CMI says 2022 had the worst second half for mortality since 2010
actuaries.org.uk
actuaries.org.uk
As one example, at my large tertiary care centre we were doing around 80% less screening mammograms during the pandemic and we are seeing ~2-3x more females presenting with locally advanced breast cancer than we were pre-covid (I believe the breast division is publishing a study on this in Ontario).
Locally advanced at presentation means you now also need systemic therapy (chemo) with its complications and possibly an axillary lymph node dissection (fair bit of morbidity with this) instead of what would have been a lumpectomy+radiation+sentinal node biopsy.
Beyond the direct patient morbidity and mortality effects (higher rates of metastatic disease and death go hand in hand with advanced presentations of all cancer) the strain on the system will mean we're busy/spending on dealing with these very sick patients that will undoubtedly impact other care we can provide (only so many $ and human resources to go around) and there will be some cascading effect (how much, I'm not sure).
It will take 3-5 years to fully capture what the human and financial cost of all of this would have been, versus what was saved with prolonged lockdowns (particularly post delta when Covid stopped becoming very deadly).
If we are to prevent this the next time a pandemic rolls through the world (and it will), there needs to be a society-level post-mortem, and not a blameless one.
What I want done better next time, is building an "off switch" into the messaging. It should have been made clear from the start that COVID was temporary and would settle down into background flu noise in a few years. The danger has dissipated a lot faster than the hype. My local university just transitioned from "masks required" to "masks recommended", and the vaccine has been available for 1.5 years already.
Global average is 6,713,093 deaths from 8 billion people or 0.84 deaths per 1,000 people. Granted there is likely underreporting in global numbers.
The real difference is simply the age of the population. Jamaica has a median age of 29.4 years old, where Italy which got hit even harder with 3 deaths per 1,000 people has a median age of 46.5. This is also why the developing world got out so easily: https://www.statista.com/statistics/829732/global-population...
Is that a success? Certainly not unequivocally.
He is an authority of impeccable integrity in epidemiology, buttressed by his prescience during this pandemic. He has been a friend since well before GBD, and I'm very proud of the way he has handled the asinine attempts at assassination on his character.
"Fauci and @CDCDirector et al have actively participated in the greatest public health catastrophe in the last hundred years—and maybe ever."
I can assure you the argument that the person is making is neither measured, reasonable, nor accurate. I think you are giving him more credit than he deserves in terms of his nuanced arguments.
Also calling it a catastrophe is just begging the question. Maybe every country in the world should have been more prepared to deal with a novel respiratory virus causing a global pandemic, but they weren't, and in retrospect the primarily US-led response of making a vaccine using a new technology in one year and vaccinating a large percentage of the world in the next year is nothing short of astounding.
The issue with arguing that the CDC lost a lot of public trust is much more nuanced, and well, maybe it did, but that has a lot more to do with external factors that have nothing to do with the CDC (such as political leadership) and not much to do with what the CDC itself did. And this isn't to say the CDC did everything right, or even did a "good" job. But they certainly didn't do a catastrophically bad job.
Lotta people just continue on operating from the assumption that we knew the severity of COVID upfront which… we didn’t. It was very severe and it appeared even more so (as is well within the bounds of possibility of a novel pathogen).
We all knew the initially claimed protection rates were overstated, it was acknowledged as a limitation in the initial study protocol but ignored by politicians and media.
For the validation trials, due to the time / resource requirements (we didn’t have PCR capacity) testing for seroconversion/positivity was only done on symptomatic patients and not at a routine time interval. This type of testing is well known to result in overestimating treatment effects (you’re missing all the people who didn’t self declare symptoms and get tested by not having strictly adhered testing intervals) and there’s zero doubt “94% protection” was an overestimate (even by the original Pfizer study authors). By how much, we’re not sure, and we absolutely needed something in a time of uncertainty and it was the right decision at the time given available resources and pandemic pressures.
As evidence has accumulated, we’re realizing the vaccine effects and COVID mortality (particularly post Delta) are vastly overstated.
