No Excess Deaths In Sweden In 2020 Compared To The Last 10 Years

[schultz]

The COVID vaccine might be a race between manufacturers and epidemiologists, with the former scrambling to obtain market access before the later uncover the global scam.

I do think this is the case. At the very least the manufacturers may be concerned that it is found out that it is not as deadly as was initially stated (Well, that has actually already happened, but I mean even less deadly than that). It would be better for them to release the vaccine while there is still a lot of noise and confusion. They must realize this.

It has been discussed for several countries that a slight increase in mortality is due to the fact that the baby boomers generation is dying now.

Look at the graph for the US here:

U.S. Death Rate 1950-2020

Michael Yeadon, who thinks the virus already ran its course, admits that there is a slight increase in mortality overall but posits that this is due to lack of accessibility to medical care. According a pathologist friend of his the deaths are more so related to heart disease type deaths. I think it could be a lot of different things. Depression for one thing. How many people died during the Great Depression? It would be interesting to compare.

I thought it would be sort of amusing if it turned out that without access to medical care people actually started dying less. We will have to wait for clear statistical information before we can see if this could be the case or not. It might be true with certain types of illnesses and treatments (chemo therapy maybe?). But it will not be so simple to sift through the data.

It's pretty clear the report is incorrect as they even admit the data is wrong, which is why they didn't publish it. The below data suggests there is excess mortality this year from something..

Total U.S. Mortality from Jan 1 through End of Sept:
2017: 2,100,048
2018: 2,129,649
2019: 2,128,492
2020: 2,433,432
2017-2019 Average: 2,119,396
2020 Excess Mortality through Sept: 314,036

Total U.S. Mortality from Jan 1 through Mid November:
2017: 2,470,155
2018: 2,503,408
2019: 2,509,027
2020: 2,851,262
2017-2019 Average: 2,494,196
2020 Excess Mortality through mid-Nov: 357,065

@schultz
@Giraffe

If there are already that many excess deaths then that is pretty significant.

I mentioned Michael Yeadon above. He thinks the virus ran its course already last March to May or so. If I were to take a middle of the road stance I would suggest that the virus is more deadly than the common influenza viruses we typically have each season, but not by much, and that it merely is killing people who were likely to die within the year. If I am being honest, I don't think lockdowns were necessary and that they were actually harmful. They maybe could have focused on old age homes. If they had poured all their resources into that I think it would have made a lot more sense. If you have a castle and are trying to protect it from invaders do you divide your troops equally along the entire perimeter, or do you maybe send extra troops to where there happens to be a large hole in the castle wall? The choice is obvious (in that made up analogy lol) Anyway, that's mostly how I see it.

 

[haidut]

When did I ever say we should be shutting down countries for the virus? I am heavily against lockdowns. I totally agree with your other points and have read all of those threads.

Sorry, I must have somehow gotten the impression that you think the responses to COVID-19 so far are justified, and until the vaccines come out those responses consist mainly of lockdowns. Apologies if that's not the case.

 

[CLASH]

The model used to determine the excess deaths in this paper: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6942e2-H.pdf was reference #7.
Reference #7 can be found here: Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

If you scroll to the bottom of the page for reference #7's you can see the weekly excess deaths for the united states (See attached screenshot). The weekly excess deaths didn't start until March 21st 2020. This date coincides directly with the lockdown dates for most parts of the US. See here: COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns - Wikipedia

While the lockdown beginning coincides with the start of excess deaths, as the lockdowns start to tail off, so does the excess deaths. It's important to note, that while the lockdown start coincides with the excess deaths, there seems to be a slight lag where the total effect of the lockdown takes time to start inducing larger amounts of death. This can be seen with the peak of deaths occurring in mid April even though the lockdowns started in March. While there remains a consistent amount of excess deaths since mid march 2020, there have been consistent lockdowns in some parts of the country since mid march 2020.

This only leads to continued questions, such as did this v1rus just happen to land in all parts of the US simultaneously during mid march 2020? Seems unlikely.

