The RIVM (Dutch Health Institute) now claims that excess mortality has been eliminated. That the over mortality has been successfully combated can be understood from a letter that Prof. Dr. Ir. J. Brug (Director General RIVM) wrote in response to a question by Gijs van Loef. The most remarkable passage from his answer is:
It is expected that we will not, or at least not in the short term, return to the pre-coronapandemic trend. With the expected higher mortality, only higher absolute mortality will result in excess mortality.
Prof. J. Brug, Director-General of RIVM
So the conclusion is that although mortality is higher and will continue, at least there is no longer excess mortality.
Ultimately, excess mortality is nothing more than a conclusion tied to numbers that belong to a trend as Prof. Bridge rightly points out. He means to say that excess mortality only occurs when observed mortality exceeds calculated expected mortality. So we are going to follow the trail of numbers and see how then the excess mortality is contested.
Excess mortality
First, we look at excess mortality. Statistics Netherlands (CBS) provides the figures for this. The weekly number of deaths and the mortality forecast is the deduction point. CBS calls the difference the excess mortality and this graph goes with that:
In the first year, we see the excess mortality (black) increases in line with the number of deaths from corona (red) according to the official RIVM figures. In between, the excess mortality falls to within the range. From 2022, corona has virtually disappeared from the scene and “unexplained excess mortality” remains: excess mortality rarely falls back within the range.
Of note is that we display the bandwidth in accordance with the method used for decades in the Netherlands.
Under-mortality
What we shouldn't forget is to factor in expected under-mortality. This is the pulled-forward mortality, which means that people die earlier than expected after corona infection. This principle is explained in detail in the post “Forget All the Charts.” We suffice here to show this line:
The green line is the undermortality we should expect in the absence of corona. We see that in the summer of 2020, excess mortality did indeed drop to the forecast. Only the heat wave pried in between and after that the second wave. In the summer of 2021, the unexplained mortality emerges, especially when compared to the under mortality we should have gotten.
Net excess mortality
Lack of under mortality means that there are more deaths than expected. We can make the green line the new zero line; after all, it is the expected mortality. Relative to that zero line, the black excess mortality line then partially shifts upward.
In the following graph, we did just that and get a “Net excess mortality.” In black is again the excess mortality, but now “net,” that is, taking into account the undermortality we should have seen.
Now we can clearly see the completely vanished excess mortality in the summer of 2020. But above all, we are now getting a better view of the unexplained excess mortality starting in April 2021. There, overmortality and corona suddenly diverge: no corona, but overmortality of around 40 per day. With the exception of the summer of 2023, the excess mortality constantly fluctuates between 25 and 50 per day.
Public health institute forecast
RIVM, the Dutch public health institute, has a different view on the calculation of expected mortality. In his letter, Prof. Brug refers to the RIVM website for an explanation of the calculation procedure. Basically, the last 5 years are used for the expectation of the coming years, cleverly taking into account peaks that are removed. This expectation is plotted in this graph as a blue line:
What we see here is the continuous adjustment over the past 5 years. Due to the excess mortality in the reference period, the difference between actual mortality and the expectation is getting smaller and smaller, thus forming the basis for controlling excess mortality.
Combat successful
This graph shows the final result produced by the RIVM model. The blue line with the adjustments has now become the horizontal baseline of the graph:
Until 2021, a quite high excess mortality, which from 2022 fell to within RIVM's expectations, thanks in part to the widening of the range each time. Overmortality was effectively controlled thanks to the application of a mathematical model that incorporates decades of expertise.
Conclusions
The Netherlands, thanks to the RIVM's proprietary calculation model, has managed to successfully combat national excess mortality. Moreover, the RIVM has reason to believe that, at least for now, we will “not return to the pre-corona pandemic trend.”. According to the RIVM, since 2021 there has been an admittedly unintelligible but nevertheless structural increase in mortality of 15%. This makes excess mortality disappear from the scene until, the RIVM said, mortality rates begin to rise again.
Editor's note: The calculation model developed by the RIVM offers a wide range of possible applications in other fields, for example climate issues and crime control: by adjusting the standard with figures from the recent past, future targets are more easily met. And the financial sector could also profit: money has become worth a little less again, but we already expected that, so there is no inflation anyway.
