where did you find an actuary table that says the chance of death for a 30 year old is .0001 (1 in 10,000), per your quote below?

i found such a table from the SSA.gov website and it says the mortality rate for a 30 year old male as of 2019 is .001795 which is 17.95 or ~18 people per 10,000.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

bump ****g0t

bump

bump

you are correct, that was the same source i read and i clearly misread it, it is an order of magnitude higher than i thought

thanks for confirming!

so since there are roughly 4.6 million 30 year olds in this country, that means in a typical year 8,280 of them die.

with the 40% increase in all cause mortality, that would mean 3,312 additional would die.

these deaths are not attributed to dying directly from covid, and they're not with covid either, considering both would be listed as the primary cause of death on a death certificate. since 97% of people in italy who died from covid are both senior citizens and have one or more comorbidity, we know this is fact.

so the cause of death for this additional 40% of people is due to either suicide, alcohol, drugs, heart disease, cancer, driving accidents, or some other major killer.

why would staying at home cause any of these things?

suicide because of lockdown? possible but not likely to be upwards of 40%
alcohol? possible but unlikely, how many people get ****faced at home to the point of alcohol poisoning?
drugs? again, possible for some, but not nearly to the tune of 40%
heart disease? because people stopped exercising for a year and ate junk food? unlikely, it takes a lot to kill someone from that
cancer? unlikely to develop that quickly for no reason and kill
driving accidents? highly unlikely considering people weren't driving much
stress? unlikely since people were working from home and had more time to themselves

so essentially people are claiming it was suicide/drugs/alcohol that caused a 40% increase in mortality? ok, but what about all the other age groups? 18 year olds? 40 year olds? 55 year olds? i don't buy it.

it had to have been the vaccine.

what?

"all cause" mortality... means...all cause.it includesall causes.which means it includes covid. you need to find all causeexcept covidmortality numbers if you want to talk about that.

97% of people who died from covid in italy are senior citizens with 1 or more comorbidities therefore your assertion has no value.

Even if an additional 5% of people ages 18-64 died as a result of covid, then you would have seen an increase in all cause mortality of 5% just due to covid. Where is the other 35% coming from?

Heck, even 5% is a stretch simply by noting how the media amplified any story of a young person dying from covid because it was such a rare event.

The ceos of the insurance companies themselves have confirmed that very few of the deaths are attributed to covid which backs up the data demographics.

So to summarize, you're right in that the 40% increase includes covid deaths, however given the 99.7% survival rate for the virus which is still skewed downwards due to old people, the contribution to this 40% increase due to covid deaths is next to nothing.

why don't you find the data for this 40% all-cause mortality increase with the covid deaths shown as proportion so we actually know what proportion they are instead of randomly guessing like "if it's 5% then xyz"?

you're asking about specific causes and saying they seem implausible not not actually providing numbers.

using your own math, there are 3,312 additional deaths for 30 year olds out of 4,600,000. you ask incredulously about stress, because people "worked from home", but anxiety levels haveabsolutely ****ing explodedduring covid. the pandemic has actually had prettyserious impacts on suicidality in young people, whilemeta analyses generally describe an increase, the exact amount is debated. lots of studies have examined theexcess deaths not ascribed to covid and how they related to health care itself, but again...


... far and away the most useful piece of data is actually breaking down the excess mortality itself. let's see the data you're talking about.

Imagine being this much of a loser to dig into these nitty gritty details

COVID’s over buddy move on

Dont know how many times I have to reiterate: 97% of the deaths in italy were with people that had one or more comorbidity AND were seniors.

What makes you think that the number will be much different in the US? Heck, I was being generous with 5% of the increase being covid related (as opposed to the 3% in italy). You telling me that covid killed for example, 20% more 21 year olds than the year before, despite the survival rate for a 21 year old being nearly 100%???

I have given detailed explanations for each cause of death.

All you're saying is provide you with proof.

I have provided you with quite obvious math which invalidates covid being the cause of this increase. Where is the rest of it coming from?

And if it is alcohol/drugs/stress, what about all the people who aren't 30? You telling me the 40% increase in mortality for 19 year olds is also due to alcohol poisoning, drug overdose, and anxiety? Or wait, did 19 year olds suddenly develop aggressive cancer and heart disease that spiked their mortality within a year?

