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 where science is not clear: 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 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 taken into account in the IFR. Until the spread is properly controlled, I think the Coronavirus is indeed 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. 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. Delayed treatments, fewer visits to the doctor, loneliness (and what about suicide rates?) - all factors that push up mortality rates. To what extent, it seems difficult to quantify.
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 therefore cannot 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 believe for myself: it is at least twice as deadly as the flu, but can be controlled very well if we effectively tackle the infections with ventilation. I can easily see the total annual seasonal mortality being 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
Kennelijk worden we elk jaar opnieuw verrast door een "oversterfte". Zie de grijze band in de grafiek hierboven: dat is de verwachte seizoensfluctuatie. Als je zulke modellen hanteert, hoe kun je dan ooit grip op je data krijgen? De verwachte sterfte wordt jaar op jaar verkeerd berekend en kennelijk maakt dat niemand wat uit. De verwachting wordt niet bijgesteld. Elke winter weer zitten ze er zomaar 400% naast. Ik ken opiniepeilers die op minder worden afgerekend.
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). This has more than tripled in the last five years. If you see such a development in the cost structure of your company, you need to do something about it. Could this misery double or triple again in the next five years? Shouldn't you see if that trend can be reversed?
Wij kunnen onze samenleving wapenen tegen de stijgende infectiesterfte als we de luchtkwaliteit op orde krijgen. Het alternatief is het opheffen van "samenleven" want op anderhalve meter afstand zie ik niet hoe je "samen" kunt leven. Zonder samenleving is er geen volksgezondheid.
Who is doing something about the advancing flu seasons?
Nu is volksgezondheid een aandachtspunt van de overheid, gezien de "V" in RIVM. Onze volksgezondheid is echter uitbesteed aan de WHO met als dependance de RIVM: handhavers met beperkte lokale volmachten. De overheid heeft getekend voor de WHO en de WHO wil graag vriendjes blijven met China en Chinezen hebben weer een heel andere kijk op virussen, omgang met dieren en respect voor de planeet in het algemeen. Het is al complex als je de persoonlijke en zakelijke belangen buiten beschouwing laat want het gaat om vele, vele miljarden.
Please, supporters and opponents of RIVM, Viruswaanzin and/or Maurice: form a front and ensure air hygiene so that we can prevent group infections and outbreaks. That really happens through the air, everyone already knows it. If we have that under control, then stricter hygiene rules are about the worst thing that can happen to us. If not for Corona, then for the viruses of the coming years.
