We’re publishing another critique today, this one by Glen Bishop, of the new paper in Nature by Neil Ferguson and others claiming that a lockdown in Sweden would have resulted in a two- to four- fold reduction in mortality. Hard to credit they’re still banging this drum, given that Ferguson’s team originally predicted the absence of a lockdown in Sweden would have resulted in up to 90,000 deaths by July 2020. The real number was 5370. When will Ferguson admit he simply got it wrong?
In the latest episode of the Imperial modelling saga, Imperial have dusted off old modelling techniques and cherry picked the time scale and countries in a study to try to disparage the Swedish success, the Achilles heel of the lockdown lobby. In the paper published in Nature, Imperial propose a counterfactual model, whereby the Danish, Swedish and British responses to coronavirus are transposed to the other two countries respectively, to compare the effectiveness of each approach in reducing covid mortality when accounting for the heterogeneities between the countries.
Imperial’s team models the respective change in R value through the first months of the pandemic using the death data from each country. Interestingly, it implies that the R0 value of the virus in March 2020 in the U.K. was around 4.5, far higher than previous estimates of 2.5 to 3. These changes in the R-value are then applied to the other countries. The problem is that the Imperial team then retrospectively model the pandemic for each hypothetical scenario using the same flawed modelling techniques which have consistently been wildly inaccurate. Despite Professor Ferguson misleading Matt Ridley at a select committee hearing to suggest Imperial had not produced estimates for Sweden, his Imperial team had in fact predicted between 30,000 and 42,000 deaths in Sweden with social distancing lockdowns and up to 90,000 deaths by July 2020 if the pandemic was left unmitigated. By July 2020 the actual figure was 5370, an order of magnitude below Imperial’s predictions.
The logic to supporting the lockdowns has thus become cyclical, relying on the modelling that influenced lockdown policies in the first place, with Imperial inevitably concluding the following: “Sweden adopting U.K. policies would have resulted in a two- to four- fold reduction in mortality (Table 1). Had the U.K. adopted Swedish policies, deaths would have increased deaths by a factor of between 1.6 and 4.”
This is naïve and misleading at best. The scenario modelled only runs up to July 2020 and had the U.K. or Sweden suppressed the spread to reduce mortality during that period it would have led to increased mortality in future waves, particularly with the rapidly increasing infectiousness of the variants. Hungary is perhaps the best illustration of this point. It was celebrated last year after suppressing the first wave and experiencing very low mortality, yet went on to have the highest mortality rate in Europe after coronavirus surged the following winter within a population with little natural immunity and at a time when hospitals are under pressure.
The evidence within the paper to support the conclusion – that “small differences in the timing and effectiveness of control strategies have dramatic effects on the resulting numbers of cases and deaths” – relies on the non-existent credibility of the team’s previous attempts to model the pandemic and is easily negated with the reality all over the world. Across the globe, a wide range of interventions have been tried at different times over the past 18 months, with varying levels of severity, but little evidence of an correlation between those variables and different outcomes. We only have to look at the similar outcomes in Peru and Brazil, for example, or Florida and California, to see how different approaches yield the same results in regions with similar populations.
Professor Samir Bhatt, a Professor of Public Health at the University of Copenhagen and a member of the Imperial team that pushed the U.K. into lockdown, even admits: “Many times I would have thought that the situation would have gone a different way, but it worked for Sweden… They achieved infection control; they managed to keep infections relatively low, and they didn’t have any health care collapse.” Yet, as the Telegraph has highlighted, “real benefits of Sweden’s radical policy, however, can be seen in the economy, the psychological impact, and in schools”. The U.K. experienced a 9.8% drop in GDP compared to Sweden’s 2.8%, with Sweden’s economy back at pre-pandemic levels by June 2021 after the fastest economic rebound in Europe. While young people in the U.K. suffered large educational disruption, few Swedish students missed any school.
The paper continues to support lockdowns as if they were a laboratory experiment on rats with no damaging side effects or moral hazards involved. It remains completely blinkered to anything but an obsession with controlling one particular virus, with a reckless disregard for the wider societal consequences of the lockdown policies they advocate. In the ethics declaration on the paper, the Imperial team declare “no competing interests”, yet this is not the case. It is clearly in the interests of the Imperial team to denigrate Sweden’s policy as best they can. If their paper was to conclude anything else, they would have to admit that they have caused enormous damage to society and cost countless excess non-Covid deaths in the UK and around the world because of their advice. It is strongly in the interest of their careers, reputation and standing in society to spin Sweden as a failure in any way they can.
