UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) Developed New Method for Estimating Excess Deaths

Yes, really.

Link to ONS Tweet

Transcript [emphasis added]

During and since the coronavirus pandemic, we've generally seen more people die than we'd expect. We call these deaths above average, excess deaths. Different organisations have used to calculate this, each with merit, and particular uses, for example, for planning health interventions, and identifying emerging threats. In the spirit of continuous improvement, we've been working with independent experts, and those across governments, and the devolved nations, to develop a common UK wide approach.

Using our new approach, today's release estimates 11,000 excess deaths in 2023. While this is lower than our previous estimate, our new method accounts for growth and aging of the population. These are key factors in understanding how many deaths we'd expect to see and whether the number of deaths is below or above this estimate. Looking more closely, at the last months of 2023, there were actually negative excess deaths, meaning fewer deaths than average being registered. Further back across the pandemic, the trends and peaks in excess deaths are the same using the new method as they were under the old. It's important to note our estimates of excess deaths are just that - estimates. They can't be counted individually. Unlike death registrations, which haven't changed.

Alternative interpretive glossary index:

Experts = eugenicists / depopulation advocates / persons directly implicated for crimes against humanity due to ongoing democide from C19 injection culling.

Health interventions = Mass sterilisation and disability due to “vaccine injuries”.

Identifying emerging threats = Getting on board with the DOD program to fake a pandemic, roll out EUA countermeasures, and adapt own national model of “kill box” / legalised democide.

Continuous improvement = Striving to improve the effectiveness of democidal depopulation by obfuscating empirical data simply by changing calculative methods to suit total figures, as the narrative du jour requires.

Account for growth and aging population = offset excess deaths formulaically against birth rates, redefine elderly excess deaths to generate negative trend.

Julia Stanborough’s voice went up an octave when she said “Further back across the pandemic, the trends and peaks in excess deaths are the same using the new method as they were under the old.” Her voice seemed to crack on the last word ‘old’. Sometimes a person’s body language and vocal intonation can betray their intended message, along with the sadness behind their eyes. When she said at the end “excess deaths are just that - estimates”, it was almost comical, as if to say “nothing to see here, we were just guessing before, it’s no big deal that the calculation method has been changed, ssshhh.”

OffGuardian had some interesting points to make, after citing the newly released downloadable data from the ONS:

OffG wrote:

As you can see, the “new method” completely reverses the story of 2019, wiping it from 6000 excess deaths to over 34,000 deaths fewer than expected.

(While we’re looking at these numbers, it’s interesting how much of an outlier 2019 always was in terms of mortality, one wonders if there was some statistical prep-work being done to fudge deaths for the upcoming pandemic year.)

In the post-pandemic years (2021-23), by adding some of 2020 back into the modelling mix they have increased the number of   expected deaths, and therefore greatly reduced excess deaths.

The end result is that, from 2020 onwards, excess mortality has been cut by ~15%. Over 30,000 “excess deaths” have been wiped off the records, over 20,000 from 2023 alone, and the vast majority since the vaccine rollout.

It should be noted that the “new method” massively reduced excess mortality in 2019, but barely touched it in 2020, meaning the “pandemic” looks more dramatic.

It’s also possible that they are attempting to stall the appearance of Covid “vaccine” harms by re-jigging the number of excess deaths downwards. Effectively hiding potential vaccine-related deaths by re-labelling them “expected”.

The third option is that it’s laying groundwork for a future event, “the next pandemic” or something similar. By reducing the excess deaths now they can make room to exaggerate excess deaths in the future.

It could be some combination of any or all of these, it could be something we haven’t thought of yet, or it could be nothing at all.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

The brilliant minds of

Norman Fenton

and

Martin Neil

have documented many of the ONS’s shenanigans over at the superb Where are the numbers? Substack course.

Perhaps Mortality.Watch may be more reliable going forward as they calculate excess deaths using multiple sources of data that is publicly made available (albeit including Government sources). Their latest statistics on excess deaths for the UK from 2019 to 2023:

Link to mortality watch site.

Once again, we must allow Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell, to have the final say on the ONS’s announcement:

Everything fades into mist.

The past is erased, the erasure forgotten.

A lie becomes truth and then becomes a lie again.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

---

Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based writer. All content is free for all readers, with nothing locked in archive that requires a paid subscription. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Bitcoin address:

39CbWqWXYzqXshzNbosbtBDf1YoJfhsr45

Monero address:

86nUmkrzChrCS4v5j6g3dtWy6RZAAazfCPsC8QLt7cEndNhMpouzabBXFvhTVFH3u3UsA1yTCkDvwRyGQNnK74Q2AoJs6Pt