Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Seaworthy Lass]

Zippee, I note that John Campbell’s second last video is one that you are not reporting.

I have not been contributing to COVID threads for a month now, but I think the information in this video is important.

John Campbell has described the data that came to light about a month ago from the Office for National Statistics under the freedom of information act as not only “worth reflecting on”, but “profound”. He comments that surprisingly this has not been reported by mainstream media. No surprise to me. It contradicts much of what they have been reporting during the pandemic.

Basically, the latest data shows that the number of lives lost during the pandemic for those under the age of 65 with no co-morbidities is a relatively tiny figure.

In summary, for England and Wales for 2020 and up to the end of September 2021:

Total number of deaths within 28 days of a COVID-19 positive test: 137,133
Average age of death 82.5

Of these:
Deaths with co-morbidities: 119,762 (87%)

Deaths with no other underlying causes aged 64 and under: 3774 (3% of total deaths)
Deaths with no other underlying causes aged 65 and over: 13597 (10% of total deaths)

To put this into perspective:
The average life expectancy in the UK 2018-2020:
79.0 years males
82.9 years females

The estimated number of life years lost from COVID-19 has been negligible.

————

The bottom line is that if you are under the age of 65 and healthy, the risk of death from COVID-19 (and I suspect from what I have read that risk of severe disease and long covid also) has been very low. I think if this age group was broken down further, the risk for someone under the age of, for example 20-30 would be shown to be near non existent.

I have been commenting on this for more than a year now. It reinforces my view that pushing mass vaccination of the healthy young who are at negligible risk of severe disease, with vaccines employing technology never before used on humans (genetically stimulating our bodies to produce viral proteins) that we know nothing about long term, primarily to protect the vulnerable (rather than targeting this group and concentrating on shielding them specifically) has been nothing short of insanity.

I expect when detailed analysis is revealed in years to come this will simply be reinforced.
To paraphrase : Never before has so much been owed by so few to so many.

SWL

https://youtu.be/9UHvwWWcjYw

[Anders]

I don't watch Campbell but it's not exactly news that is mainly the old and frail that dies.

[boatman61]

But still worth the panic huh.!!!

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Zippee, I note that John Campbell’s second last video is one that you are not reporting.

I have not been contributing to COVID threads for a month now, but I think the information in this video is important.

John Campbell has described the data that came to light about a month ago from the Office for National Statistics under the freedom of information act as not only “worth reflecting on”, but “profound”. He comments that surprisingly this has not been reported by mainstream media. No surprise to me. It contradicts much of what they have been reporting during the pandemic.

Basically, the latest data shows that the number of lives lost during the pandemic for those under the age of 65 with no co-morbidities is a relatively tiny figure.

In summary, for England and Wales for 2020 and up to the end of September 2021:

Total number of deaths within 28 days of a COVID-19 positive test: 137,133
Average age of death 82.5

Of these:
Deaths with co-morbidities: 119,762 (87%)

Deaths with no other underlying causes aged 64 and under: 3774 (3% of total deaths)
Deaths with no other underlying causes aged 65 and over: 13597 (10% of total deaths)

To put this into perspective:
The average life expectancy in the UK 2018-2020:
79.0 years males
82.9 years females

The estimated number of life years lost from COVID-19 has been negligible.

————

The bottom line is that if you are under the age of 65 and healthy, the risk of death from COVID-19 (and I suspect from what I have read that risk of severe disease and long covid also) has been very low. I think if this age group was broken down further, the risk for someone under the age of, for example 20-30 would be shown to be near non existent.

I have been commenting on this for more than a year now. It reinforces my view that pushing mass vaccination of the healthy young who are at negligible risk of severe disease, with vaccines employing technology never before used on humans (genetically stimulating our bodies to produce viral proteins) that we know nothing about long term, primarily to protect the vulnerable (rather than targeting this group and concentrating on shielding them specifically) has been nothing short of insanity.

I expect when detailed analysis is revealed in years to come this will simply be reinforced.
To paraphrase : Never before has so much been owed by so few to so many.

SWL

https://youtu.be/9UHvwWWcjYw

A clear analysis of the massive fraud that has been committed on the general public has already been written. Unfortunately, I suspect few will bother to read it.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/sh...-anthony-fauci

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Zippee, I note that John Campbell’s second last video is one that you are not reporting.

I have not been contributing to COVID threads for a month now, but I think the information in this video is important.

