The ONS announced last week that there were 49,428 deaths registered in England in December, which is 1,200 more than in November, and 17.5% more than the five-year average.
Age-standardised mortality rates for leading causes of death other than Covid were close to their five-year averages, suggesting that Covid was the main reason for elevated mortality last month (see below). Although, as noted before, cause-of-death comparisons should be interpreted with caution.
December’s overall age-standardised mortality rate was 9.3% higher than the five-year average. This is a greater disparity than last month and the month before. Though it’s still less than that seen in September. Here’s my updated chart of excess mortality in England since January of 2020:
What’s more, December’s age-standardised mortality rate was 8% lower than the same month a year before. Notice that the bump for the winter of 2021 is slightly lower than that for the winter of 2020.
While it’s certainly good news that mortality is lower, you might have expected a bigger reduction, given the many fewer people had natural immunity last December, and less than 1% of the population had been fully vaccinated.
Indeed, it’s noteworthy that going from under 1% fully vaccinated to more than 68% double vaccinated (including almost all elderly people) is only associated with 8% lower all-cause mortality.
This is consistent with evidence from other European countries, where post-vaccination waves have been as or more deadly than pre-vaccination waves. Such data are hard to reconcile with claims of 90% vaccine effectiveness against death.
With December’s figures out, we now have a full year’s worth of mortality data for 2021. So, how does the second year of the pandemic compare to previous years? It was more deadly than 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. However, it was actually less deadly than 2015 – just six years earlier.
Here’s the ONS’s chart plotting the age-standardised mortality rate each year, going back to 2001:
The overall level of mortality in 2021 was higher than it would have been in the absence of the pandemic (it was above trend, in other words). Yet it was lower than in 2015, 2010 and every year in English history before that. All in all then, 2021 was not a remarkable year for mortality.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
I see that there was another ‘medical incident’ among spectators at a football match yesterday, unfortunately resulting in a fatality.
Normally you would hear of one such incident a season. Now they occur on an almost weekly basis. I wonder why that is.
So pretty much as has been said all along, that covid was on par with a bad flu season.
So “saying people should bé k…d and using shwearwords will get you banned” has become “Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban”. IS this website an offshoot of thé Daily Telegraph/UK GOVT -Dept-of-wilfully-misleading -the-masses-and-State-Propaganda?
I was wondering, does this count as profanity?
TRUCK FUDEAU!
Nice cartoon by the way Bob’
Interesting to see whether I get banned for potential profanity.
Toby, I am by the way a fully paid-up Gold Member of FSU (Free Speech Union, in case anyone thought “FSU” was an acronym for something nastier).
These new rules worry me slightly and not because I’m an advocate of ‘fruity’ language.
The Human Rights Act Reform March 8th. Would it be possible to write an article on how this act reform will affect the unvaxxed? Would it become possible to mandate covid vaxxes for the greater good under this reform? Is this being done because we are no longer part of the EU or is it being done for other reasons? Where are the legal experts in the UK fighting for all of our human rights?
“Overestimated” by whom? Surely no-one with an active brain?
When are we going to get real about this disastrous and deadly fake “vaccines” scam?
These are a dangerous mRNA ‘Gene Therapy’ injection experiment and the consequence of the crass irresponsibly of allowing their use will be a global medical disaster for humanity.
I see the troll has done a fine job of hijacking the entire comment section of this article.
I suggest we all flag every single one of the troll’s comments, but refuse to acknowledge it in any other way. Please don’t engage it in debate – don’t even down tick!
It’s here to derail the debate, please don’t let it succeed.
We all got O level chemistry, physics and biology and this shit is way below O level standard. I don’t even bother with these people there days. They talk like they’re mentally sub-normal. This was obvious from day one: that there was no serious conversation going on here. We need to have a sense of perspective.
https://tcp.art.blog/2022/01/23/covid-the-strange-death-of-medicine/
If there was any good left in the doctor’s role, it was as a benevolent arbiter for the patient, heavily armed with the shields of medical ethics: physician independence, patient choice, patient confidentiality, informed consent, bodily autonomy, beneficence, justice and primary non-maleficence…….. Today, in a tryst with evil, we indulge in the reverse. We peddle fear and connive with exploitative drug barons to push their dangerous, experimental and unnecessary genetic potions. Covid is the friend of Pharma. The people are the enemy, the fodder of the corporate biosecurity state.