Considering the effects of the lockdown on the economy, particularly for the everyday man, and considering the known effects of unemployment, poverty, starvation, lack of access to medical care etc. on mortality, it seems likely that the lockdowns may be playing a sizable part in the excess mortality.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Considering the effects of the lockdown on the economy, particularly for the everyday man, and considering the known effects of unemployment, poverty, starvation, lack of access to medical care etc. on mortality, it seems likely that the lockdowns may be playing a sizable part in the excess mortality.

Even if every single lockdown and mask mandate ended today, it would continue to have effects on people and the economy for months and years. People still have the fear from being terrorized every day for a year now. Many wouldn't go to a restaurant if you paid them. A sports bar in South Dakota that was never told to close still probably suffered from fewer customers than normal in the March/April timeframe, due to fear and also a complete lack of sports. Same with a car dealership that has had to deal with lower inventory, higher prices, and likely fewer customers. They may have had to do layoffs or furloughs, just to stay in business.

I still don't think a cruise ship has set sail anywhere in the world.

 

[haidut]

...did this v1rus just happen to land in all parts of the US simultaneously during mid march 2020? Seems unlikely.

Actually, it is very likely that this is exactly what happened. Except that it did not suddenly land everywhere simultaneously but was present in the general population for months and possibly years before the "pandemic" was proclaimed to have arrived. A good portion of the population are now known to have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 as far back as 2018 (this is how far back the studies done so far go, actual exposure probably occurred much earlier). So, a good number of people probably have "pre-existing immunity", and as such "herd immunity" threshold has probably already been reached for most countries around the world. Of course, saying that on TV would be a career suicide for anybody in a position of power so we get to only see it discussed in elite medical journals that the general public (and politicians) would likely never see in their lifetimes. It is not a coincidence that the "herd immunity" threshold model has not been updated since the 60s despite widespread knowledge of it being flawed. If you are a politician (or a vaccine peddler) you want the "herd immunity" threshold to be as high as possible. That way, restrictions can be kept indefinitely until a vaccine arrives and then you can demand that at least say 70% of people need to get it in order to establish the cherished "herd immunity". Win-win for all the corrupt sides of the political system we live under. If "herd immunity" threshold is 10%-20%, as the link below argues, then BOTH lockdowns and vaccines are pointless as it is effectively guaranteed that 10%-20% of the population will get infected with such a highly infections virus as SARS-CoV-2. So, having lockdowns and other restrictions trying to prevent those 10%-20% infection rates is a failed strategy right from the start.
Pre-existing COVID-19 Immunity In 20%-50% Of People - Better Than Vaccines?

 

[Lollipop2]

Do you understand there is also scientific research that is completely contrary to the study posted in that thread? You admitted you don't even understand the statistical arguments being made in the report, yet you simply believe it because it fits your covid 'narritive'.

Here is an example of one report (although I'm not sure you can understand it).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6942e2-H.pdf

Not really.

Watch this video and I think you might be surprised:

Yeadon and Craig.



@haidut a must watch video. Long but worth it.

 

[Kram]

Not really.

Watch this video and I think you might be surprised:

Yeadon and Craig.

Your argument is telling me to watch a 3hr video with no context at all? How about you lay out some points on what the video is about, who is involved and specifically, how it debunks or explains excess deaths in the U.S.

 

[Lollipop2]

Your argument is telling me to watch a 3hr video with no context at all? How about you lay out some points on what the video is about, who is involved and specifically, how it debunks or explains excess deaths in the U.S.

@Lizb originally posted the video in another thread. She wrote about it:

“Dr Mike Yeadon's and Dr Clare Craig in this video explain how we already have heard immunity in the UK, and how it could all be over for us in a week. It doesn't look like it will happen as the BBC are under control of the government via an OFCOM document stating that they cannot broadcast anything that will undermine the government message.”

I would add great evidential proof from two honest scientists about the official narrative of “second wave”, “greater deaths”, “more cases”, “lockdowns”, etc. Take notes as it is almost impossible to refute their evidence.

