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

OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,795
Location
USA / Europe
...and these few extra deaths compared to 2018 are probably a result of medical interventions and government tyranny.

And that is why the number is actually not higher :): You see, the govt realized that if they spike the count too much it may open the floodgates to hell if people realize it is doctors causing it. So, there is a tug-of-war even in the cesspool of public health - you can't inflate too much the death count as it would lead people to question things and they may start to take seriously the fact that medical interventions are the third leading cause of death in the US. And if we believe the latest stats that deaths from cancer went down during 2020, it means medical interventions became the 2nd or even 1st cause of death.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,795
Location
USA / Europe
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

When we first started discussing this last last year in the beginning of the thread, some of comments were "but...but...wait, 2020 is not over yet and the death count will massively spike once all the data is in". Clearly that is exactly what happened /s :):
 

Kram

Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
382
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?
Sorry, I meant *expected* deaths is subjective. Total actual mortality for the US in 2020 appears to be ~3.3 million (vs. ~2.8 million in previous years).



From the report: A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

"All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.

I'm not sure how this is accurate based on the data from the CDC and makes me question the data she is using.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
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.

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

"...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."
"Who gets to define the "expected" number for 2020?"

We have been asking this since the start, expected deaths is the metric they are using, most folks don’t realize what this means, at this point the covid cult are getting weary, initially they would react with anger when you made points like this, now it’s just apathy.

Censorship is hear to stay, let them do it, it’s all getting documented, it’s a media generated hysterical cult and that’s how it will be seen in the future.
Soon we will use there data harvesting algorithms and apply them to their systems at the top to expose the networks, they think they have the game sown up with the likes of Palantir monitoring and finding patterns in our behavior, they won’t like it when we do it to them, their master plan of information overload-hypernormilization so we the public can’t connect the dots will be circumvented by using software like palantir, conspiracy theorists are already detecting patterns with the use of their brain alone, with the use of pattern detection software they will get a lot more accurate.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
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
Do you know if this has been adjusted for population growth?

The medical establishment via the John Hopkins propganda outlet will just say it’s because of "modern medicine" the death rate isn’t a lot worse......
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Iatrogenics via mechanical ventilation probably bumped that number up.

There is some hysterical guy on swedish twitter tweeting in English claiming the Swedish government are suppressing the real death rate, he claims he is an NGO, NGO’s are how the ruling class pump the policies they really want into society.
He claims the Swedish government need to be taken to The Hague for breach of human rights, he is either mentally ill or a disinfo campaign to stop the rest us in the west getting wind of the Swedish data hence the reason he tweets in English.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,795
Location
USA / Europe
Sorry, I meant *expected* deaths is subjective. Total actual mortality for the US in 2020 appears to be ~3.3 million (vs. ~2.8 million in previous years).



From the report: A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

"All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.

I'm not sure how this is accurate based on the data from the CDC and makes me question the data she is using.

The metric CDC reports and uses for defining the severity of the pandemic is not total death numbers, but rather "excess deaths", which is defined as total actual death numbers minus (-) "expected" death numbers. So, if you only take the total actual death numbers, the results are not out of line with previous years, just as the quote you mentioned says. However, CDC subtracts the (subjective, because it is based on a model) "expected" deaths from the actual, real, total death counts and gets another (also subjective, because it has a subjective component) number they call "excess deaths" and this is what gets reported everywhere. So, all her study is saying is that if you remove the subjective portion from the stats, actual death numbers are not deviating much (if at all) from previous years.
 

Kram

Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
382
The metric CDC reports and uses for defining the severity of the pandemic is not total death numbers, but rather "excess deaths", which is defined as total actual death numbers minus (-) "expected" death numbers. So, if you only take the total actual death numbers, the results are not out of line with previous years, just as the quote you mentioned says. However, CDC subtracts the (subjective, because it is based on a model) "expected" deaths from the actual, real, total death counts and gets another (also subjective, because it has a subjective component) number they call "excess deaths" and this is what gets reported everywhere. So, all her study is saying is that if you remove the subjective portion from the stats, actual death numbers are not deviating much (if at all) from previous years.
What? I understand how the CDC has calculated excess deaths...

The data I have pulled from the CDC website is ACTUAL deaths for 2020, not expected. If you are comparing actual total mortality (again, not expected or estimated) for 2020, there are clearly excess deaths of 400k+ compared to previous years. The CDC had previously estimated in October that there were ~300k excess deaths at the time - this is not based on that data or report.

2020 Actual Deaths: ~3.3 million
2018 & 2019 Actual Deaths: ~2.8 million
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
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.

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

"...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."

I was just hoping I could provide a few friends with comparative data on all-cause deaths from 2020 and earlier years. It turns out that such information is hard to find from our regular mainstream and internet channels. Thanks for the research. Still, if I were to provide this info to my friends, it does not help that the data is mired in controversy created by the powers that be.

Proving that 2020 total deaths from all causes did not increase from 2019 significantly is enough for COVID believers to doubt the severity of the COVID crisis.

It makes sense that the blob would want this information to be covered up.

The same way it has been covering up information for 2 centuries, ever since the Zionists took control of the worldwide press. Since that time, they have taken control of more facts and turned them into their own narratives that suit them. The Zionist are true parasites that hide behind the sanctity of institutions that once were trusted as defenders of the common good, and have over these years made them all corrupted and in its service. And as such, these institutions have become no more trustworthy than a used-car salesman.

I hope that the good news is that the climax has been reached for this chapter in our common history. The climax is us seeing and being appalled that even SCOTUS has truly been bought off that there is no more demarcation line between the conservative and liberal justice, and between originalists and non-originalists. We realize that inasmuch as we have been impetuously imposed upon by the use of liars as fact-checkers, we have also been naively relying on gatekeepers that cannot protect us from the deprivations of a cult that shares more in common with the insecurities and fears of Cain than with the nobleness of Abel.

