spreading further
This is likely not a strong factor in Covid since it's not enough deadly and there's enough time to spread the virus before dying.
A more fitting explanation is the reversion to the mean. Covid-19 was/is an exceptionally deadly strain of coronavirus, it's more likely that its mutations will trend in the direction of mean coronavirus lethality.
> The presented data, especially for 2022, are thus preliminary and subject to backward revisions. The more recent data are usually more incomplete and therefore can undergo upward revisions over time. This implies that several of the reported excess mortality estimates can be underestimations.
I've been watching EuroMoMo¹ since early 2020² and it's done a great job visualizing the stats. Especially if you break it down by countries and age groups.
That spike is on week 40. Scroll down to the results by country and see that the spike was just in Israel. Week 40 2023 includes October 7th, so it was due to those attacks.
Excess deaths are likely related to the effects of lockdowns. The lack of exercise and mental stress suffered by the elderly over the course of the pandemic was huge.
Check out Sweden, they had limited/no lockdowns, very high vaccination rate and low post pandemic excess deaths.
Before the pandemic dad was a beast then he watched TV for 2 years and turned into a shuffling hunchback.
In Portugal, classic media frequently screams that our national excess mortality "is the absolute highest" in Europe - but omit that was only for a single week in the year, while this link shows that it's actually lower globally in time, and globally lower when compared to the majority of other countries.
- What's your experience in your own country about this?
We have a state National Health Service good enough to give us those nice real statistics, and, whose tasty business volume (if it were a private enterprise), is yearned by economic groups that have the financial muscle to buy constant Fox-like spin on how state health is "supposedly" so superlative bad, and therefore should be privatized.
This paper clearly disproves their narrative - I guess this media narrative is driven 80% by economic interest / ideology - "get rid of the state"; and would even risk 20% by Putin's destabilization efforts.
My guess is long term health effects from Covid and from treatment deferral for other diseases because of the effects Covid had on healthcare capacity.
Yes. The NIH intermural study on ME/CFS took well over a year to get published.
The sheer volume of papers on Covid/Long Covid et el is staggering too something like 3/4s of a million individual bits of research have been published (all showing its bad news for humans!) and that combined with the doubling of days out sick everyone is enduring due to multiple Covid infections and the brain fog from Long Covid is likely not helping to get things handled quickly.
Paywalled so I guess I'll never know, but in spite of the scary sounding name the associated press release says the following:
“Despite a large body of evidence from extraordinary efforts by investigators around the world, our committee found that in many cases, if not most, evidence was insufficient to accept or reject causality for a particular potential harm from a specific COVID-19 vaccine,” said committee vice chair Anne Bass, professor of clinical medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and New York Presbyterian Hospital. “In other cases, we did find sufficient evidence to favor rejection, favor acceptance, or establish causality. It is important to note, however, that identifying a harm does not mean that it occurs frequently. Harms associated with vaccines are rare.”
I'd suggest you read the document you shared. Not only they found no relationship between vaccines and sudden death, the problems vaccines may cause aren't life-threatening unless in very specific acute cases. Most of those cases would be identified during autopsy, so you would have a spike in deaths of a specific kind; that's not what is happening.
Looking at that study for Pfizer and Moderna it's a slightly increased risk of myocarditis and shoulder injury at the site of injection. That's it. All other side effects they either didn't have enough evidence for or found that the evidence explicitly rejects a causal relationship.
And better still, the severity of postvaccination myocarditis is much less than post-infection myocarditis.
However, the prognosis for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination appears to be much less severe. In a study of nearly 4 million residents of Hong Kong, only one death occurred (1%) among 104 cases of postvaccination myocarditis, compared with 84 deaths (11 percent) among 762 cases of viral infection-related myocarditis (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.57). In a surveillance study of cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination in the United States reported to VAERS, among 484 hospitalizations there were no deaths, and evidence of ongoing myocarditis at follow-up cardiac MR was uncommon (13 percent)
The vaccines significantly reduce the severity and duration of covid. Reduced severity translates to a lower risk of complications, including myocarditis. It doesn't have to prevent infection completely to protect you.
No it doesn't. The study was the outcome of the vaccine irrespective of what happens after you get the vaccine. Get a full covid infection? Still counted. Get no infection? Still counted.
Given that study you'd expect over an extra 10 years somewhere around 10k excess deaths from the vaccine in the US. That's probably very generous. That's tiny versus mortality rates from COVID.