Vaccine injuries in the DOD and the attempted cover-up
Further analysis of Thomas Renz’s claims to the congress committee chaired by senator Ron Johnson.
Warning – ominous background music.
https://trmlx.com/vaccine-injuries-in-the-dod-and-the-attempted-cover-up/
Pfizer have published plans to study the effect of the vax on military personnel with the agreement and co-operation of the Department of Defense.
The DoD is mandating the use of the original EUA authorised vax, even though this must be illegal.
The cominarty vax had its license granted and withdrawn on the same day 23 Aug 2021. And yet army personnel who refused the illegally mandated vax were illegally removed from services.
Secretary of Defense owns over 29 thousand shares in a company that made a vast amount of money in Pfizers vax.
Age standardised mortality hides many sins; I’m not sure that it is a particularly helpful statistic in times like these.
Eg, if mortality rates doubled for those aged 40-50, it wouldn’t change age standardised mortality very much at all.
Yes, I agree age standardised mortality hides what’s happening across all ages.
The banded ASM for 0-74 for England that the ONS also publish is slightly better for seeing what is happening at slightly younger ages although still heavily concentrated on the age groups just under 74. The under 74 ASM hasn’t really shown any drop-off since about July.
And same chart with years from 2011 only on it.
So we’re now in a situation (see exchanges with ‘rational’ – who is a troll in spirit, if not in employment) where the intelligentsia has been divided into two camps with diametrically opposed and deeply entrenched interpretations of the event we have all just witnessed; both believe they’ve got the data to support their beliefs and believe the other side to be not just wrong but mad, all the while refusing to look at or listen to each others’ evidence. We have as a culture, whether intentionally or not, been radically destabilised.
OK..
What’s your reasoning for using all cause mortality as an argument for vaccine effectiveness, rather than covid deaths?
I’m not, and haven’t anywhere on this thread – I’m making a point about deeply entrenched opinions that aren’t open to counterargument. Why are you trying to prove people you believe to be idiots, wrong? Why is that worth your time?
Not quite. The, ahem “rational” (the word not the troll) side of the argument is always willing to look at the contrary evidence. Unfortunately it invariably turns out to be dodgy modelling, anecdotal, nonsense meta-studies, big pharma or fauci funded, or fact checkers. It doesn’t take long to burn through that crap.
Here’s you refusing to consider contrary evidence.
Richard Littlejerk in the Mail today advising people about masks:
But back on the 18th February 2021 we had a very different Richard Littlejerk:
Richard Littlejerk went in a short space of time from being a “throw ‘em against the wall and shoot ‘em” type of guy, to being a gallant hero protecting the poor villagers from the dragon called Mask.
What a two-faced shameless twat. In fact, “You couldn’t make it up”.
It looks like all the easy government money the Mail earned publishing lying propaganda about the “goodness of the ‘vaccines’” might have finally dried up. And now Littlejerk and the Mail are attempting to lure back the ordinary people that built their newspaper in the first place.
I hope people don’t forget that the Mail and Littlejerk took the devil’s shilling and sold out people that had been loyal to them for decades. They’ll try to lure these people back again, but would sell them out again the minute the government dangled some more treasonous shillings in front of them.
If anything good comes out of this plandemic, I hope it’s that people don’t forget who the trash were that could have made a massive difference, but instead took the Nazi shilling and turned on their own.
I think opinion writers are not paid to be consistent, they are paid to rush to judgement and argue one side. I guess to some extent, the more controversial the better (within reason) – controversy generates clicks.
That’s brilliant FW. Thank you.
Littlejohn and his ilk run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Next they’ll be spinning the yarn that they spearheaded the resistance against lockdown tyranny.
Whilst we are arguing about this, the UK government has started the process of altering the Human Rights Act and I quote:
“The government is committed to updating the Human Rights Act 1998. This consultation seeks views on the government’s proposals to revise the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, in order to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest.”
Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The consultation phase ends in about five or six weeks!
Another stitch up on the way.