And the best part they are not conspiracy people just honest scientists who are now starting to seriously question.

 

[Lollipop2]

Not really.

Watch this video and I think you might be surprised:

Yeadon and Craig.



@haidut a must watch video. Long but worth it.

@Mito see this video. Long but worth it take notes. Soooo much evidence is presented.

 

[Kram]

@Lizb originally posted the video in another thread. She wrote about it:

“Dr Mike Yeadon's and Dr Clare Craig in this video explain how we already have heard immunity in the UK, and how it could all be over for us in a week. It doesn't look like it will happen as the BBC are under control of the government via an OFCOM document stating that they cannot broadcast anything that will undermine the government message.”

I would add great evidential proof from two honest scientists about the official narrative of “second wave”, “greater deaths”, “more cases”, “lockdowns”, etc. Take notes as it is almost impossible to refute their evidence.

And the best part they are not conspiracy people just honest scientists who are now starting to seriously question.

My previous posts in this thread had nothing to do with herd immunity, the justification of lockdowns, the "second wave" etc. They were simply about excess deaths (300k+) in the U.S. this year.

 

[95as]

Maybe someone has pointed this out but I don't think the statista website has accurate statistics, if you look at official numbers Preliminär befolkningsstatistik per månad 2020 72312 dead after 9 months, and if we calculate by low deaths october november december, maybe 6800, 7200, 7400 for those months we get around 94000 which is at least a little bit higher than expected, but probably some deaths are from less people seeking medical treatment, less people have been to ICU this year, around 42000 november last year up to this november compared to around 45000 all recent years, and psychological effects of the restrictions, I know the narrative is that no lockdowns in Sweden etc but most people work from home and now maximum of 8 people are allowed to meet, and a lot of people perceive what's going on as an actual crisis with loads of people dying and scared to catch it, albeit a lot of people realize it is not really as bad as portrayed by media and government.

And I'm surprised the "top official" Anders Tegnell is so reasonable compared to our usual policies on other topics.
But adjusted for population 2015 was worse so far according to Statistik relaterad till covid-19
The graphical representation if you scroll down a bit, antal döda per 100 000 2015-2020, deaths per 100 000.

However a lot of people think that it would have been way worse if people didn't work from home and wash their hands all the time, but if you look at places that locked down and destroyed as much of the economy as possible and limited social contacts to an absolute minimum, like Belgium still had a way worse outcome with double our sars-cov2 positive deaths, which seems contradictive if these measures would have a positive effect.
It's also strange that Austria had such low numbers in the spring, the official theory is that people who went to the italian alps spread it to Sweden, but somehow Austria was spared even though movement between those two countries must have been a lot higher than Italy<>Sweden.
I think Italy, UK, France, Spain also enforced some sort of lockdown at times in spring and now in october/november and they're all worse off than us.
Very strange virus and situation.

 

[Lollipop2]

[

My previous posts in this thread had nothing to do with herd immunity, the justification of lockdowns, the "second wave" etc. They were simply about excess deaths (300k+) in the U.S. this year.

They explained that they are not from Covid. It is worth watching the video.

 

[jaakkima]

It has been discussed for several countries that a slight increase in mortality is due to the fact that the baby boomers generation is dying now.

Look at the graph for the US here:

U.S. Death Rate 1950-2020

I've been saying that. Total death has the tendency to increase a bit year to year because of population growth as well.

There were reports early on about a massive increase in suicides being seen.

In the US, even if you took the official COVID figures at face value (and they are definitely dishonest), they would be at this point still similar to the official figures for the 1957-58 and 1968-69 flu seasons in terms of mortality adjusted for population size. And no one freaked out then. And now we're moving into season 2.

