Many commentators, not to mention Government spokesmen, are still relying on ‘COVID-19 deaths per million people’ as a measure of the disease’s lethality. However, we know that excess mortality – the number of deaths in excess of what you’d expect based on previous years – provides a more accurate gauge of the pandemic’s death toll.
Unlike ‘COVID-19 deaths per million people’, this measure does not vary with factors like testing infrastructure or the criteria for assigning cause of death. (Though the best measure to use is age-adjusted excess mortality.)
In the U.K. and some other countries, excess deaths ran much higher than official COVID-19 deaths in the first wave, due to a lack of testing. However, since the start of this year, they’ve have been running much lower than official COVID-19 deaths in Western Europe.
As I noted in a previous post, Ariel Kalinsky and Dmitry Kobak have collected all the available data on excess mortality in one place. (Note: they use a linear trend over the last five years as the baseline, rather than a simple average, which yields more accurate estimates of excess deaths.)
The latest version of their study includes a chart showing excess deaths and official COVID-19 deaths over time in sixteen different countries:
In Peru, Mexico and South Africa, excess deaths have been running substantially higher than official COVID-19 deaths since the start of the pandemic. By contrast, in all but four of the European countries, excess deaths closely matched official COVID-19 deaths up the end of 2020.
However, since the beginning of 2021, excess deaths have been running lower – often much lower – than official COVID-19 deaths in every European country. In Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K., excess deaths have been negative (i.e., below the baseline) for multiple consecutive weeks.
Some of these disparities could be due to reporting delays for all-cause deaths. However, the authors “excluded the most recent data points whenever there was an indication that the data were substantially incomplete”, so such delays are unlikely to be a big contributor. And in any case, the largest disparities between excess and official deaths are not seen in the most recent weeks.
Overall, Kalinsky and Kobak’s findings indicate that excess deaths has become untethered from official COVID-19 deaths in Europe, and the latter measure is now substantially overstating the pandemic’s death toll.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If it wasn’t covid it would be something else killing these people and the graphs of excess deaths vs “death by old age” would still line up.
Indeed. The Actuaries are more accurate than some, when it comes to the facts. After all, if life expectancy suddenly increased, there would be financial problems, reductions in pension payments etc.
If you had not realised yet, we are not living in a pandemic. Only one that has been classed by the WHO after 3 revisions to what constitues a pandemic.
Second largest donor to the WHO after the US is Bill Gates’s foundation. Bill Gates is a vaccine/injection technology fanatic. Bio-id passes are the objective, manipulating data is the means of achieving that objective.
no scamdemic emergency = no experimental gene therapy authorisation
= no experimental gene therapy authorisation
And of course that would never do.
From almost day one, it has been clear that the real motive behind the Covid-19 scamdemic is the plan to pump the whacko gene “therapy” products into as many of us as possible and in the shortest possible time at that.
The “vaccines” are not about money, The monsters behind the scam have more money than they could ever need. So it’s much more likely to be something far more sinister, and for me it’s probably planned genocide for the masses and a form of indentured servant transhumanism, for those unlucky enough to survive the “vaccines”.
I think a more likely explanation is that governing by fear is easier that governing “normally” and gives you more power, attention and glory, and those with their hands on the levers have grown used to that, and been helped by big global interests (big tech) who the situation suits.
The vaccine part is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and the end is endless power.
Your “more likely” explanation may be rather more comforting, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. These people are not risking everything for the pointless power, which they effectively had anyway.
They’ve been telling us for decades just what they are up to, but most just haven’t listened. The new reset world is to be a playground for themselves and you and the rest of us, will have no place there.
The job for we the ordinary people is simply to get “vaccinated” and then we can bow out sometime over the next year or so, nothing could be easier.
Well I suppose I would say this but I don’t choose to find my explanation more likely because it is comforting – and in any case the world I think we’re in is anything but comforting
….and in any case the world I think we’re in is anything but comforting
We can agree on that.
It’s easier to follow the group. “Groupthink” explains the uniformity of policies. The irony is that the rare politician who doesn’t follow the pack – or buy the authorized narrative – like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida – is surging in popularity. This might be the one encouraging sign I’ve seen in the past year.
Until he has a little “accident”
It isn’t justpower they want it is control, control of everything.
There is no single rationale.
But to say “The “vaccines” are not about money” because corporations have ‘enough money’ is a fallacy.
