Above picture - Death lag for deaths within 182 days after “vaccine” for all ages, and dates of “vaccines” - From the WelcometheEagle’s New Zealand dashboard.
The database DID pick up excess deaths in sixth and seventh shots. (One of the commenters on WelcometheEagle's substack noticed that after I posted this info on one his posts a couple of days ago.) I don't think we can't really go around trumpeting that, or else we'd get accused of cherrypicking.
CBC . . . 14 July 2018 . . . Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, her husband and students escorted out of Canadian Level 4 lab . . . removal of unauthorized material from Winnipeg to China . . . group involved in setting up the Level 4 lab in Wuhan . . .
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
From an actuarial perspective, what is your analysis of New Zealand's huge overall mortality rate increases in both 2022 and 2023?
To me, this whole controversy, while interesting. is not as clear and compelling as merely looking at overall annual (and monthly) New Zealand mortality data that nobody is disputing.
New Zealand was and is experiencing significant mortality according to official OECD data.
6% in 2021
18% in 2022
14% in 2023 (so far)
You can argue that these numbers are just in the thousands, and you would be 100% correct, But for a country that typically averaged just 32,000 to 33,000 total deaths per year (using previous 5 year rolling averages), excess mortality in the thousands is very significant.
So the question becomes, why is New Zealand experiencing all of this excess mortality? For whatever reason or reasons, New Zealand experienced significant excess mortality on 2019 and a significant decline back to baseline mortality in 2020. But since then, New Zealand has been setting new historic records for mortality in both 2021 and 2022. And the 2023 data is on pace to come in behind just the HUGE spike in mortality New Zealand suffered in 2022--4,400 more deaths than in any year before 2021!
Now consider that according Wikipedia, New Zealand's official vaccination statistics once claimed that New Zealand's primary series vaccination rate for residents over 12 was 94.7%. And consider that fewer than 60 people died from COVID in New Zealand before the less deadly omicron variant took and well after over 95% of New Zealand's primary series vaccination effort had been completed.
So why has their been so much excess mortality, both COVID and non-COVID, in such a "protected population"? And when is somebody going to say anything about this that doesn't muddy the waters with outrageous overstatements?
2023 (so far): 28,993 deaths (through 40 weeks, so on track for 37, 691 for the entire year), 3,548.8 excess deaths, 14% excess mortality, 1,045 COVID deaths (29% of excess mortality)
By any measure, 2022 and 2023 are HUGE outliers. You can try to pin this all on omicron, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety.
Believe me, I wanted to see the excess deaths in that data. I KNOW the shots killed people. I spent over 10 hours looking at that data, because I was looking at WelcometheEagle's dashboard, not a nice database that I could do a quick query on. I was really disappointed to find only that these records don't capture all the deaths they should be capturing.
Steve Kirsch has been making a HUGE deal about this database, saying it proves the shots have killed about 1 in every 1000 people that have taken it. I certainly agree the shots have killed at least that many, and probably will kill more than that over a 5 year time frame. But he's making a fool of himself by claiming this database proves it. The sooner he stops saying this database is proof, the better.
But as for the numbers from your comment: they have 2100 to 3500 non-covid excess deaths for each of the last three years. 2023 is perhaps the most troubling, since there aren't so many people taking boosters this year, most of those people would be older, and you would expect the oldest people to have LOWERED mortality due to the pull-forward effect (the sickest old people died in much greater numbers 1 to 3 years ago, so the people left should be healthier than usual).
NZ Excess mortality for 2021 to 2023 not due to Covid - 2085 + 3507 + 3255 (scaled up) = 8847 excess deaths not due to COVID. In the US a lot of excess deaths are due to fentanyl, suicides and some other causes that are due to the lockdowns and the wide open southern border, not directly due to the clot shots. I don't know what the proportion would be in NZ. But let's just throw out 25%. That would leave 6635 deaths due to the clot shots.
6635 excess deaths not due to COVID out of a 5.1 million population is about 1.2 per thousand. With a pattern of increasing deaths despite decreasing uptake, the clot shot is likely to be the "gift that keeps on giving".
BTW, I don't know about NZ, but in the US, many, perhaps most, of the excess deaths we are seeing recently are in the younger working age group, ages 25-45. This is a tragic group of people to be losing early.
Plus, for every outright death there are probably 2 or 3 people who probably WISH they were dead because they are in agony and dozens of people in various degrees of impairment.
