Lessons from the Lockdown: Why are So Many Fewer Children Dying?
Surprisingly, U.S. mortality rates have declined among young people during the lockdown, especially among infants. These trends have gone largely unnoticed and remain unexplained.
Lessons from the Lockdown
Why are so many fewer children dying?
A White Paper from Health Choice
View this paper on the Health Choice website and subscribe to alerts
By Amy Becker and Mark Blaxill
(To review, share and print this White Paper it its original formatting, Download Lessons from the Lockdown HERE..)
June 18, 2020
Covid19 is a serious public health issue, but the breathless reporting among the media of positive tests and an ever-rising death toll does little to instruct us about the true nature of the virus and the unprecedented steps taken to prevent its impact. As in many complex and pervasive health phenomena, there are many ways to measure health effects, but in our view the proper measure of impact is not a narrow or intermediate metric, but rather total health outcomes. In the case of a pandemic virus affecting large populations and where the immediate concern is sharp increases in deaths, the best measure of outcomes is not a selective measure of deaths somehow attributed to the disease but instead is deaths from all causes. For perspective, these deaths must be compared to historical death rates from all causes in prior years (Percent of Expected Deaths). As we will show, a balanced view of the broader American Covid19 experience demonstrates both the scale and variability of its negative outcomes in older Americans, especially the elderly, but also some unexpected positives. Surprisingly, U.S. mortality rates have declined among young people during the lockdown, especially among infants. These trends have gone largely unnoticed and remain unexplained.
Death rates from all causes vary widely and somewhat predictably. The most pronounced variation occurs by age cohort (most deaths occur in the elderly) and by time of year and to a lesser extent by geography. All-cause deaths are cyclical, commonly rising in the winter months and “flu season” and then falling to lower levels as warmer weather arrives. To the extent that death rates vary by region, this is mostly a result of differences in the age mix of residents. In the case of Covid19, death rates are not yet known to be cyclical but they do vary significantly by age and geography.
In the analysis that follows we have examined the evidence on total death rates by geography (mostly by state), by age group and by week (and flu season). We have extracted eight main lessons. Some of these are part of the ongoing conversation around Covid19; others are unexpected or at least have not been widely circulated. Why this discrepancy? Since the infectious disease establishment has controlled the “pandemic” narrative, the variance between this evidence and conventional wisdom is largely driven by longstanding bias and error patterns among the experts in that community.
- Overall US trend. The Covid19 impact on all-cause deaths has been sharp and clear.
(1)
Tens of thousands more Americans than expected died in a brief period. Before mid-March, overall U.S. deaths were trending at a level no different from recent years at between 55-60,000 per week. Beginning in the week ending on March 28, all-cause deaths began rising sharply, peaking in the week ending April 11 at around 75,000, or 137% of Expected Deaths for the week. Immediately thereafter, all-cause deaths began dropping sharply. Within five weeks, all-cause deaths were back to their typical range. By the week ending May 16, the measurable pandemic death impact had ended even though Covid19-related deaths most certainly had not.
(2)
Attributing a Cause of Death (COD) to COVID-19 is not always clear-cut, due to significant overlap among COVID-19, Pneumonia, Influenza, and presumably other primary CODs.
(2)
That said, the spike in deaths officially attributed to COVID-19 occurred in tandem with the spike in all-cause deaths, leaving little doubt that Covid19 was the main contributor to the excess of expected deaths between March 22 and May 9.
(1)
At least in this 8-week period, the Covid19 pandemic was considerably worse than a typical flu season. To the extent that all-cause deaths fell back to expected levels during May, the excess mortality attributable to the pandemic has passed.
- Localization. Increases in all-cause death rates during the pandemic have been extremely localized, varying widely by state/jurisdiction. For the 3 ½ month period surrounding the pandemic, starting on February 1 through May 16 (the most recent period with 100% reporting), total deaths in the US came in at 105% of expectations.
(2)
Many states actually saw lower than expected deaths during the period. To be sure, an excess death rate of 5% for the entire U.S. is considerable but also far short of the apocalyptic narrative the pandemic has received.
Greater-than-expected death rates were heavily concentrated in the Northeastern corridor. New York City and its surrounding area, including New Jersey, New York State (although possibly not upstate New York), Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and the District of Columbia have so far comprised 6 of top 8 jurisdictions with excess all-cause deaths. New York City was hit especially hard. In a typical spring, New York City could expect 700-800 all-cause deaths per week. From mid-March to mid-May, that number spiked sharply, by ten times that amount, reaching over 7500 deaths in the peak week ending April 11.
(1)
Other Northeastern states saw sharp increases in expected deaths but nowhere near New York City’s rate.
(2)
The timing of the peaks has varied, Massachusetts came soonest, followed by Maryland, New York City New York State and New Jersey. Nevertheless, the entire region saw declines in expected deaths starting in May.
Many states saw no or only a modest increase in expected deaths, including some of the largest states such as California, Florida and Texas.
(2)
This suggests there may have been specific factors that influenced the experience in New York City that were not shared elsewhere.
- Variation by policy environment. To the extent that policies have varied across the states, it is not clear that the imposition and/or presence of stringent lock-down policies had much to do with the variation in excess deaths. Less stringent lockdown policies were not associated with higher death rates. In fact, the 5 states that chose not to impose a lockdown are among the roughly 20 jurisdictions with no excess deaths at all.