As far as suicide, your article claims 9% of student ATTEMPTED suicide. How many deaths were there though?

You are asking for proof of something that is most likely impossible to find as one would have to verify each and every death certificate for millions of people to determine how many were covid deaths. Using the survival rate for the virus and the weighted percentage of people who died from it, it is obvious to claim that nowhere near additional 40% of people died from covid or with covid. Not even 5% would be believable.

you can reiterate that as many times as you want, it won't make it true.it's nowhere near 97%. but even if it were to be true, it's one country, and one set of data. in theusa for example, about 7.5% of deaths occurred in people under 40.

again, far and away the most important piece to your argument is what percent the excess mortality actually went up in each age group and what it was attributed to. you're just claiming that it's 40% for young people without providing a source, and you have no idea what percent of that 40% is attributed to covid.it's actually not that difficult to find, i was just curious if you cared enough to steelman your opponent's position and check your own facts. for example, you can see the total excess mortality in the UK and germany herewhich includes all causes, and you can see that since for example Jan 2022, the excess mortality for those under 65 is never anywhere near 40%, not even close. in Germany it's not even elevanted, in the UK it's closer to 10%. as far as causative agents,studies have been done on thisand have found the answers, and these studies are frombefore the vaccine even existed.


doctors around the world warned that lockdowns would kill people. they weren't wrong. the last link there proved this, there are huge spikes in cardiac deaths and other cause deaths during lockdowns even before vaccines existed. whether or not you want to accept that is not my problem.

lol i mean dude made a thread specifically calling me out and then DM'd me about it too. i'm fine with leaving it as is. he doesn't have to agree with me. but he went out of his way to get a response. literally messaged me privately and bumped his thread 3 times

I have never taken the vax.

If you want the real reasoning why I'm so interested, its because all my family took it. Im trying to find solid proof it was the vax with little room for error so i can convince them to stop injecting themselves.

Trump had Covid!!!!!

i studied statistics at uni and i read as many covid papers as i can lol. the """proof""" you're searching for doesn't exist. it literally doens't. not only because i'm highly doubtful that the vaccine is the cause like you seem to be convinced, given theactualdistribution of excess deaths as linked above, but also becauseeven if it were, you can't prove it without an RCT, which you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

my job is data analysis. i'm telling you literally even if vaccines were killing people you couldn't prove it right now since there is no longer a placebo control group. they gave everyone in the p3 trials the option to get the active vaccine.

so first you posted a fake statistic, claiming 1 in 10,000 30 year olds die per year before covid. i confirmed that was false. so your credibility is already eroded there. nonetheless, i'll continue.

you cite this page:the graph shows a total of 172,294 deaths. the deaths of those 60+ total 95%.

you falsely claim it is nowhere near 97%. i would take the giant leap in saying 95% is quite close to 97%.

https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coro...tober_2021.pdf

the above article further substantiates the actual 97% figure which is where i came up with that number.

so, your credibility is further eroded.


how deceitful of you to post your excess mortality link from the UK and Germany only AFTER 2021 because prior to 2021 it was much higher. even ignoring this, the all cause mortality is upwards of 25% as of May this year in the UK among numerous age groups, as well as Germany. this is coincidentally 5 months after peak vaccine uptake as i alluded to in another thread. there was no such peak in covid mortality in May of this year so it wasn't covid that caused this spike.

the study you have posted regarding this is an article printed in May 2021 (which you claim is before vaccines were administered). the FDA issued their EUA for the first vaccine on December 11th 2020.another deceitful post of yours. the vaccine was officially approved by the FDA on August 23rd 2021 (https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...vid-19-vaccine) after millions of doses were already administered. furthermore, your study is by one author and isn't even peer reviewed.

i studied engineering level statistics at a top 10 university. so you claiming your credentials means nothing to me. not only that but you misinterpreted a basic actuary table for the deaths of 30 year olds.. doesn't help your credibility.

tell me again, why did pfizer unblind their trial?

it is surprising that after all this back and forth you tell me first to substantiate my claims and when i do, you end with "well you can't prove it"

show me the articles of young people dying in their sleep and collapsing on stage who aren't vaccinated. have you ever seen so many comedians and news anchors eyes roll up into their head and collapse before the past year?