I have not seen a CT chest with the “cardboard lung” appearance of COVID-19 pneumonia or ECMO patients since December/Jan 2022, and I was reporting inpatient chest imaging in the largest ECMO center in Ontario at multiple points during the pandemic.
The “sniff test”, suggested things were changing (like population drift with a ML model). And the issue with the vaccine rollout is we went back to “science based medicine” rather than the currently accept “evidence based medicine” where lab tests like neutralization assays were being extrapolated into clinical outcomes. Medicine moved away from this type of reasoning for a reason, you really need to look at higher level outcomes to know what’s actually going on. You can rationalize many treatments on a scientific level (as was done for anti malarial drugs at some point) but it usually ends up invalid.
What’s being proven true now, is that we overestimated both COVID mortality due to confounding effects of co-admission (how many inpatients are there BECAUSE of COVID not with it) as well as the effectiveness of vaccines, particularly at later stages in the pandemic. They probably worked well for COVID 1.0 up to Delta at preventing serious illness but that quickly dropped.
I don’t buy the evidence to support current vaccination recommendations with the bivalent (esp. young and healthy), and you can see many institutions have dropped that requirement (only the initial 2 dose series was ever mandatory at my place)
The rest of your claims are dubious at best. Yes COVID deaths are going down, but that's because the most vulnerable are already dead and most everybody has a prior infection now. All the vaccine studies up to the bivalent booster used clinical outcomes. Most COVID deaths are "from" COVID, not with COVID, so this distinction is not particularly meaningful... Nobody is arguing that 100% of deaths are attributed perfectly.
Basically the vaccine recommendations up to the bivalent booster (ie 3 shots of the original vaccine for all age groups) were obviously correct and have overwhelmed data supporting them. The bivalent booster is a bit more complicated, but don't pretend that invalidates everything from the past 1.5 years.
First, what time point are you talking about though? Covid has been Jan 2020 to present and the variants arguably represent different diseases. Certainly they have different morbidity and mortality supported by science and evidence (e.g. at some point around omicron it became an upper airway infection).
Two, what’s the clinical outcome you’re referring to? How is attributable death determined? I’m not aware of any evidence to say the most COVID deaths since July 2022 are due to COVID. Particularly as we are not seeing the same clinical signs/changes with the newer variants as we were before.
What is the overwhelming data? There are a lot of observational studies reporting relative risk reduction. What’s the absolute risk of someone < 40 dying or being hospitalized due to omicron? Medical coding is horrendous and these questions are hard to answer with accuracy. I would be cautious with the strength of your statement, this is an ongoing field of study.
As I stated, the initial vaccination recommendation made sense, but when those recommendations were made they were not supported by strong evidence (largely because you can’t obtain evidence in an active pandemic).
I’m not anti-vax, and I support the initial recommendations, particularly given the context in which they were made. There is probably equal quality evidence on whether the booster was actually effective vs triggering temporary immune response boosting short term outcomes when I last updated myself on the literature in the fall (most of the studies measure out to 3 months, which is what we would expect from temporary immune boosting due to exposure). What are the long term risk reductions and is there lasting immunity to support the booster?
Is it sensible to divert human resources to boosters if the effect only lasts a few month and the ARR is minimal? Keeping in mind that diverting nurses to vaccination resulted in cancellation of elective ORs. These are important questions.
Now is the time to do more careful and objective analyses, not to shame or critique Dr. Fauci and co but to inform future decision making.
The actors in question have tarnished their otherwise somewhat respectable careers over this, and indeed it has been a public health catastrophe of 100-year proportions.
Only somewhat? I was under the impression Fauci et. al. were regarded as extremely competent.
The most obvious marks on his record, prior to covid, were the ire he drew from gay men during the AZT fiasco (I imagine you've seen this photo, for example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EapU2PGWsAAvxfb?format=jpg&name=...), and his role in supporting rather recklessly thought-out gain-of-function research (from, eg, CambridgeWG and co).
No response that NIAID has ever given provides the appearance that Fauci is personally committed to continuing education sufficient to respond to CambridgeWG's critiques, and frankly, his understanding seems to be closer to the level of amateurs like me (although his purse strings have little in common :-) ).