Capitalist enterprise like pharmaceuticals is driven by profit – it just ‘is’. Bears crapping in the woods stuff. Then there is the reward of control – so clearly related to the command of resources in a very material way.
For some people, all the money in the world wouldn’t be enough.
True. But this is beyond individual motivation – it is an inherent, impersonal systemic driver that isn’t new – but is running unchecked by balancing factors in this situation. As is political power.
Of course they don’t mind picking up yet more money along the way, but without a strong depopulation element the Covid event just wouldn’t have happened as it happened.
However, we know that excess mortality – the number of deaths in excess of what you’d expect based on previous years – provides a more accurate gauge of the pandemic’s death toll.
There are many different measures of the pandemic’s death toll and none of them is superior to the others. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. The trick is to build up an overall picture based on a range of measures and also use the right measures to answer the right questions.
Excess age adjusted mortality is handy for measuring the overall impact of the epidemic including indirect deaths e.g. deferred cancer operations. It is not much good if you are only interested in deaths due to Covid infection. It also only as good as your method of measuring expected deaths and there are many ways of doing that – none foolproof.
Well yes, but it seems to me the standard measure of covid deaths adopted by UK govt and others (deaths within 28 days of +ve PCR test of variable accuracy and threshold) is not really one of the many useful, meaningful measures of the impact of covid, unless your intention is to distort the truth for political reasons.
It has its uses. It is the most up to date and it is used widely internationally so it allows international comparison. It corresponds quite closely to “Covid is given as cause on death certificate” so it is not a million miles away from the true rate of died because of Covid infection.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Different ways of measuring deaths (other commentators disagree with me but they seem to understand what I am writing).
The only question YOU need to be focussing your efforts on is why the fuck are we NOT opening our society NOW! Not the 21st of June, NOW!
A very fair point, but one they will dodge until the flu season comes around again.
Comparing rubbish to rubbish doesn’t seem very useful to me.
Where can I find “covid is given as cause of death on death certificate” stats, and do you know how and by whom this cause of death is determined? If that person would have died anyway, roughly when they did die, of other things they were ill with, then I don’t see that it means much.
“Comparing rubbish to rubbish doesn’t seem very useful to me”
Eggsackerly!
… and the whole sad saga is fraught with this problem, even when the intention is genuine.
I get arsy about language and precision, precisely because the root of the problem is wilful distortion.
Where can I find “covid is given as cause of death on death certificate” stats,
ONS
do you know how and by whom this cause of death is determined?
The cause of death is usually determined by a doctor or other qualified medical person although the rules are quite complicated and were modified for Covid. As the majority of Covid deaths are in hospital I think we can assume that most of these are done by a competent doctor familiar with the case.
If that person would have died anyway, roughly when they did die, of other things they were ill with, then I don’t see that it means much.
That is true. But the death certificate does differentiate between underlying cause and contributing to death. Both figures are given in the stats.
In the end all measures have their strengths and weaknesses – but this is a pretty useful one it seems to me.
Thanks. The completion instructions for underlying cause of death are indeed complicated and seem very keen to keep mentioning covid. I am suspicious that there has been excessive enthusiasm to attribute deaths to covid, based on mass hysteria and groupthink, to which doctors are clearly not immune, and that deaths from other causes have often been running at well below the recent (low) average, which doesn’t make a great deal of sense unless you conclude there has been an over-attribution of deaths to covid.
The deaths from covid as underlying cause is consisently 10% lower than deaths involving covid, yet deaths involving covid is the figure I believe is quoted in headlines and by govts.
I still think all-cause mortality compared to historical baselines is the most reliable and least subject to manipulation or misinterpretation.
I reckon that the ‘10% below’ is far, far too much of an underestimate. I think the actuality is probably around 80%, given the fog around diagnosis and recording.
“our opinion of the competence of doctors”
It’s not a one-dimensional assessment.
I have gratefulness and admiration second to none regarding those who have kept me alive.
BUT :
Come to Covid, and it clear that the medical profession, outside their speciality, can be as gullible as the average Joe over Covid. (Note the lack of rebellion over patent nonsense). The list of ‘symptoms’ for what is essentially a secondary, auto-immune disease are so generalised as to be almost meaningless.
Indeed and I’m not necessarily disputing competence, but honesty, courage and lack of gullibility.
I think the main question we’re trying to answer is the impact of covid on mortality, hospitalisation and serious illness. I’ve not seen much sign that the government really wants to know what the true impact is.