John Campbell has described the data that came to light about a month ago from the Office for National Statistics under the freedom of information act as not only “worth reflecting on”, but “profound”. He comments that surprisingly this has not been reported by mainstream media. No surprise to me. It contradicts much of what they have been reporting during the pandemic.

Basically, the latest data shows that the number of lives lost during the pandemic for those under the age of 65 with no co-morbidities is a relatively tiny figure.

In summary, for England and Wales for 2020 and up to the end of September 2021:

Total number of deaths within 28 days of a COVID-19 positive test: 137,133
Average age of death 82.5

Of these:
Deaths with co-morbidities: 119,762 (87%)

Deaths with no other underlying causes aged 64 and under: 3774 (3% of total deaths)
Deaths with no other underlying causes aged 65 and over: 13597 (10% of total deaths)

To put this into perspective:
The average life expectancy in the UK 2018-2020:
79.0 years males
82.9 years females

The estimated number of life years lost from COVID-19 has been negligible.

————

The bottom line is that if you are under the age of 65 and healthy, the risk of death from COVID-19 (and I suspect from what I have read that risk of severe disease and long covid also) has been very low. I think if this age group was broken down further, the risk for someone under the age of, for example 20-30 would be shown to be near non existent.

I have been commenting on this for more than a year now. It reinforces my view that pushing mass vaccination of the healthy young who are at negligible risk of severe disease, with vaccines employing technology never before used on humans (genetically stimulating our bodies to produce viral proteins) that we know nothing about long term, primarily to protect the vulnerable (rather than targeting this group and concentrating on shielding them specifically) has been nothing short of insanity.

I expect when detailed analysis is revealed in years to come this will simply be reinforced.
Never before has so much been owed by so few to so many.

SWL

https://youtu.be/9UHvwWWcjYw

Actually I just saw this late last night and I was too tired to post it then, but logged on this am to do so - glad you found it, but I could not disagree more with the premature and unjustified conclusions reached above. You have parsed and misrepresented heavily and in pursuit of your own agenda. In a way I was hesitant to post because this is one of those VERY preliminary reports that is (a) very complex and (b) very hard and too early to make ANY conclusions and (c) would become fodder for confirmation bias.

What we don't need is more amateur analysis based on no more that a single unexamined data point. This was not a study, not a even a pre-print. Nada.

As such it creates fodder for anyone to jump to conclusions that favor one's own prejudices. In this thread there have been numerous occasions where pre-prints, or one-off tiny studies that get extrapolated into self-serving general conclusions or to support "see I was right" conclusions. This post even managed to slap my hand for not posting it instantaneously.

This is one is definitely fodder for unending speculation, and I said to myself - boy is this one going to be a problem. Nonetheless in the pursuit of truth, I felt it important to post anyway - BUT - had decided to include a clear warning that this video reached no real conclusions, per Campbell himself! He pointed out multiple facts and instances that made it extremely difficult to interpret.

Call it a video pre-pre-print. Don't get me wrong. The single number reported may be accurate. However the interpretation, understanding and analysis have not even begun. The conclusions in the post quoted were those of the poster, and not made by Campbell.

To wit:

Campbell: "There are many other factors… it’s not as simple as this." At 11:30 (for a couple minutes) he takes much time for example, to explain many other Covid related excess deaths that give the total picture.

At 15:00: “I’m not just saying that it’s 17, 731 people who have died from Covid 19, but rather that that’s the only cause on the death certificate. That’s what the Freedom of Information Act is for but that’s only as far as I had time to even begin to understand and to think about it."

At 2:49 he makes clear that 17,731 deaths were reported – but limited to only those in which the death certificates mentioned NO other pre-existing conditions. He later notes that in many countries the majority of people over life do develop such conditions as diabetes, heart disease, prostate and kidney – the works, and that these are people that would have and should have lived had Covid not infected them.

He also points out clearly that while this information release is definitely important, but that the interpretation will be complex and require much further analysis. He points out the fact that death certificates have not necessarily been accurate, and that death reporting has been unpredictable.

What we have here is a single raw and unexamined number that begs much more analysis before it means something, or nothing. However to those who may have their own agendas, this video will be raw meat.


Such is life.

[Zippee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

See time points in my post above...