Glen Bishop is a maths student at Nottingham University.
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.
There will never be any sort of acknowledgement by the government/TRPTB that any investigation is taking, or will ever take place.
The reason why is simple, – because to do so would adversely affect confidence in the jab and give ammunition to lawyers.
This has been the stance of bigpharma re all vaccines for the last 40 plus years. You have no idea as to the amount of power and influence the criminal element amongst them hold.
And, I use the word “criminal” deliberately and accurately –
Pfizer – Bextra.
Merck – Vioxx
Johnson and Johnson – Risperdal.
In winter 2017/18 there were 50,000 plus excess deaths and no investigation, just a whoops, picked the wrong vaccine.
Stuart McDonald seems to be part of the vaxapologist cadre. It’s a shame Freddie didn’t challenge him on his brazen misuse of statistics and standard use of indefinite descriptors like “rare” and “unlikely” and “the data (unreferenced) clearly…”
These people are either stuck in mass formation or financial beneficiaries of Pharma/state/globalist funding.
The data Prof Norman Fenton analyses and that is unclear, shows an inexplicably elevated level of non covid deaths in any given age group, in the unvaccinated as compared with the vaccinated, when you would expect to see at the very least the same baseline level (at least that was the case when he did his analysis). For this reason he, rightly, mistrusts the data. It is pretty sure the Vaccines aren’t improving outcomes for non Covid causes, so what explains this? This indicates either the data is being massaged by the ONS or there is something fundamentally wrong with the underlying data categories.
I’m pretty sure I know that problem is and it relates to the overall UK population figure. The ONS has (quietly) revised immigration figures no less than three times now (doubling them two out of the three), indicating they were probably lying to us in the past about the true picture, or, being charitable, avoiding investigating the truth until it became unavoidable. So the overall UK population figure is shaky at best.
Vaccination rates are based on a definite or positive data, whereas rates for the unvaccinated are based on the figure for overall UK population minus that definite positive data. If you don’t know (or won’t admit) what the overall UK population is you don’t know what the numerator is for the unvaccinated. If the numerator is higher than you are admitting, then the “rate of x occurring per 1,000” will be correspondingly falsely high because the numerator is lower than it should be. So the “inexplicable” difference in baseline isn’t actually so inexplicable at all and actually corresponds with a matter the ONS already has form for “mis-analysing.”
I think Norman Fenton probably knows this, but is also aware that as an academic he has already taken as big a bite out of matter outside the Overton window, as any academic can chew without being treated like he is the next Enoch Powell.
Don’t forget that vaccinated as a status only occurs two weeks after the second injection. As far as I’m aware that definition has not changed and would therefore sweep jabbed as unvaxxed deaths for anywhere from 5 to 12 weeks after the first jab.
Im not sure wether the booster 3&4 have affected this miscatagorisation.
Are you using numerator to mean denominator?
No. But yes I should have analysed the numerator and denominator the other way round as then the calculation would be clearer.
As I have analysed it I’ve made the numerator the overall population of unvaccinated. The ONS figure is I suspect artificially lower than the real figure.If the real figure is bigger, the denominator as a proportion of the real population will also be correspondingly bigger (in this case absolute number of non covid deaths). So then you have a denominator that is out of proportion and disproportionately large compared with the numerator (unvaccinated population) the ONS are using. The result actually gives the frequency of deaths which when expressed as per 1000 of the population will be artificially high.
Sorry for expressing it this way as I now realise it isn’t the easiest to follow.
‘It is pretty sure the Vaccines aren’t improving outcomes for non Covid causes, so what explains this?’
Vaccinated people were being included in non-vaccinated. Anyone second dose who became infected within 14 days post-injection was considered unvaccinated. That means anyone who died within 28 days of day 14 was an ‘unvaccinated death’.
Further: the same deceit was used on boosted people, so that even hitherto ‘fully vaccinated’ individuals were counted as unvaccinated if death occurred within 28 days of day 14 post-booster.