What would be a sign that the government really wanted to know?
That question doesn’t even make sense.
I have to hand it to you MTF, you are a damned sight better than Fon, but really you’re just the same.
“ they usually make it clear …”
Far from it – this shit-show largely turns on confusions of terminoligy – e.g. ‘case’, ‘infection’, ‘of, ‘with’ ‘SARS v. Covid’, ‘unprecedented’ … it’s an extensive list.
The revised instructions were a blatant attempt to inflate the number of so called Covid-19 deaths. No other explanation holds water.
“The revised instructions were issued specifically to help doctors”
Doctors knew how to complete death certificates, death happened A LOT before ‘covid’. The new guidelines made sure the ‘right’ results where obtained.
Of course it’s used internationally! It’s an international conspiracy! As has already been seen many death certificates are completed based on a positive PCR test. People in hospices have been tested as they lay dying just to crank up the numbers. Anything remotely associated with a PCR test positive has to be viewed with suspicion. A Ct above 35 (<30 even better) renders the test meaningless. Unless symptomatic as assessed by a medical practitioner, with a confirmatory test as requested, then it’s not a confirmed case in the real world.
IT’S OFFICIAL – Official Data shows more people have died because of the Covid Vaccines in 6 months than people who have died of Covid-19 in 15 months
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/06/12/official-data-shows-more-people-have-died-because-of-the-covid-vaccines-in-6-months-than-people-who-have-died-of-covid-19-in-15-months/
You need to go and read the actual PHS report. Daily Expose are taking one sentence and saying that all of these deaths were caused by vaccination – if you go on to read the rest of the report it states that they have observed over 4700 LESS deaths than expected. (The death rate just miraculously dropping by half absolutely requires further interrogation.)
I absolutely do not dispute that vaccinations have undoubtedly lead to deaths and that we do not know that exact number because MHRA simply aren’t investigating but if we’re going to make arguments like this we need to go out armed with plausible data.
https://beta.isdscotland.org/media/9180/21-06-09-covid19-publication_report.pdf
“LESS deaths than expected”
The deadly ‘excess deaths’ fallacy again – projection from a modelling manipulation
What ‘pandemic’ are you on about?
All-cause mortality is simply the only reasonably reliable metric that we have. Any unusual upsurge in a disease should show up – otherwise it’s not at all unusual, by definition.
However, historical comparisons should be on a representatively sampled time basis, not a mickey-mouse period of five years that may (as at the current time) capture a mean that is anomalous in historical terms.
The result should be expressed in simple, clear statistical language in relation to that baseline central measure. Not in the loaded language of ‘excess’, which subliminally imparts the loaded implication of ‘what should be’ or ‘the normal’.
Another way of recognising the falsity is to see the ‘excess’ label as modellers’ language – and we know how modelling assumptions have been central to false perceptions as they turn into some fictional measure of ‘what will happen’. ‘Excess’ implies ‘what should have happened’. based on a crap model.
Well it would if we hadn’t panicked a year ago. Now, how can we possibly separate “covid” deaths from deaths caused by lockdown?
I’ve just said that we can’t! That’s the whole f.ing point!
Thus all-cause mortality is the metric that shows up unusual variations.
The pattern of that measure does show something happening consistent with a viral infection in April 2020, that is obviously not caused by lockdown (too sudden and too early).
You can’t just wish it away to suit your predilections – that’s how the Covid maniacs operate.
Sorry, I meant to quote the entire 1st paragraph.
Yes, April was quite a big spike caused by the intentional killing of people by sending them back into care homes.
Undoubtedly, the Care Home situation is a significant component in the size of the upsurge – whatever the agent. I’m not getting into the deliberation argument – the same effect on the elderly happened all over the place, including Sweden.
But something had to be responsible, and nosocomial spread was simply one aspect. A simple observation shows a very unusual spike in mortality consonant with a viral agent.
Give me an example of “representatively sampled time basis”.
There is no definitive answer – by ‘definition’.
I use c.25 years, as a balance between representativeness and changing historical circumstance. By that I mean that a span of – say 100 years – would be rendered meaningless because of the vast social changes, and thus changing variables. 3-5 years is just too short a sample of time.
25 years captures a period where there may have been some change, but does include a range of years with sufficiently similar circumstances to make valid comparisons and with years of comparable mortality.
