No it's not. I am not even sure if these terms are clearly defined, but this is how I've been using them.
Excess deaths:
[Number of deaths] - [Number of projected deaths]
Excess mortality:
[Number of deaths] / [Number of projected deaths] - 1
To add to the confusion I sometimes call excess deaths "absolute excess mortality". Whenever I do that, I will refer to excess mortality as relative excess mortality.
(Relative) excess mortality swallows all information about the number of deaths that occurred. It only expresses how mortality diverges from what we would expect in relative terms (+/- percentage).
Since I was trying to show that the large number of excess deaths in the USA can impossibly be explained by "sudden deaths", the information of how many deaths we are talking about in each location needed to be conserved, so I included (absolute) excess deaths.
On the other hand excess deaths don't include information about how far deaths diverge from the expected number of deaths in relative terms. +200 excess deaths could be a minor divergence of +10% or it could be +200%, depending on the number of projected deaths. For this reason I decided to include both measures.
There are countless other measures. Your question was absolutely not stupid. I should have included the explanation in the article.
Fabian, you may be getting a bit caught up in semantics. Excess mortality is calculated in several ways, and one of those includes your excess deaths calculation (reported deaths minus expected deaths). So excess mortality is an umbrella term. Excess mortality implies that we mean excess all-cause mortality (ACM) -- unless a cause-specific mortality context is being considered such as stroke or heart disease.
I never even read up on whether or not excess mortality is clearly defined (never had the impression it was), but thank you for confirming that it is not.
I just tried to answer the above question of how I am using the terms. I actually have a couple of other ways of calculating it, but these two seemed most sensible for this specific purpose - and complementary.
The source are Minnesota death certificates. I also have 2015-2022 death certificates for Massachusetts, and 2020/21 for New Mexico and Vermont.
Rush or not, I will need to know what you need to send you a data package. I'll process it any way you want. It can be complex, but you'll need to be specific about what you need.
I had already prepared an article cover (Minnesota Nursing Hells), but there's nothing to see.
Deaths are spread out over 800 facilities, with none of them really standing out. Those that rank the worst in terms of Q2/2020 deaths vs. projected annual deaths are often the ones with relatively high standard of care, ranking high on google.
I have already looked at all hospitals in Minnesota separately, but none of them really stood out, except for the fact that some hospitals aren't seeing acute kidney injuries among their covid decedents (Mayo Clinic being the only one in MN despite being one of the two clinics that took part in the Remdesivir 5/10 day trial).
Since Minnesota only saw nursing home deaths in wave 1, I shall plot excess deaths by nursing home.
Heard a SelectQuote Life Insurance radio ad. They see it.
Woman voice actor says her relative "died suddenly" and going from there so it will catch the ear of the listener who will hopefully think ... oh, that's like me, they understand me, I'll call them.
Obviously they are seeing high "died suddenly" numbers to leverage in marketing.
The extra deaths are critically important of course but folks, I'm grinding an odd axe, that we also need to consider a little bit more what's beyond the glaring lights in our face i.e. the deaths. It would take 80 million dead bodies to be back to last year's world population on today's date so if it is depop by direct kill, so far they're pretty poor at it. Time bomb? Perhaps. You decide.
On the other hand, or additionally, what if they're smart and said hey, we don't have to kill anyone directly, all we have to do is reduce baby count. And they saw the mammal immunocontraceptives with stellar reputations for 20 years on over 80 mammals successfully sterilizing them and called it good. Then roops well crud, it turns out those mammals weren't on pharma drugs and sugar substitutes and caffeine and whatever else might be throwing a wrench into the works causing some human mammals to die suddenly and making the plan look bad. I'm referring to pzp and gonacon, the brontosaurus in the room no one can see.
Feels at times as if I have special glasses like in They Live.
Why are you so convinced anything that happened was about depopulation?
I don't deny Malthusians exist, but other than that people are always trying to make money, so I primarily see COVID and these vaccines as means to solve the healthcare cost crisis, save on pensions, but also as means to incite fear and increase control, which in turn leads to more power and more financial gains in the long run.
