There is a newer version of the record available.

Published November 28, 2022 | Version 5
Preprint Restricted

THE OFFICIAL NUMBER OF COVID-19 DEATHS IS A MANY-FOLD OVERESTIMATION. The Math-logic Method to Measure the Real Number of Covid-19 Lethal Victims. The Guideline Analysis, the U.S. in 2020.

Description

BACKGROUND: What do the data presented in the CDC tables "Deaths involving coronavirus" mean? The one objective information is: "xxx thousands of people have died and being probably infected with Covid-19". But how many of these people would for sure still live if not Covid-19? The main aim of this paper is to present the method that makes possible to reveal the real number of lethal Covid-19 victims. METHODS: The ideas for solutions are original, mathematical – logical; there were used constructed equations; a few riddles had to be solved. Calculations are in some places somewhat simplified, to chase calculations. There were used the CDC, NSC, SSA and other agencies/institutions' databases. Doubts are resolved to promote overestimation, not underestimation, of the final analysis-result. FINDINGS: Including into the 2020- official "Deaths involving coronavirus" (DIC) group was not objective, but was based on irrational mechanical assumptions. Only under 10% of those officialy reported as Covid-19 victims, in the U.S. in 2020, could have died from Covid-19 complicity; the rest of them would have died in the same or in a very close to identical time anyway (also without Covid-19) because their deaths resulted from the normal age-structure of deaths in the United States, and from causes already existing before Covid-19, creating the expected average age of natural death actual in the given year (due to not-Covid-19 causes); it is also very probable that some of people of the official DIC group had their death-date accelerated (forced to die in 2020, while otherwise would die much later) by wrong/harmful procedures and so the total number of those whose death was visibly accelerated could have been considerably bigger than 30K (of the DIC group), but they can be also in part already included in exchange for Covid-19 deaths. Official important 'risks factors', both diabetes and obesity, if their real prevalence was increased in the 2020-DIC group against the comparative group, could not increase the final %-result and the second one would decrease it (/there are different reasons to it, to the first one explained in 'Additional Notes' in the orange box, to the second one in the essay/). With none additional 'missed risks' ('m') the average adjusted total (at-birth) life expectancy of genuine Covid-19 victims should have been 77 or less (p.21), not any 89 years what would be with the very irrational mechanical assumption that all decedents of the 2020-DIC group were not those who died in 2020 naturally due to "aging" (/it is possible to assume a bit bigger total LE, but only with simultaneous assuming the average Covid-19 decedents' age is considerably lower than even 67 and the share of genuine Covid-19 deaths is yet stronger limited/). ...Even just the average number of chronic conditions protects the main result, which number must have been strongly increased among alive ones (but not already in a terminal state) and then really killed by the virus against the number in a comparative group of just alive ones with exactly the same age-structure (!), because Covid-19 out of infected ones at every specific age kills very few (of older ones) or extremely few (of younger ones) of them -usually weaker/weakest ones. The CDC knew there had to be a very clear correlation between 'Covid-19 Death Risk Ratio' and a number of underlying conditions, but in the DIC group none increase in the average number was visible (/officially 3 conditions) even with limiting the list of conditions in the comparative group to the conservative CCW list, what was possible if a share of real Covid-19 deaths in the DIC group was very small. If a person has a higher number of CCW-conditions then what matters most to life expectancy is that pure number of conditions; the marginal decline in life expectancy increases with an additional chronic condition, when a number of conditions is low or moderate, but this decline starts with low values -first 2 conditions of 2008-CCW (and so approximately first 3 of the acctual CCW ones) sum up to about 3 times less negative effect on life expectancy than the next 2 conditions (3 and 4) of 2008-CCW do, in 75-year old ones (/in 67-year old ones about 4 times less !). /E.g. normally, still alive ones at age 67 and 75 with a low number (0 - 3) of CCW-conditions should otherwise live, on average, for the next approximately 22 and 16 years respectively, but with a very high number (14/15 - 30) of conditions they would otherwise live for the next approximately 5 and 4.5 years only./. Natural deaths due to chronic conditions are, in contrast to deaths due to the infection (which is also a natural-internal's death-date substantial accelerator), realization of risks originated in the one's past, with usually none predictability of a specific year of falling into one's terminal state. ...For genuine Covid-19 victims the equation ADcs+LEa = timely-LEWIIfmS (p.20+) must be fulfilled, it is possible to be fulfilled only if real victims of an external burdening factor = death-accelerator (infection) were weaker both due to their higher age and due to their worsened, against an age-average, health-state (unless there is a 100%-mortality). INTERPRETATION: The official number of "Covid-19 victims" is a very untrue number and means, in a vast majority, 'the double counting' of those who would die whatsoever in the same (or in a very close to identical) time even without Covid-19. The 2020-DIC group's construction is based on irrational mechanical assumptions, resulting in natural 2020-deaths being not removed from it at all. The 'ex post' analysis is necessary to discover the real number of deaths due to Covid-19. FUNDING: None.

Notes

...

Files

Restricted

The record is publicly accessible, but files are restricted to users with access.