This therefore increased unvaccinated deaths and decreased vaccinated deaths.
It is also the case that during the 14 day period post-injection and individual is more susceptible to infection, serious disease and death because of the stress on the immune system caused by the product.
What was deemed a non-covid death during the Delta wave? When Delta hit, it became apparent that the vaxx had failed entirely. It is not unreasonable to assume that whereas before there was no hesitation to attribute any possible death whatsoever to covid in order to scare people into submission, when (at that time) 2x vaxxed were dying during the Delta wave, to attribute most deaths of 2x vaxxed to covid would have damaged the vaxx push, which at that time was still going strong – let’s face it, they still managed to fool a large number of people into getting the 3rd pointless vaxx.
In other words, maybe a lot of excess deaths during Delta were in fact due to covid after all, it was just covered up as much as possible until they could find a way of explaining why as many if not more vaxxed were dying as unvaxxed. That excuse turned out to be that the vaxx was not as good against Delta and then Omicron, and many people bought that cop-out, even after they had initially said it did still provide full protection against serious illness and death for all variants.
In addition, there was always the risk of ADE. Last time I looked at the EMA list of potential risks, there was at that time (some months ago) insufficient information to determine whether the real risk of ADE would materialise or not. When Delta hit Europe, most people were 9 months or more from their last jab, with minimal antibodies. The vast majority of people have no idea about ADE; we know they have little information about the vaxx in general, about the serious AEs. Just think how they’d feel about the knowledge that the stabbers knew full well there was genuine risk that the vaxx would in fact make them more susceptible to infection and serious illness if ADE were to occur. I mentioned ADE to a neighbour, he didn’t believe the concept, even though I told him it was a known phenomenon, hardly something I had managed to dream up.
Either the excess deaths were due to covid, which was obfuscated due to unwillingness to admit complete vaxx failure (and absolute reluctance to give up the fab cash cow), or the excess deaths are related in some way to the vaxx – ADE, immune overreaction due to excess antibodies from vaxx combined with previous or subsequent infection, or the vaxx itself is simply toxic sludge.
I’m going to try to post my own graphs of this phenomenon. First, 10 years of England and Wales deaths, adjusted for both growing and aging population. The dark blue line skimming above all the others mid year, is this year
(I made this a couple of weeks ago but pattern hasn’t normalised since)
And the excess compared to pre covid. I think you can clearly see how the death displacement effect after a peak lasts only 3 or 4 months, reminding us how old and sick most were that succumbed to the pandemic.
Hope this helps. A third way to look at this year is the standard deviation from normal range. This makes what’s happening look most alarming
No, folks – we’ve been barking up the wrong tree all this time.
It’s nothing to do with the vaccines at all; (and let’s give a resounding cheer that clever scientists – no doubt with very generous funding from some saintly philanthropic people – have developed another wonderful vaccine for those poor souls in Africa against malaria) it’s been artificial sweeteners all along!
Just seen it on Talk radio so it must be true.
Tsk! All our cardiovascular and cerebrovascular problems must now be attributed to this obvious cause. How did we miss that one?
I think they’re really scraping the barrel with regards to what they can blame these excess deaths on! It would be farcical if it weren’t so tragic and outright desperate to divert our attention to other causes. The absolute codswallop we are expected to swallow is just mindblowingly insulting. It just stinks of lies and corruption. How many are burying loved ones with no firmly established cause of death, having to make do with a mere “cause unknown” on the certificates? So you can test positive for Covid within 28 days of being ran over by a bus and your cause of death is put down as “Covid” ( because ‘with’ and ‘from’ were never distinguished ) but if you die within 28 days of being jabbed it’s labelled as ‘SADS’ or reported as a ”coincidence”?! The crazy double standards never cease to amaze. Peter McCullough is always relaying the information that most people die within 3 days of being jabbed, but a causal link is never considered or investigated.
See the graph here on the bottom right and how it compares to the flu shot. A massive difference in deaths immediately after the shot vs 1 week later;
https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
Yes, referee whistles being my favourite. If that was true, Vinny Jones would be long gone!
OMG ref’s whistles? I haven’t heard of that one. From the not so sublime to the incredibly ridiculous..Basically a total piss-take then!
Not climate change then?
