When I kept people included under dose 1 even after subsequent doses, and when I calculated excess mortality based on the age composition of the cohort without adjusting for seasonal variation in mortality, then the total excess mortality up to September 2023 was about 109% for people who received the first dose in April 2021, 29% in May, -14% in June, -12% for July, -12% for August, 18% for September, and 51% for October: https://mongol-fi.github.io/moar.html#Effect_of_missing_doses_during_the_rollout_of_the_first_dose. Among the late vaccinees who received the first dose in September 2021 or later, there continued to be elevated excess mortality even in 2023.
The month with the most first doses given was August. Other doses also seem to have a similar "late vaccinee effect" where people who received the dose during the later part of the rollout peak later had higher excess mortality than people who received the dose during the earlier part of the rollout peak.
So there seems to be a distribution where first a small number of the earliest vaccinees have high mortality, second a large number of earlier vaccinees have low mortality, and third a large number of later vaccinees have high mortality. And the proportion of doses that are missing from the NZ data gradually gets lower over time, so the underrepresentation of the first group is counteracted by the overrepresentation of the third group.
Great work. I may have asked this question previously, but how did you work out expects deaths. If it was based on either regression fitting of 2015-2019 weekly crude deaths, like the Karbinsky and Kobac model, then that will be flawed. If it is based on regression of weekly trends of death rates, it will be less flawed. You have to factor in the absence of seasonal winter deaths, a situation which was removed from the population in early 2020 and maintained through to late 2022. Net migration also went negative for most of that time, meaning the population stalled. Any useful model has to reflect this lull in population growth, which the K&K method does not. But more importantly, one must factor in the declining death rates among ALL population cohorts. I have looked at all 5-year band cohorts over 60 and fitted 9-year regression lines, 2011-2019 And even though there were bad flu years in 2015, 2017 and 2019, the death rates were on a declining trend. In other words, the "natural" increase in crud3 deaths expexted in an aging population, has to be oss-set by the an increase in life expectancy. When you remove the flu and other imported winter challenges from the vulnerable population you got the unusually low death count of 2020, lower than 2019, despite an aging demographic.
Asso, as the weekly death rate analysis of 2021 shows, 2021 was tracking to be even a lower death rate than 2020 in the first 17-weeks, but a switch flipped in week 17, causing the dsath rates to step up for the next 25-weeks. Aging demographics can't explain this: the population doesn't suddenly age from week 16, to week 17 of 2021.
Finally, I'm tracking weekly deaths to the end of 2023 and there has been a surge in the summer months. December 3rd week has 770+ deaths, a crazy figure for that time of the year. That's 130 more deaths than in the same week of 2022.
As mentioned in the article - and detailed further in the previous one (https://openvaet.substack.com/p/the-new-zealand-whistleblower-data) - the model is fed from the overall mortality by age groups (5 years) observed in NZ during the covered period - the target being to determine if the cohort under-reports deaths compared to the background NZ mortality.
Most of the problems you underline are therefore avoided.
We can blame the model for not accounting for the population aging once they have joined the cohort, but again, we are talking about very bad raw data on which we already underlined countless integrity issues. Target isn't to result in perfection - and this bias will only result in under-estimating the cohort under-reporting as the more subjects age, the more likely to die they are.
There are other deep anomalies in the NZ data - such as the 2020 exceptional low in deaths & the census data integrity issues. More to come.
The 2020 low mortality rate is in part due to the low winter season deaths. The death by week trend is normally sinusoidal, but in 2020 it was flat throughout the year. This was because the country went into border lockdown and the vulnerable stopped mingling in public. I also predicted 2020 would have lower deaths than 2019 due to the harvest effect of 2019, when a bad flu swept through NZ. I contracted it, as many others I know did. The cull in 2019 meant many vulnerable were taken. If you look at 2016 and 2018, the crude total deaths were lower than the bad flu years either side of them, despite a 2 % annual growth in population .
I may be missing your main point, but I agree that the data from the NZWB is useless to the 'anti-vax' cause if it can be shown that unvaxxsd in the older cohorts died at the same rate and at the same time as those who got their jabs in early 2021. Even for this stratification there are confounders, such as the health status of both cohorts.
Your passion, skill and attention to detail are commendable.
I cannot support "I’ll be happy to proceed, on the premise that the one losing will go to retirement from public positions".
If mistakes have been made or perspectives and representations not fully understood or explained by either side - they can be corrected and enhanced to arrive at stronger conclusions.
After all, that is how criminal trials (used to) work.
I would hate to see either side disappear from the public forum - even Einstein made mistakes (the added "constant").
You don't have to go on a mission to reach both north and south poles - tied together!
To address your point on our divergence re "outcome of the debate" :
1. Steve laid the bet, with a money outcome. It was a vulgar outcome. Retirement from the COVID-19 public scene is a more interesting one.
2. I enjoy discretion & calm to work. Having to debate Steve Kirsch is no form of privilege or pleasure for me - and compromise these conditions. It's slightly different in terms of exposure than to speak to highly educated & targeted audiences like Rounding the Earth or Dr McCullough.