(2)
Several states with the most aggressive lockdowns, including California, Maine, Minnesota and Pennsylvania showed almost no excess deaths effect. Despite huge population centers, California looked nothing like New York City and State. Maine, a mostly rural state, imposed among the more draconian policies with essentially no reason. Minnesota followed a far more aggressive lockdown policy than its neighboring states of Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota and Wisconsin. Yet it’s Covid19 deaths were among the most concentrated in the country: roughly 80% of Minnesota’s Covid19 deaths occurred among the infirm elderly who were residents of long-term care facilities.
(2)
Did aggressive lockdowns stave off the worst-case scenario, preventing vulnerable states from becoming disaster areas like New York City? No controlled experiment will give us that answer. Pennsylvania makes the best case for that argument, with an early excess death pattern that resembled its neighbors in the Northeaster corridor but saw that rate drop precipitously by early April.—. But Pennsylvania is also an unusual geographic unit, with its largest city, Philadelphia, lying on the coast and separated from the western part of the state and its second largest city, Pittsburgh, by the Appalachian Mountains. This anomaly makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions from Pennsylvania’s Covid19 curve.
- Age effect: elderly. One universally accepted fact of the Covid19 pandemic is that the death risk is highest among the elderly. The all-cause death numbers show this effect clearly, with a stark increase in deaths among those 65 years and older beginning in late March, peaking in early April and then turning sharply downward in May, so that by month end the excess death rate has almost disappeared.
(1)
Tens of thousands of excess deaths in this age group have driven a large portion of overall US excess deaths. Adults between 18-64 years of age show a similar pattern in excess deaths as the elderly, although the overall death toll has been less.
(1)
With a dataset that provides more detailed age groupings, the impact is even more clear: the older the age cohort, the more total deaths increased during the pandemic.
(3)
The largest number of deaths as well as increases in deaths occur in those aged 85 years old and older, followed by those aged 75-84, next by the age group from 65-74. The sole remaining group showing an increase in deaths during the pandemic was the group aged 55-64, with a modest increase in deaths during April. For all age cohorts with ages under 55, the impact of the pandemic is undetectable.
Most observers believe they understand this age effect and discount it. That older people die more frequently is no excuse not to protect them from the pandemic. But as we have deployed lockdowns as a blunt instrument to protect the elderly from a tragic and premature loss of life-years, we have missed a completely unintended and beneficial benefit of the lockdowns: an unexplained collapse in excess deaths among the young, especially children and infants.
- Age effect: children. Deaths among children under 18 years of age are relatively rare and show patterns that are different from their seniors. The pronounced cyclical effect in all-cause deaths one sees among adults is entirely absent in children. And whereas weekly deaths among adults dominate the overall US death toll—around 13,000 deaths per week in 18-64-year-olds and 35-40,000 deaths per week among those 65 and older—weekly deaths among children are scattered across the states and typically fall around 700. Well over half of that occurs in infants under 1 year of age.
(1)
But the pandemic experience has brought on a surprising effect on this expected death rate among children. Starting in early March, expected deaths began a sharp decline, from an expected level of around 700 deaths per week to well under 500 by mid-April and throughout May. As untimely deaths spiked among the elderly in Manhattan nursing homes and in similar settings all over the country, something mysterious was saving the lives of children. As springtime in America came along with massive disruptions in family life amid near universal lockdowns, roughly 30% fewer children died.
Was this a protective effect of school closures? Were teenagers getting themselves into risky situations at a lower rate? No. There was very little effect among school age children or adolescents.
(3)
Virtually the entire change came from infants. Somehow, the changing pattern of American life during the lockdowns has been saving the lives of hundreds of infants, over 200 per week.
(4)
Deaths in infants and children occur at a higher rate in minority groups. So, the reduction in childhood deaths during the lockdowns has meant that the lives of black and Hispanic infants and children have been saved at a higher rate.
- Net effect in life-years. Every untimely death is tragic. But if one considers life-years lost, the premature death of an infant carries more weight than the premature death of someone whose life expectancy is 5 years or less. And whereas the median age at death of, say, a Minnesotan dying of Covid19 is 83, the typical life expectancy of that senior citizen absent Covid19 might be just 2-3 more years. By comparison, when an infant in lockdown avoids a death, the potential impact in life years saved can rise to 80 years or more.
When one measures the net effect of life years either lost or gained during the pandemic and associated lockdowns, the net result across age groups is unexpectedly mixed. (5)
|
Figure 17: Average Life Expectancy per Age Cohort |
||
|
Under 1 year |
78.2 |
|
|
1-4 years |
76.5 |
|
|
5-14 years |
69.5 |
|
|
15-24 years |
59.7 |
|
|
25-34 years |
50.3 |
|
|
35-44 years |
41.0 |
|
|
45-54 years |
32.4 |
|
|
55-64 years |
23.5 |
|
|
65-74 years |
15.9 |
|
|
75-84 years |
9.3 |
|
|
85 years and over |
2.5 |
|
Not surprisingly, excess deaths are highest in the oldest seniors where life expectancy is the lowest. Combining the excess deaths with life expectancy by age group (with an adjustment for the quality of those life-years) shows the toll of the pandemic: about 540,000 life-years lost among those 65 and older. (3) (5) (6)
By comparison, the reduction in expected deaths is highest in infants, where the life expectancy benefits are the greatest. Compared to expectations, the lives of over 200 infants per week were saved during the month of May. Combining the number of lives saved in infants and children aged 1-4, demonstrates a smaller but comparably large and beneficial effect: roughly 145,000 life-years saved among children under 5.