It is the word “sampled” that confuses me. Are you just saying that we should take an average of the last 25 years instead of the usual 5 or 10 – and call it “usual” rather than “expected”? Or am I oversimplifying what you are saying?
A baseline is derived from a time sample. 25 years is a better sample than 5. It’s as simple as that.
The age standardised mortality rate has dropped year on year consistently over the last 25 years (until 2020).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/12735annualdeathsandmortalityrates1938to2020provisional
25 years may provide more data for a baseline but shouldn’t we allow for the decline when determining what is usual for the current year? Otherwise every year is going to be lower than the average of the preceding 25 years i.e. every year is lower than usual!
If we do allow for the slope, then I think you will find it comes out much the same as using the last 5 years, perhaps slightly lower.
You’ve fallen into a trap (or several).
An examination of mortality data of aggregated for two-year periods illustrates the fallacy of simple linear trends (and the fact that the recent period has been one of rising mortality, and not stability :
(I am about to update this analysis for 2020-21 – but it illustrates the point)
Are you seriously proposing that increasing average age is not going to increase mortality rates other things being equal? (You don’t have to assume a constant age effect to allow for a possible age effect)
Of course we should be wary of assuming that past trends will continue. On the other hand, if you want to make some kind of estimate of what is “usual” for the current year, you have no other data available than the past data and whatever trends it reveals. I don’t see how using 25 years compensates for this assumption. It just reveals a longer term trend. In fact using just the most recent data protects you from assuming that the long term trend will apply.
I am not sure I understand your graph. What is the vertical scale? Are these mortality rates, age standardised mortality rates, or just deaths? Your two year periods seem not to be based on calendar years, but you don’t say when your year starts.
No-one can possibly know how many have died from covid 19 in Britain:
‘John Lee, formerly clinical professor of pathology at Hull York Medical School….said that, while Covid-19 might be mentioned on a death certificate, this might be little more than speculation. He said: “In what proportion of Covid-19 ‘mentions’ was the disease actually present? And in how many cases was Covid-19 responsible for death? Despite what you may have understood from daily briefings, the shocking truth is that we just don’t know.”
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/pathologists-the-truth-well-never-know-how-many-died/
In fact it is unlikely that anyone can possibly know how many have died from covid 19 anywhere:
‘All but two countries in Europe – Albania and Monaco – have a universal death registration system, and in Asia, just over half, analysis of UN data shows.
But in Africa it is only Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia, Algeria, Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles and Mauritius that have what are called functioning, compulsory and universal civil registration systems – known as CRVS systems – which record deaths.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-55674139
So by all means fill your boots with graphs etc if that is your thing….but that is all it is……
The world has no idea whether 2020 and 2021 have been in any way out of the ordinary for overall all cause mortality.
The best we can do is look at our own overall cause mortality numbers, given the effects of hospital clearances in 2020 and plumb normal mortality for 2021 and scratch our heads at what the flock the government has been playing at……..
Your first sentence is no doubt correct. It appears to have been deliberately encouraged to be used as a recorded ‘cause’ on the current certificates, if only via a psychological route. Whether that is good statistics, I’ll leave that for debate. If you dig into it a bit more, there appears to have been quite a lot of ‘transition’ from one cause to another, especially during the winter, even though there were several weeks during which deaths were less than the five year average.
First – the justified complaint.
I’m sorry that the transfer doesn’t include the labelling of the axis. It’s variation from the median value – essentially in tems of centiles when x100, in terms of population standardised deaths. But it is the pattern that is the essential information – showing the fallacy of assuming a linear trend and of taking a portion of long-term picture as representative.
Beyond that, I’m afraid that you just don’t grasp the obvious – the need to make comparisons in terms of a sufficiently large sample of years. What is ‘usual’ is simply derived from a sufficient sample of years. What is ‘usual’ for the ‘current year’ is a nonsense idea. By definition. There is the current year in relation to history – that’s all, and is what past data reveals.
“Are you seriously proposing that increasing average age is not going to increase mortality rates.”
Yes – in those simplistic terms. You are confusing average longevity with increasing mortality rates – a contradiction of actuality as shown in the classic graph of generally decreasing mortality over time. Think about it.
Re your graph. I am trying to work out how you created the pattern. I want to try and reproduce it, or something similar. Did you do it via a spreadsheet? If so, maybe you can make that publicly available? If that is not possible, can you at least explain if those are mortality rates or age adjusted mortality rates.
