"cause of death" is possibly the most inaccurate medical statistic in existence today. Modern medicine suffers from a complete failure to understand causes of illness as well. The concept of "cure cause: a cause which when successfully addressed results in a cure" simply does not exist in "modern" medicine.
It occurs to me that if the excess death figures are being skewed downwards by the huge numbers of illegal migrants coming to our shores, then this is a cause for even more concern because many of those young, third world male migrants will not have been jabbed, which might mean that they are not dying in excess numbers and therefore are masking the real effect of the gene based 'therapies' on the jabbed native population.
How utterly surprisingly CONvenient that this makes excess deaths disappear - I wonder whether it would have seen light of day if it had shown the opposite. They need to keep using the data from prior 2019 only to measure impacts as otherwise the excess deaths in 2020 to 2023 will get folded into the predictions, and eventually become normalized, an no longer appear as excess.
The new approach is better than the previous flat 5 year average. But I think it still has 2 fatal flaws:
1. It uses date of death registration, instead of date of death occurrence (this has caused some massive distortions since 2020).
2. It ignores "mortality displacement" (which is Jaime's point that high deaths in a given time period mean you should expect lower deaths in the following period, especially at older ages where most of the deaths occur).
The other issue is that while most of the excess deaths in 2020 were at the older ages, we now have higher excess rates in the middle age bands - so we need to measure excess years of life lost, and how that has changed since 2020.
Yes, years of life lost, and of we really need excess deathpost covid and vaccine compared to pre COVID.
Yet what would be easy for goverments to do, they dont do. That is to compare like demographics, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, to all the known VAERS harms for both illness and deaths. They have the numbers, and if they were favorable to the vaccinated, they would be advertised all over.
Of course they're going to bury the vax murder numbers by any means necessary. They have to. Once you're complicit in iatrogenocide, any further fraud/lying isn't a big deal.
A rule of thumb test of whether the methodology for calculating expected deaths is reasonable is to look at the back data, both actual and estimate; a reasonable estimate would be such that the excess deaths of some years and deficient deaths of other years should roughly cancel out over time. Or more crudely roughly half the time the actual should exceed the estimate and half the time it should fall short and in similar amounts.
It looks like the ONS has found a way to introduce a model to estimate what the 'true' mortality rate 'should' be. The model will have several parameters each of which can be adjusted to give the desired result - sorry - to account for multifactorial influences . Much like climate modelling really.
It seems to me that, in contrast to the usual position of having to rely on statistical inference, we really aren't in a situation of partial knowledge here. Inference and modelling aren't required when you have complete knowledge and not just a sample - in this case the population of Britain and the actual mortality counts.
Perhaps life years lost would be a better measure of what has been happening to us. I believe that's what actuaries use.
"cause of death" is possibly the most inaccurate medical statistic in existence today. Modern medicine suffers from a complete failure to understand causes of illness as well. The concept of "cure cause: a cause which when successfully addressed results in a cure" simply does not exist in "modern" medicine.
To your health, Tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure
They got rid of inconvenient excess deaths in Australia: https://lettersfromaustralia.substack.com/p/hey-presto-the-2022-non-covid-excess
Following the Orwellian ONS redefinition of reality, here come the new headlines:
The Telegraph “Excess deaths last year were two thirds lower than expected” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/20/excess-deaths-last-year-were-two-thirds-lower-than-expected/. As of six hours after publishing at 7:43am, the cowardly treasonous DT has not opened comments on the article.
The government: “The new report estimates that there were 10,890 excess deaths in England in 2023 (2% higher than expected), compared with what would be expected based on 2018 to 2022 trends, after accounting for the pandemic and revised population estimates” https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/excess-mortality-within-england-post-pandemic-method/excess-mortality-within-england-2023-data-statistical-commentary
I just hope Normal Fenton manages to demolition this chicanery. For example, is the ONS taking account of the millions of immigrants who have swelled the UK population over recent years? https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/migrant-rent-deals-reveal-the-hollowness-of-goves-housing-pledges/.
It occurs to me that if the excess death figures are being skewed downwards by the huge numbers of illegal migrants coming to our shores, then this is a cause for even more concern because many of those young, third world male migrants will not have been jabbed, which might mean that they are not dying in excess numbers and therefore are masking the real effect of the gene based 'therapies' on the jabbed native population.
How utterly surprisingly CONvenient that this makes excess deaths disappear - I wonder whether it would have seen light of day if it had shown the opposite. They need to keep using the data from prior 2019 only to measure impacts as otherwise the excess deaths in 2020 to 2023 will get folded into the predictions, and eventually become normalized, an no longer appear as excess.
Looks like a classic example of the use of Finagle's constant* to me.
"Finagle's constant" is defined as the ratio of the result you want to the example you got.
The new approach is better than the previous flat 5 year average. But I think it still has 2 fatal flaws:
1. It uses date of death registration, instead of date of death occurrence (this has caused some massive distortions since 2020).
2. It ignores "mortality displacement" (which is Jaime's point that high deaths in a given time period mean you should expect lower deaths in the following period, especially at older ages where most of the deaths occur).
The "Future developments" section acknowledges these points, but only in passing at the end of a long list of other points. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/articles/estimatingexcessdeathsintheukmethodologychanges/february2024
The other issue is that while most of the excess deaths in 2020 were at the older ages, we now have higher excess rates in the middle age bands - so we need to measure excess years of life lost, and how that has changed since 2020.
Yes, years of life lost, and of we really need excess deathpost covid and vaccine compared to pre COVID.
Yet what would be easy for goverments to do, they dont do. That is to compare like demographics, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, to all the known VAERS harms for both illness and deaths. They have the numbers, and if they were favorable to the vaccinated, they would be advertised all over.
Of course they're going to bury the vax murder numbers by any means necessary. They have to. Once you're complicit in iatrogenocide, any further fraud/lying isn't a big deal.
Julie from ONS appears to be a 3d printed manikin. You can tell by the paint job.
They do all have a certain Boston Dynamics vibe eh? The CDC Walensky/Cohen puppets come to mind. That same blank stare...
3 kinds of lies...
A rule of thumb test of whether the methodology for calculating expected deaths is reasonable is to look at the back data, both actual and estimate; a reasonable estimate would be such that the excess deaths of some years and deficient deaths of other years should roughly cancel out over time. Or more crudely roughly half the time the actual should exceed the estimate and half the time it should fall short and in similar amounts.
It looks like the ONS has found a way to introduce a model to estimate what the 'true' mortality rate 'should' be. The model will have several parameters each of which can be adjusted to give the desired result - sorry - to account for multifactorial influences . Much like climate modelling really.
It seems to me that, in contrast to the usual position of having to rely on statistical inference, we really aren't in a situation of partial knowledge here. Inference and modelling aren't required when you have complete knowledge and not just a sample - in this case the population of Britain and the actual mortality counts.
Perhaps life years lost would be a better measure of what has been happening to us. I believe that's what actuaries use.
2020 wasn’t a problem. Campaigner Rustler has statistics to show that (Scottish) hospital admissions and deaths in 2020 were the lowest on record, see https://x.com/TheRustler83/status/1759205326115545402?s=20.
Funeral director John O’Looney of Milton Keynes has given professional evidence that he noticed nothing abnormal about UK deaths throughout 2020, see from 3:20:30 in https://odysee.com/@GrandJury:f/Grand-Jury-Day-3-en-online:7.
Don’t forget that the average age of “Covid” victims in 2020 was 82, almost certainly the vast majority killed by callous iatrogenic maltreatment.