|
Figure 18: Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALY) Saved or Lost by US Age Group During COVID-19 Pandemic |
|
|
Under 1 Year |
110,358 |
|
1-4 Years |
13,729 |
|
5-14 years |
14,590 |
|
15-24 Years |
15,352 |
|
Age <25 Life Years Saved |
154,029 |
|
25-34 years |
(53,678) |
|
35-44 years |
(115,648) |
|
45-54 years |
(68,264) |
|
55-64 years |
(234,432) |
|
65+ Life Years Lost |
(540,077) |
|
65-74 years |
(341,519) |
|
75-84 years |
(172,317) |
|
85 years and over |
(26,240) |
Noting the surprising effect of the lockdown on infants and children under 5 does nothing to negate the tragic effect of the pandemic on the elderly. It does, however, raise a question: why are so many fewer children dying?
- Causation? When infants die, the cause is frequently some form of congenital condition or birth defect. Sadly, accidents and homicides are frequent causes as well. There are however, frequent cases in which previously healthy infants die unexpectedly. These deaths are usually classified as “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” or SIDS. According to the CDC, SIDS deaths are one of the two largest causes of death among infants aged 1 month to 1 year. (7)
|
Figure 19: Postnatal Infant Causes of Death, 2017 |
||
|
Cause |
IMR* |
|
|
Congenital Malformation |
0.32 |
|
|
SIDS |
0.32 |
|
|
Accidents |
0.31 |
|
|
Circulatory Complications |
0.09 |
|
|
Homicide |
0.07 |
|
|
*Deaths per 1000 live births |
||
We have no specific data on the trend in SIDS deaths during the pandemic. We have, however, heard anecdotal reports from emergency room (ER) doctors suggesting some have observed a decline in SIDS. One groups of doctors who might see 3 cases of SIDS in a typical week has seen zero cases since the pandemic and associated lockdowns began.
What has changed during this period that might have such an effect? Are infant deaths not being recorded? Are parents taking better care of their families while working remotely and their children are not going to school? There are many possible hypotheses about the infant death decline.
One very clear change that has received publicity is that public health officials are bemoaning the sharp decline in infant vaccinations as parents are not taking their infants into pediatric offices for their regular well-baby checks. In the May 15 issue of the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a group of authors from the CDC and Kaiser Permanente reported a sharp decline in provider orders for vaccines as well as a decline in pediatric vaccine doses administered. (8) These declines began in early march, around the time infant deaths began declining.
This effect may not be confined to the U.S. The World Health Organization issued a press release on May 22 noting that, “Since March 2020, routine childhood immunization services have been disrupted on a global scale that may be unprecedented since the inception of expanded programs on immunization (EPI) in the 1970s.” (9) Are fewer children dying because their parents are skipping their routine childhood vaccines? If lives are being saved during the pandemic, this is a question that urgently needs answering.
* * *
Covid19 is unique among recent pandemics in that the mortality toll is measurable, real and convincing. It is also nearly certain to be transitory, but that won’t stop the propaganda juggernaut from rolling forward. However, as the saying goes, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” What no one would have predicted in advance of Covid19 is that the extreme lockdown response has produced a natural experiment that actually calls into question the very actions—widespread, mandated vaccines for all--that the infectious disease and public health community have been pushing for years. We should mourn the deaths of the elderly Manhattan nursing home residents but also take heed of the hundreds of avoided infant deaths. Only with that kind of balance will we draw the proper lessons from the pandemic and the lockdowns that have followed in its wake.
References
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Surveillance System. [Online] [Cited: June 6, 2020.] https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html.
- —. Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). [Online] [Cited: June 6, 2020.] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm.
- —. Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age, and Week. [Online] [Cited: June 6, 2020.] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-W/vsak-wrfu.
- —. Deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by race and Hispanic origin group and age, by state. [Online] [Cited: June 6, 2020.] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-involving-coronavirus-disease-2019-COVID-19/ks3g-spdg.
- Social Security Administration. Actuarial Life Table. [Online] [Cited: June 7, 2020.] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Weekly counts of deaths by jurisdiction and age group. [Online] [Cited: June 7, 2020.] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-counts-of-deaths-by-jurisdiction-and-age-gr/y5bj-9g5w.
- —. NCHS Data Brief, Number 355. [Online] January 2020. [Cited: May 16, 2020.] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db355_tables-508.pdf#4.
- Santoli, Jeanne M et al. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Routine Pediatric Vaccine Ordering and Administration — United States, 2020. cdc.gov. [Online] May 15, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e2.htm#F1_down.
- World Health Organization. At least 80 million children under one at risk of diseases such as diphtheria, measles and polio as COVID-19 disrupts routine vaccination efforts, warn Gavi, WHO and UNICEF. [Online] [Cited: May 23, 2020.] https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/22-05-2020-at-least-80-million-children-under-one-at-risk-of-diseases-such-as-diphtheria-measles-and-polio-as-covid-19-disrupts-routine-vaccination-efforts-warn-gavi-who-and-unicef.
Endnotes:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note the following regarding underreporting in most recent weeks. To ensure that the signals we are reporting are not the result of these reporting lags, we have deliberately excluded the most recent four weeks of available data (the charts are week ending May 16, 2020, pulled June 6). Because CDC also re-states historical data every time they refresh their datasets, we also refreshed all reported data for two prior years with every weekly dataset update.