I don’t have any problem with including large numbers of years provided you allow for the fact that confounding factors (such as average age) will change more over longer periods. I don’t think many statisticians would quarrel with this either.
I guess you meant increasing average age and increasing mortality rates (if not I am truly lost!). I am not confusing them. I am saying one causes the other. You deny this which is a remarkable thing as it is equivalent to saying people are not more likely to die as they get older – if only that were true – eternal youth!
And different organisations use different ranges – e.g. the Met Office uses two different twenty-nine year ones for weather comparisons with long term averages – 1961 to 1990, 1981 to 2010. Some might remember what happened in 1963, or 1976, e.g.
Are you still going on about this? Jesus H Christ!!!
He is dissembling, its a good technique for people wanting to divert attention. He is good, much better than Fon, but really just the same.
Dissembling from what? I am just pursuing an interest in RickH’s unusual ideas on statistical inference. I am perfectly happy to pay attention to something else provided:
Is there really any point to all this endless analysis now?
At this stage I don’t see what it achieves.
The endless analysis keeps everyone in a state of confusion. Meanwhile our government maintains emergency powers over us that no-one should really accept.
No! It’s not the ‘analysis’ that does that. It’s the lies.
Agree, as the yelling Sgt Major type was shouting at the KBF meet up yesterday – “the time for f**king politeness is over now we need piano wire – and lots of it”
Can I have some please?
Yes. But get real. It’s just empty shouting.
Yes, there absolutely is. The lies of the conspiracists crashing Western economies and imprisoning their peoples have to be constantly, carefully and rigorously unpicked.
Thank you to the guys who compiled these.
Please can someone go back and look at hospitalistion rates during previous very hot periods in the UK? I suspect we are seeing a rise of hospitalisation due to excess heat but being marked as COVID because of the endless testing!
Sure, that will happen.
“.. we know that excess mortality – the number of deaths in excess of what you’d expect based on previous years – provides a more accurate gauge of the pandemic’s death toll.”
No. We don’t ‘know’ that. After all this time we still have this nonsense use of the term ‘excess’ mortality – usually based on far too short baseline that makes far too many assumptions, given what we know about inter-country variations, It is simply an unexamined convention.
Briefly – it uses a five year baseline, when a brief glance will show that this is no basis for comparisons when countries have varying peaks of mortality in terms of timing. These crucial variations will not be captured in five-year samples.
Of course, anything quoting ‘Covid’ deaths is an even more unstable metric, given that the base data is shot through with inaccuracy. But this pseudo ‘excess’ measure is still too flawed to make accurate deductions.
P.S. Those country line graphs show nothing of interest in the terms of the article. They simply show quite high levels of correlation in terms of two measures that are both flawed.
The interest is only in where they significantly differ – but the basics don’t change.
amazed people are still accepting anything, variants, polls, hospitalisations, cases, then we have the G7, a blatant show of how this is all absolute BS. Johnson is so far down the globalist rabbit hole, he can’t get out so does more theatrics to fool the sheep
Don’t forget government guidelines are NOT mandatory they are only recommendations and not enforceable in law. If you wish to ignore the guidelines thats up to you and there’s nothing the government or the law can do. I’ve been ignoring the governments guidelines for 15 months now.
Try telling that to the knuckle dragger security goons at the supermarket
Then say I’m exempt.
Brian Monteith, writing in Facts4EU :
‘When the lockdown started back in March last year the UK Government gave The Office for Communications (Ofcom) – its agency responsible for regulating TV, radio, video on demand sectors, fixed line and mobile telecoms, postal services and the airwaves which wireless services operate – new powers to monitor and penalise unhelpful reporting of the pandemic by those under its purview. By law the ability of broadcasters news and current affairs programmes to report competing views around what the Coronavirus pandemic actually was and how it might develop became government controlled.
‘
Yes – I am wondering how this will impact on GB News over time.
Adverse reaction man found in park in Nottingham on FB. Second one on the same day according to author. This is a genocide. The British goverment needs taking out, they are about to start killing the kids with this crap. WHERE IS THE MILITARY?
“WHERE IS THE MILITARY?”
Where do you think?
Same as the police – acting, as always, as part of the establishment. Of course.
You could have Covid with a feverish delusion as implied by that question.
The military are with the Queen and the Queen is with the people…..and the people are still with this government, as we know from the recent elections.
The tyranny of the majority, even now……..
