Because I do my best for the aerosol story, I am automatically placed in the camp of Virus Madness. However, on a number of points I don't like that. For example, it is teeming with conspiracy theories that I categorically reject. Also, the esoteric approach has rather little impact; In any case, the jointly meditated force field has not had much effect. The joining of the farmer leaders and everyone else who wants to join the anti-lockdown bandwagon doesn't make it any better either: more anger, less reason. The power of the substantiation is diluted as a result.
They think it's a flu
Where it becomes more critical for me personally is what science is not unequivocal about: for example, estimating how dangerous Corona really is. This is expressed in the IFR, but that does not say everything: a virus with an IFR of 1% and with a potential infection rate of 15% is less dangerous than an IFR of 0.5% with an expected 40% infection rate. So how easy it is to stop the spread is not included in the IFR. Until the spread is properly controlled, I do think the Coronavirus is more dangerous than the flu, but for different reasons than what CBS proclaims. It says 'There is more excess mortality so there are more corona deaths'. I dispute that. In addition, the spread of both corona and flu is relatively easy to stop. First the excess mortality.
Excess mortalityis a temporary increase in the number ofmortality rate(the number of deaths) in a given population.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversterfte
CBS: Number of corona deaths doubles
The RIVM has registered 6,200 corona deaths. Due to the inadequate administration and reporting, it has always been more informative to look at the mortality figures recorded by CBS. Excess mortality at CBS was always about one and a half to twice as high as what RIVM reported in terms of corona mortality. For many virus maniacs, this is a setback. For many of them, corona is a harmless flu, which has been given its own name purely on the basis of a bad test.
It was the virus, not the lockdown
The higher mortality is attributed by some to the effects of the lockdown. Postponed treatments, fewer doctor visits, loneliness (and what about suicide rates?) – all factors that push death rates up. To what extent, that seems difficult to calculate.
The higher mortality rates in the approaching economic crisis will indeed be 100% attributable to the lockdown. The lockdown will undeniably have harmful effects on public health. That does not mean that you already see this reflected in the current mortality figures. The argument for this is that excess mortality was already almost double the RIVM figures before the fatal effects of the lockdown could play out. The lockdown can therefore not actually be the explanation for the higher mortality – and certainly not the only explanation.
Just as deadly as the flu of 2017-2018?
The official flu mortality in the 2017-2018 season is 9,444. That flu wave lasted an unusually long time: 14 weeks. In 2020, the flu, this time a corona variant, had free rein for a few weeks. Let's say: the same mortality in half the time, maybe a third. This indicates a dangerous combination of infectiousness and lethality, at least twice as deadly as what we are used to from influenza, although the IFR may be lower. Asymptomatic infection is a successful strategy for a virus. Short and fierce, because the virus had spread quickly after the carnival explosion. It already withdrew when the lockdown started. The reproduction number was then below 1 thanks to the lack of superspread events.
The IFR (percentage of deaths among those infected) is still under discussion. Some say: similar to the flu (virus madness), others claim: 50 to 100 times higher than the flu (National Geographic). I maintain for myself: at least twice as deadly as the flu but very easy to curb if we effectively tackle the infections with ventilation. I can see that the total annual seasonal mortality will be structurally reduced in that case. No more flu waves, everything neatly within the gray band in the graph. Then the average life expectancy will even increase in the long term – thanks to the corona epidemic of 2020.
CBS: back to the calculation table
If you assume excess mortality, you have to calculate differently:
- The excess mortality is about 10,000.
- The average excess mortality in the past 5 flu seasons is 6,500.
- This means that 3,500 more people will have died than what could be expected in excess mortality. These could be attributed to corona, minus the effect of the lockdown and possibly other flu viruses that have never been tested. That leaves for example: between 1,500 and 2,000 extra deaths from corona (let's just take a look at it). You can find that little, or a lot. You could also weigh the proportionality of the measures against this.
There is also a lot to say about undermortality, but that is a temporary phenomenon that follows excess mortality. You can already see from undermortality that the excess mortality mainly concerns the elderly. See for example this article in the AD.
The claim of the CBS that the number of corona deaths should be adjusted to the total excess mortality, without further context, is a short-sighted calculation with which they scare people again.
Adjusting expectations
Apparently, we are surprised every year by an "excess mortality". See the gray band in the graph above: that is the expected seasonal fluctuation. If you use such models, how can you ever get a grip on your data? The expected mortality is calculated incorrectly year after year and apparently no one cares. The expectation is not adjusted. Every winter they are just 400% wrong. I know pollsters who are judged on less.
Another solution: remove the wave from the gray bar and just make it a straight line. Then you have an average that you can use as a reference in relation to excess and undermortality in winter and summer respectively. As it is now, it is neither meat nor fish.
Trend: more and more seasonal mortality
In the period 1999-2010, the average number of deaths from influenza was less than 2,000 per year. (That number is modeled, never measured (sic!). Source: Rivm). In the last five years, that has more than tripled. If you see such a development in the cost structure of your company, you have to do something about it. Could the next five years see another doubling or tripling of that misery? Shouldn't you see if that trend can be reversed?
We can arm our society against rising infection mortality if we get the air quality in order. The alternative is to abolish "living together" because at a distance of one and a half meters I don't see how you can live "together". Without society, there is no public health.
Who is doing something about the advancing flu seasons?
Now public health is a point of attention for the government, given the "V" in RIVM. However, our public health has been outsourced to the WHO with the RIVM as its annex: enforcers with limited local powers. The government has signed up for the WHO and the WHO would like to remain friends with China and the Chinese have a completely different view on viruses, dealing with animals and respect for the planet in general. It is already complex if you leave personal and business interests out of the equation because it involves many, many billions.
Please, supporters and opponents of RIVM, Viruswaanzin and/or Maurice: form a front and take care of the air hygiene with which we prevent group infections and outbreaks. That really happens through the air, everyone already knows it. If we have that under control, tightened hygiene rules are just about the worst thing that can happen to us. If not for Corona, then for the viruses of the coming years.