Provisional counts are weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks. However, data for the most recent week(s) are still likely to be incomplete. Only about 60% of deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, and there is considerable variation by jurisdiction and age. The completeness of provisional data varies by cause of death and by age group. However, the weights applied do not account for this variability. Therefore, the predicted numbers of deaths may be too low for some age groups and causes of death. For example, provisional data on deaths among younger age groups is typically less complete than among older age groups. Predicted counts may therefore be too low among the younger age groups. More detail about the methods, weighting, data, and limitations can be found in the Technical Notes.
Did the CDC adjust their data? It looks like the numbers on the website today do not match the charts.
Posted by: Chana Epstein | November 15, 2020 at 11:31 PM
David L,
Thank you for the link you provided. How many warnings can we scream from the rooftops trying to warn parents, and all, about the unacceptable, unethical, inexcusable, downright criminal dangers of vaccines?
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 19, 2020 at 01:53 PM
Is there anyway to actually be able to click on the cdc links that are on the slides.
Posted by: Renee Holliday | August 19, 2020 at 09:52 AM
Here is some research I put together on the links between vaccines and sids, multiple vaccines given at once/combination vaccines and increased rates of hospitalization and death, and now SIX non-live vaccines researchers have studied which all increased the overall mortality rate, especially among girls, even if they protect against the target diseases. https://tgl.ink/pVkAyF
Posted by: David L | July 20, 2020 at 08:16 PM
Thanks for Beleaguered Autism and MomGrace Green for responding to my question, i believe vaccines could cause SIDS, but my question was about the data presented in the above article, and again thanks for responding.
Posted by: loyal reader | July 20, 2020 at 04:54 PM
Loyal reader, why do you want the rate of SIDS in the US, to remain the highest among the wealthiest nations? Why don’t you want us to look at a way to reduce it? If you are a real reader please share why SIDS strikes boys more than girls.
Posted by: Beleaguered Autism Mom | July 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM
Loyal reader,
In the UK parents have been told they shouldn't have neglected their children's "routine" vaccinations. They've probably all been catching up. Perhaps the revised figures you have found have been affected by all those missed vaccinations having now been performed.
Posted by: Grace Green | July 17, 2020 at 04:36 PM
I looked up the sources of the graphs and i see the numbers are now updated, now it doesn't look as a significant decline especially figure 15 by children under 1 year. i will love to hear comments on that.
Posted by: loyal reader | July 17, 2020 at 02:44 PM
Catch up as if the Pharma all, have caused enough death and destruction..
Paediatricians have now claimed if the backlog of vaccinations isn’t cleared Britain could be “storing up problems”.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1302491/measles-outbreak-rash-symptoms-spots-children-vaccine
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | June 29, 2020 at 08:26 AM
@ Tim
Thanks for Children's Health information.
I found it extremely odd the extraordinary media coverage in NY area gave to the initial "discovery" that children were DYING from Covid that was "causing" Kawasaki disease .. every day for about a month .. we were inundated with DAILY numbers of children dying from covid around the world .. specifically in UK … and … then INEXPLICABLY THE NARRATIVE OF CHILDREN DYING DISAPPEARED FROM MEDIA????
As Mark Blaxil found .. CHILDREN DYING FROM SIDS DROPPED FROM 700 A WEEK TO 500 A WEEK .. COINCIDING PRECISELY WITH SHUTDOWN DENYING CHILDREN THEIR SCHEDULED VACCINATIONS.
Sure would love to know if the ORIGINAL CHILDREN DYING FROM COVID .. HAD RECENTLY BEEN VACCINATED .. IF SO .. THIS WOULD BE MORE EVIDENCE THAT VACCINES … NOT COVID … WAS RESPONSIBLE.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | June 26, 2020 at 08:21 AM
@bob Re Kawasaki, this is from https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/editorial/schools-must-go-back-to-normal-in-the-fall-a-scientists-perspective/
"There’s no scientific evidence to support recent news reports of a mysterious Kawasaki-like illness in children that “could” be linked to COVID-19. Of 20 pediatric cases in the UK, half tested negative for COVID-19.[26] Of 147 children with Kawasaki-like symptoms in New York City, only 69 (47%) tested positive for COVID-19 or the virus antibodies.[27] Kawasaki disease is a vasculitis that can be caused by any infection and last year, Canadian researchers identified Kawasaki disease as a condition of interest for pediatric vaccine safety surveillance. In fact, over 27 separate studies have identified a potential link between immunization and Kawasaki disease.[28]"
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 25, 2020 at 07:00 PM
Bob,
Yesterday, even the BBC admitted that there had been NOT ONE death of a child under fifteen years of age in Scotland from "covid 1984". This was shortly after the Scottish government finally gave in to parental pressure and agreed to allow ALL children to return to school full-time from 11th August, with no distancing and no masks. I wish parental pressure could be as successful in fighting vaccines!
Posted by: Grace Green | June 25, 2020 at 11:25 AM
Not that long ago we were reading how Covid is causing CHILDREN TO DIE from Kawasaki disease they say is the result of Covid. Shortly there were numerous reports from all over country as well as U.K. that children were DYING due to COVID. This was really depressing news since we had been told from early on in PANDEMIC that CHILDREN WERE NOT AT HIGH RISK OF COVID.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS NARRATIVE OF COVID CAUSING CHILDREN TO DIE … as this report CHILDREN DEATHS HAVE ACTUALLY DECREASED .. POSSIBLY DUE TO NOT VACCINATING AS RECOMMENDED????? Instead of children's deaths decreasing .. WE WERE TOLD THE CHILDREN WERE AT HIGH RISK OF DYING FROM COVID …. HOW COULD THIS BE??
