So there does appear to be some sort of strange problem with vaccines. It turns out that the vaccines do not appear to be reducing all cause mortality.Norman Fenton QMUL lays it out here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBDd0yH8OuI
and here are the slides, page 8 tells the main story;
https://thinkingslow1.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/all_cause_mortality_26oct2021_2.pdf
Not strange at all. Vaccines massively cut covid deaths but in the UK excess mortality is about 800 or so but covid is 100 of that.
The rest are likely the result of missed diagnosis/cancelled treatments/mental health/obesity and other lockdown related problems. Vaccines wont cure lockdown deaths.
Not strange at all. Vaccines massively cut covid deaths but in the UK excess mortality is about 800 or so but covid is 100 of that.
The rest are likely the result of missed diagnosis/cancelled treatments/mental health/obesity and other lockdown related problems. Vaccines wont cure lockdown deaths.
I think you mean secondary deaths caused by the pandemic, rather than "lockdown deaths". Without the attenuation of infection from lockdowns (until vaccines were available), there would be many more secondary deaths.
@thinksaboutit No, I don't think so. Lockdown deaths are those which could have been avoided had the govt not elected to impose lockdown (a policy) on the entire population.
Of course, as you say, may of those may have died anyway within the same period had there been no lockdown, but then many people who would have died anyway have been included in the "Covid Death" cumulative total.
Secondly. the cumulative total cannot be compared against any ordinary excess mortality figure as the latter is based on an annual figure then averaged out over five years (or used to be).
@thinksaboutit
It is unhelpful to consider the options as 'lockdown' or 'not lockdown'.
I'm supportive of the recommendations of the Imperial College Modelling group, SAGE in general and of those responsible for the plans for responding to a global influenza pandemic -- that the right response is to have a targeted lockdown of the most vulnerable groups plus quarantine of the infected. This would achieve the vast majority of the gains of complete lockdown but wouldn't have had any of the significant negative consequences.
Well, that was their original recommendation. What I I really don't understand is why all these people and organisations decided to change their minds over a single week or so -- it certainly wasn't supported by the data.
With respect to vaccine effectiveness -- if you consider the graph shown on page 3 of your link, but redraw for non-covid deaths by age bands (10 years bands) you'll find an interesting effect, in that it appears that vaccination increases non-covid deaths in the unvaccinated after about 4 weeks -- this was likely because they didn't vaccinate those who were very ill and close to death.
This effect explains most of the claims of mortality reduction of the vaccines. There is a residual effect, but I'd estimate it to be about 50% (not bad, but not good either).
On a separate note, I don't approve of the use of age adjusted mortality for presentations to the general public. It promises something that it doesn't actually deliver. In particular, it masks the effectiveness of vaccinating only the most vulnerable.
result of missed diagnosis/cancelled treatments/mental health/obesity
So covid19 caused all that too?
thinksaboutit: you said: "Without the attenuation of infection from lockdowns (until vaccines were available), there would be many more secondary deaths."
What evidence do you rely on for that statement?
@shotclog it's since the virus only spreads when people mingle, else it does not end of story.
@ewloe While your statement appears compelling, there's not actually that much data supporting it. Certainly covid can spread through surface contamination. There's also evidence it spreads through fecal matter suspended in air for rather long distances.
I'd say that you can see the effect of lockdown on the recent cases in Australia -- despite being rather locked down, they nevertheless had a decent covid wave in a few states. I'd suggest that while lockdowns do work, they only work where there is complete and utter lockdown -- partial lockdowns don't seem to offer much in the way of protection.
What a strange statement. It is important that there is discussion -- you appear intent only on suppressing it. This is rather disappointing. I suppose you have belief -- I only have curiosity. I suppose one of us will be right, but if it was left up to people like you we'd never actually find out.
thinksaboutit: you said: "Without the attenuation of infection from lockdowns (until vaccines were available), there would be many more secondary deaths."
What evidence do you rely on for that statement?
Go and have a look at how the infection rates correlate with restrictions applied.
It is very clear.
@thinksaboutit In fact the only thing that is clear is that it is impossible to show causal links and fairly difficult even to show correlation between NPIs and number of deaths. The best one can do is cherry pick 'data' and then make a leap of faith.
does it take faith to know the virus spreads when people mingle, or is it stupid the think otherwise?
Science is the acceptance that while there might be a known favoured route for transmission, there might also be other transmission mechanisms that could turn out to be important.
Faith is believing that there is only the orthodox view, and that other views must be incorrect (dogma would be when those suggesting an alternative view are belittled and suppressed lest that alternative view starts to corrupt the faithful).
@onion
Well no of course not. Much to the surprise of many, Covid is not the only illness around, and NPIs have rendered even more unhealthily an already unhealthy population, as well as worsening the coping abilities of the dire NHS.
the entire population has the same destiny. Any talk of healthy is temporary.We are all organic and you will rot in due course intro dirt, is that what you mean by healthy?
@ewloe Well no, because that is not what the word 'healthy' means. I think what you're getting at is that we are all, from conception, dying. I absolutely agree with you of course on that. We're born, we die. That is fundamentally the sum of organic life. It is not however at all relevant here! (albeit nice to see that a non-sceptic understands that human beings all have to die, eventually, of something! Some of the narrative rather seems to think that everyone should live forever. Thank god we don't!)
Anyone interested in undertreatment and Vaccine injuries ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdBdgac4axM
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/services/files/7EC06E87-9F6F-4E22-8877-8D519CF25A32
There is a 3hr video to this available on the usual alternative website hosts ...
Also a UK doctor called Campbell with 1 million + subscribers has 2 victims on his channel ...I don't want to post link in case he gets shut down but should be easy for you to find if you look closely
