8 ms·
Excess mortality in Germany 2020-2022
- pupppet 4y agoI expect this garbage on Uncle Bill's Facebook feed, not HN.
- hulitu 4y ago"The state-of-the-art method of actuarial science is used to estimate the expected number of all-cause deaths in 2020 to 2022, if there had been no pandemic." They shall be asked how many people are expected to die tomorrow and then, tomorrow, to explain the difference.
- Lacerda69 4y agoCan someone how understands this give a quick rundown? Why did mortality jump 40k deaths from 2019 to 2020? AFAIK covid only started in 2020? Or am I reading the charts wrong? (Just looked at the figures, did not read the whole paper)
- upsidesinclude 4y agoThis paper attempts to correct for the inconsistent data and reporting around mortality, excess mortality, and deaths that were actually caused by SarsCoV2. They use actuarial science (what insurance & risk analysis uses) to predict a baseline for mortality if no pandemic occurred. This should be a fairly accurate representation working of historical data. It is sad that this submission has been flagged by zealots as it represents an interesting approach to determining the impact of the pandemic and attempts to correct for factors that unfortunately alter the data toward the negative- such as hospital funding contingent on diagnosis.
- rdtsc 4y ago> The high excess mortality in 2021 was almost entirely due to an increase in deaths in the age groups between 15 and 79 and started to accumulate only from April 2021 onwards. A similar mortality pattern was observed for stillbirths with an increase of about 11 percent in the second quarter of the year 2021. At first I thought that stillbirths would be expected to go up if there were more births recorded as well, but they did control for that and recorded the stillbirth rate per 1000 births.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- joe_the_user 4y agoOn a side note, sites that only don't work without javascript but also block you for not enabling javascript are "something special".
- vesinisa 4y agoSection 6.3 claims that the excess deaths coincide with vaccinations. Looking at the graph, I don't buy that there is a clear correlation - for example there is no marked effect for the second shot.
- origin_path 4y agoThere's clearly a temporal correlation. A possible explanation for why the effect isn't linear is that you'd expect the impact to be less for later shots, because people who had bad near-miss reactions to the first will sometimes choose to be "unvaccinated" rather than take the risk of another bad reaction. That then leaves people in the pool whose systems can either take it, or who didn't detect the damage and who then later die unexpectedly (been lots of SADS around lately).
- EverydayBalloon 4y agoIt's going to be very difficult for some people to admit that they made such an obvious mistake.
- cm2187 4y agoEven if I have been extremely critical of covid vaccine mandates when the mandate is irrespective of age and health condition, I sincerely hope vaccines aren't the cause of this, because the consequences would be terrible in term of public trust. You would end up next time like Russia, with a reasonably efficient vaccine declined by a population who lost any trust in its own government.
- thepasswordis 4y agoLiterally all they had to do was make this vaccine optional. Say "hey this vaccine is available. Here is the data we have. We recommend taking it, but of course that is your own decision." But because of the attempts to force people to take the vaccine (which I did take, btw), trust has already been eroded.
- cf141q5325 4y agoWe actually had a term for that, informed consent.
- jlmorton 4y agoI don't know where you think someone was forced to take the vaccine. It was always optional. It's just that there were additional controls, like going to indoor restaurants -- one of the very highest risk activities for disease spread -- or additional testing requirements. In the US, nearly a 100 million people still have not taken the vaccine. If there was an effort to force anyone to take it, it sure doesn't seem to have been successful.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoYes it merely cost them their livelihood. Cheers to you, you are factually correct. No one physically, with force, injected anyone with a vaccine against their will.
- MintDice 4y ago
- somewhereoutth 4y agoIn all the statistics I've seen, excess deaths have been driven by Covid variant waves. I'm sure this is no different. Of course, the crazies will go berserk over any temporal coincidence with the vaccination rollout programs. I'd prefer not to see this kind of nonsense given time of day on HN, as a supposed science/technology based forum.
- version_five 4y ago> I'd prefer not to see this kind of nonsense given time of day on HN, as a science/technology based forum. Then why did you make a comment that's mostly about it?
- acta_non_verba 4y agoScience is the system of questioning things through a repeatable methodology. Is that not exactly what is happening here? Science is always in a state of flux, as it should be until we know everything. Don’t get religious about it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wessorh 4y agoIts not crazy if we just talk data and statistics. I find the intersection with vax mandates and the overwhelming datasets coming from Germany and Israel and the UK quite interesting. So lets just stick with facts and debate those.
- SubiculumCode 4y agoThe authors have never published a paper in epidemiology, and trust me, there are plenty of pitfalls even very smart people can fall into when they don't understand the ins and out of a field.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
- SubiculumCode 4y agoThose two researchers have never published a paper in epidemiology. Why should I trust these yahoos anti-vax propaganda?
- joe_the_user 4y agoThis was flagged and dead but somehow revived. Jeesh.