Not surprisingly … the COVID KILLING CHILDREN narrative has all but DISAPPEARED … gone the way of other PANIC NARRATIVES … LIKE ZIKA … BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD WHY???? ARE CHILDREN NO LONGER DYING FROM COVID????? IF SO … WHY???? WHAT HAPPENED TO SUDDENLY MAKE KAWASAKI DISEASE GO AWAY?????
Posted by: Bob Moffit | June 25, 2020 at 07:23 AM
Thanks for these data and analysis. As a pediatrician (holistic and non-vaccinating) who has seen "SIDS" occur in 3 babies within 24 hours of their 4 month vaccinations, I do not doubt that the decrease in routine vaccination is what is responsible for the decrease in infant deaths we have seen during the pandemic. The morbidity and mortality caused by the medical system daily, especially to our precious children, causes me heartache on a daily basis. It will be chilling to see the infant death rate increase again after "catch-up" routine pediatric visits get going. It is unconscionable that our government refuses to acknowledge this and stop the madness of routine, compulsory vaccination.
Posted by: Janet Levatin, MD | June 23, 2020 at 09:48 PM
"These "COVID peak" characteristics, and a review of the epidemiological history, and of relevant knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, lead me to postulate that the "COVID peak" results from an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341832637_All-cause_mortality_during_COVID-19_No_plague_and_a_likely_signature_of_mass_homicide_by_government_response
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 23, 2020 at 07:49 PM
The bulk of the 200 infants deaths saved per week has to come from other than accidents.
For accidental infant deaths, traffic-related are about 15% of the total. If this went to zero, it would reflect about 30 deaths/week saved. Other accidental causes of infant deaths seem unlikely to decline due to social-distancing/lockdowns.
(Data from https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/child_injury_data.html, download their report.)
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 23, 2020 at 12:37 PM
Hi Rob,
thank you fro your comments. Re the seasonal shift;as the article above suggests, it does not appear that seasonal/cyclical shift in death patterns occurs in young children.
from the article above
"Deaths among children under 18 years of age are relatively rare and show patterns that are different from their seniors. The pronounced cyclical effect in all-cause deaths one sees among adults is entirely absent in children. '
In fact, if you look at figure 14, you will see that the deaths are listed by week ( 53 weeks ) per year, from 2014 on. There has been no drop similar to this on that chart.
This appears to be backed by data going back even further in time from the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mortality/gmwk264a.htm
Looking at all deaths under one year, we get these patterns
For 2007
Under 1 year
All races....................per month, starting with January
2,475 2,216 2,538 2,393 2,583 2,336 2,377 2,537 2,353 2,446 2,431 2,453
Similar for 2006, per month, starting with January
Under 1 year
All races.................... 2,317 2,195 2,493 2,365 2,365 2,386 2,438 2,426 2,354 2,376 2,332 2,480
there is no cyclical pattern in deaths for children under a year old.
you mentioned a cyclical pattern of death in the Netherlands; are you sure that is not applicable only to adults, , rather than to infants?
If infants do have a cyclical pattern of death in the Netherlands, it appears they do not in the U.S.A.
You also ask if African American children are more at risk of vaccine injury. The answer, at least according to the whistleblower Dr Thompson, who works at the CDC appears to be yes.
As if seems you are not familiar with him, you may be interested in reading about him, and his statement, released in conjunction with his lawyers.
https://canaryparty.org/commentary/timeline-of-events-in-the-william-thompson-cdcwhistleblower-scandal/
Angela H, There is definite data that shows vaccination rates have been going down during the stay at home orders; the only data about breast feeding increases is anecdotal. Sids deaths have typically spiked at the time of the two and four month vaccinations.
here is the CDC vaccination schedule.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-read/child-easyread.html
Many parents of vaccine injured children have unfortunately been put in a position to realize that the cause of death of injury will almost always be attributed to anything but vaccines, no matter how far fetched or unlikely the alternative. If the data did indeed show that vaccines were the cause of death and/or injury in some infants, ( as indeed compensation through the VICP has already shown) would you personally ever choose to come out and say so publicly?
Posted by: Hera | June 22, 2020 at 07:41 PM
Angela H., We could exclude vaccines as the cause of SIDS right now. Go to https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/accessing-data.html
request access to lot numbers of all vaccines administered in all SIDS cases. Then publish it here! If they don't let you have it, ask why it must be protected from public view. Even if it is an important question like: Are vaccines killing babies? Look at the paltry recalls of vaccines on the FDA website to compare with the lot numbers of vaccines that resulted in injury awards by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Ooops, there is no way to get that information either! Please do not defend a corrupt system here. I would like to know your thoughts about a recent post regarding Josh Edwards. What caused his suffering and death? If your answer is - I don't know or I don't care, or someone should have done a survey on breastfeeding, you are part of the problem. Lastly, waiting for pathologists to list SIDS as a cause of death is the same as saying the death was caused by death (suddenly). Nobody gets diagnosed with SIDS before they die. Useless, perfectly useless – as intended.
Posted by: Beleaguered Autism Mom | June 22, 2020 at 04:52 PM
Without actual cause of death data, the conclusion is conjecture. The reduction in infant mortality could be due to less infections with less exposure to the public or other children at daycare. The reduction could also be due to less accidents while families stayed home. Even if the reduction is strictly due to SIDS deaths, which would be wonderful, this could be due to increased duration of breastfeeding which is a protective factor against SIDS. With remote work, job losses, and scarcity of infant formula at the onset of the pandemic an alternate conclusion would be a reduction in infant mortality was due to increased rates and duration of breastfeeding. The actual data will tell the story at some point.