Some people who died by suicide were really deaths by COVID shot, since they were living in agony. The pain the families feel is much greater from these deaths. Many people of faith believe that a person who dies by suicide goes to hell. Others are continuing in great pain because they believe that to commit suicide will mean going to hell.
Thanks. I totally agree with you about Kirsch. IMHO, he has a long track record of overselling and underdelivering. He may be totally sincere. but if so, he would be well advised to develop some circumspection. The way he hypes his own internet polls are "proof" of anything, for just one example, is bizarre to me.
the polls are hard to explain if nothing is going on. Claiming the polls are from a biased source is only valid if the bias affect the analysis technique being used.
Hi Steve, thanks for visiting - It's going to be hard for someone to tell whether the data is complete enough to be definitive without really digging into the numbers and having some expertise.
PS sorry about using the word "fool". That was inconsiderate.
I agree that something is going on and that the polls are hard to explain. However, I don't believe that non-random polls can be successfully used to persuade those who disagree with them or that they necessarily "prove" anything. And I think there are far better data showing that "something is going on:" than subjective polls subject to selection bias.
Go easy, please. I am a fan of yours, and do believe the clot shots are killing about one in 1000 people.
I've got COVID right now, my husband and kids all think I'm a crazy anti-vaxxer, and I'm working at a $16 an hour part time job despite being an ASA in the Society of Actuaries.
I really appreciate your time and effort to explain this from a life actuaries point of view. I always read your articles because I have been seeking the perspective of professional life actuaries specifically. I trust you aren't trying to create sensational headlines to gain clicks and attention, and have been trained not to over-react to apparent changes in trends.
The database DID pick up excess deaths in sixth and seventh shots. (One of the commenters on WelcometheEagle's substack noticed that after I posted this info on one his posts a couple of days ago.) I don't think we can't really go around trumpeting that, or else we'd get accused of cherrypicking.
____________________________________________________
CBC . . . 14 July 2018 . . . Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, her husband and students escorted out of Canadian Level 4 lab . . . removal of unauthorized material from Winnipeg to China . . . group involved in setting up the Level 4 lab in Wuhan . . .
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/chinese-researcher-escorted-from-infectious-disease-lab-amid-rcmp-investigation-1.5211567
____________________________________________________
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-x-preparing-for-power-sars
____________________________________________________
HVE is real. it is both short and long term. what you need to look at is the time series analysis and you avoided that.
From an actuarial perspective, what is your analysis of New Zealand's huge overall mortality rate increases in both 2022 and 2023?
To me, this whole controversy, while interesting. is not as clear and compelling as merely looking at overall annual (and monthly) New Zealand mortality data that nobody is disputing.
New Zealand was and is experiencing significant mortality according to official OECD data.
6% in 2021
18% in 2022
14% in 2023 (so far)
You can argue that these numbers are just in the thousands, and you would be 100% correct, But for a country that typically averaged just 32,000 to 33,000 total deaths per year (using previous 5 year rolling averages), excess mortality in the thousands is very significant.
So the question becomes, why is New Zealand experiencing all of this excess mortality? For whatever reason or reasons, New Zealand experienced significant excess mortality on 2019 and a significant decline back to baseline mortality in 2020. But since then, New Zealand has been setting new historic records for mortality in both 2021 and 2022. And the 2023 data is on pace to come in behind just the HUGE spike in mortality New Zealand suffered in 2022--4,400 more deaths than in any year before 2021!
Now consider that according Wikipedia, New Zealand's official vaccination statistics once claimed that New Zealand's primary series vaccination rate for residents over 12 was 94.7%. And consider that fewer than 60 people died from COVID in New Zealand before the less deadly omicron variant took and well after over 95% of New Zealand's primary series vaccination effort had been completed.
So why has their been so much excess mortality, both COVID and non-COVID, in such a "protected population"? And when is somebody going to say anything about this that doesn't muddy the waters with outrageous overstatements?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/18bs160/a_simple_analysis_of_new_zealands_official_oecd/
New Zealand's history mortality:
2014 31,062
2015 31,625
2016 31,176
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
2020: 32,522 deaths, -168.8 excess deaths, 25 COVID deaths
2021: 34,802 deaths, 2111.2 excess deaths, 6% excess mortality, 26 COVID deaths (1% of excess mortality)
2022: 38,478 deaths, 5787.2 excess deaths, 18% excess mortality, 2,280 COVID deaths (39% of excess mortality)
2023 (so far): 28,993 deaths (through 40 weeks, so on track for 37, 691 for the entire year), 3,548.8 excess deaths, 14% excess mortality, 1,045 COVID deaths (29% of excess mortality)
By any measure, 2022 and 2023 are HUGE outliers. You can try to pin this all on omicron, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety.