I’m sure Noah is aware of this paper, but this is the article in the BMJ which set 2020 mortality in context with previous years, taking demographics into account, and found it was not nearly as exceptional as the media would have us believe, being only the worst year for age standardised mortality since 2008:
Since (a) the excess deaths in 2020 (ie., before any vaccine rollouts) are nothing special (all cause mortality lower than any year up to 2008) and (b) the age-related mortality distribution for Covid19 deaths is the same as all-cause deaths, it is difficult to see how vaccinations or, TBH, any treatment[*], can make any significant difference to all-cause mortality rates (because, in reality, Covid19 has not resulted in many extra deaths).
[*] This is not to say that treatment should not be attempted at the level of individuals who are seriously ill with Covid19.
Snap.
I think that just as there are some problems judging vaccine effectiveness from the COVID-19 “cases/serious illnesses/deaths” figures, given how questionable much of this COVID statistics are, there are also problems judging it from the all causes mortality numbers.
Using all causes mortality does at least include vaccine-related deaths and injuries in the picture, but it also includes mortality resulting from other aspects of the pandemic response such as decline in people’s health from isolation, lack of exercise, reduction in NHS services like cancer screening, routine treatment for diabetes, mental health etc. as well as suicides and other deaths caused indirectly by the pandemic response.
Correct
The vaccine trials may have overestimated effectiveness against death because they didn’t include enough old people or those with serious health conditions
And real world data?
Plenty of old people there.
It’s about time Noah Carl, Will Jones, Toby Young et al who write these articles actually start questioning the fact that all the studies which show “vaccine” effectiveness at reducing hospitalisation and deaths are flawed.
It appears the jabs do no such thing as reduce hospitalisation and deaths and in fact make them worse.
We’ve had many articles on the negative effectiveness of the jabs on transmission and infection.
Perhaps it’s time they bite the bullet and write articles on the negative effectiveness of the jabs on hospitalisation and deaths even for the vulnerable and elderly.
It’s fine to write articles, so long as they are not misleading.
They are generally misleading.
If commented upon, by someone there is never an evidenced support of the article…just tribal chants.
Show me an evidenced report or scientific study showing that the experimental jabs are effective against hospitalisation and death.
Here it is vaccine surveillance report. Published weekly.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1050721/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-4.pdf
Even the UKHSA in the Vaccine Surveillance Report state ……
“These raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness”.
Do vaccines reduce hospitalisations and death?
“The vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination.”
Dr. Martin Neil is Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at Queen Mary, University of London. Dr. Clare Craig is a Diagnostic Pathologist. Dr. Norman Fenton is Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London. The paper is also authored by Jonathan Engler, Joshua Guetzkow, Scott Mclachlan, Jessica Rose, Dan Russell and Joel Smalley.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
Summarised here ……
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/21/do-covid-vaccines-reduce-all-cause-mortality-ons-data-give-us-no-reason-to-think-so/
The view that vaccines have a 90% effectiveness of reducing hospitalisation and death is flawed due to a number of reasons including the ‘healthy vaccinee’ effect.
A study published last year by the U.S. CDC found that vaccinated people were less likely to die of non-Covid causes, suggesting that they’re inherently healthier and/or more risk averse than unvaccinated people.
Those who are unvaccinated that end up in hospital and die could quite easily be due to the “unhealthy unvaccinated” effect.
Someone who is too ill or frail to have the jab is… Read more »
Please stop responding to this idiot.
Is ‘idiot’ allowed?
If it’s not allowed at least it is accurate.
Had anyone been “fully vaccinated”?
I thought the criteria for “Fully vaccinated” was 14 days after the second dose. Since we didn’t start the rollout until December 8th, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have been fully vaccinated before the end of Jan.
Surely the relevant question is how many people died because of the pandemic? Without doing the maths it appears from the chart that the ASMR for 2020 was about 100 deaths per 100,000 greater than expected. This means about 67,000 people died in England as a result of the pandemic. The fact that more people died six years ago seems little compensation.
“The fact that more people died six years ago seems little compensation.” I am not sure compensation is the point. The point is we’re not seeing EXCEPTIONAL mortality in historic terms meaning that exceptional measures that purport to combat it are not justified.
Exceptional is a subjective judgement. The absolute ASMR may not be historically exceptional but a jump of 10% in one year is exceptional. Had there been 67,000 additional deaths due to terrorism I think there would have been support for some pretty drastic measures. But anyway is there a rule that says a problem has to be exceptional to justify exceptional measures?
Well, to get round it being subjective you could perform a cost-benefit analysis.