[TeddyDiver]

I believe the figures stated in the paper are quite accurate. The point however is about 10% of Covid deaths happen to healthy people, not just sick and old.
Personally I'm not so much afraid of dying to Covid but becoming incapacitated by long Covid..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Actually I just saw this late last night and I was too tired to post it then, but logged on this am to do so - glad you found it, but I could not disagree more with the premature and unjustified conclusions reached above. You have parsed and misrepresented heavily and in pursuit of your own agenda. In a way I was hesitant to post because this is one of those VERY preliminary reports that is (a) very complex and (b) very hard and too early to make ANY conclusions and (c) would become fodder for confirmation bias.

What we don't need is more amateur analysis based on no more that a single unexamined data point. This was not a study, not a even a pre-print. Nada.

As such it creates fodder for anyone to jump to conclusions that favor one's own prejudices. In this thread there have been numerous occasions where pre-prints, or one-off tiny studies that get extrapolated into self-serving general conclusions or to support "see I was right" conclusions. This post even managed to slap my hand for not posting it instantaneously.

This is one is definitely fodder for unending speculation, and I said to myself - boy is this one going to be a problem. Nonetheless in the pursuit of truth, I felt it important to post anyway - BUT - had decided to include a clear warning that this video reached no real conclusions, per Campbell himself! He pointed out multiple facts and instances that made it extremely difficult to interpret.

Call it a video pre-pre-print. Don't get me wrong. The single number reported may be accurate. However the interpretation, understanding and analysis have not even begun. The conclusions in the post quoted were those of the poster, and not made by Campbell.

To wit:

Campbell: "There are many other factors… it’s not as simple as this." At 11:30 (for a couple minutes) he takes much time for example, to explain many other Covid related excess deaths that give the total picture.

At 15:00: “I’m not just saying that it’s 17, 731 people who have died from Covid 19, but rather that that’s the only cause on the death certificate. That’s what the Freedom of Information Act is for but that’s only as far as I had time to even begin to understand and to think about it."

At 2:49 he makes clear that 17,731 deaths were reported – but limited to only those in which the death certificates mentioned NO other pre-existing conditions. He later notes that in many countries the majority of people over life do develop such conditions as diabetes, heart disease, prostate and kidney – the works, and that these are people that would have and should have lived had Covid not infected them.

He also points out clearly that while this information release is definitely important, but that the interpretation will be complex and require much further analysis. He points out the fact that death certificates have not necessarily been accurate, and that death reporting has been unpredictable.

What we have here is a single raw and unexamined number that begs much more analysis before it means something, or nothing. However to those who may have their own agendas, this video will be raw meat.


Such is life.

Who are you responding to here Zippee?

SWL with her two clearly delineated opinions limited to (i) risk of death for healthy people under the age of 65 that is likely exaggerated, and (ii) doubts about the wisdom of vaccinations for children where the science has not conclusively determined that the risk from the vax isn't outweighed by the risk of getting Covid. Neither of these concerns are new, the science has long known that age and underlying health are dominant factors, and SWL is hardly the only one who has consistently raised these concerns. Or, alternatively, are you responding to -- or conflating -- GregK's subsequent post claiming these same stats prove "massive fraud" and link us to the Robert Kennedy book titled "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health"??

Surely you can see the difference, along with a plethora of views somewhere in between no doubt, before you level accusations of "misrepresentation," "agendas," "confirmation bias," and "amateurish analysis" at a poster who's expertise likely far exceeds your own (and mine), and who has provided so many valuable posts helping all of us decipher the complex stats presented throughout this thread. Have you not acknowledged you're a lay person like most of the rest of us?

At this point your personal attacks towards others with opinions you disfavor ring rather hollow after your own still unexplained dismissal of studies showing immunity from the common cold, along with repeated posts warning about the well-documented dangers of Long Covid from Delta and its predecessor variants. But as applied to the now dominant Omicron affecting most with mild or no symptoms, how is this not "fodder for unending speculation" and a "jump to conclusions that favor one's own prejudices" as you level against SWL? One could easily also interpret such posts as fearmongering and the pursuit of an agenda, but for the sake of civil discourse, would they not be better characterized as informed opinion that others can respectfully disagree with? Why not treat SWL's opinions in a similar manner?

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Exile

Who are you responding to here Zippee?

SWL with her two clearly delineated opinions limited to (i) risk of death for healthy people under the age of 65 that is likely exaggerated, and (ii) doubts about the wisdom of vaccinations for children where the science has not conclusively determined that the risk from the vax isn't outweighed by the risk of getting Covid. Neither of these concerns are new, the science has long known that age and underlying health are dominant factors, and SWL is hardly the only one who has consistently raised these concerns. Or, alternatively, are you responding to -- or conflating -- GregK's subsequent post claiming these same stats prove "massive fraud" and link us to the Robert Kennedy book titled "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health"??

