3 ms·

i read a study from sweden where a full three quarters of covid deaths were in the bracket of those aged 80 plus. to me this definitely impacts your proposed mo

i read a study from sweden where a full three quarters of covid deaths were in the bracket of those aged 80 plus. to me this definitely impacts your proposed model of comparing vaccine vs covid deaths. thanks for introducing the constraint of governance, its a fantastic challenge and shows that my initially proposed idea isn't necessarily universally applicable.

rstuart4133 8mo ago
> i read a study from sweden where a full three quarters of covid deaths were in the bracket of those aged 80 plus. For the USA you can see the excess mortality for different age groups here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline-by-age?time=earliest..2021-01-03&country=USA~SWE~AUS https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores... There isn't much difference between 60-74, 74-84 and 85+. As you can see that site doesn't have data broken down by age for Sweden so it would be interesting to see where they paper you mention got their data from. Sweden's excess deaths across all ages followed a similar curve to the USA, so it would be surprising if the age group breakdown wasn't similar too. You can also see how well Australia managed COVID in comparison. "Excess deaths" in Australia's was driven into reverse by their management strategies. That wasn't due to vaccines. Australian couldn't buy vaccines for love nor money (aside form AstraZeneca which unlike the others could be manufactured there - but it was withdrawn very early), ironically because its other measurement strategies were so successful countries like Mexico were deemed more worthy. Those strategies were also very successful financially, with Australia emerging earlier and faster than just about all countries in the OECD. They did however cause immense friction within Australia, as some citizens deeply resented the temporary restrictions put on travel, mask mandates and the like.
- Aeglaecia 8mo ago
  your dataset is valid in the context of the argument. its hard for me as a layman to trust claims formed from such widespread sources, when i could hand wave the results away by assuming that deaths from all causes will proportionally increase among all age groups after a populace exits lockdown. anyway that is not a real argument so ill backtrack a bit to provide a government source [0] for my previous claim. as opposed to australia, sweden let it rip. therefore of all countries, this particular dataset is the most universally applicable, since it most accurately reflects a baseline. and that baseline is an overwhelming majority of covid deaths among the elderly. my original point was to compare conscription with a mandate forcing untested chemicals on the populace. if the chemicals were tested or if some other mandate was imparted (eg. your example of australia's management strategies), i acknowledge that this would be less apt of a comparison. [0] https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-subjects/statistics-on-covid-19/ https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statis...
  - rstuart4133 8mo ago
    > https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-subjects/statistics-on-covid-19/ https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statis... Hmm. Official statistics from an OECD government. A very trustworthy source. According to AI's it is "not* an outlier, the figures are the same for most OECD countries. However the metric is different. I was quoting excess deaths, Sweden figures are deaths attributed to COVID. While it may true COVID caused a lot of deaths, in the elderly with a lot of comorbidities doctors had to put something on the death certificate and COVID was a popular choice at the time. But did it matter if they were going to die away? COVID killing me when I had a many good years left would be very unfortunate. Dying from COVID when I had only a few months because of other reasons doesn't concern me so much. This means excess deaths measures something more relevant to me than measuring deaths attributed to COVID. > with a mandate forcing untested chemicals on the populace. I wasn't aware that any modern vaccine from an OECD country not being tested before used on a human. All COVID vaccines certainly were. The testing was necessarily accelerated, but it's unlikely the normal regime would have caught the issue with AstraZeneca. Mandated vaccination is tricky. A healthly majority of the population with 80+ year old family members in homes is going to want the workers in those facilities to take every possible precaution, including alcohol disinfectants, masks and be vaccinated. Some of that majority were taking those same precautions in their own homes. The same reasoning was applied to populations at less risk, at extreme kindergartens enforcing vaccination and quarritines. Where to draw the line is problematic, but in all OECD countries it was drawn well before mandatory vaccination of the entire population. That didn't happen.
    - Aeglaecia 8mo ago
      ive employed the laymans heuristic that if you die with covid it is most likely what killed you, the comorbidities don't matter to me. on the surface your excess death metric makes sense but im not convinced and need time to reflect. its too much of a coincidence for me that mrna was not viable until the very moment that it was needed. i vehemently disagree that further testing would have been redundant. moreover the non-mrna covid vaccine by novavax (released to the public less than a year after covid mrna vaccines) has a significantly better safety profile. no, mandatory vaccination of the entire population didnt happen, only the majority of able bodied workers (aka the powerhouse of the economy, hence a bit of rounding occurred when i took artistic liberty). therefore the world could have waited a year, locked down, and not subjected its driving force to deadly peril. this did not occur, consequently the world's workers were forced to suffer so that pharma companies could make money, the world's elderly/immunocompromised could be protected, and goverments could print less money.