And yes, measures should always be proportionate to the thing they are supposed to address – no-one is really disputing that.
I have no problem with a cost-benefit analysis. But cost is not the same exceptionality. A major cost may be quite unexceptional. If an exceptional measure can save 67,000 lives it really doesn’t matter if that is an exceptional number of deaths or not – provided the saving justifies the cost.
Well yes I suppose so but generally speaking exceptional measures that work would be exceptionally costly
You are deliberately missing the clear evidence that there were two incidents of exceptional deaths, both affecting the already elderly and with comorbidities. The cost benefit analysis is rather simple, and absolutely damning.
This is very confusing. I am arguing that the deaths are exceptional and you seem to be agreeing.
The reason that deaths were limited are due to measures taken to slow infection.
That’s conjecture. Stare at graphs from around the world and outcomes have varied independently of measures.
This article partly depends upon the data on ‘Covid deaths’ being accurate – which is an error that has been long established. It is highly unlikely that ‘Covid’ is as fatal as portrayed in the bar chart. Combine it with other respiratory disease, and you have a much more credible picture.
Of course, the all-cause data is all that we can depend on – and that certainly gives no grounds for a ‘vaccine’ impact of note. But, that said, mortality remains within normal variation (the ‘five year average’, however, is not a credible baseline – it can’t capture the picture of that variation.)
That’s funny. A few days ago we were being told that deaths were well below the five year average.
leave the effin troll be. It’s sealioning.
Do not feed.
For goodness sake don’t argue with people that use reasoning and real information.
You just end up looking silly.
If you are referring to yourself here, you are seriously deluded. You are the exact opposite of the moniker you have chosen.
Dear Rational
Please define exactly what you mean by the terms “anti-vaxx” and “anti-vaxxer”
Those that publicly state false or misleading information on vaccines with the effect that it may influence others to refuse vaccination.
Who, here, has stated false or misleading information?
One of the things that sets LockdownSceptics apart from many other news sites is that the articles above and the comments below the line are full of references to data and are not just opinions or feelings.
Well the headline of this article is misleading, for a start.
My position on covid “vaccines” and on mass covid vaccination is as follows:
1) There is not, and never has been, a public health emergency that warrants vaccines being given an emergency license
2) The long term safety trials are incomplete and have been irrevocably compromised by the control group being given the vaccines
3) Vaccine mandates and coercion are morally wrong under all circumstances
4) Any attempt at informed consent for covid vaccines is impossible because the data one needs to see has been deliberately suppressed/compromised/obfuscated/not collected
5) Available data shows that the vaccines make no sense for any but the most vulnerable, and any benefit for the vulnerable is hard to spot
6) Vaccinating children with these vaccines is simply evil
7) The vaccines don’t stop the spread of covid therefore arguments that they protect others and vaxx passports are just evil lies
Does that make me anti-vaxx?
8) Vaxxing everyone two or three or four or more times at the cost of billions is a criminal waste of public money that could have been spent on treating sick people or myriad other good causes (ditto mass testing)
I would add that vaccine policies; either mandates or pseudo mandates ( as in France) are clearly politically motivated. This is beneath contempt.
It makes you an anti-experimental-gene-therapy-er…
When people ask me if I’m vaccinated and I say “no” and then they say “are you an anti-vaxxer?!” I just point out that both my children have had all the usual vaccines that have got years of safety data.
I then point out that they too are not “vaccinated” – they’ve just buggered around with their cells so that they produce spike proteins.
They clearly don’t work otherwise you wouldn’t have to keep taking them every 3 months
As Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the BMJ pointed out, these ‘vaccines’ wouldn’t get much take up if they were properly described as ‘gene therapies’, which is what they are.
And the suppression of ivermectin is criminal.
So you’re an anti-vaxxer? I’ve never seen you quote accurate absolute risk reduction figures, or the abnormally high level of adverse events, or the fact that there is no adequate safety data from trials, or that there is a massive trail of conflicting interests around their promotion? Those omissions are all ‘misleading’ in information terms.
Can you give an ARR for the Pfizer vaccine independent of the current prevalence?
As you are fully aware the only ARR figures we have had available were from the initial trials on a very few people. They showed less than 1%. Since then its been made deliberately impossible to track.
