Pandemic started in a lab:

[probinson]

The previously posted data showed the increase in 2020 lined up pretty well with covid deaths. How are those in any way related to the lower mortality in 2019?

Why don't you defer to the experts on this point like you always do? Take a look.

All-cause mortality in 2020 decreased in Norway and increased in Sweden compared with previous years. The observed excess deaths in Sweden during the pandemic may, in part, be explained by mortality displacement due to the low all-cause mortality in the previous year.​

​

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic - PMC

Background: Norway and Sweden are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care. Norway implemented extensive COVID-19 measures, such as school closures and lockdowns, whereas Sweden did not. Aims: To compare mortality in Norway and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

That's an impressive increase in 2020.

It is not. It's a roughly 7% increase, which is paltry compared to the increase in excess deaths in other places. As one example, you have to go back 80 years to find excess death rates as high as they are in Australia right now.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/report-shows-australias-excess-mortality-rate-has-risen-to-levels-not-seen-since-world-war-ii/news-story/2f86a5483b9ae8363fc80082ae95ba3d

And then a below average year in 2021, and again in 2022. For some reason, this "years with low death rates cause higher death rates the next" hypothesis doesn't seem to hold in years aside from 2020. I wonder what might have been different in that particlar year that led to the increased death rate?

I'm glad to see you challenging the NIH's conclusion.

I suppose if one doesn't understand "mortality displacement" it might cause them to make uninformed statements like this and jump to erroneous conclusions.

 

[probinson]

It's a no or yes question.

No it's not. It's a complex question with unknowable variables.

Do you think the US would have fared better if we enacted the same initial actions as Sweden.

How the US would have fared regarding COVID deaths is directly correlated to what measures would have been enacted to protect the elderly.

No we wouldn't have fared better, or yes, we would have fared better? Which one? And I am asking you.

If we had not locked down and taken measures to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had far fewer deaths. If we had not locked down and did nothing to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had the same or worse outcome.

What I'm trying to say to you, and what should be abundantly obvious from looking at the data, is that any mitigation should have been focused where it was needed most. Let's go to the data!

More than half of all COVID deaths in the US were in those 75 or older. That is where protection was needed most. But instead of protecting our elderly, our government thought it would be a real keen idea to send symptomatically ill elderly patients away from the hospitals, EVEN IF THEY KNEW THEY HAD COVID, and back to their long-term care facilities where they could infect and kill countless others.

The lockdowns were largely irrelevant to the number of deaths and only resulted in immense collateral damages. The biggest factor was an abject failure to protect our elderly.

 

[Say it aint so]

No it's not. It's a complex question with unknowable variables.



How the US would have fared regarding COVID deaths is directly correlated to what measures would have been enacted to protect the elderly.



If we had not locked down and taken measures to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had far fewer deaths. If we had not locked down and did nothing to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had the same or worse outcome.

What I'm trying to say to you, and what should be abundantly obvious from looking at the data, is that any mitigation should have been focused where it was needed most. Let's go to the data!

View attachment 330001

More than half of all COVID deaths in the US were in those 75 or older. That is where protection was needed most. But instead of protecting our elderly, our government thought it would be a real keen idea to send symptomatically ill elderly patients away from the hospitals, EVEN IF THEY KNEW THEY HAD COVID, and back to their long-term care facilities where they could infect and kill countless others.

The lockdowns were largely irrelevant to the number of deaths and only resulted in immense collateral damages. The biggest factor was an abject failure to protect our elderly.

I would imagine in all countries most of the deaths occurred among those 75 years and older, and of course among those with preexisting conditions where here in the US, we're king of that stat. In fact, here is Sweden below. You can see about three quarters of their deaths are those 75 and older.

So one more time, I am asking you. Do you think we would have fared better if we would have just adopted Sweden's approach, the approach they initially enacted before they had to change because of increase cases and deaths?

 

[probinson]

I would imagine in all countries most of the deaths occurred among those 75 years and older, and of course among those with preexisting conditions where here in the US, we're king of that stat. In fact, here is Sweden below. You can see about three quarters of their deaths are those 75 and older.