I think it's fair to say that he has always been a controversial figure, a friend to pharma and defense profiteers, and often a media darling. He has made funding decisions which have led to wonderful discoveries and deserves a great deal of credit for those.
But I don't think he's particularly notable for any groundbreaking epidemiological research or insight. And, although it may still be taboo to say it, he has spent and squandered whatever respect he may have had left with his colleagues. Even those who may have agreed with his bizarre public health policy advocacy seem to agree that he got into a horrific conflict of interest from which he was unable to escape except by resignation.
So it's not necessarily a matter of competence.
I invite you to publicly speak out against the narrative and see how it feels. Nothing is more exciting than your own friends and family calling you a horrible, alt-right grandma killer and wishing an agonizing Covid death. All because you had the audacity to look at publicly available data and come to a different conclusion than “The Experts”. If anything this persons tweet is far more measured than it needs to be.
It's kind of expected some people will be skeptical about such an unprecedented situation (mass lockdowns, school shutdowns, quick vaccine rollout, mRNA being a relatively new technology at scale etc). Honestly it's a good thing to have scientists who are willing to be skeptics within reason, scientists make mistakes all the time and it's good to have other scientists checking them.
Also important to remember some of what was considered 'crazy' and 'misinformation' and got people banned is now accepted as fact (like vaccines don't stop the spread, myocarditis risk etc)
https://www.salon.com/2022/12/16/why-elon-musk-and-right-win...
> Bhattacharya is expressing tacit agreement with the panel's premise that "the Biden Administration and pharmaceutical corporations continue to push widespread distribution of mRNA vaccines on the public, including children as young as 6 months old, through relentless propaganda while ignoring real-life adverse events." Bhattacharya is also agreeing to work with individuals like Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo, who has spread misinformation about mRNA vaccines. Additionally, in May he argued the data on whether COVID-19 vaccines save lives is "surprisingly nuanced" and that it led him to believe "public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients."
From the article you linked:
> A bombshell new study by a distinguished team of Danish researchers led by Prof. Christine Stabell-Benn suggests a surprisingly nuanced answer. In the randomized trials of the covid vaccines, the adenovector-based vaccines, including the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, reduced all-cause mortality of study participants relative to people randomly assigned a placebo. Indeed, the reduction in mortality is larger than expected from the Covid effect and may suggest additional beneficial “non-specific effects” from those vaccines against other health threats.
> On the other hand, Stabell-Benn and her colleagues found no statistically meaningful evidence in the trial data that the mRNA vaccines reduced all-cause mortality. The numbers of deaths from other causes including cardiovascular deaths appear to be increased in this group, compensating for the beneficial effect of the vaccines on Covid. Stabell-Benn is keen to stress that the sample is relatively small and is calling for further investigation, and also that the study took place during very low levels of Covid, so the relative advantage of protection against Covid would have been smaller at that time compared to at other points in the pandemic.
> However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. Dr. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time.
> At the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients.
> In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
> It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021.
From the study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489
> To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines reporting overall mortality, including COVID-19 deaths, accident deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccines there were 122,164 participants and 46 deaths (vaccine:16; controls:30). The RR for adenovirus-vector vaccines versus placebo/control vaccine was 0.37 (0.19-0.70). The adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11 (0.02-0.87)) and non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38 (0.17-0.88)). The two types of vaccines differed significantly with respect to impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046). The placebo controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to clear effects on COVID-19 infections. However, the data presented here argue for performing RCTs of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality.
I don't see what's so crazy in his article, doesn't seem like a gross misrepresentation of the study.
This was the worst case scenario that the lockdown orders were made to avoid.
In hindsight, I’m more so annoyed that additional healthcare capacity hasn't occurred, 3 years in. All the time borrowed and none of it used.
To your credit, I do wonder if a month or two of debilitated emergency services in a Darwinian surge would have been better. The purge still happened, just took longer and SOME people got more fine tuned treatments by getting sick later, at the expense of healthier people having missed screenings for longer.
Are you sure? Are you really sure? As opposed to just hearing dire warnings? My understanding is that all or almost all of the predicted overload of hospitals never actually happened.