 

[gaze]

the most recent update to the statistics, on December 11, puts the deaths at 89000 which is the same as years past. i think by the end of the december when it gets updated again, it's on track to be sweden's highest death toll, although probsbly by only a couple thousand

 

[Regina]

If the lockdowns/restrictions continue, by January 2021, the majority of those excess deaths will NOT be related to COVID-19. Will that change your mind as to whether shutting down most countries around the world was worth it? What percentage of excess deaths not related to COVID-19 do you think is a threshold, above which we declare the lockdowns/isolations a failure (and possibly one of genocidal proportions)?
Btw, can you please show me where on mainstream media you have seen ANY mention about that 1/3 (and growing) share of non-COVID-19 deaths? Yes, CDC published those stats but where have you seen a big scary counter of excess deaths, separated in COVID-19-related and non-COVID-19-related and ominously increasing both numbers on a daily basis with journalists jumping over each other to inflate the panic over either number even more?
I think you see where I am going with this. While there may be some virus going around, everything publicly broadcasted about it - from its lethality, to the appropriate restriction measure, to even vaccines - has been politicized to no end, with very clear benefits for the elite and devastating consequences for all regular people. Do you think those ~200K excess deaths (if indeed real) justify destroying the entire country? No body ever gave people the chance to discuss the pros/cons of how to handle the pandemic, or at least explain that there are very tangible costs in terms of loss of life (~100K+, so far) associated with the option imposed on us (without ANY debate).
CNN: Covid-19 Death Rate Is Under 1% For Everyone But People Over 70
Pre-existing COVID-19 Immunity In 20%-50% Of People - Better Than Vaccines?
COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Essentially Pointless
Canadian PM Just Confirmed The "Great Reset" Is Not A Conspiracy
The Fed - The Old Economy, As We Know It, Is Probably Gone
YouTube Will Soon Start Banning COVID-19 Contrarian Videos
People Who Refuse The COVID-19 Vaccine May Be Banned Socially
DC Law Now Allows Secret Vaccinations Of Children

Btw, look at the last 2 links above (especially the last one). Does that give you any pause about the whole COVID-19 pandemic and what it is being used for? Or do you think each one of those 8 links above has a perfectly benign explanation and nothing is out of the ordinary?
The exact same rationale - fear (of terrorism, at the time) - was used back in early 2000s to begin the implementation of the police state. It is the exact same protocol, except this time the enemy is invisible and instead of Al-Qaeda they called it COVID-19. Again, bits and pieces of it are probably real. But it is nothing like the beast we are being told it is. None of the civil liberties lost since 9/11 have ever been regained. They continue to be eroded (see last 3 links above), and looking back in retrospect, the whole "terrorism" thing was basically a cover for introducing "Surveillance Capitalism" as an economic model in most developed economies.
Surveillance capitalism - Wikipedia

Now, COVID-19 (which does seem to have SOME basis in reality) is being used to usher in the complete digitization of economies, societies, and life in general. I just don't see see what good would come out of this whole process...even if we give a HUGE benefit of the doubt and accept COVID-19 pandemic as real and dangerous.

So, my take on COVID-19 - we've simply been had, just like after 9/11. A real, but not nearly as dangerous as described, event/entity is being used to continue to enslave us until we will basically be paying for the privilege of breathing.

Section 230, Barr - 1934 Communications Act -Sagan/GTE/Genuity/Stimulus/Backpage​

 

[haidut]

It's pretty clear the report is incorrect as they even admit the data is wrong, which is why they didn't publish it. The below data suggests there is excess mortality this year from something..

Sorry to resurrect this several months later, but I have been having this back and forth with the JHU newsletter staff over this article. Study attached as PDF as well, in case JHU decides to go full Orwellian and delete that file too. Feel free to contact Yanni Gu if you want to get involved in the discussion too. She is the one who published the retraction note.