Posted by: Angela H. | June 22, 2020 at 10:50 AM
Our children are precious this information MUST be exhaustively researched, kept in public scrutiny. We MUST not just accept the word of people who have financial interest in the use of vaccines, especially when we realise that we have no protection/recourse if we suffer adverse effects, even if you can prove cause and effect! SO post and repost until the TRUTH emerges.
Posted by: John Campbell | June 22, 2020 at 06:05 AM
@ Rob
"It is very strange that the biggest drop is seen by the black/hispanic, are vaccins more dangerous for them?"
Unfortunately .. as far as I know .. CDC whistle-blower Dr William Thompson has given many documents to Congress that reveal that black children are at significantly higher risk of autism .. he alleges the decision to destroy these documents originated at the highest levels of the CDC. Which in my opinion suggests that .. the answer to your question: "are vaccines more dangerous for blacks" is YES.
SIDS is often diagnosed as a result of parent lying infant on their back (or is it stomach?) .. or .. parent rolled over onto infant while sleeping in same bed. Blaming parents seems to be a convenient allegation .. as it once was labelling parents REFRIGERATOR MOMS.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | June 21, 2020 at 05:58 PM
Carolyn
Yes, I had a look afterwards - could not find anything on the open website relevant to this data. They did receive funding from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
John
Posted by: John Stone | June 21, 2020 at 03:20 PM
John Stone,
It is my understanding that Khan Academy is a nonprofit organization that provides an online "library" of video lessons on many subjects without charge. I do not have any personal experience with this organization, so I have no idea concerning the quality of the lessons they provide.
I agree with you- the ad hominem is very clear in Chris Cator's post.
Posted by: Carolyn M | June 21, 2020 at 03:08 PM
I think your conclusion either biased or on purpose wrong.
In graph 1, you show that the deaths decline as we come out of the winter and rise again after summer. We see the same seasonal effect in the Netherlands.
In graph 15, you show that the mortality <1 year declines with each week, but now you have shown NO comparison with other years, maybe they where always declining in those weeks.
Can you confirm?
The lockdown / pandemy is only a month or 2, so it would be interesting to see if the SIDS within 2 months of planned vaccination dropped, or that it also dropped BEFORE the childs had the vaccination age.
It is very strange that the biggest drop is seen by the black/hispanic, are vaccins more dangerous for them?
Is it only the black/hispanic who have stopped vaccinating their child these 2 months?
The USA has a infant mortality of 5,8.
Canada 4,5
Netherlands 3,6
Countries as Germany, Belgium, France, Norway and sweden do even better.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Why havs the USA 50% more infant mortality
May I propose an alternative cause?
" For the majority of US workers at companies with fewer than 50 employees, there is no legal right to paid or unpaid leave to care for a new child or recover from childbirth. Studies show the current laws disproportionately impact women of color and low-income women, who are less likely to take unpaid leave"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_States
My guess is that parents cannot go towork anyway, so they are 'forced' to take maternity leave and be with the child.
Posted by: Rob | June 21, 2020 at 02:53 PM
Self-evidently Chris Cator’s comments add up to no more than ad hominem (“you people”). After that there is no critique, only an appeal to authority (“the Khan Academy”, whatever that’s is). If he’s capable of any substantive argument, it is not visible here.
Posted by: John Stone | June 21, 2020 at 09:14 AM
@ Chris
"I'm assuming the people believing this, manipulation of statistics, to meet your narrative, has never taken a basic statistics or microbiology course. After the first week of a statistics course you'd realized that someones been profiting from your desire to feel woke."
Just curious … in your research of "basic statistics" .. you learned in the first week that "someone" may be profiting while deliberately "manipulating statistics to meet a (certain) narrative". Can you educate me why "someone" would deliberately refuse to conduct what appears to be a common sense study of vaccinated v. unvaccinated populations? In other words .. critical research that is deliberately avoided is a tactic/strategy of public health bureaucracies and pharma industry to maintain THEIR NARRATIVE .. that being the BENEFITS OF VACCINES FAR OUTWEIGHS THE RISKS. Why would "someone" avoid doing research that would PROVE THEIR NARRATIVE IS CORRECT???
Posted by: Bob Moffit | June 21, 2020 at 08:34 AM
Troy Fletcher and Danijel,
The source for Figure 14 is Reference 1: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html
The source for Figure 15 is Reference 3: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-W/vsak-wrfu
The datasets were downloaded and graphed.
Posted by: Amy Becker | June 21, 2020 at 06:17 AM
Hi Chris Cator,
Reading your comment,I am unsure of what you are trying to say. If you believe there are flaws in the data, and can identify where the flaws are, then please do this. Well researched, well cited information sources are always useful.
If however, your issue is merely that you would prefer the data did not show what it shows, then their is little anyone can do about this, beyond ask you why.
When you were in your statistics class, surely your teacher covered what an "ad hominen" attack is, and why it has nothing to do with statistics?
If anyone in class had tried to criticize a study in college, without quoting any additional information, and with our main criticism being that the people who were reading it must be 'wrong" or "woke" the stats professor would certainly have failed the lot of us.