Unfortunately, Sweden did just as poorly protecting the elderly as anyone else.

So one more time, I am asking you. Do you think we would have fared better if we would have just adopted Sweden's approach

How many times are you going to ask a question I've already answered? Here is the answer I posted just a few short hours ago.

​

If we had not locked down and taken measures to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had far fewer deaths. If we had not locked down and did nothing to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had the same or worse outcome.​

 

[stevil]

What a strange analogy, but it illustrates the flaw in your argument.

The purpose of public health measures are to improve health and longevity of life, not to prevent just ONE method of death. So let's look at at again.

View attachment 330000

If the jump in the blue line (Sweden) concerns you in 2020, are you equally concerned by the jump in the pink (New Zealand), yellow (Norway) and cyan (Finland) lines from 2021-2022? I mean, Sweden definitely had an increase from 2019-2020 (afar a significant decrease from 2018-2019), but those other three countries that you say did such an amazing job experienced considerably higher jumps than Sweden.

This is very silly.
In 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 you can see that the NZ mortality rate is around 400. It drops in 2020. Our lock downs not only prevented deaths from Covid, but also from flus and other communicable diseases. In 2022 it went back up to around 400 and this is because our country opened up in 2022 once most people were vaccinated, since we opened up, then people started catching and spreading the disease and people started dying of Covid, but at the lesser rate of death that you get when people are vaccinated.
Of course the jump in 2022 is a concern, but it is explained by the global pandemic and by the fact that NZ opened up. If you look at the numbers you can see that the jump is exactly explained by the recorded Covid deaths that year. NZ in total has had much lower Covid deaths than Sweden. Sweden were idiots and let their people die in massive numbers in 2020.

Norway's uptick in 2022 is similarly explained as NZs. They opened up in 2022 and experienced the bulk of their covid deaths in 2022 rather than 2020 as what Sweden experienced. The benefits of getting the Covid deaths in 2022 rather than 2020 is that you have a vacinated population in 2022 and the death rate is therefore much lower than it would have been if you let the disease spread through your population in 2020.

One thing that I do find interesting about these charts though is that in the long term (going back many years before Covid) it looks like both Sweden and Norway's death rates have been reducing, I am interested in what type of death they have been improving on before Covid came along.

 

[Say it aint so]

How many times are you going to ask a question I've already answered? Here is the answer I posted just a few short hours ago.

​

If we had not locked down and taken measures to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had far fewer deaths. If we had not locked down and did nothing to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had the same or worse outcome.​

"If we had not locked down and did nothing to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had the same or worse outcome."

That's about what Sweden did and given that chart I provided, the bulk of their deaths were the elderly. If you look at the chart below, that is the US. The chart below that is Sweden. Clearly the bulk of people dying, to use your age group of 75 and older, as compared to the other age groups, was worse in Sweden. So maybe if Sweden DID lock down like we did, their elderly wouldn't have been effected as bad.

 

[probinson]

In 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 you can see that the NZ mortality rate is around 400.

Yes. Considerably higher than Sweden's.

It drops in 2020. Our lock downs not only prevented deaths from Covid, but also from flus and other communicable diseases.

Unlike New Zealand, Sweden was playing the long game. If you prevent deaths in 2020 but then see record increases in 2021 and 2022, have you succeeded?

In 2022 it went back up to around 400 and this is because our country opened up in 2022 once most people were vaccinated, since we opened up, then people started catching and spreading the disease and people started dying of Covid, but at the lesser rate of death that you get when people are vaccinated.
Of course the jump in 2022 is a concern, but it is explained by the global pandemic and by the fact that NZ opened up.

It is? But vaccines should have kept people safe, right? I mean, that seems to be your premise, although to be honest, you keep moving the goalposts, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

If you look at the numbers you can see that the jump is exactly explained by the recorded Covid deaths that year. NZ in total has had much lower Covid deaths than Sweden. Sweden were idiots and let their people die in massive numbers in 2020.