Yanni Gu | Academic Support

Start with small and manageable goals and achieve one at a time. This will allow you to slowly and successfully adapt to the new routine, whether it is a studying method or a new lifestyle.

academicsupport.jhu.edu

The newsletter staff were apparently told by high-ranking JHU administrators to retract the article because it was being used to question the severity of the pandemic (see link below), not because it was based on wrong data. There is nothing factually wrong with the article - I was told that several times over phone and the retraction note corroborates that. There is simply disagreement between the author and JHU administration whether the metrics used in the study are the most reliable indicator of the severity of the pandemic. That is why they do not say in the retraction not to ignore the study altogether (as would have been the case if the findings were wrong) but instead that it should be "taken in context" with other information. The author thinks that age-specific deaths, COVID-19 related deaths, other-causes deaths and their percentage as part of total death count reliably paint a picture of a pandemic that is severely overblown in the media. The administrators at JHU disagree, and think that "excess deaths" is the more reliable gauge for whether there is a pandemic or not, and that focusing on percentages "trivializes the pandemic". Keep in mind, again, nowhere in the reasons for the retraction listed on the retraction page below does it say the article was factually incorrect. The disagreement is entirely over semantics. The study used hard numbers - deaths counts, that cannot be fudged or changed into probabilities. The JHU administrators insist on the "excess deaths" metric. However that latter metric compares actual deaths vs. "expected" (predicted) deaths. Who gets to define the "expected" number for 2020? More importantly, how is that a more reliable metric of actual raw death counts (which is what the study used)? Just as importantly, as has become customary in the last few years, another reason for the retraction is that the author is not a doctor or another medical professional with experience in virology. Am I the only one wondering what does that have to do with the purely statistical analysis presented in the study??
All in all - this is one of the worst examples of political censorship I have seen as there is no factual inaccuracy in the retracted study. If there was a disagreement over what is the best metric for pandemic severity, the university administrators (or any other disagreeing party) could have published a rebuttal, as it is commonly done with scientific studies listed on PubMed. However, they decided to directly censor an article that had no factual errors in it because it..."trivializes the pandemic" and is used by dissenters to..."minimize the impact" of the pandemic.
Oh, and speaking of hard numbers - the explanation provided on the retraction page actually does contain a factual error. It once again wrongly claims that there are 300,000 COVID-19 related deaths in the US for 2020 (at the time of publication). Yet, we discussed earlier in this thread that at least 1/3 of those deaths are not COVID-19 deaths. And if you believe the metrics of the retracted article, all of them are due to heart attacks, strokes, flu, pneumonia, etc being ascribed to COVID-19. Why does the JHU administration (like all other "official" sources of pandemic information) continue to tout and inflate the COVID-19 death count by at least 33%+ (and probably by a lot more, if the article findings are correct)?

@burtlancast @Drareg @Giraffe @tankasnowgod

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

www.jhunewsletter.com

"...Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic. We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF. In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently. Briand’s study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S."

"...According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic."

 

[Collden]

Death stats in Sweden are more or less finalized now to be compared with previous years, clearly covid was a deadly plague that completely warranted the panic.

 

[BearWithMe]

Death stats in Sweden are more or less finalized now to be compared with previous years, clearly covid was a deadly plague that completely warranted the panic.

View attachment 21854

...and these few extra deaths compared to 2018 are probably a result of medical interventions and government tyranny.

 

[Kram]

The study used hard numbers - deaths counts, that cannot be fudged or changed into probabilities. The JHU administrators insist on the "excess deaths" metric. However that latter metric compares actual deaths vs. "expected" (predicted) deaths. Who gets to define the "expected" number for 2020? More importantly, how is that a more reliable metric of actual raw death counts (which is what the study used)?

I don't care enough to go back and look at the data in the study again (which looked like it was made by a high school student). I agree excess deaths is subjective and it is more important to look at actual deaths relative to previous years, which is what I had posted. The below data, which was from the CDC, suggests there is excess mortality (unless it is incorrect).

Total U.S. Mortality from Jan 1 through Mid November:
2017: 2,470,155
2018: 2,503,408
2019: 2,509,027
2020: 2,851,262
2017-2019 Average: 2,494,196
2020 Excess Mortality through mid-Nov: 357,065

 

[haidut]

I agree excess deaths is subjective and it is more important to look at actual deaths relative to previous years, which is what I had posted. The below data, which was from the CDC, suggests there is excess mortality (unless it is incorrect).

So,...you agree that excess deaths is a subjective metric, yet you cite that exact same metric from CDC as justification. I don't follow...can you please elaborate?