...or pay via paypal

cards

Reactions

Comments that are not related to the topic of discussion will be deleted. Always keep comments respectful and substantive.

12 Comments
  1. Cees Mul

    Anton, I have to say something. Nice approach, and must have taken a lot of time. Maybe some additional ideas that eg. Scandinavia better explain. One difference that you have not taken into account is the 'vaccine' variation. From sometime in 2022, the bivalent vaccines will have been introduced. They have been tested even less than the original injections. How the immune system reacts to it, no one knows.
    In addition, in a number of countries people have stopped pricking (under 50 or 60). In our cool country, the are still recommended through propaganda. So total number of jabs in, for example, Sweden can be quite high, but how recent are those jab rounds? And with what type of vaccine? It doesn't make the comparison any easier, I realize that. Aspirating can also have an impact (Denmark).
    I'm not saying for sure that it has an impact, but it is certainly a big uncertainty that could be relevant.

    Reply
    1. Herman Steigstra

      Dear Cees,
      You're absolutely right, of course. There is a lot more to the research and quantification. Actually, this should be a suggestion to our Minister of Health, Ernst Kuipers, but he has actually ruled out vaccination in advance as a possible cause of excess mortality. A very first step is to come up with clear, "simple" figures, which will hopefully open the door to the willingness to look at this. If that happens, then we have achieved our goal. What's next.... that in turn smacks of something international. We do not get beyond the data that IS available.

      Reply
    2. Henk Knoester

      The graphs in this article show that there is a substantial bandwidth between countries. Countries with the same vaccination coverage can still have very different excess mortality. This can indeed be due to vaccine variation and also differences in periods in which the vaccines are put. Another factor may be the production variation in vaccines. The registration of side effects in Vaers shows that the reporting of side effects is very irregularly distributed over the production batches. Some batches show many more side effects than others. In itself, this is a reason to reconsider mass vaccination. But let's avoid jumping to conclusions: in addition to vaccination, there may still be very different reasons for excess mortality.

      Reply
    3. Cees Mul

      Thank you, Herman. It's not clear to me how to respond to your thread, so it might end up in a strange place.
      The number of variables is indeed overwhelming. Just saw on joel smalley's site a nice analysis of New South Wales, Australia. Looks like they created the perfect storm there. First isolate everyone for a long time so that the immune systems get much less stimuli than usual. Then fill everyone with mRNA vaccines so that immune systems are 'primed' for a virus that no longer exists. The relatively harmless omicron can then suddenly turn into a deadly virus? And the common flu also hits much harder. Just like here in the Netherlands (the flu situation. Doctors wonder why the flu lasts more seriously and longer than usual). In my opinion, exactly what Geert vd Bossche has been warning about for a long time and what he has been ridiculed for.

      Reply
  2. frans van den berg

    Those excess mortality values of Bulgaria and South Africa and BA (?) are minimized in 2022. I can only explain that because in 2020 and 2021 the corona variant was more deadly, and in 2022 innocent, while the health or health care in those countries is less? How else can you explain it if vaccination plays no or almost no role? But hey, the vertical scale of 2021 runs to 350, that of 2020 and 2022 to 100! Mmmm. Hard to compare. If I compare a little, there are only a few countries that have more excess mortality,
    GB, DE and IE. (CH, be ietjes hoger, some countries are not in both graphs). The rest or equal or less. NL the same. You can apparently better conclude that .....?? That poorer countries are more vulnerable to aggressive viruses, that richer countries are less vulnerable, and that multiple vaccinations do little to help the richer countries or sometimes work against them in the long run? The poorer countries might score well in 2022 because the vulnerable have already died? You should add 2019, then you can draw better conclusions. It remains necessary to compare the figures between ages and the number of vaccinations in 1 country. I have already read that in the UK vaccinations helped a lot with the first wave and then no longer, even for certain age categories you became more vulnerable because of the vaccinations. Do I still get it? By the way, I am 63, not vaccinated, 2x sick but not very much, the first time a bit sicker, and the chance I die at all this year, I have looked up, is 1% approximately. In short, there are worse problems.