- cf141q5325 4y agoI dont think calling published data scientists "yahoos" is such a good look, especially if you at the same time frame the interaction with papers as a matter of trust. edit: I would also think its also worth reflecting on the fact, that two of the most vocal and derogatory posters in this thread not only share the same opinion but also a show a blatant misconception of how to interact with papers. It is not a matter of trust and not a matter of belief. Even if you fully believe you are in the right here, is behaving like this really productive? Especially with the major concern most people on the fence on this topic have being the influence of people acting exactly like this on the scientific process?
- upsidesinclude 4y agoThis exactly. The opinion is the wrong one and must be smashed! Notice how they are "yahoos" or some other derogatory framing? (*disregard whoever they may be, they aren't established, well known, approved, epidemiology experts employedby the government!)
- SubiculumCode 4y ago
- wessorh 4y agoI disagree, having an open and honest debate on the topic is actually useful. We should be able to disagree yet continue the dialog.
- jlmorton 4y agoIf the data was truly in dispute, it might be a worthwhile debate, but this paper is published by two people that have never published in the field before, and it's riddled with obvious and blatant errors. The fundamental claim, that there was no excess mortality in 2020, is clearly wrong. This is nothing that is worthy of having a debate over - it's just disinformation spam. It would be like replying to every piece of spam email you receive.
- blumomo 4y agoDo you mind explaining why this research paper being on the HN front page would suggest that HN is a joke?
- joe_the_user 4y agoIt attributes the excess Covid deaths to the vaccine, not the virus. The "principle of Abduction" made the front page a while back. Someone made a nice explanation of it, which was essentially that any thinking person needs to have some arguments they investigate and some they dismiss out of hand. This argument is reasonable to dismiss out of hand. What's next flat-earth-ism - but a "serious academic paper"?
- blumomo 4y agoAh, I see people see this argument reasonable to dismiss out of hand. I wasn’t aware that the C19 vaccines have been scientifically approved safe for use! Since these mRNA applications have passed numerous tests on humans with no significant side effects and harm, it must be indeed a preconceived brief to think otherwise!
- jlmorton 4y agoYour first stop when evaluating a massive and heterdox claim like this should be to double-check their fundamental data against other sources [1]. What you'll find is that other sources do not contain the same data at all. It's not just slightly different, it's _wildly_ different. There is no large jump in mortality in April 2021. There _is_ a large jump in morality 2020. I don't have time to thoroughly examine their research, because it doesn't come close to passing a sniff test. On a separate note, it's really discouraging how this stuff gets voted up on HN. Flagged. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
- nicoco 4y agoThis guy apparently took the time to propose counter arguments: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362959885_A_note_on_a_couple_of_issues_in_a_recent_manuscript_on_Excess_Mortality_in_Germany_2020-2022 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362959885_A_note_on...
- wessorh 4y agoThe two researchers actually have a number of publications in data science, please sniff again. Your kind of argument is called a an appeal to an irrelevant authority. You also forgot to cite your sources or link to the data you are advocating for. Please consider taking the time to properly advocate your point
- jlmorton 4y agoTwo people who have never published in epidemiology stumble upon a new method for calculating excess deaths, at odds with all the existing sources, whether official sources like the WHO, domestic official government sources, or other independent groups like The Economist which have tracked this closely. And lo and behold, what do they find? A wildly different result that shows no deaths from Covid and all the deaths from the vaccine. No, I'm not going to sniff again, because it stinks to the high heavens.
- cf141q5325 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- claytongulick 4y ago
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
- jlmorton 4y agoMake an actual falsifiable claim if you want to dispute something. Do you dispute the paper has not been peer-reviewed? Do you dispute the authors have no background in the field, despite making major heterodox claims? Do you dispute their findings are at odds with all manner of other official sources? Quickly flagging wild claims from non-experts is a feature, not a bug.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
- ohiovr 4y agoThere will be many stories like this in the days, weeks, and months to come. But not years from now.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoWhat is it you mean by this? I hope it is that we won't find ourselves in such a quandary, where lack of trust in public institutions is at an all time high.
- moistly 4y ago12.5 BILLION doses have been administered. The datasets are deep and wide, the analysis tools are powerful, and tens of thousands of well-trained epidemiologists have been analyzing the data for many, many months. The opportunity to make one’s mark has never been better. But it’s these two brainiacs, who are not trained in the science, who have revealed the Shocking Truth that blows the lid off, using weird math and alternative facts. Pull the other one, it has bells on!
- upsidesinclude 4y agoAmong the other detractors, you miss a fairly important distinction. Not being an epidemiologist stands in their favor. Most other scientists are taking the data they receive at face value instead of taking the time to evaluate if the underlying assumptions are valid. You respond emotionally and preemptively assume they are wrong. It wasn't "anti-vaxxers" that employed hundreds of thousands of social media posters to disseminate the official message. I feel genuinely sorry for people so deep in the wool. Edit: At the present moment, it is impossible to determine if such vehement opposition is not also paid
- moistly 4y agoThere must be a German word for the embarrassment I feel for you.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoDon't worry, everyone already understands your complete compliance and apsiration to achieve moral superiority for the sake of something so insignificant as an internet forum slight. "fremdschamen" Educating yourself is quite easy once you accept the difficulty in doing so. I have pity for the lack of control over your personal life you indicate by making such comments. I don't believe there is a German word for this feeling.