So awful. This must be even worse in ('blue') states where higher proportions of younger people lined up for the mRNA jabs... I loathe to think about the reproductive effects coming over the next decade. :(
May 31, 2022·edited May 31, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley
Keep up the good work. My focus has been on the 14% REDUCTION in deaths in 85+ US population in 2021 compared with 2020. Based on that reduction, you'd expect to see a similar reduction in mortality (I estimate that it would normalize to a 12% reduction because there is normally a little contribution from younger groups) from the diseases of the elderly--heart disease, cancer, and stroke--but there has been no reduction (stroke is actually up 4.5%). So who is dying from heart disease, cancer, and stroke? It _must_ be the working age population. Working age mortality was up 17.5% in 2021 over 2020.
It seems inappropriate to record 'Like' with news confirming our expectations of significant harm. There is nothing to like about this data. Regrettably, I suspect it doesn't get better from here.
Thanks for doing the hard yards to bring us this critically important information - I like the fact that you do.
There have been huge losses in the retired and near retirement age, and I am wondering how this affects the Social Security projections. The loss of working age people will have a dramatic deleterious effect; and I expect that to continue to deteriorate as loss of fertility becomes apparent. I suspect it could be a reason why they ignore a wide open border.
There would be a reason for that and the following are likely factors:
Over 65's were probably born naturally.
Over 65's were more likely to be breastfed
Over 65's were not given dozens of vaccinations in childhood.
Over 65's were not given dozens of antibiotics and medications in childhood.
Over 65's grew up with more play outside and more fresh air.
Over 65's started life with better health, had better health as children and while many may be overly medicated from their forties, which is the American way, it is the factors in utero and in childhood which lay the foundation for robust health in adulthood.
The younger people are the poorer their health and that is why over the next few years it will be these age groups which are hardest hit.
I don't understand how "cumulative excess life-years lost" can go down, unlike cumulative Covid deaths which is a monotonically increasing function. Please explain.
Wouldn't it be more understandable to display weekly or monthly rates per population?
Is it appropriate to use the 2019/5 yr avg baseline for determining the # of excess deaths -- since there is a 'pull forward' effect, that should mean that the # of ppl who were "supposed" to die in 2021/first half of 2022 but died in 2020 (or 2021 as well for calculating 2022 excess deaths) should be subtracted from the prior baseline?
This is especially pronounced for the senior pop, who were disproportionately whacked by covid/'other unexpected causes' in 2020, and who are also those most disposed to dying in the near future, so if this were a normal year for mortality, there should have been a noticeable "excess life" surplus for 2021/2022 in this pop.
So awful. This must be even worse in ('blue') states where higher proportions of younger people lined up for the mRNA jabs... I loathe to think about the reproductive effects coming over the next decade. :(
Everywhere I turn, the same kind of stats. Thank you for your contribution to the "jigsaw puzzle" picture of death stats from different places.
Omg. I believe CT is the same. Horrific!
Keep up the good work. My focus has been on the 14% REDUCTION in deaths in 85+ US population in 2021 compared with 2020. Based on that reduction, you'd expect to see a similar reduction in mortality (I estimate that it would normalize to a 12% reduction because there is normally a little contribution from younger groups) from the diseases of the elderly--heart disease, cancer, and stroke--but there has been no reduction (stroke is actually up 4.5%). So who is dying from heart disease, cancer, and stroke? It _must_ be the working age population. Working age mortality was up 17.5% in 2021 over 2020.
There were a cluster of hepatitis outbreaks in children in Alabama. Coincidence?
Great reporting. Keep up the good work. Talk truth to power.
Reposted with my commentary and citations:
https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/life-years-lost-and-covid-vaccine?s=w
It seems inappropriate to record 'Like' with news confirming our expectations of significant harm. There is nothing to like about this data. Regrettably, I suspect it doesn't get better from here.
Thanks for doing the hard yards to bring us this critically important information - I like the fact that you do.
There have been huge losses in the retired and near retirement age, and I am wondering how this affects the Social Security projections. The loss of working age people will have a dramatic deleterious effect; and I expect that to continue to deteriorate as loss of fertility becomes apparent. I suspect it could be a reason why they ignore a wide open border.
Great work. This is the truth. The facade of lies cannot endure forever.
There would be a reason for that and the following are likely factors:
Over 65's were probably born naturally.
Over 65's were more likely to be breastfed
Over 65's were not given dozens of vaccinations in childhood.
Over 65's were not given dozens of antibiotics and medications in childhood.
Over 65's grew up with more play outside and more fresh air.
Over 65's started life with better health, had better health as children and while many may be overly medicated from their forties, which is the American way, it is the factors in utero and in childhood which lay the foundation for robust health in adulthood.
The younger people are the poorer their health and that is why over the next few years it will be these age groups which are hardest hit.
That just means that the injections are working!
....
....
Sorry.
I don't understand how "cumulative excess life-years lost" can go down, unlike cumulative Covid deaths which is a monotonically increasing function. Please explain.
Wouldn't it be more understandable to display weekly or monthly rates per population?
Thanks for all your work on this.
Is it appropriate to use the 2019/5 yr avg baseline for determining the # of excess deaths -- since there is a 'pull forward' effect, that should mean that the # of ppl who were "supposed" to die in 2021/first half of 2022 but died in 2020 (or 2021 as well for calculating 2022 excess deaths) should be subtracted from the prior baseline?
This is especially pronounced for the senior pop, who were disproportionately whacked by covid/'other unexpected causes' in 2020, and who are also those most disposed to dying in the near future, so if this were a normal year for mortality, there should have been a noticeable "excess life" surplus for 2021/2022 in this pop.