Quoting myself as i thought of something regarding this calculation.

If all the 4.6 million 30 year olds in the USA were infected and have a 99.7% chance of survival based on the survival rate for all age groups, we would expect to see an additional 13,800 deaths, which is a 166% rise in all cause mortality due to covid alone. Clearly, that is not the case.

That can be due to the following:

1) All 4.6 million 30 year olds didn't get infected with covid (to be frank, after two years i think every single one was exposed unless they never, ever stepped outside. i was one of those people that was a hermit for two years and i still got it because i went on grocery runs and to doctor visits a couple times).

2) The survival rate for 30 year olds is much higher than 99.7%, since 99.7% includes all age groups. This further substantiates how the all cause mortality has little to do with covid. 97% of covid deaths are in immunocompromised people that are old.




The death toll for USA is supposedly 1.05 million. If we attribute even 95% of those cases to old, immunocompromised people, that leaves 52,500 covid deaths for everyone else. Since young people pretty much never die from covid itself, if we divide this 52,500 number between age groups from 18-64, that's 1,141 deaths for every age. Further, when we take into account that these death counts include not only people dying OF covid, but WITH covid, you can reduce that number considerably.

If we decide to be disingenous and include those that died WITH covid as part of the statistic for 30 year olds, then covid is only responsible for 1,141 deaths out of the 3,312 additional deaths, which amounts to 34.4% of the 40% increase in all cause mortality. Effectively this means people dying with covid and of covid caused a 13.78% increase in all cause mortality among 30 year olds. So where's the other 26.21% coming from?

In reality, the 1,141 deaths is much lower since hospitals marked anyone that tested positive as a covid death. Not only that, but deaths skew towards older ages of which people 30 years old are on the lower end of the spectrum, so that 1,141 deaths is probably even LOWER.

Finding out how many of the 1,141 deaths is attributed to actual covid vs someone getting shot in the chest and testing positive for covid and then later dying, is not feasible.

What we do know is that the vast majority of the increase in all cause mortality is not due to covid. Considering how deceitful doctors were in counting so many people who died with covid as covid deaths, the 13.78% rise in all cause mortality is probably not even half. That is a fair assumption. So what caused the other ~35% in all cause mortality?

then you already know that you can't prove causality without an RCT, much less with longitudinal data that can't even begin to be corrected for confounders..?why talk to you if you're not even going to pretend to care about what i say? i already linked you more than one source for data on deaths, and you continue to blatantly over-exaggerate or misinterpret data.see this is another example, i already linked you data explicitly showing that all-cause mortality isNOTup 40% in young people, but you continue to insist that it is.

Did you even read my response to your claim regarding 97%? I blatantly disproved your assertion with math and links. i will even requote it here so you dont have to scroll:As for 40%, I am talking about data from multiple US life insurance CEOs. You're talking about other countries so no clue why you even make this argument

Further your data from UK/Germany conveniently starts in December 2021 AFTER the entire year from which 40% all cause mortality was increased in the USA. Either you are trolling, or genuinely have no clue what you're posting.







You're wincel aren't you? He's the only one I've ever seen saying you cant prove something without RCT, and avoids giving straight answers

where in that link does it say that 97% of deaths are elderly AND have co-morbidities? that's what you've repeatedly claimed, when it's most likely elderly OR have co-morbidities

none of the US life insurance CEOs have said all-cause mortality is up 40% for each individual age group. we are talking about young people.




i don't know who that is. but i do know this. i have never,evermet another statistician in my entire life who thinks that causation can be proven in traditional hypothesis testing without randomized assignment, since behavioral or otherwise hidden confounders can't be corrected for before computing effect sizes and p-values, so rejecting the null is not an indication of a causative alternative hypothesis. since you claim to be a statistician, i would love to hear how one can draw a causative conclusion when groups aren't assigned randomly, since you have confounders that are unequally balanced, and you can't know all of them in sociological data. please do tell us your nobel prize winning method, since being able to determine causation without randomized assignment in an experiment would be an incredible breakthrough

I'm happy to admit when I've made a mistake. However, what you are nitpicking at is insignificant and does nothing to further your point.