Clearly explained, thanks! I can imagine that this arithmetic intervention will lead to structural undermortality in the future if the effects fade out. Fortunately, not all institutes are so free with statistical interpretation. I am curious to see how RIVM will justify this (in retrospect) when there is a better picture of the seriousness of the case internationally.
15% oversterfte. Betekent dat dan ook dat we binnenkort weer met 62 met pensioen mogen? Lagere levensverwachting betekent toch minder pensioenuitkeringen, dus de pensioenleeftijd kan weer naar de 62-65 jaar?
Could it perhaps be considered to delete Mr Brug's scientific qualifications? These trivial approaches are still manageable for a mediocre high school student.
Pun : this man's titles are a Bridge too far
I don't understand how he gets 'expected mortality' out of his pen either.
Crystal clear. As of 2020, we are around 170,000 on an annual basis. Before that, around 150,000 deaths per year for a very long time. Looking further back around 140,000. Slow increase is logical given the aging population. But the plateau that will arise from 2020 onwards is not normal.
I wonder what motivates the RIVM. 2 possibilities:
1. they think they're doing a really good job, or
2. They purposefully try to mask the facts.
Option 1 is unlikely. Then the level would be very low. Option 2 is the most obvious. So then a conscious effort is made to cover up the facts. This means that people realize that something is not right. So there is something to hide. Can we call that disinformation? We sometimes almost laugh about it, but isn't it really very disturbing that official bodies are trying to manipulate us in such a transparent way?
There is now a lot of fuss about monkeypox again, and it seems that the bastards are kicking in again. But all those deaths in their own country? You don't hear about that in MSM. Wappie talk.
Hi Cees, you put your finger on the sore spot regarding the actions of the RIVM, but what I want to ask you is whether you use the term 'bastards' from their (RIVM's) point of view or from your own.
Ha, I mean that such agencies probably see 'us' as 'bastards' who are easy to deceive. There is a disdain that is very similar to the way serfs were treated in the past. It seems that a majority of the people (the rabble, the gray) are totally disconnected from the various agendas that are nevertheless driven by this elite.
During the Covid period, there was also talk about unvaccinated people as if they needed to be informed. They didn't quite understand. Well, I think they understood it very well:-).
At the same time, I think it's often about disguising inability. Hugo's rent measures (he probably didn't make that up himself) lead to even fewer rental properties. A woke agenda to create more tolerance actually leads to less tolerance and more irritation. Campaigns to encourage people to vaccinate lead to less willingness to vaccinate. I wonder what the causes of these phenomena are. An ever-expanding government is certainly part of that.
Option 3: RIVM does this 'on commission' (not formally of course) from the government, more specifically the Ministry of Health. During corona, this department was politically managed by Hugo de Jonge and Ernst Kuipers respectively. Both politicians have something to hide...
The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) is part of the government and only investigates matters if Public 'Health' asks for it.
I think that it is no different at the RIVM than at other organizations, that is that the conclusion is known in advance and is not questioned by the employee because that is considered 'unprofessional' (Read: THAT IS NOT ALLOWED), after which employees do everything they can to confirm that conclusion, including deceiving themselves. It is consciously unconscious.
Think of it as a relationship that someone enters into with another person of whom he may know in advance that he should not enter into the relationship. But it's just the choice (the conclusion stands), and then it goes on and on and on (finding evidence that the relationship works). Or as they said about domestic violence in the Sire video: it doesn't stop, not by itself.
The employees of organizations that pretend that excess mortality is quite normal (such as RIVM) are perpetrators and victims at the same time. This makes it so difficult (for them) to get out, while it is obvious to an outsider (like us who respond here) that the conclusion (such as that there is no more excess mortality) should never have been set in advance.
In addition: victims of violence, for example, who do not have the opportunity to adequately address that problem, often unconsciously take it out on other dependents who point it out or at least do not accept the 'normality' of it (clearly enough) because otherwise the psychological suffering is no longer bearable for those victims. That has to be expressed in one way or another. Externalizing so towards the 'wappies' or vice versa with e.g. The ultimate result is suicide, unfortunately.