In Wales, for example, Millennium Stadium was converted into a temporary field hospital with 300 beds and capacity to expand to 2000 beds. It was such a big deal that a public contest was held to name it Dragon's Heart Hospital <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Heart_Hospital>. However, said hospital never had more than 46 patients at one time, and was closed in six weeks for lack of use!
Even in NYC, which really did see overloaded hospitals briefly in March-April 2020, USNS Comfort treated a total of 179 patients. USNS Mercy treated a total of 77 patients in LA.
Regarding lack of availability of emergency services due to some bottleneck of medical resources and personnel? then, yes, I'm really sure.
So the justification for the lockdown was caused by the lockdown
You might want to check that again.
COVID protocols meant we were booking less to cleaning times (fair enough) but people were also too scared to come, and it seems we’ve forgotten how many people used to die before colonoscopies and screening mammograms.
This ignores that lockdown was a 'side-effect' of covid that affected the health-service, whereas covid itself had the exact same effect on healthcare, with or without lockdown. This can be seen in Sweden, for instance. Not only were death-rates during the height of the pandemic much higher in Sweden than its Nordic neighbors, the healthcare system was crippled by the workload and stress.
People were not getting health-checks here — just the same as in countries with lockdowns - so the effects of late screening on cancers are just as great.
The system is still overloaded, so there are constant stories in the news where people who need treatment urgently, are needing to wait a year or 18 months or more for treatment that might save their lives.
In addition, the stress that was caused by having totally overloaded emergency wards for 3 years has meant that nurses and doctors are leaving in unprecedented numbers, leaving the service woefully under-staffed.
A recent survey of all the country’s hospitals by an oversight authority found every single one of them under the minimum standard that they should maintain, with long waiting lists, people dying unattended in corridors and on floors, and staff-levels that are way too low.
Sure you could have a coffee in town during the pandemic in Sweden. But getting decent healthcare wasn’t (and still isn’t) an option.
Is covid no longer very deadly?
It is contagious but not deadly as far as deadly diseases go.
In the areas of Africa where malaria is endemic, it kills an estimated 400,000 people a year. Covid didn't even get to 40,000 in those regions and those are the least vaxxed areas on the plant.
How deadly could Covid be when the policy for people with symptoms was to stay at home without treatment or medication until the symptoms got too much too bear. Try that with malaria or meningitis and see how well that would turn out.
If anything it could be argued that it wasn't that deadly but the policy above made it more deadly than it should have been for those who succumbed to it, not to mention those who have developed long Covid.
> In 2021, however, group life payments exploded by 20.7% over the five year average and by 15% over the acute pandemic year of 2020. Why would healthy young and middle-age people suddenly begin dying in large numbers in 2021 when they’d navigated 2020 with relative success?
> ... In 2020, the vulnerable died of Covid at unusually high rates. In 2021 and 2022, Covid continued its assault, but the young, middle-aged, and healthy also died in aberrantly high numbers of something else.
Not fan of conspiracy theories but could this be why China was quite opposed to opening up?
It’ll take ages for the statisticians, sociologists, and economists to sort out exactly what was happening between 2020 and 20XX when society settles down.
There’s also a large section of the population that’s now generally anti-vax and anti-medicine. (I’ve seen it in my family.)
Missed medical screenings & care, delayed "non-urgent" medical procedures, higher rates of alcoholism & other substance abuse, less community cohesion and myriad other effects are surely far worse for society as a whole in countries that chose lockdowns than the direct impact of COVID was in countries that didn't.
From what I saw of the rest of the world COVID lockdown responses were really weird, though. In Taiwan we also had lockdowns but they seemed quite sensible (though parts were absurd). For example, indoor dining was closed, but restaurants were able to stay open and serve food to go, or, offer outdoor dining if they could (this is rare in taiwan though, most just did to-go). That's a sensible covid measure as incidents of outside spread are rare and people can spread out easily outside, plus we have parks on like, every corner, so it's not a big deal.
Public transit stayed open, but we had a mask policy, not that it was necessary since the population was happy to wear masks and continues to do so in situations not legally required here even today.