A group of men go into Bromley police station London to serve papers on the …
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MNEXPtsTxJWE/
I just wonder what they’ll do and say if deaths and serious injury from vaccination go viral…
I’ve just heard of another acquaintance in their 30s who is currently in hospital with lung blood clots shortly after being jabbed. This is beginning to reach levels where everyone will soon know someone injured by “vaccines”. I now know of four suspicious deaths and two severe injuries.
I know someone who’s sister recently died, the real cause of which is likely to be swept under the carpet (she said her sister had a brain haemorrhage – but not why). After all, the lady who’s still alive was quite keen on it, some months ago. Didn’t want to raise cain over that, though. No-one wants to know about the risk they’ve acquired.
It will be presented as random, unfortunate events! I am reminded of the ‘facts’ that, when it is too hot, it is caused by climate change, but, when it is too cold, it is, of course, just weather.
You forgot the MSM-compulsory “rare” when describing those many harmed by the jab.
We’ve been infected with a new strain of parasites whose survival is dependent on convincing us that we are sick.
The moment that they start being honest, their sustenance will be cut off and they will wither and die.
We’ve created an ecosystem where the most ruthless and dishonest leeches will thrive and fatten.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
H.L. Mencken
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/7805.H_L_Mencken
PPS re. those line graphs.
The really interesting feature is the variable degree, but consistent patterning, of the difference between the peaks of the ‘official’ and ‘excess’ numbers.
This illustrates the degree to which the ‘excess’ measure varies in relation to the level of the five-year baseline for each individual country. It is actually the ‘excess’ measure that tends to overstatement at the peak, because of this. Just look.
The data here is limited to a few countries, particularly in Europe.
The Economist has data on both excess & Covid deaths for many more countries, although it is for variable periods from 6 to 15 months, and is only for the complete period.
However, as I found, it does provide some useful insights. At the end of May
the following applied.
Why do we hear do little about the real crisis countries of Eastern Europe & Latin America? Why, when defending lockdown policies, does no-one note the vast differences between different regions of the world?
“In the U.K. and some other countries, excess deaths ran much higher than official COVID-19 deaths in the first wave, due to a lack of testing.”
Nothing to do with people being told not to bother A&E, not being able to see GP, not getting cancer treatments, transplants, therapies etc, DNRs, elderly being chucked out of hospital when they had covid and not being treated when they were ill with other things, suicides etc
Hmmm really?
You can’t run a covid only health service and lock everyone at home then act surprised when people are still sick with other stuff. Endless testing is not the answer either.
Turn the statement around:
“excess deaths ran much higher than official COVID-19 deaths in the first wave, due to a lack of testing.”
… or “because a lower level of testing reduced the opportunity for false diagnosis and consequent inflation of attribution to ‘Covid'”
The weekly death data from the ONS for England & Wales gives some support to the belief that “excess deaths ran much higher than official COVID-19 deaths in the first wave, due to a lack of testing“. I know that England and Wales is only 89% of the UK population, but the additional data from NI & Scotland probably does not change the picture substantially. I have put the following cumulative death data for weekly deaths for Week 01 2020 to Week 20 2021 onto a graph
Observations
A word of caution with interpretations here. In England & Wales excess deaths in the 73 weeks from Jan 2020 to late May 2021 are about 100,000 people. That is a lot. But is just 13% more than the equivalent weeks averaged in the period 2015-2019. Further, as there was a massive decline in the death rate in the early years of the century, the death rate since March 2020 is probably still lower than at the turn of the century.
Lockdown protesters march on Downing Street 14 . 6. 21
Look carefully you’ll see the back for our heads at about 0:23 secs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkIbXISw6A8
Monday 14th June 2021 UK’s official Covid 19 figures –
7,742 positive PCR tests –
3 (THREE) deaths from any cause within 28 days of a positive PCR test
UK population 68 million
– for that we destroy the economy for another 4 weeks
The COVID 19 and CLIMATE CHANGE rules DON’T apply to the G7 leaders, the EU leaders, or the Royal Family as we all saw in Cornwall. Just the plebs like us.
Do you really think these people care about YOU?
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the lawyer who brought down Volksawagen and Deutsche Bank, is preparing Nuremburg trials as we speak.
Anti Lockdown Newspaper: https://thelightpaper.co.uk/
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday 10am meet fellow lockdown sceptics
Its all about the “vaccines” and has always been about them.
This makes it all about sterilization, population reduction and the “great reset” and if you believe otherwise then you are a MSM fear porn watching low information sheeple.