This is simply untrue, and I'm going to post the graphic again so you can see it.

In 2020, Sweden had the EXACT SAME age standardized mortality as New Zealand. Since then, Sweden has fared considerably better than New Zealand. It is patently false to suggest that Sweden allowed people to die in massive numbers, as the data clearly shows. Sweden's so-called "spike" in mortality was just 1% higher in 2020 than in 2018, and we've already discussed mortality displacement as being at least partially responsible for that "spike" from the decreased rate in 2019.

Norway's uptick in 2022 is similarly explained as NZs. They opened up in 2022 and experienced the bulk of their covid deaths in 2022 rather than 2020 as what Sweden experienced. The benefits of getting the Covid deaths in 2022 rather than 2020 is that you have a vacinated population in 2022 and the death rate is therefore much lower than it would have been if you let the disease spread through your population in 2020.

Hmm. The data doesn't back your hypothesis at all. As you can see, Sweden has lower cumulative age-standardized mortality than ANY of the countries you're talking about.

I think I understand the crux of our disagreement, and it's that you're still myopically focused on COVID deaths. You don't seem to care that deaths from other causes are increasing at a concerning rate. But the point of public health measures is to be concerned about all outcomes, not just COVID.

This was the one great error of all of the COVID mitigation measures. It's like everyone all of a sudden forgot that opportunity costs are a very real thing, and unfortunately now countries that convinced their population that they "controlled" COVID deaths are paying those opportunity costs in spades.

 

[Say it aint so]

Unfortunately, Sweden did just as poorly protecting the elderly as anyone else.



How many times are you going to ask a question I've already answered? Here is the answer I posted just a few short hours ago.

​

If we had not locked down and taken measures to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had far fewer deaths. If we had not locked down and did nothing to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had the same or worse outcome.​

Sorry. I actually meant to delete my last part regarding asking again.

It's clear to see we would have fared far worse if we did what Sweden did, simply because we aren't Sweden.

 

[probinson]

"If we had not locked down and did nothing to protect our elderly, then I believe we would have had the same or worse outcome."

That's about what Sweden did and given that chart I provided, the bulk of their deaths were the elderly. If you look at the chart below, that is the US. The chart below that is Sweden. Clearly the bulk of people dying, to use your age group of 75 and older, as compared to the other age groups, was worse in Sweden. So maybe if Sweden DID lock down like we did, their elderly wouldn't have been effected as bad.

View attachment 330027


View attachment 330028

First of all, your charts are using raw numbers and not rates. That makes it impossible to compare them, since obviously Sweden has a vastly different population than the US. Secondly, the breakdowns in age groups aren't the same, which again makes it difficult to compare them. But the worst part is that you're not even comparing the same metric. Your US chart's x-axis is showing "Number of deaths" while the x-axis on your chart for Sweden is showing "Number of cases".

These are 2 completely different charts that cannot be used to show any kind of meaningful comparison.

 

[Say it aint so]

First of all, your charts are using raw numbers and not rates. That makes it impossible to compare them, since obviously Sweden has a vastly different population than the US. Secondly, the breakdowns in age groups aren't the same, which again makes it difficult to compare them. But the worst part is that you're not even comparing the same metric. Your US chart's x-axis is showing "Number of deaths" while the x-axis on your chart for Sweden is showing "Number of cases".

These are 2 completely different charts that cannot be used to show any kind of meaningful comparison.

You can pretty much judge a percentage by looking at the age demographic death numbers.

 

[probinson]

You can pretty much judge a percentage by looking at the age demographic death numbers.

But you're not even comparing the same metric in your charts. You're comparing deaths in the US to cases in Sweden, which doesn't tell us anything useful at all.

 

[probinson]

Speaking of New Zealand, does anyone remember this Orwellian gem from Jacinda Ardern in 2020?

The government. Absolute truth. Always.

It's hard to believe Kiwis believed (and embraced) this.