So I don't think we'll have as bad of lockdown side effects as other countries, cause people were still going out and about, just, sensibly.
(some of the stupid policies were the closing of outside exercise equipment. So dumb.)
I would encourage you to practice the intellectual humility required to consider the possibility the issue here was your lack of exposure to anything other than straw men.
Seriously? In the 3 years of the pandemic, the only criticism of lockdowns you heard was "covid was fake"? I'm not sure whether this was because you don't pay enough attention to current affairs, or you do but get it from such a strong filter bubble that all objections were rounded down to the crazies (for lack of a better word). For what it's worth, I did hear about the objections that the parent poster mentioned early in the pandemic. The problem I suspect is that the existence of crazies poisoned the well for the debate. Once being anti-lockdown was associated with the right and/or conspiracy theorists, anyone objecting to lockdowns must be secretly right-wing and/or a conspiracy theorist and their objections were just a cover for their crazy belief that the virus was fake or whatever.
Be prepared to be very disappointed then. Literally every platform out there quashed even a tiny trace of critisism.
That's conflating wildly different/disjoint beliefs into a single bucket. I have always thought lockdowns (of the type done by some European countries, UK, New Zealand, Australia, China) were a wildly disproportionate measure, and were doing more harm than good, but I also never thought COVID was "fake", and enthusiastically got vaccinated as soon as I could. An overall reduction of harm would have been achieved by simply not doing those lockdowns, in my opinion.
> From what I saw of the rest of the world COVID lockdown responses were really weird, though. In Taiwan we also had lockdowns but they seemed quite sensible (though parts were absurd). [...]
Similarly in southeast Asian countries I was in during the pandemic, most of the time outdoor activities were possible with sensible precautions. But it's also the case that people tend to have a more cohesive community, with extended family around, etc, which makes lockdowns more tolerable (as long as they're not the extreme kind of "do not leave your house for any reason" lockdown). That kind of local community cohesion is often not there in larger cities in Europe/US, so if your usual social activities (pub, cafe, organised events) are banned, you might not be left with much.
Then you are living in a massive information bubble. It is completely laughable that every single intelligent person in the world is automatically on board with some of the most dramatic and least thought through disease mitigations in history.
Science is a process for disproving theories. It isn’t a book of facts and it doesn’t have the capability to set policies. Well meaning, intelligent individuals can look at the data and come to completely different conclusions than the widespread narrative. For three years these people have been intentionally silenced.
I hope future generations learn from how ill prepared society was to deal with 24/7 news and social media. None of this would have happened even 10 years earlier. It just wouldn’t have been possible.
We can argue about what, but something is happening across 31 nations.
Instead, we are seeing the effects of prolonged fear over covid. For instance, child ICUs were full as RSV ravaged classrooms filled with children with weak immune systems.
Multiple people I know have had extremely important medical appointments, e.g. the first OB visit during pregnancy, that they had to push back because of a Covid infection. The government should be telling people that the risk / reward tradeoff of such a decision is not worth it.
Covid was the beginning of the horrors of the west's increasingly "inverted demographic pyramid" (i.e. too many olds). I worked my entire life to qualify to immigrate to a stable country and start a family. My wife fell pregnant during the pandemic shutdown and needed simple outpatient surgery to save the baby but it was considered "non-essential" and she was forced to pass the corpse on the toilet at home, with no friends or family allowed to visit and offer comfort. Thanks to complications from that experience, she is now barren. Everything we've worked towards since we were 15 gone.
Being a coder, I know a number of professional women whose last chance at a baby was an IVF window that closed during the lockdowns. I don't think they will ever mentally recover.
For reference, the average age of someone dying even "with" much less of Covid in my country is higher than the average life expectancy.
Covid is just the opening volley of the boomers finishing raiding the future to extend and improve their remaining years. I fully expect forced blood and organ donations in the next decade.
Except viruses have no brain, no hurt feelings, no divisive politics, just their inexorable multiplication logic. The writing is on the wall.
Namely: TESTING so we have actual data to make decisions with, immediately and continuously.
We were completely flying blind when big, big decisions had to be made.