It isn’t just a matter of lacking data. The important point is that ARR is a function of prevalence (aka baseline risk) – so in the case of this virus the ARR will change dramatically between different countries and from one month to another.
If ARR is 1%, against AR= 2%
Then half the number of people die.
If ARR is 0.9%, against AR= 1%
Then the death toll is cut byto 1/10
I should add that it is easy to calculate the ARR for any situation given the prevalence and vaccine effectiveness. So it is far from being impossible to track. It is just a meaningless number in this context because the prevalence varies so wildly.
This is correct.
If you are judging vaccines, then Relative risk is key indicator.
Now I know you are either a bare faced liar, a SAGE/Pharma puppet, massively blinkered or so scared that the jabs you have had are doing you untold harm that you are desperately trying to convince yourself of the opposite – or all of the above; the scam of quoting RRR rather than ARR has been revealed by many more qualified statisticians than me. The ARR is the inconvenient data that “vaccine” apparatchiks don’t like to see because it slaughters the idiotic and ignorant fetish for injecting people with a still experimental, very shoddily tested drug; and totally unnecessary as demonstrated by physicians world wide who have – very successfully – developed early treatments for infected patients – or do you think that real world clinical experience data is all “made up”?
But , if you want a lay person’s explanation – consult Dr Kendrick – he knows how and can explain this scam better than me.
You’ve never seen me quote data, as I don’t make things up.
BTW absolute risk reduction is “relative risk”
Trials are about efficacy and safety. Read them.
Adverse events must be compared against background rates. Do that.
So, not those who state true information on vaccines with the effect that it may influence others to refuse vaccination then.
Unfortunately the media and various government officials are calling people who speak truth to power ‘anti-vaxxers’ if the truth about vaccines causes any ‘vaccine hesitancy’.
What true information would that be?
You would include successive SoS for Health, the PM, SAGE and numerous others??
How do you account for the fact that the UK government’s own website stated the lack of efficacy for these jabs…? That a certain Pharma CEO stated similarly?
What are the long term effects of the inflammatory and clotting responses induced by the jabs?
I’m a bit worried about Rayc, they seem to have become a little inconsistent. Are you ok Ray? Some days you are very clear and others less so.
There are a few people commenting here who are sceptical about everything except the vaccines, and get quite hot under the collar when the vaccines are criticised or questioned.
I’m not sure whether this is a genuine position or not. It is hard not to be sceptical about the vaccines when you compare the promises about their effectiveness and safety versus the reality.
It’s understandable that journalists on newspapers like The Telegraph may be anti-lockdown but pro-vaccine, given the extent to which these publications are financed by the Gates Foundation which is heavily invested in vaccines, but harder to understand in “independent” commenters below the line.
I think rayc is pretty genuine and his position seems just about tenable, and he’s against mandates. I would like to see his views on vaccination the healthy and not-very-vulnerable and kids, and on informed consent. I am not at all convinced the vaxx is worth it for anyone, but even if it is, I have real problems with the mass vaxxing going on and the way it is being done and it’s hard to see how any sceptic could support it without some doublethink.
I wish people would stop responding to rational and .rayc. They are both boring trolls but effective at side-swiping discussions.
“December’s overall age-standardised mortality rate was 9.3% higher than the five-year average.”
So what?
What’s the 20-year spread about the mean for the month of December? I’d hazard the guess that 9.3% is a lot less than 2.0 standard deviations out.
If you like, you could calculate the SD.
The 20 year spread about the mean is a meaningless as the ASMR has been dropping steadily over the last 20 years. What is needed is the mean deviation from the trend.
Much easier to see what is going on when you look at individual years rather than make comparisons with 5 year averages.
This is the chart of age standardised mortality from 2001 for England (they don’t provide combined England and Wales data).
The dotted lines are the years from 2001 to 2010 and the solid lines are years from 2011. The solid red line is 2021 and you can see this latest ASM figure at the December plot.
What we are seeing is quite high mortality relative to recent years from 2011 due to the disastrous response to the pandemic and vaccine related deaths. How that splits out between the two main factors is hard to say.
But to put it in context it doesn’t take us back to the levels of mortality experienced in some bad Decembers from 2001 to 2010.
Now some signs that mortality is quite low so far in January, perhaps because there are less vulnerable older people alive, and so the usual January increased Winter mortality may be less than normal, counterbalancing these other factors. So this may be reflected in January’s ASM when it is announced in February.