If the culprit is the spike protein, then most of the excess deaths will be caused by the ‘vaccine’ rather than the virus itself. This would be because the ‘vaccine’ has been shown to spread throughout the body. Also, with the arrival of Omicron, I thought the spike protein has changed significantly from the original virus.
I think paramedics will know whether there is a correlation between patients with cardiac problems and ‘vaccine’ status and if the ambulance services are collecting the data, they will know as well.
The virus is mostly active in the mucosal cells of the nasopharynx or if unlucky the lungs. Virus that become systemic are attacked and destroyed by antibodies. The protein spike attracts T Cells whose function is to destroy the cells invaded by the virus to prevent reproduction, but these T Cells do not attack the virus or the protein spike.
The mRNA ju-ju is active in muscle cells in the upper arm – it is not a virus – so if it escapes as apparently it does and can remain active at least up to 60 days, it is not attacked by antibodies but will invade cells throughput the body which then attract T cells to destroy them.
So consider the mRNA gets into your heart muscle, for example, your own immune system is now going to destroy those invaded cells and thus destroy your heart muscle dependent on to what degree the muscle has been invaded by the mRNA.
The effectiveness of the mRNA is measured by antibody production, yet there is no measure of T Cell production which is front line defence.
T cells are preventative to stop viral load building, antibodies are mop-up, if you will, to kill virus that reproduced before the T Cells got control.
If the T Cells fail, it is unlikely antibodies will be of much use. For every one virus the antibodies miss, 100 000 copies will be made, likely to be a losing battle.
The whole way the so-called science of this is presented is questionable and seemingly calculated to mislead.
Thanks. Are T Cells the same as lymphocytes? If understand Dr Bhakti correctly another place in the body the mRNA products are likely to accumulate is in the cells that line blood vessels, which might be the cause of blood clots. So for people injected there could be damage created by spike proteins and immune reactions to previously healthy cells producing the spike proteins. In addition there is a suggestion the lipid nano-particles element of the injections could be adversely affecting fertility (Dr Malone) and any damage accumulates with each successive dose. I’m a lay person, but you seem to know you stuff. I’d be happy for any correction to anything I’ve got wrong.
Vaccine or virus?
I’d rather lay the blame on lockdowns; both the direct effects on people’s health (mental, physical, it’s all connected), and the indirect effects on their health from things like GP closures, interruptions to established prescriptions, cancelled surgeries and then the wider economic impact on people’s lives… the list goes on and on.
I know a lot of people who have become seriously depressed by the realisation of how authorities and their experts have ridden (and continue to ride) roughshod all over our basic human rights. This plays havoc with our health.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english
No doubt the effect of lockdowns is a cause of very many deaths, directly or indirectly. However, the harmful physiological effects of the LNPs and spike produced by having had the vax are indisputable, as evidenced by many scientific studies. I would stick my neck out to say that now we are in Omicron times, the likelihood of dying directly from a virus which is on a par in severity with the common cold, ( so not even flu. That was the original or Delta. ) is highly unlikely. If people were going to succumb then they would have done so way before now due to the increased pathogenicity of previous variants. And this is taking account of the fact that everyone ( and how could this not be the case, unless you were living like a hermit and avoided ALL contact with fellow humans and animals? ) has had Covid in one of its forms by now, therefore people will have some form of natural immunity to varying degrees ( because we know that in fast-mutating viruses such as the cold, you cannot build up immunity to just one strain then expect to not catch another cold, hence we can catch several colds within a 1 year period ). I think I’ve read that seroprevalence is >90% in the UK, if not other countries by now too. One could hardly call Omicron and its offshoots lethal.
There is also the question of just how damaged vaxxed people’s immune systems have become due to an onslaught of billions of LNPs over the course of several injections, which does presumably put them at a disadvantage when compared to an unvaxxed person who’s encountered the virus in the wild and generated a much more robust immunological response to the whole virus, not just the toxic spike part, therefore their body reacts to the repeat exposure as nature intended. So perhaps some of these disadvantaged multi-vaxxed will now be killed off by something as benign as a cold that they would never have been threatened by had they not had any mRNA injected, because their immune system cannot even cope with a mild exposure of pathogen and is now rendered dysfunctional. No doubt they will go down on the books as having died *of* Covid, when the jab was the culprit all along, because the symptoms will just be the same and nobody will be interested in reporting their vax status, thereby inflating so-called ‘Covid deaths’ and confounding the data.