We can't even trust the man in white garb and skullcap and pretends to be an heir of St. Peter and who claims a divine right to godly wisdom. Yes, the reptile who wasted no time congratulating Biden for stealing the presidency in a way that reflects more of the team effort involved. It is actually self-congratulatory for the pope.

This is a climax of sorts. We await now the denouement and the epilogue.
 
Last edited:

Collden

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
630
Do you know if this has been adjusted for population growth?

The medical establishment via the John Hopkins propganda outlet will just say it’s because of "modern medicine" the death rate isn’t a lot worse......
Yeah this is the raw death rate per 100 000, so takes population growth into account.
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,648
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
@yerrag Here is the best image on death rates I've seen.
 

Attachments

  • corona statistics.png
    corona statistics.png
    85.6 KB · Views: 61

Motif

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
2,757
Just looked at Sweden and Germany - so there clearly more people died in 2020.
 

boris

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,345
Just looked at Sweden and Germany - so there clearly more people died in 2020.

Germany is on an upward trend since 2004. In 2020 it's 0.01% more than in 2018. Sweden has less deaths in 2020 than in 2000-2012.
 

Kram

Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
382
I was just hoping I could provide a few friends with comparative data on all-cause deaths from 2020 and earlier years. It turns out that such information is hard to find from our regular mainstream and internet channels. Thanks for the research. Still, if I were to provide this info to my friends, it does not help that the data is mired in controversy created by the powers that be.

Proving that 2020 total deaths from all causes did not increase from 2019 significantly is enough for COVID believers to doubt the severity of the COVID crisis.

It makes sense that the blob would want this information to be covered up.
I wouldn't call myself a covid believer but there are clearly excess deaths of ~400k in the US in 2020. The information is pretty easy to find on the CDC's website. Haidut's post is incorrect.

 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
I wouldn't call myself a covid believer but there are clearly excess deaths of ~400k in the US in 2020. The information is pretty easy to find on the CDC's website. Haidut's post is incorrect.


I downloaded the data from your link. It looks like the excess deaths in 2020 are missing in 2019. The data look very strange.

Edit to add: I doublechecked my data, and found a mistake. This is the corrected graph. Unexpected low mortality in 2019 does explain some of the high numbers in 2020, but there is still quite some excess in 2020.
 

Attachments

  • US all cause.GIF
    US all cause.GIF
    18.8 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,338
Location
HI
I downloaded the data from your link. It looks like the excess deaths in 2020 are missing in 2019. The data look very strange.

View attachment 21873

We should make a compilation of all Rays comments on the statistics of SARS-CON-2, he has mentioned all of this and summarizes the debate/ argument in this entire thread.

Ultimately ending in the recognition that this is a "pandemic of words", (or more so numbers) rather than some novel menace.

I find this interview to have a good summary of the stats; Program Information - Politics and Science: Ray Peat on the Coronavirus,Immunity,&Vaccines Part 4_08.08.2020|A-Infos Radio Project
 
Last edited:

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I wouldn't call myself a covid believer but there are clearly excess deaths of ~400k in the US in 2020. The information is pretty easy to find on the CDC's website. Haidut's post is incorrect.
It isn't that important to me whether there is excess deaths in the US, even if they are even significantly larger.

If you compare to other countries, the US is an outlier. It is not representative of a world where political points matter more than saving lives.

Worldwide, you will see other countries that have done better by the US by a mile because there are no Andrew Cuomo's being the norm.

The figures shown in the attachment by Hugh Johnson give a better picture. Most of the Western countries see higher all-cause mortality in 2020, but there are still some countries with lower all-cause mortalities in 2020.

I wish we have numbers from Asian countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea to compare with. I exclude China because the numbers there cannot be trusted. But I would bet that the numbers would not indicate COVID as causing any significant increase in all-cause mortality.

Back to the US, it is plausible that significantly increased numbers in 2020 have been due to iatrogenic causes. We are aware that in the beginning many deaths were caused by using ventilators improperly, and that the medical establishment has disallowed the use of prophylactics such as HCQ that would have averted deterioration of patients' conditions. There is also an incentive for the medical establishment to actualize deaths in order to make the fatality figures agreeable to their narrative.

But regardless, you may be right that the US numbers do show excess deaths. The reason for these excess deaths though are not necessarily reflective of the the purported high death rates from COVID,
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,648
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
It isn't that important to me whether there is excess deaths in the US, even if they are even significantly larger.

If you compare to other countries, the US is an outlier. It is not representative of a world where political points matter more than saving lives.

Worldwide, you will see other countries that have done better by the US by a mile because there are no Andrew Cuomo's being the norm.

The figures shown in the attachment by Hugh Johnson give a better picture. Most of the Western countries see higher all-cause mortality in 2020, but there are still some countries with lower all-cause mortalities in 2020.

I wish we have numbers from Asian countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea to compare with. I exclude China because the numbers there cannot be trusted. But I would bet that the numbers would not indicate COVID as causing any significant increase in all-cause mortality.

Back to the US, it is plausible that significantly increased numbers in 2020 have been due to iatrogenic causes. We are aware that in the beginning many deaths were caused by using ventilators improperly, and that the medical establishment has disallowed the use of prophylactics such as HCQ that would have averted deterioration of patients' conditions. There is also an incentive for the medical establishment to actualize deaths in order to make the fatality figures agreeable to their narrative.

But regardless, you may be right that the US numbers do show excess deaths. The reason for these excess deaths though are not necessarily reflective of the the purported high death rates from COVID,
The US also lacks social security. In Western Europe you rarely end up homeless and without food if you lose your job.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Back
Top Bottom