Severity of flu seasons fluctuates drastically and frequently. We can use excess deaths to give an overview of any particular period, but it will never be useful for pinning down a single specific cause.
I found the source of your stat: a regression model based on 2015 - 2019, so after the point most models already record a high excess death rate. Longer-range models tend to put the stat for 2020 at 600,000+.
Covid like the flu comes in waves, usually cold season (you'd get the same drops and increases in flu numbers as well). Again, with 267,000 covid deaths in 2022, it would take 2,670,000 deaths in the first year (when the virus is novel) for you to have a 90% reduction in mortality. Even if everyone in the US hypothetically got covid in the 1st year, that would equal a 0.8% death rate, which we know is well above what it actually is. That is what is required for the vaccines/boosters/natural immunities to result in 90% mortality reduction (in every age group). How is 90% reasonable?
Even with your numbers (which doesn't really matter honestly as long as we are consistent in using the same model), covid is obviously accounting for the majority of the change rather easy from 2019 to 2020. And regardless of whether you want to use excess deaths or covid deaths, I can say make the same argument that Japan (covid death metric) / Sweden (excess death metric) did great and didn't do all the covid restriction bullshit so what was the point of it? The fact that you can even make the argument TODAY shows how little all the restrictions did because the majority of the harm from the lockdowns will rear its head in the future vs today.
Have you forgotten what you were arguing? That the public health response-- like lockdowns-- caused a higher excess death rate. And that's not 'obvious' at all; it's a fucking joke.
en.wikipedia.org
It's Hasan "I'm a socialist by why should I pay my workers better when I pay the minimum going rate it's my business why should I practice what I preach when others under capitalism don't anyway" Piker, is anyone shocked?
Being a socialist is ripping someone off apparently.
When in reality...
Catechism of a Revolutionary - Wikipedia
We've been talking about whether excess deaths/covid deaths are the better metric for a starting point to see how well countries did during the pandemic. If you want to use covid deaths, there's Japan as an example in my favor; if you want to use excess deaths, there's Sweden in my favor (and Japan too but not as good as covid deaths). Also, I've said multiple times that lockdowns/restrictions will cause higher death in the future, that's why I was against lockdowns (not that lockdowns wouldn't or shouldn't lower deaths during the actual pandemic but in the long term, they wouldn't). Also, in America, lockdowns are doubly worse because people losing health insurance during a pandemic (because they got fired, laid off, furloughed) seems like a horrible public health policy. And the fact that some countries did as well or better or even close (in the present time) to countries with heavy restrictions shows how bad restrictions failed.
Sort of, but not quite. We were discussing a source which attempted to use excess deaths as a measure of how dangerous public health policies were.
What source are you talking about? Also, if the source did go into laying blame at public health policy, I'm pretty sure I only posted it as a source to the excess death number and nothing else. If covid restrictions worked at least just decently, you'd see major differences between countries that had restrictions and those that didn't, and that just doesn't exist. I never thought that we'd have basically no proof of lockdowns lowering deaths during the actual pandemic, I was concerned about the big picture and long-term impacts. Even if you find that lockdowns reduced deaths 5% or something like that, the long-term effects will be much higher.
The source you posted here:
forums.escapistmagazine.com
You've been defending the source's conclusion that excess deaths must indicate a worse public health policy for over a month now.
I posted that for the excess death statistic like I said. There's another way of calculating excess deaths where Sweden is not quite as good as it is in that one but it's still very good. If Sweden did just as good as the average country that imposed covid lockdowns and restrictions, what was the point of the lockdowns/restrictions? That forgoes whole argument about the overall (present and future) if lockdowns are good or not if even in the present you can't find a benefit.The source you posted here:
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
Oh yeah, I know. That's why I said it. And this is not an attack on you. I used to believe the same stereotypes as well Here's the thing. How did these stereotypes start? Someone (Reagan) trying to create a narrative against African Americans All of the other stuff you stated is a retroactive...
Did you lose track of what you were actually defending?
You've been defending the source's conclusion that excess deaths must indicate a worse public health policy for over a month now.
It's a libertarian blog that attempted to argue that if a country had higher excess deaths, that means the public health response is to blame. I criticised the leap in logic. You then defended it to the hilt for so long you forgot what source it was.
And then for several pages you defended its use of that metric to wholly blame public health policy.
It was public health policy to do such lockdowns and restrictions and all the harms and benefits that come with them are due to the public health policy...
The harms and benefits that are actually related are related. That's a tautology. The problem is that the article is attributing everything, whether a credible connection exists or not.
All the problems with it have been patiently explained to you several times, before you forgot which source we were discussing and had to be reminded.
COVID lockdowns could have saved lives, by decreasing COVID deaths (and also incidentally decreasing some other deaths, for instance from auto accidents, from other communicable diseases, and the like). They also could have cost lives—for instance, through drug abuse deaths or suicides or homicides stemming from people being cooped up for months, drug abuse deaths or suicides or homicides stemming from economic damage and unemployment caused by the lockdown, cancers not caught early as people delayed early screening (even if such early screening would have been officially excluded from the lockdown), and so on.