If you want to stand for science, then you need to follow the scientific/academic process, and show with your own data exactly what errors you perceive. Calling people names makes it appear that you have no better arguments to offer.
Posted by: Hera | June 20, 2020 at 07:22 PM
I'm assuming the people believing this,manipulation of statistics, to meet your narrative, has never taken a basic statistics or microbiology course. After the first week of a statistics course you'd realized that someones been profiting from your desire to feel woke. If you really want to find out the truth, but don't have time for years of college, head over to Khan academy (free) and search immunology. In an hour and a half you will get it. Also, always read any study or in this case, propaganda for profits, read from the bottom up. Always read disclosures first, then who funded the study and did they follow the scientific process. Again, Khan academy can teach you enough about any of those that you can make an educated argument for your cause , or realize its ok to admit you've made a mistake and learned. I do this very thing daily. Someday someone you know will need a surgery, and you will hope your surgeon follows these guidelines for "standards of care".
Posted by: Chris Cator | June 20, 2020 at 08:20 AM
SIDS on a Death CERT is often another word for death by VACCINE
Posted by: CLk | June 20, 2020 at 08:03 AM
Imagine....human babies safer after less trips to Big Pharma Doctors.
Posted by: Kim | June 20, 2020 at 07:38 AM
I am keeping a list of babies and children I have found online who have died after receiving vaccines. Out of 108, 37 of them died after getting their CDC 2 mo scheduled shots. These are jut the people who were brave enough to give their last names. I found some that did not, so I did not add them to my list . I can't blame them. Even though they gave their child vaccines, there will be plenty that will attack them if they claim vaccines had anything to do with. I also read that a lot of parents said their babies had a little foamy blood coming out of their mouths and or noses. Not sure why.
Posted by: Charlene | June 19, 2020 at 09:57 PM
If the numbers cited in figure 19 are reasonably complete, then about 30% of deaths in children 1 to 12 months old are due to SIDS. Thus if the mortality rate for infants is down 30% ... It sounds like SIDS deaths have dropped - what - 90% or more?
Posted by: A Facebook User | June 19, 2020 at 06:29 PM
There is a piece of the puzzle worth considering in explaining the NYC deaths. This has been reported by frontline workers. Please have a look.
https://www.dogpile.com/serp?q=Ventilators+killing+covid+patients
Posted by: Gene C | June 19, 2020 at 05:37 PM
Neil Miller. At the risk of sounding like a sycophant, I wanted to thank you for your excellent book 'Critical Vaccine Studies'. I do find it very useful.
Posted by: susan welch | June 19, 2020 at 05:25 PM
I would be very thankful if you could provide us with the link to address from where you get data for figures 14 and figure 15. Please provide us with the link.
Posted by: Danijel | June 19, 2020 at 04:58 PM
Wow, great article. Something "good" for the health of infants may come out of this Covid pandemic...
Re: "We have no specific data on the trend in SIDS deaths during the pandemic. We have, however, heard anecdotal reports from emergency room (ER) doctors suggesting some have observed a decline in SIDS."
We need to obtain official CDC SIDS death statistics for the time period, true?
Does the MMWR publish these numbers?
If obtained, I would think the correlation would be irrefutable
Posted by: Steve | June 19, 2020 at 01:39 PM
Can you please elaborate on where you got the under 18 figures for Figure 14?
The sources listed seem to indicate Reference 6 was used, but that data doesn't split data at 18, the lowest age in that source is "Under 25 Years"
Is under 18 on that figure a typo, or am I looking the wrong source for the data?
Posted by: Troy Fletcher | June 19, 2020 at 01:00 PM
Here's the info from the CDC on decline of jabs: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6920e1.htm?s_cid=mm6920e1_e&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM28649
Posted by: Carolyn Fitzenreiter | June 19, 2020 at 12:24 PM
Dr. Goldman and I co-authored a paper that found a significant correlation (r = 0.70, p < 0.0001) between international immunization schedules and infant mortality rates: developed nations that require the most vaccines for their babies tend to have higher (worse) infant mortality rates: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/?tool=pubmed
Posted by: Neil Miller | June 19, 2020 at 12:06 PM
When doctors go on strike, less people die. When nurses go on strike, more people die.
This observation by Amy Becker and Mark Blaxill (and already mentioned in the BMJ Rapid Responses) reminds me of the study which found that mortality dropped during strikes by doctors.
In passing. The article co-author Peter Bruggen, has in the past often taken psychiatry to task many times for its dangerous pseudoscience practises.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/slightly-blighty/201510/why-do-patients-stop-dying-when-doctors-go-strike
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2392/rr
Posted by: Pogo | June 19, 2020 at 08:27 AM
Bob there is a new study of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed that was just published. There is another study in the works according to Del in the video below.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2050312120925344
https://youtu.be/Zs42ffGDr0E
Posted by: Cooper | June 18, 2020 at 11:18 PM
Have any studies been done, or papers written, looking at any connection between the Fluad vaccine given to seniors (with the "squalene based super adjuvant") and Covid deaths?
Posted by: Amrrlc | June 18, 2020 at 10:09 PM
Fewer shots, fewer deaths. Dont hold your breath for anyone in MSM or public health to connect this
I wonder how many fewer autism cases will result in those spared a higher vaccine load in their first year of life
As for excess deaths at peak, outside NY, NJ, MA it was not anywhere near 137% according to CDC
40% of COVID deaths occurred in nursing homes where 100% most likely receive the Fluad vaccine (approved for 65&up only) that has the squalene based super adjuvant to stimulate the immune system. Most die of COVID due to cytokine storm that results from an excessive immune reaction. For elderly people the deaths rates are 10 times higher in a nursing home than at home. Vaccination rates are lower fir those at home and many no doubt get the regular flu vaccine at CVS or wherever.