Surely you can see the difference, along with a plethora of views somewhere in between no doubt, before you level accusations of "misrepresentation," "agendas," "confirmation bias," and "amateurish analysis" at a poster who's expertise likely far exceeds your own (and mine), and who has provided so many valuable posts helping all of us decipher the complex stats presented throughout this thread. Have you not acknowledged you're a lay person like most of the rest of us?

At this point your personal attacks towards others with opinions you disfavor ring rather hollow after your own still unexplained dismissal of studies showing immunity from the common cold, along with repeated posts warning about the well-documented dangers of Long Covid from Delta and its predecessor variants. But as applied to the now dominant Omicron affecting most with mild or no symptoms, how is this not "fodder for unending speculation" and a "jump to conclusions that favor one's own prejudices" as you level against SWL? One could easily also interpret such posts as fearmongering and the pursuit of an agenda, but for the sake of civil discourse, would they not be better characterized as informed opinion that others can respectfully disagree with? Why not treat SWL's opinions in a similar manner?

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why. No animals were harmed in the making of my post, lol. At best, let's leave it at we'll agree to disagree. Be well.

[Exile]

The past couple of days have produced some promising news from the governors of hard-hit states (NY, NJ, MA & IL) about the Omicron surge peaking and relevant infection & hospitalization statistics starting to decline. This in no way means they're out of the woods, but it does repeat the early peaks experienced by SA, the UK and other nations, and so is reasonable cause for optimism (for those so inclined that is).

Recent studies conducted in NY, CA, and the state of Israel (and confirmed by the CDC) report that pre-Delta variant infection provided better immunity than vaccination against Delta, thereby providing optimism that the same will hold true for Omicron (at least for its more serious symptoms). Prior infection plus vaccination, however, remains the best defense.

All available for confirmation via a quick internet search, but can't tell you if any are peer reviewed or pre-approved for publication here on CF . The reports from the US state governors do seem to comport, however, with relevant overall US stats.

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers...e&country=~USA

[poiu]

I also saw that Campbell video. I was shocked to learn the Government statistics. To mention a few more:

6% of all deaths were from under 65 year olds with no co-morbidities. That is a similar absolute number as road traffic accident deaths. We don’t stop driving cars because of that risk.

83% of all deaths were amongst people with co-morbidities.

This would have been known early on. It begs the question as to why healthy people were not allowed to go about their lives and for the old and frail to be given the option of isolation, (which was forced on us all anyway) or to take their chances with the disease.

For many aged say 80+, with few years left to be locked up for much of two years was a huge theft of their limited time left. Many would have taken their chances.

Lockdowns are increasingly being shown to be a huge mistake. That this information is revealed so late in the game is a fraud and shameful betrayal of trust by the authorities and particularly the media. It’s a joint conspiracy of fear and control they have been conducting.

[GordMay]

The pandemic’s true death toll: millions more than official counts

On 1 November, 2021, the global death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic passed five million, official data suggested. It has now [Jan 2022] reached 5.5 million.
But records of excess mortality show that many more people have died in the pandemic [? actually 12 million to 22 million excess deaths?].
Working out how many more is a complex research challenge.

'Nature' News Feature ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00104-8

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by poiu

It is not often said, but those enjoying the work from home regime, living in safety and great comfort and who encourage the endless lockdowns have their existence enabled by those working in less safe environments and for less pay.

I think you're missing something important.

Note that I'm in the US and haven't been in Europe under COVID. Some things apply even if the context is different.

In many cases, people who work from home (WFH) and take a few particular precautions improve the safety of those who can't WFH.

The absence of a commute, particularly on public transportation, reduces the exposure of those who have no choice. Eating at home similarly reduces exposure of those who can't even if "eating out" is a staff break room eating a packed lunch.

I've worked pretty hard to reduce exposure for my delivery crews and me. We use curbside pickup for provisioning, parts, and spares. If we need a service tech we juggle time and space to minimize contact with people outside our "bubble." While my COVID policy has evolved with time it currently includes vaccination requirements and a pre-departure PCR test to promote getting healthy people on board and then protecting them from external exposure. WFH is a step in that direction.