> Maybe check out the side effects of MRNA vaccines.
Too busy to read it yourself? The summary is not long. After that, maybe check out the possible consequences of a Covid infection, Wikipedia is a good start.
thanks for sharing this. I initially wrote your comment off as an anti-vaxx lunatic but after reading the actual paper I decided to vouch for this comment instead after it's been dead.
Conclusions Regarding mRNA-1273
Conclusion 3-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Conclusion 3-10: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Bell's palsy.
Conclusion 5-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
Conclusion 6-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA vaccine and myocardial infarction.
Conclusion 7-2: *The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and myocarditis*.
Conclusion 9-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and female infertility.
For all other possible harms studied, the conclusion was that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship with the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
At the same time for the myocarditis analysis it seems most other vaccines couldn't have evidence for or against it having a causal relationship:
BOX 7-1
Conclusions for Myocarditis and Pericarditis
Conclusion 7-1: The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the BNT1622 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-2: The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-3: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-4: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-5: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the BNT162b2 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-7: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-8: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Yes, this causal relationship with myocarditis is well known by now.
However:
"In a detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people, the risk of myocarditis in unvaccinated individuals after COVID-19 infection was at least 11 times higher compared to people who developed myocarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship, peer-reviewed journal Circulation."
So this shows a short window of time where a seronaive person had higher risk of myocarditis after getting covid than if they first got the shot, right? *
That population didnt exist for very long. Once the conditions became that virtually everyone had at least one shot or one infection, is there any benefit with respect to myocarditis to getting more shots?
* I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc). That we see a signal at all in those conditions is frightening.
> * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc).
None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.
I think it's hard for a lot of people deep into their beliefs to realize that the vast vast majority of the population just doesn't actually care. You get a vaccine. Done. If you then get sick for whatever reason you'll go to the hospital or not. Vaccine isn't even part of the thought process. Medical staff will treat you because that's what they do. Then it will go onto whatever metrics exist. Then later someone pulls the numbers together but they're not the ones collecting them.
There's no grand conspiracy because people don't actually care and it doesn't impact them in any way either directly or emotionally.
edit: As a movie villain once said: To you it was the most important day of your life, to them it was a Tuesday.
> None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.
That sounds reasonable. Although I've read that many cases of vaccine related myocarditis are sub clinical (you don't find it until you proactively look for it, which there is only so much appetite to do).
> There's no grand conspiracy
I think you're typecasting me to some character in your head. I'm not claiming anything about conspiracies. I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines. Is it some grand conspiracy to say that exists?
Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.
> I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines.
No, you're extrapolating those to wide scale second and third order impact that you have no data or logical baseline to support. Second and third order impacts related to vaccines that override many other higher priorities for short term decision making. You're claiming that a medical professional who doesn't speak out about vaccines will also look at someone having a medical condition, look up their vaccination records, look at if this condition may be related to vaccines, and then change the medical diagnosis they write to not put that condition on their medical record. Endangering the patient's very life through an incorrect medical record. A condition that actually happens more often in those without vaccines that get covid. A condition that happens significantly often on it's own with or without covid or vaccines being involved. Not just a few people but a majority of people to the point of drastically impacting the calculated prevalence of the disease.
I'm not even sure wha to call that mindset. I said conspiracy because the alternatives are even less flattering.
> Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.
No, I called you that because your argument is downright insane and I called you a conspiracy theorist because instead of reflecting on that your response is to call me as part of the conspiracy for merely calling you out.
My argument is much simpler than what you are reading: in a world where you get punished for doing a thing (even rightly so), less of that thing will happen. In our world, people are punished for saying things less than positive about vaccines (you can make the argument that this is a good thing, but you can't argue that this isn't true).
I'm making no claim on whether or not you should be punished for saying less than positive things about vaccines, I'm not making any claims about shadowy forces making this true. I'm just pointing out that it is in fact true.
This and only this is my argument. If you think that is downright insane or has no logical basis, well there isn't much else for me to say.
BTW, in case you missed it, I was somewhat convinced by your point that maybe this doesn't impact metrics like we are discussing above.
As a non-US-citizen my understanding of this is limited, but I see very little fact-based criticism and instead personal attacks and calls to "jail him" without even a clear case.
That in itself is strongly anti-democratic behavior that I would be extremely hesitant to support even if there was a strong factual foundation to the accusations (which I can't see so far).