Thanks for that info.
Believe me, I wanted to see the excess deaths in that data. I KNOW the shots killed people. I spent over 10 hours looking at that data, because I was looking at WelcometheEagle's dashboard, not a nice database that I could do a quick query on. I was really disappointed to find only that these records don't capture all the deaths they should be capturing.
Steve Kirsch has been making a HUGE deal about this database, saying it proves the shots have killed about 1 in every 1000 people that have taken it. I certainly agree the shots have killed at least that many, and probably will kill more than that over a 5 year time frame. But he's making a fool of himself by claiming this database proves it. The sooner he stops saying this database is proof, the better.
But as for the numbers from your comment: they have 2100 to 3500 non-covid excess deaths for each of the last three years. 2023 is perhaps the most troubling, since there aren't so many people taking boosters this year, most of those people would be older, and you would expect the oldest people to have LOWERED mortality due to the pull-forward effect (the sickest old people died in much greater numbers 1 to 3 years ago, so the people left should be healthier than usual).
NZ Excess mortality for 2021 to 2023 not due to Covid - 2085 + 3507 + 3255 (scaled up) = 8847 excess deaths not due to COVID. In the US a lot of excess deaths are due to fentanyl, suicides and some other causes that are due to the lockdowns and the wide open southern border, not directly due to the clot shots. I don't know what the proportion would be in NZ. But let's just throw out 25%. That would leave 6635 deaths due to the clot shots.
6635 excess deaths not due to COVID out of a 5.1 million population is about 1.2 per thousand. With a pattern of increasing deaths despite decreasing uptake, the clot shot is likely to be the "gift that keeps on giving".
BTW, I don't know about NZ, but in the US, many, perhaps most, of the excess deaths we are seeing recently are in the younger working age group, ages 25-45. This is a tragic group of people to be losing early.
Plus, for every outright death there are probably 2 or 3 people who probably WISH they were dead because they are in agony and dozens of people in various degrees of impairment.
Some people who died by suicide were really deaths by COVID shot, since they were living in agony. The pain the families feel is much greater from these deaths. Many people of faith believe that a person who dies by suicide goes to hell. Others are continuing in great pain because they believe that to commit suicide will mean going to hell.
(I just clicked through to the NZ clot shot uptake stats page. That would have been useful in my original post. https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/our-health-system/data-and-statistics/covid-vaccine-data/#vaccinations-by-week)
Well, that's enough for a whole new post.
Thanks. I totally agree with you about Kirsch. IMHO, he has a long track record of overselling and underdelivering. He may be totally sincere. but if so, he would be well advised to develop some circumspection. The way he hypes his own internet polls are "proof" of anything, for just one example, is bizarre to me.
the polls are hard to explain if nothing is going on. Claiming the polls are from a biased source is only valid if the bias affect the analysis technique being used.
Hi Steve, thanks for visiting - It's going to be hard for someone to tell whether the data is complete enough to be definitive without really digging into the numbers and having some expertise.
PS sorry about using the word "fool". That was inconsiderate.
Hi, Steve! Thanks so much for the reply!
I agree that something is going on and that the polls are hard to explain. However, I don't believe that non-random polls can be successfully used to persuade those who disagree with them or that they necessarily "prove" anything. And I think there are far better data showing that "something is going on:" than subjective polls subject to selection bias.
It isn't a mistake to tout this database. just because YOU didn't find a signal, doesn't mean there isn't one.
Stay tuned for upcoming substack.
Go easy, please. I am a fan of yours, and do believe the clot shots are killing about one in 1000 people.
I've got COVID right now, my husband and kids all think I'm a crazy anti-vaxxer, and I'm working at a $16 an hour part time job despite being an ASA in the Society of Actuaries.
I really appreciate your time and effort to explain this from a life actuaries point of view. I always read your articles because I have been seeking the perspective of professional life actuaries specifically. I trust you aren't trying to create sensational headlines to gain clicks and attention, and have been trained not to over-react to apparent changes in trends.
I have to confess to making the end of my title a bit of a teaser. But hey, you can read the whole article without opening the post.
Thanks for the comment.