Interesting, "marketing tests before a person could get life insurance." I can get that angle, thanks for putting the excess deaths into perspective.
I imagine you don't watch Joe Rogan with any regularity...? I don't think he's anti-vegan, he's covered the health effects of veganism more than once as I recall. And he's against animal cruelty. Many people cite "other people talking about Joe Rogan" rather than listening to him themselves. I love it when people say he's right-wing, because I can reply emphatically "I know for a fact you don't listen to Joe Rogan yourself". At the same time, Joe may have a role to play in corralling the "health freedom movement" in a certain direction - I'm very aware of that.
Hiya did you watch the clip? It highlights how Rogan sides and scoffs along with his guest without presenting any facts or counter argument, and he is sponsored by the meat industry. But yes I have seen the amazing debate where James Wilkes annihilates poor Chris Kresner, I felt sorry for the guy.
I've added a bit more to this post- even more perspective coming your way!
I find the first graph difficult because it appears to show "relative risk." I was even caught by the Pfi$er "95% Effective" claim based on "Relative Risk" while obscuring the absolute values.
The graph with the blue bars looks to show increased (and increasing) mortality rates after 2020.
This is very clever obfuscation. You can’t die twice. If you look at your “age-adjusted death rate” data, there is a bump followed by a drop. That bump shows that the older folks were “bumped off” by something at an unusual and statistically significant rate, followed by a drop. The only thing that drop shows is that older folks have already died at an unusual rate in the years previous, so when you average out the data post that event, it is measured over a range that excludes the older people who already died, hence the drop to “normal”. Your move is hiding the signal.
If you were looking at number of deaths in a population that wasn't replenishing itself, then yes a dip could well hide a signal of an unusual death factor. However, this is not what the graph is looking at. It's looking at the death rate in a fixed population of 100,000, no one has been removed by already dying.
As you say the elderly died in 2020 so there were less of them to die in 2021- you would expect less deaths. That's why it's important to compare to a standard age range profile, so that the signal in the younger ages, if there is one, has a chance to show up.
No, that's the purpose of using an age adjusted standard. The number of old people making up the average death rate each year remains the same. So in the very low death year of 2019 say 20% of people were 75-90 years old, then deaths in 2020 in 75-90 year olds, even though there were many of them counted only 20% towards the average. The same in 2021, the dry wood of the elderly has already been taken into account. The deaths in 2021 in 75-90 year olds still make up 20% of the average even though there were less of them in total following the cull of 2020. The drop shows that there was no increase in deaths across the age profile in 2021.
If you don't age adjust the percentage of elderly just goes up and up, meaning the death rate just keeps on going up and up.
Discussing "death rates" as somehow independent of "birth rates" is not an acceptable strategy for understanding demography. I taught population for decades and it was essential to demonstrate to students at the very beginning of each class that Demography is composed of three elements: 1)Fertility 2) Mortality 3)Migration.
Interesting, "marketing tests before a person could get life insurance." I can get that angle, thanks for putting the excess deaths into perspective.
I imagine you don't watch Joe Rogan with any regularity...? I don't think he's anti-vegan, he's covered the health effects of veganism more than once as I recall. And he's against animal cruelty. Many people cite "other people talking about Joe Rogan" rather than listening to him themselves. I love it when people say he's right-wing, because I can reply emphatically "I know for a fact you don't listen to Joe Rogan yourself". At the same time, Joe may have a role to play in corralling the "health freedom movement" in a certain direction - I'm very aware of that.
Hiya did you watch the clip? It highlights how Rogan sides and scoffs along with his guest without presenting any facts or counter argument, and he is sponsored by the meat industry. But yes I have seen the amazing debate where James Wilkes annihilates poor Chris Kresner, I felt sorry for the guy.
I've added a bit more to this post- even more perspective coming your way!
I find the first graph difficult because it appears to show "relative risk." I was even caught by the Pfi$er "95% Effective" claim based on "Relative Risk" while obscuring the absolute values.
The graph with the blue bars looks to show increased (and increasing) mortality rates after 2020.
This is very clever obfuscation. You can’t die twice. If you look at your “age-adjusted death rate” data, there is a bump followed by a drop. That bump shows that the older folks were “bumped off” by something at an unusual and statistically significant rate, followed by a drop. The only thing that drop shows is that older folks have already died at an unusual rate in the years previous, so when you average out the data post that event, it is measured over a range that excludes the older people who already died, hence the drop to “normal”. Your move is hiding the signal.
If you were looking at number of deaths in a population that wasn't replenishing itself, then yes a dip could well hide a signal of an unusual death factor. However, this is not what the graph is looking at. It's looking at the death rate in a fixed population of 100,000, no one has been removed by already dying.
As you say the elderly died in 2020 so there were less of them to die in 2021- you would expect less deaths. That's why it's important to compare to a standard age range profile, so that the signal in the younger ages, if there is one, has a chance to show up.
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/deaths-england-and-wales-2020-2022?utm_source=publication-search
No, that's the purpose of using an age adjusted standard. The number of old people making up the average death rate each year remains the same. So in the very low death year of 2019 say 20% of people were 75-90 years old, then deaths in 2020 in 75-90 year olds, even though there were many of them counted only 20% towards the average. The same in 2021, the dry wood of the elderly has already been taken into account. The deaths in 2021 in 75-90 year olds still make up 20% of the average even though there were less of them in total following the cull of 2020. The drop shows that there was no increase in deaths across the age profile in 2021.
If you don't age adjust the percentage of elderly just goes up and up, meaning the death rate just keeps on going up and up.
Discussing "death rates" as somehow independent of "birth rates" is not an acceptable strategy for understanding demography. I taught population for decades and it was essential to demonstrate to students at the very beginning of each class that Demography is composed of three elements: 1)Fertility 2) Mortality 3)Migration.