 

[Say it aint so]

But you're not even comparing the same metric in your charts. You're comparing deaths in the US to cases in Sweden, which doesn't tell us anything useful at all.

Click the link again, and read the heading.

'Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths in Sweden, by age groups'​

 

[probinson]

Click the link again, and read the heading.

'Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths in Sweden, by age groups'​

It appears that your source has mislabeled the x-axis, as one chart in your screenshot states "number of deaths" and the other states "number of cases".

 

[probinson]

OK, so here is the data from the US showing the percentage of COVID deaths by age group.

Source: COVID Data Tracker

And here is the same data for Sweden (albeit by slightly different age groups).

Source: Statistik om covid-19 och coronapandemin

I made this chart from Sweden's official data which you can find and download at the link above.

And as you can see, there is very little difference in the percentage of deaths in each age group. The idea that Sweden's elderly fared "worse" than the US is not supported by the data.

However, I will agree that Sweden made the same mistake as the US (sending COVID positive patients into long-term care facilities to infect and kill more people), which is likely why they had such high mortality in the elderly groups. It should be obvious by looking at this data from two different countries with vastly different mitigation measures that they both failed to protect the elderly. It should also be obvious that in the absence of draconian mitigation measures, Sweden fared BETTER than the US in every age group 70 and under, and about the same in 70 and over.

 

[stevil]

Yes. Considerably higher than Sweden's.

Irrelevant to the Covid conversation

Unlike New Zealand, Sweden was playing the long game. If you prevent deaths in 2020 but then see record increases in 2021 and 2022, have you succeeded?

Yes, because once you open back up again, people are dying at the post vaccine rate rather than at the unvaccinated rate.

It is? But vaccines should have kept people safe, right?

Nope, this is a misperception parroted by anti-vaxxers.
Just like a seat belt doesn't guarantee you survive a car accident, having a vaccine doesn't gaurantee you won't die from the disease.
A vaccine triggers a person's own immune system to produce antibodies and therefore is more likely to be successful on people with decent immune systems. People with poor or compromised immunsystems are less likely to get as much benefit from a vaccine as people with strong immune systems.

It is proven in the data, that fully vaccinated people were dying of Covid at far smaller rates than unvaccinated people.

 

[Say it aint so]

It appears that your source has mislabeled the x-axis, as one chart in your screenshot states "number of deaths" and the other states "number of cases".

View attachment 330037

I see that. They are talking deaths.

 

[stevil]

Speaking of New Zealand, does anyone remember this Orwellian gem from Jacinda Ardern in 2020?

View attachment 330033

The government. Absolute truth. Always.

It's hard to believe Kiwis believed (and embraced) this.

There was a lot of nonsense going around, especially on Fox News and on the internet, especially from far right sources and of course antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
It was hard for people to find the truth.

The NZ government and the pandemic task force appeared to be committed to providing scientific fact based data and information.
I think they did an exceptionally terrific job. Especially when you compare them to the likes of Sweden, USA, UK where the governments were embarrassingly and tragically bad. Trump for example was trying his hardest to be contrary to his own pandemic taskforce, while they were promoting masks, he was saying he wouldn't wear one, while they were promoting his vaccine, he was promoting unproven treatments such as ivermectin (a treatment for parasites not viruses), HCQ, Disenfectant and light. While Trump was getting clear information that Covid was deadly even to children, he was lying to his citizens by saying it was just like the flu and that children are virtually immune.

It is so funny that you complain about Ardern saying that the government will provide the official covid information. I think it is great that they were committed to do this. They did a terrific job of sticking to the science. Of course, people if they choose could look to other sources as well. I myself did a lot of research on the topic, from WHO, to CDC to Fauci to various statistics coming out of various countries. I found our government very well aligned to science.

 

[probinson]

Nope, this is a misperception parroted by anti-vaxxers.
Just like a seat belt doesn't guarantee you survive a car accident, having a vaccine doesn't gaurantee you won't die from the disease.

Not until COVID vaccines did people start to believe this nonsense.

 

[probinson]

They did a terrific job of sticking to the science.