    Reply
    1. Herman Steigstra

      Dear French,
      2019 is already indirectly in it, because this is about excess mortality. This is always relative to the baseline and is in principle based on a 5-year average, adjusted for epidemic waves. CBS apparently has a clever way to do this, because the baseline for 2022 has been increased by only 0.5% compared to 2021. Corona has (rightly) not increased it much.
      And yes, there are differences, partly unexplained. But if the vaccines had really protected us, you should have seen big differences. 10X as low mortality or something. And in 2022, under-mortality after so many excess deaths. Nothing at all, the opposite in the highly vaccinated countries

      Reply
  3. Henk Knoester

    First of all, kudos for yet another beautiful piece of work. Thanks Herman and Anton. As soon as I receive a notification of a new article on Virusvaria, I drop everything out of my hands and I will read it immediately.
    I would like to say something about the great similarity of the periods 2020 and 2021. The virus variants in 2021 were less pathogenic than in 2020. Apart from that, by building up natural immunity in 2020 and 'microvaccination' (as Maurice de Hond calls it based on work by Prof. Bouma), you can expect that the excess mortality due to corona will decrease in 2021 (compared to 2020). Especially if you also expect a bit of under-mortality due to the events in 2020. That this did not happen is strange.
    If you assume that vaccination is indeed the (main) cause of excess mortality in 2022, then this has already played a role in your period of 2021. If you were to correct for the harmful effects of the vaccination in 2021, and remove excess mortality from vaccination, then the regression line should become steeper in 2021 (fall more sharply). Ergo, there will be a difference with 2020: the vaccinations will have therefore provided an advantage in the short term. Your period 2021 is too long (until April 2022) to see that. You may have lost significance due to the choice of periods. And so vaccinations may have an advantage in the short term, but in the longer term they are only harmful. And no one knows for how long.

    Reply
    1. Anton (@infopinie)

      Definitely a good point Henk. We have only looked at the net total result here. In the end, All-Cause-Mortality is the ultimate test. With detailed data on vaccination statuses and causes of death, you could pull everything apart much better.

      Reply
  4. Theo

    "Yes, the Covid vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis. And yes, people (older and younger) die from the vaccines as a result. But... the vaccines have saved tens of thousands of lives. So feel free to take the new booster. The advantages (still) outweigh the disadvantages".

    According to The Telegraph's Maarten Keulemans: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fhealth-fitness%2Fbody%2Fcritics-claim-covid-jabs-causing-heart-problems-do-have-proof%2F

    Reply
  5. Harald

    Dear Anton, I only see this article now. Broadly speaking, it seems to me to be very good and important. Still, I noticed a few things, one even in bold:

    1. "But if that were true, then there should have been a huge increase in admissions and therefore in excess mortality in the few vaccinated countries."
    But it is not to be expected that not vaccinating will result in an increase in excess mortality with a variant of the disease that is at most as strong!
    I would say: "But if that were true, then there should have been a huge drop in admissions and therefore in excess mortality in the many vaccinated countries."
    This is also stated lower in the article: "on average, vaccination has not reduced excess mortality in these 34 countries."
    The first question at the end of the article is also in line with this. But the last question is the wrong way around.

    2. The conclusion just below "But if that would be true" doesn't sit well with me either:
    "From that, you could conclude that vaccination did not play a significant factor in reducing mortality."
    But according to the graphs, mortality in the Netherlands had hardly decreased and internationally there was little or no reduction. Maybe better:
    "From that, you could conclude that vaccination has not reduced mortality, if at all."

    Fortunately, none of this makes much difference to the overall consideration. I really appreciate those articles, thanks again!

    PS. another point:
    – "Many of these demographics have already been factored into the normal baseline mortality of those countries, so that should not be recognizable in the excess mortality."
    I have my doubts about that. The normal baseline mortality rate can be higher or lower, without saying anything about how well a population group is able to cope with a new virus.

    Reply
    1. Anton Theunissen

      Thanks for your comment.

      1. You write: "it is not to be expected that not vaccinating will result in an increase in excess mortality".
      That is the line of thought if you want to use such a graph to show that vaccination helps. Otherwise, vaccination would be pointless anyway and that would make this whole discussion superfluous.

      2. Doesn't really matter, it's more of a semantic discussion without much impact on the basic idea.

      PS. another point:
      – "A lot of the demographics have already been discounted... Without that saying anything about how well a population group is able to cope with a new virus." That's right, of course, that's why I write "A lot of". What remains cannot explain such figures. That demographic does include the age structure, which is a very important predictor.

      Reply
      1. Harald

        Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, sorry.
        No change of action in a stable situation has the expected effect of no change, and certainly not a huge increase in excess mortality.
        Vaccination is intended to reduce excess mortality; Continuing not to vaccinate in the event of an almost constant pandemic has the expected consequence that pandemic-caused excess mortality will remain more or less constant – not that it will increase sharply.

        Reply

Post a Comment

Je e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Required fields are marked with *