3. I believe Steve & his outrageous claims are making us more harm than I can do good. Hence, risking my retirement against his is worthy. It takes a lot more time for me to explain his charts than for him to produce them - so gotta extinguish the source.
4. I offered Steve several exit doors. He hasn't judged useful to pick them for now and preferred to pursue.
I'm against all forms of censorship. But my key priority is to contribute to halt these shots. Someone who slows us down - either nefariously or by incompetence - has no place in this key issue.
I still have (limited) hope that we will find more productive outcomes.
I maintain that the issue of excess mortality should centre around deaths in the elderly in 2022, not earlier. More especially, April to August 2022.
Out of interest, a kiwi suggested that this relates temporally with boosters ahead and during of the southern hemisphere winter.
I could not find 5 year age cohort data post 2018, so numbers I calculated (and you commented on before, I think?) do not adjust for entries and exits per cohort post 2018, but, I think the data shows that more than 4,000 extra - and excess probably - deaths occurred in 2021 and 2022 - equivalent to more than 250,000 US extra deaths o a population adjusted bais.
I haven't done the work for the US, but I believe this is unique to NZ and MIGHT support that the spike venom injections take 7% per shot- from remaining life expectancy..
My stuff is "clunly" to say the least and is subject to errors from using a laptop with excel rather than self checkig databases stuff.
I made the last point because I think that both idess mightr be playing on the worng pitch!
Anyway, thanks for the reply, here is a link to the previous article with my data tables (maybe with a few errors) half way down the piece.
For those the jab doesn't kill, statistics will likely bore them to death anyway. We don't need statistician wars; we need to acknowledge the genocide and look for ways to mitigate it. I feel like I'm listening to nerds arguing about which is the best Star Trek iteration. https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/a-call-to-arms
I know everyone - including me - would prefer to be working to productive topics. I haven't started said war - but it remained a time-bomb to defuse - and once it has started, better finish it.
Feel free not to read it ; and even better ; not to comment on it.
I feel strongly that Kirsch is a time waster. He blocked me on Substack for daring to question his interview of Sasha Latipova where he attepted to give Bill Gates every benefit of every doubt.
When I kept people included under dose 1 even after subsequent doses, and when I calculated excess mortality based on the age composition of the cohort without adjusting for seasonal variation in mortality, then the total excess mortality up to September 2023 was about 109% for people who received the first dose in April 2021, 29% in May, -14% in June, -12% for July, -12% for August, 18% for September, and 51% for October: https://mongol-fi.github.io/moar.html#Effect_of_missing_doses_during_the_rollout_of_the_first_dose. Among the late vaccinees who received the first dose in September 2021 or later, there continued to be elevated excess mortality even in 2023.
The month with the most first doses given was August. Other doses also seem to have a similar "late vaccinee effect" where people who received the dose during the later part of the rollout peak later had higher excess mortality than people who received the dose during the earlier part of the rollout peak.
So there seems to be a distribution where first a small number of the earliest vaccinees have high mortality, second a large number of earlier vaccinees have low mortality, and third a large number of later vaccinees have high mortality. And the proportion of doses that are missing from the NZ data gradually gets lower over time, so the underrepresentation of the first group is counteracted by the overrepresentation of the third group.
Great job. I, too believe the bulk of mortality should be occurring within days.
Great work. I may have asked this question previously, but how did you work out expects deaths. If it was based on either regression fitting of 2015-2019 weekly crude deaths, like the Karbinsky and Kobac model, then that will be flawed. If it is based on regression of weekly trends of death rates, it will be less flawed. You have to factor in the absence of seasonal winter deaths, a situation which was removed from the population in early 2020 and maintained through to late 2022. Net migration also went negative for most of that time, meaning the population stalled. Any useful model has to reflect this lull in population growth, which the K&K method does not. But more importantly, one must factor in the declining death rates among ALL population cohorts. I have looked at all 5-year band cohorts over 60 and fitted 9-year regression lines, 2011-2019 And even though there were bad flu years in 2015, 2017 and 2019, the death rates were on a declining trend. In other words, the "natural" increase in crud3 deaths expexted in an aging population, has to be oss-set by the an increase in life expectancy. When you remove the flu and other imported winter challenges from the vulnerable population you got the unusually low death count of 2020, lower than 2019, despite an aging demographic.
Asso, as the weekly death rate analysis of 2021 shows, 2021 was tracking to be even a lower death rate than 2020 in the first 17-weeks, but a switch flipped in week 17, causing the dsath rates to step up for the next 25-weeks. Aging demographics can't explain this: the population doesn't suddenly age from week 16, to week 17 of 2021.
Finally, I'm tracking weekly deaths to the end of 2023 and there has been a surge in the summer months. December 3rd week has 770+ deaths, a crazy figure for that time of the year. That's 130 more deaths than in the same week of 2022.
Thanks for your comment.