Nice chart. Mortality rates seem to have been significantly lower in 2011-21 than in 2001-11, so considering a 10-year dataset might be in order. Looking at 2011-21 the standard deviation for the month of December seems to have been (at a very rough estimate) about 10%. If we look at 2001-21, it’s a few percent higher. Nothing special that is determinable from mortality statistics seems to have gone on in December 2021. The figure for that month doesn’t seem to be much more than ONE standard deviation out from the 10-year mean.
The main conclusion from the chart would be that there was a bit of a spike for a month or so, two years ago. That’s hardly surprising, given that inmates of “care homes” were being left to choke to death, including after other inmates of the same “homes” had been dumped back there from hospital after testing positive for SARS.
This is the same chart with only years from 2011 showing
I would hazard a guess ( highly ‘rational’), that there are only two incidents. The first as Rick H describes, the criminal behaviour towards elderly in hospitals and care homes in April 2020. And the same age group suffering from being injected with something their already damaged immune systems could not cope with in January/February 2021.
As it was supposed to be this age group that were the recipients of all the ‘protection’ given by the lockdowns/vaccines ( don’t kill granny etc), its an absolutely shocking indication of an appalling so-called public health initiative. It cost the country over £2,000bn and ended up killing the very people it was supposed to ‘save’.
Of course we should never forget ‘its not about what they say its about’.
The evacuation of elderly from hospitals to care homes was indeed a stupid mistake.
The rest of what you write in nonsense.
It was emphatically not a mistake – it was a deliberate policy, both here and in the US; it might have been ill informed ( me being fair minded but also possibly delusional!) – but it was certainly an intentional act.
And the same chart with just 2001 to 2010 together with 2020 and 2021 (i.e 2011 to 2019 taken out)
That big spike there must’ve been the Swine Flu!
With a bit of help with a known sedative!
The short-term variations in mortality are not really significant – with the exception of the April 2020 spike – and this is explicable by the two factors of dry tinder and the rapid nosocomial spread generated by the incompetent care home and hospital policy. However, the annual mortality was unexceptional even with that peak.
The best contextual visualization remains the century graph of yearly mortality.
“incompetent care home and hospital policy”….Or perhaps deliberate. Same in US and other places, in ‘Lockstep’.
what about the winter 20/21 spike?
That is a very important point.
We’ve lost all sense of perspective.
There just aren’t unusual health problems crisis caused by a respiratory virus.
Already there was an overreaction to what was experienced in March 2020.
But now? There is literally nothing of note going around, other than some form of societal level post-traumatic stress disorder from the panic induced by the government.
I’ve got to point now where I do not believe a single word coming out of the mouths of this disgraceful government and its minions.
The stages over the years have gone like this: General acceptance of the narrative > Noticing anomalies in the narrative > Delving further into official claims > Noticing serious anomalies in the narrative > Performing own research and the unveiling of hidden information > Noticing very serious anomalies in the narrative > Realising deliberate disinformation practices and lying has taken place > Climate Change event > Covid event > Understanding we live in the Truman Show
What a load of b***ocks this is.
Imagine having “chronic lower respiratory diseases”, “Covid-19”, and “influenza and pneumonia” as separate categories!
Covid requires the presence of double pneumonia, which is a disease of the lungs, which are part of the lower respiratory tract. You can’t have “Covid-19” without having “chronic lower respiratory disease”.
Nor is there any clear indication of what the conjunction “and” means in the phrase “influenza and pneumonia” – does it refer to patients who had both, or patients who had one or the other or both? – but to expect it to have a clear meaning would probably be a mistake.
Official statistics in Britain are as big a pile of turd as ever they were in the USSR, and this fact is right there, staring us in the face. To use an expression that has become a cliché since the crimes of Jimmy Savile had to be officially admitted, it is “hiding in plain sight”.
Yes. I’m amazed at the repetition of related fundamental errors in some ATL articles.
Hi Star,
You said “Covid requires the presence of double pneumonia”.
I am genuinely curious if that is true, not trying to catch you out. My knowledge on this shitshow it increasing day by day and I’m trying to find sources from people that are actual truth. Would you mind showing me where you found that info? Also, I can’t directly message people on this which is why I’m replying to your message instead of messaging you directly.