I'd say it is all of the above and it all ties together and thanks for that. My answer might be unusual, I tried an experiment. Since Jesus said to love our enemies I asked myself, self, who is my enemy? And the globalists came to mind as a candidate, then I made a herculean effort to love them. I wondered, what if I were born as one of them and am still myself, how might I see the world?
That led me down a path I liken to the "Magic Eye". For those who don't know what it is, a page that looks like random patterns, when looked at just so, has a sort of 3-D image that pops into view.
The next several weeks were almost like magic. With my globalist hat on, as one controlling trillions, I decided it's my job to protect planet Earth. From what? Elon claims there are actually plenty of resources but we're talking about a number of others who might instead be looking at a range of dynamics. For example, if the Chinese or Russians wind up being the ones to mine all that Lithium in Afghanistan, that would give them a lot of power, I would find that annoying.
So then, to me, on my $700 million yacht off Malta and a $14,000 bottle of Cognac with World Bank actuary tables in front of me and lots of time to mull things over, I could see myself concluding the growth rate of 385,000 new babies per day with a net 215,000 new consumers (accounting for deaths) is a threat to my control. All Gore alluded to this in his red-faced rant at Davos.
Some other stats that might scare them:
-- 55,,017 ships at sea (and growing) trying to keep up with our consumption, hauling fuel, food, Teslas and Vespas, iPhones and chemicals for factories. (statista .com)
-- We ate 11 million pounds of food per MINUTE in 2014. (HuffPost). Increasing. Over 90% of that goes out the other end.
-- 70% of fresh water goes for irrigation on ever-expanding farmlands.
-- 25,000 square miles of forest habitat were burned in Indonesia to plant palm oil trees due to heavy worldwide demand, for example.
My real self abhors deception but they seem to 100% trust it. So they came up with a few ideas:
-- The terror campaign against CO2 (plant food, contributing to Earth-greening according to NASA), while every civilization warmer than now has thrived as we are thriving now so any warming it creates is in fact good. There is zero evidence even offered for the silliness of supposed doom with another +1.0 C. Extra fear and reduced consumption plus control and profit. Sea level is falling in Quebec with records back to 1910, for example. No talk of supposed sea level is even slightly valid without a look into land falling (including from the extra weight of millions of people moving there and their things, plus the extraction of fresh water below ground perhaps).
-- Media push to make everybody queer to reduce baby count.
-- Obscene inflation deliberately to reduce consumption.
-- Campaign against meat-eating to reduce expansion of farmlands (because protein per acre is higher for vegetables on our plate than pasture and feed crops).
-- The big one, covid: A new virus engineered. While successful in knocking off many of the old, fat and ugly, disappointingly not as deadly and virulent as they had hoped. Main purpose: So people would demand the jabs, sneaking pzp and gonacon into them for sterilizing humanity (same protocols), the scenario in Utopia: https://www.bitchute.com/video/uy4886H9cVKV/ ... which I only ran into after figuring all of this out.
As a globalist, I could feel good about my covid plan as it is pretty compassionate, beats more war or managed famines to cull the herd.
There's a debate to be had over all of this but it seems like a forbidden topic for most, unfortunately.
Probably everyone reading ... agrees that everything points to the notion that they do not want us to thrive.
A competent elite class would just offer gift cards for voluntary vasectomies problem solved.
But don't get me wrong. Cardiac deaths among younger people are definitely on the rise.
They're just receiving an overproportionate amount of attention.
I mostly created this article because I saw this bestseller that claimed young people weren't dying of COVID. All the data I've seen tell me this is precisely what's happening, but only since vaccines were introduced.
I'm sure this is a stupid question but what is the difference between excess death and excess mortality?
No it's not. I am not even sure if these terms are clearly defined, but this is how I've been using them.
Excess deaths:
[Number of deaths] - [Number of projected deaths]
Excess mortality:
[Number of deaths] / [Number of projected deaths] - 1
To add to the confusion I sometimes call excess deaths "absolute excess mortality". Whenever I do that, I will refer to excess mortality as relative excess mortality.
(Relative) excess mortality swallows all information about the number of deaths that occurred. It only expresses how mortality diverges from what we would expect in relative terms (+/- percentage).