As mentioned in the article - and detailed further in the previous one (https://openvaet.substack.com/p/the-new-zealand-whistleblower-data) - the model is fed from the overall mortality by age groups (5 years) observed in NZ during the covered period - the target being to determine if the cohort under-reports deaths compared to the background NZ mortality.
Most of the problems you underline are therefore avoided.
We can blame the model for not accounting for the population aging once they have joined the cohort, but again, we are talking about very bad raw data on which we already underlined countless integrity issues. Target isn't to result in perfection - and this bias will only result in under-estimating the cohort under-reporting as the more subjects age, the more likely to die they are.
There are other deep anomalies in the NZ data - such as the 2020 exceptional low in deaths & the census data integrity issues. More to come.
The 2020 low mortality rate is in part due to the low winter season deaths. The death by week trend is normally sinusoidal, but in 2020 it was flat throughout the year. This was because the country went into border lockdown and the vulnerable stopped mingling in public. I also predicted 2020 would have lower deaths than 2019 due to the harvest effect of 2019, when a bad flu swept through NZ. I contracted it, as many others I know did. The cull in 2019 meant many vulnerable were taken. If you look at 2016 and 2018, the crude total deaths were lower than the bad flu years either side of them, despite a 2 % annual growth in population .
I may be missing your main point, but I agree that the data from the NZWB is useless to the 'anti-vax' cause if it can be shown that unvaxxsd in the older cohorts died at the same rate and at the same time as those who got their jabs in early 2021. Even for this stratification there are confounders, such as the health status of both cohorts.
Your passion, skill and attention to detail are commendable.
I cannot support "I’ll be happy to proceed, on the premise that the one losing will go to retirement from public positions".
If mistakes have been made or perspectives and representations not fully understood or explained by either side - they can be corrected and enhanced to arrive at stronger conclusions.
After all, that is how criminal trials (used to) work.
I would hate to see either side disappear from the public forum - even Einstein made mistakes (the added "constant").
You don't have to go on a mission to reach both north and south poles - tied together!
Thanks.
To address your point on our divergence re "outcome of the debate" :
1. Steve laid the bet, with a money outcome. It was a vulgar outcome. Retirement from the COVID-19 public scene is a more interesting one.
2. I enjoy discretion & calm to work. Having to debate Steve Kirsch is no form of privilege or pleasure for me - and compromise these conditions. It's slightly different in terms of exposure than to speak to highly educated & targeted audiences like Rounding the Earth or Dr McCullough.
3. I believe Steve & his outrageous claims are making us more harm than I can do good. Hence, risking my retirement against his is worthy. It takes a lot more time for me to explain his charts than for him to produce them - so gotta extinguish the source.
4. I offered Steve several exit doors. He hasn't judged useful to pick them for now and preferred to pursue.
I'm against all forms of censorship. But my key priority is to contribute to halt these shots. Someone who slows us down - either nefariously or by incompetence - has no place in this key issue.
I still have (limited) hope that we will find more productive outcomes.
Fair call.
I maintain that the issue of excess mortality should centre around deaths in the elderly in 2022, not earlier. More especially, April to August 2022.
Out of interest, a kiwi suggested that this relates temporally with boosters ahead and during of the southern hemisphere winter.
I could not find 5 year age cohort data post 2018, so numbers I calculated (and you commented on before, I think?) do not adjust for entries and exits per cohort post 2018, but, I think the data shows that more than 4,000 extra - and excess probably - deaths occurred in 2021 and 2022 - equivalent to more than 250,000 US extra deaths o a population adjusted bais.
I haven't done the work for the US, but I believe this is unique to NZ and MIGHT support that the spike venom injections take 7% per shot- from remaining life expectancy..
My stuff is "clunly" to say the least and is subject to errors from using a laptop with excel rather than self checkig databases stuff.
I made the last point because I think that both idess mightr be playing on the worng pitch!
Anyway, thanks for the reply, here is a link to the previous article with my data tables (maybe with a few errors) half way down the piece.
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/nz-extra-not-excess-deaths-v-2015
All the best and please do not stop!
For those the jab doesn't kill, statistics will likely bore them to death anyway. We don't need statistician wars; we need to acknowledge the genocide and look for ways to mitigate it. I feel like I'm listening to nerds arguing about which is the best Star Trek iteration. https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/a-call-to-arms
Hello there. First time I see you around.
I know everyone - including me - would prefer to be working to productive topics. I haven't started said war - but it remained a time-bomb to defuse - and once it has started, better finish it.
Feel free not to read it ; and even better ; not to comment on it.
I feel strongly that Kirsch is a time waster. He blocked me on Substack for daring to question his interview of Sasha Latipova where he attepted to give Bill Gates every benefit of every doubt.
Speaking about time-wasters, Latipobot is a pretty good example.
Latipova is brilliant. Are you a troll or just in a bad mood?
Someone is a troll, yeah.
You're boring me.
https://twitter.com/canceledmouse/status/1680559037413203969
Brillant. I'm still laughing.
She's a chaos agent.
I agree. Had a private conversation with her in which she denied there was a virus... "What Virus?"
Fare thee well anonymous, time-waster.