The article I linked says 2.9% of the total deaths present with zero comorbidities. So 97.1% of the deaths have 1 or more comorbidities.

In addition your previous link which I dissected shows that 95% of people who died are above 60 years of age.

Therefore if you multiply the two events together you get .95 * .971 = 92.24% of people died being above 60 years of age with 1 or more comorbodity. This is hardly different from saying 97%, and does nothing to further your assertion other than pointing out a tiny inconsistency.

As far as it's effect on my calculations, 95% of the deaths were in people above 60 years of age whereas previously I assumed 97%. So, negligible.
you yourself are the one who presented this erroneous argument. see quote below, in bold:note my comment in a previous post alluding to this logical fallacy where I claim, quote in bold:try retyping in plain words, i'm not a statistician and don't need to be to understand where the numbers are coming from. i had engineering level statistics which goes deep enough into statistics to be able to comprehend what is going on here, and none of these terms you mention were ever mentioned in class.

whatever it is you're trying to say here - no experiment on earth can replicate the events of the past two years, and you saying that it is impossible to attribute excess mortality to vaccine deaths tells me you have lost the argument. one can make reasonable inferences based on the various data out there which is what i have done, and you haven't really provided any compelling evidence or arguments to contrast that aside from "big words say you can't prove it".

at the end of the day we are looking at death numbers and where they come from. you don't need complex statistics to figure out the basic math involved there, just a basic dissection of the numbers which is what i've done. someone either died or they didn't.

the question is:

there has been a 40% increase in all deaths.
what percent comes from covid, based on covid death data?
what percent comes from other sources, based on historical data?

that's it. how are you complicating this with obscure statistics?

christ..no it's not insignificant. the difference between 3% of deaths being in young people and 6% isdouble.yes, and a lot of young people have co-morbidities too.that is only in the italian data, but i thought we were focusing on the USA, especially since you said this:so, i found a link analyzing the USA data and posted that one as well,here it is again, and it paints quite a different picture. many scientists have pointed out that the italian data is an outlier in terms of hte proportion of deaths that were in the elderly. as i pointed out with this US data, 7.5% of deaths are under 40, if we go by under 65, it is25%!!!which is a gargantuan difference from that italian data. 1 in 4 deaths were under the age of 65!that's just... not how basic probability works. multiplying two probabilities together to get another probability only workswhen the two probabilities are independent events, which age and co-morbidity are not -- but more importantly, P(a) * P(b) = P(a AND b), not P(a OR b).

well again, 97 vs 92 is actually a large difference since the complement, 3 vs 8 is more than doubled -- but since we're talking about the USA, it's not even in the 90s.only in italy.
you've made calculations multiple times that have assumed 40% more 30 year olds died of all-cause mortality. if you're agreeing with me that it's not actually a 40% increase in 30 year olds, then you're conceding.















holy phuck lmao this comment is goated. you absolute muppet. jesus christ you had university classes on statistics and you NEVER HEARD THE TERM P-VALUE? you NEVER HEARD THE TERM RANDOMIZED ASSIGNMENT? for phucks sake you truly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about then, just lmao at you trying to act like you know the first thing about statsitical analysis, these are literally the most fundamental concepts of statistical experimentation, i've said it in the simplest way possible. this is like saying you don't know what a cylinder is but claiming to understand an automobile engine. lmao.holy phuck just stop typing dude you're embarassing yourself. "randomized assignment" and "confounder" are not "big words" jesus h phuck. at least it makes more sense why you think you can "prove" this idiotic assertion now, you find the most literal basic mathematical concepts to be "big words". lmao just lmaoit's not "complex statistics" to adjust effect sizes for confounders. you just have zero clue what you're talking about.
yes, and how does it break down by age group? what is the percentage of all cause mortality increase in 20-29 year olds?GOOD PHUCKING QUESTION MABYE THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED THAT THIS WAS A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK 5 COMMENTS AGO:^ or did your pea sized brain forgot that i proposed this?





it's not "obscure" statistics, you're just embarrassing yourself. i mean this truly, cross my heart and hope to die, if someone taught you a statistics course and NEVER MENTIONED "p-value" youliterallyshould get your money back because that teacher is a fraud.