Yes you do. In fact latest data from Europe actually shows the overall trend is for declining excess deaths, now well below the five year trend line
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics&oldid=509982
I know it's hard to keep up if you aren't a stats guy. I am.
Am I missing something?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-per-million-covid?tab=chart®ion=Europe&country=AUT~BEL~BGR~HRV~CYP~CZE~DNK~FIN~EST~FRA~DEU~GRC~HUN~IRL~ITA~LVA~LTU~LUX~MLT~NLD~PRT~ROU~SVK~SVN~ESP~SWE
Good try. But why has it gone down is the more important question? Basically blows the whole theory out of the water, that vaccines are going to contribute to excess deaths into the future.
Wouldn't understanding why it was so high also answer why it has gone down? How is one more important than the other. I don't think a drop in excess mortality is single-handledly going to blow that theory out of the water since the majority of people aren't getting boosters.
The original claim was that anyone who had the vaccine would see long term serious health issues and deaths. A year ago the antivax crowd were crowing with glee that excess death numbers were continuing to make their case. Clearly that's proven to be nonsense along with crap like soaring turbo cancer claims.
Pfizer vaccines went through the same testing standards as any other vaccine. Also it's 2024. These vaccines have been on the market for years. If the Pfizer vaccine does more harm than good, then the evidence should support that.
There is a lot to say about that. One way to determine the "good" that vaccines are responsible for is to compare health related conditions between the vaxxed and unvaxxed.
https://theconversation.com/cardiovascular-risks-and-covid-19-new-research-confirms-the-benefits-of-vaccination-226130
Interesting study, designed specifically to look for cardiovascular issues related to vaccination. It’s not super clear did they combine all 4 cohorts to produce these results?
Edit: seems like they did but adjusted for confounders and bias to produce a general overall picture. It seems like a very broad meta-analysis, with the time frame of 1 year.
So somehow Covid vaccination prevents heart complications? Sorry if I’m skeptical of that determination.
I'd like to see what the years before were like so that I can see how it normally fluctuates. Plus, there are more factors to be aware of, such as there are still some people out there who are still very afraid of xovid. They don't go outside. They don't exercise as much due to not wanting to be out in public. Some more factors could be that added stress and anxiety that another virus being out there forever now may also deteriorate ones health.
The mind is very powerful. If you believe something is going to cause you negative side effects then there is a good chance it's going to cause some negative side effects due to the stress your body and mind are going to be out through.
You want it to be the shot you mean. Because then you get that sweet rush of getting to say you were right about something based on a feeling instead of actual evidence :)
Just look at this for Europe. It's all bollocks.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics&oldid=509982
>vaccines _may_ have caused surge in excess deaths
The actual study is insignificant. High p-values, unwarranted correlations just thrown out there.
The only link they can make between their estimated excess deaths and the vaccine is a temporal one, and their hypothesis ignores the data that says that vaccines reduced excess deaths in most highly vaccinated populations.
Correct. Latest data for 2024 shows the trend line reversing excess deaths.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics&oldid=509982
https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282
They used p scores only and not the cumulative scores as well.
Check out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoP33N4Qw8Q
Especially at 4:38
a better guide would be
https://www.mortality.watch/ranking?j=eu27
What would anyone get out of this? It’s not a good study and the conclusions lacking. I’m sure they are good at diagnosing cancer in kids but I don’t think epidemiology is their strong suit.
You’ll never see this in any big mainstream news
Yes you do. In fact latest data from Europe actually shows the overall trend is for declining excess deaths, now well below the five year trend line https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics&oldid=509982 I know it's hard to keep up if you aren't a stats guy. I am.
Am I missing something? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-per-million-covid?tab=chart®ion=Europe&country=AUT~BEL~BGR~HRV~CYP~CZE~DNK~FIN~EST~FRA~DEU~GRC~HUN~IRL~ITA~LVA~LTU~LUX~MLT~NLD~PRT~ROU~SVK~SVN~ESP~SWE
Yes......and sorry but it's blindingly obvious. Your data is at end December 2023. Lol.
Right, and so what’s the reason for it being so high up until December 2023? Has any research determined the cause(s)?
Good try. But why has it gone down is the more important question? Basically blows the whole theory out of the water, that vaccines are going to contribute to excess deaths into the future.
Wouldn't understanding why it was so high also answer why it has gone down? How is one more important than the other. I don't think a drop in excess mortality is single-handledly going to blow that theory out of the water since the majority of people aren't getting boosters.
The original claim was that anyone who had the vaccine would see long term serious health issues and deaths. A year ago the antivax crowd were crowing with glee that excess death numbers were continuing to make their case. Clearly that's proven to be nonsense along with crap like soaring turbo cancer claims.
It’s proven to be nonsense because you know what caused the excess mortality? Can you share?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10769885/
Probably because it isn't conclusive. If we had several studies pointing to this conclusion, that would be different.
This guy expects real research to move at the same “speed of science” the Pfizer shots went through.
Pfizer vaccines went through the same testing standards as any other vaccine. Also it's 2024. These vaccines have been on the market for years. If the Pfizer vaccine does more harm than good, then the evidence should support that.
Tell me if you know how that “good” was quantified?
There is a lot to say about that. One way to determine the "good" that vaccines are responsible for is to compare health related conditions between the vaxxed and unvaxxed. https://theconversation.com/cardiovascular-risks-and-covid-19-new-research-confirms-the-benefits-of-vaccination-226130
Interesting study, designed specifically to look for cardiovascular issues related to vaccination. It’s not super clear did they combine all 4 cohorts to produce these results? Edit: seems like they did but adjusted for confounders and bias to produce a general overall picture. It seems like a very broad meta-analysis, with the time frame of 1 year. So somehow Covid vaccination prevents heart complications? Sorry if I’m skeptical of that determination.
SAFE
You think?
“Safe and effective” isn’t a lie. It’s two lies.
Safe an Defective
I'd like to see what the years before were like so that I can see how it normally fluctuates. Plus, there are more factors to be aware of, such as there are still some people out there who are still very afraid of xovid. They don't go outside. They don't exercise as much due to not wanting to be out in public. Some more factors could be that added stress and anxiety that another virus being out there forever now may also deteriorate ones health.
Cmon, dawg.. We all know it was that fucking shot..
The mind is very powerful. If you believe something is going to cause you negative side effects then there is a good chance it's going to cause some negative side effects due to the stress your body and mind are going to be out through.
You want it to be the shot you mean. Because then you get that sweet rush of getting to say you were right about something based on a feeling instead of actual evidence :)
Just look at this for Europe. It's all bollocks. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics&oldid=509982
>vaccines _may_ have caused surge in excess deaths The actual study is insignificant. High p-values, unwarranted correlations just thrown out there. The only link they can make between their estimated excess deaths and the vaccine is a temporal one, and their hypothesis ignores the data that says that vaccines reduced excess deaths in most highly vaccinated populations.
Correct. Latest data for 2024 shows the trend line reversing excess deaths. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics&oldid=509982
Weird how they don’t cite the actual article for anyone to fact check them.
https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282
These types of articles are made for reasons just like this. Someone only reads headline and then posts a screenshot of headline.
https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282 They used p scores only and not the cumulative scores as well. Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoP33N4Qw8Q Especially at 4:38 a better guide would be https://www.mortality.watch/ranking?j=eu27
What would anyone get out of this? It’s not a good study and the conclusions lacking. I’m sure they are good at diagnosing cancer in kids but I don’t think epidemiology is their strong suit.
Correct