Where I am in the US I can get groceries, hardware from DIY shops, marine parts, even dry cleaning all curbside. Delivery with attendant fees is also available. It's my understanding that curbside pickup is less common in the EU and UK than in the US.

There are certainly sectors where WFH is completely untenable. Meat packing is an example. WFH for those who can doesn't make their conditions worse. Other service sector jobs that require presence are made safer by WFH and the extension of delivery/curbside. No one is worse off.

The hospitality sector takes a beating. In the US that's 3.2% of the economy and about 5% of the workforce. Frankly some of that could be recovered by pivoting to take-out/curbside/delivery.

I recall an article in the Financial Times last Fall that reviewed a study that suggested that WFH and more remote shopping (food, clothes, parts, everything) were economically "sticky" and that many people would not give them up. I won't. Online shopping and curbside pickup makes price comparison easier and we're saving money. It's a good thing as inflation here in the US has strained my provisioning budgets.

[El Pinguino]

The most likely to die in Australia have been old poor immigrants but stuff them - they are just useless mouths anyway.

Seems the most common co-morbidity amongst the dead has been dementia at 41%.
Yup just tell them to head out into the community, take a punt, and enjoy the sunset of their lives.

'Pre-existing chronic conditions were reported on death certificates for 675 (73.4%) of the 920 COVID-19 deaths covered in this report. Of these 675 deaths:

Dementia was the most commonly certified co-morbidity, present in 41.0% of the 675 deaths.
------
The type of comorbidities most commonly present in Australian deaths due to COVID-19 are consistent with those reported internationally.'

Thats from October 20121 report from the ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-1 not some bloke on youtube quoting the Daily Mail.

Note that the age spread largely reflects the nature of the outbreak in Victoria's aged care. This year the graph would look quite different.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The most likely to die in Australia have been old poor immigrants but stuff them - they are just useless mouths anyway.

Seems the most common co-morbidity amongst the dead has been dementia at 41%.
Yup just tell them to head out into the community, take a punt, and enjoy the sunset of their lives.
…..

Risk assessment is critical when assessing how to best handle countless situations, particularly medical problems.

I am not sure why pointing out that this particular virus typically targets very specific groups when it comes to severe disease means that we care nothing about these groups. Quite the contrary. These groups need protection, but instituting sweeping regulations that unnecessarily adversely affect everyone is not, I think, the best solution.

The aim of media reports and government press announcements and press conferences seems to have been to strike fear into the hearts of everyone. Stupid comments have even been made that this virus does not discriminate. It does and it does so to a staggering degree that has not been widely publicised.

We seem to have taken “no discrimination” to a new level during this pandemic when it comes to management.

Why not spell out clearly that specifically those with co-morbidities (the most critical of which has been advancing years, I dare not mention that racial differences have also played a role) need to take extreme precautions. Some risk factors such as obesity can even be reduced. It is a tragedy that the latter has not been stressed, particularly when some very young lives have been lost as a result.

It is the vulnerable that benefit the most from COVID-19 vaccination (dramatically so), from staying at home, avoiding contact with others, particularly close contact with others in poorly ventilated spaces, etc.

They would also benefit dramatically from vaccination being prioritised (this has not always been done), free protective equipment not just for them but those coming into close contact with them. Ditto for free rapid antigen tests for any unavoidable close contacts. Also help with keeping shielded. Money could have been thrown at this that would have been a pittance compared to the debts some governments have incurred.

We seem hell bent on treating everyone “equally”. The great tragedy of this has been not only that insufficient help has been provided for those at high risk, but that the adverse affects of how this pandemic has been managed has not been equally felt, and that some of those at minimal risk of severe disease have ended up being impacted the hardest from regulations imposed.

Primarily because of the number of life years left, it is also those at minimal risk who will suffer the most if long term problems crop up years down the track from mass vaccination with vaccines employing very different technology never before approved for human use and completely untested long term. We have never previously vaccinated those at next to no risk of severe disease. Why now, particularly when it is becoming clearer that infection confers a similar (or possibly even better) level of protection? For the healthy young this infection is actually even symptom free or results in minimal symptoms. Again, a stark contrast to those at high risk.

Many governments have seemed hell bent on appearing to care about saving every single possible life, regardless of community cost, fearing to look “uncaring”. They have never done this when managing any other kind of medical condition. Why now? When politics and health are combined, I heard someone comment that the result is politics. From my point of view, this certainly seems to have been the case during the last two years.

SWL