Right, you mention the key question, which I regularly ask myself. Namely short and to the point: are they that stupid or are they that bad. As far as I'm concerned, they can choose for themselves, I'd love to hear the answer. This question also applies to a lot of the politicians, scientists etc involved
A few questions about that quote (i.e. to Prof. Dr. Ir. Brug):
– "the trend before the corona pandemic" – the trend of expected (with one -t) mortality (which is now calculated differently by RIVM than before, both in terms of median and in terms of the size of the margins) or the trend of actual mortality? Or well, does it matter. It's almost the same, that's just it.
– 'absolute mortality' – is 'actual mortality' meant in this context? Or what is relative mortality? Deaths per 100,000 inhabitants? (But we are not comparing here with other much larger countries, only with a slightly growing number of Dutch inhabitants, 1%.)
– The 25% highest mortality rates have been excluded from the calculation. So that's – I assume – 13 weeks in each of those 5 years that the calculation is based on. Nevertheless, expectations are rising remarkably. That in itself gives you food for thought! Exactly that means that in addition to the "known/expected" influences (flu, freezing cold, heat wave), there is another influence that was not there before and that continues to exist outside of those peak weeks.
– We have not known "extreme cold periods" in the past 10 years.
– how was the trend of the forecast until 2022 calculated by RIVM? Different model?
That editor's note at the end: strong!
The leading prognosis came from Statistics Netherlands (CBS), but RIVM is actually doing what it has always done: Looking at the past few years.
Yes, that "absolute mortality"... – oh well, that whole quote is rattling. The letter is simply of little quality.
Although this forum is not meant to promote links, I would like to see an exception for an update of Reiner Füllmich's process.
This man, one of the most outspoken critics of the Corona hype and known for the "Nuremberg tribunal" to be established because of the practices regarding medical treatment in this so-called epidemic, is imprisoned in Germany on the basis of quicksand-based complaints. Really just a political prisoner. Please take a look at his story and respond to it
https://rumble.com/v5aivg2-statement-of-dr-reiner-fuellmich-update-august-5th-2024.html
Looked at. Impressive too, the man has enormous powers of persuasion. I never dared to stand behind him because of his "plandemic" and "good/evil" thinking. He said a lot of things that I really thought differently about. But it could just be true what he claims here. That would be a scandal. Maybe dedicate a piece to it indeed.
What I don't understand is the following.
Both the meta-study by Maxima Medical Center and the extrapolation study by a Canadian university assume excess mortality. Globally 30 million deaths can be divided into 7 million deaths, with, by and iatrogenic acting, 16.9 million deaths due to vaccination and the rest due to social deprivation (hunger, violence, suicides etc). That is extrapolated to the entire world population of 8 billion and you hear this figure from various sides.
The basis is a comparison of mortality rates in countries representing 2.7 billion people, including the Netherlands. Is it the case that the Canadian university is brushing aside these gossip stories from the RIVM? Or does RIVM report other figures to OurWorldinData, Johns Hopkins University, etc.?
If the latter were the case, there would be a serious form of bad faith in the neglect of the duties of RIVM and its employees. It is hard to imagine such a thing happening on its own initiative.
Studies where 16.9 million deaths from vaccinations...!? (By the way, that also falls under iatrogenic acting, I thought). Do you have any links to those studies? I haven't seen it yet.
Via substack, 2nd smartest guy in the world
https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/a-new-worldwide-study-finds-there?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=400535&post_id=146842824&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=17pm5c&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Hasn't the Maxima Medical Center also been pressured to revise the findings, to put them into perspective, to water them down? Or did I dream that? That was a meta-study, but even that is not allowed in the Netherlands.
Problem is Anton, you can only tell your lie 1x well and you don't have to think about the truth. In the end, all this leads to a deep distrust in society and that benefits no one.
Incidentally, Dr. John Campbell also has a clip about this study.
You can see it on Youtube. Six days ago.
Of course, there is also a tsunami of news coming our way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5Ii9TARis&t=736s