rstuart4133 8mo ago

> i read a study from sweden where a full three quarters of covid deaths were in the bracket of those aged 80 plus. For the USA you can see the excess mortality for different age groups here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline-by-age?time=earliest..2021-01-03&country=USA~SWE~AUS https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores... There isn't much difference between 60-74, 74-84 and 85+. As you can see that site doesn't have data broken down by age for Sweden so it would be interesting to see where they paper you mention got their data from. Sweden's excess deaths across all ages followed a similar curve to the USA, so it would be surprising if the age group breakdown wasn't similar too. You can also see how well Australia managed COVID in comparison. "Excess deaths" in Australia's was driven into reverse by their management strategies. That wasn't due to vaccines. Australian couldn't buy vaccines for love nor money (aside form AstraZeneca which unlike the others could be manufactured there - but it was withdrawn very early), ironically because its other measurement strategies were so successful countries like Mexico were deemed more worthy. Those strategies were also very successful financially, with Australia emerging earlier and faster than just about all countries in the OECD. They did however cause immense friction within Australia, as some citizens deeply resented the temporary restrictions put on travel, mask mandates and the like.

Aeglaecia 8mo ago
your dataset is valid in the context of the argument. its hard for me as a layman to trust claims formed from such widespread sources, when i could hand wave the results away by assuming that deaths from all causes will proportionally increase among all age groups after a populace exits lockdown. anyway that is not a real argument so ill backtrack a bit to provide a government source [0] for my previous claim. as opposed to australia, sweden let it rip. therefore of all countries, this particular dataset is the most universally applicable, since it most accurately reflects a baseline. and that baseline is an overwhelming majority of covid deaths among the elderly. my original point was to compare conscription with a mandate forcing untested chemicals on the populace. if the chemicals were tested or if some other mandate was imparted (eg. your example of australia's management strategies), i acknowledge that this would be less apt of a comparison. [0] https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-subjects/statistics-on-covid-19/ https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statis...
- rstuart4133 8mo ago
  > https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-subjects/statistics-on-covid-19/ https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statis... Hmm. Official statistics from an OECD government. A very trustworthy source. According to AI's it is "not* an outlier, the figures are the same for most OECD countries. However the metric is different. I was quoting excess deaths, Sweden figures are deaths attributed to COVID. While it may true COVID caused a lot of deaths, in the elderly with a lot of comorbidities doctors had to put something on the death certificate and COVID was a popular choice at the time. But did it matter if they were going to die away? COVID killing me when I had a many good years left would be very unfortunate. Dying from COVID when I had only a few months because of other reasons doesn't concern me so much. This means excess deaths measures something more relevant to me than measuring deaths attributed to COVID. > with a mandate forcing untested chemicals on the populace. I wasn't aware that any modern vaccine from an OECD country not being tested before used on a human. All COVID vaccines certainly were. The testing was necessarily accelerated, but it's unlikely the normal regime would have caught the issue with AstraZeneca. Mandated vaccination is tricky. A healthly majority of the population with 80+ year old family members in homes is going to want the workers in those facilities to take every possible precaution, including alcohol disinfectants, masks and be vaccinated. Some of that majority were taking those same precautions in their own homes. The same reasoning was applied to populations at less risk, at extreme kindergartens enforcing vaccination and quarritines. Where to draw the line is problematic, but in all OECD countries it was drawn well before mandatory vaccination of the entire population. That didn't happen.
  - Aeglaecia 8mo ago
    ive employed the laymans heuristic that if you die with covid it is most likely what killed you, the comorbidities don't matter to me. on the surface your excess death metric makes sense but im not convinced and need time to reflect. its too much of a coincidence for me that mrna was not viable until the very moment that it was needed. i vehemently disagree that further testing would have been redundant. moreover the non-mrna covid vaccine by novavax (released to the public less than a year after covid mrna vaccines) has a significantly better safety profile. no, mandatory vaccination of the entire population didnt happen, only the majority of able bodied workers (aka the powerhouse of the economy, hence a bit of rounding occurred when i took artistic liberty). therefore the world could have waited a year, locked down, and not subjected its driving force to deadly peril. this did not occur, consequently the world's workers were forced to suffer so that pharma companies could make money, the world's elderly/immunocompromised could be protected, and goverments could print less money.