Since I was trying to show that the large number of excess deaths in the USA can impossibly be explained by "sudden deaths", the information of how many deaths we are talking about in each location needed to be conserved, so I included (absolute) excess deaths.
On the other hand excess deaths don't include information about how far deaths diverge from the expected number of deaths in relative terms. +200 excess deaths could be a minor divergence of +10% or it could be +200%, depending on the number of projected deaths. For this reason I decided to include both measures.
There are countless other measures. Your question was absolutely not stupid. I should have included the explanation in the article.
Fabian, you may be getting a bit caught up in semantics. Excess mortality is calculated in several ways, and one of those includes your excess deaths calculation (reported deaths minus expected deaths). So excess mortality is an umbrella term. Excess mortality implies that we mean excess all-cause mortality (ACM) -- unless a cause-specific mortality context is being considered such as stroke or heart disease.
I never even read up on whether or not excess mortality is clearly defined (never had the impression it was), but thank you for confirming that it is not.
I just tried to answer the above question of how I am using the terms. I actually have a couple of other ways of calculating it, but these two seemed most sensible for this specific purpose - and complementary.
Well, the definition is clear (excess all-cause mortality) but the various ways of calculating it make comparisons between reports a challenge.
Do you have the raw numbers in a file?
I'll give you timeseries for 2015-2022
Specify what you need:
- Daily/weekly/monthly
- Age groups
- County-level or just state level
- Moving averages? smoothed series? (what period)
- What variables (place of death? Specific diagnostic keys or diagnostic groups? etc.)
I'll be on vacation starting tomorrow, so you either do that tonight or the chances are slim that I will get it done before leaving.
There’s no rush.
Is the source the state or WONDER? I ask because WONDER’s weekly data only goes back to 2018
The source are Minnesota death certificates. I also have 2015-2022 death certificates for Massachusetts, and 2020/21 for New Mexico and Vermont.
Rush or not, I will need to know what you need to send you a data package. I'll process it any way you want. It can be complex, but you'll need to be specific about what you need.
Sure I offered this to you before.
Tell me exactly what you need and I'll prepare the timeseries as CSV.
Now do by county and place.x That’s where you’ll see where the real issues were
I had already prepared an article cover (Minnesota Nursing Hells), but there's nothing to see.
Deaths are spread out over 800 facilities, with none of them really standing out. Those that rank the worst in terms of Q2/2020 deaths vs. projected annual deaths are often the ones with relatively high standard of care, ranking high on google.
There is another death wave in late 2020.
Could probably mark all carehomes on a map with 2 bars each, each representing:
-Ratio of Q2/2020 deaths and 2019 deaths
-Ratio of Q4/2020 deaths and 2019 deaths
If high Q2 signals aren't occurring in geographical clusters something is off.
It would be a ton of work though because there are soooo many of them.
I have already looked at all hospitals in Minnesota separately, but none of them really stood out, except for the fact that some hospitals aren't seeing acute kidney injuries among their covid decedents (Mayo Clinic being the only one in MN despite being one of the two clinics that took part in the Remdesivir 5/10 day trial).
Since Minnesota only saw nursing home deaths in wave 1, I shall plot excess deaths by nursing home.
Let's see if any of them stand out.
Great idea, thank you.
Heard a SelectQuote Life Insurance radio ad. They see it.
Woman voice actor says her relative "died suddenly" and going from there so it will catch the ear of the listener who will hopefully think ... oh, that's like me, they understand me, I'll call them.
Obviously they are seeing high "died suddenly" numbers to leverage in marketing.
The extra deaths are critically important of course but folks, I'm grinding an odd axe, that we also need to consider a little bit more what's beyond the glaring lights in our face i.e. the deaths. It would take 80 million dead bodies to be back to last year's world population on today's date so if it is depop by direct kill, so far they're pretty poor at it. Time bomb? Perhaps. You decide.
On the other hand, or additionally, what if they're smart and said hey, we don't have to kill anyone directly, all we have to do is reduce baby count. And they saw the mammal immunocontraceptives with stellar reputations for 20 years on over 80 mammals successfully sterilizing them and called it good. Then roops well crud, it turns out those mammals weren't on pharma drugs and sugar substitutes and caffeine and whatever else might be throwing a wrench into the works causing some human mammals to die suddenly and making the plan look bad. I'm referring to pzp and gonacon, the brontosaurus in the room no one can see.