I think the most frustrating thing is that we may never know just what, in terms of %, was the cause of these excess deaths. I mean, if you could produce a pie chart for excess mortality, what would it look like, in terms of our best guess? I don’t think we’ll ever truly know. The vast majority of excess deaths will always be blamed on the virus because that gets the authorities off the hook in terms of restrictions and coercion to get jabbed being a massive factor. They will always feel justified in their diabolical and hugely damaging public health proclamations because they’d just fall back on the old “It would have been so much worse had we not….”. Great we have Sweden as a handy control for the restrictions but pity we don’t have an equally handy country which never injected anyone, thereby acting as the ultimate control group in this global experiment, still ongoing. Now that would have been interesting.
The “vaccines” certainly have a lot to answer for, agreed.
It’s the variety of pathologies which tells me that, for a vast array of reasons (e.g. fear of “the virus”, fear of the rise of a totalitarian state) people have become terribly depressed, frustrated and anxious. This has a very detrimental effect on the immune system, resulting in an enormous range of new and exacerbated health problems.
I’ve said this before, but the key question is pretty simple: has there been a change in the age profile of the people who are dying from cardiovascular and other related conditions? If the age of death is unusually young relative to the last few years (i.e. the share of cardiovascular deaths is greater than it should be in the young), then we pretty much have our answer. It could just about be plausible that the virus would result in heart damage that we would then see playing out in deaths later on, but highly implausible that this would result in proportionally more young people succumbing.
Latest NSW data showing only 10 percent of Covid deaths in the past week being unvaccinated, and 80 percent having had 1 or 2 booster shots.
These figures change little week by week. Being an actuary (or doctor) doesn’t automatically mean one is immune to propaganda.
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20220903.pdf
Thanks. Perhaps I’m missing something here, but 10% deaths being unvaccinated plus just one unvaccinated patient admitted to hospital and zero admitted to ICU doesn’t seem to square with the statement ‘However, people who are not vaccinated remain far more likely to suffer severe COVID-19’.
40 years in medicine and I can’t figure that one out either!
all data relating to ‘covid’ are suspect. there are no pathognomonic clinical features of ‘covid’ – it cannot be differentiated at the bedside from many other respiratory infectious illnesses. the fundamental diagnostic fraud is that ‘Covid’ is medically diagnosed on the basis of a fraudulently upcycled PCR test, the ‘positive’ results of which are overwhelmingly false. the rare genuine positive PCR results cannot give any information about the origin of the amplified nucleotide sequences, which can come from any old fragment of goat or papaya (R.I.P. John Magafuli, Hero of The Resistance). while all cause mortality appears to be the single most reliable statistic, we must remember that with our British government and their venal World Economic Forum friends worldwide, we are dealing with egregious criminal psychopath fraudsters. the placing of all data relating to ‘covid’ under suspicion of criminal falsification accords with Lord Denning’s famous 1956 judgement that fraud vitiates everything it touches.
Can you imagine a “Scientific” process, by the same people who imposed the Lockdowns and coerced an experimental jab on millions of people who didn’t need it, admitting that the jabs are not as “safe and effective” as they continually told us they were?
No – neither can I.
Prof Bhakdi and other virologists, who weren’t bought and paid for by Big Pharma, warned them that the jabs were dangerous and predicted precisely the outcome we are now seeing. Prof Bhakdi specifically said that the jabs would cause blood clotting and said if you have one, don’t have a second. And for goodness sake, don’t have a third. HE has been proven right.
But Fauci, Ferrar, Whitty, Vallance and all the rest of the evil people will never admit it. And neither will the politicians who empowered them.
Lloyds Banking man eh? You can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere along the line there’s something fishy going on. Any connection to B&MGF, vaccine investment anyone?
Sorry don’t trust this guy he’s too near the establishment.
It’s only the five year average. Are there any excess deaths if you look at the 10 year average or the 20 year average?
There is another potential explanation for the excess deaths of course, which is that they resulted from the lockdowns. Possible mechanisms could be reduced exercise levels and increased loneliness.
Let’s say “best” case scenario, it’s not the jibby jabs. Do I now want one of those in my body? Hell no.