Posted by: Pft | June 18, 2020 at 06:10 PM
Great article...thank you. Jamie Murphy, Author, What Every Parent Should Know about Childhood Immunization
Posted by: Jamie Murphy | June 18, 2020 at 02:33 PM
I would expect a surge with "catch up vaccinations" later in the summer for children to go back to school …. perhaps each with a mask and a desk in a plastic tent. I assume those with the coming CV19 vaccine will not have to wear a mask.
The "well baby people" will be going door to door over the summer to keep their office revenues up.
Will be interesting what the death data will show for August 2020.
thank you again Bob Moffit, who has things pretty well figured out.
Posted by: Go Trump | June 18, 2020 at 01:40 PM
Missed vaccines equals lower death for children needs to be a front page headline.
Posted by: richard farretta | June 18, 2020 at 01:14 PM
Three terrible news items to share with AoA readers. Please read and share.
1. Be warned and beware of permitting yourself or your child to be tested for "Covid". This news from L.A. should alarm and infuriate every American:
https://www.facebook.com/cborzin/posts/853776773738 (cut and pasted immediately below)
Christopher Arash
June 12 at 3:57 PM ·
Today in dependency court madness, LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove my client's child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.
Let that sink in . . . DCFS is asking for children to be removed from their parents custody due to COVID-19 despite the parent making the appropriate arrangements for their child.
2. More taxpayer money thrown away on genetic "research" for "Autism":
https://www.dnronline.com/news/harrisonburg/jmu-professor-receives-largest-nih-grant-in-schools-history/article_b050658b-edaf-5712-b2ae-d3de58aa5cd2.html
The sinister pattern continues, i.e. taxpayer money is given to those who are willing to look at anything and everything, except for vaccines, when it comes to what is causing 1 in 36 American children (based on old stats, actual current number likely worse) to suffer from a severely debilitating, lifelong disorder, which destroys their development, health, ability to be independent, and quality of life. "Autism" is a misnomer for vaccine-induced decimation of a human being, now being iatrogenically instigated in utero via influenza and TDaP vaccines given to pregnant women by willfully ignorant (or worse) nurses and doctors.
3. What going to school now looks like in America...and this is just getting on the school bus. I sincerely hope that parents will choose not to send their children to school under these ridiculous, and I would argue dangerous and damaging, conditions.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158077503410622&set=pcb.10158077507880622&type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARDPM1bUKIlvC-zMpdr7_FxpJbmHv7ja-h7OeN1TykP4Ga7JvEtkGCuUhK23h2X7hEzYucoMbdlc9AJ7
Posted by: Laura Hayes | June 18, 2020 at 11:45 AM
A very well done paper which needed to be written. I would only suggest that the excess number of deaths during the relevant period may have been caused by the lockdown rather than by any supposed epidemic, just as the reduction in infant deaths was an effect of the lockdown. That doesn't of course change the primary message of the paper.
Posted by: Grace Green | June 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM
Keep analyzing these data, as parents get their infants caught up on missed vaccines as the pandemic subsides. I fear that infant deaths will increase during that catch-up period. VAERS data could also be analyzed to look for an increase in reported adverse effects/deaths, during that period.
Posted by: Lori Langone | June 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM
This is a terrific analysis. Thank you.
Next I'm looking for a study that shows the vaccination status of all the children who are getting Kawasaki disease as a result of Covid.
Posted by: Anna Quandt | June 18, 2020 at 11:04 AM
"Noting the surprising effect of the lockdown on infants and children under 5 does nothing to negate the tragic effect of the pandemic on the elderly. It does, however, raise a question: why are so many fewer children dying?"
"Causation? When infants die, the cause is frequently some form of congenital condition or birth defect. Sadly, accidents and homicides are frequent causes as well. There are however, frequent cases in which previously healthy infants die unexpectedly. These deaths are usually classified as “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” or SIDS. According to the CDC, SIDS deaths are one of the two largest causes of death among infants aged 1 month to 1 year. (7)"
How is it possible the likely CAUSE OF SIDS remains UNKNOWN after decades of witnessing .. experiencing .. consistently … an EXPECTED DEATH RATE AMONG CHILDREN OF 700 PER WEEK????? Indeed, during this pandemic the DEATH RATE OF CHILDREN HAS DECLINED TO WELL UNDER 500 PER WEEK. WHY????
The ONLY possible explanation for this miraculous decline of 200 PER WEEK is the decline in VACCINATIONS being administered to these perfectly healthy children.
What is it going to require before SOMEONE IN POWER demands that long denied scientific study of VACCINATED V UNVACCINATED populations … we are talking about 200 CHIILDREN PER WEEK … THAT HAVE BEEN MORE THAN LIKELY SAVED DUE TO AVOIDING VACCINATIONS.
Indeed .. what INCREASE IN DEATHS HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE CHILDREN ARE NOT BEING VACCINATED???? COMMON SENSE SUGGESTS NONE .. NADA .. ZIP.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | June 18, 2020 at 09:12 AM
THANK YOU for doing this! it is a question I have been asking myself and I hoped somebody would do exactly what you have done here!
Posted by: Rebecca Lee | June 18, 2020 at 08:20 AM