It’s a stupid argument to ask whether the blind decisions we made were right or wrong when we could focus on not being blind next time.
Just slipped that in there; nothing to see here, move along, move along.
I don’t know how many standard deviations away from normal this is, but it’s apparently a lot: — once in centuries — a lot.
But I’m sure it’s nothing. And absolutely sure it’s not … the thing. Cause it’s not.
You quoted the wrong part.
Suicide is the leading cause of death under 45: brexit's negative impact on the economy and the 2022 war crash might be part of the story there, but I'm not sure if that was where the increase was. If we could have had everyone lock down just 1.5 weeks earlier on the initial wave and then done everything the same we could have prevented large amounts of covid's human and economic impact and made it to vaccine land without as much damage.
What’s your source? Data I’ve seen says that’s not the case anymore. It’s overdose:
the leading cause for people ages 18-45 would be unintentional drug overdose due to synthetic opioids. That number would exceed the second highest leading cause of death (suicide in 2020 and COVID-19 in 2021.)
Source: CDC https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
There are always trade-offs, but sometimes there are also synergies.
This is not a genuine quote from the article, emphasis is by OP
Excess deaths have been climbing since covid kicked off: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid; we're not doing a good job determining the effects of long covid.
That’s according to the OECD mortality figures.
https://zmichaelgehlke.com/images/covid-mortality.png
We know from re-analysis of the mRNA trials that their major injury rate is at least 1 in 800.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYR1wz-Cf_M
And just coincidentally, 1/800 times the 500M doses in the US is very close to what a 10% increase in mortality (blue line) would be for two years — about 300,000 deaths a year. But I’m sure that it’s a coincidence that our non-COVID-attributed excess death matches the serious injury rate of mRNA vaccines and begins around the same period (purple line going below black line in 21Q2).
(adverse events of special interested listed in tables 3 and 4 in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ , which is the paper the youtube guy is talking on)
Acute kidney injury
Acute liver injury
Acute respiratory distress syndrome
Coagulation disorder
Myocarditis/pericarditis
Other forms of acute cardiac injury
- - - - -
I don’t believe I misrepresented or conflated anything — but if you prefer, that list above is an injury rate of 1/1000 doses. Again, about the excess deaths we mysteriously started seeing in 2021.
In fact, I find you suggesting that a side effect like diarrhea (1 in 52 and 2 in 87) is better representative to be verging on misinformation. The most common was “Other forms of acute cardiac injury” (16 of 52; 26 of 87).
I didn't try to pick representative examples of the adverse events, I pointed out blatant discrepancies with your characterization.
The data in the table is over 80% major injuries, with heart damage being the primary one — and heart problems like myocarditis have extremely high fatality rates.
I pointed out that the rate of excess death not attributed to COVID is coincidentally about the rate of serious vaccine injuries — which is factually true. Whether we use 1/800 or the 1/1000 from just that subset, listed above.
For that to be true, everything listed as a adverse event of serious interest would have to be a major injury. You can assert that they all are, and I can disagree.
For what I said to be true, we need the “serious injury rate” to be close to the excess mortality figure — which is true when restricted to the subset above, that has a 1/1000 rate.
> And just coincidentally, 1/800 times the 500M doses in the US is very close to what a 10% increase in mortality (blue line) would be for two years — about 300,000 deaths a year. But I’m sure that it’s a coincidence that our non-COVID-attributed excess death matches the serious injury rate of mRNA vaccines and begins around the same period (purple line going below black line in 21Q2).
You’re welcome to say what adverse event in the list above you don’t consider to be a major injury — specifically.
- - - - -
> You aren't innocently pointing out the odd numerical alignment, you are implying that the vaccine injuries are a likely source of the deaths.
I said they’re coincidentally close; do you not believe me when I say that?
Do you have an explanation for that phenomenon which isn’t coincidence?
What do you think "conflate" means?
What the antivax crowd keeps ignoring is that myocarditis is a rare side effect of the vaccines and usually can only be detected by a test and no actual symptoms occur, when caused by the vaccine.
Myocarditis from acquiring COVID-19 though is much more common and severe.