My bad, I have to admit I did not see it (when was it added?) Here it is:
OK, so we'll see in a few weeks. However, the "subnational" level can hardly apply to Italy here, having such huge figures, it would get noticed on a national level as well. The only acceptable excuse is delayed reporting, which may possibly happen in such a situation.euromomo wrote: Note concerning COVID-19 related mortality as part of the all-cause mortality figures reported by EuroMOMO
Over the past few days, the EuroMOMO hub has received many questions about the weekly all-cause mortality data and the possible contribution of any COVID-19 related mortality. Some wonder why no increased mortality is observed in the reported mortality figures for the COVID-19 affected countries.
The answer is that increased mortality that may occur primarily at subnational level or within smaller focal areas, and/or concentrated within smaller age groups, may not be detected at the overall national level. This even more so in the pooled European-wide analysis, given the large total population denominator. Furthermore, there is always a few weeks of delay in death registration and reporting. Hence, the EuroMOMO mortality figures for the most recent weeks must be interpreted with some caution.
Therefore, although increased mortality is currently not being observed in the EuroMOMO figures, this does not mean that increased mortality does not occur in some areas or in some age groups, including mortality related to COVID-19.
OK, so they only see a small part of the puzzle as well.
Bacteria follow their medium. They exist where there's something to feed from, mostly dead organic matter. They develop in every non-sterile enviroment, evolving from spores. If you ingest rotten organic matter where bacteria are having a party, it's quite possible you get sick, this is toxic to the body on many levels. But you can't separate bacteria from their environment, they'd die instantly. If there are areas in your body where tissue is no longer kept fully alive, bacteria will come to play. But are they to blame for the dying tissue? Are they transmissible as separate entities? I don't think so.
And as for the existence of viruses ... we have that other thread. Note that it is primarily about the existence of the claimed material entity "virus", a protein-coated, very specific piece of DNA/RNA, which replicates by entering cells, eventually killing them. That's a preposterous and very silly thing to exist (maybe I should elaborate a bit on this in the mentioned thread). I agree however, that viruses as toxins or as a concept of "invisible" transmission of diseases (psychologically/energetically/...) may exist to some extent ... but this would probably exclude constructing this kind of "viruses" as bioweapons.
Thanks, Seneca, maybe you're right in all points. Add some toxic treatment as a possibility on top. Actually, I'd be more surprised if there'd be NO excess deaths after all what's been going on there.Seneca wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:10 pmIn think you are both right. First they did aggressive testing with faulty tests. Making the public think the infection was very widespread. Then they start testing only symptomatic patients like in many other places, leading to ridiculous mortality rates and more fear. Then they do more crazy things like testing everybody that died in the hospital or something, or just assuming somebody that died has the virus based on some lousy criteria, all of this making the mortality rate and the fear of the disease much higher.
I still think that the fear alone could make small illnesses much worse. Like turning a bronchitis into pneumonia as Dr. Hamer discovered.