Honestly, those tables show me the opposite story: while there has been an increase in total deaths during the period, most of the excess mortality is localized to a few weeks. The remaining weeks show little variance from the five years aggregate data given in the tables.
This tells me that there was, maybe, an outbreak, not an epidemic.
This table only gives stats for all deaths, so I can't figure the cause of death from it. While you can blame it on the promoted disease, you still have to take into account the impact of the measures that were taken, which include fear. For example, how many people died because they chose not to seek required medical care to avoid catching the meme flu?
All in all, it paints a picture that's far less frightening than what we've been led to believe.
edit: what's funny is that the UK has among the worse death rate for corvid, far worse than the US, which was used as an example of poor management of the crisis (orange man bad)
You’re reading them wrong, that’s why. Try reading it in context of national lockdowns and it’ll mKe more sense.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
Chinese-style lockdowns are not shown to be that effective.
That study only looks at two of many factors that would contribute to what we would call a ‘lockdown’
Other studies found the effectiveness of lockdowns to be significant.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220322700
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.28.20116129v4.full.pdf
But the proof is in the pudding. You can literally see where countries have locked down by simply looking at the covid infections and death rate graphs.
(post is archived)