Which aspect of this report makes you confident that MTG is "right"?
What exactly should Fauci be imprisoned for?
I don't think it should be punishable to call for political opponents to be imprisoned.
But derailing a discussion from factual criticism into emotional populism appears extremely harmful to the concept of democracy itself to me:
In an ideal democracy, candidates would be elected based on how their political alignment and intended actions match up with voters. But if politicians denigrate their competition instead, and paint everyone outside their camp as enemy/traitor/unvotable, then this essentially frees them from having to compete on policy (which leads to incompetent politicians in power that are super hard to get rid of).
In most systems voting is secret and anonymous. So even if I wanted to sell my vote, the buyer can never be sure that I actually voted as promised.
Or do you mean 'buying' in the sense of politicians making promises to enact certain policies that specific voters like, if elected? If yes, that seems less like 'buying' and more like straight up democracy working as intended to me. (Even if you or me want to disagree with the outcomes.)
>if politicians denigrate their competition instead, and paint everyone outside their camp as enemy/traitor/unvotable, then this essentially frees them from having to compete on policy
What? How does the conclusion follow from the premise? That a politician resorts to ad hominem fallacies does not by itself mean that whoever listens to them will act purely on those fallacies over everything else. Moreover, the voters are just as likely to vote based on similar fallacies that they come up with themselves. "Oh, I don't like that guy, he has a bent nose." Ultimately it's each voter's responsibility to judge the candidates based on appropriate metric and not be swayed by bullshit, whether of their own creation or not.
Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally more policies to benefit yourself instead of your voter base.
This is in fact exactly what happens, just consider the ANC in South Africa, US politics or like literally every conservative party in Europe ever.
Which is why any politician is harmful to democracy that primarily competes with non-policy arguments, appeals to tradition/emotion/faith or similar, and any such appeal or argument is a bit of a red flag for the politician in question (to me, but trying to be objective about things).
> Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally more policies to benefit yourself instead of your voter base.
Alas, no. By and large, people don't vote for policies that are good for them.
People vote for policies that sound good. By and large, they don't really care too much about whether the policy sounds good specifically for them---they are happy to think of eg their country or community. But they are really bad at judging what policies actually work.
So to use your phrasing:
Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally fewer policies constrained by having to keep promises for bad policies.
It is incredibly important to make the life of decision makers from the covid times as unpleasant as possible in order to reduce the chance of a repeat when the next pandemic comes.
The most clear cut case is 1st amendment violation / censorship (e.g. Berenson v. Biden - civil case, but it should just be the beginning). There is possible fraud in Fauci's case regarding covid origins, which would also imply perjury charges. But ultimately I and many others want to see people held responsible for the arbitrary, oppressive and selective exercise of power during covid (e.g. lockdowns for some but not for BLM, firing people for not injecting the vaccine, and so on).
The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people. Even if he had saved more from covid (he had not), it would not change the fact that his policies killed many who would not have died otherwise.
> The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people.
No. To establish that "Fauci killed lots of people" you would have to show that
cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for (=> difficult because you lack a good baseline). This report most definitely does NOT show that.
Then, to have an actual case, you would also have to show that those decisions were made in a manner criminally neglecting facts known at the time (=> not 4 years later!).
> cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for
Ethically, it is enough to show that his policies killed people. I cannot go into a tobacco factory, kill the night guard, burn the factory to the ground and expect recognition for saving lives. So starting from the position that unjust things were done during COVID, it is now the time to investigate what specific laws were breached, so that justice can be sought. Hence the slogan 'arrest Fauci'.
The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions? There is also a large number of contemporary warnings regarding the effect of lockdowns on diagnosis and treatment of other diseases.
> The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions?
From what I can see the article makes no effort to separate Covid related excess mortality from direct or indirectly covid related, which would be crucial to support your argument.
Consider e.g.:
- Death by delayed/cancelled medical procedures/diagnostics (because healthcare was busy with people dying from covid at the time)
- Weaker immune system because of lack of exposure during/after covid
If your hypothesis is "by ignoring covid and skipping lockdowns we could have avoided this excess mortality" then that hypothesis is quite contrarian in first place AND not supported by the facts presented in the article.
Hmm, would have been better to talk about lost quality adjusted life years, because someone old and frail dying 3 months earlier than expected vs someone previously healthy dying are two very different things.