Feels at times as if I have special glasses like in They Live.
Why are you so convinced anything that happened was about depopulation?
I don't deny Malthusians exist, but other than that people are always trying to make money, so I primarily see COVID and these vaccines as means to solve the healthcare cost crisis, save on pensions, but also as means to incite fear and increase control, which in turn leads to more power and more financial gains in the long run.
I'd say it is all of the above and it all ties together and thanks for that. My answer might be unusual, I tried an experiment. Since Jesus said to love our enemies I asked myself, self, who is my enemy? And the globalists came to mind as a candidate, then I made a herculean effort to love them. I wondered, what if I were born as one of them and am still myself, how might I see the world?
That led me down a path I liken to the "Magic Eye". For those who don't know what it is, a page that looks like random patterns, when looked at just so, has a sort of 3-D image that pops into view.
The next several weeks were almost like magic. With my globalist hat on, as one controlling trillions, I decided it's my job to protect planet Earth. From what? Elon claims there are actually plenty of resources but we're talking about a number of others who might instead be looking at a range of dynamics. For example, if the Chinese or Russians wind up being the ones to mine all that Lithium in Afghanistan, that would give them a lot of power, I would find that annoying.
So then, to me, on my $700 million yacht off Malta and a $14,000 bottle of Cognac with World Bank actuary tables in front of me and lots of time to mull things over, I could see myself concluding the growth rate of 385,000 new babies per day with a net 215,000 new consumers (accounting for deaths) is a threat to my control. All Gore alluded to this in his red-faced rant at Davos.
Some other stats that might scare them:
-- 55,,017 ships at sea (and growing) trying to keep up with our consumption, hauling fuel, food, Teslas and Vespas, iPhones and chemicals for factories. (statista .com)
-- We ate 11 million pounds of food per MINUTE in 2014. (HuffPost). Increasing. Over 90% of that goes out the other end.
-- 70% of fresh water goes for irrigation on ever-expanding farmlands.
-- 25,000 square miles of forest habitat were burned in Indonesia to plant palm oil trees due to heavy worldwide demand, for example.
My real self abhors deception but they seem to 100% trust it. So they came up with a few ideas:
-- The terror campaign against CO2 (plant food, contributing to Earth-greening according to NASA), while every civilization warmer than now has thrived as we are thriving now so any warming it creates is in fact good. There is zero evidence even offered for the silliness of supposed doom with another +1.0 C. Extra fear and reduced consumption plus control and profit. Sea level is falling in Quebec with records back to 1910, for example. No talk of supposed sea level is even slightly valid without a look into land falling (including from the extra weight of millions of people moving there and their things, plus the extraction of fresh water below ground perhaps).
-- Media push to make everybody queer to reduce baby count.
-- Obscene inflation deliberately to reduce consumption.
-- Campaign against meat-eating to reduce expansion of farmlands (because protein per acre is higher for vegetables on our plate than pasture and feed crops).
-- The big one, covid: A new virus engineered. While successful in knocking off many of the old, fat and ugly, disappointingly not as deadly and virulent as they had hoped. Main purpose: So people would demand the jabs, sneaking pzp and gonacon into them for sterilizing humanity (same protocols), the scenario in Utopia: https://www.bitchute.com/video/uy4886H9cVKV/ ... which I only ran into after figuring all of this out.
As a globalist, I could feel good about my covid plan as it is pretty compassionate, beats more war or managed famines to cull the herd.
There's a debate to be had over all of this but it seems like a forbidden topic for most, unfortunately.
Probably everyone reading ... agrees that everything points to the notion that they do not want us to thrive.
A competent elite class would just offer gift cards for voluntary vasectomies problem solved.
But don't get me wrong. Cardiac deaths among younger people are definitely on the rise.
They're just receiving an overproportionate amount of attention.
I mostly created this article because I saw this bestseller that claimed young people weren't dying of COVID. All the data I've seen tell me this is precisely what's happening, but only since vaccines were introduced.