Here's the thing-drug overdose by fentanyl and heroin are very easy to ID by the coroner. Fentanyl overdose frequently occurs moments after injection. Many ODs dont have time to take the needle out.
In addition, life insurers investigate all death benefit claims thoroughly. They want to know the cause of death, even if the coroner says "i don't know" (again, unlikely for drug OD).
The idea that a life insurance CEO would publicly acknowledge this extremely massive uptick of working age deaths while knowing it was overdose deaths simply does not make sense.
Right. But if there WAS a death caused by the vaccine (or a few. or many), how would it be listed in this data? What category would that be in? Honest question. I suspect there is not a category for that. I also wonder if vaccination status is on death certificates or in the data at all. It's a little circular, the FDA types saying we won't know safety until we start injecting people and then to make the data collection so poor that you can't know safety then either.
Also it seems to me you are assuming the drug is fentanyl, when some could possibly be Pfizer.... I'm being a little facetious here, but in all seriousness. *IF* the doctor KNEW it was vaccine related... and little old ladies falling even gets put into strange co-categories... why wouldn't a vaccine death be counted as a drug related death? I would also look for heart related deaths and clotting issues in that age group. Strokes? Its necessary to drill down on the data more like you're doing here, but the data is not specific enough until you get all the way down to individual medical records probably.
The data for drug overdoses are only through spring 2021 here. For sensitive causes of death, there is a lag in availability (not all causes, but things like: homicide, suicide, drug overdose) -- they lag 6 months before releasing to general researchers like me.
You need to remember where the death certificate info is filled out & filed -- it's not by the CDC. All they're doing is compiling data that is usually done at the county level, then aggregated by states' Departments of Health, which is then sent to the CDC for aggregation. There is some standardization in terms of codes (ICD-10, which is an international standard), and fields (such as one underlying cause of death, up to 20 contributing causes of death, and then identifying information, demographic info, place of death, time of death, etc.).
So you need to really think of what is involved if you want to proclaim data is being falsified in some way. It's not as simple as you think.
I'm not suggesting it is falsified, just conveniently not specific. I'm saying that we KNOW that claiming "there is no evidence of x" (ie plausible deniability) is used, and making the data specific enough to show vaccine injury on a wide scale would not be a great outcome for certain deep pockets at the CDC. We learned this FOR SURE from the Harvard study that showed vaccine injuries were under-reported by a factor of 10 at least, and then when those researchers wanted to talk to the CDC about improving VAERS, they were ghosted. Nobody has to lie if the systems just aren't counting the things they don't want counted.
What do we make of the fact that New York City (5 boroughs) did NOT see a major spike in drug ODs in April/May 2020?
Re: "I just think it inappropriate to use the “sigma” terminology surrounding mortality risk, given all the trouble others talking about “it’s a six sigma event!” and how frequently those supposedly infrequent events occur."
I agree with this for your/life actuary purposes. But from the POV of studying a mortality event and the factors/causes surrounding it, it's hugely important to speak in those terms - and to do so with smaller geographical units (counties and cities).
Here's the thing-drug overdose by fentanyl and heroin are very easy to ID by the coroner. Fentanyl overdose frequently occurs moments after injection. Many ODs dont have time to take the needle out.
In addition, life insurers investigate all death benefit claims thoroughly. They want to know the cause of death, even if the coroner says "i don't know" (again, unlikely for drug OD).
The idea that a life insurance CEO would publicly acknowledge this extremely massive uptick of working age deaths while knowing it was overdose deaths simply does not make sense.
Right. But if there WAS a death caused by the vaccine (or a few. or many), how would it be listed in this data? What category would that be in? Honest question. I suspect there is not a category for that. I also wonder if vaccination status is on death certificates or in the data at all. It's a little circular, the FDA types saying we won't know safety until we start injecting people and then to make the data collection so poor that you can't know safety then either.
Also it seems to me you are assuming the drug is fentanyl, when some could possibly be Pfizer.... I'm being a little facetious here, but in all seriousness. *IF* the doctor KNEW it was vaccine related... and little old ladies falling even gets put into strange co-categories... why wouldn't a vaccine death be counted as a drug related death? I would also look for heart related deaths and clotting issues in that age group. Strokes? Its necessary to drill down on the data more like you're doing here, but the data is not specific enough until you get all the way down to individual medical records probably.
The data for drug overdoses are only through spring 2021 here. For sensitive causes of death, there is a lag in availability (not all causes, but things like: homicide, suicide, drug overdose) -- they lag 6 months before releasing to general researchers like me.
You need to remember where the death certificate info is filled out & filed -- it's not by the CDC. All they're doing is compiling data that is usually done at the county level, then aggregated by states' Departments of Health, which is then sent to the CDC for aggregation. There is some standardization in terms of codes (ICD-10, which is an international standard), and fields (such as one underlying cause of death, up to 20 contributing causes of death, and then identifying information, demographic info, place of death, time of death, etc.).
So you need to really think of what is involved if you want to proclaim data is being falsified in some way. It's not as simple as you think.
I'm not suggesting it is falsified, just conveniently not specific. I'm saying that we KNOW that claiming "there is no evidence of x" (ie plausible deniability) is used, and making the data specific enough to show vaccine injury on a wide scale would not be a great outcome for certain deep pockets at the CDC. We learned this FOR SURE from the Harvard study that showed vaccine injuries were under-reported by a factor of 10 at least, and then when those researchers wanted to talk to the CDC about improving VAERS, they were ghosted. Nobody has to lie if the systems just aren't counting the things they don't want counted.
In theory, a drug poisoning death could involve injections of sedatives in hospitals as well
What do we make of the fact that New York City (5 boroughs) did NOT see a major spike in drug ODs in April/May 2020?
Re: "I just think it inappropriate to use the “sigma” terminology surrounding mortality risk, given all the trouble others talking about “it’s a six sigma event!” and how frequently those supposedly infrequent events occur."
I agree with this for your/life actuary purposes. But from the POV of studying a mortality event and the factors/causes surrounding it, it's hugely important to speak in those terms - and to do so with smaller geographical units (counties and cities).
P.S. Do the COVID deaths in spring 2020 "make up for" the dips in later 2019 in drug OD deaths?